Dear XXXXXI am pleased to report that he has just replied as follows:
In light of previous communications I have had with you on this subject I sincerely hope that you will be signing this early day motion on British funding of convicted Palestinian terrorists**(see bottom for full statement):
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/commons/early-day-motions/edm-detail1/?session=2015-16&edmnumber=1151
Please note also that what is not clearly stated in the motion is the fact that prisoners reward is proportional to the number of Jews they kill. The more killed the higher their reward.
What possible reason is there for UK tax payers to continue to pay what is effectively a massive reward to terrorist murderers. Not only is this obscene, but it provides a massive incentive for other terrorists to murder.
Thank you for your email regarding the above.At the moment there are only seven signatures - which is a bit of a disgrace.
While I cannot claim to be an expert on the issues covered, as you know, the motion is extremely detailed and does not seem to me to be merely a knee-jerk response to a news story.
I have therefore added my name to the motion this afternoon. If you look on the parliamentary website tomorrow it should be there.
** Early day motion 1151
That this House notes with concern that the Government continues to sanction payments from British taxpayers to convicted Palestinian criminals serving their sentences in Israeli prisons; further notes that the Department for International Development made payments to the Word Bank's Palestinian Development Plan (PRDP) Trust Fund, that this fund contributed to the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Prisoners Affairs which provided salaries to prisoners, and that the payments continue through a cash transfer from the Palestinian Authority's PROP fund to the PLO; acknowledges the efforts of Zionist Federation UK's No Money for Murder campaign that highlights evidence gathered by the International Development Select Committee (IDC) in 2014, which confirms that payments are made on a scale of 1,400 NIS, £250 a month, for time served up to three years to over 12,000 NIS, £2,100 a month, for time served up to 30 years; notes that the highest salaries are comparable to starting wages for teachers and nurses in the UK; and calls on the Government to stop these payments from the International Development budget that both encourage and allow people to profit from murder.See also:
 |
| Express 21/2/2106: covering up for antisemitism |
I was pleased to see the article on Page 2 of today's Express ("Anti-semitism at Oxford for years"). However, I was shocked to discover that the article actually covered up the event that triggered Alex Chalmers to expose the anti-Semitism of the University Labour Club. The article describes the trigger as follows:Update: Within an hour of sending my complaint to the Sunday Express I received the following response from the Editor:
The latest row erupted after the Labour students voted to support a week of events to highlight Israel's controversial policies towards PalestiniansIn fact, what the students voted to support was the notorious "Israel Apartheid week" - an event based on lies and antisemitic propaganda, whose sole intention is to delegitimize the Jewish State. The organisers of the event support terrorism against Jewish civilians and seek the complete destruction of the Jewish State. And the event is all the more offensive coming as it does with Israel's civilians under multiple unprovoked Palestinian terrorist attacks each day. To describe such an event as one that "highlights Israel's controversial policies towards Palestinians" is appallingly misleading. It will have left readers of the article totally perplexed, as well as believing that Jews wish to shut down legitimate debate and protest.
Dear Mr Davidson
Thank you for your letter in regard to our story on anti-semitism at Oxford University. It was certainly not our intention to mislead anyone and if we have done so I will certainly make sure that your letter is published and a wrong is put right. The Sunday Express takes the issue of anti-semitism extremely seriously, bringing, as it does, shame on our nation, and we intend to run further articles in the future highlighting the issue. I am very grateful to you for bringing the possible inaccuracies in our story to my attention.
All the very best, as ever,
Martin Townsend
Editor Sunday Express
The article referring to the Pegida march in Birmingham on 6 Feb was clearly trying to downplay the groundswell of concern against Islamic immigration to Europe, and included the statement: "The BBC's religious affairs correspondent Caroline Wyatt said fewer than 200 people turned up". In fact this is demonstrably a lie. As can clearly be seen from the video https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y8PxBzHCrD4 there are many times more people on that march than 200. You can clearly see at least 220 distinct placards being held up and about one in every 5 or 8 people is holding a placard, making an estimate of well over 1000 people.As readers of this blog will know I have made many complaints to the BBC (mainly about its anti-Israel bias) and received almost universally unsatisfactory responses. But their response (below) to the above complaint is the most astonishing yet in its contempt for the British public as well as its failure to adhere to the BBC's own constitution:
We note your comments unhappy with the figure (“fewer than 200”) the BBC’s religious affairs correspondent Caroline Wyatt gave in the following article, for the number of people participating in a Pegida anti-Islam silent march in Birmingham on Saturday 6 February: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35514840
While we’ve registered your concerns, we’re not alone in reporting this figure:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/06/pegida-uk-supporters-stage-anti-islam-silent-march-birmingham
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/thousands-take-part-in-anti-islam-pegida-protests-across-europe-a6857911.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3435093/A-world-divided-Violent-clashes-break-globe-thousands-streets-anti-Islam-protests-organised-far-right-group-PEGIDA.html
(Please note that the BBC is not responsible for the content found on any external sites.)
The Daily Mail article also notes that the figure of 200 was also the police estimate: “police said about about [sic] 200 PEGIDA supporters and 60 counter demonstrators turned out”.
Thank you for your feedback about BBC News. Please know complaints are sent to senior management and news teams every morning and we’ve included your points in our overnight reports. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensure that complaints are seen quickly by the right people.
Kind regards
Stuart Webb
 |
| BBC's online report about the terrorist attack |
I was sorry to read you were unhappy with a number of aspects of the BBC News article 'Israeli woman stabbed to death in Otniel settlement house'.See also:
BBC News makes no distinction between the value of Israeli or Palestinian lives, and strives to report what are often highly emotive stories about the conflict in a neutral way.
Sadly and tragically, deadly violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not rare. Incidents where the scale of deaths or casualties is low unfortunately are characteristic of the ongoing conflict, and for this reason we do not routinely report each attack or violent death.
In regard to headlines, our headlines are designed to a give a short, brief outline of what the article is about and can't include all the details. This is often due to limited space and readers are expected to read the complete article to get the full picture of a particular story.
As for your comment "Palestinians are never mentioned as being the perpetrators"; this is not the case, we aim for the highest standards of accuracy in each article we publish and always seek to report on a story in impartial manner. A recent example of this can be seen here:
'Israeli woman dies of wounds after West Bank stabbing attack' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35407654
We believe we have reported on the recent violence in an accurate and impartial manner and will continue to do so.
Brian Irvine
BBC Complaints
Dear Sir/MadamAlso a note to British Jews: B'tselem is an especially treasured 'charity' of Yachad and the New Israel Fund, while the Jewish Chronicle, Limmud and the Union of Jewish Students also consistently fall over themselves to provide a platform for their representatives. Yachad's 'educational trips' in Israel are actually run by B'Tselem.
British Funding of anti-Zionist Organisations involved in the murder or Arabs who sell land to Jews
In case you are unaware of it, I would like to draw your attention to an important story from Israel that was revealed last week by the television program Uvda of Israel’s Channel 2. It concerns the activities of Ezra Nawi, a far-left activist from the anti-Zionist Ta’ayush organisation, in collaboration with employees of another anti-Zionist organisation B'tselem. Nawi is heard gloating about how he passes on to the Palestinian Authority’s counter-intelligence arm the names of Palestinian Arabs who sell land to Jews. Nawi is heard saying: “The Palestinian Authority catches them and kills them. But before it kills them, they get beat up a lot.”
The 'British' Foreign & Commonwealth Office angle on this story is that the British Government - through taxpayer money has been directly funding both the B'teslem and Ta'ayush organisations to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Moreover, these organisations also receive substantial additional funding indirectly from British taxpayers via EU grants to which Britain contributes.
I would like to know why Britain is funding these organisations and whether such funding will now stop.
Also, I am sure you are aware that the context of this story is that, in the Palestinian Authority, the penal code reserves capital punishment for anyone convicted of selling land to Jews. I would therefore also like to know why the Foreign & Commonwealth Office - which in the last 5 years alone has funded the Palestinian Authority to the tune of £400 million - has done nothing to intervene with such a murderous, anti-Semitic penal system.
Yours
Edgar Davidson
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
Thank you for contacting us about the recent escalation in violence in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. We have received a wide range of feedback about our coverage of this subject across our television and radio programmes, and the BBC News website. In order to use our TV licence fee resources efficiently, this response aims to answer the key concerns raised in complaints received by us, but we apologise in advance if it doesn’t address your specific points in the manner you would prefer.
We appreciate you believe our coverage of this story has shown bias in favour of the Palestinians and against Israelis and the state of Israel. In this response we hope to explain why we feel this has not been the case.
Across our news bulletins and programmes we have reported on the increasing number of attacks committed by Palestinians on Israeli civilians and security forces. We have broadcast reports where our reporters have spoken to the families of Israelis and Palestinians killed in the recent violence and have heard their respective stories and own specific takes on the conflict.
For example, during BBC One’s News at Ten on 9 October we heard from Odel Bennet. She and her husband were attacked by a Palestinian in the Old City the previous weekend. She was seriously injured; her husband and a rabbi who intervened were both killed. During the report we showed amateur video footage of the attack. We then heard from Mrs Bennet who, from her hospital bed, spoke of her fear and pain, and described how Palestinian passers-by mocked and verbally abused her while she lay wounded on the street.
We have tried to explain how the current situation has come to pass from the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives. This has included reporting on the tensions around the holy sites in Jerusalem. We have also reported on criticisms of the Palestinian leadership’s response to the attacks, in particular the Israeli government’s claim that President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are guilty of inciting violence in the West Bank. We believe we have reported clearly on the threat of violence faced by Israelis on an increasingly regular basis and of the difficulties faced by security forces in stopping these attacks from taking place.
BBC News tries to report on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an accurate and duly impartial manner. Sometimes this means we can’t always reflect the full extent of the complexities of the conflict during one standalone report or bulletin. We try to tell the story of the conflict as experienced by both sides, across programmes and bulletins and over time. We believe this has been the case during our coverage of this recent spike in violence.
We have raised your concerns with senior editorial staff at BBC News, who consider the range of feedback received from our audience when deciding how they approach reporting on stories. Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards BBC Complaints
 | |||
| Pisgat Ze'ev in quiter times: Jews and Muslims mix in Kosher Cafe |
Dear Friends,See also:
Thank you all for your wishes. It means so much to hear from you and to know that you are thinking of us. We miss being in touch, hope you are doing well, and are heartened by your concern. Yes, these are definitely difficult times, times for concern. I know you wanted to hear more from someone local about what’s happening here and how we’re reacting. These are my impressions….
Well, recent events reflect some shifts in Israel that have been a long time coming but somehow still caught us by surprise in their intensity. Jerusalem is feeling the heaviest weight of the burden, reminding us too much of past intifadas and conflicts, of past pain and of worse things that may yet come. Although this “terror wave” isn’t yet being called an intifada or uprising, in a way Jerusalem feels at war.
My friend whose son is in the SWAT unit of the border police is experiencing the worries that parents of soldiers felt during last summer’s war, when their sons were deep in the Gaza Strip trying to stop the incessant rocket fire into Israel and to uncover the terrorist tunnels. This time, our boys and girls on the front lines today are standing vigilantly on the tense almost-empty street corners of Jerusalem, which until a few days ago was thriving with local visitors and foreign tourists all enjoying the beauty of its old historical walls, burgeoning night life, and delicious Israeli restaurant fare. Now, all these places are silent, with Israelis rushing from their homes to workplaces and back, avoiding public spaces. And with many Arab workers barricaded in their East Jerusalem neighborhoods and prohibited from going out to work in the Western part of the city.
Maybe it’s not yet a war, but we certainly are on the defensive. Suspicion has replaced guarded trust and familiar casualness between Jews and Arabs in our city. Mutual suspicion and fear have risen up between Jews and Arabs – who honestly and truly do coexist in Jerusalem – in its hospitals, grocery stores, cafes, and government offices. Relative coexistence pervades even the neighborhood of Pisgat Zeev to some extent, with some Arabs buying homes here – including my own next-door neighbor. But now, in this terror wave, suspicion has raised its ugly head. How can it not? When a 13-year-old Moslem boy from our adjacent neighborhood of Beit Hanina walks over to Pisgat Zeev with the intention of killing Jews and then brutally stabs another 13-year-old, a Jewish boy riding his bicycle on a quiet residential street outside the candy and toy stores in Pisgat Zeev, how can we now help but look over our shoulders at every Moslem child and adult passing us by on the street?
If such young boys and girls can be persuaded into believing ludicrous lies about the Israeli Jews’ intentions to destroy or confiscate the Al Aksa Mosque atop the Temple Mount, if these children believe that killing Jews is the right way to protest that supposed threat to their holy of holies, if their Facebook pages and muezzin sermons and tacit parental approval lead them on this treacherous path, then what hope do we have for the future generation of Moslem youth growing up with these negative convictions? Most experts here believe that the vast majority of Jerusalem’s Arab residents wants quiet, wants peace, wants to keep working in the city. But as often happens in our country, the volatile extremists make their mark and influence events.
Wariness is rampant on both sides: The Jews are trying anxiously to avoid encounters with possibly malicious Arab neighbors, and moderate Arabs have told us that they too are afraid – of revengeful accusations or even worse from angry Jews and of repercussions from Arab extremists for speaking out and condemning this latest spate of violence.
So many friends have been close to terrorist attacks. In the course of two days this week, I personally had three “near misses” right before/after knife attacks – at Ammunition Hill, in Pisgat Zeev at my children’s train/bus stop, and at the Central Bus Station. Tuesday afternoon, I was on my way to pick up my son from high school because we decided he shouldn’t be taking public transportation when his route had been hit several times by terrorist attacks in past days. A few minutes after leaving Pisgat Zeev, I unknowingly drove up to Ammunition Hill/Police Headquarters just after a young woman shouted “Allah is Great” and stabbed passers-by. I arrived at the same time as the first responders. Stuck in my car in the road blockade at the scene, I saw tens and tens of soldiers, police, and civilians running to help, rushing to try to save their fellow Israelis. I saw head-scarfed Arab girls who had witnessed the attack, sobbing and rocking on the ground in horror. I watched the paramedics who had treated both victims and perpetrator, putting the stretchers into the ambulances. I looked on as the city’s mayor, Nir Barkat, quickly arrived to assess the situation and calm the onlookers.
In this crazy situation, from my car, I thought about how, unfortunately, our too-frequent past experiences have made our city’s responders extremely efficient. And another thought hit me: With all of the tremendous complexity it entailed, the medical personnel gave care to the terrorist too, not just to her victims. I’ve seen that humanity again and again over the past few days – and not just from those who took the Hippocratic Oath. Although Palestinian propaganda-mongers have been claiming the opposite, I’ve seen that even people trying to prevent these lone terrorists from continuing on their killing spree have been trying not to use excessive force to stop them, when possible.
And I thought again how these times have made all of us come together as a community, in our mutual concern and defense. Rather than running away from frightening events, even civilians ran toward those in distress. Yes indeed, most Israelis are veterans of military service, but not all have combat experience and yet the sense of collective responsibility, of proactive action, dominates and pulls people to try and help.
That sense of community and humanity extends out to you. We feel your presence and your togetherness with us, from afar. Let’s continue to be in touch and let’s hope and pray that these difficult days pass quickly, and when things calm down we’d really like to see you here again in our beautiful city.
Best wishes for quiet days,
Dee
Dear LBC
George Galloway: liar and hypocrite
The people who made the decision to allow George Galloway a one week slot are clearly unaware of what an odious character he is. I challenge you to watch this short video of him and not accept that he is a liar, hypocrite, terrorist supporter and also blatantly antisemitic**.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whhgPaz8w70
The clip also demonstrates that he is uniquely unsuitable to be a radio phone-in host since he clearly seeks to censor callers who do not support his obsession with seeking the destruction of the Jewish State. So why are you employing him (and also helping his political campaign to be mayor of London)?
Yours
Edgar Davidson
**see http://edgar1981.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-anti-semitism-v-anti-zionism.html
During the Newshour interview with Danny Danon (July 14) the interviewer Razia Iqbal said nobody in Iran has threatened Israel for a very long time. In fact the threats to annihilate Israel have never stopped and during the last week the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamanei and the President Rouhani both repeated their threats and intent. See: http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/07/07/as-iran-nuclear-talks-extended-iranian-leader-repeats-threat-to-destroy-israel/# and http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6160/iran-quds-day-death-america-israel (an event ignored by BBC: http://bbcwatch.org/2015/07/12/bbc-news-ignores-al-quds-day-in-english/)BBC response:
Dear Mr DavidsonMy follow-up response to Dejan Calovski
Thank you for your email in which you complained about the interview with the Israeli Minister for Science, Technology and Space Danny Danon the BBC World Service broadcast in Newshour on 14/07/2015 in the wider context of the agreement reached about Iran’s nuclear programme.
We have received a wide range of feedback about this interview referring to the segment of it in which our presenter, Razia Iqbal, broached the subject of how and why the Israeli government perceives Iran as a threat.
In order to use our Licence Fee resources efficiently, this response aims to answer the key concerns raised regarding the interview, but we apologise in advance if it doesn’t address your specific points in the manner you would prefer…
The question about whether Israel faces a threat from Iran was a legitimate one for the interview with Danny Danon. However, after our editors spoke with Razia about the interview, it was agreed that her question could have been framed more clearly. The context of live radio, a developing story and a presenter responding to an interviewee’s points, should also be taken into account.
Mr Danon was allowed to give his views at length and in detail. He stated that Israel had the capability and right to defend itself - what Razia was trying to elicit in response from Mr Danon was what Israel considered to be the current threat from the state of Iran. In so doing, she was seeking to compare the very public and aggressive statements about Israel made by the previous president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with the language used by the current president, Hassan Rouhani. Mr Danon was allowed to give a lengthy, uninterrupted response. Questioning that response does not constitute bias, it is about seeking accountability for a viewpoint. The issue of whether Iran poses an existential threat is not without controversy within Israel. The current head of Mossad has said that a nuclear Iran would not necessarily pose such a threat; two of his predecessors have been critical Mr Netanyahu’s stance on the issue.
In that context, it was absolutely correct and legitimate for Razia to ask the question.
We hope the above allays the concerns you have raised and thank you once again for listening to our programmes and taking the time to write.
Best regards,
Dejan Calovski
Audience Relations
BBC World Service
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
Dear Mr Calovski,Second Response (received 3 August 2015):
Your response did not address the core point, which was that Razia Iqbal stated the blatant lie that Iran's leaders had not threatened Israel since the time of Ahemdinejad. This is not a matter of interpretation. The recent statements by Khomaini and Rouhani are a matter of record, for which you have the links.
Also, what I find both disingenuous and quite disgraceful about your response is the fact that you are using alleged statements by some of Netanyahu's political opponents as a defence for the BBCs lie. This is analogous to telling David Cameron that ISIS has never committed any atrocities and then supporting this assertion by claiming that George Galloway and Ken Livingstone disagree with Cameron on his stance about ISIS. Whatever politicised individuals associated with Mossad may or may not have said about their perceived views of Iran's military capabilities, none of them would ever deny that Iran's leaders continue to make existential threats against Israel and that those leaders would attempt to destroy Israel if they could. So why is the BBC attempting to cover up this fact?
Yours
Edgar Davidson
Dear Mr Davidson
Thank you for your further correspondence regarding the interview with Danny Danon in Newshour on 14/07.
I’m sorry you are not satisfied with our previous response. It was certainly not meant to be disingenuous but rather explanatory...
Regarding the gist of the complaint, I can only reiterate that, in our first reply, we did acknowledge that the ‘question in question’ (that Razia Iqbal put to Mr Danon) could have been phrased better.
We feel that Razia did not make a statement of fact but rather simply put forward a question (admittedly without an obvious question mark at the end of it, but it served exactly the same purpose). It was an interjection by the presenter inviting a response from the interviewee. It was, in our view, a perfectly normal part of any interview in which the presenter sets various points of view (not his/her own but alternative points of view to those of the interviewee) before the interviewee to elicit further explanation – in this case, as to what the Israeli minister considered was the existential threat to Israel. It clearly worked as Mr Danon gave a very detailed answer.
I hope the above allays your concerns. If not, you can contact the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit within 20 days of this email at ecu@bbc.co.uk or you can write to:
BBC Editorial Complaints Unit
Media Centre, BBC Media Village
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TP
On Newshour on July 14, I listened to a brief interview with Danny Danon, Israel's Minister of Science, Technology and Space. Speaking of the new deal to allow Iran to develop nuclear power (which will lead to the building of nuclear weapons), the interviewer made one of the most fatuous and inaccurate statements I have ever heard. Perhaps I should note first that I am an academic in Persian/Iranian Studies with a long personal knowledge of the country, its religion, its language and its politics. I currently research and write about Iranian affairs. When Danon said Israel would have to stand on its own against the Iranian threat, here is what she said: 'But you’re not under threat by Iran. Nobody in Iran has threatened you for a very long time. You’re harking back to a time when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened Israel directly.' I have collaborated on a book detailing Iranian threats to Israel. I have lost track of the number of times, even during the current year when Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamene'i, members of the religious ruling elite, members of parliament, former presidents Ahdmadinezhad and Rafsanjani, have threatened Israel directly, saying Iran will obliterate the Jewish state by force. Threats made by senior officials have been made only a few days ago, around the time this interview was broadcast. Israel is the most threatened country in the world. A nuclear Iran increases the threat. I demand a correction and an apology from the interviewer.Denis got exactly the same response and has noted:
But the interview lasted about one minute, so these comments ‘Mr Danon was allowed to give his views at length and in detail’ and ‘Mr Danon was allowed to give a lengthy, uninterrupted response’ are just rubbish. And the ‘answer’ doesn’t actually look at the content of my complaint at all. Anyone else who has had this response should also get back to them.
Dear Sir/Madam
Concern about one of the charities (War on Want) supported by the Innocent Foundation
I regularly buy and enjoy your excellent fruit smoothies. I had never realised, until I studied a carton this evening, that 10% of your profits are given to charity. This can be a noble aim, and I checked the website www.innocentfoundation.org to see which charities benefited.
I was horrified to discover that one of the 'charities' was War on Want. This so-called 'charity' is in fact an extremist left-wing political organisation which is almost exclusively dedicated to the delegitimization and ultimate destruction of the State of Israel. In pursuit of this goal War on Want relies on lies, propaganda, bullying and antisemitism. In addition, one of War on Want's Council of Management members is Atif Choudhury who is a founder of the openly terrorist supporting organisation the International Solidarity Movement - an organisation which played a role in the suicide bombing of Mike's Place bar in Tel Aviv in 2003, by helping the two British-born Islamic terrorists Asif Muhammad Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif enter Israel. Two musicians and a waitress were among the dead in that attack. Further details of War on Want's activities can be found here:
http://edgar1981.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/war-on-want-charity-that-is-just-anti.html
http://edgar1981.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/comic-relief-funds-people-who.html
I would very much appreciate answers to the following:
- Is the Innocent Foundation aware of the above facts about War on Want?
- Why did the Innocent Foundation give money to War on Want?
- Does the Innocent Foundation intend to give any further money to War on Want?
Obviously, until I receive confirmation that the answer to the last question at least is a definitive NO I will not be buying your products and will be advising other like-minded people not to do so.
Yours
Edgar Davidson
Thank you for your follow up email of 25 February, and I apologise for the delay in responding.
You have asked a number of questions, to which I hope to be able to respond.
On speakers, as I emailed on Friday, the programme for the conference showing speakers and titles of presentations is now on line. There have been a large number of other speakers who were approached to speak at the conference but who were unavailable or did not wish to participate.
On funding, the cost of the 3 day conference is approximately £49,000. This will be funded by a mixture of conference fees paid by attendees and by donations. Donations have been received by both individuals and organisations, and all donations for the conference will be approved in accordance with our Gift Acceptance Policy (as is the case for any donations to the University). Speakers are unpaid but do have their travel and subsistence costs covered. The University will not be providing direct funding to support the conference. However, academic staff in the School of Law do have access to administrative support staff available to them in carrying out their work, and a small element of this administrative support is being used to help with the organisation of this conference. I am sorry that I cannot give you an estimate for the cost of this support, but it is certainly small compared with the cost of the conference.
You mention that the University would not support an event that challenged the legitimacy of any one of the 58 Islamic States. I wanted to assure you that if a member of the University’s academic staff proposed an academic event on such a subject then it would be considered in exactly the same way as this conference, according to our Code of Practice for ensuring freedom of speech within the law.
I hope that this provides an answer to the questions you raised.
With best wishes
Gavin Costigan
Dear Gavin
Thank you for your response.
Your comment about the speakers is curious. For the record there is not a single participant to put the case for the existence of Israel. In a detailed analysis here http://david-collier.com/?p=98 the author has noted that 80% of the speakers have PUBLICLY demanded a boycott of Israel. I believe that the other 20% can also be defined as anti-Israel.
Hence the idea – as the University continues to maintain – that somehow this conference will consider different and balanced views is palpable nonsense. As I said in my original letter, this is an anti-Semitic hatefest masquerading as valid academic activity. You should be totally ashamed of yourselves. The University’s reputation is going to be severely damaged by this.
Finally, regarding the financing could you please clarify whether or not the organisers are paying the full commercial cost of conference and lecture room hire.
Yours
Dear Professor Don NutbeamCan you please explain why the University of Southampton is funding a three-day event in April devoted to searching for ways to use international law to deny the world’s only Jewish state the right to exist? I am referring to this:Are you aware that the member of your academic staff behind this event (Prof Oren Ben-Dor) actively supports well-known anti-Semites such as Gilad Atzmon and is in turn supported by former Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke who has praised Ben-Dor as “perhaps the bravest and clearest thinking person of Jewish descent in the world.”You must surely be aware that the recent massive increase in anti-Semitism is being fuelled in part by lies and propaganda directed against the tiny Jewish State. I find it incomprehensible that, in such a climate, your University is actually funding such anti-Semitism under the ludicrous guise of academic debate.YoursXXXXXX
Dear XXXXXXThank you for your email dated 20 February to the Vice-Chancellor concerning the conference on International Law and the State of Israel. Professor Nutbeam has asked me to reply on his behalf.The University of Southampton is legally obliged under Section 43 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986, to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the University as well as for visiting speakers.Our ordinances state that academic staff “have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, with due regard for the need to respect others and promote the best interests of the University and academic learning, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges.”The title of this conference raises an important question, but the conference itself takes no explicit perspective, and academic contributions from all interested parties are most welcome. The conference is designed to have a multi-cultural emphasis, and speakers and delegates have been invited from all perspectives. Their participation has been actively encouraged in relation to the presentation of individual papers and the running of dedicated panel sessions.Details about the conference can be found at:Separately from the conference, this University is very proud to host the Parkes Institute, the world's oldest and most wide-ranging centre for the study of Jewish/non-Jewish relations across the ages. The Institute was founded by James Parkes, a tireless fighter against anti-Semitism, who transferred his extensive library and archive to the university in 1964. The Parkes Institute carries out a range of activities. As well as teaching at both undergraduate and postgraduate level, and an extensive research programme, the Institute has a rapidly developing outreach programme which includes adult education classes and cultural days, schools and colleges visits, as well as public seminars and lectures.Our academic staff from Parkes - and across the university - have a range of education and research collaborations with colleagues in Israel.Yours sincerelyGavin CostiganGavin CostiganDirector of the Office of the Vice-ChancellorUniversity of SouthamptonRoom 4035, Building 37, Highfield CampusSouthampton SO17 1BJ
Dear GavinThank you for your response.Unfortunately, there is a fundamental and demonstrably obvious error in your response. You said“The title of this conference raises an important question, but the conference itself takes no explicit perspective, and academic contributions from all interested parties are most welcome.”The conference website very clearly contradicts this.Whereas the title is ambiguous, the theme is not since in the opening paragraph it says“(The conference) is unique because it concerns the legitimacy in International Law of the Jewish state of Israel.”It then says“The conference aims to explore the relatedness of the suffering and injustice in Palestine to the foundation and protection of a state of such nature and asks what role International Law should play in the situation.”To suggest, as you do, that this takes “no explicit perspective” is an insult to my intelligence, since the perspective is very clearly one that rejects the legitimacy of the Jewish State – a view very forcibly and openly known to be held by BOTH of the listed academic organisers of the conference, as well as all the other academics on the Southampton Organizing committee. As the conference website STILL does not list any of the speakers how can you possibly know that “academic contributions from all interested parties are most welcome.”? Perhaps you can let me know of speakers who will be presenting the unequivocal case for Israel.There are other aspects of your response that I find deeply insulting. By stressing your commitment to freedom of speech and academic freedom to raise controversial issues, you are clearly implying that I am somehow against these principles. In fact, I was asking why Southampton University was providing FUNDING support for an event that is clearly an anti-semitic hatefest of lies and propaganda under the cover of simply being just ‘anti-Zionist’. I recognise that these people are perfectly entitled to hold their views and even run events using their own funding, but not that of a tax-payer funded institution. I would also like to point out that I suspect your University would not, for example, support an event that challenged the legitimacy of any one of the 58 Islamic States (including, for example, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which was only recognised by the UN in the same year as Israel).I was also insulted by your reference to the Parkes Institute – this actually reminded me of the classic “Some of my best friends are Jewish” response to complaints of anti-Semitic behaviour. What on earth is the relevance of the fact that Southampton has a research centre on “Jewish/non-Jewish relations” got to do with my complaint. The Parkes Centre clearly has no input or relationship to this conference, and I was not accusing the University of institutional anti-semitism. I was asking why it was funding a demonstrably political anti-semitic event under the ludicrous guise of academic debate. And you have not answered that question.I would, of course, welcome Professor Nutbeam’s comments on the above points.I would also like to know how much funding support (including the time of support staff) that the University is providing for the conference.Yours sincerelyXXXXX
Dear GavinI was wondering if you or the V-C were going to respond to the attached follow-up letter I sent on 25 Feb.If not I will be taking the matter up with the University Council.Perhaps I need to stress that Professor Ben Dor’s fundraising letter asking to support the conference notes explicitly that the “conference is fully hosted, and supported by the University of Southampton. The university enables us to use its hospitality services, event organisation, marketing network and financial administration for the organisation, delivery, recording of the conference. It is a remarkable achievement in itself that such a conference will be help [sic] in UK academia.”What I am asking for is the real cost of the above-stated University services.XXXX
Dear XXXXXThank you for your email, and I do apologise in the delay in responding. We have received a number of queries about this conference and we are currently preparing answers to questions that you and others have raised.I hope to be able to respond by the end of this week.With best wishesGavin Costigan
GavinWhile I await your response, I think it is important to know that I have learnt that one of the speakers is going to be Richard Falk, a former UN advisor whose career has been marked by outrageous claims and statements. These include:
- Publishing an anti-Semitic cartoon, for which he was condemned by the US.
- Promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories, for which he was condemned by Ban Ki-Moon
- Describing Israel as 'genocidal,' for which he was condemned by Canada.
- Blaming the Boston Marathon bombings on American foreign policy, specifically her relationship with Israel. This was not only condemned by the US and Ban Ki-Moon, but the British Foreign Office specifically described his comments as being anti-Semitic.
Yours
******
See 10 March 2015 update here.Dear XXXXXI am writing to let you know that I will not now be able to provide a full response to your email until Monday or Tuesday next week, for which apologies. However, you asked about speakers and I wanted to let you know that the conference programme is now on the website and can be found here:http://www.southampton.ac.uk/israelpalestinelaw/programme/index.page?I will respond more fully next week.With best wishesGavin
