In America The Academic Boycott Snowballs Onward

On 15 December the Council of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association voted unanimously to support the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions.

This makes it the third academic organisation in the United States to award pariah status to the world's only Jewish State.

 Here's its statement:

"The council of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA) declares its support for the boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

A broad coalition of Palestinian non-governmental organizations, acting in concert to represent the Palestinian people, formed the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. Their call was taken up in the United States by the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. A NAISA member-initiated petition brought this issue to NAISA Council. After extensive deliberation on the merits of the petition, the NAISA Council decided by unanimous vote to encourage members of NAISA and all who support its mission to honor the boycott.

NAISA is dedicated to free academic inquiry about, with, and by Indigenous communities. The NAISA Council protests the infringement of the academic freedom of Indigenous Palestinian academics and intellectuals in the Occupied Territories and Israel who are denied fundamental freedoms of movement, expression, and assembly, which we uphold.

As the elected council of an international community of Indigenous and allied non-Indigenous scholars, students, and public intellectuals who have studied and resisted the colonization and domination of Indigenous lands via settler state structures throughout the world, we strongly protest the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and the legal structures of the Israeli state that systematically discriminate against Palestinians and other Indigenous peoples.

NAISA is committed to the robust intellectual and ethical engagement of difficult and often highly charged issues of land, identity, and belonging. Our members will have varying opinions on the issue of the boycott, and we encourage generous dialogue that affirms respectful disagreement as a vital scholarly principle. We reject shaming or personal attacks as counter to humane understanding and the greater goals of justice, peace, and decolonization.

As scholars dedicated to the rights of Indigenous peoples, we affirm that our efforts are directed specifically at the Israeli state, not at Israeli individuals. The NAISA Council encourages NAISA members to boycott Israeli academic institutions because they are imbricated with the Israeli state and we wish to place pressure on that state to change its policies. We champion and defend intellectual and academic freedom, and we recognize that conversation and collaboration with individuals and organizations in Israel/Palestine can make an important contribution to the cause of justice. In recognition of the profound social and political obstacles facing Palestinians in such dialogues, however, we urge our members and supporters to engage in such actions outside the aegis of Israeli educational institutions, honoring this boycott until such time as the rights of the Palestinian people are respected and discriminatory policies are ended."

As a distinguished American scholar, political scientist Michael Curtis,  author of Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East, opined not long ago:

"One never ceases to be amazed at the obtuseness on the issue of boycotts of proponents of BDS, some of whom are affiliated with prestigious educational institutions ...

In their partisan advocacy and hostility to Israel they show an astonishing ignorance of life in the Middle East countries as well as of the true nature of academic freedom.

Contrary to the expressed opinion of some BDS supporters there is nothing vague about academic freedom. It denotes a free exchange of ideas and opinions, an exchange in which the validity of those ideas can be examined and challenged, and which is not limited either internally in a particular country or externally. John Stuart Mill knew that free inquiry is the basis for acceptance or rejection of wrong or incorrect ideas and information.

Supporters of BDS have tried to qualify their position by suggesting that their call for action is against institutions not individuals. But this is a sleight of hand evasion of the truth.

A public university or academic institution even if funded wholly or partly by public funds does not take a stand, but individual academics who pursue knowledge or make pronouncements may do so. The President of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, like the President of Rutgers University in New Jersey, does not make pronouncements on abortion, or military cuts, or nuclear weapons in Iran.

Nor do the Presidents of Tel Aviv or Haifa universities issue proclamations as university policy on the nature and destiny of the disputed territories.

Much of the argument of the BDS people is equally ignorant and nonsensical: false accusations that Israel is an apartheid system; that its legal system rests on inequality; that its military authorities interfere with the access of Palestinians to higher education and to hindrances of free speech and assembly.

They refuse to acknowledge that the Israeli government probably has more internal critics than has any other country, that the academic system is open to all who qualify, and that academics contribute to scientific research that may be useful for public purposes in the same way as is the mode in Western countries. The BDS critics seem to know little of the real facts about the operation of Israeli universities in their call for boycotts....

One of the astonishing aspects of the ignorance of the BDS advocates, in Berkeley, New York, or Princeton, is that they take no heed of or are ignorant of the fact that Arab students will be severely hurt by any boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

Can the conclusion be drawn that they think that Arabs should be punished, that Arabs are upholders of the system they regard as evil and apartheid, and that the Arabs are equally guilty of the collective and individual punishment of which they declare Israel is culpable?"

 More good sense from Michael Curtis here

Wanna See Some Feelthy Footage?

 The obscene flesh on display in this footage are arms, arms making the antisemitic "quenelle" signal that I posted about here.

The porn star is the French "comedian" Dieudonné, the despicable antisemite who invented this version of the Nazi salute.  (Be sure to read this article!)

Hopefully a version of this video with English subtitles will become available.

Unhappily to relate, but tellingly, this video is being touted gloatingly on Facebook among some "anti-Zionists".

Not A Good Look, Betty!

Reader P, who so assiduously follows the Reverend Stephen Sizer on Facebook, and often sends me screenshots of some of that gentleman's more eyebrow-raising comments, tells me that he (reader P) took a good look today at the Facebook wall of one of the vicar's friends there, an American lady who appears to be as committed to the anti-Zionist cause as the vicar himself, writing (below his unexpected rejection of Roger Waters' repellent analogy of Israel with Nazi Germany*) such messages as:

Reader P was curious to ascertain what manner of person could make this ignorant comment, denying that Israel had ever been attacked by Arab armies prior to 1973.

"I was amazed to find a lawyer instead of some airhead," says P.

It's indeed a curious mistake for an educated person to make, but as I observed recently, the assertion is not an uncommon one in Israel-delegitimising circles today.

Reader P was taken aback to see this link, since, as he remarks, the picture lays bare the unabashed antisemitism in certain anti-Zionist hearts.

Yes, definitely not a good look!  (Best take it off, Betty.  Before the Reverend Sizer catches you.)

Meanwhile, to its eternal shame, the rank and file of the American Studies Association has ratified, by a wide margin, its council's vote to boycott Israel (read about it here and here) 

Crows one of the lynchpins behind the ASA's odious initiative, Professor David Lloyd, the boycott

"targets institutions on the basis of what they do not what they are: it does not target them because they are Jewish or Israeli, but because of their complicity in Israel’s systemic and ongoing violations of human rights and international law.  These are practices, and therefore capable of termination or modification.  What would be truly anti-Semitic would be to accept that all Jews are de facto identified with a single state and its policies....

By definition, the study of America includes both the study of its own colonial and imperial past and the study of its international relations.  No state has benefited more in recent decades from US material and political support than Israel and perhaps no people has been more continuously impacted by US global interests than the Palestinians.  The US relation to Israel/Palestine is therefore not only a relevant but a pressing object of analysis for American Studies.  The boycott resolution is in keeping with the Association’s long-standing ethical commitment to translating analysis into morally informed action ....

The ASA’s members have learnt and taught that every substantial advance in real and material freedom for people subject to racism, colonization and discrimination has come through intellectual analysis that finds expression in practice and in the alliance with social movements working for justice.  No more than political freedom is academic freedom the private possession of the privileged.  It has meaning only if it is translated into action and only if we are not afraid to translate our understanding into collective action for justice.  The boycott is in fundamental agreement with these principles and therefore with those that inform the ASA."

But as Jeffrey Goldberg writes:

"Is it a coincidence that these academics are singling out the world’s only Jewish-majority country for boycott? Only to those who know nothing of the history of anti-Semitic scapegoating.... 

The American Studies Association is an unimportant American group; larger academic organizations have come out ... against the idea of academic boycotts. The ASA is also facing an unlikely opponent in its anti-Israel campaign: Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, supports the boycott of settlement-made goods, but he has come out against broad anti-Israel boycotts. The ASA is more Palestinian, in other words, than the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Still, this vote by the ASA marks something of a turning point -- this is the second time this year that a U.S. academic organization has called for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. I assume the ASA won’t be the last group to do so. And I believe that we will one day see groups such as the ASA call for the boycott of American institutions and individuals who support Israel. Such a campaign would represent a logical extension of the boycott ratified this weekend. Yes, a boycott of businesses owned by pro-Israel American Jews would have a special odor about it, but really, doesn’t the ASA boycott have something of the same smell?" [Emphasis added]

 * But why, then, is Sizer posting this (a link to a report on 9 December) on Facebook today, to the appreciation of Betty and other followers? Has he changed his mind? (Thanks, P):

Nice But Naive? Australian Jewish leaders condemn "Islamophobia"

Back in the 1960s (or was it the 1970s?) the Left had a mantra, as irritating as it was foolish: "We are all guilty."  It seems nowadays that the Left's new mantra is "Thou shalt voice no criticism of Islam".  And that particular piece of foolishness has infected many people whose self-interest alone should induce them to know better.

Last Wednesday, December 10, was "International Human Rights Day," and to coincide with it a major report by the Melbourne-based Online Hate Prevention Institute on "Islamophobia" on Facebook was made public.  I meant to blog about it at the time, but other topics have intruded, so I'll give my ten cents' worth now.

Covering the following categories

American, British and Australian nationals provide the highest level of support to these pages of hate. Of the pages examined 13 of them were specifically Australian in nature. Pages like “Look after Australians first deport all illegal boatpeople”, and “Australian Defence League Official Adl Est 2009″.
This report aims to highlight the existence of what is a serious hate speech problem on Facebook. To the extent that this content gives a window into the hate speech against Muslims that is currently circulating in society, we hope this report assists community leaders, policy makers, law makers and researchers in better understanding and responding to this threat to an inclusive society. In democracies inclusiveness is regarded as a public good, as such, this hate speech is not only an attack on the Muslim community but an attack on society as a whole. We must work together to tackle this growing problem.
- See more at: http://ohpi.org.au/islamophobia-on-the-internet-the-growth-of-online-hate-targeting-muslims/#sthash.AaYZeEBm.dpufThe report examines 50 pages of anti-Muslim sentiment on Facebook, finding that the largest proportion of comments come from American, British and Australian commenters.  The categories of Islamophobia examined areCovering the following catagories

Muslims as a Security Threat or Threat to Public Safety
Muslims as a Cultural Threat
Muslims as an Economic Threat
Content Dehumanising or Demonizing Muslims
Threats of Violence, Genocide and Direct Hate Targeting Muslims
Hate Targeting Refugees / Asylum Seekers
Other Forms of Hate Speech

this is the largest report ever undertaken by the Institute, itself a Jewish initiative, which is headed by a supporter of Israel, and has been endorsed by a number of Jewish organisations, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.

This is all commendably well-meaning.  It is also, in my view, worryingly naive.

American, British and Australian nationals provide the highest level of support to these pages of hate. Of the pages examined 13 of them were specifically Australian in nature. Pages like “Look after Australians first deport all illegal boatpeople”, and “Australian Defence League Official Adl Est 2009″.
This report aims to highlight the existence of what is a serious hate speech problem on Facebook. To the extent that this content gives a window into the hate speech against Muslims that is currently circulating in society, we hope this report assists community leaders, policy makers, law makers and researchers in better understanding and responding to this threat to an inclusive society. In democracies inclusiveness is regarded as a public good, as such, this hate speech is not only an attack on the Muslim community but an attack on society as a whole. We must work together to tackle this growing problem.
- See more at: http://ohpi.org.au/islamophobia-on-the-internet-the-growth-of-online-hate-targeting-muslims/#sthash.AaYZeEBm.dpuf

London calling

The problem is, of course, that the very term "Islamophobia" (advanced in recent decades as a counterpart to antisemitism and intended by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to stifle critical scrutiny of Islam) is, of course, highly contentious.

What some observers have dubbed "Islamofauxbia" to emphasis its lack of validity, has been advanced in recent decades as a counterpart to antisemitism.

The notion of "Islamophobia" is intended by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation(OIC) to stifle critical scrutiny of Islam, as demonstrated (for example) the OIC's recent demand (see more here) that Western governments

 "Take all necessary measures within their power and legal/jurisdictional systems to ensure a safe environment free from Islamophobic harassment… by strictly enforcing applicable hate crime and discrimination laws;

 Create, whenever necessary, specialized bodies and initiatives in order to combat Islamophobia… based on internationally recognized human rights principles and standards;

Combat Islamophobic hate crimes, which can be fuelled by Islamophobic hate speech in the media and on the Internet;

 Take all necessary measures to ensure that the media refrains from serving as a platform for the dissemination of hate speech… by associating extremism and terrorism to Islam and Muslims… and presents the true positive nature of Islam...."

The attempted analogy between it and antisemitism, between distrust of Muslims in the West and Europe's historic oppression if Jews, is less than convincing. After all, opponents of the term point out, there are aspects of Islam, not least its well-documented and ongoing misogyny, that are totally contrary to western values, so that the so-called phobia against the creed is understandable and legitimate; moreover, Judaism has never been a proselytising religion  (whereas teams of Muslims seeking to convert passers-by, long a feature of European cities, are now to be found on Australian streets) nor have their dietary laws or other requirements been imposed on the wider society. Unlike Muslim extremists, no Jews have ever demanded that Halachah should be imposed all inhabitants of the neighbourhoods, much less the nations.  And, needless to say, no Jew has ever caused the carnage of a 9/11 or a 7/7.

Accordingly, while this report is worthy in many respects (few us are likely to do otherwise than condemn the crude, hate-filled  examples of bigotry shown in the report such as advocating violence upon persons who happen to be Muslim and instances of gratuitous insult against such persons), it would appear to play into the hands of those who oppose any public discussion of the problem of Islamic extremism (is it so very wrong to coin a slogan that observes "It's not Islamophobia when they really are trying to kill you"?) and Islamic intrusion into the public space that impinges upon the rights of non-Muslim citizens (as with the almost ubiquitous presence of Halal-certified produce at certain general supermarkets where no alternative for the non-Muslim consumer is available).  And spare a thought for the Christians around the world who are presently experiencing a sickening onslaught at Islam's hands, an onslaught so savage, so unremitting, so comprehensive that at least one British MP during a debate on the subject earlier this month in the Commons compared it to the Holocaust.

I'm sure most of us deplore such incidents as the pulling off of a Muslim schoolgirl's hijab in the Melbourne outer suburb of Werribee the week before last.

I'm sure that most of us deplore the rush to judgment of all who assumed (and assumed publicly) that the perpetrators of the recent bashing of a group of Jews in Bondi was the handiwork of Muslims: such an assumption, wrong as it turns out, echoes the medieval cry that Jews poisoned the wells.  It's a manifestation of prejudice, pure and simple.

Of course interfaith dialogue is a worthy enterprise, and of course there are plenty of  decent moderate Muslims in the West who reject extremism and violence.  There are even some who speak out on behalf of Israel, and their courage in doing so, and their integrity, is very greatly appreciated. 

But there's a huge difference between blanket hatred of all Muslims and the well-founded fear of Islamism, a supremacist ideology governing all aspects of human existence that sees its manifest destiny as vanquishing and subjugating the entire world.

For the latter reason it's unreasonable of the report to insist that Islam is merely a religion like any other, and that fear of Islam is irrational.  Moreover, that characterisation disregards the deep antisemitism that infects so much of the Muslim world, to say nothing of the vilification of Israel.

What the sorely-missed Australian Jewish leader Isi Leibler, now of Jerusalem, wrote some years ago concerning Jews and Islamophobia is relevant still, notwithstanding the well-meaning sentiments of the report and those who endorse it:

'It is surely high time for Diaspora leaders to stop living in denial and get their act together. Instead of competing with each other in oozing political correctness, they should display some backbone and call a spade a spade.

We are currently witnessing the greatest revival of global anti-Semitism since the Middle Ages. This permeates all classes of society, and, ranging from academics to illiterates and European leaders who retain office despite making unabashed neo-Nazi remarks about Jews to mobs at anti-Israeli demonstrations carrying placards “gas the Jews.”

It encompasses the entire political spectrum, but is spearheaded by liberals and Muslims. Muslim radicals relate to Israel in a manner reminiscent of the Church’s medieval attitude toward the Jews. They promote popular TV programs depicting the blood of Muslim children being used for baking matzot, and have revived The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a best-seller. They certainly compare favorably with the worst Nazi Jew baiting, with imams quoting genocidal religious texts to the faithful, inciting them to murder Jews, “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

It is macabre to observe the alliance between liberals and jihadists who represent the antithesis of everything the Left purports to represent. The extremist Islamists are the most reactionary elements in the world. They reject fundamental human rights, proscribe freedom of expression and religion, promote the degradation of women and, to this day, implement barbaric laws including stoning of adulterers and homosexuals and the amputation of limbs for petty crimes. More than 50 Muslim countries deny Judaism or Christianity equal standing with Islam....

Alas, Jews who exaggerate the presence of Islamophobia become leading proponents of the campaign to sanitize and understate Islamic extremism....

.... [T]he relative tranquility which Muslims experience in Western societies is a great tribute to tolerance – a tolerance unlikely to have been extended to Jews in similar circumstances. Imagine the response if Israel had a track record like some of the Arab states, or if Jews in Western countries were blowing up their neighbors....

There is indeed a desperate need to encourage moderate Muslims. But appeasing the extremists and groveling to Muslim bullies merely emboldens them. There is not a single instance in history in which appeasing religious fanatics of any faith has brought about progress. If we allow ourselves to be intimidated or fail to confront Islamist jihadists, they will succeed in destroying the very tenets of our civilization.

This is an area in which Jews, who have the most to lose, must surely stand up and be counted.'

Roger Waters: A meeting of minds

In the course of a must-read article here, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach observes of the Pink Floyd frontman's recent despicable comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany:

'Roger Waters’ balderdash about rabbis believing that non-Jews are subhumans is the dirtiest of blood libels and contradicts the core teachings of the Torah which states in its very first chapter, Genesis 1, that every human being is created equally in the image of God.

And surely, even someone with as rancid a heart as Mr. Waters, is familiar with what Christians call Jesus’s Golden rule, but which is actually found much earlier, in the Hebrew Bible, the commandment to “Love your fellow man as yourself” (Leviticus 19.17), which Hillel, in the Talmud, interpreted to mean, “That which you hate do not do unto others.”

Perhaps Mr. Waters should take Hillel’s advice. Stop maligning a people who have paid a terrible price for the kind of abominable lies that people like Roger Waters unjustly hurl.'

There's been more lambasting of Waters' remarks, as reported here

Waters' vile analogy has been criticised even by that inveterate knocker of Israel, the Reverend Stephen Sizer: on Facebook (hat tip: reader P) some of Sizer's followers are overtly aghast at this unexpected observation of his:

Meanwhile, as seen in this report, there seems to be a paralysing split, regarding goals, between Palestinian Islamists and secular nationalists, and there's a triumphalist article by Omar Barghouti, daddy of the BDS movement, about recent triumphs for BDS here

David Singer: Palestine – European Union Embroiled in Financial Scandal

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.
He writes:

'The European Union (EU) has become embroiled in a financial scandal of massive proportions in relation to the financial assistance given by it to the Palestinian Authority (PA) since 1994.

This appears very clear from the comprehensive European Court of Auditors Report dated 22 October 2013 which was only made public this week.

The Report reveals the following:

1. During the period 1994–2006, more than 2.7 billion euro was allocated to the Palestinian Authority from the EU’s general budget.

2. Between 2007 and 2012 some 2.9 billion euro was committed from the EU general budget. The main focus of EU assistance involved direct financial support (DFS) - which accounted for 47.4 per cent of the overall assistance in the period 2007–12.

3. DFS was the EU’s response to the political, fiscal and humanitarian crisis that followed the temporary suspension of most aid to the PA following Hamas’ January 2006 election victory. A ‘temporary international mechanism’ (TIM) was established which aimed to ensure the direct delivery of assistance to the Palestinian population while bypassing a Hamas-led government. TIM - initially set up for 3 months - operated between June 2006 and February 2008 - until replaced by the current mechanism – PEGASE - which is largely based on TIM

4. PEGASE DFS has had the broad objective of helping the PA continue to function until the overall political objective of a two state solution is achieved.

5. The main objective of PEGASE DFS is to help the PA to meet its obligations towards civil service employees and pensioners (CSP) and maintain the functioning of the administration and the provision of essential public services to the population;

6. Support for civil servants and pensioners comprised 72.5 per cent of total funding.

7. Since the launch of PEGASE DFS in February 2008, few substantial changes have been made to the CSP component. This is in spite of changes in the operational environment, including the increasing number of beneficiaries, the rise in the number of civil servants not attending work after public sector strikes in Gaza in August–September 2008 and the growing need for civil service reform.

8. The EU has not developed a clear strategy on how to reduce the PA’s dependency on PEGASE DFS support over time.

9. From 2008 to 2012, the average number of civil servants and pensioners that regularly had part of their salary paid by contributions from the CSP component rose from 75 502 to 84 320. This represents approximately half of the PA’s 170 000 civil servants and pensioners.

10. The PA has made little progress on civil service and pension reforms to reduce the fiscal impact of the increasing numbers of staff and pensioners, for example, by reducing the number of PA staff or amending the rules regulating entitlements.

11. The audit found indications that in Gaza a considerable number of civil servants were receiving salaries - partly funded by PEGASE DFS - because they were eligible for support by virtue of being on the PA payroll but who were not going to work due to the political situation in Gaza. Some civil servants were dismissed after the Hamas takeover because they supported the PA, while others were demoted or locked out following the PA trade union strikes of August– September 2008.

12. Out of 10 Gaza beneficiaries selected by the audit for interviews, three stated that they were not working, while one was absent. The audit also found that the State Audit and Administra-tive Control Bureau was obliged, in accordance with PA regulations, to pay salaries for its 90 staff members in Gaza, all of whom are unable to work. These findings are consistent with estimates based on data from interviews provided in a 2010 evaluation of PEGASE contracted by the EU which indicated that 22 per cent and 24 per cent respectively of the staff employed by the PA Ministries of Health and Education in Gaza were not working at the time.

13. The EU while aware of this problem, has not taken adequate steps to address it and was unable to provide clear information on the extent of this practice. Given the amount of money

which the EU is providing through PEGASE DFS, it would have been expected that they could obtain such information from the PA.

14. Despite the importance of this issue, there was no transparent reference to PEGASE DFS being used to pay non-performing workers in any of the EU’s financing documentation for the annual programmes.

15. While PEGASE is intended to support public services for the benefit of the Palestinian population, the payment of non-performing civil servants does not serve this objective

Spending hundreds of millions of dollars supposedly supporting the salaries of public servants that no longer occupy those positions and doing nothing to arrest this expenditure - although knowing it was happening - indicates an appalling standard of financial irresponsibility for which the EU has become famous.

This financial gravy train seems set to continue whilst:

1. Hamas and the PLO refuse to reconcile their differences

2. The PLO rejects any kind of settlement with Israel that entails Israel obtaining sovereignty in any part of the West Bank.

The European Union is on a treadmill from which it must now extricate itself.

The obvious solution is to make sure EU money gets to the most needy – not phantom employees who have been having a financial feast at European taxpayers expense.'

In Sydney, A Motion Most Foul

The "Aussie Salute" (for the benefit of the uninitiated) is the swift sweeping gesture in front of the face frequently made on hot days Down Under by persons desperately attempting to ward off flies.

This picture shows a grinning trio making a salute outside the Sydney Jewish Museum that is definitely not the Aussie Salute.

Fun in the sun: a sinister new twist on an ugly old theme

While the arm motion made by this trio is undoubtedly inexplicable to most onlookers it appears that it is, as the Times of Israel explains here, an abominable racist gesture that has recently  caught on bigtime among Jew-haters in Europe.  It is the "quenelle signal," we're told,

'a neo-Nazi gesture, regarded by anti-Semitism researchers as a modern day Nazi salute, is rapidly spreading among anti-Semites in Europe and is being used by individuals to fly under the radar of strict anti-hate speech laws in parts of the continent.

The “quenelle” signal, extending one’s right hand toward the ground while the left hand grasps the shoulder, was devised by Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a controversial French comedian who has been condemned in court several times for anti-Semitic remarks.

 Over the past two months, the trend has gained popularity, prompting hundreds of Europeans to post online pictures of themselves performing the “heil” like salute. Many of the images were taken at sensitive sites such as in the Auschwitz concentration camp, the Anne Frank House and even the Western Wall....'

The  photo that I've reproduced above is one of the truly shocking collection shown here which demonstrate the depths of depravity to which some people will sink in order to mock and vilify the Jews.

Update: see also here