Yet another update to the LSE story

After I first raised the alarm about the new Middle East Centre at the LSE (I discovered that its publicity material featured a map that eradicated the State of Israel) I followed up with details of my correspondence with Sir Howard Davies (the LSE Director) here and here.

The last article contained Davies's helpful response to my last letter. His response (29 Jan 2011) was:

"Your comments are not worthy of reply."

Since my correspondence the whole issue of LSE's funding by Arab tyrants (which was the focus of my complaints) has become a big story (mainly because of the Gadaffy money given to LSE, but also because reporters started looking into the Middle East Centre and its funding as I had). Dominic Kennedy had a big article about it in the Times on Saturday (you can see Melanie Phillips's comments about that here). Apparently Dominic Kennedy has followed up with an interview with Howard Davies in the Times today (see Harry's Place piece here, as the Times costs to read online) which includes the following:

'Sir Howard defended the LSE’s new Middle East Centre, half of whose board support an academic boycott of Israel. “The biggest donor to the School in the past year is George Soros, who of course is of Jewish origin. We operate, I believe, a very balanced view.”’

Apart from the hilarious 'some of my best friends are Jewish' angle to this, what make Davies's' response all the more incredible is that he is unaware that Soros has been so comprehensively exposed as the key player  in international attempts to deligitimize Israel with his funding of a whole range of anti-Israel organisations.

I'd say it is time for Davies to resign.

Update: Davies has resigned!

The hypocrisy of the British media

You can see here the banner headline in tonight's Evening Standard (full story is here if you are really interested).

Isn't it incredible that an anti-semitic comment by a drunken C-list British designer in Paris who nobody has heard of makes front-page news (and it also made a big splash on tonight's BBC News and Sky News) yet the truly vicious anti-semitism that has united pro and anti 'democracy' protesters across the entire Arab world (as I have reported here,  here, here and here)  - the implications of which will be truly cataclysmic for the entire world -  continue to be completely ignored by all the Western media.

You won't see a play about these hebron massacres in London

Following on from my post about the anti-Israel play about Hebron currently being shown in Richmond, Daphne Anson has a graphic account of the massacre of Jews by Arabs in Hebron in 1929 (that's when according to the standard media narrative Jews and Arabs lived together in peace and harmony before the State of Israel was declared).

The 1929 massacre was not the only Arab terrorist attack against Jews in Hebron. Here are some others since the six-day war that won't be featuring any time soon in a London Theatre.

• 09.10.68 A 17 year-old Arab youth threw a grenade at Jews praying on the steps of the Tomb's main gate. 47 Jews, including an eight month-old baby, were injured.
• 05.11.68 A Jewish man and his son, an elderly Arab man, and three Arab children were injured by an explosive charge near the Tomb.
• 29.12.68 Terrorists attack a security post near the Tomb. One terrorist was killed; the others fled. No Israeli soldiers were injured.
• 07.08.76 Two Jews were wounded when terrorists shot at a tour bus in the city.
• 03.10.76 On the eve of Yom Kippur, a mob of Arab youths burst into the Tomb and desecrated several Torah scrolls. Three soldiers fired in the air in an attempt to prevent their entry. 61 rioters were arrested in the Tomb.
• 02.05.80 Arab terrorists ambushed a group of Jews returning from the Tomb to Beit Hadassah. Six Jews were murdered and 20 wounded.
• 25.10.92 Three Arab terrorists shot at soldiers guarding the Tomb's generator. One reserve soldier was murdered; two were wounded.
• 28.05.93 Yeshiva student Erez Shmuel was stabbed to death approximately 500 meters from from the Tomb, while on his way to Friday evening prayers at the Tomb.
• 06.12.93 Mordechai Lapid and his son Shalom were shot to death near Glass Junction in Hebron. Hamas claimed responsibility.
• 07.07.94 Sarit Prigal (17) was shot to death in a drive-by shooting, when terrorists opened fire from a passing car near the entrance to Kiryat Arba.
• 19.03.95 Nahum Hoss (31) of Hebron, and Yehuda Partus (34) of Kiryat Arba, were murdered by shots fired at their bus from a terrorist ambush near Glass Junction in Hebron. Six others were injured.
• November 15 2002: Twelve Israelis were killed and 15 others wounded in Hebron when Palestinian terrorists opened fire and threw grenades at a group of Jewish worshippers and their guards as they were walking home from Sabbath prayers at the Cave of the Patriarchs. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attacks.
• December 27, 2002 : Terrorists broke into a dining hall at a yeshiva in Otneil, south of Hebron, and killed 4 students who were working in the yeshiva kitchen, and injured ten others. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
• May 17, 2003: A pregnant Israeli woman and her husband were killed when a suicide bomber detonated himself next to them in a public square in Hebron. Hamas claimed responsibility.
• September 26, 2003: Eyal Yeberbaum, 27, and 7-month old infant Shaked Avraham were shot dead by a Palestinian terrorist who knocked on the door of a home in Negohot, south of Hebron, during a celebratory Jewish New Year holiday dinner. Islamic Jihad took responsibility for the attack.
• June 24, 2005: Two teenagers were killed and three others wounded in a drive-by shooting near Hebron. The Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility for the attack.
• October 16, 2005: Palestinian gunmen killed three Israelis and wounded as least 5 others in two separate drive-by shootings in the West Bank. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for both attacks.
• December 28, 2007: Two Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorists while hiking outside of Hebron. A third hiker managed to escape.
• 14 Jun 2010 1 soldier killed, 3 police officers wounded in gun attack on vehicle at Al Fawar Junction, south of Hebron
• August 31, 2010: Four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were murdered when terrorists ambushed their car as they were driving near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which coincided with the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Washington, D.C.

But what is featuring in a London Theatre is yet another anti-Israel play:
http://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/62809/productions/the-holy-rosenbergs.html

Anti-semitism is so natural and oh so hip ...

When I did a google search for images of Egyptian protesters yesterday plenty came up portraying Mubarak as a 'Jew-devil'. The same thing applies now to Libya.

Apart from the concept of Ghadaffi being part of the world Jewish conspiracy, what is especially bizarre here is the bottom picture of the attractive girl, specially made up for the photo-shoot. The message that is supposed to be portrayed here is that Libya is a country of attractive young, freedom-loving people. Not for one second do these 'freedom loving' demonstrators feel that there could be the remotest thing wrong with the images they have drawn. To them it is not only perfectly acceptable and natural to regard Jews as worse than the devil, but they even feel that doing this will curry favour with those in the west. And the worst thing is that they are right - and not one single liberal western reporter will make any negative comment about this kind of thing.

More on jihad watch.

No anti-semitism to worry about there then .....

The 'experts' have been assuring us that anti-semitism has played no role in the 'pro-democracy' revolutions across the Arab world. William Hague publicly scolded Israel for even voicing concerns about their own security after Mubarek's deposal, while Jews are specifically admonished in the Guardian for not being sufficiently enthusiastic about what happens after Mubarek. 

Clearly if we are worried about such trivia as the fact that Egypt's very own Hitler, Al Qaradawi, has returned from exile to a tumultuous welcome, and that for the first time in more than 30 years the Egyptians have allowed Iranian warships to enter the Suez canal to directly threaten Israel, then we are really just being paranoid.  But what I do find slightly ironic is that Sky News, which has been especially obsessed about covering up the anti-semitism angle (still waiting for them to mention the Lara Logan anti-semitic rape story) has been unable to show any images of 'pro-democracy' banners that do not portray Mubarek as a Jewish stooge.  And I am still waiting for any Sky presenter or pundit to even notice it.

Anti-Israel indoctrination in the UK

If you need to know the depth to which the British media has indoctrinated the public with anti-Israel feelings, then I can give no better example than the following:

My daughter, who goes to an orthodox Jewish school, tells me that, when the subject of Israel is discussed in their Jewish studies GCSE class, students routinely state things like "the Jews have no right to Israel because they stole the land from the Palestinians". 

In making statements like that, those regular 15-16 year old Jewish kids, are simply repeating what they are told relentlessly in every part of the media (as I have regularly reported on this web). In the midst of the big story of revolution across the entire Arab world (funny how the media is suddenly realising that these Arab countries were abusing their citizens for decades - they have been telling us all along that Israel  is the pariah state in the region) the BBC and Channel 4 has gone into overdrive ... to demonize Israel. Just a few examples of the anti-Israel tsunami engulfing British TV, in the last few days alone we have had:

• Scandalous BBC 'documentary' attacking Geert Wilders that also promoted the view that anybody supporting the State of Israel in any way was a criminal
• The Promise, on Channel 4, which Richard Millett sums up as ‘rich European Jews came to Palestine after the Holocaust, stole the Palestinians’ land and murdered British soldiers’.
• A film War Child,  on Channel 4, about ‘Jews killing innocent Palestinians'
• The Richard Dimbleby Lecture on BBC Tuesday 15th Feb 2011 about 'the rights of children' given by the author Richard Morpurgo which included a very strong political anti-Israel message plus the completely unsubstantiated and ridiculous claim that Israeli soldiers were shooting at Arab children in Gaza like in a computer game (yeah, like Arabs never lie about these things - just like they claimed a demonstrator was recently killed by tear gas).

 The relentless propaganda seems to be affecting just about everybody I know. It has got to the stage where even strongly pro-Israeli friends are unwittingly accepting anti-Israel bias as perfectly acceptable. I'd like to recount a very good example of this. The Orange Tree Theatre in Richmond is currently showing a play called 'Reading Hebron' about the massacre carried out in 1994 by a Jew. The Artistic Director of this theatre, Sam Walters, clearly has a problem with Israel because in his own words (I have the email) two of the three 'political' plays he has put on in the last year have been about Israel and both were highly critical (the other was about the Balfour declaration). For these 'political' plays Walters arranges a public workshop to discuss the political content.  For 'Reading Hebron' this workshop was, sensitively, arranged for a Saturday when no orthodox Jews can attend. However, Walters has arranged for discussions to take place after some of the showings during the week. That brings me to my pro-Israeli friend Joe. He went along to the play and after-show discussion and sent an email about it. I have taken the liberty of reproducing below exactly what Joe wrote because, although he feels very satisfied with the outcome there are aspects of what he says that deeply disturb me:

I went yesterday. Was delighted, as were most of the Jews in the audience, that the discussion afterwards did not become an Arab/Israeli debate. One person did speak out (pro-Palestinian) and tried to make it political...and the audience (vast vast vast majority being non-Jewish Richmondites - retirees who enjoy theatre) were annoyed by his trying to turn a theatrical performance into a political debate. So it actually worked against him...and, to a limited extent, for Israel! The Director - rightly in my view - said that the post-show discussion was to discuss the play NOT the politics (which will be discussed on the Sat "workshop" - which is the only thing I have real issue with). Of the Jews present, most were from Wimbledon Reform - primarily as one of their members was one of the key characters.

Most of the discussion - as it should have been - was about the play itself, its staging and the characters portrayed.

I did find much of the content disturbing - although relieved that (albeit in short supply) the counter-arguments were also made within the text - and certain scenes I was slightly offended by (then again, I suppose the author has the right to write what he wants). Viewed as a piece of theatre...it did its job well. It was thought provoking. My guess is that it would only be the real "self-hating Jews" (those who can see nothing good in what Israel does) and the "blind Jews" (those who can only see the good in Israel and are not prepared to consider the other side) that would have any major issue with the production...in part because it revolves around one character who is obviously a troubled individual (in his personal life) and his political stance is obviously fuelled by other life issues rather than being a rational political stance.

It's not enjoyable theatre...but it is good theatre. I didn't emerge invigorated. I wasn't pushed to the left or the right as a result. I was intrigued by the simplicity of the post-show discussion. I was proud that there were no counter-productive rants. I was thrilled that the one radical view expressed was from the other side (and the mutterings I overheard as people left the theatre were all about the show and that one "idiot")...

Here are the things that disturb me about what he wrote

• He completely misses the whole context of what is going on here. Terrible massacres have been carried out on a daily basis by Muslim terrorists - often supported by governments - for decades. Take a look here at a log of all terrorist attacks in recent decades; for example, since 9/11 alone there have been 16,839 deadly attacks by Muslims. Terrible massacres are also carried out routinely in many countries of the world.  Israel has especially been the victim of terrorist attacks (indeed there were several massacres against Israelis in the days immediately prior to what happened in Hebron). Hebron itself was the scene of one of the worst massacres of Jews by Arabs in 1929 (that was 19 years before the State of Israel).  
• None of those massacres was ever used as the basis for a play, let alone a play to criticise Muslims or Arabs. Yet the one and only terrorist act committed by a Jew in Israel in recent decades merits a play.  And it is not just this play. Of all the 'political' plays that have been staged in the UK in the last 5 years that are focused on criticism of a foreign country I would bet that at least 90% of them have been about Israel. This is despite the fact that, as recent events demonstrate, Israel is the only country in the Middle East which provides its citizens with freedom and democracy. When did you last see a play critical of: Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Tunisia, Morroco, Algeria (or any one of the world's 58 Muslim countries), not to mention the tyrannies that still exist in Eastern Europe, as well as China, Burma etc? 
• Nobody is questioning the right of the playwrite to produce and say whatever they want, but we have every right to question why playwrites and theatre directors are ONLY interested in political plays that are anti-Israel. That should be the context for any debate about this play.
• Given that Jews were effectively barred from the 'political' debate at the Saturday workshop, I am concerned at Joe's cowering acceptance that he had no right to raise any political objections to the play. How the hell do you discuss, for a political play like this,  "the play itself, its staging and the characters portrayed" without the political context?
• I am concered at Joe's casual and quite offensive suggestion of moral equivalence between anti-Israel fanatics (whose greatest wish in life is to see the violent destruction of the State of Israel) and people who simply love Israel and don't feel the need to have to swallow all of the lies and proganda told against it.
• I am concerned that pro-Israel supporters are giving this kind of play far more prominence and support than it deserves.  

Update on this post.

Our friends the Jordanians

Second only to the Egyptians in their level of anti-semitism, and with the prospects of their own Islamists similarly toppling a 'pro-Western' regime, the Jordanians are really starting to flex their ant-semitic muscles at the highest level. Today Jordan's justice minister no less described a Jordanian soldier serving a life sentence for killing 7 Israeli  schoolgirls in 1997 and wounding many others in an unprovoked machine gun attack, as a "hero," and joined a sit-in to demand his release.

And there is an interesting angle in the reporting of this story. Al Arabyia provides very detailed quotes from the Minister's written demands to release the soldier including these gems:
 

"I support the demonstrators' demand to free Ahmad Dakamseh. He's a hero. He does not deserve prison,"


"We cannot imagine that a great fighter like Dakamseh is in jail instead of reaping the rewards of his achievement,"

"If a Jewish person killed Arabs, his country would have built a statue for him instead of imprisonment."

Yet the Jerusalem Post, which has on its books many reporters who refuse to believe that their Arab neighbours hate them so much, is typically downplaying the story by not mentioning what the Minister actually said.  Again the Israeli press is doing exactly what the media in the rest of the western world is doing - censoring news of the Jihad against them. Hear no evil see no evil....

Imagine if the Egyptian revolution really is what the Western media is telling you

Western liberal analysts - who have totally dominated the narrative about the 'revolution' in Egypt - have typically been projecting their own values on the situation. That is why, for example, they are simply 'wishing away' the Muslim Brotherhood or suggesting that they are just a bunch of cuddly religious old men.

But just imagine if the revolution is really going to deliver the kind of democracy, freedom and peace the liberals assume. Then the very first thing that must happen is that anti-semitism, which is the core unifying feature of Egyptians, must be curbed. The reason 98% of Egyptians hate Jews is because antisemitism is bred into them from the day they are born. Anti-semitism is not just pumped out of  state-run media and - with full government encouragement -  from every mosque and imam in the country. It also dominates the beliefs and actions of supposedly enlightened lawyers, writers, musicians and trade unionists (who call for the killing of the rare fellow lawyers, writers musicians and trade unionists for daring to speak to Israelis for example).

Curbing anti-semitism (and, of course, its 'acceptable face' dressed as anti-Israel and anti-Americanism) is essential if there is to be any hope of genuine freedom, domocracy and peace.


When the western media starts mentioning this I will start to believe there is such hope.

The Western main stream media is censoring what it shows from Egypt

Numerous bloggers have pointed out the fact that the Western media is deliberately censoring/ignoring the widespread anti-semitism prominent in banners and feelings at the 'pro democracy' camp in Cairo. Here is a good example. But there is another aspect being censored because it simply does not fit in with the ‘narrative’ that the anti-Mubarek demonstrators are peace-loving democrats. This is the violence.

Where Al Jazeera is different from the Western coverage is that Al Jazeera has been showing very graphic videos of horrific violence by both pro and anti- Mubarek supporters including several actual killings and lynchings. The most appalling examples are clearly being committed by the anti-Mubarek supporters (check out Al jazeer'as coverage tonight). The Western media are simply not showing these. Can you imagine how they would be falling over themselves to show those videos if that kind of violence happened in Israel? In fact, given the amount of time they are spending on Egyypt regurtitating the same material wouldn't you have thought they would be interested in showing something new?

What we can look forward to from Egypt.

As usual Sultan Knish gets the Egyptian 'revolution' right and there is a good analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood from Daphne Anson. For anybody who believes the universal media message that nothing but good is going to come out of the 'pro-democracy' revolution in Egypt watch all 90 seconds of this video.

And it has started already. Since the 'revolution'  we have already seen:

• Hamas, emboldened by the prospects of their parent organisation the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, fired a grad rocket at a wedding reception in Israel
• All Hamas prisoners in Egypt were broken out of jail (and have returned to Gaza to plot the next wave of terrorist attacks)
• The entire Hezbollah network who were recently convicted of plotting terrorist attacks against Israeli tourists in Sanai were broken out of jail.
• Today terrorists blew up the gas pipeline in Norther Sinai that provides gas supplied to Israel and Jordan.

Also, isn't it funny how the same liberal-lefties who set the media agenda don't support pro-democracy movements in Islamist countries that wish to destroy Israel (Iran and Syria being obvious examples).

Another update to the LSE Middle East Centre saga

When I raised the issue of the Middle East Centre's manager Dr Chalcraft proposing a motion for an academic boycott of Israel I got the following response from Sir Howard Davies, the LSE Director:

I am replying to your email to me of 15th January.  You refer to the debate at the School on an academic boycott of Israel.  The debate was a joint event organised by the Israeli and Palestine societies here, who both agreed that issues ought to be debated in public.  As you note, Dr Chalcraft proposed the motion and a professor from UCL opposed it.  The motion failed.

You suggest that Dr Chalcraft’s view cannot be consistent with our claim that the Middle East Centre will provide balanced and informed analysis of the region.  I do not agree.  Professor Fawaz Gerges, director of the centre, has said: “The Middle East Centre is committed to rigorous research and scholarship with the scrupulous preservation of its academic independence.  There is a distinction between the policy of an institution and the views of individual academics, who retain their freedom of opinion and hold diverse views on many subjects.  This variety can help provide collective strength and balance in dealing with controversial matters.  More than 20 academics are involved in the Middle East Centre (through its research group and management group) and all of them are outstanding scholars of the region”.

You go on to say that you “can no longer believe the claim that the Middle East Centre was in no way to blame for the map” in our magazine which you have complained about before.  I find this a remarkable assertion.  Effectively you are accusing me and Claire Sanders of lying to you.  We have explained clearly the circumstances in which the map was chosen and have explained that it is unfortunate.  But it was not a matter for the centre itself. 

Howard Davies

Here is my self-explanatory response:

Dear Sir Howard

Thank you for your response.

>I am replying to your email to me of 15th January. You refer to the debate at the School on an academic boycott of Israel. The debate was a joint event organised by the Israeli and Palestine societies here, who both agreed that issues ought to be debated in public.

I look forward then to future debates proposing an academic boycott of Pakistan (or indeed virtually any of the world's 58 Muslim states which have anti-Chrisitian and anti-semitic policies and laws, not to mention numerous occupations and violations of human rights), an academic boycott of America (for conducting 'imperialist wars' in the Middle East), an academic boycott of China (for its occupation of Tibet and violation of human rights) , an academic boycott of the UK (see America), an academic boycott of Switzerland (for its banning of Muslim minarets), etc.

Can you please let me know when each of these debates is taking place at LSE in the near future. If they are not, or if you believe that any of those are issues should NOT be debated in public, then am I allowed to call you an anti-semite? Because I am afraid that is the only valid conclusion to draw.


>As you note, Dr Chalcraft proposed the motion and a professor from UCL opposed it. The motion failed.; You suggest that Dr Chalcraft’s view cannot be consistent with our claim that the Middle East Centre will provide balanced and informed analysis of the region. I do not agree.

Since Dr Chalcraft is listed on the LSE website as a manager of the Middle East Centre I think any rational person would tend to agree with me and not you. Oh and by the way independent attendees of the debate (I was not there) felt that Dr Chalcroft destroys the credibility not just of the Middle East Centre but of LSE as a a whole.

> You go on to say that you “can no longer believe the claim that the Middle East Centre was in no way to blame for the map” in our magazine which you have complained about before. I find this a remarkable assertion. Effectively you are accusing me and Claire Sanders of lying to you. We have explained clearly the circumstances in which the map was chosen and have explained that it is unfortunate. But it was not a matter for the centre itself.

I do not know if you are lying or if this was an incredible coincidence. If it was the latter then I apologise. But when I hear yet again that LSE this week supported further outrageous behaviour by anti-Israel fanatics of the PalSoc (brandishing fake guns and blood and intimidating Jewish students) then perphaps you will apologise for allowing, under your Directorship, a fine institution to have become a place where irrational anti-Israel activities dominate the campus and Jewish students no longer feel comfortable or safe.

Finally, here is Sir Howard Davies's helpful response (received 29 Jan 2011) to the above:

Your comments are not worthy of reply.

It is no wonder that LSE has become the number one Israel hatefest centre under his directorship. He is a complete asshole.

Yet another update to this story here.

LSE's anti-Israel Middle East Centre: Update

In response to the discovery here that LSE was advertising its new Middle East Centre with a map of the Middle East that eradicated Israel, the LSE's Vice-Chancellor Sir Howard Davies replied (on 13 January 2011) as follows:

"Thank you for your e-mail concerning the map which was used to illustrate a story about our new Middle East Centre in LSE Connect. This was an error on our part which you are quite right to point out.

I have spoken to Claire Sanders, the editor of LSE Connect, who has just returned from sick leave. She will be e-mailing you separately, but has assured me that the use of this particular map was entirely unintentional.

The map was chosen at the design stage simply to brighten and illustrate a page of text - unfortunately we didn't look closely enough at the image (as we should have) to see that it was entirely inappropriate. The map in question came from a collection of stock images held by an external agency - and I have been assured that we will not use this agency again. It has already been removed from the online version of the magazine and an apology for this mistake will be printed in the next edition of LSE Connect.

Above all, I would like to stress that the Middle East Centre was entirely uninvolved in the error. The centre is determined to provide balanced and informed analysis of the region, to include Arab states, Iran, Israel, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

So, a very hopeful response. Except that on 11 January 2011  a debate took place at the LSE in which Senior Lecturer Dr. John Chalcraft proposed the motion: "This House Believes in an Academic Boycott of Israel".  It turns out that this is the very same Dr. John Chalcraft who is listed as part of the management team of the Middle East Centre on the LSE's website. This is not exactly consistent with Howard's claim that "The centre is determined to provide balanced and informed analysis of the region...."

In this light of this simply incredible revelation it is difficult to believe the claim that The Middle East Centre was blameless for the map that eliminated Israel in LSE Connect.

Further Update

The futility of Israel's new rules of engagement

A typically brilliant article by Michael Totten describes in detail the extent to which the Israeli army will go to minimise civilian casualties in any future war.

The problem with the strategy is that it guarantees that Israel will be incapable of decisive victory. It also guarantees excessive and unnecessary losses of Israeli forces. For example, although it is known for certain that Hezbollah (and of course Hamas) is using mosques and clinics as both command centres and weapons storage facilities, the IDF will not be allowed to attack them.

Israel took excessive care in both the 2006 Lebanon war and the 2009 Gaza war to minimise civilian casualties - more than any other military force in history - and yet the world still condemned her. In response to pressure from the left-wing judiciary in Israel, the IDF announced in 2010 that it was instigating even tighter rules of engagement for future conflicts. Some of the fruits of this change are evidenced in Totten's report. But none of that will make an iota of difference to world reaction, which will still condemn Israel no matter what. The very act of self-defence by Israel is illegitimate in the eyes of most of the world.

The terrorists of Hezbollah and Hamas must be laughing their heads off at the extent Israel will go to appease world opinion. And they will be futher stockpiling weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals.

Frankie Boyle: The hypocrisy

The 'comedian' Frankie Boyle is all over the news today. The media are outraged at his 'racist' remarks in his latest Channel 4 show. This is the same media of course who were totally indifferent to his several previous barrages of vicious anti-semitism dressed up as hatred of Israel.

So why the outrage this time? They are outraged that he used the "P-word" (the media are not even allowed to spell out 'Paki') and the "N-word". But if you actually read what he said, you can see that by P's and N's he was clearly referring to Arabs/Muslims and, in contrast to his open hatred for Jewish Israelis, he was actually expressing genuine sympathy with them (and especially the Taliban); this was not an anti-P or anti-N attack but a typically ignorant attack against the British armed forces and Defence establishment:

• He said: “Basically we are murdering a load of shepherds. What gets me is our callousness as a society when we read out our dead on the news first, because our lives are more important. Other people’s aren’t worth as much.”
• Adopting a newsreader’s tone, he added: “A bomb went off in Kandahar today, killing two British servicemen, three UN relief workers and a whole bunch of P****.”
• Later he said: “The Ministry of Defence? At least in the old days we were honest, it was The Ministry of War.”
• In a posh phone voice he added: “Hello Ministry of War, department of n*****-bombing, how can I help?”

So Boyle genuinely thinks the Taliban and Al Quaeda are just a bunch of innocent shepherds who deserve our sympathy, while the British armed forces are racist murderers. But not one media report focused on this aspect of Boyle's show. They were only concerned about the offense cause to Ps and Ns.

Now, isn't there something wrong here? When Boyle issues blood libels against Jewish Israelis, Jews have no right to feel offended. And when Boyle slanders British troops at the same time as showing his sympathy with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the outrage is not against these disgusting views promoted without response to millions of (mainly) politically ignorant and easily influenced teenagers. No, the only outrage allowed is his use of the P and N-words (in a context where he was actually expressing sympathy with all P's and N's, but most of all sympathy with all Muslims).

Frankie Boyle has proved himself a racist that's for sure. But his racism is against loyal Englishmen, Jewish Israelis and any Jew who does not believe the State of Israel should be wiped out. And in the eyes of the media those people have no right to be offended no matter how viciously they are slandered.

The JC sinks lower and lower

Daphne Anson has another very good article exposing the transformation of the Jewish Chronicle that I have also blogged about recently. Rapidly the JC is morphing into a Guardian look-alike, with its increasingly central contributions from anti-Zionists.

Daphne's article highlights the fact that Nicholas Saphir, the Chair of the anti-Zionist New Israel Fund (UK), is a trustee of the Kessler Foundation, which owns the Jewish Chronicle. Last week the New Israel Fund had a 4-page pullout in the JC, and rarely a week goes by nowadays without some major positive focus/article about the NIF.

Today's JC confirms the trend towards the JC's antipathy/indifference toward Israel. Forget the week's barrage of rocket attacks from Gaza or the many stories this week confirming the existential threats against Israel (not a mention anywhere in the paper). Forget even the incredible revelation this week that Henry Kissinger, when he was Sectretary of State in the US in 1973, stated that he could not care less if the Russians gassed all the Jews left in Russia (and that he would certainly not allow the US to intervene if they did so). That fails to get a mention either. No, the big front page story is a rather sympathetic account of a senior editor of the Board of Deputies urging the Board to invite PA envoy Manuel Hassassian to address the Board. What the story of course fails to tell readers is that Hassassian is nothing other than a terrorist supporting liar as revealed clearly by Elder of Zyon.

Digging deeper into the paper things do not get any better. There is a near full page article by Orlando Radice arguing that the real extremists we have to worry about are the Jewish ones. And the letters page has two letters responding to the comments of Isi Liebler (who had had the audacity to criticise 'we must speak out against Israel' UJIA boss Mick Davis). Naturally, both letters are indignant at Isi trying to crush Davis's right to free speech. The only pro-Israel piece in the paper is the regular column by Geoffrey Alderman, but even he is forced on the defensive and no doubt will take the usual flak in next week's letters page.

Imagine if the London student riots had taken place in Israel

Whatever the rights and wrongs of last week's riots in London over student fee increases, there is no doubt that there was violence on both sides, with the police responding to appalling provocation by hardcore anarchists/leftists who infiltrate all such protests.

Quite reasonably, the media response to these incidents has been unanimous condemnation of the protesters and sympathy with the police having to deal with a volatile situation. Although some minor concerns have been expressed about the police 'kettling' tactics, the concept that there could be any mainstream media anger directed at the police is fanciful and the notion that any foreign country might express an opinion of any kind - let alone one which openly criticises the British police and/or government, it simply too bizarre to consider.

So how would you feel – as a typical law-abiding Brit or even as a member of the British government – if Barak Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and the leaders of every other Western government issued statements expressing their deep concern about the UK’s disproportionate police actions and referred the matter to an emergency session of the UN Security Council? And what about if the leaders of every Muslim government, including such beacons of liberty as Gaddafy, Ahmedinejad and Assad, while chairing UN Human Rights committees issuing condemnations of the UK and calls for a worldwide boycott against, also called on British students to rise up and kill every British policeman? And how would you feel about worldwide street protests, whipped into a frenzy by the media, in which thousands march in every capital of the world demanding the total destruction of the UK as a just penalty for its anti-student actions? And finally, I'd imagine you would not be too impressed if every major international charity (led by Oxfam, Christian Aid and War on Want) launched massive appeals, which although initially focused on funding students who were physically or psychologically 'harmed' by the riots, would ultimately be handed to the anarchists so that they could organise new, and more vicious riots.

All pretty bizarre? Not if you further imagine that these riots – with exactly the same level of protester provocation and police response -- had taken place in Israel and if the protesters were mainly Arabs. Actually, it is not hard to imagine because even the most minor skirmish in Israel involving Arab protesters is treated as an international crisis. And for this level of violence all of the above worldwide reactions would have taken place. With absolute certainty.

Perhaps Bibi Netanyahu should start the ball rolling by issuing his own condemnation of the British police in the Knesset, with a direct appeal to David Cameron and William Hague to ‘stop the British police violence immediately’. Then if, in response, Cameron told the Israelis to mind their own business, perhaps Netanyahu might also know how to respond the next time the British and others feel compelled to publicly condemn the Israelis for far less 'crimes'.

LSE 's New Middle East Centre eradicates Israel

In recent years the prestigious LSE (London School of Economics) has seen an increasing number of anti-Israel incidents, including an occupation of the Old Theatre in 2009 that was ended only after the School's craven capitulation to the demands of the anti-Israel extremists. Only last week the LSE hosted rabid hate merchant Abdul Bari Atwan, which is especially ironic since last year it banned the brilliant Douglas Murray, on 'security grounds' simply because he was prepared to speak in defence of Israel.

It still comes as a great shock, however, that the LSE has inaugurated a new Middle East Centre, funded by £9.2 million from the United Arab Emirates, which appears to not recognise the state of Israel. In the map accompanying the article (see left) about the new Centre in the latest copy of the LSE Connect Magazine, Israel - and all of its cities - has been completely eradicated. It certainly cannot be for reasons of space since Gaza, Lebanon and Beirut are all clearly marked in the space where Israel should be.

It is difficult to understand why an outstanding scholarly institute like the LSE would wish to be associated with a Centre like this. But clearly the LSE is taking money from wealthy Arab regimes to further delegitimize the only true democracy in the Middle East and promote the cause of Islamic fundamentalism.

See important update to this post (15 January 2011)

Israeli tragedy: Arabs rejoice, rest of world yawns

By any measure the tragedy that occured in Israel today, with fires engulfing the North and a busload of cadets killed in a fireball (40 dead) while on their way to help evacuate inmates of a prison, was a major international news story especially as the disaster is ongoing. 40 dead Israelis is equivalent in relative population terms to 2400 Amercians - similar to the number killed on 9/11. The fact that there are claims this may have been a terrorist act (see e.g. here, here and here) compound the importance of the story.

But, as usual, dead Israelis elicit a very different response compared to victims from any other country.

• The West ignores it (not a single mention on the main bulletins tonight on Sky News or even Fox News - not even on the ticker-tape).
• The Arabs rejoice in it. So it is a major story on Al Jazeera while Arabs in Israel are actually celebrating.

Whether or not this was a natural disaster or a terrorist act is not the issue. It is the world reaction to it, which will be no different no matter the scale of disaster that hits Israel. Which is exactly what Ahmedinejad, Hamas and Hezbollah understand very well.

Update, 5 Dec: Three days on and the story failed to get a single mention in the UK's most popular newspapers (the Sun and the News of the World). Althought the story got a very brief mention on some of the UK TV news programmes, there was no mention of the special tragedy of the young firefighters in the bus and of course no mention of the further blood curdling Arab rejoicing and gloating over burnt Israeli bodies (and these were all young people going to help evacuate Palestinian TERRORISTS).

The day that world football died

So, in its quest for outreach and multiculturalism FIFA (one of the world's most corrupt organisations) has awarded the 2022 World Cup to one of the most anti-Semitic, corrupt nations in the world - Qatar. As proof of how surreal a decision this was it even led to the first ever statement made by Obama that I agreed with (he said simply that “FIFA made a mistake”, but no doubt if the USA had not been one of the other bidders he would have been cheering another instance of ‘Muslim outreach’). This story is also well covered here.

Anyway, I've just sent the following self-explanatory letter to the FIFA President:


Dear Mr Blatter

If FIFA is prepared to countenance the idea that the World Cup could be awarded to a country that has never qualified for the world cup (nor any record of footballing achievement), no prospects for football development, no suitable football stadiums nor even football supporters, then we can certainly at least expect any such a country to be one which abides by laws of basic human decency. For example, one which allows entry to visitors irrespective of race or nationality. And we certainly would expect such a country to be free from institutional racism, homophobia and sexism. Since the World Cup is the greatest sporting celebration on earth, it would also surely be expected that in such a country alcohol would not be banned, and it would help if it was physically possible to be outside in such a country in the summer for more than 5 minutes without suffering sunstroke in temperatures guaranteed to be above 45 degrees centigrade. And we would certainly expect such a country NOT to be the major financier of Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organisations.

Indeed, the latest version of FIFA statutes document states prominently (in its own section, page 7):

• Discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or group of people on account of ethnic origin, gender, language, religion, politics or any other reason is strictly prohibited and punishable by suspension or expulsion.

Can you please therefore explain the rationale for awarding the 2022 World Cup to Qatar - a country which not only breaches FIFA’s statutes, but which somehow fails to satisfy a single one of the above-mentioned very modest criteria of basic respectability. Qatar, the country:

• that does not allow entry to nationals from another of FIFA’s own countries, Israel. In fact, not only does it not allow entry to Israeli nationals, nor does it allow entry to nationals of any country who have their passport stamped from a visit to Israel.
• where homosexuality is punishable by death and where even an American citizen was sentenced to six months imprisonment and 90 lashes for homosexual activity.
• which, through its international Al Jazeera propaganda news network, is the world’s major exporter of anti-semitism and anti—Western jihadism.
• which through its newspapers and TV programmes, that are exported to the Muslim world, not only perpetuate consistent holocaust-denial but provide continually novel anti-Semitism. Indeed, a country which, despite being considered by the USA as an ‘ally’ was identified by the White House in 2003 as being a persistent and unacceptable source of vicious anti-Semitism .
• which hosts ‘the world’s leading Islamic Sunni scholar’ Yusuf al-Qaradawi who, apart from his open hatred of fellow Shiite Muslims, is best known for issuing the fatwas that a) formally allowed Islamic suicide bombers to target women and children and b) formally allowed women not only to become suicide bombers but also to wear western clothing in the act of their suicide bombing in order to deceive their victims (in fact this is the sum total of his contribution to advancing the rights of women in Islam).
• where even taking photographs of ‘local people’ is illegal.

Given FIFA’s statutes stated above, I know that Qatar’s discrimination against Israeli and Jews are especially problematic for you (and I know this because I have seen some of the documentation of the bid). For the first time in World Cup history there will be a host country that does not allow entry to nationals from another of FIFA’s own countries, Israel. I understand that the Qataris have explicitly assured FIFA that they will allow entry to Israelis for ‘the duration of the tournament’. I have even heard that FIFA regards this as an indication of its own “positive influence” ; but that is a bit like saying it would have been a good thing to award the Olympic Games to Nazi Germany in 1936 if the Nazis agreed to postpone their pograms against the Jews for the duration of the tournament... Oh wait a minute ... that is exactly what did happen (so it seems the ethical choices of international sports committees have not changed much over the years).

I understand that the Qataris have also assured FIFA members by noting that Israeli sports participants have previously been allowed into the country and that they have even hosted Israeli trade delegations. What they would not have told you is how exceptional these events were and how bitterly they were received by the country’s small but indoctrinated population. The fact that Qatar has refused to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, and will not do so by 2022, is all that you really need to know.

What is certain is that many football supporters who would love to attend the 2022 World Cup – homosexuals, Jews, women, Israelis, or just supporters who also like to drink beer or take photographs – will effectively be denied the opportunity to attend.

If it is not too late for FIFA to reconsider its decision then you simply must do so.

If it is then today was the day that world football died. In either case I would like some explanation of your decision.

Update 2014: 14 reasons why the Qatar World Cup will be a disaster

UK is going mad

The way the media has handled the case of Labour MP Phil Woolas being kicked out as an MP for 'lying during the election campaign' confirms that there is now complete self-censorship when it comes to stories with an Islamist angle. From the news reports I first saw and read I actually had no idea that the case had anything to do with Islam. But it turns out it centred on Woolas accusing his LibDem opponent of pandering to Islamic fundamentalists. From what I have read since, Woolas's claim seems pretty reasonable - let's face it a LibDem candidate pandering to Islamists seem pretty much like a tautology - and in this case there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to back it up. But even if it was completely false, that would still make him no more guilty than 99% of all other MPs when you consider the lies they tell during an election campaign. Yet here we have the incredible step of the courts intervening and throwing an MP out of Parliament. With any criticism of Islam now deemed a 'hate crime' we are moving to a situation where the media is simply censoring any mention of Islam or Muslims if that casts them in a negative light. This presumably explains why the entire UK media was almost completely silent last week on:

• the massacre by Muslims of 58 Christians in a Church in Baghdad (take a look at the pictures here)
• the 113 Shia Muslims who were slaughtered by Sunni Muslims the next day in Baghdad
• the continued mass slaughter of Muslim worhippers by more devout Muslim worshippers taking place on a daily basisin Pakistan.
• the other UPS cargo bomb plot which actually succeeded - Al Quaeda always did claim that they bombed the UPS cargo plane that crashed in Dubai in September and this now seems certain, yet the UK media is censoring this story while talking endlessly about the failed plot.

It also explains why the media continues to downplay the role of Islamism in so many other stories. For example, it was only because of the guilty verdict and the words of the defendant herself that the British public were allowed to find out that Islamism was the reason why Roshonara Choudhry tried to kill her MP.

What is especially worrying for British Jews - apart from the rapidly escalating hatred being whipped up against Israel from every angle now - is that its own newpapers have increasingly bought into the same main stream "Islam is the Religion of Peace" and "Israel is the root of all problems" narrative. I've reported many times on the Jewish Chronicle's disgraceful decline in this respect, but now even the Jewish News appears to have succumbed. So this week's single Opinion piece titled "The unravelling of Rabin's legacy" places the entire blame for lack of Middle East Peace on "right wing settlers", while its Letters page leads with a full column letter titled "Israel has earned apartheid analogy" which contains such gems as "Israel seems determined to avoid having foreign journalists and courts examine its war efforts in detail, including many illustrated crimes such as phosphorous bombs, physical violence, internal sanctions and blockades". The Jewish Chronicle is now a complete joke; this week its bizarre leading story headlined "Hague offers Israel hand of friendship" (about William Hague's visit to Israel) tried to spin a viewpoint that is contradicted by every other source (see, e.g here and here). The JC actually avoids telling readers that a) Hague made a point of visiting - and expressing support for - the violent anti-Israel demonstrators who protest weekly against Israel's security barrier; and b) Hague made it pretty clear that he is not going to do anything to change the law on use of universal jurisdiction (and hence Israeli politicians will continue to be stopped from coming to the UK). But - wait a minute - didn't Hague and many other Tories promise during the election campaign that they would change this law as soon as they got into power? So why aren't they - like Phil Woolas being thrown out of Parliament?

And finally, here is a frightening story from Jerusalem of how our Arab friends would routinely kill every Jew they find if given the opportunity. Bet this story won't make it into next week's JC.