Amnesty claims to support free speech - but it has censored Zionist voices in its own spaces

Amnesty International tweeted on Saturday:

Reminder: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression

Really?

Because on more than one occasion, Amnesty showed exactly how little it cares about freedom of expression.

Amnesty provides various spaces for rent in its London offices. There are no policies listed on its webpage saying who is allowed to rent their space. Yet in 2018, months after the Jewish Leadership Council made arrangements to rent out space for a debate on UN policy towards Israel, and only days before the planned event, Amnesty canceled the rental agreement and refused to allow the debate to take place.

Their reason? “We reserve the right to withhold permission for our building to be used by organisations whose work runs directly counter to our own. The presence of UN Watch is of significant concern and they have been active in the promotion of the event. We have partners and colleagues – both Israeli and Palestinian – working on the ground and this does put some of their working relationships at risk." They also told the JLC that they did not think it was appropriate to allow speakers who support Jews living in Judea and Samaria while Amnesty campaigns a boycott of "settlement goods."

This means that Amnesty will only rent their space to those whom they do not have any political disagreements with. Which includes antisemitism, since Amnesty-UK did rent their space to an organization that featured a speaker who justified and praised the terror attack murdering Israeli children in the Mercaz Harav yeshiva  massacre. 

And it is not only Amnesty-UK that only rents out its public spaces to those it agrees with. In 2014, when the Columbia University branch of Amnesty invited Alan Dershowitz to speak, Amnesty International told them to cancel the event, which they did. 

Which proves that it isn't that Amnesty opposes pro-settlement speech - but any kind of Zionist speech.

Similarly, Amnesty - so opposed to Zionist speech - has never condemned explicit Arab antisemitism and incitement to terrorism against Jews. This is even though Amnesty admits that incitement and hate speech is not covered by freedom of expression. 

This is about as hypocritical as it gets. 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

So @AmnestyUK loves boycotts. But only boycotts of Jews.

Amnesty UK tweeted:

The [UK Anti-Boycott] bill gives special status to Israel, making it the only country in the world which cannot be excluded from its provisions, and treats Israel and territories it occupies in the same way, contrary to the UK’s long-established policy and international law.

The bill is intended to stifle principled opposition to Israel’s illegal settlements and the Israeli authorities' racist system of apartheid against Palestinians.

Boycotts, divestment & sanctions are forms of peaceful protest that have been used to press for human rights change.

Think:

✊The Anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa

🚌The Montgomery Bus Boycott

🛢️The BP oil spill

In the 1890s, merchants in Butte, Montana boycotted Chinese and other Asian businesses, tried to stop customers from entering them, and threatened anyone who hired Chinese people.

No doubt they felt that they were upholding human rights - of non-Asian people. Even this flyer talks about "morals."

What, exactly, is the difference?

More the to point, Jews have been boycotted many, many times in our history. I once gave a brief list of Arab boycotts:

1891: Arabs request the Ottoman Empire not sell land to Jews.

February 1909: "In Hebron, where out of a total population of 18,000 about 2000 are Jews, the Arabs decide to boycott Jewish merchants."

January 1915: The American Jewish Yearbook reports "At Hebron, Jewish storekeepers are boycotted

by Mohammedan women."

April 2, 1920, AJC: "Rosh Pinah: Thirty Arabs attack Arab workmen in fields belonging to Jewish inhabitants in endeavor to bring about boycott by Arabs against Jews."

June 4, 1921: "Haifa: Arabs issue proclamation urging the populace to boycott the Jews and drive them out of their villages."

1922: Arab Congress calls on Arabs to boycott Jewish businesses in Palestine.

1924: MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION voted to authorize the Executive Committee to promulgate an economic boycott against the Jews. The economic boycott, however, was later abandoned.

1929: Arab Congress vows to compel Arabs to boycott Jewish merchandise. Syria prohibits import of merchandise produced by Jewish businesses in Palestine. 

1931: World Islamic Congress passes resolution requesting Muslim countries to boycott trade with Jewish businesses in Palestine. Arab Labor Federation pickets Jewish businesses in Palestine. 

1945: Arab League Council adopts Resolution 70, recommending that all Arab states establish national boycott offices. 

There was also a major boycott in Poland of Jewish businesses (accompanied by pogroms) in the 1910s.

And of course the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses (accompanied by pogroms) in the 1930s.

But the boycotts of Jews didn't end there. In the 1950s, Saudi Arabia refused to do business with any company owned by Jews or with Jews in important positions. In 1960, it weas revealed that tourist companies would not allow Jews to visit Gulf countries because they adhered to the Arab boycott, and Aramco refused to hire Jews in its New York office. In 1975, the Arab world still refused to work with Jewish bankers. 

This was all at the time of the "Zionism is Racism" UN resolution, proving that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are the same thing. 

The BDS boycott is a direct continuation of the Arab League boycotts of Jews.  Don't take my word for it: this document on the BDS Movement website gives a history of BDS, and it prominently features the Arab boycott of Jews (pretending that they were only boycotting "Zionists:") It praises the explicitly antisemitic Arab League boycott successes and mourns when it weakened in the 1980s and 90s.  It even looks at the Arab League boycott of Jewish businesses to learn lessons for BDS today. The document, written in 2007, is saddened that at that point in time, only Syria and Lebanon were still adhering to the Arab League boycott - you know, those two human rights powerhouses.

There is another reason that BDS is provably antisemitic. They do not boycott Israeli Arab businesses - only the businesses owned by Israeli Jews. 

This antisemitism is what Amnesty-UK is supporting. And it has exactly as much to do with "human rights" as the Arab League boycott - or the Butte boycott of Chinese people - did.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

To @AmnestyUK, swimming pools in the West Bank are apartheid. But only the ones owned by Jews.

Amnesty-UK tweeted:

Amnesty-UK is saying that thirsty Palestinians are upset by the massive amounts of water that are clearly available for their Jewish neighbors, as they stare longingly at the waste that the Jewish pools symbolize. Clearly they should be angry at the contrast between their own inability to drink a refreshing glass of water to avoid dying of thirst while the Jews frolic in wasteful swimming pools.

So Amnesty must really be upset when those thirsty Palestinians are mocked by extravagant displays of frivolous swimming pools that they see in, for example, Hebron, decorated with a Palestinian flag to twist the knife of their poverty:

.

Certainly Amnesty is condemning the huge waste of water there, right? 

Other pools in the West Bank also include very patriotic flags:

And this one in Birzeit looks like it holds a great deal of water, too.

According to Amnesty-UK, even the smaller pools are a giant waste of water that hurts thirsty Palestinians' feelings and must be condemned:

How dare these heartless people enjoy the water when their neighbors have none!

Obviously a human rights group cannot be accused of antisemitism for treating pools owned by Jews differently from those owned by Palestinians. Perhaps Amnesty-UK is upset over Jews owning private pools while Palestinians next door are deprived of their basic water needs. 

We will just have to ignore the Palestinian company Blue Blue Palestine which installs private pools for well-to-do Palestinians every day, in-ground and above ground, from small 600-shekel pools to ones costing tens of thousands of dollars.

I'm sure Amnesty is preparing a 150 page report on Palestinian waste of precious water in their many swimming pools. After all, it is the pools they are upset over, and not the religion of the owners, right? If they treat pools differently because some are owned by Jews, that is pretty blatant antisemitism - and how could that possibly be?

To Amnesty, Jewish pools are apartheid. Palestinian pools are nonexistent. And Amnesty International isn't a hypocritical, Jew-hating organization hiding its bigotry behind the fig leaf of pretending to care about human rights.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Amnesty-UK: "Let's brainwash people into hating Israel while teaching them how to cook"

Amnesty's apartheid slur is absolutely antisemitic. The arguments that Amnesty uses for the accusation are literally filled with lies and depends on a brand new definition of apartheid they made up just for Israel. If they would apply the same standards to other states, there would be scores of others that are guilty of the same definition - but Amnesty is creating an entire ecosystem to ensure that Israel and only Israel is accused of one of the worst human rights crimes possible. 

The word "apartheid" is deliberately used to provoke a visceral reaction of disgust. It has nothing to do with reality - it is meant to incite hatred of the Jewish state. 

No sane person would think that Israel is at the bottom of the list of human rights violators, or even that they treat non-citizen Palestinians worse than many other countries treat their (citizen) minorities.  Yet Amnesty spends far more time and money slandering Israel than any other country - and spreading that incitement to hate Israel across all mediums. 

Yes, that is antisemitism.

A new, insanely egregious example can be found in a new campaign that Amnesty-UK launched, called  "Palestine at Home,"  It is meant to show sympathetic Palestinians acting like normal Westerners having fun, spreading information about Palestinian cuisine - and interspersing this with incitement to hate Israel. it has its own logo, its own materials, its own videos. 

Home is peace. Home is safety. Home is love.

For many of us, it is the space we are most at ease, a space where memories are created and happiness forged. When our homes are secure we are free to live and thrive surrounded by community and those who love us. Our need for home connects us all.

But for some of us, this precious space does not exist. Right now, Palestinians are instead experiencing forced evictions and demolitions that destroy their homes and strip them of their safety net. The Israeli authorities’ system of apartheid reaches into homes and rips families apart.

Despite these injustices, Palestinians are resisting. One of the ways they are doing this is through food. Through cooking, they are preserving their histories and telling their stories. Through food, they are keeping the hope of home alive. #PalestineAtHome

This is pure propaganda filled with deception. The entire campaign appeals to emotion, not facts or context, and the purpose is simply to get people angry at Israel without giving Israelis a chance to respond.  All of Amnesty's protestations that they are objective are shown to be lies by the existence of campaigns like this.

It gets worse. Amnesty quotes, without contradiction, a chef's assertion that Palestinians have been under "75 years of illegal occupation."

Which means that Amnesty agrees that Israel's entire existence is illegal.

This propaganda is not only a website. It is also a planned series of videos. It is a set of recipes. 

And make no mistake - Amnesty does not target any other country besides Israel in this way. There are no videos showing cooking with  Rohingyas,  no recipe books of traditional Uyghur foods, no detailed explanations of the warm family lives of the Tutsis in Rwanda, no photos of quaint Darfuri homes. Victims of genocide need not apply to be part of Amnesty campaigns. No - only Palestinians are positioned as victims that are worthy of being elevated this way, and only Jews - not Arab Israelis, but Jews - are the oppressors. 

Ironically, the first recipe in this campaign was for Fattet Makdous - which isn't a Palestinian dish, but Syrian! Of course, Syrian victims of their own regime do not get campaigns on their behalf by Amnesty, but they can be happy that their cuisine is being hijacked by Amnesty and Palestinians. 

If this isn't enough to show how Amnesty-UK is obsessed with hatred of Israel, this is not even their first food based campaign against Israel! 

Last year, in conjunction with their huge publicity campaign around the apartheid slur, Amnesty encouraged baking parties where people could watch films about how awful Israeli Jews are.

Palestinians get two food based campaigns from Amnesty, and the rest of the world - zero.

Just likeAmnesty sells T-shirts attacking only one country in the world. By coincidence, it is again Israel. 

Just like Amnesty's book for children only disparages a single nation in the world - and, yet again, that country is Israel. 

Truly an amazing coincidence that only Israel is singled out, time and time again, for special vitriol from Amnesty. But it couldn't be that it has anything to do with the fact that Israel is filled with Jews. 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Amnesty's defense of its anti-Israel lies: "Trust us, bro. We have experts."

There was a remarkable Twitter exchange between a number of critics of the Amnesty "apartheid" report and Kristyan Benedict, Amnesty UK campaigns manager.

CAMERA created a video showing specific lies in Amnesty's video supporting the report.

If Amnesty had a good case, why would it need to manipulate viewers?

15 Lies in 15 Minutes: Amnesty International's 'Apartheid' Video":#Israel pic.twitter.com/PFMqfs5T4T

— CAMERAorg (@CAMERAorg) April 18, 2023

Benedict responded: 

Please send this as ‘evidence’ to the chief prosecutor of the ICC..  

David Litman of CAMERA:

Now that we have your attention, perhaps someone from Amnesty could finally address some of those blatant factual errors I pointed out directly to your colleague, which suggest your organization is knowingly lying or doesn't actually understand the law.

Kristyan Benedict

Benedict: "Sound like you’ve already made your mind up. Good luck with that."

Adam Levick (CAMERA-UK): "Why don't you just respond to the CAMERA video, Kristyan."

Benedict: "We've laid out our findings in a very detailed report and stand by it. We didn't just put it out without serious review from experts. You however, should make your case to the likes of the ICC chief prosecutor and the COI. Would be a better use of your time in all seriousness."

Eitan Fischberger: "Who were the experts?"

Benedict: "External experts on international law including those with specialist knowledge of apartheid in international law."

Fischberger: "No I'm sure, but who? A couple of names for reference would be most appreciated."

Benedict: "Afraid not. External (and internal) colleagues have many reasons to not be public about such work - one of them being the awful smear campaigns that sometimes occur. Not everyone wants that nastiness in their lives. Hopefully that’s understandable."

Fischberger: "I can certainly understand the need for privacy. Yet, I can't help but worry this creates a situation in which Amnesty can issue reports on highly contentious topics, and when confronted with counterarguments, defers to unanswerable experts whose objectivity can't be verified."

Benedict:"The reports are signed off internally after many layers of review - so if there are any alleged ‘errors’ that you think you’ve found, including regarding applicable international law, then send them in. Just stating something is an ‘error’ does not make it so though.....the general public email is contactus@amnesty.org. 

"There are of course other ways to engage but we’d both have to assess it’s a good use of our time. I suspect we’re quite far apart, no?"

Fischberger: "Thank you for the tip and clarification. What other ways are you referring to? While it appears we are far apart on this issue, I don't see that as a reason not to engage in a respectful and cordial manner, as we are now."

Benedict: "That’s of course true. I mean quite simply talking in private meetings. A lot of our (and my) time is focused on partnerships with HR NGOs and advocacy with political contacts. There is a time & place for engaging other groups but clarity on why / objectives would be paramount."

Fischberger: Makes sense. For me, the objective here is to understand what, if any, transparency and accountability mechanisms Amnesty has put in place for itself. Since you probably can't answer for the main branch, how about on behalf of  @AmnestyUK?"

Benedict: "I’ve answered that. The findings and methodology are public. We are not just claiming Israel commits the crime of apartheid, we are laying out our findings for others to review. It’s worth reading our report if you haven’t already or other related assets."

Fischberger "What I'm concerned about arent reviews, but errors. AI has enormous reach. It isn't enough for someone to simply tweet about a potential error because far fewer people will see that than AI's report.  Wouldn't the best solution be to ask AI to amend the error in the report itself?"

Benedict: "If I were advising you (on presumably how to try to undermine the AI report?) and you were confident in your claims, I’d suggest you make your case to bodies like the COI, ICC CPs office, Special Rapps etc. Has that happened? Credible testing is important."

David Litman: "The question isn't what those other bodies said or did. It's about the inaccurate claims YOUR organization is spending so much effort promoting while refusing to accept responsibility for the inaccuracy of the claims. YOU can fix that. Not Ms. "Jewish lobby subjugates" Albanese."

Benedict: "Your claims might not be accurate. They may be more of the same defence of apartheid & other crimes we’re used to in this space. We also have to factor in if we think the group / person is credible / acts in good faith. We have limited time & must prioritise who we engage. Sorry!"

Fischberger: "How do you determine whether someone is acting in good faith? And honestly, how much should that matter? Isn't the pursuit of truth far more important?"

Benedict: It is but the meetings with those directly and indirectly seeking to defend Israel’s system of apartheid (not clear if your organisation is but that’s my perception) are mainly with states. It’s a matter of how we use our limited time."

Fischberger: "Again, how do you determine someone is acting in good faith?"

Benedict: Re good faith - i.e. not trying to defend war crimes and crimes against humanity. There is a space to engage those who do this but as said, it’s generally states and relevant non state actors."

Fischberger: "Is it possible that people defending Israel do it because they genuinely believe Amnesty's findings to be wrong, and not because they're in favor of war crimes or crimes against humanity? The way you phrased it implies that all who defend Israel automatically act in bad faith."

Benedict: "Nope. I’m talking about those who are defending war crimes and crimes against humanity. Not a state per se. Israel like all states is many things & not just it’s government & not just the crimes that government is committing. Focus on ending the crimes. That’s what we’re doing."

David Litman: "You keep talking about 'crimes' as if their existence is a fundamental truth beyond questioning. Yet, as I've pointed out, and as that legal review board pointed out, Amnesty's conclusions are often unsupported by the actual evidence. Allegations need proof, not blind faith.

Benedict: "Not wishing to be rude but if you wish to indulge in atrocity denial, go do it somewhere else. *Muted*"

I wrote my own response, not that I expect Benedict to answer, since he believes I also engage in "atrocity denial."

In 2015, Amnesty created a website -still online - called the Gaza Platform, that attempts to be a database of incidents and casualties in the 2014 Gaza war. I showed - with documentation - that dozens of the people killed that Amnesty called civilian were actually members of militant groups. I proved it in many ways. Amnesty dismissed me as not being "credible."  The database still shows hundreds more civilian deaths  than even the UN claims. 

Newspapers would correct errors, no matter the source of the correction, because accuracy is objectively important. Even if CAMERA and NGO Monitor are biased, they are pointing  out a pattern of errors.  Yet Amnesty rarely if ever corrects its reports, far less than any major media. Shouldn't Amnesty's regard for accuracy be far more stringent than that of major media?

Your dismissal of such concerns as not being a good use of your time indicates that accuracy is not your primary concern in these reports. Reliance on unnamed experts that you have chosen using an unverifiable methodology does not in any way mitigate this. 

The critics, myself included, rely on transparency with our criticism. That transparency is the antidote to bias. Just as you accuse us of bias - and we are - we accuse you of bias as well. However, there is not the equivalent transparency on your side - instead, you are falling back on the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority, and not even a named authority. "We had unnamed experts review it, trust us" is not the same as "here's where you are wrong."

Whether you intended to or not, this thread strengthens the idea that Amnesty - at least for the Palestinian issue - cares more about narrative than truth.

I'm obviously pulling my punches here. Benedict himself has previously shown his extreme anti-Israel bias. He once threatened violence against Richard Millett when he was respectfully asking questions from a speaker after an Amnesty event, demanding that the speaker not answer because Millett was a "war crimes denier" and then saying he would "smack" Millett in his "little bald head." 

He's compared Israel to ISIS. He singled out British Jewish MPs for supporting bombing Gaza. he's accused Israel government officials of feeling "ethnic supremacy." And lots more. 

There's a reason why Amnesty (and HRW) officials usually refuse to engage with their critics. When they do, their hypocrisy is seen by all. 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

10/14 Links Pt2: Phillips: Hysteria greets British PM's embassy move proposal; Amnesty UK refuses to sack official who likened Israel’s Gaza policies to the Shoah

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Hysteria greets British PM's embassy move proposal

Few expect that the British embassy will actually be moved. Indeed, given the chaos that has engulfed Truss since she became prime minister, with the financial crisis and collapse in electoral support sparked by her scorched-earth economic policies currently threatening to bring her down before she has her feet properly under the Downing Street table, moving the embassy would hardly seem to be a priority.

If it were to happen, however, it would not only be an enormous boost to Israel. It would also represent a dramatic change in British policy.

Unlike the US, where despite various presidents' relative coolness towards Israel the Christian heartlands remain solidly supportive, Britain's attitude towards the Jewish state has always been at best ambiguous and at worst – as in Mandatory Palestine – actively hostile.

Moving the embassy would not only start to reset Britain's shameful attitude towards Israel. It would also advance the cause of peace.

The only reason this century-old conflict continues is that the Palestinian Arabs have repudiated the two-state solution. They have refused repeated offers of a state of their own, because their goal is not a Palestinian state but the eradication of the Israeli one.

Towards this infernal goal, their principal weapon has been the refusal by Britain and other western countries to recognize the Palestinians' real agenda, providing them instead with funding, training and diplomatic recognition.

In other words, Britain and the rest of the west have incentivized, rewarded and perpetuated the war against Israel by going along with the morally bankrupt proposition that the Palestinian Arabs are entitled to a state of their own, even though their actual purpose is to use that state as a means to destroy Israel.

By moving the embassy, Truss – who describes herself as a "huge Zionist" – would be signaling an end to the shameful British capitulation to the Palestinians' lies and blackmail.

That is precisely why there's been such a reaction. While the average British citizen doesn't have an opinion about Israel one way or the other, Britain's elites loathe Israel on a scale that just doesn't exist in America.

The proposal to move the British embassy has lifted a stone, and we can all see what has crawled out from underneath.

Amnesty UK refuses to sack official who likened Israel’s Gaza policies to the Shoah

Amnesty International UK is defying calls to sack a senior official who shared a post comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and likened the Jewish state’s treatment of Palestinians to the Holocaust.

Garry Ettle, who represents the human rights charity as “country coordinator for Israel and Occupied Palestinian territories”, retweeted a message asking how video footage showing Israeli youths shouting at a Palestinian woman was “any different from Nazi Germany”.

The activist called Israel’s policies towards Gaza a “slow holocaust” in a Facebook message posted on 27 January 2020.

He also condemned US band Black Eyed Peas for playing a gig in “apartheid Israel” in another social media post last year.

Mr Ettle’s hardline views, which were revealed by online investigations group GnasherJew, have led to calls for Amnesty International UK to sack him.

Tory peer Lord Leigh of Hurley, an executive board member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, told the JC he thought Mr Ettle should be dismissed, adding: “Amnesty International UK has a very worrying record and this is the moment for decisive action to be taken by them.”

And a spokesperson for advocacy group Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “Only at Amnesty and like-minded organisations could someone who allegedly compares Israel to Nazis describe himself as a ‘human-rights activist’.

“Such comparisons are a breach of the universally accepted International Definition of Antisemitism. We would call on Amnesty to investigate and dissociate itself from this individual, but the organisation’s record on antisemitism gives little reason to think that it holds the views of the Jewish community in anything but contempt.”

Both the left and the right have turned on the Jews

Conservatives claim to abhor anti-Semitism, and yet foolishly believe they can ride the coattails of non-conservative loose cannons like Kanye West and greedily feed off the cultural scraps that fall to the ground; all while trampling on the supposed principles that were their “hills to die on” in their battles with the opposing side.

Kanye West, who in a matter of days argued that Jared Kushner sought peace in the Middle East to make money, repeatedly promoted the radical Black Hebrew Israelite conspiracy theory that American blacks are the “real Jews,” implied that Jews created cancel culture and announced that he would be going “death con 3” on “Jewish people,” has shown no signs of apologizing.

And yet, days later, conservatives celebrated Kanye West—an open and unapologetic anti-Semite—on the red carpet, labeling his very presence iconic.

A line has been crossed.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke with Jeremy Corbyn and said veiled anti-Semitic things in the past, and conservative media—myself included—never let it go. And quite rightly so.

Kanye West, who has far more cultural influence than Ocasio-Cortez, pushed multiple explicit anti-Semitic tropes, and what was the result?

Many high-profile conservatives shrugged and moved on that same day. Some didn’t even shrug at all.

Now, many have responded to my vocal criticism of this appalling conduct with “whataboutism,” declaring that the leftist media ignores anti-Semitism all the time.

Yes, they do. So what?

I was under the impression that we were meant to be the principled ones. If that is true, where on earth are our principles?

I do understand the attitude of wanting to bring culturally-powerful people into our tent based on their supposedly aligned views on single-issue topics. (Let’s leave aside for now the fact that Kanye West’s “pro-life” views are based on an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.) However, if there are no entry requirements to the ideological tent, if admission numbers are the only metric of value, what does that tent even represent?

Until our movement is willing to look in the mirror and stick to their supposed principles, the Jewish people cast out from this tent will wonder whether any of this is worth fighting for.

Yet again, Jews are alone.

Read More

Antisemitism by omission: Amnesty-UK only opposes trade agreements with one country

Amnesty-UK issued a press release linked to a 19-page paper on Wednesday warning the UK to ensure that a proposed expansion of its free trade agreement with Israel doesn't include any business in the territories nor include any dealings with companies that they claim are violating human rights.

Has Amnesty-UK ever gone through a similar amount of effort to sabotage a UK trade agreement with any other country?

You know the answer.

I found some blog posts questioning trade with Colombia in 2009 and one blog post from 2013 questioning trade with Mexico because of human rights issues. That's it.

Amnesty-UK has no campaigns, no reports, no press releases warning about UK (or, pre-Brexit, EU) free trade agreements with any nations besides Israel.  

Yet the UK has an extensive free trade agreement with Turkey that was updated only last year. The same Turkey that occupies lands and has built settlements in Northern Cyprus and in Syria.

Amnesty-UK is silent.

The UK has trade agreements with the Palestinian Authority. The same government that pays salaries to terrorists and teaches children to hate Jews.

Amnesty-UK is silent.

The UK has trade agreements with Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Lebanon. Not a word of objection from Amnesty-UK.

The UK is currently negotiating a trade agreement with Algeria. Amnesty knows quite well the depth of human rights abuses there. But Amnesty-UK is not campaigning to stop that agreement. 

No, Amnesty-UK chooses to campaign against UK trade with one and only one country. The one that happens to be Jewish.

Amnesty-UK will claim that their campaign is simply meant to support human rights. But somehow Israel always gets far more attention than any other country.

Their "Get Involved/Issues" section includes only four country-specific sections: Israel, Syria, North Korea and the US(!). In those sections, it lists over 60 issues with Israel, but only ten entries on Syria, nine for North Korea, and ten for the United States. There is far more effort and money spent on attacking Israel than any other country, by far.

That is modern antisemitism. It hides behind "human rights" but it abuses the issue of human rights as a club to attack only Israel. 

(h/t Mitchell)

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More