I love this animated Christmas greeting from The Times. I particularly enjoyed Corbyn struggling with his bow and upside-down guitar.
*******
Just tell me. Am I an Islamophobe? Not that I think it’s a valid term, for reasons I’ve stated many times before. However, when I read articles on websites like Gatestone Institute, I feel my reservations about Islam are well-founded and not. a. phobia.
“In a recent survey conducted by the Danish Ministry of Foreigners and Integration (Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet), 48% of descendants of non-Western immigrants in Denmark said that they think it should be forbidden to criticize religion, according to Kristeligt Dagblad. Forty-two percent of immigrants who had lived in Denmark for three years agreed with the statement, while only 20% of ethnic Danes agreed with it.
Some people might just dismiss Judith Bergman too as an Islamophobe, for this and many other statements she (and others) have made, but this circular argument is the road to nowhere.
Melanie Phillips has got herself into trouble - the kind that emanates from people who hate Melanie Phillips more than absolutely necessary (a riff on the old joke about the definition of antisemitism.)
Hatred of Melanie Phillips is a kind of running theme, but it came to a head (again) after her article about antisemitism appeared in the Jewish Chronicle. For once we have an article that doesn’t obfuscate and contort the facts just to avoid linking Islam with hatred of Jews. The vitriol this has piece brought upon her - and also upon Stephen Pollard for publishing it - is made even more devastating and hurtful because most of it comes from the British Jewish leadership.
My immediate reaction is to ask why the Board of Deputies and many prominent Jewish figures in the public eye (including showbiz) will stand up to fight against antisemitic bullying in the Labour Party but are too terrified to criticise ‘another religion.’ Is it a fear of being accused of ‘hypocrisy-of-the-racist-kind’? They seem afraid to delve too deeply into the quagmire of koranic-based antisemitism, too quick to equate antisemitism with Islamophobia and too easily discombobulated by semantic misinterpretations of terms like “Semite” and similarly distracting irrelevancies.
Another disturbing factor in this toxic soup is the undeniable tendency amongst groups and individuals that identify as ‘Jewish’ to call for open borders. This seems to me, yet again, as if failing to offer unlimited and unconditional sanctuary to refugees, no matter who they may be or why they need refuge would look hypocritical coming from the descendants of parents or grandparents who benefited from the (restricted) sanctuary that Britain once offered them. “And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us.”
The inescapable conclusion one has to draw from this is that a kind of tacit blasphemy law already exists. So am I an Islamophobe? And if so, what odds does it make?
*******
I have been reading all manner of articles here there and everywhere about the persecution of Christians - often perpetuated or orchestrated by majority Muslim countries. The BBC reports it occasionally, in this case after the report by the Bishop of Truro, but on the whole, our national broadcaster remains pretty uninterested in this phenomenon unless, of course, the persecution (falsely) implicates Israel somewhere in the mix. We hear a lot from the BBC about the treatment of Muslims in China, India and Myanmar, but not so much about the fate of Christians in Indonesia, Russia, Cameroon, Kenya, Burkina Faso, Egypt, China, Sudan, Pakistan, Turkey, Nigeria, Iran, the Gaza Strip or Iraq.
Come to think of it I haven’t noticed as many of the traditional yuletide Palestine-victimhood stunts this year. Wot, no Banksy? No Lucy Winkett? No Danny Boyle?
What’s going on?
*******
Did you see the TV coverage of the Parliamentary debate yesterday? I was transfixed by those obnoxious cackles heckling Suella Breverman’s speech. I know the new Speaker is a nice fellow and a breath of fresh air, but surely letting that appallingly coarse cacophony go by without comment or reprimand was non-interventionism gawn mad. The Express suggests the culprit was Joanna Cherry; the SNP won’t confirm or deny. (Bear with me if this video migrates from Suella into another topic.)
************
In stark contrast to Craig’s progressive bite-size format, I’m lumping all these observations together. You may see this as an example of ‘sublime to ridiculous’ but at least it’s diverse.
**********
What did you think of the way ITBB’s “Fifty Festive” became TCW’s “Fifty Shades”? I thought Craig’s holly-sprig laden format had the edge. Many thanks and congrats to Monkey Brains for the material.
We have to face the fact that ITBB is a niche blog in comparison to TCW, which often features in the ‘Seen Elsewhere’ section of Guido Fawkes's blog. I bet that generates quite a bit of traffic. However, (Oh no! There’s going to be a ‘however’) one of the drawbacks of attracting traffic/comments in considerable volume is that it puts your blog at greater risk of being discredited by your btl commentariat, arguably, through no fault of your own.
I have caught a whiff of some nasty, antisemitic innuendo below the line on supposedly right-wing blogs and in various MSM comments fields. The Spectator and The Times are not immune to this. A couple of dubious names regularly comment on TCW. Until someone takes issue with these buggers they must feel that they’re amongst friends. At least we don’t get much of that here in our obscure hidey-hole.
One of our (former) commenters took offence when we questioned his use of a potentially provocative moniker, which he seemed to have reserved especially for us. While I appreciate any faith in our defiant refusal to kowtow to Politically Correct censorship, we don’t really need to be ‘discredited by association’ any more than absolutely necessary, especially as that particular commenter happily modifies his moniker to accommodate the sensibilities of TCW.
*****
Funny that this squeamish inability to admit that antisemitism is rife in Muslim communities is so prominent amongst the many-not-the-few. Does this have any bearing on the widespread condemnation of Tommy Robinson? After all, he hasn’t shied away from exploring the root causes of Islamic-based antisemitism and anti-Christian ‘ism’.
Let’s face it, no-one’s going to be saying “Tommy Robinson was right all along” in the immediate future. But then, we’ve heard the Prime Minister speaking out against BDS. So one never knows. Interesting times.
The PM:
"When it comes to standing by our friends, one innovation that this Queens Speech introduces is that it stops public bodies from taking it upon themselves to boycott goods from other countries.... that with nauseating frequencies that turn out to be #Israel" pic.twitter.com/iqMHiFLrkP
This is about the reporting of the German Bundestag’s decision to “denounce” / “label” / Deem” “designate”/ “condemn” / “declare” the BDS movement antisemitic. (Variety of terms used) It’s a non-binding resolution, so it’s significance is largely symbolic.
Coincidentally, Douglas Murray has been giving a series of talks in Israel. He said this:
“I went to Berlin last month and Budapest the month before. In which of these cities did the Jewish leaders [recently] say don’t wear public signs of Jewishness?”
"In a move welcomed by Israel, a majority of lawmakers in the Bundestag voted in favor of a motion to label the international Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement as an entity that uses anti-Semitic tactics to fulfill its political goals.
“The argumentation patterns and methods used by the BDS movement are anti-Semitic,” read the motion submitted by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives, their Social Democrat coalition partners as well as the Greens and Free Democrats.
Securing Israel’s survival has been a priority for Germany since the defeat of the Nazi dictatorship that committed the Holocaust, in which an estimated six million Jews were murdered.
“Lawmakers in the Bundestag said the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) group uses anti-Semitic methods to promote its political goals.
The BDS movement described the decision as "a betrayal of international law". It comes after the group called for artists to boycott the Eurovision Song Contest held in Tel Aviv this week.
In Friday's resolution vote, which took place on the eve of the show's final, Germany's lower house said the actions of the BDS were reminiscent of the "terrifying" Nazi campaign against Jewish people under Adolf Hitler.
"The 'don't buy' stickers of the BDS movement on Israeli products [could be associated] with the Nazi call 'don't buy from Jews', and other corresponding graffiti on facades and shop windows," the non-binding resolution said.”
(The BBC's report gives equal prominence to the pro-BDS side, including ‘relevant’ bullet-pointed links: for example:
Life in the Gaza Strip. )
Hmm. The Beeb is trying to tell us something.
Apropos of stuff that conceals an 'unintended' story within the intended one, Nada El-Hammoud has written a review of the film “One day in Gaza” for Middle East Monitor, in which she praises the very things in the film that I thought most revealed its bias against Israel. For that reason, I found the review unintentionally hilarious.
As well as making I laugh, her enthusiasm for the film was a massive giveaway. It couldn’t have been much clearer where the production’s sympathies lay. All those Olly Lambert fans out there who claim it was even-handed wouldn’t be too pleased if they stumbled upon that review.
It’s written in a rather elaborate style, and in the manner of faux objectivity, but it can’t help revealing that the author is just as biased as the rest of the BDS brigade.
“The famous twentieth century German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer taught us that there are two kinds of dialogue. First, there is what he calls an “authentic” dialogue, where participants engage in an honest and open discussion over a subject matter, losing their own desires and interests in their collective effort to understand the subject matter itself by delving into its many dimensions, exploring its depths and illuminating the implications of our understanding of the subject matter.
Then there is what he calls an “inauthentic” dialogue, where participants are not interested in following the subject matter itself; rather, they are simply interested in winning the argument so as to serve their own desires and interests.”
Or, more succinctly, there’s 'honest and straightforward debate', and there’s 'agenda-driven' polemic, disguised as the former.
The big reveal comes near the end of the piece, as he addresses the issue of antisemitism. His concern has a rather unconvincing type of sincerity about it. (or is that just me?)
“Anti-Semitism is real, alive, very dangerous still and even growing and spreading. Is it possible that some of the people who support BDS in Canada (and anywhere else), especially online, hold anti-Semitic views? Of course it is possible.”
He goes on:
We can and should have more meaningful conversations over anti-Semitism as well as the nature of the Palestinian resistance against Israel……….which is rooted in the displacement and suffering of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli state.
That is pure agenda-driven falsification of the actualité, and a prime example of what he calls “inauthentic dialogue” Antisemitic, much? I'll fix it for you, as they say on the interweb.
“The nature of the Palestinian resistance against Israel is rooted in antisemitism". That's better.
The 1948 war, fuelled by Arab rejectionism and rooted in Koranic antisemitism is what caused the Palestinian Arabs to flee. That, combined with their co-religionists' refusal to accept them as citizens of the countries to which they fled, was the origin of their displacement.
Their ongoing aggression is obviously responsible for their ‘suffering at the hands of the Israeli state” and their unnecessary (self-inflicted) suffering is the inevitable outcome of Israel's natural commitment to self-preservation. (Their suffering at the hands of their own leadership is another matter.)
I came in halfway through Jon Ironmonger’s report. I missed the intro as well as the footage from the incident at King’s College London earlier this year. But I’ve caught up with it since.
As BBC Watch points out, Jon Ironmonger’s narration includes:
“The Jewish state of Israel is deeply controversial; accused of wide-ranging human rights abuses against the Palestinian people and provoking anger around the world.”
That’s all very well, apart from the fact that the ‘controversy’ and the ‘accusations’ come from the anti-Israel lobby. It’s a bit like me citing one of my own articles to prove that something I said has also been said by ….’me’.
His explanation of the “global BDS movement” contained this little gem:
“BDS pressures Israel to end the occupation of Arab lands by calling for the boycott of Israeli companies and institutions.”
That is so loaded a statement that it’s a wonder it was able to float.It both reveals and conceals the aim of the BDS movement all in one go.
Palestinian activists take care to disguise their wish to dismantle Israel and to replace it with yet another Islamic state. But the 5 emboldened words accidentally reveal the truth; they want to end “the occupation”but as they consider Israel itself to be ‘occupying Arab lands’ (What are Arab lands?) their true aim is more than clear.
The problem with superficial reports like this is that they take place against a background of disinformation. BDSers justify their anger at “what Israel is doing to the Palestinians” by citing myths and memes based on falsehoods, anti-Israel propaganda and sheer ignorance of history. I doubt that Jon Ironmonger is any better informed than the anti-Israel activists he’s talking to.
We are told that the NUS did not want to comment, and there was no mention of Malia “Zio” Bouattia’s recent defeat in a new election for the NUS presidency.
At the same time as the enquiry into antisemitism on campus is taking place, a letter signed by a huge number of anti-Israel activists is doing the rounds. The signatories are ‘artists, musicians and people in the arts’, all of whom want to stop Radiohead performing in Israel.
Some of the signatories are prominent figures and well known Israel-haters such as Roger Waters and Ken Loach; others are more obscure. The most interesting name on the list is is that of Peter Kosminsky, the Bafta winning director of Wolf Hall.
The publicity surrounding the production promoted it as a drama-cum-history lesson. Channel 4’s International Editor Lindsay Hilsum's Middle East ‘expertise’ was brought in to enlighten viewers who wanted to know what it was all about and there was a ‘livechat’ in the form of a Q & A session, where curious viewers were ‘educated’ by Kosminsky himself. He claimed to be both an impartial observer and a great authority on the conflict.
After a respectable period of silence the mask slipped and Kosminsky started appearing on the panels of virulent anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian events alongside several other well-known haters.
It’s hard to see how this state of affairs can ever change while antisemitic / anti-Israel myths and memes continue to thrive and the BBC and Channel 4 does nothing to counteract them.
“Many of our young women don’t feel safe on the street.”
Who said such a thing? Nigel Farage, projecting a post Remain, Cologne-like future? Nah. It was Jo Cox, in a video she made for her report about Islamophobia.
Thankfully we don’t see many political assassinations in this country, so when one suddenly occurs the whole world is horrified.
It was truly shocking last week to see and hear reports of Jo Cox MP being stabbed and shot outside her constituency office in broad daylight, and later hearing reports that she had died.
To make matters even more poignant, she was a young mother and a relatively new MP, and she had made quite an impression in the short time since being elected.
Most people immediately wondered what others made of it and rushed to see what the media had to say. Perhaps because journalists and bloggers regard topicality as their primary duty, several of them duly dished up an instant response. You might say they were stunned into the opposite of silence.
This isn’t the first time people have made absolute idiots of themselves in similar circumstances; they should have known better, and I bet some of them wished they’d kept quiet, or waited till the dust had settled before making rash and reckless remarks - at least until we figure out what’s going on, as Donald Trump might say.
Initially no-one was sure if Thomas Mair had really uttered ‘Britain First!” and anyone with the slightest sympathy with the Leave campaign wished it were not so. The ‘Leave’ campaign suffered an unquantifiable setback because of Mair’s apparent far-right associations, just as the Remain campaign would have suffered had the cry had not been “(Put) Britain First”, but “Allahu Ackbar”.
I don’t really think this murder had much to do with the referendum. Mair was probably a closet Nazi all along, but nice and polite with it; a good son and mentally disturbed to boot. Paranoid schizophrenia, someone suggested, a theory somewhat borne out by his odd behaviour in court. Asked to confirm his name he replied: ”"Death to traitors, freedom for Britain", a Breivik-like outburst that doesn’t sound much like a cold-blooded political statement from a ‘sound of mind’ Nazi - that is if cold-blooded Nazis can be sound of mind. We might get to find out more about that in due course.
I’ve spent hours looking online and following links, and I’ve come across some of the most virulent and abhorrent antisemitic bile on websites that contain white-supremacist Jew-hating comments. I wonder if they contravene the Incitement to Racial Hatred act.
“honestly, anyone can keep my vote if you can get the jews out of white nations”
one racist comment starts, and another one includes:
“If the above can be believed, the murder “…smells…” of something Jews would do.IMO, the BDS movement is another REAL fear that the Jewish Globalist King Pins have. I place their concern over the BDS movement on par with Holocaust Fraud Whistle-blowing or the rise of the “…Populist White…”.
Remember Anders Brevik? The Norwegian Labour Party youth he murdered also had Labour MPs parents…, the same Party…, and correct me if I am wrong, that actually started the BDS movement against the Criminal State of Israel.
It would be just like the Jews to kill a strong BDS supporter, then with moral outrage claim her murder was because of her Pro-EU stance and blame it on “…evil Nazis…”.
That website is one of many. (Don’t click on these links - they’re only there to illustrate a point.)
The extent to which the referendum campaign itself has turned rotten is illustrated by the rush to blame Nigel Farage and the Leave campaign for Jo Cox’s murder, echoing the tortuous rationalisation that came to the conclusion that Melanie Phillips was responsible for Anders Breivik’s deranged killing spree. Take that argument to its logical conclusion and you will stifle freedom of speech altogether, and from those currently drifting in that direction I can already sense an ominous ‘chilling effect’.
Today Norman Smith was asked by Sophie Raworth to reinterpret Nigel Farage’s defence of his stance on immigration and the infamous 'migrants' poster in particular, immediately after he had made it.
Norman wore a particularly furrowed brow as he systematically traduced Nigel Farage - throwing all pretence of impartiality out of the window.
It’s possible to reach a stage where bias is so entrenched that you are completely unable to hear views that don’t align with yours. Psychological deafness, and Norman has a bad case of it. Quite why we need Norman to ‘interpret’ Nigel’s statement is beyond me. It was clear, concise and uttered in the English language, like it or not.
There is a difference between posturing in a borderline incendiary manner and explicitly inciting violence and we must concede it can be a fine line. However, in this day and age, as far as I’m aware, Islam stands alone in the unequivocal prescription of death to transgressors.
When deranged Muslims pull a trigger or plunge a knife into some hapless infidel to the triumphant cry of Allahu Ackbar, it could inspire an unhinged individual like Mair to actually mirror that. Maybe his personality disorder drove him to hook a murderous, psychotic impulse to a far-right cause, much as Omar Mateen seems to have done with ISIS and his alleged repressed homosexuality. (Amateur psychology / free of charge.)
Jo Cox is said to have been an exceptional character, hardworking, sincere, energetic and charismatic. She wanted to make the world a better place. The effect of her murder is wholly and completely negative and her family is suffering a tragic loss.
I disagree with her politics. Jo Cox’s kind of activism rings alarm bells for me, as does her husband’s choice of the charity Hope Not Hate as one of three beneficiaries of donations pouring in to honour her memory.
She was a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, and wanted parliament to grant premature recognition of Palestine as a state. She was an advocate of BDS and she spoke in favour of councils and other non-political bodies being free to employ BDS as a policy should they wish to do so.
I can’t see how anyone who campaigns for BDS can genuinely pride themselves on bringing people together. It’s as disingenuous as Jeremy Corbyn’s excuse, when cornered, for applying the term ‘friends’ to Hamas and Hezbollah.
She had been a employee of Oxfam, another ostensibly altruistic charity that became politicised; lefty, actively anti-Israel and pro Palestinian.
From The Telegraph, 10th June 2014.
” Jo Cox, a former head of policy at Oxfam, is Labour’s candidate in the 2015 general election in Batley and Spen as well as chairman of the Labour women’s network. [...]
Rob Halfon added: "Too often Oxfam put politics before their excellent charity work. No ones denies that we have been having difficult times, but for a charity to appear to put all the blame on the current Government is unacceptable.
"Moreover, Oxfam seem to have developed a leftist anti-Israel agenda, and I hope very much that those involved will think again, and Oxfam will once again become a charity that people respect."
I kept trying to imagine how I’d feel if the murdered MP had been on ‘my’ side. What if some antisemite had stabbed and killed a pro-Israel MP? But, in sharp contrast to the proliferation of MPs who are passionately sympathetic to Jo Cox’s favourite causes, I could hardly think of one. I suppose if that did happen I’d feel a personal sense of loss too.
Many people seem unruffled at the prospect of a limitless influx of refugees from Muslim countries, but I think we should be very concerned about the inevitable political pandering that would be bound to follow. More MPs beholden to the Muslim vote, more hatred of Jews, more demonisation of Israel and more isolation and alienation for British Jews.
One of the best pieces I’ve read is by Brendan O’Neil, which I swear I hadn’t read before writing the above, but which, if I flatter myself, chimes with mine even down to some of the terms used.
The most amusing thing I’ve read today is in the Times, and it concerns Jo Cox’s recent project on Islamophobia. She’d had a meeting with “tell Mama” to find out what she could do to help combat Islamophobia, locally.
Since one of her stated objectives was 'bringing people together,' she might at least have listened to the worries of constituents whose misgivings over creeping Islamisation might be well-founded. She was elected to serve their needs too, surely.
Anyway, she said anti-Islam attitudes are so bad in her constituency that ”many of our young women don’t feel safe when they’re out in the street”.
I liked it so much I nicked it for my headline.
I’m sticking my neck out by making negative comments about someone who clearly had so many admirable qualities, but I don’t begrudge the tributes to Jo Cox that are pouring in from those who knew or admired her.
If me or my opinions were more important we might merit some specially dedicated, extremely anguished brow-furrowing from Norman Smith, and a few innuendos about racism, bigotry and Islamophobia thrown in for good measure.
A series of tweets by Jeremy Corbyn’s meteorologist brother leave little doubt that Piers Corbyn is a staunch anti-Zionist with unmistakably antisemitic inclinations. When challenged over retweeting an antisemitic conspiracy theorist’s Tweet: “Isn’t it odd that ISIS has not touched Israel’s oil pipeline?” he pleaded that he only did so “to get an answer.”
This response is eerily reminiscent of his brother’s excuse for befriending Hamas and Hezbollah (to engage with them) that one has to agree that - as Jeremy himself says - there is indeed a strong familial similitude.
Today the hard-left Labour leader defended his brother saying: “No, my brother isn’t wrong”.
Questioned by The Sun after a speech in Harlow, Essex, the Leader of the Opposition added: “My brother has his point of view, I have mine and we actually fundamentally agree - we are a family that were brought up fighting racism from the day we were born.”
How can Jeremy Corbyn actually say, with a straight face, that he’s been fighting racism since ”the day we were born”, when he’s been speaking at rallies and chairing meetings alongside some of the most rabidly antisemitic individuals and actively campaigning against Israel - probably “from the day we were born”?
It all boils down to those claims that “anti-Zionism is nothing to do with antisemitism” and its sibling “legitimate criticism of the actions of the Israeli government is not antisemitic”.
“Something is clearly happening, but what? Many on the left argue that they are being wrongly accused. They are not against Jews, they say, only opposed to the policies of the state of Israel. Here one must state the obvious. Criticism of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitic. Nor is the BDS movement inherently anti-Semitic. Many of its supporters have a genuine concern for human rights. It is, though, a front for the new anti-Semitism, an unholy alliance of radical Islamism and the political left.”
“Anti-semitism is a virus that survives by mutating. In the Middle Ages, Jews were hated because of their religion. In the 19th and 20th centuries they were hated because of their race. Today they are hated because of their nation state, Israel. Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism”
“Anti-Semitism is a form of cognitive failure. It reduces complex problems to simplicities. It divides the world into black and white, seeing all the fault on one side and all the victimhood on the other. It singles out one group among a hundred offenders for the blame. It silences dissent and never engages in self-criticism. The argument is always the same. We are innocent; they are guilty. It follows that if we—Christians, members of the Aryan race or Muslims—are to be free, they, the Jews, or the state of Israel must be destroyed. That is how the great crimes begin.”
The comments below the line clearly show that antisemitism is alive and kicking.
“legitimate criticism of the actions of the Israeli government is not antisemitic” might well be technically correct, but it rather depends on what is meant by ‘legitimate’. Since most criticisms of the Israeli government relate to actions taken to protect Israeli citizens from all manner of murderous attacks the interpretation of ‘legitimacy’ is ultimately a matter of opinion.
Antisemites interpret most of the Israeli government’s actions as illegitimate, simply because they don’t accept the right of Israel to exist as the Jewish state, and that is simply because they have wilfully swallowed an ahistorical Palestinian version of events surrounding Israel’s inception; therein lies the problem. They have absorbed a peculiar one-sided, racist, narrative - and that’s the way they like it.
If they truly believe that there is a thing called Muslim Land, which solely and immutably belongs to Palestinian Arabs who are the true indigenes, while Jewish Israelis are merely interlopers and colonialists, that Palestinian Arabs and their descendants, amounting to several million people who have been inculcated with intense Jew-hatred “since they were born” should be allowed to exercise their “right to return’, then what else can you expect than “from the river to the sea”?
This is where the BBC comes in. It’s the duty of the BBC, in the light of increasing antisemitism, to put the record straight. First they need to educate themselves, then they can begin.
But I fear it’s way too late. There was a debate the other day in Westminster Hall about “Local government and ethical procurement”. MPs discussed whether councils should be able to apply BDS - that is BDS against Israel in particular, and as an afterthought (lest anyone should deem that racist) BDS in general in case any local council suddenly feels passionate about some cause or other and wishes to demonstrate displeasure in practical terms.
It came to my attention belatedly; the debate took place on 15th March, and was secured by a well known anti-Zionist MP, Richard Burden Birmingham Northfield) (Lab). The issue was:
“the procurement policy note issued by the Cabinet Office on 17 February entitled “Putting a stop to public procurement boycotts” and about the proposed changes to the rules governing the local government pension scheme’s investments—for which I understand the Cabinet Office is also responsible, for some reason”
Nothing to do with his personal wish to BDS Israel or his desire to allow local councils to boycott, divest and sanction Israel to their hearts' content. Just legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and to stand up for the rights of the Palestinians. Never mind what happened with SodaStream, it’s a matter of principle.
“Comments from Zionists like Merseyside MP Louise Ellman prompted Piers Corbyn, 69, to tweet: “ABSURD! JC + All #Corbyns are committee #AntiNazi. #Zionists cant cope with anyone supporting rights for #Palestine”.
Most of the usual haters attended. They heavily outnumbered the members who turned up to oppose the motion. Louise Ellman wasn’t there and who could blame her.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) gave an impassioned speech opposing BDS, but it fell on deaf ears.
The consensus was definitively with BDS. The BDSers continually referred to “illegal settlements” with such certainty that one might almost think they knew what they were talking about. They manifestly believed it themselves. The experts.
Did you know that there is a branch of Fatah in the UK? It’s called Fatah UK, and it has sponsored a visit to ‘Palestine’. One can assume that was the source of such certainty.
One of the most troubling segments in one particular speech was this speculation about the danger of the government’s decision to put a stop to public procurements boycotts:
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
“Can the Minister explain what he thinks the effect will be on race relations in my constituency, which has a large number of people of Muslim faith from a background of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Yemen, Somalia and Somaliland? What would be the impact on them if they saw their council tax being used to buy goods from the illegal Israeli settlements?”
This person had such a hangdog look on his face that I almost felt sorry for him. Imagine being at the mercy of that multicultural pressure group? Can’t be much fun. (But why is it that his constituents from such diverse origins should automatically be ‘impacted’ by their local council procuring goods from Israel or “illegal settlements” ? What business is it of theirs?
It can’t really be because they want to help the Palestinians, some of whom would be deprived of the productive, materially beneficial employment they currently enjoy, should BDS be applied. No, it’s just simple antisemitism. Racism.
It makes your heart sink, seeing such a pathetic, spiteful, racist pantomime being performed at the heart of our supposed democracy.
"Student broke ‘safe space’ rules by raising arm."
Imogen Wilson
“In my year as a sabbatical officer I’ve witnessed a horrific rise in anti-Semitism on university campuses all over the UK. Unsurprisingly, the speeches in favour of BDS were quick to silence cries of anti-Semitism, claiming that BDS isn’t meant to harm Jewish students, and is about the liberation of Palestinians.”
I’m proud of the work that student unions do for women, BME, LGBT+ and disabled groups of students. However, the ignorance of the struggles that Jewish students face on campus is astounding from people who fight so hard for the liberation of other oppressed groups.
Here’s a comment appropriated from below the line of the aforementioned article:
KHALED NAJJARAPR 04, 2016 - 02:44 PM“....My name is Khaled Najjar, I’m a Palestinian living in Luxembourg. My entire family lives in Palestine (in the west bank). Since 3 of my brothers and my cousin all work in Israeli companies, I can tell you the BDS movement is by no means a movement supported by most Palestinians. while it is popular by many in Europe, it is economically lethal for the majority of households in Palestine. you might think you are supporting Palestinians when in fact, they are the very first to be hurt from boycotting Israeli firms (aka – their own work places, which put bread on their table and pay their pension).
As I hear a lot of this BDS talk where I live, I clearly see it is done in good heart and good intentions (mostly by good people). It is just not promoting in any way a Palestinian state, and it also prevents establishing economic joint-ventures between Palestinian and Israeli companies, and by doing so, preventing the Palestinian economy from standing of its feet.”
See-saw, Marjorie Daw went the up and down mini debates in the House of Lords, which have been triggered by the government’s plans to prevent local authorities from participating in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement against Israel.
NHS trusts, councils, universities, student unions, and other public bodies will be prevented from boycotting foods and products from Israel.
The government believes that councils and similar bodies should be attending to local issues, not taking it upon themselves to play politics.
A good number of MPs in both houses of parliament are fundamentally hostile to Israel.
“To ask Her majesty’s Government whether they plan to recognise Palestine as a state”
The see-saw of a debate went up and down, up and down; having began on ‘down’, it eventually crept up. A contribution from Lord Polak (Con) included:
Lord Polak (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, instead of political point-scoring, Members of this House—I draw the attention of the House to my non-financial interests—could use their influence with the leadership of the Palestinian Authority to encourage them to stop inciting their young people, and really help the Palestinian people by encouraging them to return to the negotiating table without delay?
So it’s not all completely hopeless, then. Despite the BBC's continuing silence on the matter, they’ve heard of Palestinian incitement. This is probably due to a presentation that was given to a delegation of MPs by Palestinian Media Watch during a recent fact-finding and trade mission to the region.
Along comes Lord Grocott (Lab) to put a damper on things again.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
“.......Israel, which for more than 50 years has violated international law by the occupation of a neighbouring country, by the building of a wall and by the continuing illegal occupation that makes a two-state solution nearly impossible? Is it not time that we had a more robust response to these flagrant breaches of international law?”
Later, the thrust wends its way upward once more, by way of Lord Pannick (CB)
Lord Pannick (CB)
“My Lords, did the Minister see the report in the Times last week that two Palestinian journalists in Gaza had been arrested and tortured by Hamas because they had written newspaper articles critical of that administration? Can she assure the House that there is no question of recognising a Palestinian state associated with Hamas until basic civil rights are respected?”
This debate was not very well attended, but it at least it was tentatively sympathetic to Israel. I won’t even snigger at Lord Rotherwick’s “infitada” - a tasty dish perhaps.
There was a palpable degree of sympathy with Israel’s plight, despite the requisite reservations about the policies of the present Israeli administration. There was even some cautious criticism of Hamas. So are things looking up?
“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice they have given to local authorities and other public bodies concerning boycotts of goods and services from the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.”
Well, you can guess what ensued. “It’s not an Israel-specific policy” came the response from the minister tasked with defending what many people regard as indefensible.
At the heart of the matter is the fact that the Palestinians have successfully established the dubious concept that ‘settlements‘ are “the obstacle to peace”. Mahmoud Abbas got away with constructing a simplistic misconception from a highly complex and widely misunderstood situation, even managing to wangle preconditions around it. They convinced their sympathisers that all construction work (for Jews) in certain areas constituted intolerable belligerence on Israel’s part, while their own blatant acts of belligerence, terrorism and aggression were facts of life.
But there it is. Now much of the world regards all settlements as ‘illegal under international law’ even though they don’t really know what constitutes an illegal settlement or an international law. All they know is that ‘settlements’ equal evil incarnate.
Here, a different set of Lords occupied the vast empty chamber. The anti-Israel bunch.
Lord Grocott again:
“Has the Minister had a chance to check what the Prime Minister said yesterday in answer to a Question about settlements? He said that,“the first time I visited Jerusalem … and saw what has happened with the effective encirclement of East Jerusalem—occupied East Jerusalem—I found it genuinely shocking”.—”
That was, of course, David Cameron’s answer to a question put by the Labour member for Bradford East, Imran Hussain.
“Last week, together with several of my hon. Friends, I visited Palestine, where we went to the home of Nora and her family, who have lived in the old city of East Jerusalem since 1953. Israeli settlers, however, are now trying to force Nora from her home of over 60 years. There are many other cases like that. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that illegal settlements and constructions are a major roadblock that hinder peaceful negotiations? What are this Government doing to help prevent these infringements into Palestinian lives and land?”
But it’s not all bad. There are one or two encouraging signs, e.g:
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con):
My Lords, I was in Israel last week as a guest of the Israeli Government when my right honourable friend Matt Hancock announced this guidance that he was giving to local authorities. As both Israel and the United Kingdom are members of the WTO, surely it is illegal to impose these boycotts. They would actually be against the law.
Other noble Lords begged to differ. Conclusion?
Lord Bridges of Headley:
My Lords, I just wish to repeat what I am saying all along: this guidance is not about Israel per se. While what my noble friend says may have validity, (the settlements are a contravention of international law, that we deplore them and that they should not be there,) I would say that boycotts are counter-productive and should not be taken by local authorities unless there is already a government action in place.
Much of the hostility towards Israel that can be found in the general public, in academia, in the press and among the political classes can be attributed to the BBC’s lack of thorough, even-handed and honest reporting, not to mention the heavy-handed pandering to Islamic religious sensitivities that plays a major role in all this - in addition to the old fashioned Arabist element that still exists in certain quarters.
We bloggers tend to become a little incestuous. We pat each other on the back, link to each other and I suppose we create our own little bubble. Some might say we regurgitate, plagiarise, gossip, and preach to the choir.
Perhaps we’re almost as biased against the BBC as the BBC is biased against our politically incorrect viewpoints. Perhaps we all try hard not to let our biases cloud our ability to see the bigger picture. But the BBC hardly ever entertains the possibility that it could be at fault, and it’s powerful enough not to care.
The area of biased broadcasting that interests me most, (anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian reporting, casual antisemitism and the BBC’s incessant and insidious efforts to normalise Islamic practices and customs) has ramifications as wide as anyone cares to make them.
One thing that has always troubled me is the way we allow people to get away with words and phrases that have become meaningless through over-use and laziness. I remember writing about this in July 2010. (updated)
“Constant repetition of a word or phrase can render it meaningless.Trotted out over and over again, words and phrases like illegal war, apartheid and human rights violations lose their impact; particularly when they’re bandied about thoughtlessly by ill-informed people who have no idea whether they are justified, appropriate or the truth.
We’re all trapped by words like peace, war, Zionist, Palestinian. Nazi. Fascist. Neocon.We say antisemitism, you say Islamophobia; we say terrorist, you say religion of peace; we say Islamic, you say unIslamic; we say legitimate, you say illegitimate; we say Israel, you say Zionist entity; we say biased, you say balanced. Tomato, potato, potahto, tomayto. Let’s call the whole Jeremy Bowen off.”
The BDS movement is gaining respectability with virtue-signalling student bodies and lefty ethical activists, and an atmosphere of antisemitism has gathered momentum to a terrifying degree. Even Oxford University, considered one of the top universities in the world, has succumbed.
Apartheid is a state-sanctioned discriminatory policy based on the obsolete principle of racial superiority / inferiority. Make no mistake, it has nothing to do with Israel or “What Israel is doing” to the Palestinians. Yet somehow, the apartheid state label has got itself attached to Israel in the minds of the anti-Israel activists who know no better.
Daphne Anson always manages to find disturbing videos of demos and protest marches that have taken place under our very noses here in the UK. She ferrets out some extraordinary film clips, and from Australia, is able to see our problem with antisemitism more clearly than we do.
She featured this video on her website recently (also on YouTube) It’s straight from a Channel Four News item addressing the governments latest guidelines on the BDS movement.
That’s Channel Four, with its distinctly lefty, anti-Israel agenda, apparently unconstrained by those infamous obligations that force the BBC to perform all manner of linguistic contortions in the name of their charter’s impartiality pledge.
Channel Four Newsroom’s figurehead’ is the unashamedly pro-Palestinian Jon Snow; Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Kathy Newman are his trusty sidekicks.
This particular exchange was chaired by Jon Snow, wearing one of his garish trademark ties (graphic image of rainbow vomit) It was an uncharacteristic challenge by Snow that rendered the BDS activist - not exactly speechless, but, it’s fair to say - incoherent.
Using the oft-posed, pertinent and potentially stymieing gotcha, namely “why aint you boycotting Saudi Arabia?” he demolished her credibility with ease.
In defence all she could offer was the well-worn retort: “ I. Aint. Interested. In. Saudi. Arabia.” (reworded by me)
In the spirit of regurgitate, plagiarise and gossip, I bring you this from UK Media Watch (formerly CifWatch.)
Malia Bouattia, NUS Black Students’ Officer, currently arguing the case for BDS against Israel, actually argued (in October 2014) against a student union motion to boycott Islamic State. Not only that, but she did so on the grounds that ---wait for it -- doing that would be Islamophobic.
No bloody wonder she was momentarily lost for words.
Here is a summary of the film clip Channel Four ran by way of an introduction, preceding the studio chat.
“I think this is an attack on freedom, like, if I don’t wanna buy Israeli goods, I don’t wanna buy Israeli goods” said one of the first students interviewed.
This demonstrates so much stupidity, ignorance and illogicality that I hardly know where to start. But let’s remind ourselves of the government’s actual statement as outlined on the BBC website (The Moral Maze)
“Now the government is planning a law to make it illegal for local councils, public bodies and even some university student unions to carry out boycotts. Under the plan all publicly funded institutions will lose the freedom to refuse to buy goods and services as part of a political campaign. It's said that any public bodies that continue to pursue boycotts will face "severe penalties." The government believes cracking down on town-hall boycotts is justified because they undermine good community relations, poison and polarise debate and fuel anti-Semitism.”
Do students really believe individuals are going to be made into criminals if they decide to personally avoid buying Israeli goods?
Another student, waving his arms around in lieu of articulacy asks “If I don’t go into a shop to buy Israeli goods, is that violent?
“Others agree with the government’s stance that boycotts undermine community relations and fuel antisemitism” said Assed Baig sounding very like Ali G, before approaching Jonathan Sacerdoti who said:
“........ 84 percent of British Jewish people believed that boycotting Israeli produce constituted intimidation of Jewish people..
That was the gist of Sacerdoti’s contribution, and one does wonder how much material was edited out of the film, which abruptly cut to footage of one of the historic demonstrations against South African apartheid.
Current thinking seems to credit “us” with bringing about the end of South Africa’s apartheid system, solely or primarily because of “us” boycotting South African produce. I just wonder if world-wide anti-racist zeitgeist didn’t have just as much to do with that timely policy change. We never boycotted American produce, did we? I don’t think so. Yet cruel and shocking racism was once rife in the US, and state sanctioned, to boot.
“Actions like this are a vital tool,” say students. Rafeef Zidah (Palestinian society SOAS) says it’s disgraceful that government is attacking local democracy and stopping councils making ‘ethical decisions around investments’....... ‘we have the right to have an impact on corporations that we disagree with’....’and for Palestinian rights as well.’
Hang on. We have a democracy, which means we vote for our representatives. We don’t (yet) have anarchy, where we all take direct action against whatever we disagree with.
“Interestingly, that same spurious linkage was made in a statement put out by the BDS campaign’s Rafeef Ziadah (also an employee of ‘War on Want’) several hours before this programme went on air.”
I thought Ms Ziadah didn’t look like your average student. More about War on Want later.
“So what would you say to those who say that boycotting Israeli goods is antisemitic?” asks Baig, in his best Ali G patois, addressing another student who said he was Jewish. His BDS advocacy (asaJew) is worth several bonus points “Human rights violations”, he says, and “Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.”“We shouldn’t confuse BDS with antisemitism” was his message, which is one way of putting Sacerdoti’s statement into PC perspective; you could almost hear the film editors crowing.
“The guidance comes when cabinet minister Matthew Hancock is visiting Israel and the government says that locally imposed boycotts can hinder Britain’s export trade” says Baig, to end the film.
The implication of that narrative is crystal clear. The government’s guidance on BDS is purely a matter of self-interest, i.e., it’s cynical and mercenary.
Cut to Jon Snow in the Channel Four News studio. Seated in the pro-Pali / BDS corner, Malia Bouattia representing the NUS, and in the Zio corner, James Sorene from BICOM. Both are extraordinary looking individuals. (Malia Bouattia has masses of hair, James Sorene has huge eyes.)
“There’s no criminal consequence to having a boycott” begins Jon Snow, addressing James Sorene.
“I think some of your reporting was a bit overblown” explains James. In respect of procurement - “they can’t discriminate on the basis of nationality.” [..] “Most British people do not want a boycott - they believe it will hurt Israelis and Palestinians and only 12% believe a boycott will do anything at all.”
Perhaps they will remember the SodaStream fiasco, when anti-Israel pressure resulted in Palestinians having to forfeit secure and well-paid employment, all for “the cause”.
“People want non-violent options in relation to facilitating, you know, solutions” says Malia Bouattia.
How boycotts actually effect ‘solutions’, and what those ‘solutions’ would involve in the wildest imagination of the BDS movement remains to be explored.
Do boycotts hurt? asks Jon.
“The economic effect may be minimal,” says James, “but those who are close to what is a tragic, complex conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, which we all want resolved, is that this armchair activism will do nothing. Interfaith dialogue is needed, whereas boycotts just put up barriers and people stop talking.”
Not that talking to Hamas and /or Fatah seems even possible, let alone likely to bring about peace. Even less so in the current incendiary climate. Never mind, let wishful thinking prevail.
“We should look at history. Look at apartheid in South Africa.” says Malia.
“If people didn’t take to the streets, if people didn’t campaign and enforce the implementation of a boycott as we did as the NUS, where did those conversations that went on for hundreds of years, go?We’ve seen continued expansion of settlements, we’ve seen continued abuses of human rights, of international law totally thrown in our faces and we have no trust in the processes that exist”
James Sorene says:
“People who know the facts know that it is nothing like apartheid, a criminal regime running a racist policy; this is completely different. Both parties are trying to reach a solution. They’ve been talking on and off for many years - they became very close to a solution - we need to keep working at that - government realises that boycotts in local communities are incredibly divisive, they whip up all sorts of ill-feeling and fear and the same thing happens in student unions. The Jewish students....
Jon interrupts:
“That’s about Israel, but what about other countries, I mean do you boycott Saudi Arabia, for example, for the human rights violations there, do you boycott Russia, for example, for human rights violations there?”
Malia:
“Um. I’m feeling slightly on trial as the leader of all boycotts worldwide. What we’re talking about here is the right to boycott, based on the fact that we feel there is a violation of human rights, of ethics, and we want to implement them and enforce them and some people will use words, like the non-violent solutions as the case of BDSing Israel. We have to come back to that question itself, that if people feel that this is in violation of those rights, then by all means implement those solutions and, you know, these guidelines that are coming out will not just affect Palestinian activism or BDS for that matter, it expands to those campaigning on fossil-free, those campaigning on divesting on trade.....
Jon, turning to James:
I’m bound to come back to...aside of the inter-communal tensions, which you’ve described - on the ground, it doesn’t have any impact does it? There is no effect in Israel at the moment.”
“There is a minimal effect,” says James,
“ but let’s be honest. What Matthew Hancock was doing there - Britain needs Israel. We need Israeli hi-tech, we need Israeli scientific cooperation, one is (indecipherable) on the NHS from Israel .. we need Israel,. But the silence on the issue of other boycotts speaks volumes to those people who will say that (unintelligible)
"We have to leave it. We’ve run out of time."
What I intended to highlight when I started this post, was the meaninglessness of phrases like “Human rights violations” when they are uttered in respect of Israel and the Palestinians. Another one is “What Israel is doing to the Palestinians” and “Palestinian rights”
“Human rights violations” sound like very terrible things, but what actually are they? Denying Palestinians the right of return? Denying Palestinians the right to eradicate Jews from “Muslim lands?” Violating their rights to stab a Jew because of the occupation?
What terrible thing IS Israel ‘doing to the Palestinians?’ Trying to stop them from attacking Israeli civilians ? Taking measures so that Israelis can live their lives without being stabbed, bombed or run down?
Palestinians do deserve human rights. That is they deserve to be divested from the hatred and lies they’re indoctrinated with from birth by believers of their own unnatural, self-loathing, Jew-hating religion. Palestinians should start boycotting Islam.
Pro Palestinian students and left-wing parrot-like ignoramuses get away with perpetuating all that lazy, historically illiterate nonsense because of biased, distorted, historically inaccurate reporting.
Tonight there’s a Moral Maze episode on this topic. Let’s see what they have to say on the matter. Melanie Phillips is on the panel, with Matthew Taylor, Claire Fox and Jill Kirby.
Okay. We listened to the Moral Maze. Michael Buerk kept trying to broaden out the debate. He didn’t want it to be specific, lest it get bogged down in the Israel/Palestine question. But that’s precisely what it should have been about. The more bogged the better, in my opinion.
It emerged from the guy from War on Want, that one of the reasons they defended BDS was that the Palestinians requested it. Yup. The Palestinians requested it.
Jonathan Sacerdoti was one of the witnesses. He tried to bring the topic back to the core issue - antisemitism and intimidation of Jews, but Michael Buerk wasn’t happy with that. He steered the conversation away each time, which was irritating.
Jill Kirby seemed to think they (Jews) should suck it up because she believes the principal of ethical boycotting is sound.
I think I need to listen again in order to to absorb the whole thing properly. It wasn’t an entirely bad debate apart from Matthew Taylor’s constant interruptions and his habit of rudely talking over others.
(Why do lefties and Muslims always do that? Have they no manners?)
I’d like to thank my co-bloggers and the entire “BBC-bias” family; my parents - if it weren't for them I might not be here - and Mr Google for facilitating my research. Most of all, thanks to Israeli technology, without which none of this would be possible. Thank you thank you.
To the rest of you, go on, boycott Israel produce, all of it, and don’t forget to wipe your hard-drives before you destroy your equipment or donate it to a good cause. The Palestinians, maybe?
Israeli technology? Yes please. The Palestinians can’t get enough of it.
