What the peace process means for Israel

Daniel Greenfield has written an article about the "Sacrifices of peace" which is one of the most important and brilliant I have seen. Every person who cares about Israel should read this in its entirety.

What he has done is look at the direct quotes by the 'leaders' of Jewish communities during the holocaust (especially Chaim Rumkowski of the Lodz ghetto) as they tried to 'negotiate' with the Nazis over which Jews could be sacrificed in order that some could survive. He compares these quotes with those of Israeli leaders like Rabin and Sharon (and now Netanyahu) as they make their 'painful concessions' to ensure that at least part of Israel can survive. The analogy is striking and difficult to dispute. For example, when the Nazis demanded all Jewish children and old people be sent for extermination Rumkowski said:

The ghetto has been struck a hard blow. They demand what is most dear to it - children and old people. ... In my old age I am forced to stretch out my hands and to beg: Brothers and sisters, give them to me! Fathers and mothers, give me your children! Yesterday, in the course of the day..I was given the order to send away more than 20,000 Jews from the ghetto, and if I did not – 'we will do it ourselves'. Should we have accepted this and carried it out ourselves, or left it to others?'But as we were guided not by the thought: "how many will be lost?" but "how many can be saved?" we arrived at the conclusion – those closest to me at work, that is, and myself – that however difficult it was going to be, we must take upon ourselves the carrying out of this decree - I must carry out this difficult and bloody operation.. I must cut off limbs in order to save the body! 

Fast forward to 2005 and see how Ariel Sharon, of all people, described his unilateral decision to forcibly remove the entire Jewish community of Gaza and all Israel defence forces there, leaving the South of Israel at the mercy of Hamas rockets.

This step is very difficult for me personally. It was with a heavy heart that the Government of Israel made the decision regarding Disengagement, and the Knesset did not lightly approve it, ...The responsibility for the future of Israel rests on my shoulders. I initiated the Plan because I concluded that this action is vital for Israel. Believe me, the extent of pain that I feel at this act is equal only to the measure of resolved recognition that it was something that had to be done.

Like the Nazis, the Palestinians have made it very clear that they will not stop until every single Jew is 'removed' from the entire land of Israel. Like the Nazis they are prepared to achieve their goal in stages knowing that they can rely on the Jews to cut off their own limbs. While the Jews of the holocaust did it because they could not resist the Nazis' demands, the Jews of Israel do it because they feel they cannot resist the demands of the 'international community'. Despite the following words by Rumkowski every Jew of Lodz was ultimately sent to the death camps:

I tried everything I knew to get the bitter sentence cancelled.....When it could not be cancelled, I tried to lessen the sentence. Only yesterday I ordered the registration of nine-year-old children. I wanted to save at least one year – children from nine to ten. But they would not yield. I succeeded in one thing – to save the children over ten. Let that be our consolation in our great sorrow.

Daniel Greenfield concludes, by analogy:

Rabin warned that if Israel did not accept an autonomous territory, then it would be forced to accept a state. Peres warned that if Israel did not accept a state in Gaza and the West Bank, it would lose Jerusalem. Sharon warned that if Israel didn't accept the expulsion of the Jews of Gaza, it would lose everything up to the '67 borders. Olmert warned that if Israel didn't accept the partition of Jerusalem, it would lose the entire city. Israel accepted most of these things and each of the terrible losses it sought to avert came about anyway, not naturally, but because of these prior concessions. The autonomous territory paved the way for a state. The loss of Gaza and the West Bank made Jerusalem next on the schedule.

Unusual example of Sharia imposed in the UK: no mankinis* allowed during Ramadan

This extraordinary story - in which a charity-raising pair were attacked by a violent mob of Muslims in Birmingham for 'insulting Muslims on Ramadan' because of their fancy dress attire -  is reported in today's Sun**. But equally extraordinay is that (consistent with the story I reported on Monday) the Sun goes to great lengths to avoid the Muslim angle completely, referring only to an  'angry mob'.

Mankini pair face mob riot

TWO men who dressed in mankinis for a sponsored walk had to be rescued by police after they were attacked by an angry mob. Steven Ellis, 41 and brother-in-law Jason Hendry, 22, were pelted with stones and eggs by the crowd — who accused them of insulting locals during Ramadan.

The animal-loving pair donned the comedy outfits — skimpy trunks with shoulder straps — for a dare on their eight-mile trek to raise £300 for Birmingham Dogs’ Home. But they were attacked as they stopped in the city’s Sparkbrook district to give two dogs with them a drink. Steven’s wife, Victoria, 36, who was following the pair in a car, said: “We stopped in a supermarket car park and were suddenly surrounded. “There was a crowd of about 30 to 40 men who began throwing stones and eggs at us. “They were shouting at Jason saying that he was a pervert and a paedophile, and one of them called me a dirty white slag. “The abuse was appalling. I had our five young children in the car and they were terrified. “We called the police who escorted us out of the area. They said the trouble was due to sensitivities over an EDL march and Ramadan.” Jason added: “It was disgusting behaviour. I was angry with them for how they reacted. “We tried to explain it was just a bit of fun, to raise money for charity.” 

* The mankini was pioneered by Sacha Baron Cohen for his Borat character

**I have reproduced the story here as the Sun online is no longer free.

Sun suggests Boston bomber was white supremacist after all

The main stream media's determination to downplay, or even whitewash altogether, the central role of Islam and Jihad in terrorist attacks around the world has been the subject over the years of many of the postings on this blog.

Sometimes the extent to which the media will go to cover up the Islam angle can be breathtaking. But todays' article in the Sun (note to non-Brits: this is the largest circulation newspaper in the UK by a very long way and is supposed to be 'conservative') ranks as the most incredible I have ever seen in this respect:

In the immediate aftermath of the Boston marathon bombings the main stream media were desperately hoping that this was carried out by right wing extremists. Even after the overwhelming evidence that it was a Jihadist attack the media were still 'looking for motives'. When the surviving bomber made it clear in his own words that his motive was Jihad against the USA and the West (after he had trained with Al Qaeda affiliates in Chechnya) the main stream media did what they always do in such situations - go very quiet.

In the UK there has been almost no coverage of the case since the immediate aftermath of the bombings (primarily because it is one of those stories that very blatantly contradicts the main stream narrative that Islam is a religion of peace).The article in today's Sun is the first it has carried about the bombings for a while. Note that the Sun, like the rest of the media, previously ignored all of the evidence of the bomber's writings and readings about Jihad because they did not consider this relevant. So, actually saying things like "I will dedicate my life to Jihad" and reading Al Qaeda manuals are considered irrelevant but reading a white supremacist publication is apparently enough to reinstate the media's desired outcome after all.

Update: I see that Jihad Watch  and Pamela Geller are also reporting that the BBC is running with this story. That makes perfect sense. It seems the BBC have invested an enormous amount of effort to do everything they can to find a motive other than Jihad.  But all they have come up with is the fact that white supremacist material has stuff that would be of common  interest to a Jihadist, most notably a desire to kill Jews. Hence this classic quote from the BBC article:

Reading material he had about white supremacy commented that "Hitler had a point".

Wow - that really proves he was not a Jihadist.

Releasing mass murderers as a good will gesture

So Obama and his Israel-hating lap-dog John Kerry have forced Israel to release 104 Palestinian terrorists, including mass murderers of children, for no reason other than to 'bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table' for useless peace talks. Why would anybody even think that you can have peace with people whose prerequisite for just allowing you to talk to them is to release mass murderers?  Netanyahu says this 'painful measure is necessary for Israel's strategic interest'.  What possible logic relates the release of convicted mass murderers to national strategic interest and where does it stop? Since he has agreed to release Salem Suleiman Mahmoud and Adham Ibrahim Jum’ah who murdered 26-year-old Rachel Weiss and her three young children in 1988, does that mean he would now be prepared to release Amjad and Hakim Awad who murdered the Fogel family in 2011, decapitating a baby in the process? And if not what makes one release acceptable and the other not?

And Netanyahu was not only weak enough to submit to this ludicrous demand, but he failed to get a single concession in return - not even the release of Jonathan Pollard who has been rotting in a US jail for 28 years for 'spying for Israel' (longer than any other spy has ever been imprisoned in the US).
As Barry Rubin explains there is simply no good reason why Israel has agreed to this 'concession'.

If Obama really is not a pure antisemite - as every one of his foreign policy decisions clearly indicates - then for consistency the next time he wants to negotiate (say, with the Russians) I assume he will offer to release a large number of mass murderers in the US as a gesture of goodwill. For example, Charles Manson and his followers would be a good start because Obama could then claim that their release will bolster the position of all ageing Hippies in the community. Or even better Obama can simply release his own mass murdering jihadists such as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (the Boston bomber) and Nidal Malik Hasan (the Fort Hood killer). Such a gesture - as well as the prisoners themselves - would be welcomed by every one of the world's 58 Muslim countries.

I am sure Obama will be as well supported by the US people as Netanyahu is by the Israeli people in agreeing to such a prisoner release.

Charles Manson: For consistency Obama should now release him as a gesture of goodwill to the Hippie community

Erasing Jewish Jerusalem from Apple maps

Apple erases all trace of Jewish existence in 'occupied Jerusalem' - click to enlarge (note I am using the version of Maps that came with iPad3)

No people and city have a stronger link than the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem - a link that has been unbroken physically as well as spiritually for thousands of years. Even during the worst period of exile Jews lived and prayed in Jerusalem. Only during the illegal Jordanian occupation of 1948-67 were Jews completely unable to pray at the Western wall.

Because this link is so fundamental in Israel's narrative, there are no limits to the extent to which the antisemites will go in seeking to deny the truth about this link. Breaking the link between the Jews and Jerusalem is for them the key to the ultimate deligitimization of the State of Israel. But while the Arabs do everything they can to try to deny the historical facts, the Western antisemites - led by the EU and the US State Department do everything they can to deny the current status of Jews in Jerusalem. That is why, for example, the EU last week announced their boycott of Jewish businesses in 'occupied' East Jerusalem and why the US this week once again confirmed its bizarre refusal to recognise any Jew born in Jerusalem as having been born in Israel.

Some recent visits to Israel have, however, highlighted some particularly pernicious examples of how technology is being used to try to deny the existence of Jews. Take, for example, the case of the north Jerusalem suburb Pisgat Zaev - something close to being a city in its own right with 50,000 residents. Although this city was developed after 1967, much of the land was bought by Jews in the 1930s. On the basis of Jordan's illegal occupation of this land during 1948-67 the 'international community' regards it as 'occupied territory' even though it did not belong to any state. Any rational person who has actually travelled through this and other Jewish areas of 'occupied Jerusalem' knows that this land will never be 'given up' under any 'peace agreement'.  Yet, bizarrely, when I tried to navigate to Pisgat Zaev using the Apple iPad Maps application (not Google Maps) I discovered to my astonishment that not only does no such place exist but there is a completely empty space on the map where it is physically located. The same is true for all other Jewish areas of 'occupied East Jersusalem' such as Gilo; yet, far smaller Arab areas of East Jerusalem such as Silwan are on the app. The most bizarre omission of all is the completely empty space where the old city of Jerualem should be.

Sadly, there are plenty of (presumably Jewish) Israelis only too happy to go along with this kind of nonsense. On a previous trip the satellite navigation device (which was programmed in Hebrew) that we hired along with a car actually not only failed to recognize Jewish areas of  'occupied Jerusalem' but kept instructing us to turn around whenever we approached them.

Nigel Farage (UKIP) speaks to London Jews

I attended the Jewish Chronicle hosted meeting with Nigel Farage of UKIP last night in North London. The hall was pretty much packed out (amazing for a warm summer evening). Farage spoke for about 30 minutes and then JC editor Stephen Pollard asked him a number of questions before inviting questions from the audience.

Farage is a masterful speaker and he especially brilliantly explained his contempt for the EU, the global warming fetish, David Cameron, and even Obama. If he gets decent, unbiased exposure in the main stream media over the next two years then not only will UKIP win next year's European elections, but they will also get significant representation in Parliament the year after.

However, in total contrast to his complete mastery and understanding of European politics, he demonstrated almost complete ignorance of Israel and the Middle East. He was honest enough to say that, unlike other politicians speaking to a Jewish audience, he was not there just to speak about and tell them things they wanted to hear. Hence, in his speech (as opposed to the questions), all he wanted to say about Israel was that he 'strongly supports its right to exist' (I was hoping an Israeli in the audience might respond by saying 'I strongly support the right of Great Britain to exist' but sadly that did not happen).

Although Farage expressed some concern about Islamists in the UK he is clearly completely oblivious to the fact that Islamism is at the root of most of the problems in the Middle East. For somebody who so well understands the flaws of the leftist narrative with respect to so many things, it is bizarre that he actually accepts in its entirety the leftist narrative about the Middle East: thus he thinks that Arabs are peace-loving people who only want to kill us because we (meaning Western powers and Israel) attacked them first; he believes there is never any justification for a pre-emptive strike (such as against nuclear installations or terrorist leaders); and most incredibly he believes that the only reason the Iranians hate us is because of the sanctions against them. On this latter point he said 'we should have bombed them with love instead of sanctions as that way they would have discovered western values rather than turning to Islamic fundamentalism'.  His understanding of the history of the Iranian revolution is therefore a perfect inversion of reality. 

During his speech Farage spoke about how in the 1930s the entire political and media class (with the exception of Churchill and a small number of MPs) were convinced that Hitler was somebody we could work with. He used this analogy to answer the rhetorical question of how everybody could be wrong and only UKIP right on a range of core issues. Yet, ironically, he stands with all other mainstream British (and indeed EU) politicians in burying their head in the sand over the worldwide Islamist threat. I was hoping to ask him about this - and also his views on the banning and arrest of those who warn about the Islamic threat in the UK - but never got the chance because there were so many people clambering to ask questions.

The bulk of  the questions - including all of those by Pollard were pretty poor. To understand why the JC has become the pathetic, leftist, non-defender of Israel that it has, you only have to know that Pollard is its editor.  In his view the 'burning' question that 'everybody wanted to know' of Farage was what was he going to do about the 'racist' members of UKIP. Farage answered that pretty well - it's just a shame he is not aware that Pollard and the JC are not at all interested in the far more numerous and serious racists in the Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative Party, nor even in the racists among the Islamic community in the UK.  In fact Islamism was like the elephant in the room. It did not got a mention until near the end when a man (who I think may actually have been a Muslim given his name) asked the simple question 'what is your view of Islam?'. After a suitably politically correct answer the subject was not touched on again.

The most shameful 'question' came from a guy (who I assume was a member of Yachad or Jews for Justice for Palestinians because he was there to demonise Israel). He stated that many young Jews get the full benefit of the British state and then, without contributing anything back, go to live in Israel. He asked Farage what he would do about this, but not before he also got in a classic antisemitic dig that 'it is not surprising Jews are accused of dual loyalty'. Farage did not address the dual loyalty slur, but gave an excellent answer to the question by saying simply he hoped that when such people went to Israel they would forge strong commercial links between Israel and the UK.

Update: It appears that Farage's politically correct attitude to Islam (and only Islam) turns out to be a very carefully considered stance. Like the rest of the political and media class he has made a decision that nothing must be said by UKIP at all in case they might be perceived as 'racists' (as in truth is the new hate speech). See here.

Update 1 June 2014 (one year on): I said in the above report that if Farage "gets decent, unbiased exposure in the main stream media over the next two years then not only will UKIP win next year's European elections". Well they certainly did not get decent unbiased exposure - they were subject to a relentless smear campaign by the entire political and media establishment - but they did still win the 2014 European election (the first time in 100 years that neither Labour or Conservatives have won a national election.

Update 12 April 2015. Which British political partyis the most antisemitic?

No need for satire: The JC on Ronnie Fraser speaking at American Freedom Alliance

Following my recent satirical statements by a) the Board of Deputies of British Jews on the banning of Spencer and Geller and b) the Metropolitan Police on the arrest of EDL leaders Robinson and Carroll, it seems to me that the latest main stream media reporting makes satire redundant. If you have been watching the BBC's reporting of the latest Egyptian revolution you will, for example, have been told that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate, non-violent, democratic organisation now robbed of its deserved place to rule. There are too many examples to cite but looking at today's Jewish Chronicle I found this gem that is especially relevant to last week's story on the UK banning of Spencer and Geller.

Non-satirical article in Jewish Chronicle (click to enlarge)

Ronnie Fraser is someone who I previously greatly admired. He fought a recent bitter legal  battle against the University and College Union for their antisemitic bullying (dressed up as 'anti-Zionism' of course) only to come up against the antisemitic British judiciary (dressed up as 'anti-Zionist' of course). From  today's Jewish Chronicle (which readers of this blog will know has extensive form with respect to it official position of accepted dhimittude) I discovered that Fraser:

..agreed to speak at the American Freedom Initiative (AFA) .... He appeared at the Los Angeles conference despite the presence of Robert Spencer, who was last week banned from entering Britain by Home Secretary Theresa May..

but here are the good bits:

Jewish community leaders had attempted to discourage Mr Fraser from taking part in the event

Given his brave fight against the UCU bigots and bullies I was expecting to read about Fraser standing up to these unnamed 'Jewish community leaders' but instead we find:

In a statement this week, Mr Fraser said "He would perhaps have taken a different view on whether to attend the conference if he had known the level of controversy surrounding Mr Spencer".

The piece de resistance is, however, this gem:

Mr Fraser said "While I have heard of him, I did not attend Robert Spencer's talk, nor do I align myself with or advocate his particular doctrine."

So, as per my satirical article, we can be comforted to know that Mr Fraser could not in any way have been 'infected' with Spencer's views since he actually never heard what those views were.

Also interesting is the guilt by accusation reference to Geert Wilders. There was I thinking that Geert Wilders was an incredibly brave freedom fighter who had sacrificed his personal safety, freedom and livelihood by standing up to Islamic terrorism (and who also happens to be one of the only politicians in Holland who is strongly pro-Israel), but who is only described by the JC in the following terms:

Other speakers ..included Geert Wilders, who was cleared two years ago of inciting hatred against Muslims following comments about Islam".

Hooray for free speech eh?

Metropolitan Police Statement on the arrest of EDL leaders Robinson and Carroll*

Following the illegal publication (on numerous racist websites) of this video purporting to show that the arrest of Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll was somehow unfair, we wish to provide the following points of clarification.

1. Both Mr Robinson and Mr Carroll are clearly wearing identical tea-shirts which are predominantly black in colour. This is proof that they are part of a conspiratorial fascist blackshirt army intent on destroying the entire social fabric of the United Kingdom.
2. Both Mr Robinson and Mr Carroll are speaking in an extreme working class dialect, a clear indication of anti-multiculteralism.
3. Both Mr Robinson and Mr Carroll are walking at a brisk pace that is fully consistent with intent to do harm to a Muslim place of worship.
4. Prior to the 'confrontation' Mr Robinson can clearly be heard whistling, which is known to be a racist call to arms.
5. Mr Carroll alleges that he was the victim of an "unprovoked assault". However, note the aggressive manner in which Mr Carroll attempts to stop himself being hit. 
6. Moreover, the man (who we can confirm is a Mr Carl Marks of Islington) who allegedly "assaulted" Mr Carroll" was, in fact, acting in self-defence. Seconds before the assault Mr Robinson can clearly be heard talking about "tensions in the community" and "violent mob".  This was a manifest signal that Mr Robinson and Mr Carroll were themselves about to launch an unprovoked violent attack against Mr Marks.
7. Despite the obvious aggression and intent of Mr Robinson and Mr Carroll the Met Police showed considerable restraint in not arresting the pair until they committed the grave offence of walking in London without the express permission of Sheik Abu Qatada.
8. In the interests of community cohesion, which is the primary objective of the Metropolitan Police Force, we are delighted to announce that we have co-opted the above mentioned Mr Marks to be a member or our multi-cultural diversity team. This team, which is answerable to the Minister for "Faith and Communities"  Baroness Warsi, will be fully responsible for determining who the Police can and cannot arrest. The team is led by Mr Anjum Chaudhary (leader of Al Mahjaroun) and co-chaired by Mr Bill Greenshields (Chairperson of the Communist Party of Britain). As an active member of the Violent Islamo-Marxist Fascists against Loyal Brits organisation (also know as 'United Against Fascism') Mr Marks will bring valuable experience on how to fight racists.

 * To pre-empt humourless commenters this is intended as satire.

See also Board of Deputies statement on the banning of Spencer and Geller
Excellent relevant Pat Condell video.
Allow Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to Speak in UK Petition | GoPetition

Charity to Palestinians

Daniel Greenfield has highlighted the disproportionate amount of humanitarian aid paid to the Palestinians compared with any other people/nation.

In fact, while almost all of this is paid for by US and Western countries (from their tax payers' income), it is also interesting to know how Muslims themselves are brainwashed into focusing their own charity giving towards the Palestinians. As I pointed out here based on the UK Muslim charity 'Muslim Hands' instructions to its donors, a Palestinian Muslim deserves far more than any Muslim living anywhere else in the world. Specifically, Muslims are asked to donate 44 times the amount to Palestinian Muslims than to Muslims in Malawi - one of the poorest nations in the world. Moreover, taking account of population size and per capita income a Muslim in Jerusalem is valued nearly two hundred thousand times more than a Pakistani Muslim.

I doubt if, in the history of the world, there has ever been so much money given to a least deserving cause, especially as much of the money sent to the Palestinians not only perpetuates their total culture of dependency but also ends up funding terrorism and anti-Semitic propaganda.

The banning of Spencer and Geller from the UK

Following previous posts on this subject I decided to capture the situation graphically.

Spencer and Geller

Allow Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to Speak in UK Petition | GoPetition

A Statement on behalf of the UK Jewish Board of Deputies on the banning of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from entering the UK*

By Jonathan Arshole

As Deputies elected by no less than 14 people from across the UK, we speak on behalf of all British Jews in expressing our delight at this ban. Our lobbying played a major role in achieving it.

To ensure that we would never be negatively influenced ourselves by their hate speech, I am pleased to confirm that no Deputy has ever read a word that either Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller has written. However, the Guardian, Al Jazeera, the Socialist Workers Party, George Galloway, Ken Livingstone, Baroness Warsi, as well as every major Islamic Organisation in the UK, have confirmed that Spencer and Geller are racist fanatics who seek nothing less than the death of every Muslim in the world. Even right-wing organisations such as the BBC and the Liberal Democrat Party agree that Spencer and Geller are anti-Muslim bigots.  We also note that among the racist fanatics who ‘support’ Spencer and Geller are so-called abused ‘Muslim’ women and homosexuals, and apostates from Islam, who have all ‘testified’ that Geller and Spencer are ‘freedom fighters who counter Jihad oppression’. These so-called ‘Muslims’ are clearly liars, as evidenced by the fact that not one has been interviewed by the BBC.

The Board of Deputies is especially delighted that the banning of Spencer and Geller means that nobody else in the UK will have to hear a single word of their hate-speech. This represents a major success for freedom of speech in the UK, since every politician, news presenter, writer and Imam is now free to make up any claim they wish about the extent of the evil of Spencer and Geller without the fear of being challenged or having to back it up with any facts. The banning of Spencer and Geller also ensures that the British main stream media is free to continue with not having to cover stories about ‘Islamic threats’ around the whole world that Spencer and Geller claim to exist. As Jews we are especially grateful that we can continue to remain blissfully unaware of the multiple threats posed to us by the Islamists. This enables us to continue to work closely with our Muslim partners in combatting the real common threats posed to us and the whole of humanity: the EDL, UKIP, and the Jewish Defence League.

The Board of Deputies’ relentless commitment to freedom of speech is confirmed by its continued support for the right of every Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Al Quaeda Imam to come to the UK to preach. Their presence improves community cohesion by uniting Muslims in their hatred of Western values and Jews, while any attempt to ban them would be counterproductive since it would inflame Muslim sensitivity and  result in understandable violence, especially against Jews.

The banning of Spencer and Geller is a glorious moment for British Jewry since it has brought us closer to our friends in the Muslim Community. As a sign of our closer cooperation I am delighted to announce that the Board will be delegating all future security arrangements to the Islamic Foundation of Europe, and that our Middle East Policy will be subcontracted to the Muslim Public Affairs Committee.

*For those commenters who did not realise it, this is intended to be satirical, although the original statement is not much better

See also: The banning of Spencer and Geller and  More on the Jewish Board of Deputies disgraceful kowtowing to Islamists 

Allow Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to Speak in UK Petition | GoPetition

More on the Jewish Board of Deputies disgraceful kowtowing to Islamists

Following on from the story about the Board of Deputies lobbying the Government to ban Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from the UK (on the basis that telling the truth about specific Islamic threats - which Spencer and Geller do - is the new 'hate speech')  I posted a message to the Board of Deputies via their website. In doing so, I noticed this article  praising, of all people Baroness Warsi who had been invited to a Board of Deputies exhibition. For the truth about Baroness Warsi - and her continual support for Islamic extremists - see my reports here and here. Given her powerful role in Cabinet as Minister for "Faith and Communities" it is likely that Warsi played a prominent role in advising the Home Office to ban Spencer and Geller. What makes the Board of Deputies story even more shameful is that the other person it praises is none other than Fiyaz Mughal who 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 appears to have lost patience with Fiyaz Mughal, the Board of Deputies continues to positively slobber over him. Indeed the Board of Deputies report of their recent meeting concludes with the following heartwarming tale:

Rabbi Natan Levy, the Board's Interfaith consultant, and exhibition co-ordinator, said it provides a "unique bridge between the two communities, so that they can celebrate together, remember together, and not be driven further apart." He added: "There was a lovely moment when Fiyaz Mughal ( Director of Faith Matters) and I came together and quoted the same line from our respective scriptures: ‘whosoever saves a single life saves the entire universe’."

I have a simple recommendation for all Synagogue-attending Jews in the UK who do not agree that the Board of Deputies' mandate should include promoting Islamic supramacists and silencing those who speak out about real threats to Jews from Islamists: when you next receive a bill for your Synagogue fees you will notice it contains an itemized 'Board of Deputies levy'. Do not pay it. It is entirely voluntary.

Update: See this statement issued by the Board of Deputies

Update: Geller and Spencer were banned from the UK because they were 'too pro-Israel'.

Allow Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to Speak in UK Petition | GoPetition

UK bans Spencer and Geller: free speech is dead in the UK and the ban was supported by the Board of Deputies

Due to extreme personal circumstances I have been unable to post much lately. But today's news that Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have been banned from entering the UK is so shocking that I had to say something (and will be contacting my MP about it). Here are the Home Office letters sent to Spencer and Geller - typically the Government is using legislation explicitly drafted to combat Islamic terrorism to ban people exposing that very terrorism. Spencer is one of the World's foremost experts on Islam and Jihad. Geller is a fearless exposer of Islamic hatred and anti-Semitism, who has actually done more to support the human rights of Muslims (by campaigning, for example, against the abuse of  women and gays in Islamic societies) than any politician in the Western world.

Spencer and Geller have tirelessly exposed threats (not just physical but also against democracy) posed by Islamists around the world. In return they receive death threats on a daily basis by Islamists and anti-Semites, and even more shamefully they are called racist bigots by the main stream media and politicians who have never bothered to even read their work. Such is the fate of anybody who meticulously exposes the truth about specific or general Islamic threats, but Spencer and Geller have attracted especially vicious treatment because of their bravery and perseverance. The Islamists - and their multiple dhimmi supporters across the political spectrum - want them silenced so that the truth remains untold. Instead of hearing what Spencer and Geller have to say the UK public will hear only lies about them, while being told that there is no such thing as an Islamic threat at all.

That the Jewish Board of Deputies should have lobbied in support of this atrocious decision by the UK Government is appalling but not surprising to anybody who has read my blog over the years. When Oxfam and Comic Relief were discovered to be supporting a Palestinian 'charity' that was using the money to publish anti-Semitic material I wrote to both charities, along with the Board of Deputies who had at the time just entered into a relationship with Oxfam (despite much opposition). Whereas both charities provided detailed responses to my letter, the Board of Deputies never responded.

Update here on the increasingly deranged Jewish Board of Deputies

Update: Geller and Spencer were banned from the UK because they were 'too pro-Israel'.  

Allow Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to Speak in UK Petition | GoPetition

Thousands turn out for Israel 65th parade and rally in London: Pictures

Here are some photos (more to follow tomorrow) I took from today's parade and rally to celebrate Israel's 65th birthday. The parade started from Hyde Park and filled more or less the length of Piccadilly (probably about three thousand people with several hundreds more Israel supporters lining the route). It ended up in Trafalgar Square which was filled for a celebration that involved Israeli singers, and speeches by various religious and political leaders (inlcuding Michael Gove). The inevitable anti-Semites were present outside Trafalgar Square (including 'Jews' from the Neturei Karta and 'Jews for Justice for Palestinians') chanting their peaceful anthem "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free"). How sick they must have been to hear the Hatikvah sung with heart from thousands inside the Square led by outgoing Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (who, unlike the bland 'Kumbaya' speeches by the religious leaders of the Reform and Masorti movements, gave a remarkably inspiring and robust speech calling out the hypocrisy of the 'Israel apartheid state' claims of the anti-Semites).

Fighting Islamic terror by censoring and criminalizing criticism of Islamic terror

Today's Sun: two typical stories of how the media narrative has been framed after Woolwich

The almost universal reaction from our politicians and the main stream media to last week's terror attack in Woolwich has been to

1. Insist that this has nothing to do with 'authentic' Islam (and we now know that David Cameron and Boris Johnson are apparently more qualified than any Imam to judge what is 'authentic' Islam) -
2. Cast Muslims as the 'real' victims by desperately scouring for incidents of 'Islamaphobic' reaction and then massively overhyping the tiny number of incredibly minor incidents found (most of which are bogus)  while almost completely ignoring further acts of Islamic terrorism such as the attacks on prison wardens and on military memorials (note how the Mirror has actually censored out the Islam graffiti in its photos of the latter while bizarrely implying that the EDL is somehow to blame).
3. Pretend to be serious about clamping down on Islamic hate preachers, while in practice use it as an opportunity to censor anybody who exposes the true Islamic threat (in fact, the only Islamic hate preacher who they now really want to censor is Anjem Choudary who actually performs a valuable service by being almost unique in stating very publicly and authoritatively what Islam is really about; in contrast, the many preachers who talk at Universities and even advise government ministers are given a pass because they restrict their hate incitement to Muslim audiences only).
4. Focus their fury on the threat from who it calls 'right wing fanatics' (such as the 85-year-old woman arrested for shouting outside a mosque) and in particular the EDL (who have the temerity to be both British patriots and prepared to expose the dangers to the UK of radical Islam). 

The latter has led, for example, to the kind of stories now appearing as shown above in today's Sun. In the first story we find that the Help the Heroes charity is actually refusing to accept donations that originate from the EDL (compare the hypocrisy of the media's prompting of this action with their total lack of interest in organisations like Oxfam directly funding Palestinian anti-Semitism). In the second story we find that the Police arrested and fined a drunk who 'mocked a Muslim prayer ritual' (compare the speed and resulting action of this with the total lack of action against Muslims who have publicly called for the beheading of 'Kuffars' at many rallies in London). The Sun also has another story today in which it blames the EDL for violence at a rally on Monday, when the violence was actually caused by the 'United Against Fascism' counter-protesters (a grouping of violent socialists and Islamists).

Expect to see many more cases like this one.

Update: excellent article by Bruce Bawer covering this issue

COBRA meeting tonight after Woolwich terrorist attack - and guess who wil be there?

After today's terrorist attack in which a British solider was beheaded outside a school by attackers screaming 'Allah Akhbar' (nothing to do with Islam of course if you are watching the BBC news) it has been announced that an emergency meeting of the National Security Council (COBRA) will be held this evening. We can all be comforted to know that the unelected Islamist supremicist Baroness Warsi (who has made it clear that she views 'Islamophobia' as one of the gravest threats facing Britain)  will be present at this meeting in her role as the Faith and Communities minister.

Islamophobic crime: how bad is it?

In a recent posting I noted the announcement by Cabinet Minister Baroness Warsi that "tackling anti-Muslim hatred was a key priority for the coalition government". I commented that this was a curious priority to have since there was no significant anti-Muslim hatred in the UK. It turns out a Jew is over 16 times more likely to be the victim of an anti-Semitic crime than a Muslim is of being the victim of an 'Islamophobic' crime.

It is not easy to get hold of hard data, but last week I came across a copy of a local paper of the London Borough of Redbridge which sheds light on the scale of  'Islamophobia' and 'Islamophobic crimes'. This borough is second only to Newham in its proportion of Muslim residents; the Borough's own 2011 census results indicate that about 65,000 of the 281,000 population are Muslims. The number of Jews living in Redbridge is believed to be around 9,000. Given that the 'white' population of Redbridge is predominantly working class and generally fairly poor, if there was going to be any area of the UK where you would expect a very high number of  'Islamophobic crimes' then this would be it. The actual figures are here:

So, the latest annual number of 'Islamophobic crimes' is - other than homicide - the lowest number of any official category. Just 7 such crimes in the whole year (while the relatively small number of Jews experienced more than double that number of anti-Semitic crimes).  And that is despite the unprecedented campaign by Muslim organisations, as well as national and local government, to encourage reporting incidents of Islamophobia no matter how minor they may be.

Isn't it wonderful that the Government is devoting so much money and energy to convince us that Islamophobia is one of the gravest threats faced by the UK today?

Daily Mail uses photo of Jewish women being restrained as evidence of mistreatement of Palestinians

Douglas Murray is one of the UK's finest political commentators. He is also a staunch defender of Israel. But in an otherwise excellent article he has written in the Daily Mail about Stephen Hawking's boycott of Israel he has provided the opportunity for a bizarre blunder by the Mail's editors. Because Murray decided (wrongly in my view) to 'balance' his criticism of the boycott with comments like these:

I acknowledge that there are those who are concerned about Israel’s approach to the Palestinians

the Editor (I assume) decided it was an opportunity to smear Israel even in a pro-Israel article by posting a picture showing Israelis 'mistreating Palestinians'. 

Screenshot taken from Daily Mail online article, 11 May 2013

Hence we have this picture captioned

There are those who are concerned about Israel's approach to the Palestinians, but if these academics think a boycott is the right way to address those concerns they are profoundly mistaken 

Except that the women in the photo, including the one being held back by an Israeli policeman, are clearly orthodox Jewish women (12 May Update: Elder of Ziyon has confirmed that the photograph is from AFP, and shows Israeli police stopping a Jewish protest after the murder of Evyatar Borovsky).

Incidentally I believe the whole approach being used by the pro-Israel side to the boycott issue is fundamentally flawed. When the Nazis were boycotting Jewish shops it would have been bizarre to say things like "We recognise that these Jewish owners have not all led perfect lives and so we have some sympathy with your hatred of them, but we think that the goods they sell are fantastic not just for Jews but for Nazis as well. So please don't boycott them". The only sensible - and winning - response is to attack the people behind the boycott for what they are: modern-day Nazis who have no interest whatsoever in the welfare of the Palestinians; their sole objective is to destroy the Jewish state. That's why the image here (by Isreallycool) is so much more powerful than the message here.

Just about the  worst strategy that you can possibly take in confronting the boycotters is the one I heard from the Israeli goverment representative (I didn't catch his name) who was chosen to speak against Exeter University's Israel-hater and boycott leader Ghada Karmi on Nick Ferrari's LBC radio show this week. While Karmi was spouting the standard lies about Israel being an apartheid state (unchallenged by both Ferrari and the Israel rep) the Israeli's response was simply to play the kumbaya card saying that whatever our differences it was much better to sit down and talk rather than boycott. To see the futility of that approach you should read the staggering account reported here.

Just who in Britain stands up for Israel?

As I explained last week, British Jews can no longer rely on the Jewish Chronicle to be either a defender of Israel, or even the provider of news that is anything other than coloured by a far left perspective.

A commenter on that article said that the free "Jewish News" is much more balanced.Sadly, that has not been the case for at least two years and today's issue provides a perfect summary of why. There is a wrap around cover publicising the "Closer to Israel Parade and Celebration' taking place in London on 2 June, but that is an advert and when you look inside the actual paper you will find plenty of evidence to suggest the writers do not sympathise with the advert's message. The articles shown here are especially disgraceful because they would not have been out of place in the Guardian, the BBC, or even Al Jazeera.

• The article headlined "Two killed in confrontation" starts with "An Israeli settler in Nablus and a Palestinian were killed this week as several incidents led to heightened alert across Israel." In other words, in classic BBC style the Jewish News is now making a moral equivalence between an Israeli civilian killed in a brutal unprovoked terrorist attack and the pinpoint assassination of the very member of an Al Qaeda affiliated organisation in Gaza who led last week's rocket attack on Eilat. Even more outrageous is that, while the article names the dead terrorist, it does not bother to name the Israeli civilian. Instead it refers to him simply as "an armed settler" - apparently using that description as justification for him being killed and ignoring the fact that all Israelis living in the West bank must by necessity carry their guns with them when they travel (and he was hitchhiking). The murdered Jew, who the Jewish News feels does not deserve to be named,  was the much loved 31-year-old Evyatar Borovsky, from the settlement of Yitzhar, a father of five (the youngest just 7 years old). But, the Jewish News doesn't want you to know that - just in case you might feel a tiny bit of sympathy.

• The article headlined "Ban on illegal shells" talks about Israel's decision to halt its use of white phosphorous. In fact the headline is a blatant smear. Israel's use of white phoshorous has always been legal (NATO troops use it in exactly the same way) and its decision to stop it was taken unilaterally purely for PR reasons.
• 

• The article headlined "Price tag attacks are an issue Jews worldwide must address" is just more of the nonsense we saw in last week's JC where we have the total inversion of reality in which Jews attacking Arabs is supposed to be the main problem that Israel faces. But in terms of sheer pomposity and stupidity it's hard to beat the message that 'Jews worldwide' must do something about this (non-existent) problem. How about this writer Dr Gvaryahu demanding that every Christian in the world must do something about Christian teenagers brawling in Scunthorpe every Friday night? Or even demanding that every Muslim in the world addresses the problem of Muslim terrorism (oops better rule that one out as it actually makes sense).

So, if the only two Jewish newspapers in the UK now simply parrot the same narrative as the Guardian and BBC about Israel, which organisations actually are there left to genuinely support Israel? It certainly is not the UJIA (United Jewish Israel Appeal) whose leader Mick Davis thinks Israel is an apartheid state; it certainly isn't the Board of Deputies of British Jews whose priority is  not just to partner with the anti-Israel Oxfam, but to continue with that partnership after Oxfam was revealed to be funding Palestinian anti-Semitism and support for terrorism; it certainly isn't BICOM (Britain Israel Communications & Research Centre) who actually employ an anti-Israel activist to do their 'promotion'; and it is no longer even clear we can rely on the Zionist Federation who felt that it was their job to take visitors to Israel 'to meet Palestinians and understand their point of view'. Do these organisations, which are supposed to represent the interests of Israel and British Jews, really think that in the UK of all places it is their job to put across the Palestinian narrative when nothing other than that is forced onto everyone nonstop by the main stream media?

If the Jewish newspapers and organisations really want to talk about the Palestinian's viewpoint then why not focus on telling the British public about their obsessive death cult (which starts very young) their worship of terrorist murderers (the killer of Evyator Borovsky apparently had to murder a Jew to bring honour back to his family - oh and by the way he was a member of Fatah our 'peace partners'), their brutal treatment of women,  homosexuals, and christians, their genuine apartheid (not a single Jew is allowed to live in areas controlled by the Palestinians); or how about the way they treat their disabled children leaving - guess who to pick up the tab; and above all the fact they do not - and never did - want an independent state; they only ever wanted the destruction of Israel. Then perhaps people like Dr Gvaryahu might demand more appropriately that Jews worldwide do something about that.

p.s. There is an outstanding article today by Caroline Glick which tounches on many of the issues above.

A letter to the Labour Party (Ken Livingstone et al)

A friend of mine who is a long-time Labour Party member (yes I do have such friends!) has given me permission to publish the following letter he has sent to his local (Labour) MP (names withheld). He has promised to let me see any response.

Dear XXXX

Continued membership of Ken Livingstone (and other antisemitic, terrorist supporters) in the Labour Party

As I believe you know, I am one of your constituents and have been a member of the Labour party for many years. In the last few years I have become dismayed at the anti-Semitism of an increasing number of Labour MPs and senior party figures. Sometimes this anti-Semitism is dressed up under the guise of anti-Zionism, but of course their obsessive hatred of Israel (and Israel only) reveals their true feelings. Increasingly, certain Labour figures no longer even bother to make the 'politically correct' replacement of 'Jew' with 'Zionist'. It seems the Labour Party as a whole is not only tolerant of these views, but sees them as a potential vote winner among the expanding Muslim communities.

So, for example, we have had Paul Flynn MP accuse Britain's first Jewish ambassador to Israel of having 'divided loyalties'; Martin Linton, MP speaking about the "long tentacles of Israel" reaching into British politics; Gerald Kaufman MP stating that "Just as Lord Ashcroft owns most of the Conservative Party, right-wing Jewish millionaires own the rest," and saying "Here we are, the Jews again" when pro-Israel MP Louise Ellman rose to speak in the Commons. Even more worrying are the continued activities of MPs Jeremy Corbyn, Sadiq Khan, and Andy Slaughter (the latter who even holds the position of Shadow Justice Minister). These MPs not only campaign for the destruction of Israel, but have a long history of support for Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists, and they have all shared platforms with members of terrorist organisations, and notorious anti-Semitic, homophobic Islamic hate-preachers (see, e.g. http://hurryupharry.org/2013/01/29/labour-embraces-islamist-extremists/).

But, above all, it is the fact that the Labour party still hosts Israel-hater and terrorist supporter Ken Livingstone that makes me question why I should continue to be a member of the party. It appears his Jew-baiting (and anti-Labour party activities) are insufficient ground for his expulsion, as is his working for the Iranian government on its Press TV. But then how about his comments on his Press TV show earlier this week (www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22352929) where he blamed "Western governments" for the terrorist bombing in Boston on the grounds that it was understandable for Muslims to get angry. Presumably he now feels that the London 7/7 bombings when he was Mayor were also justified. I feel I can no longer be a member of a party with the likes of Livingstone et al. Unless I hear in the next few weeks that at least Livingstone is finally booted out once and for all after his latest outburst I shall be terminating my membership.

Yours sincerely,