Bernard-Henri Levy: A Letter to the American President: The Killer of Daniel Pearl Must Not Go Free
Mr. President,David Collier: Sarah Wilkinson, the Holocaust denying star of anti-Israel activism
I am one of those still living who has most extensively investigated the abduction and decapitation, in February 2002, of your fellow American, Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl.
After the killing, I conducted research and interviews in Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, and Peshawar, which led the 2003 publication of my book Who Killed Daniel Pearl?
In it I gave the name of the man who held the knife, four years before his confession in a special court in Guantanamo: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was al-Qaida’s No.3 man and the probable architect of the Sept. 11 attacks.
But, above all, I retraced in detail the machinations that drew Pearl to the Akbar Hotel in Rawalpindi; that lured and deceived him through a series of emails promising him an interview with Mubarak Ali Gilani, leader of the Jamaat ul-Fuqra and one of the inspirations for the founding of al-Qaida; and that finally led him, deep into Karachi’s Gulzar-e-Hijri neighborhood, to an isolated house in which Fazal Karim, Naeem Bukhari, and others were waiting to murder him.
I arrived, then, at the firm conclusion that the brain behind the operation, the man who conceived it with an almost diabolical zeal, the one who served as the link between the various jihadist factions that cooperated to pull it off, was Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British Pakistani who was immediately arrested, convicted, and imprisoned.
Moreover, I adduced proof that this man, Omar Sheikh, was no ordinary criminal but rather an influential member of a galaxy of terrorist organizations that gravitated around al-Qaida. Educated at the London School of Economics, he had been Osama bin Laden’s financial adviser and bin Laden referred to him as his “favorite son.”
There is no goodwill
So remember all this the next time you see an attack on a Jewish or Israeli business led by a group such as Palestine Action or Extinction Rebellion. Think of the twisted ideologies of those behind the masks. Either they share antisemitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial or don’t care if their fellow activists do.
And if a Holocaust denying, antisemitic conspiracy theorist is acceptable to JVP, the PSC, Palestine Action or Tikkun Olum – then what or who isn’t? Holocaust Denial and racism against Jews does not matter to them. There is a cause, Sarah Wilkinson is valuable to the cause – if she is a toxic antisemite, well then, they can look past that. They even get to benefit from the extra motivation this provides.
100s came out to support Wilkinson. And those that follow her do not seem to care either. A sitting member of the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee, when informed about Wilkinson’s antisemitism by a campaigner, chose to block the campaigner rather than unfollow Wilkinson.
This is why those on our side, who still think through prisms of ‘fair play’ and ‘moderates’, keep getting it wrong. There is no goodwill on the other side. Stop pretending it is there. This is not about settlements or Gaza. It is ALL about the very existence of the Jewish state. A Holocaust denying antisemite is helping to lead the charge against British Jews and NOT ONE of the pro-Palestinian organisations will publicly distance themselves from her.
In case anyone had any doubt Sarah, who took part in Pal Action's factory vandalism, is a seriously disgusting, lying antisemite.
— Yonatan יונתן يوناتان (@__jacker__) February 2, 2021
According to this women we are evil incarnate.
(disturbing content)@GnasherJew @mishtal @GillianLazarus @jobellerina @SussexFriends @emmacpicken pic.twitter.com/KzDW4R8GcQ
CAA submits evidence to Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights to counter claims that International Definition of Antisemitism restricts freedom of expression
Campaign Against Antisemitism has submitted evidence to Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights to counter claims that adoption of the International Definition of Antisemitism, especially by universities, stifles freedom of expression.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights comprises members drawn from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and examines matters relating to human rights. One of its current inquiries is into freedom of expression.
The campaign to encourage universities to adopt the International Definition of Antisemitism has encountered opposition on the basis that adoption somehow stifles freedom of expression, but this argument does not have merit, and the evidence that we have submitted lays out in detail why this is the case. “The claim that adoption of the Definition conflicts with the duty on universities to protect free speech is a familiar and flawed argument, notwithstanding its persistence,” our letter says.
The letter proceeds to analyse the difference between speech that is ‘merely’ insulting or offensive, and speech that is antisemitic, and the implications for whether those types of speech are protected under Article 10 of the European Charter of Human Rights.
We also cite the legal opinion, produced for us in 2017 by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar QC and Jeremy Brier, which argued that “this Definition should be used by public bodies on the basis that it will ensure that the identification of antisemitism is clear, fair and accurate” and emphasised that “Criticism of Israel, even in robust terms, cannot be regarded as antisemitic per se and such criticism is not captured by the Definition.”



















