"An International Ghetto Bench": Boycott's just another word for picking on the Jews

Courtesy: http://edgar1981.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/apartheid-israel.html

Coffee-splutteringly shocking, eh, this photo of apartheid in Jerusalem taken recently by British blogger Edgar Davidson?

No wonder Israel's compared to South Africa in the bad old days.

Thus, in a recent interview, the leftwing British film director Ken Loach explains why he's such an inveterate foe of Israel and so staunch a supporter of BDS:

"It began some years ago when I was involved in putting on a play called ‘Perdition’. It was a play about Zionism in the Second World War and the deal that was done between some Zionists and the Nazis. It shed a whole new light on the creation of Israel and the politics of Zionism. I became aware then, and gradually in the following years, that the foundation of Israel was based on a crime against the Palestinians.Other crimes have followed since then....

There is oppression all around the world but what makes the Israel-Palestine conflict special is a number of things. First of all, Israel presents itself to the world as a democracy. A country just like every Western state. It presents itself in this way while it is in fact committing crimes against humanity. It has produced a State which is divided along racial lines, like apartheid South Africa. It is also supported militarily and financially by Europe and the US. So there is a massive hypocrisy going on; we are supporting a country that claims to be a democracy, we’re supporting it in every way, and yet, it is involved in these crimes against humanity.

.... When you are confronted by such crimes you have to respond as a human being, regardless of if you are an artist, a VIP or whatever. First of all you have to respond and do what you can to bring this to people’s attention. A boycott is a tactic. It is effective against Israel because Israel presents itself as a cultural beacon. It is therefore very susceptible to cultural boycott. We should not have anything to do with projects that are supported by the State of Israel....  We target it because you cannot just stand by and watch people live their lives in refugee camps forever...."

That argument has as many holes as as a slattern's stockings, of course (and conveniently sidesteps the fact that in contrast to Israel, which although cash-strapped and overwhelmed with the task of integrating Holocaust survivors also successfully integrated the Jewish refugees from the Arab world  following the War of Independence, that same Arab world despite its riches failed to attempt to integrate the Palestinian refugees, deliberately using them ever since as  pawns) but is being widely applauded and touted by the usual suspects.

Here, incidentally, is a great graphic regarding those Jewish refugees and the consequent judenrein nature of the Arab Middle East (hat tip: reader Ian, citing its appearance on the Point of No Return blog here):

And what's the significance of Israel-bashers citing time and again the plight of the Palestinians in their refugee camps?

To demand, of course, their so-called "right of return" which would, as those Israel-bashers well know, mean the elimination of Israel by demographic means, just as the "secular" (sic) "democratic" (sic) single state that more and more Israel-bashers are openly demanding would.

That's why, in recognition of a noble common cause, Zionists of all stripes should applaud the prominent leftwing Aussie Zionist Philip Mendes when, breaking ranks with his fellow political Leftists and attracting obloquy from them as a result, he unequivocally and persistently points out:

".... there is little doubt that a Greater Palestine is the ultimate political objective of the international Campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel...."

The logo of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, for one, and no less than Fatah's, bears that assertion out.

What other nation state in the world, other than the sliver of a sovereign country that the Jews get to call their own, is subject to similar attempts at delegitimisation and eradication, eradication not merely of its current regime but of its very existence?

Quite so.

As to what the Palestinians themselves really really want, here's what the noted Israeli Arabist Dr Mordechai Kedar has to say on the matter (the video opens with familiar footage, but stay with it):

Not for nothing did Christian scholar Dexter Van Zile, in his recent admirable rebuke to the BDS-obsessed UK Methodists liken boycotting Israel to "an international ghetto bench" (such as found at universities in pre-war Poland); not for nothing did he observe that

"The violence endured by Christians and other religious minorities in Muslim-majority the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia... might shed some light as to why Jews are so persistent in the defense of their state. Jews know better than many Christians (at least those in the West) what happens to defenseless minorities in Muslim-majority settings."

\

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/boycott-israel-pass-me-your-apple-mac-please/

Then there's 9/11 truther and Jewish antisemite Richard Falk's visit this week to King's College London.

"In essence, it boils down to that obsession with Israel which permeates nearly every academic institution. A pathological infatuation which latches onto any crank so long as he has something bad to say about Israel. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Holocaust denier like Israel Shamir – the House of Lords will warmly receive him. Nobody cares if it’s someone as offensive as George Galloway – the Oxford Union will still invite him. Who gives a damn if they’re an apologist for suicide bombers? Azzam Tamimi continues to hop from campus to campus spouting hatred.

But what should we learn from all this? Well KCL, I have some advice for you. When you plan similar events in the future, invite some real academics.

Nutters, racists and conspiracy theorists are not the kind of people you should associate with. If you want real debate about the Middle East, let’s hear two narratives. It’s time for a change in how we discuss Israel. Get a critic of Israel to discuss a contentious topic with a well-known defender of Israel. That would go down well. That’s real debate. Not the rubbish about Mossad death rays which you get from Richard and his friends."

So says Oxford undergraduate Jonathan Hunter, who as we saw here flummoxed George Galloway by having an Israeli flag up his jumper, and is UK campus director of StandWithUs International.

And of course the Israel-demonising Left never acknowledge Israel's humanitarian endeavours including this...

But let the last word go to Professor Denis MacEoin, an avowed liberal who has made many excellent blogposts regarding the hypocrisy and aims of the anti-Israel movement.

On academic boycott, he has observed:

"Left-wing academics call for a boycott of Israeli universities, despite the fact that Israeli universities operate a policy that allows entry to all races and religions, do not accept government censorship, encourage open debate, and are not used as centres for Zionist propaganda. They do not seek to boycott Arab universities that forbid entry to Jews, or Iranian universities that are closed to the Baha'is, the country's largest religious minority, Egyptian universities that are (according to a report by Human Rights Watch) drowning in censorship, Muslim universities in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere where the very idea of open debate is anathema, Chinese universities that control what students can and cannot learn and what teachers can and cannot teach, or any of the genuine human rights abuses affecting higher education worldwide. Only Israel. Only Israeli institutions. Only Israeli academics who refuse to condemn their own country.

....But it seems that sympathy for nationalist aspirations ends when it comes to the Jews. Only the Jews, it seems, have no right to build a nation state on their ancestral and religious homeland. Only the Jews are to be condemned to wander the earth for ever, persecuted, driven from land to land as the mood takes one territory or another. Hooray for the IRA and their bold struggle for a united Ireland, hooray for ETA and the claims of the Basques, hooray for the Tamil Tigers and the Tamil people, above all, hooray for Hamas and Hizbullah and their noble endeavours to take back all the lands that ever belonged to them, historically or mythically, it doesn't matter which. But to oblivion with the Jews for even daring to create a national home where they might be safe from persecution. Let's march with banners that say 'We're all Hizbullah now', condemning Zionism as the greatest evil that ever walked the earth.

So everyone is allowed to have a state except the Jews. If you will take care to read their literature, you will see that the Palestinians do not just want a state of their own. They want the Jews out. Every last one of them, from every inch of Israel. If the Jews won't leave, they will kill them. They will leave no trace of them, their synagogues, their kibbutzim, their hopes, their aspirations, their love for their Holy Land. And all those people-supporting left-wingers and liberals out there shake hands with that aspiration, saying Israel has no right to exist, denouncing the very idea of Zionism as fascist and evil, endorsing the idea that the Jews are behind every conspiracy, that Zionists control the media, tell the US how to frame its foreign policy, and are the masterminds behind the global economy.

If you think that, or half of that, or a quarter, let me explain something to you, very calmly, very quietly, and in short words. You may think you are a liberal, but you are not. You may think you are an internationalist, but you are not. You may think you are a socialist, but you are not. You are an anti-Semite. Think it through. How much of your anti-Israel rhetoric would Adolf Hitler have found hard to stomach? How would the notion that Jews alone of all the earth's peoples have no right to govern themselves or to protect themselves from those who seek to kill them run in the far reaches of the far right? How would the Palestinian aspiration to commit a second Holocaust play in the degenerate middens of totalitarian fascism?"  

He Has Their Measure: An Australian Jewish Academic on anti-Zionist Jews

Associate Professor Philip Mendes is a left-leaning Aussie Zionist and a much-published historian of the Jewish Left in Australia.  I've referred to him on this blog before, here.

In an op-ed, entitled "The BDS movement and the opportunistic exploitation of self-denying Jews," on the website of the ABC, he writes, inter alia:

'[T]here is little doubt that a Greater Palestine is the ultimate political objective of the international Campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel (BDS). Not surprisingly within the BDS movement, the opinions of the small minority of anti-Zionist Jews loom larger than life. For example, Federal Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon has claimed that "many Jewish communities support this work." In fact, no Jewish communities support the BDS. Similarly, the Mayor of Marrickville, Fiona Byrne, proudly cited support from the NSW Jews against the Occupation group which has about 10 members, and also claimed support from "a growing number of Jews from all over the world." In fact, the only organized Jewish community group in Marrickville, the Inner West Jewish Community and Friends Peace Alliance which is left-oriented and strongly supportive of a two-state solution, devoted considerable time and resources to opposing the Marrickville BDS proposal during the 2011 NSW State election campaign.

Similarly, BDS campaigner Professor Jake Lynch, head of Sydney University's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, has responded to accusations of discrimination against Israeli Jews by citing talks at the Centre by anti-Zionist Jews such as Ilan Pappe and Noam Chomsky as evidence of a non-racist policy. But Lynch is disingenuous in not acknowledging that virtually all the Jews hosted by the Centre have been fanatical anti-Zionists, and that the Centre has specifically excluded any pro-Israel Jews.

Some conservative Jewish commentators label anti-Zionist Jews as "self-hating" Jews in an attempt politically to discredit their arguments. Self-hatred is an alleged psychological condition which involves members of despised low-status racial, religious or sexual minority groups identifying with the values and prejudices of the majority group and internalizing their stereotypes.

But quantifying these views in such psychological terms is arguably problematic.... However, there is evidence that many anti-Zionist Jews have no interest in or knowledge of Jewish history, values and culture. They really don't care what most Jews say or do. Those whose sole identity is a political one rather than a Jewish one can hardly be accused of self-hatred when they reject something to which they had no attachment in the first place. I personally prefer the term self-denying Jews, since anti-Zionist Jews mostly reject ethnic or cultural connections with the Jewish community, and eschew feelings of solidarity with other Jews who are oppressed or attacked.

So why does the BDS movement highlight the views of this small group of anti-Zionist Jews who are so unrepresentative of collective Jewish opinion? There are two reasons.

The first is a continuation of malevolent historical practice.... 

The second factor is that the BDS movement attempts to use Jewish anti-Zionists as an alibi against serious accusations of anti-Semitism by arguing that Jews also share their views....'

Read the entire piece (and be amazed at the intemperate comment it's attracted from Professor Jake Lynch) here

Deploring Islam's "Religious Equivalent of Ethnic Cleansing," British MPs Praise Israel

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/the-anti-jihadist/islamic-persecution-of-christians-in-malaysia/

Unlike many Western partisans of the Palestinians, Welsh Lib Dem MP Mark Williams is evidently principled enough to acknowledge the faults of Islamic regimes:

"Christian men and women in Iran are treated as foreigners in their own land, particularly converts from Islam, who are considered more than simply foreigners or second-class citizens; they are considered traitors and are routinely sentenced to death or face trumped-up charges for converting. It is no small wonder that so many have been forced to flee Iran. One of the greatest exoduses of people across the modern world has been people fleeing Iran.

The Iranian regime has long sought viciously to repress anyone who espouses views different from its own, whether those views come from political opponents or the Baha’i community, which has been ferociously persecuted. Mr Ataollah Rezvani was shot in the back of the head, and his body was abandoned by a railway near Bandar Abbas, in August simply for being a member of the Baha’i community. Such persecution has led our Government to condemn Iran’s human rights reputation as “appalling” and to note that Iran’s treatment of religious minorities is “shocking.” We have heard that 80 per cent of acts of religious discrimination across the world are directed at Christians.

Mr Williams was speaking in the House of Commons debate on "Persecution of Christians (Middle East)" held last Tuesday (5 November).

Introducing the debate, Conservative MP Fiona Bruce quoted Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief; and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

She went on to observe:

"Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. When citizens are prevented from enjoying that right, the social, political and cultural implications can be serious, as the debate will show. The loss of other human rights can swiftly follow. The debate is therefore important not only for Christians, but for all religious groups and minorities, and indeed for everyone seeking to live out the dictates of their conscience in worship, teaching, practice and observance, respectful of others’ right to do likewise, and under the protection of a state striving to achieve that positive vision under the rule of law. That is a far cry from the reality for many Christians in the Middle East....

Christianity is the most persecuted faith worldwide, so the problem exists not only in the Middle east, but globally.

 The former Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, in his outgoing interview with The Daily Telegraph, discussed the persecution of Christians in the middle east with the deepest concern of any current issue, saying that

“this is a human tragedy that is going almost unremarked… it is the religious equivalent of ethnic cleansing. We are seeing Christians in Syria in great danger; we are seeing the burning of Coptic churches in Egypt. There is a large Coptic population in Egypt, and for some years now it has been living in fear. Two years ago the last church in Afghanistan was destroyed, certainly closed. There are no churches left in Afghanistan. Between 500,000 and 1 million Christians have left Iraq. At the beginning of the 19th century, Christians represented 20% of the population of the Arab world, today 2%. This is a story that is crying out for a public voice”.

Let us be that voice today.

.... We should be crying out with the same abhorrence and horror that we feel about the terrible atrocities towards Jews on Kristallnacht and on other occasions in Germany during the Second World War ....

I am very concerned about that and the problem has global implications. I hope that, as a result, we will have many more debates in the House on the persecution of Christians in other regions of the world.

The ACN report discusses how, in virtually every country in and around the Middle East region, Christians report suffering either high, high to extreme or extreme persecution. That includes Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. In virtually every one, the situation has worsened since ACN’s last report in 2011, except in Iraq, but only because the attacks in 2009-10 were so large in scale."

Observed fellow-Conservative Mark Field

"In this context, it is important to recognise that there is one state in the Middle East with a proud record of allowing a large degree of religious freedom, irrespective of other elements of the problems that it faces within its borders: Israel. I hope that my hon. Friend will say a few words about how religious freedom, at least, is protected in Israel, not just for the 20 per cent of its population who are Christian, but for the 16 per cent who are Muslim."  [Emphasis added here and below]

(Fiona Bruce then appeared to damn Israel with feint praise:

 My hon. Friend is quite right, which is why I did not include Israel in the list that I read out. The report does not include it among the areas of extreme persecution. I respect what is being done in Israel, although I must say that concerns are now being expressed in Palestine about increasing persecution there.

The report says:

“Christianity may yet remain the largest world religion, but its claims to universality—a truly global presence on all five continents—may soon be lost as it becomes the prime victim in the emergence of theocratic states where minority faith groups—most especially Christians—have no place, except perhaps as third-class citizens.”)

David Burrowes,another Conservative, reminded the House that 

"eleven Christians are killed around the world every hour, seven days a week, 365 days a year, for reasons related to their faith. And increasing numbers of Christians are being killed in the Middle East, which is why it is right to focus on the region."

Having spoken heart wrenchingly and authoritatively about the persecution of Iran (that's the same Iran which runs Press TV, upon which Western Israel-baiters including Christian minister the Reverend Stephen Sizer do not flinch to appear) he subsequently remarked:

"Today, we can complain on their behalf. In fact, we can properly take the words of the Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem, Fouad Twal, and I will finish by quoting him.

We have already heard that Israel is very much set apart from concerns about freedom of religion, by contrast to the countries that neighbour it. In 2011, Fouad Twal said:

“Does anybody hear our cry? How many atrocities must we endure before somebody, somewhere, comes to our aid?”

.... We must ensure that we use all the channels that we can to stand up for persecuted Christians in Iran."

Welsh Conservative Guto Bebb referred to the situation in Syria before telling the House:

"The other issue I want to touch on was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford [Jeremy Lefroy], who shares a Huguenot ancestry with me. He said that it was to a country’s detriment to persecute its religious minorities. The example I would give, which numerous Members have mentioned, is Israel—a country in the Middle East that is often vilified, not least in this place. When it comes to religious freedom, however, it is important to highlight the difference between the way in which Israel and neighbouring countries behave towards their religious minorities.

The key point is that the Christian population in Israel has increased a thousandfold since the country was established. Christians serve in the Supreme Court, the Knesset and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and they are contributing to a stronger country. The situation of Christians in Israel can be contrasted with that of Christians in the west bank, where the Christian population has fallen quite dramatically. In 1948, about 15 per cent of Palestinians identified themselves as Christian; today, that figure has fallen to about 2 per cent. In many ways, the strongest, most economically prosperous country in the Middle East is also the most welcoming of religious minorities. When we discuss this issue, it is important to place on record the fact that there is, in the Middle East, a country that shows us how things can be done differently, and that is leading to a more prosperous situation for all the citizens of that country, regardless of their religion."

Labour MP Ian Lucas pointed out in his speech:

"The hon. Member for Aberconwy [Guto Bebb] mentioned Israel, and it is no coincidence that that country, with its tolerance for religious minorities, is a democracy. For that reason, we need to commit to supporting the progress of democracy in the region, even though, as recent events in Egypt, for example, have shown, that is a difficult course, which often leads us to take one step forward and two steps back, making the political situation difficult to manage."

(Conservative Hugo Swire, Minister of State for the Foreign Office acted somewhat as a damp squib:".... Some interesting points were made about the Middle East as the birthplace of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, which makes the religious persecution there all the more poignant. My hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) mentioned Israel and Palestine. It is true that less than 2 per cent of the population of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is Christian today, compared with 22 per cent at the end of the British mandate in 1948. I heard what my hon. Friends said, but we continue to be concerned about access to holy sites for all, including Christians and Muslims....")

Read the entire debate here

Nazis & Islamists: People of a new book

During the course of an article in the Times of Israel, the respected British journalist and researcher Lyn Julius of the well-known Point of No Return blog mentions a book about the Jews of Iraq entitled New Babylonians by historian Orit Bashkin.

Writes Ms Julius, inter alia:

‘.... Until the late 1940s. Bashkin views Iraqi Jews as ‘patriots’ building the new independent state of Iraq – or seeking a universalist solution in Communism – until Zionism tore their relationships with their Muslim partners asunder. 

After the vast majority of Iraqi Jews had voted with their feet, joining the airlift to Israel, how does Orit Bashkin explain why Iraq continued its ‘misguided policies’ against the few thousand Jews ..., who remained behind? From the mid-1960s, these Jews were forced to carry special ID papers, were not allowed to travel or leave the country, had their bank accounts frozen and their telephones cut off. Such was the anti-Jewish campaign of terror unleashed by Saddam Hussein and his thugs, that the Jews were compelled to risk arrest by escaping the country....

By pegging the start of the Jews’ troubles to the late 1940s and early 1950s, Bashkin downplays the deleterious effects of the 1941 Farhud [see here]. The rising influence of Nazism in 1930s, resulting in the sacking of hundreds of Jewish public servants, quotas and restrictions and a deadly antisemitic cocktail of propaganda and incitement culminating in the 1941 pogrom, hardly feature in Ms Bashkin’s book. For her, the Farhud was most notable for the numbers of Muslims who saved the lives of Jews from the raging mob, demonstrating age-old friendship and shared coexistence.

In reality, the Jews of Iraq had a sense of foreboding about their place in an independent Iraq as soon as the British had marched into Iraq after the defeat of the Ottomans in World War l. Between 1918 and 1921 a delegation of Baghdad Jewish notables visited Sir Percy Cox, the British High Commissioner, on three occasions. They requested British nationality, fearful of what Arab rule might bring. This significant episode barely rates a mention in Bashkin’s book....

....As evidenced by a recent conference at the Yale Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Ms Bashkin is ... but one of a new crop of rising young stars in the field of Middle Eastern Studies. These scholars emphasise the points of connection between Arab and Jews, while erasing from the historical record, or glossing over, politically-incorrect human rights abuses. Some are eagerly redefining the identity of Jews in Arab countries as ‘hyphenated’ Arab-Jews, conflicted by the Arab-Israeli dispute, itself an aberration after centuries of peaceful coexistence. So desperate are post-modern academics to believe in the pre-Zionist ‘dominant mood of coexistence and friendship’ between Jews and Arabs, that they are willing to give ideological, Nazi-inspired, Arab Muslim antisemitism a free pass...."

My eye fell on Ms Julius's article just after I learned of the forthcoming publication of a new book co-authored by renowned Middle East specialists Professor Barry Rubin and Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, that's scheduled to appear in February.  Here's the blurb:

"During the 1930s and 1940s, a unique and lasting political alliance was forged among Third Reich leaders, Arab nationalists, and Muslim religious authorities. From this relationship sprang a series of dramatic events that, despite their profound impact on the course of World War II, remained  secret until now. In this groundbreaking book, esteemed Middle East scholars Barry Rubin and Wolfgang G. Schwanitz uncover for the first time the complete story of this dangerous alliance and explore its continuing impact on Arab politics in the twenty-first century.

 Rubin and Schwanitz reveal, for example, the full scope of Palestinian leader Amin al-Husaini’s support of Hitler’s genocidal plans against European and Middle Eastern Jews. In addition, they expose the extent of Germany’s long-term promotion of Islamism and jihad. Drawing on unprecedented research in European, American, and Middle East archives, many recently opened and never before written about, the authors offer new insight on the intertwined development of Nazism and Islamism and its impact on the modern Middle East." 

Professor Rubin adds that the book contains a wealth of material never before published, much of it having only recently become available to researchers.  It includes items from Himmler's diary, the Mufti's SS speeches, reveals the money paid by Germany to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and sheds light on the refuge given to ex-Nazis by Muslim countries...

I for one shall place an order forthwith!

With European Antisemitism Soaring, "We Must Not Allow Antisemites To Define Hate"

It's becoming shriller, the morally bankrupt insistence of the repellent Israel-demonising Left and its cheerleaders of all stripes that their rabid hostility to the State of Israel does not constitute antisemitism.

And with antisemitism significantly on the rise in Europe, as shown in this BBC synopsis of the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency's [FRA's] just released major report (to which it gives the link), it's little wonder that Israeli parliamentarian Dr Shimon Ohayon, who chairs the Knesset's Lobby for the Struggle Against Antisemitism, has been stressing in meetings with representatives of the European Union, including members of the European Parliament and the EU's deputy envoy to Israel, that the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism (text here) should be fully implemented by all European agencies.

Observes Ohayon:

A back in Budapest

"Antisemitism in Europe is at its greatest peak since the end of the Second World War and there are now places on the continent where Jews can no longer live and many others where no outward expressions of Jewishness are tolerated.  Europe needs to deal more seriously with this rise in hate which is creating an untenable situation for the Jews of Europe. However, to really fight Antisemitism, the European Union first needs a fundamental definition which law enforcement agencies and judicial bodies can use to prosecute those who target Jews and Jewish institutions.

I call on all relevant European agencies to recognize and legally ratify the Working Definition of Antisemitism as adopted in 2005.

It's back in Germany

The lack of a unified and vigorous definition means that anti-Semites will continue to act with impunity knowing that their actions can not be prosecuted,” MK Ohayon. “We must not allow anti-Semites to define hate. [Emphasis added] Jews need protection before the law and the law needs guidance or it will be rendered useless and irrelevant.

 There are many anti-Semites who have been fighting against the ‘Working Definition’ for many years so they can continue their attacks on Jews and the Jewish State. The European Union needs to tell these people that their racism and hatred will no longer be acceptable and their actions will be punishable before the law."

Ohayon's call has been echoed by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.  In a letter to the EU's Foreign Affairs chief, Baroness Ashton, written from Paris on 6 November, the Center's director for international relations, Dr Shimon Samuels, points out:

In the land of L'Affaire Dreyfus

"The BBC Trust, in addressing a complaint, had upheld the definition, in characterizing as anti-Semitic, a broadcaster’s critique of comments on Israel made by a Member of the UK Parliament. The Trust has now, apparently, reversed its ruling following the Definition’s removal, claiming:

‘A press officer at the FRA has explained that this was a discussion paper and was never adopted by the EU as a working definition, although it has been on the FRA website until recently when it was removed during a clear-out of non-official documents. The link to the FRA site provided by the complainant in his appeal no longer works.’

.... [He recalled the] hard work in negotiating the document and the delay in its publication. Nevertheless, its acceptance and dissemination represented an achievement for the EU in the struggle against anti-Semitism. Indeed, its removal is even more disconcerting just as the FRA is about to issue a further study of the worrying rise in anti-Jewish attacks across Europe."

A dark sentiment in Edinburgh

Emphasising how 'especially disturbing it is to read the satisfaction of [the despicable website] “Electronic Intifada” that the Jews seem to have been robbed of an EU defence mechanism [example by Ben White here],' he remarked pertinently:

"One can only speculate the reaction to a similar move related to Islamophobia."

 Adding  his voice to the demand is Dr Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, who, notes the BBC synopsis, states:

A darker one still on a north London pavement

"the fact that a quarter of Jews are not able to express their Jewishness because of fear should be a watershed moment for the continent of Europe and the European Union.

The Jewish reality in Europe is of great concern and the authorities need to deal with incidents of hate and intolerance in a holistic manner, to really combat these manifestations before it is too late.

We would like to see concrete steps being taken, including creating legislation to specifically deal with anti-Semitism and racism, bolstering law enforcement agencies and ensure a zero-tolerance approach to anti-Semitism, even, and perhaps specifically, when opinion-shapers and decision-makers engage in these forms of hate."

When, incidentally, will the BBC, so politically correct in most things, adopt this spelling of antisemitism, one that, favoured by the Vidal Sassoon Centre, has been in use for a number of years, and which expresses the fact that since there's no such force as "semitism" there is no counter to that non-existent force?

Ben White reacts ...

(Regarding the rise of antisemitism as revealed by the FRA, Jonathan Sacerdoti has a well worth reading article  here)

Obama's Hazardous Iran Deal: The Emergency Committee for Israel speaks out

As reported here with accompanying video,

'America has proposed a short-term nuclear agreement with Iran at a meeting in Geneva which would allow Tehran to continue enriching uranium at low levels, according to an aide briefed on the talks.

The goal is to freeze Iran’s nuclear programme for perhaps six months in order to create a breathing space for a comprehensive agreement to be negotiated.

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, will travel to Switzerland on Friday to join the talks, fuelling hopes a historic deal may be in sight.

Mr Kerry will go to Geneva “in an effort to help narrow differences in negotiations”, said a senior State Department official.

But Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, warned on Thursday that any deal which failed to stop Iran from enriching uranium would be a “mistake of historic proportions”.... ' 

See also here.

Warns the Washington-based Emergency Committee for Israel:

"This looks to be a very bad deal. The Iranian regime would obtain major sanctions relief in exchange for token and superficial concessions that neither freeze nor set back its nuclear weapons program. The deal would vitiate nearly a decade of UN Security Council resolutions demanding the full cessation of enrichment by Iran. The deal would allow Iran to continue enrichment, to continue construction of its plutonium reactor, and to continue building centrifuges that will shorten the regime's breakout time to becoming a nuclear weapons state. Furthermore, such an interim deal would invite Iran to drag out talks while enrichment proceeds, which is something President Rouhani has boasted of doing in the past.

We oppose such a deal, which would make war and nuclear proliferation in the Middle East more likely and would undermine U.S. security by making the world a more dangerous place. Friends and enemies alike would now be convinced that the administration’s past guarantees were empty promises, its past red lines written in disappearing ink. If the administration announces such a deal, Congress should take all appropriate measures to oppose it and ratchet up sanctions. And Congress should also make it clear that the United States will stand with our ally, Israel, if she judges it necessary to act to prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons."

How hollow now seem Obama's remarks in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in March last year:

".... I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff....  I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. Let me describe very specifically why this is important to us.

In addition to the profound threat that it poses to Israel, one of our strongest allies in the world; in addition to the outrageous language that has been directed toward Israel by the leaders of the Iranian government -- if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, this would run completely contrary to my policies of nonproliferation. The risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound. It is almost certain that other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons. So now you have the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world, one that is rife with unstable governments and sectarian tensions. And it would also provide Iran the additional capability to sponsor and protect its proxies in carrying out terrorist attacks, because they are less fearful of retaliation...."

Meanwhile, as reported here, in Teheran a video has been aired simulating a nuclear attack on Israel:

In Britain, Lobbyists Demonise "The" Lobby

The graphic below, boasting of the growing economic clout of Muslims in Britain, comes from this recent press release by the Muslim Council of Britain.

But it is not only in the economic field that Islamic influence is gaining ground.

Far outnumbering the Jewish community, and accordingly wielding a much greater number of votes at election time, Muslims in Britain also have a growing political influence that inevitably threatens to have a deleterious  impact upon UK government policy towards Israel.

We glimpse this growing political clout in the publication of a new report, to be launched at the House of Commons this evening by a Lib Dem MP, Sir Bob Russell, who, as glimpsed here, has a history of denigrating Israel.

To quote from the website of its sponsors, the report in question (entitled "Giving Peace A Chance")

"looks at how BICOM [the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre]has worked within the Zionist community in the UK to support Israel's interests. The report looks at how the organisation has worked to ferment support for Israel within British political and media circles, from providing briefings to taking delegations to the region. The report explores how serious the pro-Israel lobby is about seeking peace in the region, particularly in the post-Oslo context."

The report was funded by Middle East Monitor (MEMO), whose director, Caribbean-born Dr Daud Abdullah, is a longtime senior researcher at the Palestinian Return Centre in London and editor of its journal. From 2003-6 he was assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain.

 He is quoted as calling the research that led to the current report as "ground-breaking" and adding (ironically in view of the vigorous lobbying done by the above-named organisations):

"A study into the work of the British Israel lobby has been a long time coming. This report exposes the influence the lobby has in certain political and media circles, explaining why support for Israel quite often comes at the expense of the Palestinian cause."

One of the report's four authors is David Miller, Professor of Sociology at the University of Bath.  A leftist, who  writes for The Guardian's "Comment is Free" section, Professor Miller is co-founder of Spinwatch, which undertook the research for the report, has carried out research for, among others, the Scottish Islamic Foundation, and includes "Islamophobia" as one of his fields of academic supervision.   Of the current report he is quoted as saying:

"This will be an opportunity to hear the results of the first in-depth research project on one of the most important pro-Israel lobby groups in the UK.

The Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) presents itself as a supporter of a two state solution in Israel/Palestine and of the peace process in the Middle East. Our findings suggest, on the contrary, that it supports the rejectionism of an Israeli state which refuses to give peace a chance."

Another imminent anti-Israel fest at Westminster is afoot.  The Palestine Solidarity Campaign trumpets:

"The lobby of Parliament for Palestine is a great event, and it wouldn’t be complete without the inspiring evening rally. We’ve some fantastic Parliamentarians lined up: Richard Burden MP, Katy Clark MP, Sir Bob Russell MP, Andy Slaughter MP, Lisa Nandy MP, David Ward MP and Baroness Jenny Tonge so far. They will be joined by the Palestine Ambassador (invited), Palestinian politician, Sami Abou Shahadeh, and leading trade unionists."