Biased report

I wonder if any polling company has quizzed the British person-on-the-street on his/her/their/its opinion of Israel. I mean on Jews, Israel, and the Palestinian cause. 

Amongst your typical, politically engaged person on the London / Land’s End /John O’Groats omnibus, (don’t you just love that name O’Groats?) I wonder if any enthusiastic pollster geeks have ever tried to ascertain what proportion of the 'UK cognoscenti' support or sympathise with one side or the other. A clean split in accord with the left/right divide? I doubt that, but I’m curious. 

To sub-divide, I’d be interested to see how many pro-Israel answers would have been based on knowledge of legitimate Middle East (Israel-related) history and how many favourable opinions of Israel would simply have been influenced by having been there. Once, I overheard a girl working at the local bank (when there was a local bank) telling a customer that she had been to Israel for her hols and that it was very nice. The weather and that.

A considerable number of minds - hearts and minds - must have been swayed a little bit by Islamist terrorism as well as incidents related to, say, the grooming gang issue, the Batley teacher-in-hiding issue, not to mention the Manchester Arena bombing and other terrorist events. And Shemima Begum. And bus-gate. In other words, did newsworthy displays of Islamic extremism and belligerence put them off and make them think twice about where Palestinian grievance-mongering is really coming from? Joining a few dots. Or, is opinion purely formed courtesy of the UK’s pro-Palestinian press and media?

Amnesty International has come out with another smear against Israel. But Amnesty's outrageously biased report has been slammed by: 

Jewish European Congress,

Wall Street Journal

New York Post

 The Jerusalem Post

David Collier

Honest Reporting

Israel Hayom

and it's all over Twitter. 

The BBC has this and I predict they’ll soon be saying sorry for displaying a Tweet from the Israel Foreign Ministry decrying the false allegations that appear in Amanesty's report.

We join @IsraelMFA and FM @YairLapid in condemning @AmnestyUK's shameful upcoming report that labels Israel an "apartheid state."

Amnesty continues to undermine its legitimacy by engaging in anti-Israel propaganda that fuels antisemitism. pic.twitter.com/3mKoJ0vgV0

— American Jewish Committee (@AJCGlobal) January 31, 2022

 

It is already tucked away near the bottom of the piece, so maybe they'll assume no one will notice it.

And Sky has shown this interview with Palestinian Ambassador Husam Zomlot. More of a rant and a hate-fest.

"Palestinian ambassador responds to Amnesty International report alleging Palestinians are living under a system of apartheid.

A new Amnesty International report alleges Israel has maintained 'a system of oppression and domination' over the Palestinians going all the way back to its establishment in 1948."

So another few hundred Israel-haters recruited just like that. 

Update:

The Amnesty International hate group      Melanie Phillips

"The accusation of Israeli apartheid is risible, and anyone with a functioning brain can see at a glance that Amnesty has produced a report as ludicrous as it is malevolent."

 

Amnesty International Wants to End the Jewish State      Col Richard Kemp

The title of the report, "Israel's apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and crime against humanity", is not only a blatant and unsubstantiated lie but also an insult to black South Africans who suffered so horrifically under a genuinely apartheid regime. Few will read this 200+ page diatribe of falsehoods, distortions and half-truths, but many will see and absorb its title, which has already been plastered greedily across left-leaning newspapers and disseminated to millions in social media. The BBC, for example, trumpeted "Israel's policies against Palestinians amount to apartheid" in an online article, giving full weight to Amnesty's claims, quoting several people who support them, but allowing only the briefest opposing view from the Israeli government at the end.

Amnesty, the final straw

A lot of people I used to know supported A.I. I imagine they still do, out of habit, laziness and a lack of curiosity. It’s thoroughly discredited, and this is should be the final straw. I haven’t heard the BBC quoting from it recently, but no doubt that’s purely coincidental.

For the many not the you-know-who

I just experienced a few brief moments of schadenfreude after reading an article headed: Amnesty International has toxic working culture, report finds.

It wasn’t only from learning about the “widespread bullying, public humiliation, discrimination and other abuses of power”, or the sad fact that “two staff members killed themselves last year.” Nor was it merely the ”evidence of nepotism and hypocrisy “ or that “multiple reports of managers belittling staff in meetings, deliberately excluding certain staff from reporting, or making demeaning, menacing comments like: ‘You’re shit!’ or: ‘You should quit! If you stay in this position, your life will be a misery,’”

Neither was my brief moment of satisfaction derived from the news that “Staff reported multiple accounts of discrimination on the basis of race and gender and which women, staff of colour and LGBTQI employees were targeted or treated unfairly.”

No. I kind of suspected much of that already. The little frisson of pleasure I experienced from seeing all this set out in black and white was purely from the fact that I was reading it in THE GUARDIAN.

The Guardian has provided a platform for anti-Israel and antisemitic opinion for decades.

Amnesty International (Am Nasty) singles out Jews and Israel in the guise of human rights advocacy, their slogan: “We campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all” 

For the many, not the Jew.

Examples below, from the beginning of this year alone. (And it's only 6th Feb)

https://www.ngo-monitor.org/amnesty-international-singling-out-jews-in-2019/

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2019/02/amnestys-obsession-with-jews-continues.html

https://www.ngo-monitor.org/episode-11-amnesty-internationals-campaign-denying-jewish-history/

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Amnesty-Israels-using-antisemitism-to-whitewash-its-war-crimes-579226

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2019/01/absurd-amnesty-doesnt-just-hate-israel.html

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2019/01/frankfurt-mayor-says-amnesty-is.html

Sent reeling

While I was ‘out-of-the-office’ I was mildly staggered to hear the BBC announcing that Amnesty International had issued a critical statement about Hamas. “Gaza: Hamas killed and tortured, says Amnesty” No scare quotes, even!

Amnesty gave their report the title: “Strangling Necks”, which was a bit weird.

When I had finished reeling, I started to think. 

Amnesty International, comprising some staunch, nay, virulent defenders of radical Islam, is renowned for being harshly critical of Israel -  why should such an outfit suddenly decide, out of the blue,  to behave as if it had turned against everything it had previously held dear?

Even worse, how could it be that one solitary statement from the aforesaid outfit could then be held up triumphantly by pro-Israel proponents and bloggers as evidence of Hamas’s depravity, as if Amnesty had experienced some belated enlightenment, perhaps connected to the widespread exposure of the horrors of Islamic State? In other words, is this the long-awaited absolution of Israel by a reformed Amnesty International? Not very likely, is it. 

Previous statements from Amnesty International have condemned Israel for every conceivable human rights violation that mankind could manufacture, whereupon we pro-Israel ‘misfits’ have rightly and routinely poo-poohed them as biased rubbish.

(One could equally ask such questions of the BBC. After all, the BBC sees Middle Eastern affairs through an Amnesty-like prism. Why did the BBC headline Amnesty International’s statement and not bury it as they happily do with unhelpful stories on other occasions?)

Doesn’t make sense, does it? a.) That Amnesty International should suddenly ‘notice’ what has been going on all along, when hitherto they had turned a blind eye, and b.), that everyone should guilelessly applaud them and turn a blind eye to their previous, dubious record.

Well, maybe we shouldn’t, and some of us haven’t.

I had a look at Amnesty’s actual statement on the A I website. “Strangling Necks.” It struck me that Amnesty still considers Gaza “occupied by Israel”; like 'Elder of Ziyon', I read footnote 26.

Elder notes:

“However, it is interesting to see how Amnesty talks about Israel in this report.
For starters, Amnesty must hang onto the illusion that Israel still occupies Gaza, even though they know very well that under international law, occupiers are responsible for maintaining the legal system of the occupied and Israel cannot do that. So it writes nonsensical passages like this:”

(then a quote from nonsensical passage written in obscure legalese, then:)

“Amnesty is creating a legal framework that simply doesn't exist to ensure that Israel is considered an "occupier" of territory that Amnesty knows Israel doesn't have effective control over.”
[...]“At the end of the report, though, Amnesty reveals a possible reason why it issued this report ostensibly against Hamas - in order to pressure Israel to do what Amnesty wants!”

Read all of Elder’s piece, and you’ll see why this apparent change of heart isn’t something for us to gloat over, by any stretch of the imagination. 

Recognising atrocities committed by Hamas, which, due to modern communications very few people can hardly be completely unaware of,  looks like a preemptive face-saver which will serve to reestablish Amnesty’s lost credibility, (through a series of one-sided human rights related announcements) before normal Israel-bashing service is once again resumed. 

As far as the BBC is concerned, that normal service has already begun.  H/T BBC Watch

Kevin Connolly gives his explanation for Hamas’s behaviour. It’s the “relentless pressure of Israel’s military operations.”  

“Hamas exercises undisputed authority within Gaza, and Amnesty’s powerful report depicts an organisation responding to the relentless pressure of Israeli military operations with a brutal campaign against its own enemies within.”

Responding? How else would any hard-done-by organisation exercise its authority in response to 'pressure' from the enemy, other than by ‘killing and torturing’ one’s own citizens, whether 'suspected of collaborating with the enemy' or not?  Is that what Connolly is saying?

Notwithstanding the fact that any pressure coming from Israel was and is purely retaliatory. In other words, no provocation = no pressure.

It seems that even the depravity of Hamas cannot deflect Amnesty International or the BBC from their singular, particular  goal, the delegitimisation of Israel.

Balancing act

Here’s an extract from a comment on Harry’s Place.

“........if something is 'conceded' to Jews, then it must be balanced by something for the Muslims.If Rabbi Jonathan Sachs is knighted so too must Sacranie ( of 'Death would be too good' for Salman Rushdie infamy).If Netanyahu must (reluctantly) be invited to the Charlie Hebdo march, then so too must Abbas.If synagogues are to be guarded, then grants should be made to build / expand mosques.”

This is something I’ve been thinking about too.

What comes to mind is Theresa May’s bizarre proposal to make Islamophobia into a crime, which she hastily dreamt up after announcing a crack-down on antisemitism, which is to be implemented not by tackling antisemitism as a ‘phenomenon’ but by providing synagogues with armed guards and such like.

Alas, this politically correct balancing act doesn’t seem to work the other way round, at least not with Amnesty.

Amnesty International has set a precedent. It has started a new trend, and what Amnesty International says the BBC normally goes along with. 

The BBC reports quite a few of Amnesty International’s exploits and pronouncements. 

When A.I. makes an announcement about human rights violations in some part of the world, it tends to make an appearance on the BBC News. The opinion of one of its spokespersons often features. However, when Amnesty recently rejected a motion calling for a campaign against antisemitism it was reported in the Jewish press, and oddly in Turkish and Russian  news outlets, but not on the BBC. 

When you type Amnesty International+antisemitism into the BBC’s magnificent search engine....  nothing. However on the bottom of the page under the heading “Elsewhere on the web” comes these three. 

What is Cihan Haber? What is Sputnik? Dunno, but one’s Turkish and the other is Russian, and here’s what they say:

“With anti-Semitism on the rise in Europe, Amnesty International may be facing charges of anti-Semitism, itself. The human rights group has taken heat for refusing to investigate the increase in violent attacks against the Jewish community.” 

begins the piece. It cites an attack on a London synagogue and a planned march by ‘the far right’ against ‘the complete Jewification of the borough’ - then continues: 

“Put forward by Andrew Thorpe-Apps, the motion was defeated by a vote of 468 to 461 on Sunday. It was the only proposal voted down during the conference."I recently joined and I believe passionately about human rights," Thorpe-Apps told the Jewish Chronicle. "I’m not Jewish myself but I’ve been appalled by what I’ve seen in the press facing the Jewish community and an organization like Amnesty should really add their voice to that as they do with other human rights issues."

A.I.’s press officer Neil Durkin explained:

 “our membership decided not to pass this resolution calling for a campaign with a single focus,"[...] "Amnesty International fights against discrimination in all its forms, and will continue to do so."

The Turkish news op ed says:

“Fair enough. But despite Durkin’s claim that Amnesty prefers to cast a broad humanitarian net rather than zero in on individual concerns, this argument would seem to be disproven by a report conducted in 2012 entitled "Choice and Prejudice: Discrimination Against Muslims in Europe."That report is summarized as being concerned with "the increasing expression of intolerance towards Muslims," according to its introduction.

Now that we no longer have to pretend that all our criticisms of one religion must be counterbalanced by an equal amount of criticism of another, we're free. If Amnesty says it is so it must be so.

In other words, if we can choose not to campaign against antisemitism just because we can, or even because we don’t particularly like Jews, we are now free to choose to criticise Muslims for any reason we see fit, and leave Jews and everyone else out of it.

Islam-related demands are always causing problems for everybody else. Religious obligations that Muslims foist upon secular, non-Muslim societies, like default Halal, insisting others make allowances for Islamic religious fasting and demanding special washing and praying facilities in public and work places; all these demands spoil things for others. When people objected to Halal, they had also to object to Kosher, when they objected to Sharia courts they must also object to Beth Din, (rabbinic court) and don’t let’s start on circumcision.

Jews seem to have been quietly carrying on in their own sweet way without impinging upon other people’s freedoms for years. Then along comes mass Muslim immigration and everything needs to be justified, defended and scrutinised in the name of equivalence and political correctness. 

But good news! By the new rules, the BBC, Amnesty International, Theresa May, Boris and everyone else who feels like it, y’all can now campaign against Islamophobia all you like, but while you refuse to campaign against antisemitism you can’t oblige me to feel uncomfortable about my lack of enthusiasm for any of your other morally equivalent counter balancing contortions.

Emwazi day

The whole of BBC News today is about Mohammed Emwazi. Everyone who ever came into contact with him since the day he was born has been interviewed on the television. 

He was quiet and hard-working you know (apart from the occasional paroxism when walking past the house of a Jew.) 

The BBC is mystified. It's trying to get to the bottom of where and how the studious young man was radicalised. 

If anyone hasn’t already realised, this wild goose-chase has been designed to make us think that Emwazi was a patriotic British citizen until the fateful day he bumped into the fairy Jihadi-mother that preys on hitherto moderate Muslims.  With one wave of her magic wand they’re howling at the moon and running off to join the Islamic State Ministry of Beheading where they are free to hack away at the necks of infidels for ever and ever.

Here’s what commenter Lamia had to say about Justin Webb’s ill-researched interview with Gita Sahgal about Amnesty International. An unrepentant Steve Crawshaw, deputy director of Amnesty International follows.

H/T Harry’s Place.

'Lamia'

You can hear today's R4 interviews with Gita Saghal and Amnesty UK's Director Steve Crawshaw here:

           http://www.bbc.co.uk/programme...(starts at 01.09.15)

Crawshaw sounds shifty and most of all embarrassed through the phone call. You can actually hear the forced smile on his face. He claims Amnesty were 'shocked and horrified' by what Cage said about Emwazi last week. Why shocked? It's what plenty of people, including Sahgal, have been warning them about for years. The information has been easily available.The presenter did a mediocre job, no better. For instance, he didn't bring up the matter of Amnesty International's head Claudio Cordone endorsing 'defensive jihad' in April 2010 during the Sahgal affair, a phrase uncritically repeated by Amnesty UK at the time. That would have nailed Crawshaw's attempts to pretend that Amnesty has always completely and utterly repudiated violence against civilians.Amnesty's policy shift to support Islamist terrorism - for that is what Cage's 'defensive jihad' is, let us make no bones about it - was actually noted by John Tusa on the BBC website in December 2010 in an article asking whether Amnesty was having a mid-life crisis. Tusa wrote:More problematically, in a letter responding to supporters of Ms Saghal, Amnesty UK used the phrase "defensive jihad" as if the organisation itself condoned any violence that might be committed under its terms. Even supporters of Amnesty think the phrase was incautiously used.Throughout this time, Amnesty UK has played a straight bat, explaining that a full internal inquiry revealed nothing that required significant change in the way it behaved or presented itself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

          Another institution investigating itself and finding it had no case to answer. Fancy that...And so, naturally, to the BBC itself: it has had several days and all weekend to get this important interview properly researched. In fact a decent researcher could do it quite comprehensively from scratch in about 10-20 minutes. Even better would be a researcher who actually has a decent memory and an interest in current affairs. I recalled and found that information in about 15 seconds. The BBC researcher and presenter couldn't even be arsed to search their own website.

Tusa's article was actually a decent one. At least he seemed to know his way around the subject and wasn't scared of asking awkward questions. The R4 presenter wasn't hostile to Sahgal but he seemed genuinely dumbstruck, and trying on air to get his head around what she was saying. He's a presenter on Radio 4 Today; he should have known about this years ago. It's his job.I am disgusted by Cage but then most of us here have been disgusted by Cage for the past decade. I'm not 'shocked' or 'horrified' by what they said about Emwazi, because it's what they were obviously going to say. 'Obviously' to anyone reasonably informed, that is.But I am really 'shocked and horrified' by how many people high up in our institutions are so uninformed and lacking in initiative. And I'm being really quite kind in assuming that that's all they are. As Gita Sahgal says in the interview of Amnesty, and this could be applied to many other organisations and institutions in our country: "I don't think Amnesty were naive. If only they were simply naive."I can only laugh with amazement when Radio 4 is cited as an excellent station. I find it pseudo-intellectual, ill-informed, and not very incisive at all. I could have conducted a more informed and penetrating interview with Steve Crawshaw, from memory, if I had been given about ten second's warning. The presenters on 'middlebrow' 5 Live are hardly amazing but they are far better at smelling bullshit, asking non-pc questions and demonstrating an awareness that most people are not 'BBC people', than the fumbling idiots on R4.

(emphasis mine.)

Memories

Blimey. They’re reporting the arrest of Moazzam Begg. That brings back memories.

Remember Gita Sahgal?

“I have no doubt that history will vindicate Gita Sahgal in her decision to challenge Amnesty International over its relationship with former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg and his organisation Cage Prisoners.
She has now left her job, as The Times reports today. This will be a great loss to Amnesty, which has lost a deeply respected figure in international human rights, especially in the field of women’s rights and the threat of authoritarian Islam. I can’t really better Oliver Kamm’s analysis of how damaging this is for Amnesty:"Its critics charge that it has diluted its defence of universal human rights by allying with a group that rejects that principle. By its treatment of Ms Sahgal, and its grudging and euphemistic explanation for its behaviour, Amnesty has confirmed that the critics are right."You can read Gita’s full statement at Harry’s Place here.If she feels a little isolated at the moment, she should seek solace in the fact that the case has become  a rallying point for anti-totalitarians in Britain and around the world.”

Martin Bright April 2010 Spectator.

Now how does Amnesty look?

Let’s break out the popcorn and switch on the TV ?