Dancing in the street

Baroness Tonge is still picking away at the same old scab. In case you missed it....

After last week's election results, the 78-year-old peer, who sits as an independent, wrote on Facebook: "The Chief Rabbi must be dancing in the street.” 

However, 

“Nearly 90 peers from across the main political parties are calling on Baroness Tonge to apologise for saying Labour's defeat was due to Israeli attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. 

"The pro-Israel lobby won our General Election by lying about Jeremy Corbyn.” 

“….a group of 88 former ministers, lawyers and industry leaders later urged her to say sorry for bringing the House of Lords into disrepute.  

“…… Lady Tonge apologised for her comments, saying they were intended as a "light-hearted remark.”

The Chief Rabbi and Baroness Tonge: Pas de deux (lighthearted caption)

(I wonder if Baroness Chakrabarti signed that letter?)

Where's Shami?

While idly flicking through the channels I accidentally came across a debate in the House of Lords on antisemitism.  It was about half-way through when I found it, so I looked it up on Hansard, interested to read what Baroness Warsi had said, and Lord Fink. 

"Jewish friends..."

However, I did see Baroness Jenny Tonge who was anxious to tell us that she wasn’t an antisemite and that some of her friends are Jews but “They are not like other Jews, that’s why they are my friends.” (Oh wait - that was Mahathir Mohamad at the Cambridge Union)

Baroness Tonge is:

“sick of the filthy abuse that I get online, sick of the accusations of anti-Semitism being levelled against me and appalled that I never get any apology, even when the accusations are found to be fabricated, as they were two years ago. 

Finally, I wish noble Lords to know that I am not anti-Semitic. I have never been anti-Semitic, and I never will be anti-Semitic. I have Jewish and gentile friends who will vouch for me. But I am anti-injustice, and I think that the people of Palestine have suffered a terrible injustice over the last 100 years at the hands of the Zionist movement—I apologise if noble Lords do not like that phrase—and presently by the Israeli Government. On that I shall not be silenced.

That was her contribution to a debate on antisemitism. I’m sure it was relevant, just not necessarily in the way this debate was intended. (Bit like Eric Morecambe and those rearranged notes on the piano)

The rest of the speeches were typical HoL speeches - a bit doddery and shakily delivered, but well-intentioned.

You’d think the expert on antisemitism might have put in an appearance. But no, Baroness Chakrabarti was nowhere to be seen.

Update:
Jeremy Corbyn awarded Shami Chakrabarti a peerage for her ‘autobiographical style’ investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party. Oddly, she didn’t turn up to the debate on that very topic, which was held in the House of Lords two days ago. Perhaps she was indisposed?

Baroness Chakrabarti must be feeling better now. She has had plenty to say about Mark Field’s heavy-handed response to a climate change activist’s intrusive protest during Phillip Hammond’s Mansion House speech.

“Shami Chakrabarti, Labour’s Shadow Attorney General commented: “While it is a relief that Mark Field has been suspended from government, he must be suspended from the Conservative Party and the whip pending the disciplinary process and any police investigation following criminal complaints. 

“The distressing camera footage clearly demonstrates that the minister was not acting in self-defence and “acting instinctively” is no defence if your instincts come from a sense of entitlement and violent disdain for a young woman engaged in peaceful protest at a political event. 

“Jeremy Hunt, Mark Field’s boss, has refused to condemn his actions and Boris Johnson remains silent. We have a right to know what the candidates to be our next Prime Minister think about the actions of a Foreign Minister, who should be setting a better example in relation to the treatment of women and protesters on the world stage.”

BBC news is reporting Baroness Chakrabarti’s pronouncements on this affair. I suppose they must value her opinion.

Jenny Tonge - déjà vu all over again

I wonder when the BBC will report the appalling event hosted by Jenny Tonge in the House of Lords yesterday? Only it’s caused a bit of a stir elsewhere.

It has even caught the eye of David Lidington MP. 

“Speaking in the Commons, Mr Davies asked Mr Lidington: “May we have a debate on the use to which these premises may be put following reports that outrageously a member of the House of Lords presided over an event at which Israel was compared to Islamic State, and the Jews were even blamed for their own genocide? 

“Could we discuss this and also whether we should be issuing an apology for these outrageous comments to the Israeli government and the Jewish people.”

It now seems Dr. Tonge has been suspended by the Liberal Democrats (again?)

Guido has this:  Libdems suspend Jenny Tonge having only just posted this: Jews blamed for Holocaust at Jenny Tonge event.

Susan Cramer, Sarah Olney and Baroness Tonge

The lady in the centre - Sarah Olney,  a Libdem candidate - was on The Daily Politics today. Not that Andrew Neil said anything about Jenny Tonge's antics.

The Libdems seem to be making quite a habit of suspending Jenny Tonge, but nothing seems to daunt her zeal.

The event itself has been reported widely - anywhere apart from on the BBC. But now she’s been suspended, how can they not?

Even The Times (£) had a prominent report of the event. They called it ‘shameful’. Blogger David Collier was there, as was the survivor of a horrific attack by a couple of deranged Palestinian terrorists  Kay Wilson  (to whom Jenny Tonge tweeted sarcastically “What a lovely reasonable person you seem to be”  See more here.

“Putin’s mouthpiece” RT reported the event too, and a number of vicious antisemites responded btl. 

Even though most of the btl responses in papers like the Times are supportive of the Jewish community it’s chilling that so many rabid antisemites are out there and willing to rear their ugly heads.

Update.

ITV is on the case .........and so is the BBC .    They’ve given Baroness Tonge a  more than generous hearing.

Baroness Tonge said the comments had been a rant that "made no sense" and said she was "irritated" by the row.  

Speaking to the BBC, Baroness Tonge blamed the "power of the Israel lobby" and its sway over UK political parties for her suspension.She added: "Is it a cardinal sin to chair a meeting? I made no speeches or pronouncements. I'm extremely sad and frankly just irritated by it all."

Why only the Palestinians?

I wrote about  this the other day, but it was buried deep within a post and maybe you missed it, so I’m mentioning it again because it still bothers me.

I’m referring to the debate in the HoL that took place on 21st July. The topic was one our politicians return to again and again. “Palestine: Children”  

This obsession with “Palestine” and Gaza must come from somewhere.  What’s it all about? Why? Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world? Of all the children whose lives have been blighted by war, famine, religious fanaticism, parental cruelty and neglect, why especially the Palestinians?

Maybe one shouldn’t take it seriously. After all, many of the speakers seemed confused. One could forgive the geriatric ones for that faltering delivery, that mispronunciations and the dubious statistics. One might dismiss it all as the witterings of the aged and infirm. The poor dears. 

Let’s take Lord Warner, who moved this motion. 

“That this House takes note of the conditions in which Palestinian children are living and the impact on their health and wellbeing.”

I’m not totally au fait with HoL tradition, so there may be a point to this debate, but it eludes me. What’s it for? A group virtue-signal? 

Lord Warner introduced the motion:

“My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to put on the parliamentary record the appalling conditions under which Palestine’s children are living in both the blockaded collective prison of Gaza and the 50-year military occupation in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.”

Okay, he wants to put something on record. Does he think that Palestine is now a State?  Many of these old duffers have been enticed by Caabu. Invited to tour the region, where they’re given the full works. They come back full of indignation, ready, willing and able to spread the word. “I’ve just come back from ‘Palestine’ and I’ve seen it for myself” they announce.

So it’s not very surprising that they regurgitate streams of undiluted Palestinian propaganda. What is surprising is that they are willing to do so without realising that there is another side of the story, or even considering that there could be one. 

They’ve got it into their heads that Israel is populated by bloodthirsty fanatics that thrive on torturing innocent Palestinian children. They must already be receptive to that, otherwise they’d surely question some of it. Wouldn't they?

Lord Warner’s lengthy opening statement was nothing more than a monotonous list of dubious, out of context cherry-picked statistics taken straight from Israel-bashing organisations like UNWRA and other pro-Palestinian groups.

He wound up his speech with this:

“The Minister may also wish to clarify at some stage why the House of Lords Library briefing for this debate was withdrawn after being put up on its website for about 24 hours. I beg to move.”

He’s not the only one who’s puzzled by the mysterious disappearance from the library of this briefing. Who dunnit? Mrs White, with the dagger?

NGO Monitor is puzzled too. They say it’s available on unofficial websites, but I wasn’t able to find it.

 I don’t know who the authors are, but NGO Monitor says:

“The authors present a narrative of Palestinian suffering as a result of Israeli security policies, without examining the means available to protect Israeli civilians from Gaza-launched rocket barrages and terrorist attacks. In addition, the role that Palestinian violence, corruption, and mismanagement contribute to the wellbeing of Palestinian children is ignored, as is the widespread exploitation of children (child soldiers) for attacks against Israelis. 

This narrative reflects an ongoing, multiyear political campaign in which political advocacy NGOs (non-governmental organizations) are central participants. The objective is to demonize Israel by alleging abuse of Palestinian children.”

On that particular day the Israel-bashing speaker with the most notorious history of anti-Israel activism was Baroness Tonge. Her speech was singled out by the Jewish press because of her outrageous allegation that Israel was a major cause of Islamic extremism and Daesh. 

However, it was a typical Tonge rant, and, almost mild in comparison to some of the antisemitic themes doing the rounds in academia. 

In fact her rant wasn’t much more pernicious than the rants of some of the others and at least the four speakers I highlighted in my previous post spoke in Israel’s defence, which  is not always the case in these Israel-bashing debates. 

Lord Polak, in particular, set out a pretty comprehensive counter-argument. 

The trouble is, these debates are not interactive or reactive. They’re just a series of statements read out, one after the other. Responses are not required, concessions are not expected. Lord Polak could just as well have been talking to himself. Everyone just carries on as before, happy that they’ve done their bit and can retire, knowing that their virtue has been well and truly signalled.

Lords on BDS

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.  

For example, here’s Baroness Tonge (Ind LD) on 1st February 2016  House of Lords: Palestine”

  “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?”

So; that was on the 1st of February 2016. 

On 23rd February 2016 a ‘short’ debate was instigated by Lord Grade of Yarmouth aka Michael Grade, formerly of the BBC. He spoke against the BDS movement. 

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?

Not exactly.

25th Feb 2016 and back to abnormal. 

Baroness Tonge again: Public bodies: Israel Boycotts.

“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?”

Another allusion to ‘settlers’ and illegal settlements and obstacles to peace. Back to square one. Caabu crows.

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.