Baroness Warsi and her strong support for Islamic extremists

Last year I warned that the unelected Baroness Warsi (the Muslim media darling who is an Islamist supremacist) was not only still a member of Cameron's government but actually was awarded by her failure as Tory Party Chairman with a far more powerful role in the Cabinet.

Now, at least some people in the main stream media are looking closely at her activities with a critical eye. Today's Telegraph has an article by Andrew Gilligan exposing the fact that she spoke at a meeting hosted by the terrorist supporting FOSIS (Federation of Student Islamic Societies).

There is a quote at the end of the article from a spokesman for Warsi saying that she attended the meeting

 "..to specifically discuss tackling anti-Muslim hatred, a key priority for the coalition government". 

Why exactly is the government making the tackling of a non-existent problem its priority? And do they not see any irony in 'tackling this problem' by supporting an organization which promotes REAL antisemitism and violence both on campuses and the wider society?

The increasingly unhinged Jewish Chronicle

The JC's steady morphing into a mixture of the Guardian/Haaretz continues unabated (see here, here and here for some of my previous reports on this,  and there is also the excellent website http://jcwatch.wordpress.com/ that  is dedicated to the subject).

In fact, not only does the JC increasingly share the Guardian/Haaretz worldview (i.e. extreme left wing and grudgingly acknowledging Israel's 'right to exist' while frequently providing a platform to vicious anti-Israel bigots) but it is increasingly dominated by writers who really are from the Guardian/Haaretz. I have already noted the fact that Haaretz stooge Anschel Pfeffer is their primary Israel news reporter and we are now also getting the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland on the Comments page more or less every week now (I can save you the bother of reading what he writes since every piece can be summarised as either "as a Jew I wish to express my disgust with the Israeli government" or "as a Jew I wish to express my disgust with orthodox Jews").

Most Jews in the UK are strongly pro-Israeli and they assume that the one newspaper they can rely on to share their views on Israel is the JC. Most of these people get their ONLY news about Israel from the JC and they assume - if anything - that it is strongly biased in favour of Israel. To show how  they are being deceived here are some highlights from today's issue:

•  The whole front page (and page 11) is taken up with Pfeffer's scare story "Two months to sleep soundly" in connection with the growing threats from Iran and Syria, ignoring the irony that it is  Pfeffer and his left-wing colleagues who have continually warned Israel not to take action against Iran as there is no real threat.  I guess in his world he would rather live with a nuclear Iran - and hence not sleep soundly - than stop Iran from getting the bomb. Of course, Pfeffer has failed to report any of the genuinely good news from Israel in the last few weeks such as the shekel being the strongest currency in the world in 2013, and Israel being on the verge of energy independence with the beginning of the gas flowing from its enormous off-shore fields.  In fact, his other main article this week is on Page 13 titled "Thousands hit by Israeli airline strike"

•  On Page 21 (the Judaism page) we have the most offensive article of the week "We must take a stand against settler violence". This is the ultimate inversion of reality perpetuated especially by antisemitic NGOs. There are an incredibly tiny number of minor incidents recorded against Palestinians by 'settlers' (most of which incidents later turn out to be either hoaxes or, as in the case of Mosque daubings, to have been the work of Arabs) - far fewer incidents per head of population than there are acts of brutal racist violence in London. Yet there is a genuine - but unreported by the JC - intifada taking place against Jews in East Jerusalem and in Judea and Sumaria. This involves daily targetting of cars and even school buses with rocks that sometimes end up killing the occupants. The JC has failed to report on any of this, which has been going on now for several months - not even bothering with the story of the small child Adelle Biton who has been on emergency support and unconscious since she was injured in such a rock attack last month. Today was her 3rd birthday.
• On Page 26 with have the full page "JC Essay" by 'broadcaster' John Ware titled "How peace gap might just be bridged" which is full of the usual Kumbayar cliches about the Palestinians really wanting peace if only the Israelis would not be so aggressive, and including gems of wisdom like:

"Does any rational Israeli seriously believe that score of checkpoints, entry permits to Jerusalem, construction of settlements, restrictions on the movement of Palestinians, can continue in perpetuity without some sort of violent outlet, sooner or later"

It is funny how nobody expects Israelis to turn violent even though they have to suffer checkpoints at every single public building they enter, are currently banned from building in their own capital city, are not allowed ANY movement into Palestinian controlled areas, and actually have to face the continual real terrorism of the Palestinians.
But then again it is funny how nobody expects UK Jews to turn violent when they have to put up with the nonsense in the JC week on week.....

• On Page 2 (for the second time in 3 weeks) we have a story "Board Oxfam links stay" about the Board of Deputies link with Oxfam, which was always a scandal and should have been stopped immediately when news got out that Oxfam was funding the antisemitic, terrorist supporting Palestinian charity Miftah. But both articles have simply parroted  statements from Oxfam which not only whitewash the affair but are factually incorrect. Hence both articles are clearly supportive of the Board's ludicrous decision to continue its link with Oxfam. 
• On Page 4 we have an article "BNP set for trouncing in local election" which is one of the typically dozens of articles in any one week that focus on the 'extreme right-wing threat to Jews'. More often than not these focus obsessively on the EDL which is actually the only genuinely pro-Israel political organization in the country.  What you will almost never see in the JC is anything about either Islamic antisemitism or extreme left antisemitism. In fact you are more likely to see articles by those very Islamists and leftists (indeed it is not a joke that the JC has actually used, as its source of material on the EDL, the anti Semite Weyman Bennett who is a leader of the viciously anti-Israel, violent, socialist UAF which the JC laughingly refers to simply as an "anti racist organization").
• On Page 22 we have the Editorial and letters. As usual you will not find a single word of support for Israel on this page (typically Israel is either ignored or criticised) 
• On Page 23 we have the Jonathan Freedland commentary section. No further comment required.

Casual anti-Semitism of the British middle class

Sometimes even the most seemingly insignificant anti-Israel statements reveal, by their complete irrationality, deep-rooted anti-Semitism. I want to recount two recent such statements - one in a newspaper and one I experienced personally.

The latter occurred in a pub in a middle class area of London. A highly intelligent upper-middle class gentleman had arranged an exhibition of local artists' work (including his own) there, and I ended up in a long conversation with him. I told him I was Jewish because we were discussing the use of religious images in art. The man, who described himself as a lapsed Catholic, said he had refused to hang a painting by another artist because it contained images of women in burkas and he said he felt this would be offensive to Muslims. I asked him why he felt it would be offensive and how such an attitude was consistent with the fact that his own displayed artwork contained graphic nudity. His only response was to say that he felt that it was not his job to offend Muslims. Perhaps feeling that the conversation was at this point getting too serious he decided to tell a joke. It was about a landlord having problems with some tenants in his flat and the police being called, leading to the following  'punchline':

Police: "Who are the occupiers?"
Landlord: "The Israelis of course!"

When I told him that the 'joke' was not only completely unfunny, but deeply offensive because it perpetuated a false stereotype about the Jewish nation he said he was shocked. "How could you possibly be offended by that joke. It was on a BBC show".

He did not realise the irony of his remarks and the fact that he had just made it clear how far he would go out of his way never to offend a Muslim, while thinking nothing of offending a Jew. In the subsequent conversation he asked if I was born in the UK and when I told him of course I was born in London, he said in that case I had no right to be offended by a joke like that.

The second example is from the Editorial here in yesterday's Evening Standard.

Evening Standard Editorial, 24 April 2013

Readers of this blog will know of the rampant and obsessive anti-Israel stance of this paper (see here, here and here), but in many respects this particular Editorial is pretty sensible. It is the insertion of the very small statement in relation to Israel that reveals - when you analyse it carefully - irrational contempt.  Al Qaeda's number one stated goal is to kill every Jew in the world. The Al Qaeda Syrian units have already started firing at Israel from the positions it has overran near the Golan Heights in Syria and its leadership has publicly stated that their first goal after defeating Assad will be to destroy Israel, hinting that they will use Syria's massive stockpile of chemical weapons to do this. There is some threat to the stability of Lebanon from an Al Qaeda takeover of Syria as the writer understands. But, unlike to Israel, this is not an existential threat. So does the writer show sympathy to Israel's concerns as he clearly does to Lebanon's and the peaceful people of Syria? No because whereas Lebanon is 'threatened by chaos' the only concern the writer has about Israel is its 'bellicose reaction'. From this read  "just because the Jihadists threaten Israel with extinction and just because they back this up with actual bombings, terrorist attacks and the potential use of chemical weapons, the thing we REALLY have to worry about is the disgraceful notion that Israel might actually takes steps to defend itself".

Update on the Oxfam/Miftah story

I previously posted about Elder of Ziyon's exposure of the Oxfam funded Palestinian 'charity' Miftah and its promotion of antiSemitism. Elder of Ziyon has numerous updates here and here. The latter article contains a response from Oxfam that is almost identical to the one I have just received from Supporter Relations, Oxfam GB following my own letter to them. I have made the following response using some of Elder's points and some new ones of my own (I have agreed with the person I am communicating with that I would not state their name on this site).

Dear XXXX

Thank you for your response but I am afraid it is unsatisfactory for the following reasons:.

1. The 'apology' was not made in Arabic, the language of the essay, so Arab readers
of Miftah will assume that Miftah (and Oxfam also) supports that blood libel. Moreover, you must be aware that Miftah did not issue its English apology until it was pressured to do so.

2.  Miftah have praised suicide bombers under their own name (see http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/miftah-removes-its-essay-praising.html) confirming that direct support for terrorism and anti-Semitism are a major part of Miftah's activities.

3. The section of Miftah's site where the offensive article was published was not a "blog" as you say but an essay section where they republish articles they think are interesting for their readers. They even index the section so their readers can read other articles from the same author, and Nawaf al-Zaru has been featured five times.

4. People who donate to Oxfam would certainly not do so if they were aware it funded organizations like Miftah. Not withstanding its anti-Semitism and terrorist support, when you say

"We have worked with MIFTAH since 2010... implementing Oxfam’s regional project Supporting Women’s Transformative Leadership in Changing Times. The project targets marginalized women and men to support women’s rights and gender justice with the goal of increased empowerment, self-confidence, and leadership roles for women in public and private spheres"

you might think this is something good, but you are simply confirming that Oxfam is spending money on things that have nothing to do with what charity donors in the UK think they are contributing to. In short you are defrauding them.

Unless I hear from you that Oxfam is immediately terminating its support for Miftah I will be reporting Oxfam to the Charities Commission. I will also be contacting my MP about this. It is just not good enough.

Yours

Edgar Davidson

UPDATE 8 April 2013: I have received a response from XXXX  saying

"I forwarded your feedback and comments to our Middle East team who deal with MIFTAH and who are currently in talks with the organisation regarding this matter. We will of course be happy to update you with any further information once we have it." 

At least Oxfam seem to be taking this seriously and are courteous enough to respond. To date I have not even received an acknowledgement from either Comic Relief or - disgracefully - the Board of Deputies of British Jews (who recently announced a partnership with Oxfam).

Update: anti-Israel charities