I saw this online (from the Elder of Ziyon) and had to share it.
I saw this online (from the Elder of Ziyon) and had to share it.
Whatever they are doing at SOAS University of London (School of Oriental and African Studies), it doesn’t appear that they are doing any decent teaching. For example, free speech doesn’t seem to feature on the syllabus. As the Elder of Ziyon points out (here), according to the Guardian (here), the response to a proposed address by Mark Regev, the Israeli ambassador to the UK was as follows:
More than 150 academics from Soas and other UK universities, plus 40 student societies at the university, have written to the Soas director Valerie Amos urging her to intervene to stop the meeting on Thursday at which Regev is due to speak.
“The event could further cause serious tension on campus and result in a charged atmosphere that will be detrimental to the wellbeing of all faculty, staff and students.”
Regev was invited by the Soas Jewish and United Nations societies. He will be interviewed by Eric Heinze, professor of law and humanities at Queen Mary University of London, before taking questions.
The students’ union challenged the university authorities over the staging of the event, raising concerns about possible safety and security risks posed by the ambassador’s visit and “the inability of students and staff – in particular Palestinian students – to participate openly in the debate, because of possible repercussions on their ability to enter Israel/Palestine”.
It’s all nonsense, but that last piece about “repercussions on their ability to enter Israel/Palestine” is not only fiction, it’s a variation on the blood libel. But, hey, it’s the Guardian…
You can just see the poor, troubled SOAS students and staff stamping their feet as they complain loudly that they do not want the Israeli ambassador to speak. No, no, no free speech for him!
And while you are getting over the obscene stance being made by those students and staff, know that the Elder has put it succinctly thus:
Calling for the destruction of Israel isn’t a provocation. Holding a speech defending it is.
Finally, entirely in keeping with the Guardian’s mission of downplaying antisemitism, and hating everything Israeli, note this:
Soas, which is one of the world’s leading institutions for the study of the Middle East, Africa and Asia, has often been the focus of coverage of the sometimes fraught debate surrounding Israeli-Palestinian politics on university campuses. As a result, the small minority of Jewish students at Soas have complained of feeling uncomfortable on campus and unable to express themselves.
How’s that for a glorious understatement?
SOAS are in trouble. Surely there’s no place in the modern world for a university that is so infested with hate and little disguised antisemitism?
Note the role of some (apparently) Jewish persons siding with the forces of darkness. They have given up their birthright, squandered their heritage, and sold their souls to the devil.
From the Times of Israel in an article (here) about the behavior of Channel Islands officials during World War 2, under German control:
In August 1945, a British intelligence report stated, “When the Germans proposed to put their anti-Jewish measures into force, no protest whatever was raised by any of the Guernsey officials and they hastened to give the Germans every assistance.” The author went on to note that, by contrast, there were considerable efforts made to protect the islands’ Freemasons.
So, prepare for the next wave of antisemitism, and become a Freemason now!
There are many who believe, with considerable justification, that the core of the British Establishment is riddled with antisemitism. It’s a quiet, ever present hate that every so often boils up to the surface. It can appear as a Nazi fancy dress, a Nazi gesture, or something more direct and abusive. (It is occasionally dressed up – lightly disguised – as political commentary attacking Israel.) You can well see how those harboring such hate would have no hesitation in administering the orders from their German conquerors.
It does appear that such hate has now broken out of the Establishment, and is widely settled among the hearths and homes of British Society. Or. do you think that is too pessimistic an observation? Does the press pick unfairly on the social media slurs of youth, or the temper tantrums of politicians in heat, that truly are of no substance? Or does what’s on show represent the tip of a deadly iceberg?
Friends of the Earth‘s Mission and Vision statement begins:
Mission and vision
Our vision is of a peaceful and sustainable world based on societies living in harmony with nature.
We envision a society of interdependent people living in dignity, wholeness and fulfilment in which equity and human and peoples’ rights are realized.
This will be a society built upon peoples’ sovereignty and participation. It will be founded on social, economic, gender and environmental justice and be free from all forms of domination and exploitation, such as neoliberalism, corporate globalization, neo-colonialism and militarism.
Your antennae may start twitching on reading those last few trendy buzzwords. Well, the following, as reported by Guido Fawkes, may make those antennae stand on end:
Asad Rehman is a senior spokesman for Friends of the Earth and is leading their delegation at the next UN Climate Change conference. As you can see above, Asad has worked out who are the real baddies when it comes to climate change: those pesky Zionists. He says Netanyahu and Israel are “best pals” with ISIS and advocates banning “Zionist organisations” from climate change events.
Inside the happy, clappy, environmentally focused group there is a poisonous pit of hate and bigotry.
Will Friends of the Earth clean it out, or are they happy to host such thinly disguised antisemitism?
And, by way of a bonus, here’s another Fawkes expose piece – Jet Set Lifestyle of WWF Climate Campaigner – also about an environmental group. This one exposes an awful case of hypocrisy. Perhaps we should be grateful it’s hypocrisy and not hate?
The excellent David Collier blog – Beyond the Great Divide – has an insightful (and shocking) post about events at Lichfield Cathedral:
I have just spent a weekend at Lichfield cathedral for a conference “on the Israel/Palestine Conflict and the prospect of peace”. And what a weekend it was! A naïve Dean, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, global control, blood sucking Jews, child kidnappers, Arabs in 100ad. and of course, Jesus the Palestinian.
I do recommend you read it all, though I want to highlight the following extract:
We then heard from a dutiful liberal Zionist. And what a talk it was. Professor Yossi Meckleberg presented to the audience a very accommodating position. A man anyone could make peace with. Like most liberal Zionists he is talking to himself. *if only* such voices could be heard from the other side. Another break. More pamphlets to read. All about a fictional place called Israel/Palestine. Or Palestine/Israel for those who KameL Hawwashwant to belittle Israel’s legitimacy more thoroughly. A group called ‘Lichfield Concern for Palestine’. All talk was about Israeli brutality. No mention of Arab violence anywhere. Another talk was about to start. Then came the storm.
See how good a pundit you are. The liberal Zionist has put down a marker for peace. (In the lions’ den, perhaps, playing the part of the Christian?) What do you think the response was?
Here you go:
Next up was Professor Kamel Hawwash, Vice-Chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. For every hand that Meckleberg had extended in friendship, Hawwash pushed one away. I am always thankful for people like Hawwash because they expose why there is no current chance for peace. There is no room in Kamel’s world for the Israelis, a group of people he describes as randomly deciding to invade the region. These two speakers presented the entire conflict in a microcosm. The Israeli Jew, ‘let’s make peace, let’s find a way, let’s accommodate’, the Palestinian Arab, NO, NO, NO. I have no doubt that people failed to see what had just occurred. But in truth, it was 70 years of Israeli peace attempts wrapped up into two short hours.
Collier’s observation is bang on target.
First, he’s correct (in general terms) about how the interaction summarizes Israeli peace attempts.
Second, he’s also right in suggesting that people didn’t notice what had happened. They seem to have accepted the outright rejection as acceptable, normal, and – dare one say it – understandable. If ever there were an acid test to determine whether Israel and its people were being delegitimized, demonized, and defamed, that would be a candidate.
What an obscene event Lichfield hosted. It will be interesting to see what Michael Ipgrave, Bishop of Lichfield, and Chairman of the Council of Christians and Jews, says about this. He dare not be silent, after this statement of his.
Not the happiest way to start the New Year, but it’s a message that needs to be publicized. From an interview with Monika Schwarz-Friesel – “one of the most quoted experts on anti-Semitism in both international academic literature and the German media” at the Times of Israel:
“Many of the refugees that have been pouring into Europe recently come from societies that are deeply anti-Semitic. It would be foolish to assume that their anti-Semitism can be educated away in a few years and that it won’t leave its mark on European societies.”
The trouble is, many Europeans do seem to be foolish when it comes to antisemitism. That standing ovation for Abbas ‘poisoning the wells’ speech to the European Parliament in June this year is just one clear example. And the other notable issue is whether Europe will “educate” in any effective fashion against anti-Semitism or indeed, educate at all.
Another warning Europe will ignore.
Read the whole thing, here.
In June of this year, at an anti-BDS meeting (“Ambassadors Against BDS”), Danny Danon was quoted as follows:
“BDS is modern anti-Semitism, and we must unite as one body in order to expose its true face and put an end to it.”
Fast forward to this week, and the public announcement of Brian Eno. He told the Batsheva Dance Company to stop using one of his pieces of music after he found out its Italy tour was sponsored by the Israeli embassy in Rome.
I know what my conclusion about Mr Eno is.
I just came across this up to date piece at the Jerusalem Post:
Eminent Hebrew University historian Prof. Yehuda Bauer slammed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement on Tuesday night, at a speaking event in London at London’s Jewish community center, the JW3.
The Jewish Chronicle quoted Bauer, 90, as saying the BDS Movement does not want “a better Israel, they want no Israel at all.” He made the remark during an interview conducted by Labour MP Tulip Siddiq.
“Now of course, they love Jews. Especially dead Jews. The ones who died in the Holocaust, they’re marvelous, they were terrific. Live Jews is something else,” he was quoted as saying.
Bauer unequivocally equated anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, describing the former as an empty slogan. “They want to destroy the Jewish state; they want to destroy it because it’s a Jewish state. That means you are an anti-Semite.”
Read it all here.
I read the following in Petra Marquardt-Bigman‘s piece (Dear Linda Sarsour, what’s progressive about Palestine?) at the Elder of Ziyon, and found my self silently nodding in agreement:
“If there is one constant in the long history of antisemitism it is the notion that whatever you see as your biggest problem, it is somehow the fault of the Jews. Nowadays, it’s the fault of the world’s only Jewish state.”
Read the whole thing here.
So, now the Royall report (available here) about alleged antisemitism at the Oxford University Labour Club. has finally been published. Shami Chakrabarti may not be happy about that, as there may be fallout for her. Why?
As the Jewish Chronicle reports:
Speaking to the JC about the Royall report in July, Ms Chakrabarti said: “My impression is that the NEC redacted it because there were individuals involved who were then referred for disciplined.”
“So my understanding is that is what happened there.”
Ms Chakrabarti, the former director of human rights group Liberty, added: “I know it is going to upset people when you can’t publish in full, but I almost feel like it was a hybrid enquiry.
“Because it was a bit thematic like mine, but also quite specific and Baroness Royall referred individuals who were in that report, to be disciplined, so obviously pending the discipline [It could not be published].”
As the JC also reports:
The report contains no names and no redactions.
It appears that Shami Chakrabarti’s impression was false. Now, why might that be?
At the very least, she has some explaining to do. It would be the, er, honorable thing to do…
We have known for a while, that in this politically correct world, the use of language has become as much a political as a linguistic exercise. While not quite as bad as Orwell’s 1984, there are certain aspects that come damn close, and often the attitude and intent are entirely in keeping with it. This post is about the words terror and terrorist.
Reading about much of the mad violence that has taken place, you may well hunt in vain – except in Israel’s own media coverage – for those words. People are decapitated, run down, blown up, tortured, butchered, and killed. But that is rarely described as terror, and the actors are not terrorists.
Occasionally, you might see these words encased in quotation marks. This stylistic exercise is carried out to convey a clear message: someone else said this, and we certainly don’t agree, because we would never use such a word.
The BBC are on the most influential media outlets on the planet, and (very regrettably) they seem to be leading the charge (to mix a metaphor or two) in sanitizing terror from their reports on such incidents.
However, over at the excellent BBC Watch, they have a post that highlights how the BBC does actually use these words, and their hypocrisy when it comes to using terror and terrorist.
That post explains the BBC’s public stance on the use of these words. In short, they claim they are unable to make a value judgement, and so avoid doing so. However, as BBC Watch points out:
In other words, when it comes to terrorism in Europe the BBC apparently has no problem with “value judgements”.
So, apparently the BBC can make a value judgement if it wants to.
After reading the BBC Watch post, you might not unreasonably form the conclusion that so far as the BBC is concerned, terror is something that happens in Europe, but never in Israel, unless it comes to Jewish terror.. Strange that. On the other hand, after reading it, you might conclude that the BBC is a vengeful, hateful beast, ridden with antisemitism and a distaste for the Jewish State.