PSC and the Co-Op: boycotters to boycott the boycotters who boycotted the boycotters?

No the headline is not satire. In 2012 the Co-Op - under pressure from the anti-Israel PSC ("Palestine Solidarity Campaign") decided to impose an Israel boycott. Now its Bank has closed down the accounts of the PSC. The Israel boycotters (PSC) are claiming it is a conspiracy to stop criticism of Israel and will no doubt call for a boycott of the Co-Op (the Israel boycotters) who have now boycotted the PSC (UPDATE: just checked the PSC twitter account and indeed it is full of people saying they will now boycott the Co-Op). It is not quite on a scale of ISIS v Hezbollah, or even Alien v Predator, but it is nevertheless entertaining.

Below is my correspondence in 2012 following the  Co-Op's decision decision to boycott Israeli goods.


First to Co-Op Letter 25 June 2012

Dear Sir/Madam,

Withdrawal of funds (A/C XXXXXX) in protest at Co-Operative’s anti-Semitic anti-Israel policy

I would like you to know that I have today withdrawn all of the funds in this account as a small protest against the Co-op’s despicable anti-Semitic policy that specifically boycotts goods produced by Jewish communities in the disputed West Bank territories. Boycotting Jewish businesses is what the Nazis did in the 1930s. At least my action shows that boycotts can work two ways.

What is sad is that the Co-Op decision has been adopted due to pressure from the “Palestine Solidarity Campaign” – a group of anti-Semitic terrorist-supporting liars and con artists who actually have no interest whatsoever in the welfare of the ‘Palestinians’ but simply want to remove every Jew from the land of Israel. Shame on the Co-op for being hoodwinked by these thuggish goons. The Co-op really should do its homework and find out more about who the PSC really are and whether it really wants to be associated with them.

If you do reply to this letter, please do not bother insulting my intelligence by repeating the nonsensical statements already made about this ‘not being anti-Israel’ because it ‘only applies to goods from illegal West Bank settlements’. The PSC regards the whole of Israel as ‘illegal Jewish settlements’. If it is ‘human rights’ the Co-op is really interested in then there are many dozens of other countries it should be boycotting rather than Israel; one of these would be the Palestinian Authority which treats women on a par with cattle, creams off most of the billions of dollars of Western aid it receives every year into its officials’ Swiss bank accounts, and brainwashes its school children to ‘seek martyrdom’ by killing Jews.

Yours sincerely,

Edgar Davidson

Co-op response from Amanda Bailey (Customer Relations)  19 July 2012

Letter from the Co-Op

My response to Amanda Baily, 4 August 2012

Dear Ms Bailey,

Thank you for your letter of 19th July. I have a number of follow-up questions.

My first set of questions relate to your choice of criteria for boycotting countries. You assert that under your “Human Rights and Trade Policy” you withdraw all trade when there is a ‘broad international consensus a settlement is illegal’ and that ‘there are only two examples of such settlements: the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories and the Moroccan settlements in Western Sahara”.  Before addressing the issue of the legality or otherwise of the Israeli settlements, I note from your website that the most serious humans rights abusers in the world, namely Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe are not on your boycott list. So my questions are:

1. ‘Occupation’  is the only criteria that you mention; what other criteria do you have as part of your “Human Rights and Trade Policy”?

2. Is denial of equal rights to women and/or minorities included in your criteria, and if not why not?

3. Is persecution of gays and lesbians included in your criteria, and if not why not?

4. Is the brutal suppression of ethnic minorities and political dissidents included in your criteria, and if not why not?

5. Is sponsoring and glorifying terrorism included in your criteria, and if not why not?

6. Is state sponsored anti-Semitism included in your criteria, and if not why not?

7. Assuming the answer to at least one of questions 1-6 is ‘yes’ then why are you not boycotting goods from every one of the 58 Muslim countries in the world?

8. Is “conducting illegal wars far from a country’s own borders” one of the criteria, and if so why is the Co-Op not boycotting goods from the USA,  France, Italy, Holland etc. In fact, how comes the Co-Op is not boycotting goods from the UK?

My next set of questions concerns the issue of ‘illegal settlements’ of which you say there are only two examples (one of which is the Israelis):

9. Are you aware that, even according to the United Nations (resolution 242), the West Bank does not belong to any national territory but rather is considered disputed territory whose borders are to be determined under a final status peace agreement?

10. Are you aware of the recent Levy Report that demolishes the false narrative of Israeli settlement and occupation by restating many of the obvious points of law; most significantly that Israel is not an occupying power and did not seize any land from another state. Indeed all of the land that Israel is accused of occupying in the West Bank is actually land that was seized from it by the invading Jordanian and other Arab armies during its 1948 War of Independence?

11. Are you aware that the only legal basis for denouncing the Jews who returned in 1967 to the homes that they had been expelled from in 1948 as “settlers” is by recognizing the Jordanian conquests of those territories. But those conquests were never recognized or accepted. Not even by the international community.

12. Assuming that your claim of a ‘broad international consensus’ is the 2004 International Court of Justice ruling (which Israel did not participate in and which has been demolished by the Levy report) are you aware that one of the  ICC ‘judges’ was  Al Khasawneh who had a blatant conflict of interest, since he was an advisor to the King of Jordan and later became the Prime Minister of Jordan?

13. Why does your notion of occupied territories fail to include the approximately 160 other territories around the world that are ‘disputed’ (each of which necessarily involves one country ‘occupying it’ against the wishes of some other country or national group)?

14. In particular why does your definition not include genuinely brutal occupations such as: the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus, or even the Russian occupation of Abkhazia, especially as China, Russia and Turkey all of have infinitely worse human rights records than Israel? 

15. You are presumably aware that one of the disputed international territories is the Falklands Islands, which Argentina claims is illegally occupied by the UK. A significant majority of countries in the UN now agree with the Argentine position. So, as per question 8 above, why is the Co-Op not boycotting the UK?

16. Are you aware that any notion of an ‘international consensus’ is fundamentally irrelevant because the United Nations contains 58 Muslim states – all  human rights abusers as described above - who provide a built-in ‘consensus’ on any anti-Israel motion that anybody cares to think of? 

My next question concerns your assertion that the Co-Op “continue to seek increased trade with Palestinian businesses.” The corrupt Palestinian Authority is not only guilty of all of the human rights offences listed above, but is actually one of the world’s worst offenders. For anti-Semitism the PA truly are world-beaters with their indoctrination of children (becoming a suicide bomber to kill Jews is the highest ambition of most Palestinians children); in the Palestinian Authority selling land to a Jew (not an Israeli please note) is punishable by death and numerous Palestinian citizens have been killed for this ‘crime’. So:

17: How is the Co-Op’s “Human Rights and Trade Policy” consistent with seeking increased traded with such a brutal, corrupt regime?

And finally, three general questions:

18. Do you believe that Israel – the only liberal democracy in the Middle East where all minorities have equal rights – is a worse human rights violator than Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Russia, China etc?

19. How is your policy to boycott goods produced by Jewish communities in the West Bank anything other than pure anti-Semitism?

20. How and why did the Co-Op get hoodwinked into a nonsensical hypocritical policy (that will ultimately be self-damaging) by a small group of congenital anti-Semites disguised as ‘pro-Palestinian’ activists.

Yours sincerely,

Edgar Davidson

Amanda Baily response , 4 September 2012

My response to Amanda Baily, 7 September 2012

Dear Ms Baily

The fact that you made no attempt to answer even one of my questions means it is safe to conclude that the only rational definition of what constitutes an abuse of the Co-Op's “Human Rights and Trade Policy” is that the country must be named "Israel". In particular we can conclude that:

1. ‘Occupation’ is the only criteria you consider as part of your “Human Rights and Trade Policy”

2. Denial of equal rights to women and/or minorities is NOT one of your criteria of interest

3. Persecution of gays and lesbians is NOT one of your criteria of interest

4. Brutal suppression of ethnic minorities and political dissidents is NOT one of your criteria of interest

5. Sponsoring and glorifying terrorism is NOT one of your criteria of interest

6. State sponsored anti-Semitism is NOT one of your criteria of interest

7. The Co-Op is happy to trade with all 58 Muslim countries in the world even though they are all guilty of the human rights abuses listed in 2-6.

8. Conducting "illegal wars far from a country’s own borders” is NOT one of your criteria of interest and that is why the Co-Op is not boycotting goods from the USA, France, Italy, Holland ... and the UK etc.

9. The Co-op is selective in which 'international consensus' it accepts. In particular, it rejects United Nations resolution 242, which specifies that the West Bank does not belong to any national territory but rather is considered disputed territory whose borders are to be determined under a final status peace agreement.

10. The Co-op also rejects the findings of the recent Levy Report.

11. The Co-Op is not aware  that the only legal basis for denouncing the Jews who returned in 1967 to the homes that they had been expelled from in 1948 as “settlers” is by recognizing the Jordanian conquests of those territories, even though those conquests were never recognized or accepted. Not even by the international community.

12. The Co-op are not aware that one of the ICC ‘judges’ who was responsible for the 'international legal ruling' they refer to was Al Khasawneh who had a blatant conflict of interest, since he was an advisor to the King of Jordan and later became the Prime Minister of Jordan

13. The Co-op's notion of occupied territories fails to include the approximately 160 other territories around the world that are ‘disputed’ (each of which necessarily involves one country ‘occupying it’ against the wishes of some other country or national group)?

14. The Co-op's definition does not include genuinely brutal occupations such as: the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus, or even the Russian occupation of Abkhazia, especially as China, Russia and Turkey all of have infinitely worse human rights records than Israel

15. The Co-op are not aware that one of the disputed international territories is the Falklands Islands, which Argentina claims is illegally occupied by the UK and that a significant majority of countries in the UN now agree with the Argentine position.

16. The Co-op are not aware that any notion of an ‘international consensus’ is fundamentally irrelevant because the United Nations contains 58 Muslim states – all human rights abusers as described above - who provide a built-in ‘consensus’ on any anti-Israel motion that anybody cares to think of

17. The Co-op is happy to “continue to seek increased trade with Palestinian businesses.” despite the corrupt Palestinian Authority being guilty of all of the human rights offences listed above

18. The Co-op believes that Israel – the only liberal democracy in the Middle East where all minorities have equal rights – is a worse human rights violator than Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Russia, China etc

19.  The Co-op's policy to boycott goods produced by Jewish communities in the West Bank is indeed pure anti-Semitism

20. The Co-Op did indeed get hoodwinked into a nonsensical hypocritical policy (that will ultimately be self-damaging) by a small group of congenital anti-Semites disguised as ‘pro-Palestinian’ activists.

Exposing the antisemitic scorecards yet again

The entire main stream media continues to use the antisemitic scorecards (that I exposed previously) to 'summarise' the current Arab intifada against Jewish Israelis. The following is a hypothetical (but not unlikely scenario - see below for real case) that exposes the perniciousness of this approach.

 In the Gush Etzion attack last week's the terrorist shot at a group of people killing an Israeli Jew, a Jewish tourist and an Arab. For the 'scorecards' this officially counted as a tie:

One dead Israeli and one dead Palestinian.  

This is not a joke - this is exactly how the numbers for that attack have been added to the figures you see repeated everywhere.

If the terrorist had been killed during the attack (sadly he wasn't)  the scorecard would have been one dead Israeli two dead Palestinians. You would have thought by now that somebody in the western media agencies who propagate these antisemitic scorecards  would have realised how irrational they are?

See also:

The antisemitic scorecards are back - so here are some alternatives

Ezra Schwartz and Tariq Khdeir: the perfect example of Obama (and the world's) indifference to Jewish lives

See:

• US disappointed with sentence for Israeli cop
• Washington still silent over murder of Ezra Schwartz
• Killing Jewish babies: no sympathy, no condemnation, no news 

The differences between ISIS terrorists and Palestinian terrorists

Lots of people have been asking why the world mourns French victims of ISIS terrorists but not Israeli victims of Palestinians terrorists, and why on days like today (when Palestinian terrorists massacred several Israelis in different attacks) not a single main stream news channels even reports on the attacks. Well the following chart explains very clearly why. You see ISIS and the Palestinian terrorists have absolutely nothing in common!!!!

But just when you were convinced they have nothing in common, the following chart should quell your concerns!!!

See also:

• Yesterday's terrorist attacks in Israel and Paris highlight media/politicians hypocrisy 
• Rules and Guidelines for reporting about Israel
• If the media reported terrorist attacks like they report those against Israel

British Red Cross covering for Palestinian Liars while International Red Cross threatens those who expose the truth

This is an important update to a previous post that contained my correspondence with the British Red Cross in relation to the events of 13 November in Israel, when a Jewish family was attacked by terrorists and a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance refused to help those injured.  After my second letter I received a response saying

Please read the statement from the International Committee of the Red Cross concerning this incident which is fully supported by the British Red Cross:

The ICRC statement (by its Head of Delegation in "Israel and the Occupied Territories Jacques De Maio") unquestioningly accepts the Palestinian version of events and rejects the Israeli version. It includes the following gem:

The Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) has immediately provided factual accounts, firmly rejected these allegations, and unequivocally reaffirmed its commitment to impartial response. The PRCS’ record of principled and strictly humanitarian action is uncontested and well recognized.

In fact (as brilliantly documented in Tuvia Tenenbom's Why European NGOs and the Red Cross are real enemies in Israel) the ICRC and the PRCS have a long history not just of indifference to the suffering of Israeli civilians, but also at least indirect support for terrorism. The ICRC statement also includes the following implict threat against those who seek to expose the Palestinian Red Crescent disgusting behaviour:

What we call on for now is for all to act responsibly and better support both national societies. That includes refraining from making serious accusations against either National Society that do not take into account the facts on the ground.

I have sent another follow-up response to the British Red Cross:

You did not read my letter.  My letter was a follow-up to your response in which you simply whitewashed the accusations against the Palestinian Red Crescent. If you are unable to respond to the specific points I made then I have to infer that the British Red Cross is hiding behind a false statement whitewashing the disgraceful and illegal behaviour of the Palestinian Red Crescent. I will therefore be taking this matter further since it means the British Red Cross is complicit in a conspiracy to withold the truth. I will repeat the key points and questions that I was asking you in my follow-up:

• Why have you simply repeated the story provided by the Palestinian Red Crescent, which is at odds with the statement provided by the victims and other evidence (see, e.g. https://anneinpt.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/the-red-cross-defends-the-red-crescents-neglect-of-israeli-murder-victims/)
• Based on the Palestinian Red Crescent's extensive history of lying, as well as direct support for terrorism, can you explain why you believe their version of events (which is not supported by any evidence) and not that of the victims and Israeli authorities (which is supported by recorded telephone calls)?
• Can you explain the following obvious flaw in the Palestinian Red Crescent version of events. They say "their team believed the situation had become unsafe for Palestinian Red Crescent personnel to remain." In what possible sense was it unsafe for them to remain? If they are inferring that their own lives were in danger because of the presence of Israeli emergency personnel, then this is not only a lie but also a potential blood libel and inversion of reality. It is not Israeli emergency personnel who endanger lives - only Palestinians.
• Also please note that the Palestinians do not regard the killings of the Israeli civilians as 'tragic events'. In fact, there was as usual widespread celebration among the Palestinians over the killings with praise for the 'heroic operation' not just from Hamas and other terrorist groups but also from members of the Palestine Authority.
• And also note that the victims were a family who were about to celebrate the wedding of their daughter (which was due to take place on 17 November). You should take the trouble of watching that young lady talk about her postponed wedding: https://www.facebook.com/ch2news/videos/10153337512537523/

Yours

Edgar Davidson

See also:

•  Anne Klausner: Red Cross defends Red Crescent's neglect of Israeli murder victims
• Tuvia Tenenbom Why European NGOs and the Red Cross are real enemies in Israel
• Letter: Palestinian ambulance refused to treat Jewish victims of terrorist attack
  Yesterday's terrorist attacks in Israel and Paris highlight media and politicians' hypocrisy
• Anti-Israel charities
• How the Red Cross funds Palestinian terrorism

Letter: Palestinian Red Crescent Ambulance refused to treat Jewish terrorist victims

See 19 Nov update to this story here.

Since the notoriously anti-Israel International Committee of the Red Cross has already tried to whitewash this incident, I have written the following self-explanatory letter to the British Red Cross (information@redcross.org.uk)

Dear Sir/Madam

I would be grateful for your opinion about the incident on 13 November 2015 near Hebron when a Jewish family including several young children was attacked by Palestinian terrorists resulting in the death of the father Yaakov Litman and 18-year-old son Netanel Litman.

You can find the details of the terrorist attack, as described by Noa Litman who survived it, here:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/203414

In the words of the survivors of the attack the Palestinian Red Crescent Ambulance refused to treat the victims, presumably because they were Jews. The subsequent 'denial' by the Palestinian Red Crescent is, as is common from most official statements emanating from the Palestine Authority, a pack of lies; indeed they have been proven to be liars on many previous occasions when they denied claims that Palestinian Red Crescent Ambulances were being used to carry terrorists. For example, during the 2014 Gaza war, Hamas terrorists routinely travelled in Red Crescent Ambulances to carry out attacks: http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Analysis-Fighting-terrorists-who-move-around-in-ambulances-363498

The Palestinian Red Crescent operates under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross and I would like to know what the British Red Cross is going to do about this.

Yours

Edgar Davidson

Here is their response (which actually arrived within 3 hours): and my follow-up:

Many thanks for your email concerning the tragic events that occurred on the 13th November near Hebron.

The British Red Cross understands that a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance arrived and started providing First Aid to the wounded. A few minutes later, two Israeli ambulances, one belonging to the Israeli army and another from Magen David Adom, arrived at the scene. The Palestinian Red Crescent reported that their ambulances left the incident as Israeli paramedics had arrived and were providing medical care to casualties and that their team believed the situation had become unsafe for Palestinian Red Crescent personnel to remain.

The Palestine Red Crescent Society, like other Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations (including the British Red Cross and the Magen David Adom), adheres to the Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0513.pdf ). These Fundamental Principles require all Red Cross and Red Crescent actors to provide impartial assistance, making no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. We endeavour to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress.

The British Red Cross highlights the need for all parties to a conflict to respect International Humanitarian Law and prohibit all attacks on civilians and medical personnel engaged in the provision of humanitarian relief.

Thank you again for your email and please do contact us again should you require any further information.

Kind Regards

And here is my follow-up:

Thank you for your prompt response. Unfortunately, you have simply repeated the story provided by the Palestinian Red Crescent, which is at odds with the statement provided by the victims.

Based on their extensive history of lying, as well as direct support for terrorism, can you explain why you believe their version of events and not that of the victims and Israeli authorities (which is supported by recorded telephone calls)?

There is also an obvious flaw in the Palestinian Red Crescent version of events. They say "their team believed the situation had become unsafe for Palestinian Red Crescent personnel to remain." In what possible sense was it unsafe for them to remain? If they are inferring that their own lives were in danger because of the presence of Israeli emergency personnel, then this is not only a lie but also a potential blood libel and inversion of reality. It is not Israeli emergency personnel who endanger lives - only Palestinians.

Also please note that the Palestinians do not regard the killings of the Israeli civilians as 'tragic events'. In fact, there was as usual widespread celebration among the Palestinians over the killings with praise for the 'heroic operation' not just from Hamas and other terrorist groups but also from members of the Palestine Authority.

Yours Edgar Davidson

See also:
Yesterday's terrorist attacks in Israel and Paris highlight media and politicians' hypocrisy

LSE's Middle East Centre hosted a workshop on Israel - but only invited anti-Israel activists to speak

See 9 Dec 2016 update

I am in the middle of correspondence with Professor Craig Calhoun, Director of LSE in connection with issues of antisemitism and discrimination by the LSE's Middle East Research Centre. This is partly based on the fact the Centre's leading members recently signed the boycott Israel letter, but there are other issues going back several years. I cannot yet reveal all of the details of the dispute, but Calhoun has really shot himself in the foot with the following defence against one of the accusations (namely that the Centre discriminates against Israel). He said:

 The Centre holds events on Israel. The last one was a public event in September on “taking the pulse of Palestine-Israel 20 years after Oslo”. The Centre was also involved in hosting the Israeli Ambassador in February 2015 for an LSE public lecture. In addition, the Centre has a Visiting Fellow, Dr Rebecca Steinfeld, who works on Israel.

Here is my response to that particular defence:

It turns out that this response is rather embarrassing for you since it would be difficult to find better examples that prove the accusations I have made about the Centre's discriminatory policy against Israel.  Let's analyse each of these examples in turn: 

"The September event". First of all its title was not simply “taking the pulse of Palestine-Israel 20 years after Oslo” as you state. Its full title was “From the River to the Sea: taking the pulse of Palestine-Israel 20 years after Oslo” I suspect you missed out the start of the title since those are the very words chanted by anti-Israel fanatics with the objective of a ‘one state solution’ without Jews. Of more substance however, is the fact that the event involved seven speakers, every one of whom is an anti-Zionist activist. Is that what you call balance? They were:

• Mandy Turner: She is as a member of the anti-Zionist "al Shabaka Palestinian Policy Network". In addition to being one of your Visiting Fellows she is also the Director of the Kenyon Institute  (Council for British Research in the Levant) in East Jerusalem. This Institute has supported the BDS campaign which ultimately seeks the total destruction of Israel as a Jewish State.
• Cherine Hussein: a fourth rate academic whose only publication seems to be her pretentious PhD which argues for the abolition of the Jewish state in favour of a one-state Palestine ('from the river to the sea').
•  Mansour Nsasra: he is a researcher focused on the Arab Bedouin residents of Israel and obsessively promotes a false and antisemitic narrative of  Jewish settlers forcing the Bedouin from their homes.
•  Toufic Hadad: a Palestinian socialist fanatic who seeks the destruction of the Jewish State and pushes the "Israel is an apartheid state" lie.
•  Dimi Reider: the token "Israeli". Except, as with every Israeli who has actually been involved in any way with the Middle East Centre, he is an extreme leftist anti-Zionist (although, in his own words, he prefers to be called a “non-Zionist”). He writes for the anti-Zionist magazine +972 (see also here) 
• Raja Khalidi: a "US citizen whose family comes from Jerusalem"  he writes about "the Palestinian people’s confrontation with settler colonialism." He is currently based at the Palestinian Bir Zeit University - a Hamas supporting institute with a record of both    producing and supporting terrorists who kill Jewish civilians. To get a feel for the depth of their antisemitism, last year they ejected one of the world's most active anti-Zionists (Amira Hass, who had come to speak) on the grounds that she was a Jewish Israeli.
• Diana Bhotto: yet another anti-Israel activist who supports the total destruction of the Jewish State.

"The hosting of the Israeli Ambassador in February 2015 for an LSE public lecture"
You say "The Centre was also involved" in this. Perhaps you do not follow what happens at your own Institute? The event degenerated into a total farce with the ambassador being silenced. The report there says:

The protesters blocked 3/4 of the entrance (by their own admission) and when they couldn't stop Taub from talking, they pulled the fire alarm in order to silence him. The alarm was turned off after a few minutes and the speech continued with protesters outside screaming about Israel. One student even bore a placard stating, "murderers not welcome at LSE."

But in what sense was the “Centre involved in hosting the event” as you assert? I suspect its only involvement was in the demonstration to stop Ambassador Taub speaking because the event was NEVER even listed as one associated with the Centre. Indeed the proof of this is that the Centre publicised 8 public events in Feb 2015 (including one on 2 Feb by Dr Filippo Dionigi which was very sympathetic to the terrorist organisation Hezbollah) but the Ambassador's talk was never mentioned.

"The hosting of Visiting Fellow, Dr Rebecca Steinfeld  who works on Israel."
To cite Rebecca Steinfeld as an example of the Centre’s balanced approach to Israel is not just scraping the barrel, but an insult to my intelligence. She is an active member of the anti-Israel organisation “Jews for Justice for Palestinians”. She is not only obsessively anti-Zionist but also anti-Jewish since she has campaigned to ban one of the main pillars of the religion (circumcision) - a campaign which got her thrown off the Jewish Board of Deputies in 2011. In her truly bizarre and third rate research, which is focused on “the politics of genital alteration”,  Steinfeld claims that “Israel has established and maintained an ethnically selective pro-nationalist policy that seeks to simultaneously encourage a higher Jewish birth-rate and a lower non-Jewish one – specifically Palestinian-Arab – with the aim of ensuring a Jewish majority through internal population growth.” Her PhD supervisor was the anti-Zionist historian Prof. Avi Shlaim. Steinfeld  is also a regular writer for the anti-Zionist newspaper Haaretz where she fires incessant insults at the Jewish state.

I do not believe that you can actually provide a single example in the Centre’s six-year history where they have hosted a person or event actually representing main stream Israeli opinion. If, as either you or some of your colleagues seem to believe, that extreme leftist anti-Zionists are representative of Israeli opinion and politics, then how do you explain the fact that in democratic election after election, parties with those views have not only failed to get elected in Israel, but have been getting diminishing numbers of votes?

What is clear is that things are not getting any better at the Centre or the LSE generally. I see that just a couple of weeks ago the LSE yet again hosted an event glorifying the terrorist murder of Jews in Israel. I also see that one of the Centre’s forthcoming speakers is none other than the totally discredited antisemite Abdul Bari Atwan who already brought shame to LSE in 2010 when he made an antisemitic speech there that was captured on video. Atwan is also infamous for stating in 2010 that “If Iranian Missiles Hit Israel, I Will Dance in Trafalgar Square”.

See 9 Dec 2016 update

Previous links

• LSE over-represented with jerks signing Israel boycott letter
• LSE 's New Middle East Centre eradicates Israel
• LSE's anti-Israel Middle East Centre: Update 
• Another update to the LSE Middle East Centre saga
• Yet another update to the LSE story
• LSE Director forced to resign  
• Israelis barred from applying to the LSE's Middle East Research Centre
• Guess which Israelis are welcome to speak at the Centre .... 
• Update on LSE Middle East Centre

See also:

• LSE hosts exhibition honouring Palestinian terrorists
• Murder of Israelis glorified at LSE
• Israeli ambassador's talk disrupted at LSE
• Academics vote to boycott themselves 

Yesterday's terrorist attacks in Israel and Paris highlight media and politicians' hypocrisy

Ya'akov Litman who was murdered along with his 18-year-old son, Natanel

Even without the enormous story of the terrorist attacks in Paris the main stream media was always going to ignore the horrific terrorist attack that took place several hours earlier in Israel. The Litman family were travelling near Hebron to a family celebration (their daughter was getting married in 4 days time) when Muslim terrorists attacked their car leaving Ya'akov and his 18-year-old son Natanel dead and his wife and four young children injured and traumatized. What makes the story even worse - and highlights the sick mentality of the Palestinians - is that a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance at the scene refused to treat them.Varda Epstein has a very good article about the Litman family tragedy. and here is a video of the daughter who was getting married.

Today the Telegraph asserts: "The brutality of this attack shows that we are not dealing with an enemy that can be negotiated with, only confronted and beaten."

Except, of course, they are talking about the Paris attacks - they do not care at all about the killing of Jews in Israel, which is why you will never hear any such statement when terrorists attack Israel as they are doing now on a daily basis...  even though these are the same terrorists (Sunni Muslims who originate from the Muslim Brotherhood). And while the Telegraph's message "Vive La France: The world is with you" is heartfelt, it is one they would never apply to Israel.

And while on the subject of hypocrisy yesterday morning on LBC Nick Ferrari was whooping for joy at the news that Muslim terrorist Jihadi John was killed in a targeted drone strike. That's the same same Nick Ferrari who goes apoplectic with rage when Israelis target Muslim terrorists in the act of trying to kill Israeli civilians. Indeed the same Nick Ferrari who said on air in 2012 that he 'mourned' the Hamas terrorists who were killed in a drone strike by Israel. In fact the entire media (which routinely rages at Israel for targeting terrorists) was yesterday today rejoicing at the targeted killing of a terrorist. And today the entire media (which routinely ignores terrorist attacks against Israel and rages at Israel for responding) is mourning the terrorist attacks against France and demanding a strong response.

See also:

• Reporting the Paris attacks
• If the media reported previous acts of violence like they are now reporting those against Israeli civilians
• How the media distinguishes from the truth and lies about Israel
• Compare and contrast responses to terrorism in Israel
• Rules and Guidelines for Western reporting on Israel 
• Media ignores or dehumanizes murdered Israelis
• Responding to Israel Apartheid week 

Reporting Paris attacks and Netanyahu statement*

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu today issued the following statement in the light of the tit-for-tat violence which yesterday claimed the lives of at least 8 Muslim militants in Paris, along with some French settlers. 

I strongly condemn the ongoing cycle of violence in France and call on both sides to show restraint. While I believe that France has a right to exist, our continued support for France's sovereignty cannot be guaranteed if the French continue with their disproportionate response and suppression against its Muslim citizens. We cannot sit idly by and witness the French security forces launch attacks against outnumbered Muslim fighters as we witnessed in the theatre in Paris yesterday. The brutal killing of the Muslims in these attacks is inflaming Muslim feelings around the world, especially as only one French police officer was killed. In Israel 300,000 of our peaceful Muslims citizens marched through Jerusalem today to protest the French actions and we have to consider their feelings. The French government has to understand that there is no military solution to this conflict. They should immediately abide by the UN resolution we proposed last week to evacuate all non-Muslim French from occupied Paris, handing it over to the elected representatives of the moderate wing of ISIS.

Also Israel approved the ISIS proposal for membership of the International Criminal Court and, if the French do not withdraw from Paris, Israel will not stand in the way of ISIS prosecuting the French Government. Israel will also reconsider its decision not to impose sanctions against the French if the French Government fails to release all convicted Muslim criminals from their jails as an immediate gesture for peace (as agreed in the recent joint Israel-US-ISIS memorandum).

*Satire: but this is exactly how the media and France has reacted to similar attacks against Israel.

See also:

• Yesterday's terrorist attacks in Israel and Paris highlight media/politicians hypocrisy 
• Rules and Guidelines for reporting about Israel
• If the media reported terrorist attacks like they report those against Israel
• Israel PM: "France has right to exist but response must not be disproportionate 

And this excellent commentary by Mark Steyn about the Paris attacks ans the hypocrisy.

Why has nobody called out these 'Israel supporting' Conservatives for their hypocrisy?

The EU labelling of Jewish (and only Jewish) products from the 'occupied territories' (which includes Jerusalem and the Golan Heights that presumably the EU wants Israel to concede to either the butcher Assad or ISIS) is the most blatant piece of antisemitic discrimination to come out of Europe since the Nazi Nuremberg Laws.  But what is puzzling me is why nobody from the Jewish community in the UK is questioning the role of 'Israel supporting' David Cameron in this. For once Cameron can't even pretend to hide behind the EU on this one because his government has actually been the main sponsor for this antisemitic law in the EU, continually pushing the EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini whenever there were obstacles.

As is also clear from the current slavering over Boris Johnson (who has continually slammed Israel for 'disproportinate violence against Palestinians', claimed Iran poses absolutely no threat to anybody, and who insists that Islamic terrorism never has anything to do with Islam) the British Jewish Community sets spectacularly low bars over who it considers to be a 'true friend of Israel'.

See also

• Cameron: hypocrite and liar
• David Cameron: an ignorant bigot
• Variety of policies offered by UK political parties

European tourists being sacrified to cover up Islamist threat

Tel Aviv, 7 November 2015

Sitting on beautiful Tel Aviv beach this afternoon (where sadly tourists are few and far between) I was thinking about something I wrote in June - when British tourists were massacred on a beach in Tunisia.  I wrote that the UK Government and media were partly to blame for the tourists' deaths due to the obsession to downplay and cover up the Islamist threat. This obsession is not restricted to Western Europe and the USA. The fact that 23 flights per day from Russia to Sharm El-Sheikh were still operating after last Saturday's bombing of a Russian plane by ISIS is confirmation of this (many flights from the UK were operating also right up until 3 days ago). The obsession not to be seen as 'Islamophobic' was surely also the reason why almost all media 'talking heads' for 5 days after the Russian plane bombing were still insisting that this must have been an accident - despite the fact that ISIS had not only claimed it as a bombing publicly within minutes but had posted a video of the plane blowing up in mid-air.

Now we discover that the British Government has known for months about the specific threat and lack of security at Sharm El-Sheikh airport and also that a British plane was attacked by a missile there in June. Yet these facts were also withheld from the British public. It is also important to note that, while the media focuses obsessively on what happens in Israel, it has ignored the fact that the entire Sinai peninsular has been a war zone for three years. Most of the British public are also unaware of the multiple terrorist attacks specifically targeted against tourists that have taken place in Sharm El-Sheikh and the rest of Sinai in the last 10 years.

I wrote this in June:

I am certainly not suggesting people should be frightened away from visiting places because of the threats of terrorism. But it is interesting that, while millions of Brits holiday in Islamic Mediterranean countries - where they are regarded as disgusting infidels by the bulk of the population and where there is a real and imminent terrorist threat to them -  only a handful of (non-Jewish) Brits ever visit Israel.  This is mainly because of the perception - again promoted by the government and media - that it is Israel which is the place to be avoided for reasons including the terrorist threat. Yet, while Muslim terrorists certainly continue to target native Israelis, attacks targeting foreign tourists have been almost non-existent because of effective Israeli security. Contrast this with 'security' in the Muslim countries where, in most cases, the 'security' people have been working with the terrorists when attacks happened.

While the government and media continue to peddle the 'Islam is a religion of Peace' lie and the 'Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam' lie, uninformed European tourists will continue to be murdered for believing it. And they could be holidaying instead in the sun of Tel Aviv and Eilat.

Tel Aviv, 7 November 2015

Tel Aviv, 7 November 2015

Sunset, Tel Aviv, 7 November 2015

Disgraceful response from Foreign Office to Hammond's anti-Israel stance

On 9 October I made a formal complaint to the Foreign Office following the appalling statement by the Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond in which he blamed Israel's 'occupation' and 'violence by Palestinians and Israeli settlers' for the multiple unprovoked terrorist attacks against Israeli kids and pensioners. I have now received the following response which I think is contemptible because not only does it seem to confirm Hammond's belief but it clearly tries to draw moral equivalence between Israelis defending themselves against violence on one hand and and their terrorist attackers on the other hand. And people still think Cameron is 'pro-Israel'? It might be in more polite and diplomatic language, but there is nothing in this that is much different to what Jeremy Corbyn says, and it is no surprise that the Palestinians carry on using violence when they are never held to account by governmenrs like the UK.
 

05 November 2015 

Dear Mr Davidson, 

Thank you for your email of 10 October to the Prime Minister about Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs). This has been passed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for a response. 

The Near East Department in the FCO has been asked to reply. As Tobias Ellwood, the FCO Minister responsible for our relations with the Middle East, said in his statement of 13 October and the Foreign Secretary said in his statement of 9 October, we are deeply concerned by the recent violence across the OPTs and Israel. We strongly condemn all acts of violence and all incitement to commit acts of violence. Since the start of the current violence we have spoken regularly to both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government, urging them to use their influence to de-escalate the tensions. You have raised particular concerns about the response of the Palestinian Authority’s actions.

The UK has continually made clear in conversations with the Palestinian Authority that the best way to achieve a two-state solution is through negotiations. However, in order to achieve this, there must be an environment conductive to peace. At this current time our focus is for all parties to take the necessary action to deescalate current tensions across Israel and the OPTs. The Foreign Secretary raised the importance of this with President Abbas on 9 October and HM Consul General in Jerusalem has raised with Palestinian Chief Negotiator, Sa’eb Erekat, on 8 October as well as with Amal Jadou, Palestinian Assistant Minister for European Affairs, on 21 October. The context of the current violence is the enduring tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A just and lasting resolution that ends the occupation and delivers peace for both Israelis and Palestinians is long overdue. We look to all parties, including Israel, to show through policies and actions that their commitment to the two state solution is genuine.

Every Israeli and Palestinian has a right to live in peace and security. It is therefore vital that all parties and leaders take actions and use words which will encourage calm and decrease tensions. We will continue our longstanding policy of supporting a negotiated two state solution as the only way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all. We do not underestimate the challenges, but if both parties show bold leadership, peace is possible. The UK is ready to do all it can to support this goal.

On behalf of the Near East Department Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Brief view from Israel

Tel Aviv beach yesterday: pleasant but quiet

Veiled Muslim women in central Tel Aviv supermarket

I spend a lot time in Israel and, having arrived Tuesday after last being here just before the current round of anti-semitic attacks started 4 weeks ago, the change of mood is even more dramatic than expected. The streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are, as expected much quieter than usual (even allowing for it being November) but people who were previously most determined to embrace their Arab Muslim neighbours and co-workers have had a really rude awakening and admit to being genuinely nervous in their presence.

And, for the first time ever, even the most left-wing and laid back Tel Avivians now recognise the scale of bias and lies being propagated by Western media - whenever I have spoken with them about that before they refuse to believe there is such bias. For example, yesterday morning a Canadian 'tourist' came into our local mobile phone shop (whose genial owner we know well). He wanted a sim card and started asking why Israeli soldiers were deliberately killing Palestinian children. The owner (who in the past would have laughed off something like that) told the guy he was not going to sell him a sim card and that he should f*ck off. Good job too.

One piece of good news is that the kid who was critically injured during the Pisgat Za'ev stabbing (he is in my nephew's class at school)  is recovering at home. However, he is in a traumatized state - scared and screaming when anybody -even friends -  comes near him.

CST: Becoming part of the problem rather than the solution?

CST boasting of the help they provide to other minority groups

CST (Community Security Trust) is a non-profit organisation supposedly dedicated to protecting British Jews. Its volunteers do an excellent job, for example, guarding synagogues and Jewish schools and events. But the expression "Lions led by donkeys" now seems appropriate.

Increasingly, CST's leadership see their role as fighting all forms of prejudice against minorities and in doing so are mostly ignoring the most virulent form of antisemitism now in the UK (namely that which is dressed up as "anti-Zionism"). Indeed, just last week I reported on the pathetic statement from CST  in response to Kaufman's anti-Semitism and blood libel - their statement managed to give a detailed report of Kaufman's speech but completely avoided any mention of Kaufman's blood libels against Israel even though that was by far the dominant part of the speech.  More worryingly, I just received the above FaceBook posting from CST that links to this article on their website  The article brags about how CST is setting the standards for "reducing prejudice and bigotry of all forms". In particular, the article boasts that CST

"helped in the creation of Tell MAMA, a Muslim community initiative to measure and combat anti-Muslim hate crimes."

While I knew that the Board of Deputies and CST had worked with Tell MAMA and anti-Israel Muslim activists like Baroness Warsi (I have reported on this several times before) it was news (and a shock) to me to discover that CST had actually helped to create this organisation, which is run by a Muslim activist called Fiyaz Mughal.  For those who do not know about him or Tell MAMA, here is a snippet from one of my previous posts:   

Fiyaz Mughal has been exposed by the Daily Telegraph as using Government funding (via his 'Tell Mama' website) to massively exaggerate the scale of 'Islamaphobic attacks'. Moreover, reports have also claimed that he used the same Government funding to sue a pro-Israel lady (Ambrosine Chetrit) simply for criticising the Tell Mama organisation in a twitter message. His lawyer Farooq Bajwa, who previously represented the Palestinian blood libel cleric Sheikh Raed Sala, sent a letter to Mrs Chetrit's home address,which she had not made public, demanding an apology and damages. Mrs Cherit said: “It is very worrying and scary. All the people who have been threatened by Tell Mama are pro-Israeli.”  While even the spineless Cameron Government has lost patience with Fiyaz Mughal, the Board of Deputies continues to positively slobber over him. 

And here is another:

When Fiyaz Mughal used his UK Government funded 'tell MAMA' organisation to report "Islamaphobic attacks" in the UK,  Tim Burton of Liberty GB Radio tweeted that Fiyal Mughal was “a mendacious grievance-mongering taqiyya-artist”. Incredibly the West Midlands Police charged Burton with racially aggravated harassment. Fortunately, when the case came to Court the role taqiyya was fully explained and the judge threw out the case against Burton. However, in one of the most ludicrous acts of dhimmitude imaginable the discredited Mughal continues to be feted by Britain's official Jews, with the new announcement that the CST will work ever more closely with him and his bogus group.

While CST continues to do its excellent job of physically guarding Jews at events where they gather in numbers, by every other indicator of 'protecting the Jewish community' CST is clearly failing miserably, with antisemitic attacks increasing year on year - and the tsunami of anti-Semitism under the guise of 'anti-Zionism' that makes life uncomfortable and even threatening for every Jew with an affinity for Israel (which means at least 85%).  This new form of Jew-baiting includes boycotts, physical attacks on businesses and events with any Israeli connection; it also includes blood libels and other lies and propaganda against their brethren in Israel every time they listen to the news or pick up a newspaper - and it has become completely mainstream. Yet, while CST sees 'combating Islamophobia and all other forms of prejudice' as one of its objectives, combating this new form of Israel-inspired Jew-baiting does not seems to be on their agenda.

CST ignores the fact that Muslims are at the forefront of this new antisemitism and supports organisations that play into the narrative of Muslim victimhood. While this continues it seems that CST has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

See also:

• My correspondence with CST at the bottom of this article.
• Jewish student complains about Hitler poster on Birmingham University campus - gets bombarded with antisemitic (and anti-Israel) abuse
• The "Official Jews" response to Kaufman: pathetic and inadequate as I predicted
• Is anti-Zionism the same as antisemitism?

Palestinians mainstreaming knife attacks: Why you will not see this photo in the main stream media

IsraellyCool found this image (see update below) on the FaceBook page of Mohammed Asad who appears to be a bona fide Palestinian photo-journalist living in Gaza.

It's a simple photo that should be front page news because the idea of an entire people glorifying in the unprovoked stabbing of Jews (including many women and children) which the Palestinians have been doing on a daily basis for several weeks now is something truly newsworthy.

But (despite its obvious significance) I suspect that you won't see this anywhere in the main stream media because it exposes two BIG lies:

1) Palestinians are 'peaceful'  and victims
2) Concentration camp Gaza

And those are two of the main lies the main stream media has been parroting at the heart of its Palestinian 'narrative'. They clearly would not want their lies so obviously exposed.

Anyway, just in case, I've sent the picture to a few news editors. Also, linked them to this video and these.

UPDATE: It gets worse. The Israel Project reports the shop is called Hitler and has a photo: