Improper Bostonians: Israel-Hating Leftists "Occupy" Israeli Consulate (video)

Here's another example of leftwing slanderers of Israel, the type of people on whom my previous post focuses. A breakaway group of "Occupy Boston" Israel-defamers march to the Israeli Consulate, barge in, and chant the usual crap about "apartheid" - at one point intoning a female demoniser's soundbites repetitively in the robotic way that followers of some crackpot sect might repeat the sayings of its resident guru.  Oh, and they'll "be back".  (Read more about this event here)

Hat tip: Shirl in Oz & Vlad Tepes blog

Continuing Canards From The Israel-Demonising Left, and Pat Condell On "Islamised ... Self-righteous Leftwing Bubbleheads"

Beneath a newly-uploaded video of the most recent march (last month) of the Melburnian leftwing rabble who demonise the Jewish State in general and Max Brenner in particular the uploader declares:

"The following is the footage from the latest BDS action in Melbourne, as we marched down the streets of the CBD chanting loudly for Palestinian liberation.

Australia is a very pro-Israel nation, with a strong lobby, a powerful pro-Israel Murdoch press, and an ideological framework installed that defends Israel's right to commit apartheid and terrorism upon the Palestinians without regret. In its history, Australia has been always a leading nation in defending and condoning war crimes committed by its allies, including the United States, Sri Lanka, Britain, etc, and include now Israel to that list. As such, we are facing an uphill battle by organising and participating in these BDS rallies against those businesses that profit from apartheid and terrorism...."

(Will Richard Goldstone's recent demolition of the slander that Israel practises apartheid cut any ice with these people? The Equator belt is likely to freeze over first...)

On Twitter, an "ethical" travel writer, Gail Simmons, whose work appears in the Guardian, made the following ill-informed and obscene tweet, caught by the redoubtable Adam Levick of CiF Watch:

"One of the greatest supporters of Zionism was Hitler himself. Explains lots about the actions of the Zionists!"

 As an indignant Aussie reader of CiF Watch, and of this blog, remarked, in a letter to Al Grauniad:

'Your newspaper has an infamous reputation in the Jewish community worldwide as being amongst the most anti-Israel and even Judeophobic publications in the English speaking world, so I'm not "holding my breath" for you to take my complaint seriously....

However, when your travel writer, Gail Simmons, "tweets" that Hitler was a Zionist; I have to complain. Not only is this a gross inversion of History  (Hitler had plans to invade Palestine and Murder the Jews there with the help of his friend the Mufti of Jerusalem once he was done murdering European Jews), it is about as highly offensive to Jews and Israelis as it gets....

Why is it that Jews are the only ethnic or religious group that can be insulted without consequences by your employees?'

Why indeed.

On the blog "Liberal Conspiracy," Ben White, another darling of the Guardian and author of Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide, questions Conservative MP Louise Mensch's forthcoming appearance as a guest speaker at a conference organised by the pro-Israel organisation StandWithUs:

'The attendance of a Member of Parliament at such an event is troubling, given StandWithUs’ track record of promoting extreme positions and working with disturbing allies.

The UK chair of StandWithUs disputes the international legal consensus that Settlements in the Occupied West Bank are illegal.

A 2009 investigation into StandWithUs’ donors accused the group of having "a web of funders who support organisations that have been accused of anti-Muslim propaganda and encouraging a militant Israeli and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East"....

A StandWithUs event of the same name happening in the US this month features Itamar Marcus, an Israeli settler who features in Islamophobic film Obsession.

Here in the UK, StandWithUs is working with religious fundamentalists, sending their national coordinator to speak at a conference promoted by those who believe that God will "curse those who curse Israel"....'

To which the well-known blogger Richard Millett has, among other commenters, made the highly pertinent response:

'This is beyond parody allowing White to smear SWU when White was due to share a platform with Sheikh Raed Salah (until Salah was arrested) who has made derogatory statements about Jews and gays. For example, calling homosexuality "a crime. A great crime. Such phenomena signal the start of the collapse of every society".'

And adds the relevant link

 Love him or loathe him, Pat Condell doesn't mince his words in this video, which should be mandatory viewing for all those western left-liberals who make common cause with Islamofascists in castigating Israel and seeking its demise.

 (Hat tip: Shirl in Oz)

What The UNESCO Vote Portends For The Palestinian Statehood Bid

In his latest article, one of my favourite Middle East-watchers, David Singer, a Sydney lawyer and foundation member of the International Analysts Network, turns his attention to the issue of Palestinian admission to UNESCO and its significance for the statehood bid. His article, which comes via the antipodean J-Wire service, is entitled "Palestine – UNESCO rebuffs PLO huffs and puffs".

Writes David Singer:

`The PLO application seeking admission of Palestine to the UN has been dealt a serious blow – after 86 of its 193 members failed to support a mirror application for Palestine to join UNESCO.

The poor UNESCO majority vote recorded in favor is even more remarkable when one excludes the 56 Islamic member States – whose vote to recognize Palestine’s admission to UNESCO was always assured. Only 51 of UNESCO’s remaining 137 members were prepared to publicly out themselves in support of the PLO application.

Any of the five following reasons could be possible explanations for this rebuff to the PLO and could signal a similar disastrous outcome when the UN deals with the Palestine issue later this month:

Member States were concerned that any favorable UNESCO decision would be in breach of Article II (2) of UNESCO’s constitution- which only provides for States to be admitted to full membership.

Palestine does not possess the attributes for statehood required in customary international law and codified in article 1 of the Montevideo Convention 1933.

Palestine could have chosen an easier and less controversial option by applying for associate membership of UNESCO as a territory which was not responsible for the conduct of its international affairs under Article II (3).

Such an application – however – would have been an admission that Palestine was not a state – dooming the UN application to almost certain defeat.

The UNESCO vote came just days after PLO Chairman – Mahmoud Abbas – sought to appease the UN by admitting that the Arab refusal to accept the 1947 UN Partition Plan was a "mistake".

Non-supporters of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO would have had serious reservations after hearing Abbas’s untruthful and misleading remarks to Israel’s Channel 2 on 28 October:

"At the time, 1947, there was [General Assembly] Resolution 181, the partition plan for Palestine and Israel. Israel existed. Palestine diminished."

Arafat was clearly misrepresenting the situation in 1947 since:
(i) The partition plan was not for Palestine and Israel. It was for partition into a Jewish State and an Arab State
(ii) Israel did not exist in 1947.

Abbas however had every reason for stressing that Palestine had been diminished by 1947 – since 78% of Palestine had been granted independence by Britain in 1946 when it was permanently placed under Hashemite control and re-named the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.

Britain’s action was in flagrant violation of article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine- which required Britain to see that no Palestine territory should be ceded or leased to or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

The PLO has never accepted Britain’s decision. Article 2 of the PLO Charter still insists that Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan is one separate and indivisible territorial unit that must be liberated.

Not content with reminding those listening that the PLO still coveted all of this area – Abbas then attempted to ameliorate its intransigent stance in rejecting the 1947 partition plan by stating:

"It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole. But do they punish us for this mistake for 64 years?"

This statement must have sent shudders through the UNESCO waverers.

Abbas was being totally untruthful in failing to acknowledge that the Arabs had from 1948 to 1967 to correct their 1947 mistake – after six Arab armies had invaded a “diminished Palestine” and Jordan had ended up occupying the West Bank and East Jerusalem whilst Egypt had occupied Gaza and all the Jews then living in those areas had been driven out.

Blaming Israel for 19 years of Arab failure to do anything to create Palestinian statehood could explain why many states did not support the push to recognize a fictitious Palestine now.

Abbas had already blotted his copybook when he told Dream 2TV on 23 October:

"First of all, let me make something clear about the story of the ‘Jewish state.’ They started talking to me about the ‘Jewish state’ only two years ago, discussing it with me at every opportunity, every forum I went to – Jewish or non-Jewish – asking: ‘What do you think about the “Jewish state”?’ I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state, or a ‘Jewish state.’"

This clear repudiation of the 1947 UN Partition Plan calling for a Jewish state indicated a resolute refusal to ever live in peace with its Jewish neighbour - making the possibility of the two state solution an impossible dream to accomplish. [My emphasis]

Such a display of unadulterated racism and hatred could have also weighed heavily on the minds of many UN member states as they failed to support Palestine‘s admission to UNESCO.

The preamble to the UNESCO Constitution requires the Governments of the State Parties to declare on behalf of their people:

"That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed; That ignorance of each other’s ways and lives has been a common cause, throughout the history of mankind, of that suspicion and mistrust between the peoples of the world through which their differences have all too often broken into war"

Believing Palestine could ever respect and honor these lofty principles after Abbas’s remarkable statements during the few days prior to the UNESCO vote could have been the final nail in the coffin for so many states voicing their displeasure and failing to support Palestine’s admission to UNESCO.

The fact that the PLO still was refusing to enter into direct negotiations with Israel to peacefully resolve the creation of a Palestinian State- preferring instead to take unilateral action at UNESCO and the UN – could be another explanation for the poor vote recorded in UNESCO.

Whatever happens from here on in at the UN – the UNESCO vote shows that the UN vote will not be the cakewalk predicted by the PLO.

The PLO can huff and puff – but a large number of the UN members have made it clear they are not prepared to be blown down in the process.`

Aussie Jewish Students Successfully Defend Israel Against The "Apartheid" Slur

In Britain, the Campaigns Officer of the Union of Jewish Students has launched a regrettable ad hominem attack, before an audience of Jewish students at Leeds at which both were speakers, on that stalwart champion of Israel Jonathan Hoffman (pictured).  Frankly, given all the time and effort he invests in Israel advocacy, and the courage he manifests in so doing, Jonathan deserves better than to be harangued and humiliated in this way.  But as the video of the occasion suggests, he maintained his dignity throughout. The details, and the video, are here

It's pleasing, though, to hear that the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS) has successfully defended Israel against the "apartheid" slur, encountering reassuring levels of goodwill towards Israel as well.

Reports student Simon Sawday via the antipodean J-Wire service:

'AUJS has participated in a debate held by the Macquarie University Student Representative Association (MUSRA), questioning the characterisation of Israel as an apartheid state. I, as a representative of AUJS, spoke in support of Israel’s position and a representative of Students for Palestine argued the opposing point of view.

The debate was a great success for us. People were curious about Israel and were eager to gain a better understanding of the situation. The apartheid analogy was able to be addressed and I had the chance to directly tell the audience how absurd the comparison is and question why countries that clearly and routinely practise apartheid are ignored, such as Iran, where Bahai people are prohibited from attending universities.When AUJS was invited to take part in the debate it posed a tough question to our leadership of whether we should accept the invitation. The debate topic was biased, the organisers (despite holding the event in their capacity as MUSRA [Student representative Council]  officers), were pro-Palestinian activists and the promotion of the event online was being used as means of influencing the debate before it started.

However, although it was not the type of event that AUJS would typically take part in, it was felt that it would be a rare opportunity for us to speak to a group of students that would not normally have exposure to a balanced perspective with respect to Israel and her practices. As it turned out, there were many people in attendance who didn’t already have a concrete viewpoint, many of whom were politics students and some of whom were of the Islamic faith. Many of these students eventually started to question the accuracy of the Israel/apartheid analogy. It was clear that our message resonated more strongly with the audience. This was all regardless of the fact that the room had been plastered with posters promoting a boycott of Israel, something which we considered to be very unprofessional and disrespectful from the organisers.

The debate illustrated an important point to us. It shows that most university students do not hold negative attitudes towards Israel, in spite of relentless anti-Israel campaigning by some groups. The majority of university students are intelligent, reasonable people who can recognise a weak argument and who are put off by mindless yelling and confrontational propaganda that is frequently a trademark of anti-Israel groups. The idea that people will listen to Israel’s message if we’re as loud and aggressive as those who seek to demonize Israel is contrary to the way in which most students receive and evaluate information.'

As The Kangaroo Court Prepares To Sit, "Nothing Remotely Like South African Apartheid" Affirms Left-Liberal Writer

A gullible misguided American threesome

My previous post highlights Judge Richard Goldstone's rejection of the apartheid slur regarding Israel.

Benjamin Pogrund, a former deputy editor of the Rand Daily Mail, and from what I've read of his online hardly "a rightwing Zionist", has written an article, aptly headed "Lies told about Israel are beyond belief," also showing up the slur for the misconceived nonsense that it is.

These ringing denunciations of the false and monstrous analogy made between Apartheid era South Africa and the State of Israel come as the Russell Tribunal on Palestine prepares to convene in Cape Town, as foreshadowed in this post of mine, where I liken it to a kangaroo court.

This self-styled "International Peple's Tribunal" intends to

“Consider whether Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people fits the international legal definitions of the crime of apartheid.” 

Read more about this Cape Town event in the interesting spot here:

Explains Benjamin Pogrund  in his article:

An identikit mature female BDSer

'I am writing this now because a flood of anti-Israel propaganda is about to pour over South Africa;

It is coming next month through the Russell Tribunal on Palestine.

The tribunal describes itself "as an International People's Tribunal created by a large group of citizens involved in the promotion of peace and justice in the Middle East". It meets in Cape Town on November 5, 6 and 7.

It's theatre: the actors know their parts and the result is known before they start. Israel is to be dragged into the mud.

If anyone is in any doubt, look at the players: almost without exception, everyone has a publicly known - and hostile - stance towards Israel. Their motivations might vary, but the message they pump is the same.

Words like "tribunal", "jury" and "findings" mislead. There will not be any calm and dispassionate consideration of facts and a desire to understand the complexities resulting from history and wars: a quick Google check tells the story, from the naked prejudices of such as Ronnie Kasrils and John Dugard, to Cynthia McKinney, the former US Congress member whose loss of her seat was attributed to her loopy ideas of a Washington role in the 9/11 terrorism.

Money is part of the game: it's expensive to fly lots of people around the world, to sessions already held in Barcelona and London, now in Cape Town, and the US still to come. The players surely do not stay in youth hostels or live on hamburgers. According to the organisers, the Cape Town event alone is budgeted at R2-million. A French publisher has given à100000. Who is paying the bulk of the huge costs? And why?

And is anyone conscious of the irony of this bit of play-acting while in Israel's northern neighbour, Syria, 3000 pro-democracy protestors have died and the killing continues?'

  His article, aptly headed "Lies Told About Israel Are Beyond Belief," observes:

'There is much passion among South Africans about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's understandable. The struggle against white domination and apartheid was against ethnicity and tribalism. The aim was a united, nonracial South Africa.

Israel, to many South Africans, seems to run counter to this. They view it as an apartheid and racist state; some even say it's worse than apartheid. Its founding ideology, Zionism, is rejected as racism. It is pilloried as a colonialist oppressor of Palestinians.

But merely to believe, or even say, these things doesn't mean they are true. Repeating them over and over doesn't make them true.

Yelling slogans to the effect that "Israel is apartheid" and "Zionism is racism" doesn't make any of it true.

The accusations are not true. This year I spent three-and-a-half months in South Africa, mostly as a Visiting Fellow at the Kaplan Centre at the University of Cape Town, and day after day read condemnations of Israel. Some were justified: Israel is as imperfect a society as anywhere else; moreover, its occupation of the West Bank and siege of the Gaza Strip lay it wide open to criticism.

Yet the attacks go beyond reality. They depict a racist monster which does not exist. I was astonished by the lack of knowledge which leads even well-meaning people into unjustified and cockeyed attitudes. The widespread ignorance also opens the way to manipulation: there are people who, for reasons best known to them, are malevolent and hate-filled towards Israel; it's depressing to read their lies and distortions, and even more to find that they are believed.

A few examples: it is not true, as some claim, that the United Nations did not consult Arabs before voting for partition of Palestine, in November 1947. A UN committee of inquiry was followed by full debate in the General Assembly - and led to voting, with a two-thirds majority, to create an Arab state and a "Jewish state". Both the US and the Soviet Union backed it. Jews accepted partition, Arabs didn't, went to war, and lost. Israel is the UN-sanctioned "Jewish state".

 No one objects to Saudi Arabia having only Muslims as citizens. No one objects to Pakistan and Iran and others declaring themselves an "Islamic state". They are ethnic states. Israel is also an essentially ethnic states. Is it any less valid? Yet why is the "Jewish state" singled out for condemnation?

Equally the attacks on Zionism. Zionism grew at the end of the 19th century as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and within half a century achieved success with Israel's creation. It has been as valid and successful as the liberation movements in Europe during the 19th century and those in Africa and Asia during the 20th century.

Much misunderstood is that Arabs are 20% of Israel's population. As a minority they suffer discrimination; that's wrong, but is hardly unique in the world. Crucially, however, they have the vote and all citizenship rights. On the other hand, Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens and have no Israeli rights; the current international controversy is about them establishing an independent Palestinian state.

 Another accusation is that marriages across the lines are barred, like apartheid's Mixed Marriages Act. The truth is a long way from that and has to do with religious rules - Jewish, Muslim and Christian - going back to the Ottoman empire 100 years ago. Several thousand couples defy the restrictions every year and go abroad to marry; their marriages are legally recognised on their return to Israel.

This sort of distortion is repeated regarding land, education, health and every aspect of society. The bottom line is that there is nothing remotely like South African apartheid.'

"In Israel, There Is No Apartheid" Declares Judge Richard Goldstone

Rather like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, Judge Richard Goldstone earlier this year retracted the substance of his notorious Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, a document whose slanted opinions and selective facts had worked so much mischief on the Israel-demonising front, and continues to do so.

And now,  Judge Goldstone, who as a South African knows a thing or two about what genuine apartheid looks like,writing in the New York Times, has, in a most welcome development, stated unequivocally that Israel is not an apartheid state.  Hopefully, this will undermine the Palestine Solidarity activists who peddle the apartheid slur and urge BDS in making it as much as it will dismay them!

NGO Monitor takes up the story:

'In a continued departure from the inflammatory language and false accusations in the Goldstone Report on the Gaza war, Judge Richard Goldstone today in The New York Times declared, "In Israel, there is no apartheid.” His op-ed article is a direct refutation of the campaigns conducted by a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have used the Goldstone Report to promote boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) and to demonize Israel, says Jerusalem-based research institution NGO Monitor.

"This is a powerful condemnation of the exploitation of the bitter experience of the victims of South African apartheid for use in immoral attacks against Israel," says Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor. "Those who invoke this false analogy to advance BDS, lawfare, and other forms of political warfare against Israel, have been named and shamed by the former South African judge who helped end apartheid and who was also critical of Israeli policies. This is a fatal blow to the BDS movement and the apartheid analogy."

Goldstone notes that "while 'apartheid' can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations."

"NGO superpowers like Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, along with smaller NGOs like Al Haq and Adalah – many of which receive funding from the New Israel Fund (NIF) and European governments – have been central in spreading this false apartheid analogy,” Steinberg adds. "HRW’s Ken Roth was a key figure in orchestrating the Goldstone Report on Gaza – like this report, Roth is now completely discredited. Similarly, Goldstone’s words answer B’Tselem’s Jessica Montell, who has offensively stated that 'In some cases, the situation in the West Bank is worse than apartheid in South Africa.' She, along with the hundreds of other NGO representatives that have demonized Israel through the Durban strategy, are now exposed for their rhetoric that contributes to hatred and stands in sharp contrast to the moral foundations of universal human rights.

Additional key quotes from Goldstone’s op-ed:

• In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute…
• Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.
• South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.
• The mutual recognition and protection of the human dignity of all people is indispensable to bringing an end to hatred and anger. The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.'

Read more here

Meanwhile, Gerald M. Steinberg and Anne Herzberg have edited an important critique of Goldstone's methodology and conclusions, entitled  The Goldstone Report "Reconsidered" – A Critical Analysis.  Published jointly by NGO Monitor and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, this new work can be ordered through Amazon or via NGO Monitor's website, where a list of contributors (who include Alan Dershowitz and other well-known figures) and their topics can be found, along with this statement:.

"Produced under the politicized U.N. Human Rights Council, the fact-finding reflected in the Goldstone Report has been shown to be largely inaccurate. Similarly, international legal claims were distorted in a manner that maximized allegations of Israeli violations, while minimizing Hamas war crimes during the December 2008 January 2009 Gaza War.

Applying a number of academic approaches, the contributors to this book systematically address the flaws of the report and examine its far-reaching consequences. As demonstrated, the Goldstone Report sets a highly flawed example for other investigations of armed conflicts and international justice. Its methodological deficiencies, double standards, misleading interpretations of law, and unsupported conclusions are antithetical to the universal principles of human rights, including the right to self-defense.

The Goldstone Report "Reconsidered" is an essential volume for understanding the principles, as well as the distortions, of human rights and international law,particularly in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict."

The Irish Eyes Not Smiling On Israel: Those of Old Anti-American Warhorse Michael D. Higgins

Michael D. Higgins, veteran Irish leftist politician and poet, who's now, unexpectedly, President of Eire, could never be mistaken for a warm supporter of Israel. (Be sure to look here, which is where I obtained this photo.)  Known for his vehement criticism of the United States as well as of Israel, he first visited Gaza in the 1980s, and in 2004 paid a fulsome tribute to Arafat following the latter's death, attending a candlelit vigil organised by the Ireland-Palestine Soldarity Campaign. He objects to the description of Hamas as a "terrorist" organisation, and in 2007 shared a platform with Hezbollah.

Although his office is largely a ceremonial one, lacking real powers, he's obviously well-positioned to influence public opinion - in a country whose Palestine Solidarity movement is widely considered to be the most virulently anti-Israel in the entire British Isles.

The following speech that he delivered in the Irish Parliament in June 2010, in which he condemns Operation Cast Lead,  asserts that he's "sick and tired" of hearing that supplies are getting into Gaza, abhors the proscription of Hamas, and rails against Israel's attack on the Mavi Marmara, captures something of his attitude - albeit in a deceptively low-key way.  He is good enough (unlike some of Israel's leftist detractors) to denounce rocket attacks on Sderot - but his voice becomes unmistakably ever more indignant against Israel as the speech proceeds.