The government’s signalling that it no longer considers Israel to be sovereign over West Jerusalem leads to some odd conclusions.
Far from advancing the cause of peace, which Labor professes to support, this reversal only sets peace back. The only states and entities that assert Israel has no claim to West Jerusalem are the same ones that assert Israel has no entitlement to a sovereign state whatsoever: Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It is very odd company for the Labor government to be keeping.
Will Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong now refuse to meet Israeli counterparts in Jerusalem, as countless of their Labor predecessors have done, and as the UAE Foreign Minister did just in September? If Labor considers West Jerusalem to now be disputed territory, this is the only feasible conclusion.
Of equal importance, does this presage a larger shift in Labor’s attitude towards Israel in international forums?
The Howard government in 2004 altered Australia’s voting position on a number of annual, one-sided UN General Assembly Resolutions that single out Israel as the obstacle to peace, whilst remaining silent on the obligations of other parties. Under the Rudd/Gillard governments, many of these positions were reversed, before being reversed again under subsequent Coalition governments. It appears likely that the Albanese government will once again shift these votes.
The bigger question though is whether the government will follow through on the commitment in the ALP’s official platform to unilaterally recognise a state of Palestine, absent the usual criteria for statehood. In 2021, in a motion introduced by Wong, Labor’s national conference adopted this as official policy.
If the Albanese government goes through with this, it would separate Australia from some of its closest allies and partners, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, New Zealand, France, Germany and Canada.
A profound shift such as this would not make the emergence of a future Palestinian state any more likely. But it would break a strong Labor tradition of support for the state of Israel, and harm one of Australia’s closest and most valuable relationships in the Middle East.
Foreign policy should proceed on the basis of established facts and national interests. Labor’s approach risks ignoring both.
We tweeted several Sky News [UK] editors and journalsts before one responded, upholding our complaint regarding an Oct. 19 Sky News article, written by Amarachi Orie, falsely claiming that Australia recognised Tel Aviv as Israel’s capital. The article in question focused on news that officials in Canberra had rescinded the previous government’s recognition of West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
However, the country’s decision to no longer recognise Jerusalem didn’t mean that it therefore recognised Tel Aviv as the capital – as the official government statement on the matter from the foreign ministry shows.
Collier said there are different causes behind the virulent anti-Zionist/anti-Israel atmosphere in Ireland. The first is the "distinct anticolonial strand going through the whole of Irish politics" which is evident in the rise of Sinn Fein, "historically the Republican Independence Movement" political party. Many Irish people, who "hate England," mistakenly believe "Britain gave the Jews Israel" and are convinced that the Jewish State epitomizes "settler colonialism." Ironically, as Israel was being established post-1945, the Zionists fought to oust the British from its mandate in Palestine.
The second cause of rampant antisemitism in Ireland is found in the country's "strand" of "classic antisemitism," now seen coming from both the "far left and the far right." Collier pointed out that even though the Irish were "officially independent" during World War II, "many of the Irish Republicans sided with the Nazis." The third cause of Irish antisemitism is rooted in the second — particular "ideologies within Christianity", which are "very strong in the Irish Catholic Church." The church is replete with belief in "replacement ideology, supersessionism, or the idea ... the Christians are the new Jews."
That the Jews have returned to their ancient homeland in Israel creates a "major ideological problem" for the Catholic Church, driving it to align with the Palestinians. Collier said that Christian charities will donate to anti-Israel non-governmental organizations (NGO's), some of which are affiliated with Palestinian terrorist groups. He said an exception in Ireland to the widespread antisemitism is that Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, and whose predominantly Protestant citizens identify with the British, tend to be pro-Israel.
The fourth and final issue driving Irish antisemitism, Collier said, is attributable to "Islamist extremism." Whereas the U.S. and England experienced Islamist attacks after mistakenly, over the past three decades, "placing the bar for extremism far ... too high," he said Europe is "paying a deep price for it now." In Ireland, which has not experienced a large influx of Muslim migration, the antisemites there share the same "anti-colonial, anti-imperial" messages with Islamists, whom "they've accepted ... wholesale." The Islamists, essentially, are "coming in speaking the same anti-colonial, anti-imperial messaging, that the Irish do." Collier said, "anti-Zionist rhetoric," unabashedly rife on Irish streets, also creates a "hostile environment" for Jewish students on campuses. He said there are mosques preaching hate, Irish universities with Islamist academics, and the local church, all in league "bashing the state of Israel."
Collier believes that Sinn Fein's growing popularity will be accompanied by an "escalation" of antisemitism in Ireland, which he tracks through social media. He is dismayed at the trends because he said Hitler and the Holocaust "didn't just happen." Rather, their emergence can be traced back to "European antisemitism and beyond it, Christian antisemitism."
I just finished reading former US Ambassador David Friedman’s recent article, in which he makes the point that Judaism and Zionism are inseparable. It is a fine article and I agree with him, but I wonder if it places too much emphasis on the return of the Jewish people to their homeland after a lengthy absence. I have the same concern with an upbeat review of Israel’s achievements in a recent article by David Weinberg, which refers to two millennia of Jewish dispersion.
To imply that the Jews left the Land of Israel for 2,000 years, after the fall of Masada, is not accurate. It feeds into the view that the modern state of Israel is a European colonial enterprise with no historical connection to the land. What’s more, the Jewish return did not originate with the modern Zionist movement in the early 1880s. Aliyah has been continuous throughout the ages.
The Jewish people never really left the Holy Land. Certainly, many were killed or expelled at the time of Masada and later, but many Jews continued to live in “Palestine” (the name given by the Romans after the Bar Kochba revolt, 132-135 CE) for a considerable time afterward. The evidence is clear from the extensive archeological sites visible today, such as those at Beit Alpha, Beit She’arim, Tzippori (Sepphoris), Baram, and many others. Jews formed a majority of the population of Palestine until at least the fifth century CE, and an autonomous Roman-recognized Jewish patriarchate in Palestine existed until 429 CE.
Archeological ruins point to the establishment of more than 80 synagogues, particularly in the Galilee, during the six centuries after the destruction of the Temple. After Masada, the Jewish population was substantial enough for three serious revolts against Roman or Byzantine rule to occur; the last one, against the Emperor Heraclius, was in the seventh century.
Evidence from the Cairo Genizah, and the writings of the Spanish-Jewish traveler Benjamin of Tudela, indicate that Jews continued to inhabit a number of towns, including Jerusalem, after the Byzantine defeat by the Arabs under Omar Ibn Al Khattab in 637, and even during Crusader rule. In fact, the 12th century witnessed an upsurge in Jewish immigration from Europe; 300 rabbis from England and France, including a number of prominent Tosafists, immigrated to the Holy land in 1211, while the noted Spanish rabbi and philosopher Nachmanides (the Ramban) made aliyah in 1267.
A Holocaust denying antisemite created a partnership with a Gazan scammer who has family links to proscribed Islamic terrorist groups. They are still taking £1000s from people in Scotland for increasingly dubious and unbelievable campaigns. Why is it left to an independent Jewish journalist to investigate them? Just where are the Scottish police?
The unfortunate Mohammed Almadhoun
Mohammed Almadhoun is either scamming the people of Scotland or he is the unluckiest man alive.
About 18 months ago his house was bombed, and he ran a campaign to raise funds to rebuild it. The image he used for his ‘bombed-out’ house was a bombed out Hamas bank and had been swiped from the internet:
Mohammed Almadhoun houseTwo years before this he claimed that a school he teaches in was also bombed out – and once again he tried to raise funds to have it fixed. This time Almadhoun used an image of a school in Syria bombed during the Syrian civil war:
Mohammed also claimed he needed back surgery at the time – and once again ran a fundraising campaign to raise money to help him:
None of this was real – but nor did Mohammed succeed in raising much cash. What he lacked was a ‘sponsor’ in the UK so blinded by antisemitic hate – that he would promote every story that Mohammed gave him. Enter Pete Gregson – an antisemite who has bought into almost every conspiracy about Jews that can be found.
So earlier this year Gregson tells everyone that Mohammed would go to jail unless he could pay his debts – raising funds to help him. This despite the fact Almadhoun is a relatively wealthy man from a very powerful clan. Gregson was campaigning for a bogus story – and I told him so. Since then, things have only got worse.
London Centre Study of Contemporary Antisemitism: Alvin Rosenfeld: ‘The Jews are Guilty’: Contemporary Echoes of Old Religious Tropes
Alvin H Rosenfeld, the Director of the Indiana University Bloomington Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism talks about how centuries old tropes of religious antisemitism are being recycled and expressed in today’s America.
What did Yair Lapid mean by his foregoing statement? Did he mean 2 states in an undivided Jerusalem or Jerusalem undivided as an Israel state with the Palestinian Arab state established elsewhere? If the former, he would find a majority in Israel would not accept this. If the latter, no Palestinian Arab or Arab leader would accept it.
What he should have done was to make use of an expert historian to proof positive Jewish indigenous rights to the Land of Israel, After all, during Temple Times , we learn of the Jews and the Romans. Subsequently the Greeks. The words, "Palestinians" and Arabs" don't appear until many centuries later.
To begin with, he could share the words of Lloyd George, who was outraged by the claim that Arabs had been treated unfairly in Palestine---":
"No race has done better out of the fidelity with which the Allies redeemed their promises to the oppressed races than the Arabs. Owing to the tremendous sacrifices of the Allied Nations, and more particularly of Britain and her Empire, the Arabs have already won independence in Iraq, Arabia, Syria, and Trans-jordania, although most of the Arab races fought throughout the War for the Turkish oppressors---[In particular ] the Palestinian Arabs for Turkish rule."[ A Mandate for Israel by Douglas J. Feith].
Perhaps the greatest lesson for Lapid is demonstrated by history - Appeasement mostly does not work and it certainly does not win.
Jaw-dropping press conference
LAPID’S PRIME-time press conference was just as jaw-dropping. Lauding the great “achievements” that Israel made by (ostensibly) rejecting a set of Lebanon’s additional demands, he boasted that the cabinet had approved the deal and thanked Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron for their help and support. Oy.
He proceeded to acknowledge that the agreement “staves off the possibility of a flare-up with Hezbollah,” quickly averring that “Israel is not afraid of Hezbollah. The IDF is stronger than any terror organization, and if we went to battle, we would deal it a heavy blow. That being said, if it’s possible to prevent war, it’s the job of a responsible government to do so.”
Questioned by a reporter about the government’s consent to circumvent a Knesset vote, he blabbered about the legality of the decision. Then he let the cat out of the bag.
“In light of the utterly profligate behavior of the opposition, we didn’t think that it would be [the] right [thing to do],” he explained.
In other words, the risk of Hezbollah interference in Israel’s gas mining is smaller in Lapid’s eyes than a potential parliamentary thumbs-down. Which brings us to Iran.
Biden's horrific foreign policy
DESPITE THE ongoing protests across the Islamic Republic that are providing a glimmer of hope about the ultimate fall of the regime, the US administration is continuing to convey its desperation to revive the nuclear pact and fill Tehran’s coffers with billions of dollars. This travesty is typical of Biden’s horrific foreign policy.
Israel cannot afford to follow in such ill-fated footsteps. Nevertheless, National Security Adviser Eyal Hulata defended the gas deal on the ridiculous grounds that it “goes against Iran’s interest in Lebanon and weakens Hezbollah’s hold on the government in Beirut.”
Really?
No wonder Udi Adiri, Israel’s longtime lead maritime border and gas extraction negotiator, resigned a couple of weeks ago in exasperation over the contents of the document that was crafted against his better judgment. This didn’t have an effect on what is going to be a signed, sealed and delivered deal on October 31, the day of Aoun’s exit and 24 hours before Israelis head to the polls.
No, you don’t have to be a maritime expert to grasp the magnitude of the gambit. Common sense and experience ought to suffice, if not in Israel’s soon-to-be-shuffled halls of power, then at least at the ballot box.
The Israel Defense Forces' Desert Reconnaissance Battalion is one of a kind: not only are its fighters volunteers, but they come from Muslim, Christian, and Circassian backgrounds, often having left their families and friends, who opposed their enlistment, behind.
They have served on the border with the Gaza Strip for many years, protecting Israel and putting their lives on the line.
According to one of the fighters, "there are people here whose identities cannot be revealed not because of the operational aspects, but because of what would happen to them if their photos or names were made public."
The unit was established in 1986 in order to regulate the enlistment of Bedouin youth in the IDF. What began as a small unit has over time grown into a battalion.
When the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, the unit became operational and was stationed along the Gaza border. During the Second Intifada, between 2000 and 2005, the fighters participated actively in operations in the strip, especially the Philadelphia Route, combating underground tunnels and the spread of terror.
In January 2002, four of the battalion's fighters were killed in an attack on an outpost near the Kerem Shalom border crossing, where several years later Gilad Shalit would be captured, and where the fighters carried out patrols with us, the journalists, in the dead of night.
Lt. Col. Guy Madar, 33, married and father of five from the Karmei Katif settlement in southern Israel, has been commanding the battalion for the past three months. He grew up in the Givati Brigade, and when he reached the rank of major general, he naturally wanted to continue his service in the purple brigade.
But today, he says, he could not be prouder of his fighters, even though sometimes the Arabic language, which is used outside of operational activity – as that is only conducted in Hebrew – is a challenge for him.
"I manage. The soldiers know Hebrew, and othertimes, they help me. My ambition is to learn Arabic. This is my first job as a battalion commander, but I got to know the Bedouin patrol unit because they are trained in a Givati base. But you only think you know something before you actually do it. Before that, there are a lot of preconceived notions. When I joined, I discovered how amazingly they operated. I grew up in Givati and I wanted to be an officer in Givati, and I will honestly say that at first, I was a little disappointed because I had a lot of fears, we all have our prejudices. It was only when I joined that I found out how serious this unit is. The fighters really don't get the appreciation they deserve.
"When I say that I am the commander of the Bedoun patrol unit, everyone tells me that it must be challenging and asks how I manage. My answer is that it is like any fighting unit in the IDF. That it is a group of fighters who want to contribute. They are strong, good fighters, and know the sector like the back of their hand. I have a company commander who has been here since 2013. Everyone who comes across the unit discovers that they are wonderful guys, not spoiled, who just want to fight and contribute to the country."
States that support Palestinian-centric diplomacy include Jordan and Qatar, and of course also the Palestinian Authority also supports it. All of these are harsh opponents of the Abraham Accords. Indeed, they condemned them. Jordan does not view Iran as a threat. Hamas and to a degree the Palestinian Authority view Iran as a sponsor and ally. And Qatar is Iran’s close ally and partner.
All the same, the Biden administration’s policy is to bring the two sides together. The first sign of this came with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority in March. At the time, Blinken tried to force the foreign ministers of the Abraham Accord nations to bring the Palestinians into their deliberations. He failed.
But rather than walk away, the administration has doubled down. They have sought to bring Iranian allies and proxies Qatar and Iraq, as well as Jordan, into the regional air defense alliance that the United States seeks to create through CENTCOM. But bringing Qatar and Iraq into the alliance means emptying the alliance of all meaning. Similarly, Biden seeks to bring Jordan and the P.A., which oppose the Abraham Accords, into the summits of Abraham Accord partners, a move that would, again, gut the accords and reduce them to strategic incoherence, at best.
Immediately after Biden left Jeddah empty-handed, Egypt and the UAE beat a path to Tehran’s door looking to reopen their embassies and formally reinstate relations with a state pledged to their destruction. With the U.S. effectively batting for Iran’s team, they need to explore their options.
All of this, of course, is devastating for Israel, on every level. The move Israel has to make is fairly obvious. Israel needs to pander to the Biden administration just as emptily as Biden and his hostile advisers pander to Israel. And then they need to pursue policies that actually defend Israel’s interests.
Unfortunately, our caretaker leaders, Prime Minister Yair Lapid and Defense Minister Benny Gantz, are doing no such thing.
For reasons that have nothing to do with strategic rationality or reality, both men are apparently operating under the impression that Israel is required to advance policies towards the Palestinians and Iran that are devastating to Israel’s existential security interests.
Israel has apparently no plan to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, despite the fact that we are at crunch time. We have no policy to defend or preserve the Abraham Accords. Indeed, both Gantz and Lapid seem to have no clear understanding of the accords’ purpose or rationale. It’s hard to know whether their positions are based on ideological blindness or simple incompetence. Both men have demonstrated both, and in similar ways.
But all the same, Biden’s cataclysmically failed visit, which was followed immediately by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s triumphant visit to Tehran on Monday, means that Israel has no time for its leaders to learn remedial statecraft.
Biden’s pandering was irritating and insulting. But it’s the devastating substance of his policies that is truly alarming. Israel has to stand up for itself now, because nothing it says, no pandering on its part, will change America’s trajectory.
Admittedly, I would have preferred to see unanimity between Israel and Biden. I toast Biden’s growing awareness regarding the dangers of Iran’s sick quest for nukes and its evil Revolutionary Guards, yet I cringed when Biden’s staff removed Israel’s flag from his limousine before entering east Jerusalem. (As a presidential historian, I deem this an unnecessary error: the limousine should fly only two flags everywhere – America’s and the president’s seal.)
Nevertheless, these minor frictions reinforced the broader message of a friendship resilient enough to absorb policy differences.
HERE IS where Biden’s age is a factor – for the good. Born in 1942 to pious, patriotic Catholics, Biden grew up understanding that, as he said, “the ancient roots of the Jewish people [in Israel] date back to biblical times,” and the once homeless Jews deserve a national home. Biden’s sympathy for Zionism contrasts with the Israel-bashers, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who echo today’s trendy vocabulary of delegitimization, sloppily and cruelly applying a critique of Western imperialism to Jews’ unique story.
Biden’s pro-Zionism contrasts with woke extremists like the Democratic member of Congress, Cori Bush, who on Saturday attended a fundraiser organized by Neveen Ayesh. The government relations coordinator for the St. Louis chapter of American Muslims for Palestine, Ayesh has tweeted out filth saying “I tried befriending a Jew once. Worst idea ever” and “I want to set Israel on fire with my own hands & watch it burn to ashes along with every Israeli in it.”
But Biden’s mature example also resists the silliness of Peace Now, which hung a huge poster in Tel Aviv proclaiming – in Hebrew – “welcome to the two states we love the most.” As the election campaign intensifies, and people wonder why Israel’s Left lacks credibility, remember that sign.
Beyond the obvious facts that Biden doesn’t speak Hebrew and the “state” of Palestine doesn’t exist, the entities currently representing Palestinians are corrupt, terrorist-addicted, dictatorships, fueled on anti-Jew hatred, abusing their own people in the West Bank and Gaza, and particularly hostile to Zionists – as well as fellow Palestinians advancing American liberal-democratic ideals. Ignoring those realities, falsely equating your own democratic country with its authoritarian enemies, confuses peacemaking with breast-beating.
Pit stop
Admittedly, a cynical British friend of mine was correct. Biden’s Israel visit was a most elaborate rest stop on the way to the Saudi Arabian “petrol station.” Still, Biden done good. He showed Democrats at home – and peaceniks in Israel – how to recognize the eternal ideals that make Israel Israel and link Americans and Israelis in our unique and mutually beneficial bond. For that, we should say, “Toda raba! Thank you, Mr. President.”
US taxpayer money, thanks to the Biden administration, is now once again going directly to an international agency that promotes messages of hate against Israel and denies its right to exist.
The claim that the UNRWA services contribute to maintaining regional stability is not only false, but, sadly, ridiculous.
On the contrary, most of the refugee camps have since become hotbeds for extremist and terrorist groups and individuals, especially in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria.
A study published earlier in early July.... found that children attending UNRWA schools are exposed to textbooks that include references to violence, martyrdom, overt antisemitism, jihad (holy war), rejection of the possibility of peace with Israel, and the complete omission of any historical Jewish presence in the region.
"[W]e found material that does not adhere to international standards and that encourages violence, jihad and martyrdom, antisemitism, hate, and intolerance...." — IMPACT-se study, July 2022.
Instead of pressuring UNRWA to change its policies and stop the anti-Israel incitement in its schools, the Biden administration has decided to reward the agency for encouraging hate, violence, martyrdom and the delegitimization and demonization of Israel and Jews.
The Biden administration, in short, has just sent a message to the Palestinians and all the Israel-haters that it supports their efforts and shares their dream of obliterating Israel.
Those who fund school textbooks that glorify terrorists and deny Israel's right to exist are complicit in the global jihad against Israel.
Amnesty’s definition of ‘Apartheid’ means ‘Jewish majority rule’
These are some of the problems in Israel inside Amnesty’s ‘Apartheid’ report:
The report makes clear that they have a problem with Israel’s ‘law of return’ which is the basis of the world having a refuge for Jewish people (page 82).
Amnesty has a problem with Hebrew being the dominant language (page 212).
They have a problem with Jewish majority state control (throughout the document).
Amnesty has a problem with the Jewish state ‘owning’ its own land (throughout the document).
It has a problem with urban renewal projects (throughout the document)
Amnesty has a problem with the Jewish state building towns to house Jewish refugees and immigrants (page 146)
It has a problem with a Jewish majority anywhere – referring to the impact of that majority as ”Judaization’ (example page 22)
Amnesty has a problem when the Jewish state embarks on social and economic development programs (page 153)
Amnesty has a problem with normal economic restraints (such as a state not having enough money to invest as much as it should – see investment on classrooms on page 213)
It has a problem with there being more ‘Jewish localities’ than non-Jewish ones (page 146).
Amnesty scream ‘Apartheid’ when they see a housing shortage (you know, like we have in the UK)
The bottom line is this: Amnesty International have a problem with a Jewish majority state – period.
Wanting to destroy Israel
Being in the majority comes with perks. Most people will speak the same language as you, worship the same god as you and celebrate the same holidays as you. A nation’s culture is shaped by the majority. Christmas day is a big holiday in the UK – not so much in Saudi Arabia. The UK’s flag and many of the state’s emblems carry a cross – which you won’t tend to find on the state emblems in Indonesia. Nothing of this is untoward. The UK is not an Apartheid state because Easter is celebrated with a public holiday – and Ramadan isn’t. And inside pre 1967 Israel – this is what Amnesty are calling ‘Apartheid’ – this is what they want to tear down. They want to destroy the Jewish state.
So remember, when you see Amnesty say ‘Apartheid’ – what they mean is democratic representation inside a Jewish majority state. And when they say they want to ‘end it’ be in no doubt that they are talking about the deliberate destruction of the only democratic nation in the MENA region.
Why are they doing it? – Simply because the Islamist / hard-left alliance have taken a firm grip of what was once Amnesty’s soul.
The report denies the State of Israel’s right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people. Its extremist language and distortion of historical context were designed to demonize Israel and pour fuel onto the fire of antisemitism.
What the outside world heard: “Israel dismisses amnesty report as antisemitic.” For many this response offers proof of the “Livingstone formulation”: Jews use “antisemitism” to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.
What the accusers do not want, is that their audience see them spreading illegitimate anti-Jewish memes at a time when hostility to Jews is most decidedly on the rise even in Western countries formally wedded to Nie Weider. Like Freud, publishing Moses and Monotheism in German, in 1939, they throw fuel, refined fuel, on the flames of the often denied longest hatred. But don’t call them antisemitic. Freud wasn’t.
In order to frame the issue as Israeli apartheid and crimes against humanity, this report systematically projects malevolence – the racist desire to dominate – onto the Israelis, even as it conceals the patent malevolence of her enemies. As such, the report resembles the classic supersessionist projection of ill-will and dominion onto the Jews who allegedly take their “chosenness” as a warrant to dominate gentiles cruelly. This same hostile projection informed the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion; and like the denizens of the early 20th century, some in the early 21st century will take this report as a warrant for the destruction of the accused.
Indeed, an earlier draft of the report (sent to journalists to prepare for the official release) claimed that “This system of Apartheid originated with the creation of Israel in May 1948 and has been built and maintained for decades.” After much commotion (by the IHRA definition, this is antisemitism), the reference to 1948 was removed from the final English version. But the hasty and limited removal of this reference merely tried to conceal the driving force behind the report, the scaffolding upon which AI assembled it: Israel itself is a racist endeavor, an illegitimate nation. Israel delendus est. As such, like all supersessionists in pre-modern periods (Christians, Muslims), this allegedly civil-society discourse reveals itself incapable of tolerating the existence of an autonomous Jewish entity.
Is this antisemitism? You be the judge. Is it reasonable for Zionists to say that this report fans the flames of Jew-hatred? Yes. Does that mean that Jews are again suppressing legitimate criticism of Israel with the antisemitism charge? You be the judge. Does it mean that you owe it to yourself to read the devastating critiques of this malevolent report? Yes. Does it mean that if the charges against AI are accurate, this Report is a fire accelerant thrown into a combustive global community? You be the judge.
And if you so judge, then speak out. Words matter, especially when the words one opposes are weapons in a cruel war.
Clearly, when a report such as this refers to disputed territories—areas of Judea, Samaria, and sections of Jerusalem which have had a Jewish presence and identity since biblical times—as “Occupied Palestinian Territories” it has already revealed the political bias inherent in its view of the situation about which it has written this report.
In addition to a return, the AI report calls for full reparations for any Palestinian losses of wealth and property, something they never have considered, of course, for the more than 800,000 Jews whose businesses, wealth, and property was seized when they were expelled from Arab countries upon Israel’s birth. The fate of the Jews is never of concern to human rights activists or the virtue-signaling activists on campuses calling for an intifada to “free Palestine” from the current grip of Jews.
“Israel must grant equal and full human rights to all Palestinians in Israel and the OPT in line with principles of international human rights law . . ,” the report demands. “It must also recognize the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to homes where they or their families once lived in Israel or the OPT. In addition, Israel must provide . . . full reparations. These should include restitution of and compensation for all properties acquired on a racial basis,” meaning what, that any properties acquired by “white” Jews who appropriated them from “brown” Arabs during the War of Independence and in 1967?
AI should know that the demand for a right of return, a notion referred to by Palestinian Arabs and their supporters as “sacred” and an “enshrined” universal human right granted by UN resolutions and international law, in fact, has no legal standing at all, and is part of the propaganda campaign that is based on the thinking that if Israel cannot be eradicated by the Arabs though war, it can effectively be destroyed by forcing it to commit demographic suicide. AI, as an international organization that professes to be an authority on human rights and international law, should know the facts and the truth, but, apparently, it does not.
In the first place, the right of return claim uses the fraud as its core notion that the Palestinians were “victimized” by the creation of Israel, that they were expelled from a fictive land of “Palestine” where they were the indigenous people. Except that when historian Joan Peters used the expression “from time immemorial,” in her book of the same name, she proved just the opposite.
As Professor Efraim Karsh, head of Mediterranean Studies at King’s College, University of London, and the author of Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians, points out, “this claim of premeditated dispossession is itself not only baseless, but the inverse of the truth. Far from being the hapless victims of a predatory Zionist assault, the Palestinians were themselves the aggressors in the 1948-49 war, and it was they who attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to ‘cleanse’ a neighbouring [sic] ethnic community. Had the Palestinians and the Arab world accepted the United Nations resolution of November 29, 1947, calling for the establishment of two states in Palestine, and not sought to subvert it by force of arms, there would have been no refugee problem in the first place.”
Mansour Abbas, leader of the Islamist party in #Israel, in response to accusations of apartheid:
A UK-based textbook publisher has paused the distribution of two Middle East high school books after a report that showed that the books - which were filled with anti-Israel bias - had been changed in a "pro-Israel" direction.
Conflict in the Middle East, c1945-1995 and The Middle East: Conflict, Crisis and Change, 1917-2012, both written by Hilary Brash, were shown to be highly biased against Israel. David Collier wrote a report on just chapter 1 of the second book showing clear bias, and he mentioned some other examples:
• P. 29 refers to terrorists, or Fedayeen, as freedom fighters “depending on one’s
point of view.” It is internationally accepted that those who randomly target
civilians are terrorists regardless of the cause they are fighting for. Palestinian
terrorists and terror groups – like Hamas – wage such attacks against Israeli
civilians to this day.
• P. 56 has a reference of PFLP as a “guerrilla group”. In reality, PFLP is an
internationally proscribed terror organisation, having been designated as such by
the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, and the European Union. It does not
recognise Israel and openly calls for its annihilation and is well known for pioneering armed aircraft-hijackings in the late 1960s (one of its most infamous
militants being Leila Khaled).
• P. 78 refers to the Coastal Road Massacre and says that Israeli civilians “died”
during the shootout. In reality, the Israelis kidnapped by the Palestinian terrorists
were murdered by them and not caught in the crossfire, as the book aims to
portray; 13 of the victims were children. Furthermore, the passage does not once
refer to the Palestinians as terrorists, preferring to call them “militants”.
A timeline on events in the region from that book that is still online shows the pattern of bias against Jews and Zionism.
Not one mention of Arab aggression against Jews before 1972. The only attack mentioned is the King David Hotel attack - not one mention of the 1929 massacres, the 1936 uprising, the attacks on Jews throughout the period. Nothing about Jews fleeing Europe for their lives before the Holocaust, or the Holocaust itself. Conflicts and wars "break out" - they aren't initiated by Arabs. The PLO is not involved in any terror attacks at all - the only two attacks mentioned are from the PFLP and Black September, which students aren't told was the PLO. It says Arafat renounces terrorism and doesn't mention the terrorism that he directed in the years that followed. And, of course, history only begins in 1917, with no mention of the Jewish presence on and love of the land for three thousand years.
To correct this bias, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and UK Lawyers for Israel met with Pearson in 2019 and worked with them to eliminate this bias. Revised textbooks were released in 2020.
Now, the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, a virulently anti-Israel group, issued their own report written by professors John Chalcraft and James Dickins complaining about the revisions.
In assessing the changes that we found there was one dimension on which almost all of the
changes could be arrayed, namely from which perspective the history of Israel/Palestine
should be told. In assessing the direction of change we used a simple scheme, based on
whether a reasonable, broadly informed person would understand a change to be pro Israeli, pro-Palestinian or neutral between those positions. The terms ‘pro-Israeli’ and ‘pro Palestinian’ are defined in their most generally accepted sense – as characterizing an
account which exonerates Israelis or Palestinians from blame, fault or wrongdoing.
On this basis we found (a) a small number of changes that are broadly neutral, (b) around
half a dozen changes that may be described as mildly pro-Palestinian, and (c) the remainder,
the vast majority, that are pro-Israeli. The net effect is that the content and substance of the
textbooks has been significantly altered. The RVs are emphatically more pro-Israeli than the
OVs.
Obviously, if the books were heavily slanted against Israel, changes to correct the books would be regarded as "pro-Israeli!" That isn't bias - that is a correction to anti-Israel bias.
The authors did not release the full list of changes, but only some cherry-picked ones, with no images of the pages where the changes can be evaluated in context. So when they complain that the word "atrocity" was removed in reference to Deir Yassin, we cannot see whether that word was used in reference to the Hadassah Hospital convoy massacre - or even if that massacre was mentioned at all. Without that context, they make it look like the book is now completely pro-Israel, which seems highly unlikely.
Yet as a result of this biased report, Pearson has again paused the distribution of the book!
Chalcraft and Dickins present themselves in the report as "senior academics in Middle East Studies," yet two minutes of research shows that they are anti-Israel activists who support boycotting Israel. Here is Dickins (right) at an anti-Israel rally:
Dickins also recently promoted a video by airplane hijacker Leila Khaled.
The opinions of those who want to see the Jewish state destroyed can hardly be trusted to be unbiased in their review of textbooks!
And yet Pearson is giving these haters' opinions enough respect as to pause distribution of a book that was painstakingly edited to eliminate the exact sort of bias that these professors have.
Bernie didn’t just oppose America’s Cold War excesses. He was often on the other side. America’s actions in Vietnam, he told a classroom of impressionable youngsters in 1972, were “almost as bad as what Hitler did.” In 1980, when Americans were tying yellow ribbons to express solidarity with our diplomats held hostage in Iran, Sanders aligned himself with the Socialist Workers Party, hosting an event at which its presidential candidate condemned “anti-Iranian hysteria around the U.S. hostages.”
As mayor of Burlington, Sanders earned the sobriquet “Foreign Minister” for the series of Potemkin village tours he took of America’s socialist adversaries abroad. When a constituent wrote a letter complaining about his words of praise for the Nicaraguan Sandinista regime, which had incarcerated thousands of political prisoners and forcibly relocated native tribes, Sanders responded, “The temporary suspension of certain civil liberties is considerably more complex than your letter indicates.” Sanders is like the guy we all knew in college with the Che Guevara T-shirt. Except, at 78, he’s still that guy.
When Alexander Solzhenitsyn moved to Vermont, Sanders never once met with the man whose personal testimony of the gulag won him the Nobel Prize for literature. But he did make time to travel halfway across the world to yuk it up with Solzhenitsyn’s jailers in the Soviet Union. After venturing to Cuba, a one-party state that interned homosexuals in concentration camps, Sanders returned awestruck. “I did not see a hungry child,” he gushed. “I did not see any homeless people. Cuba today not only has free health care but very high-quality health care.” (Indeed, Cuban health care is so “high-quality” that a cancer-stricken Fidel Castro summoned a Spanish doctor to treat him.)
While ritual self-flagellation is always demanded of Joe Biden for his single vote authorizing the Iraq War, Sanders’ opponents are oddly reluctant to ask him about his decadeslong record of propagandizing on behalf of leftist tyrants and mass murderers. Nor can these political commitments be waived off as mere youthful indiscretions. Sanders instinctually sides with any foreign head of state or revolutionary leader deemed “progressive,” no matter how autocratic or ruthless.
Although he criticized Israel over numerous issues in the late 1980s and early 90s, in this election campaign the senator from Vermont has embarked on a path of utter extremism (representing an escalation even in terms of his 2016 performance, when he vied for the Democratic nomination against Hillary Clinton). Amid the backdrop of this increasingly acerbic trend, which pushes Sanders closer to the militant and anti-Semitic fringes of the Democratic party, spearheaded by Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, it must now be asked: Is the era of fundamental bi-partisan consensus regarding Israel over? Is the special relationship with Israel no longer an integral part of the collective American ethos?
After all, since Israel became a strong partner and important strategic asset for the US some six decades ago, declaring support for the Jewish state has become an inseparable component of every American politician's toolbox, irrespective of party affiliations. Today, however, the dam has been breached. The fact that a leading Democratic candidate so readily castigates (and not for the first time) the prime minister of Israel, calling him a "reactionary racist," and also indicates his intention – if, of course, he's elected president – to move the US Embassy back to Tel Aviv from Jerusalem, makes it abundantly obvious that a prominent faction within the Democratic camp has fundamentally shifted its approach to Israel. It is within this prism that we must view the liberal wing's dangerous maturation and ultimate separation from its Israeli ally (and from the political center), the roots of which stretch all the way back to the 1980s and which have become increasingly intertwined in recent years with the contrarian and belligerent rhetoric of Jeremy Corbyn – who represents a type of role model for Sanders, and not just in terms of Israel.
Meanwhile, the Republican party in recent decades has become the sturdy backbone and anchor of support for Israel and the special relationship with it; evidenced by the eight years of George W. Bush's presidency, not to mention the three years of Donald Trump's current term. Simultaneously, the Democratic party has been in the process of drifting to the fringes, with Sanders the most outspoken and obvious symbol of the overt turn away from Israel and the strategic partnership with it predicated on shared values; and he is certainly not an outlier in the current liberal landscape.
Within this context, we must look at reality square in the eye and recognize the fact that underground political streams long bubbling beneath the surface have erupted mightily to the fore of American politics, mortally threatening the broad security blanket against any challenge Israel has had to face over the decades. If and how quickly this tsunami completely drowns out the centrist faction of the Democratic party fighting to stave Sanders off (for example, Michael Bloomberg and Joe Biden) – and drags us toward any number of unsavory scenarios – is, of course, a separate question that will soon be answered.
SOAS are hosting a purveyor of Nazi and KKK antisemitic theory on March 7. The event is billed as a student workshop offering advocacy for ‘Palestine’, however this Hamas linked group -EUROPAL – has previously published a booklet pushing hard-core neo-Nazi antisemitism
SOAS is known as a hotbed of antisemitism. It has the dishonour of being a university in central London where Jewish students have said they are ‘scared to wear the star of David and speak Hebrew’. For years SOAS has been at the forefront of hostile campus activity. I have seen too many toxic events to list them all – terrorists are honoured there and platforms given to an endless stream of antisemitic speakers.
But surely – there has to be a line they won’t cross – even at SOAS? It seems not. In two weeks they are hosting an event by an organisation -EUROPAL – that has been caught before spreading antisemitism. To turn disrespect for Jews into absolute mockery – EUROPAL are on campus at SOAS to teach students about – yes, you guessed it – antisemitism.
The all-day event – due to be held on March 7 – is described as a ‘student workshop’ – teaching other students how to be better advocates for ‘Palestine’. It is co-hosted by the SOAS Palestine Society. The first two sessions to be presented are about method, delivery and BDS – which means they will be full of the usual lies and propaganda we are all used to. It remains heart-breaking that students are fed this type of ahistorical and demonising garbage in a place of learning – but nothing new for SOAS. The real problem arises in the third session – which is about ‘antisemitism’:
EUROPAL are teaching students about antisemitism, which means that this event isn’t about the history of a conflict, or anti-Israel advocacy, but rather explicitly talking about anti-Jewish racism. So who are EUROPAL and why are they qualified to hold events about antisemitism?
David Collier has written a walloping
200-page report (available for download as pdf) exposing the anti-Israel bias and obsession
of international human rights group Amnesty
International. In its sheer breadth of coverage, the report is an
astonishing body of work, but then we’ve come to expect nothing less from
Collier. We watched on, not so long ago, as he issued a similar bombshell, his multipart exposé
of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party. That report appeared to necessitate
Collier infiltrating a secret Labour Facebook group.
David Collier
This is like the kind of spy
stuff you read about in novels. It would take guts to do that and not a little
caution, sustained over a lengthy period of time, in order to avoid detection. But
Collier’s unconventional methods of research have borne fruit, witness the fact
that Boris Johnson is in and Corbyn is most definitely out.
Collier is using new and
different tacks in the fight for Israel and against antisemitism. The way he
uses social media, for instance, is something we haven’t seen before, at least
not with this level of commitment. What has Collier uncovered about Amnesty and
what can we, as regular people, do to emulate his work going forward? I spoke
with Collier to learn more:
Varda Epstein: Tell us about Jewish
Human Rights Watch. How did this body come to commission you to investigate
Amnesty International? Tell us about your background and credentials. What sort
of manpower and hours were devoted to this project?
David Collier: Jewish Human
Rights Watch is a UK-based NGO. They fight anti-Israel bias the clever way,
either by challenging it in the courts or exposing the toxic nature of those
that stand against us. For example, they have been fighting the legality of
local town councils passing BDS motions and this effort and the publicity they
caused, may have played a part in the UK Government’s recent
announcement that it is going to ban councils from pursuing such motions
altogether.
I have done work for them
before, when they commissioned a report
on antisemitism in the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign. The report
successfully clipped the SPSC’s wings. We both saw bias in Amnesty as a major
issue, so it was natural they would turn to me for this project.
I have been fighting
anti-Israel bias for two decades. My own strategy is different from most. I
don’t push pro-Israeli material so much. Our problem is not whether or not
Israel is perfect – it doesn’t have to be – Israel has every right to be a
state that makes mistakes like all states do. Our issue is that our enemies are
full of toxicity and hate. This is their biggest weakness and we should spend
more time exposing them for what they are. If you engage in a “did/didn’t”
argument with an anti-Israel activist, the bystander becomes confused. Far
better just to show the person you are arguing with is a terrorist-sympathizing
antisemite. Bystanders understand this much more clearly. We will never
convince an anti-Israel activist he is a hatemonger, so don’t both trying, just
expose his hate to others.
The Amnesty research took
months and well over 1000 man hours. There were hundreds of thousands of social
media posts to cover. During the summer of 2019, I didn’t sleep much.
Varda
Epstein: Why do we care about Amnesty International’s bias? What is the impact
of this organization?
David Collier: We cannot
overstate the impact of NGOs like Amnesty. They are the bridge between actions
on the ground and International forums such as the UN, UNHRC and even the ICC. The NGOs are seen as legitimate and
impartial “judges” and their findings carry real weight. None more so than
Amnesty. If Amnesty is simply pushing raw anti-Israel propaganda as evidence
during a UN hearing, they legitimise the UN’s own bias against Israel. In
effect Amnesty acts as the glue which reinforces a global anti-Israel bias – if
they played fair, things would look very different.
Ashira Prem Rachana is a "human rights researcher" for Amnesty International
Varda Epstein: Was Amnesty International always so political? Did it ever do good work? Was there a turning
point?
David Collier: Yes, of course.
Amnesty’s sterling reputation was legitimately earned and this is, in part, why
the situation is both tragic and difficult to address. Amnesty relies on the reputation
from the good work it used to do to shield it from criticism today.
Originally, and in the much
simpler days of the Cold War, Amnesty dealt solely with political prisoners. As
the NGO arena became more overcrowded and competitive, Amnesty sought growth –
both in the areas it monitored and in the type of work it undertook. They
became more political. They felt it necessary to let go of crucial rules they
imposed on themselves to stay clear of conflict of interest issues. In truth
there were logical reasons for them to do so – but they put nothing in its
place and were slowly devoured by activists using Amnesty resources for their
own narrow interests. The decline has been gradual and going on for decades.
Nadine Moawad, MENA communications manager for Amnesty International
Varda Epstein: Your report states that a consultant for Amnesty, Hind
Khoudary, tweeted support for a terror organization, referring to known Islamic
Jihad terrorists as “heroes.” Tell us about that. Was the tweet issued as a
private citizen? Does it matter?
David Collier: It doesn’t
matter at all. I think one of the things Amnesty will do to deflect the
criticism of the report is to suggest some of these people weren’t associated
with Amnesty when they made the unacceptable comments. This is irrelevant. Imagine
a judge going home and tweeting as a private citizen that terrorists are heroes
– would any sane person consider him fit to be a judge? With Khoudary, there
were numerous tweets. At roughly the same time she called the two terrorists
heroes, she also retweeted advice to people in Gaza not to publicly say
anything that would ‘hurt the resistance’. This person is a hard-core
Palestinian activist and a supporter of terrorist groups like Islamic Jihad. At
no point can she be considered impartial, not before or after the time she made
those tweets. As it happens in this case, I think she was listed as an Amnesty
consultant at the time – but in any event, it is absurd to believe she would
ever tell the truth about what is taking place on the ground.
Varda Epstein: How does it feel when you see that Amnesty staffer Laith
Abu Zeyad regularly retweets WaadGh who tweeted a smiley face in relation to the terrorist murder of
Rina Shnerb? Do you ever need a mental health day in your work?
David Collier: That’s a good
question, my wife certainly thinks so. Sadly, I have been doing this for so
long I am used to it. This is what I do, I swim in the sewers with these
people. I have to get into their heads and understand them. If I was sickened
by what I saw, I would never be able to do the research properly. I am even
forgiving. Had Zeyad only retweeted her once, I’d have written it off. We all
make mistakes. But she was a common source for him, they interacted. He must
know the type of politics she pushes. This is the problem - these people don’t
even have to hide these associations because nobody cares.
Varda Epstein: What did you find to be the most shocking fact to come
out of your investigation?
David Collier: There is the big
picture and the little picture. The most shocking single fact I found was a
person listed as the regional Media Manager for Amnesty writing a Facebook post
in Arabic that instructed terrorist factions not to “claim their martyrs” but
rather to let the West think they were innocent civilians – not terrorists. The
most shocking part of it all, though, is the big picture. We all know Amnesty
is biased, but the report exposes the level of that bias – it shows that
Amnesty operates with a subconscious (I don’t believe it is a conspiracy)
political world vision. One that hates Israel most of all, but is biased
against India, ignores the persecution of Christians and is strategically
anti-West. I call it subconscious because it is merely the sum of the parts.
Most of the parts carry a similar bias and this translates into Amnesty policy.
Amnesty is a danger to any Western nation that allows them to operate freely
and more fool the nation that pays attention to their findings.
Varda Epstein: This website, Elder of Ziyon, plays a role in your
report. Can you describe the context? What is the importance of bloggers and
tips from regular people in your investigative work?
David Collier: Elder of Ziyon
plays a role in all my reports. It is probably one of, if not the best, archive
of relevant information stretching back to the Second Intifada. If you are
writing about almost any issue relevant to the conflict, a search of the Elder
site is always advisable. In this report for example, I wouldn’t have known
that Saleh Hijazi, the Amnesty Deputy Director MENA had used images of
terrorists for his Facebook profile, if not for Elder’s website. It both saves
me time and acts as a great source for additional knowledge.
Saleh Hijazi, Amnesty International MENA deputy director used this image of PFLP terrorist and airline hijacker Leila Khaled for his profile photo.
Varda Epstein: What hope do you have that your report will instigate
positive change? Do you think there is hope that Amnesty International can be
reformed? Where might Amnesty International turn its sights instead of Israel,
to make the world a better place?
David Collier: Amnesty won’t
change from within. They can’t, this is what they are now. What needs to happen
is that we need to expose to others the toxicity within. We need to reach its
membership; the political alliances and every forum in which Amnesty has
influence. Show those people the report. Only real external pressure will ever
work and even then, I do not know if it is possible to salvage without a
complete rebuild.
What should they be doing?
Every Human Rights NGO on the planet should currently have one single goal: The
abolition of the UN Human Rights Council and the construction of a new UN human
rights body that has strict, points-based criteria about membership. The UNHRC
should be leading the way on global human rights issues and such a body could
be such a force for good. Instead it is infested with and controlled by
despots. Nothing would improve global human rights more than a properly run
UNHRC, so if you see an NGO currently working with them – rather than calling for
their abolition, you can automatically say that NGO is not a true human rights
NGO.
Sahar Mandour, Amnesty International researcher, Lebanon
Varda Epstein: Can you tell us about your roots and also about the
person you are, today? What makes you a fighter, a person dedicated to digging
deeply to fight against antisemitism?
David Collier: I was born in
the UK and lived in Israel for 19 years. I was part of the Oslo generation,
land for peace, two states, and all that. I worked intensively with
Palestinians during the 1990s. I published a monthly newspaper and used the Al
Ayam publishing house in Ramallah. I worked for peace. Then came the second
Intifada. Israel’s problem isn’t so much the Palestinians, as the global
movement that has turned them into a cause. This conflict should have ended in
1949. The reasons it didn’t have nothing to do with Israel, nor – and I can
hear people shout at me – with the Palestinians. They weren’t even a thing in
1949. The war against Israel is an international one. The Palestinian identity
as we know it today was created from the outside. I recognise this and this is
where I fight my battles.
There is no single thing that
led me to be a fighter. I lost close friends, but then so have most Israelis. I
think I fight because I have to. I do not see it as a choice. People often ask “what
would you have done” when referring to the rise of the Nazis, the creation of
Israel, and other important milestones in history. Well, we are at war now - it
is a global battle and the stakes are higher than most people imagine. If you
are not doing anything today, there is your answer.
Varda Epstein: What’s next for David Collier?
David Collier: I was writing a
book in 2015 when Corbyn was elected to lead the Labour Party. The last four
years have been an enormous time consuming and emotional rollercoaster. Corbyn
was merely a symptom of a growing problem and I see him simply as the first
wave. Boris has now been elected and we have 5 years of opportunity to continue
fighting. I am scared people will think the job is done – it would be a huge
mistake to think that. On the immediate horizon I can go back and hopefully
finish the book. It addresses the rise of the Palestinian identity as a weapon
with which to fight against Israel. I am going back to the British archives in
London to help me as much of the evidence is there. So fingers crossed, the
next major thing for me would be to have my book published.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Last week, the indefatigable David Collier released a book-length report on "Americans in Palestine Live," a closed Facebook group that is a major gathering place for big-named Israel haters.
I see the daily news in the US and it reminds me of the UK a few years ago. There are signs they are on a similar divisive path. Antisemitism rises and Jewish anti-Zionists leap into action, claiming it is about ‘criticism of Israel’. Creating an industry of antisemitism denial that legitmises antisemites. They write articles, they sign petitions, they appear on TV. In the States they have vocal anti-Zionist Jewish activists running organisations such as JVP and Codepink. Did you see the way they ran to protect Ilhan Omar? They create an environment within which antisemitism is given protection. Just like the anti-Zionists of Jewish Voice for Labour did in the UK. Only in the US, both anti-Zionist Jews and antisemites are more numerous.
News outlets such as Mondoweiss push their propaganda at an alarming rate. This air of legitimacy is attracting people. Yet I know the truth.
I know that these people ally themselves with hard-core antisemites. I have watched as they have organised petitions, events and demos with people who share neo-Nazi and white supremacist material.
Ariel Gold, Rebecca Vilkomerson, Medea Benjamin, David Mivasair are just some of the key American activists who have played inside the antisemitic swamp that is Palestine Live. A group that contains other members such as Greta Berlin, Cynthia Mckinney, Miko Peled and Alison Weir. Daniella Ravitzki, Larry Derfner, Ofer Neiman, Pam Bailey, Jonathan Ofir, Jennifer Loewenstein, Mark Levine, Seth Morrison and many more.
I’ve watched people like Codepink’s Ariel Gold deploy her Jewish identity, time after time, just as she aligns with people who push the ideology of the Renegade Tribune in a fight against Israel. Several key JVP figures are inside the group, people from the Rabbinical council, academic council and the JVP Board. Almost the entire front line of Codepink are inside too. Why are Amnesty personnel inside a secret antisemitic Facebook group?
In public they put pretty profile pictures up suggesting they stand ‘together against antisemitism’. They adamantly suggest they fight against it. In private the bitter truth is revealed. Time after time, these actvists are found alongside people who share rabid white supremacist or neo-Nazi material. Not once, not twice, but EVERY time. These people have created an industry of antisemitism denial to protect their precious cause, no matter who they need to align with.
David Mivasair, from the JVP Rabbinical council was in one thread with FIVE people who share material from neo-Nazi or white supremacist websites. FIVE. He conspires with them to weaken Israel, jokes about antisemitism with them and then in public he sings a different tune. Almost NONE of the activists were EVER seen confronting any antisemitism, inside a group that is overburdened with hard-core antisemites. All they did is engage in joint initiatives to attack the Jewish state. The antisemites and the anti-Zionist Jews. Attacking Israel together.
To say that the report is damning is a huge understatement. Major figures in the anti-Israel movement, from CodePink and Mondoweiss and Jewish Voice for Peace to Amnesty International, consistently post in this group and yet are silent when the most vicious antisemitic material gets shared, or when antisemitic material is used in responding to their posts. (Amnesty's Edith Garwood, among others, is an active member of the group, and never says a negative word towards any of the Jew-hatred shared.)
Moreover, the people who post in Palestine Live often directly posts the most vile Jew-hatred in their own timelines. In Facebook, they are "friends" with the Jews and supposed "progressives" who are in the group, their opinions are known and they remain friends.
Even Richard Falk, formerly of the UN, has commented on posts in the group and remained silent when antisemitic material was shared. As was virtually everyone else.
What this research shows is that when these these anti-Israel groups claim to be against antisemitism, they are lying. The antisemitic materials shared by members of Palestine Live come from right wing websites, often with direct links. Yet the only opposition comes from people who think that this is not the right venue for, say, Holocaust denial, or a Jew who helpfully suggests that the words "Jew-Nazi" be replaced with "Zio-Nazi" so the message can go further.
The private anti-Israel groups as a cesspool of anti-Jewish hate, but the people who claim that they are so brave for speaking out against Israel in public are not brave at all in fighting antisemitism - more often than not, they are enabling and spreading it, as Collier shows masterfully.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Out of the Box
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon,War, America, Gaza, Jews, Jewish, Israel, Donate,
Oct 7, Jews, Mexico, Gaza Pier,]
* Here's an even BETTER IDEA!*
Help Dry Bones...
Hamas planned for a future without Israel in 2021
-
In a Gaza conference held in September 2021, Hamas declared that ‘victory
was nigh’ and set out its vision for a future without Israel. The event
(picke...
What’s Eating Joe?
-
Ahead of a meeting between Prime Minister James Marape of Papua New Guinea
and Chinese Communist Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Joe decided to accuse Papua
...
The Palestinian “Two-State” Plan: Duping the West
-
One of the great unsolved mysteries of the 21st century is why, given what
a catastrophe it proved to be, anyone, much less a whole phalanx of
politicians,...
06-Feb-24: Obituary: Naftali Gordon
-
The obituary that follows was published yesterday by *Times of Israel* under
the headline "*Master Sgt. (res.) Naftali Gordon, 32: A man of ‘honesty and
...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Wednesday, October 26, 2022
