Harry's Place

“any UCU member prepared to oppose an academic boycott of Israel is labelled a Zionist”

Damn right too! I’m a UCU member, oppose the boycott and I’m a Zionist (i.e. a believer in the legitimacy of the state of Israel).

I remember the time when War on Want was a charity. What possessed them to start such blatantly partisan political stuff? What has this got to do with relieving poverty?

Welcome to the wonderful world of leftist politics. Where Jews control the media and Putin is a great humanitarian.

It isn’t the so called Zionist or Israel lobby that is the problem it is the deeply anti semitic Muslim lobby which holds great sway over much of the left in Britain and has immense leverage throughout Europe and especially within the EU power structures. They have sucessfully used Arab oil money to promote the deligitimisation and hatred of Israel and are now moving towards making outright Jew hatred as acceptable generally as it is to them.

In other words the truth of this narrative is diametrically opposed to the view promoted by the likes of John Hilary et al, no doubt a clever and deliberate strategy.

The left want to ingratiate and grovel to muslims so what could be more natural than that they ape there prospective masters in all things anti jewish/israeli, They have to prove there pro muslim credentials and that has already led them to consort with hard line blatantly racist islamic groups

This trait will only get worse as the left see the islamists as a dynamic political force with real political leverage, In a decade or so this stuff will seem mild, As far as the degeneration of the left is concerned the only way is down.

The islamists are what the left would love to be, numerous, well funded, schism free, disciplined, feared, with a high public profile and access to the highest levels of government.

It will all end in tears for the left because everything always does, but in the meantime they will continue their descent into the poisen pit of jew hatred, these things have a logic of there own and it will be impossible for them to halt the process even if they wanted too which they dont.

At what point will they say enough is enough?, My guess is never.

No to no no no! Blaming “the Muslim lobby” (regardless of how you characterise that) is illusory scapegoating.

WoW is largely the result of core historical British atttitudes to upstart Jews, and core left hostility to Jewish self-determination / self-definitio – all mixed with an unhealthy dose of white British post-colonial guilt for having screwed the noble Arabs with the Balfour Declarartion and all that followed.

There is nothing to be gained from giving john hilary the benefit of the doubt. When everyone is permitted to campaign on issues that matter to them, except for Jews, that is just one more expression of antisemitism. The onus is on him to prove otherwise.

If Hilary is hankering after ‘powerful lobbies’, he need look no further than the suspension of the inquiry into BAE bribes to Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, amounting to more than £1bn. Blair, and the SFO, obliged just as soon as it was politically feasible. Oil income is seemingly not enough to meet the profligate spending habits of saudi princelings.

it is the deeply anti semitic Muslim lobby which holds great sway over much of the left

I don’t think that’s actually true. Or rather, you have it the wrong way about. It is the left who have proactively decided to adopt the policies of a (then) small and (which was up until that point) fairly marginalised muslim lobby.

“that is just one more expression of antisemitism. The onus is on him to prove otherwise”

That is the next move in the playbook. After railing against an organized conspiracy of the “Israel Lobby, the Jewish press and Zionists” a concerned Jew will inevitably raise the issue of antisemitism, at which point the antisemite will clap his hands together and say, “They stifle debate with accusations of racism!” and the liberal British Jew will argue that “accusations of antisemitism are serious and should be reserved for Nazis and Richard Nixon. Anything less dilutes the term, etc. and so on…” Some Americans Jews will accuse the Brits of being pussies, and a sober Israeli or two will wonder what all these crazy people are talking about. The Irie will be an ass.
Can we start the next thread now?

Hmm.. no mention so far of a former General Secretary of War on Want, who, one suspects, may, in his (now relatively distant) day may have done his part to promote such attitudes. Has Harry’s Place turned over a new leaf?

Excellent piece Jeremy Newmark, thank you

Good post. I think the term ‘Jewish press’ is the closest thing to an outright racial slur (while maintaining a minimum of deniablity: ‘but I only meant that part of the press that self-identifies as ‘Jewish’ and did not all mean to imply that all the world’s press is controlled by the Jews’) that the current band of fellow travelling (in Anthony Julius’s phrase) anti-semites allow themselves. The bolder people like John Hilary get, the better though. The smokescreen of ‘anti-Zionism’ is getting incredibly thin and fewer and fewer people seem to buy it. The growth of acceptable antisemitism in the UK, especially on the left, is disturbing but will be easier to deal as its proponents gain courage and expose themselves more.

I think WOW is in the hands of a well funded Muslim lobby.

I think WOW is in the hands of a well funded Muslim lobby.

As a die-hard Horde player, “For the Alliance!” always translated to me as “Allah Ackbar!”.

We will remember the “Livingstone Conundrum” (or is it Formulatio?) whereby to complain about Antisemitism is to prove there is an Israeli/Zionist/Jewish Lobby that seeks to stifle debate.

On BBC 5Live messageboards the Islamist Antisemites attacjed the “Jewish Lobby” when Obama spke there. The dumb fucks just didn’t get it (or didn’t want to) when we told them it was an “Israeli Lobby” and that speeches to AIPAC reach 60m Christian Zionists and only a maximum of 6m Jews in the USA who probably vote Dem 60% – Republican 40% and with the demographics its almost a zero-sum game anyway.

The old joke now. “Solly, why do you read that Daily Nazi newspaper with all that hate about Jews? Why not read the Jewish Chronicle and read good news and what’s happening to Jews?”. Well Abe, I read the Jewish Chronicle and I get depressed. Attacks on Jews everywhere, its like the 1930’s again. But when I read The Daily Nazi I read about how powerful Jews are, how we control all the money, how we run Hollywood, how we get the Gentiles to do everything for us. Then I feel good at how powerful we Jews are!”

(Hi Mark from “Iron Naz and colonelartist exposer” Shtummm!)

I think the term ‘Jewish press’ is the closest thing to an outright racial slur

Unfortunately, if he then clarifies that he meant Jewish Chronicle and other Jewish newspapers then he can probably get away with it

And the activities of the Henry Jackson Society are compatible with charitable status how, exactly?

BTW – we can classify something as “Antisemitic” without stating that the person saying it is an Antisemite.

There are many things one might say about Israel for example. Israel is The Jewish State. However, if someone is criticising Israel and says “The Jews……..” I would regard that as Antisemitic but might accept that the speaker did not deliberately mean to express their thoughts in an Antisemitic way. Conversely, modern psychology might call this ‘leakage’ and indicative of a deeper structure that has an Antisemitic core.

I accept (for the moment) that Galloway has had a judgement that he is not an Antisemite. However, surely it is for anyone in his audience to state that they have found remarks to be Antisemitic – even if by by other evidence to the contrary the speaker is shown not to be an Antisemite. If a parrot says something Antisemitic then is the parrot an Antisemite.

I don’t seek to minimise or help hide Antisemites. I just find it not an easy label to tag.

And the activities of the Henry Jackson Society are compatible with charitable status how, exactly?

What has the HJS got to do with the charitable status of WoW?

> Nobody is suggesting that the War on Want Director’s particular
> formulation is antisemitic

Well, then “nobody” is a bit of an idiot. I suggest and state that the War on Want Director’s particular formulation is classically antisemitic; furthermore, I postulate that this suggests the vile man has *general* antisemitic attitudes to allow him so blithely to excrete such nonsense.

This was in Monday’s Evening Standard (By Chris Blackhurst – City Editor). His source (I understand) was someone who is unhappy with the slow pace of progress of Islamic finance in the UK and who blamed ‘The Lobby’. Blackhurst swallowed it uncritically. The more tropes there are, the more there will be. Lies feed on lies.

RICH ISLAMIC OPPORTUNITY WE MUST TAKE: “One of the few areas to survive the impact of the global credit crunch is Islamic finance. It has continued to enjoy booming levels of wealth, buoyed up by Middle Eastern oil revenues.

You would think, given their growing significance and the opportunities they represent, that the Government would be doing all it can to woo Islamic investors to the UK. You would be right. Ministers are keen for London to become a centre for Islamic funding and have looked at issuing a shariahcompliant sukuk — the equivalent of a bond — in sterling.

So it’s disappointing to hear that the Government is being subjected to enormous pressure by those who believe Islamic banking is the thin edge of the wedge, a precursor to the UK becoming a Muslim nation. The pro-Israel lobby especially is very worried and consequently vociferous in opposing it.

It seems mad to me to ignore a potentially rich source of business and therefore income. Madder still if all we did was to drive it to Dubai.”

“It isn’t the so called Zionist or Israel lobby that is the problem it is the deeply anti semitic Muslim lobby which holds great sway over much of the left in Britain and has immense leverage throughout Europe and especially within the EU power structures.”

It’s the Muslim Global Conspiracy versus the Jewish Global Conspiracy.

Who will win? Who has the best conspiracy? Answers on a post-card to:
Illuminati
c/o Bilderburger Group
Area 51
Nevada, USA.

“Ministers are keen for London to become a centre for Islamic funding and have looked at issuing a shariahcompliant sukuk — the equivalent of a bond — in sterling.”

Shock, horror! Financial houses should be compelled to invest in pig abbatoirs, pornography, alcohol and gambling just to collectively punish the Muslim enemy.

It isn’t the so called Zionist or Israel lobby that is the problem it is the deeply anti semitic Muslim lobby which holds great sway over much of the left in Britain and has immense leverage throughout Europe and especially within the EU power structures. They have sucessfully used Arab oil money to promote the deligitimisation and hatred of Israel and are now moving towards making outright Jew hatred as acceptable generally as it is to them.

The Left embrace radical islamists and imbue them with a victim status because doing so holds out the promise of redemption for past colonialist sins.

The hype surrounding Obama B. is much the same reflex, only on the part of white Americans.

Nearly all leftists consider themselves militant atheists, and yet most have little idea of just how religious they actually are, engaging, as they do, in what is nothing less than a morality play, a play that posits the Jews as the bad guys, and whose ultimate goal is one of redemption.

This cryptic relgious component is also the reason why you cannot talk any sense into them.

Bob Pitt is perhaps the best example I can think of. Why else would a self-described ‘progressive’ leftist embrace clerical fascism, an ideology completely opposed to anything progressive, if not for the purpose of redeeming himself from past colonial ’sin’?

It,s a win/win situation. Islam is ‘brown’ and all that is ‘brown’ is a victim, all that is victim is meek, and by siding with the meek in a 19th century do-gooder missionary reflex, one obtains a sense of salvation.

Financial houses should be compelled to invest in pig abbatoirs, pornography, alcohol and gambling

Sounds like my kind of financial house. Bacon, Breasts, Barcardi and Betting PLC.

I think WOW is in the hands of a well funded Muslim lobby.

As a die-hard Horde player, “For the Alliance!” always translated to me as “Allah Ackbar!”.

Damn, Morgoth, you beat me to the geeky humour. (Sorry, but the acronym “WoW” really has only one meaning for me too.) Shouldn’t you be playing Alliance? They are the neo-cons of Azeroth after all…

Reminds me of another recent thread where, everytime I saw the name Hedy Epstein, I thought of Hedley Lamarr from “Blazing Saddles”…. (*)

(*) Via Wikipedia, I can’t believe they cut the best joke in the movie:

“Mel Brooks confided that one bit between Madeline Kahn and Cleavon Little had to be edited. In the darkened dressing room when Lili asks Bart if it’s “twue” what they say about black men and then she says, “It’s twue, it’s twue!”, he cut Bart’s punchline of “I’m sorry to disappoint you, miss, but you’re sucking on my arm.”

P.

“So it’s disappointing to hear that the Government is being subjected to enormous pressure by those who believe Islamic banking is the thin edge of the wedge, a precursor to the UK becoming a Muslim nation.”

They should also close down all those Indian restaurants that serve halal meat, in case letting them do so will lead to Waliyat-e-Faqih being imposed next week and young British men start flaggelating themselves during Ashura (instead of flaggelating each other after pub closing time).

“The pro-Israel lobby especially is very worried and consequently vociferous in opposing it.”

I guess Jewish organisations are withdrawing their accounts from HSBC, one the world’s leading providers of Islamic finance.

“Sounds like my kind of financial house. Bacon, Breasts, Barcardi and Betting PLC.”

Sounds like the usual lunch-time activities of a City trader.

“And the activities of the Henry Jackson Society are compatible with charitable status how, exactly?”

It’s a think tank. It’s entitled to charitable status.

Is the Co-operative Bank the thin end of the wedge of international communism?

What is wrong with having Jewish lobbies anyway? If Jews want to organise on any issue, then what is wrong with having a lobby? A lobby is not a conspiracy, particularly when a lobby is public and vocal. I don’t think Jews should feel ashamed of organising a lobby, nor do I think they should be condemned for it. It’s a natural part of democracy to have lobby groups.

Well, Morgoth, why are they going after WoW, and why did they go after the Smith Instiute for that matter, when the neocon think-tanks-cum-parties-within-the-parties are left alone to count their tax-exempt monies?

More widely, when it comes to antisemitism, you neocons are the vanguard, shrieking about it every time anybody questions or challenges you about anything.

Yet most American Jews did not vote for the War Party, insofar as they had any option not to, at either the last Presidential or the last Congressional Election. And large numbers of Israeli Jews make a point of voting against the War Party at every opportunity.

They all deserve better, as the whole world does, than the neoconservative movement, thanks to whose activities it is really very likely that no charge of antisemitism, no matter how valid, will ever be taken seriously again.

But look at the list of signatories to the Project for the New American Century, just for a start. If Francis Fukuyama (a partially lapsed but now returning neocon), Dick Cheney, Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle or Zalmay Khalizad is Jewish, then I for one will be extremely surprised. Never mind Jeb Bush.

Even people whose names look as if they might be – George Weigel, Donald Rumsfeld, Gary Bauer – are not, Weigel being in fact a German-descended Catholic (and biographer of John Paul II, to whom he should have paid more attention), Rumsfeld a German-descended Protestant-if-anything, and Bauer one of America’s leading Evangelical Protestants (and also, obviously, of German descent).

Yet they have presumed to open the way for all manner of vilification and victimisation of Jews for ever more. I for one strongly suspect that they are in fact visceral antisemites.

In fact, I struggle to think of any other explanation.

What has the HJS got to do with the charitable status of WoW?

Looking at the frequency of non sequitor commments on the HJS on these pages,the obsession of some people with HJS is approaching their level of obsession with Jews.

“In fact, I struggle to think” N

Never a truer word spoken.

Thank you for proving my point, Ami. Present and future victims of antisemitic attacks might not thank you, however.

The War Party has debased this particular currency to worthlessness, even though hardly any of them actually are Jewish, and really not very many Jews support them. Future Jews will pay the price. Indeed, present Jews are already paying the price.

As for the HJS, while it should of course be stripped of its charitable status, but it is in any case already defunct. Like the Euston Manifesto, signed only by huge numbers of pornmongers, would-be fraudsters, and other spammers.

And now even the PNAC website has been suspended, I see. It’s all over.

But the damage will live on for a very, very, very long time.

What is wrong with having Jewish lobbies anyway? If Jews want to organise on any issue, then what is wrong with having a lobby?

I think you’re missing the point slightly Dan.

When distasteful people refer to a ‘Jewish Lobby’, what do you think they actually mean?

To be honest, I decided last year to stop giving money to international development charities. Most of the projects are in Muslim countries, and while it pains me to see anyone regardless of their religion or none suffer, these societies are often full of resources and the only problem is that they have corruption on an epic scale. Zimbabwe (not an Islamic country) where Mugabe has salted away loads of money for himself and robbed his people blind. Ghaddafi has a son who has made BILLIONS out of business deals etc etc and yet they don’t have the common humanity to dig wells for their people and expect a compliant Christian charity to do it. Everyone knows about the legendary wealth of the oil sheiks, and yes some of it is invested in their country, but in the form of charity, not as a social resource. I have decided to only donate to charities in Britain from now on, God knows, there’s enough to be done in this country. As for the anti-semitic thing, strikes me that there’s none so blind as will not see.

David Lindsay:

From C. Hitchens’s recent post on Slate. I don’t have a hard time dealing with good news from post-Saddam Iraq, but I do with jackasses like you who turn blind eyes and deaf ears to fascism and would rather consign certain parts of the world to live under it until, by some miracle, they can liberate themselves.

The money quote:

“It is in no spirit of revenge that I remind you that, as little as a year ago, the whole of smart liberal opinion believed that the dissolution of Baathism and militarism had been a mistake, that Iraq itself was a bottomless pit of wasted dollars and pointless casualties, and that the only option was to withdraw as fast as possible and let the inevitable civil war burn itself out. To the left of that liberal consensus, people of the caliber and quality of Michael Moore were describing the nihilist ‘insurgents’ as the moral equivalent of the Minutemen, and to the right of the same consensus, people like Pat Buchanan were hinting that we had been cheated into the whole enterprise by a certain minority whose collective name began with the letter J. ”

For anyone who wants to read the whole piece: http://www.slate.com/id/2197007/

“I decided last year to stop giving money to international development charities. Most of the projects are in Muslim countries”

Yeah, let’s collectively punish the bastards for living under dictatorships they didn’t choose.

David Lindsay

What would it mean, if all the people you listed were Jewish?

Well, exactly. It’s never this Jewish lobby group, or that Jewish lobby group. Always the nebulous, homogenous and sinister-sounding “The Jewish Lobby”.

Dave Rich, it would give some potential basis to the shrieking about antisemitism whenever anyone questions, challenges, or in some cases even suggests the existence of, the neoconservative movement. As it is, that shrieking isn’t even wrong, since being wrong must be related in some way to being right.

Lynne T, you’ve lost. The HJS barely functions. The Euston Manifesto doesn’t function at all. The PNAC’s website has been suspended. Blair and Howard are gone. Sarkozy and Merkel weren’t what you thought they’d be. Clinton wasn’t nominated. McCain isn’t going to win. Hell, even Sakashvilli has withdrawn from Iraq. You are not going to get either your war against Iran or your war against Russia. And no former Soviet republic not already in NATO or the EU will ever now be let into either, because the risk would just be too great.

So it’s all over.

And you’ve lost.

Not surprised at Dan’s hysterical comment. He obviously has emotional problems. Can he tell me why I should accept what he says has any moral authority? Incidentally, re Sharia banking. If it’s such a good deal, can I as a non-Muslim apply for it too?

Pressures of time mean I haven’t been able to follow the blog updates of David Lindsay, our future Leader, as closely as it, no doubt, deserves. But have the other members, and PPCs, of the British People’s Party (or is it Alliance?) been revealed yet?

After all, now that they have won, they could hardly be blamed for parading like peacocks.

Why is David Lindsay so peculiarly obsessed with the Henry Jackson Society?

I’ve just realised who that Lindsay bloke is.

I think I’ll put him away in TheIriot file and ignore, thank you.

Suggest others may want to do the same.

Oh, and Im really not silly.

But I have become quite attached to the moniker.

Matt

And you’ve lost.

I must have missed Saddam rising from the grave…

Lynne T, you’ve lost. The HJS barely functions. The Euston Manifesto doesn’t function at all. The PNAC’s website has been suspended. Blair and Howard are gone. Sarkozy and Merkel weren’t what you thought they’d be. Clinton wasn’t nominated. McCain isn’t going to win. Hell, even Sakashvilli has withdrawn from Iraq. You are not going to get either your war against Iran or your war against Russia. And no former Soviet republic not already in NATO or the EU will ever now be let into either, because the risk would just be too great.
So it’s all over.
And you’ve lost.

I must say, that is an awful lot of opinion to assign to Lynne T, on the basis of her single-paragraph post.

Is Lindsay some kind of mind-reader?

Time was when WoW, Oxfam, Action Aid and others were pure charities. Now WoW and Oxfam are in the hands of political activists (don’t know about the others). Having had a direct debit to Oxfam for more years than I care to remember, I have stopped supporting it, following a political tirade against Israel by its director in the Telegraph.

Why do all these groups want to be involved in Palestine anyway? Organisations with far deeper pockets (UNWRA, US, EU) are feeding these people while their “brothers” supply them with weapons and hate.

While I am not a believer of any sort, I now find that the only charities I can trust are Christian ones, and some of them (such as the World Council of Churches – hope I am not mixing them up with someone else) are politicised and/or well dodgy. A very sorry state of affairs, particularly for the thousands of selfless people who work for them, believe in them and support them.

I understand the answer even less than I understood the original comment.

David Lindsay: what a nutcase!

Alcuin, British charities have adopted the outlook of islamist ones – yet another example of how civil society in this country has become degraded by their presence. While islamist charities’ raison d’etre is to provide financial and material help to terrorists, thus far the British ones give vocal support, and disseminate their fabricated propaganda. Like a host of other words, the meaning of the word ‘charity’ has become corrupted.

Does anyone have the faintest idea what David Lindsey is talking about?

“The HJS barely functions”: David Lyndsay, not that this is remotely relevant to this post, but just as a yardstick to test the soundness of your welter of assertions, what is your basis for making this one?

Well, Ami, what did it last do? When did you last hear anything about it?

Does Dan believe in the White Man’s Burden or does he believe in self-autonomy for nations? I believe that us Brits should obviously do all we can to oppose war and degredation of the enviroment in other people’s countries because it causes suffering, but I am sorry, knowing how wealthy some individuals are in many of the famine-ridden and drought-ridden societies are, I prefer to give my money to Cancer Research or the Woodland Trust. I would also like to point out that the film ‘Shoot on Sight’ about the killing of an innocent Muslim on the London Underground, based on the Des Menseses case, has been financed by an Indian Hindu billionaire. If this man wants to spend his money usefully, why not use it to provide relief for many of the teeming millions in India who are short of food and shelter?

“…only a maximum of 6m Jews in the USA who probably vote Dem 60% – Republican 40% and with the demographics its almost a zero-sum game anyway.”

It’s more like 85 percent of US Jews vote for the Dems, although the Republicans hope to gain more votes, that always seems to elude them. The joke here in the States is that the Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans.

It occurs to me that – assuming one believes in life after death – John Hilary’s absurdities will have the founders of War on Want, Harold Wilson and Sir Victor Gollancz, spinning in their graves.
Sir Victor was the scion of a prominent Jewish family and Harold Wilson was a committed friend of Israel and the Jewish community. So if any organisation owes its existence to the so-called Jewish “lobby!” it is War on Want.

“The HJS barely functions”
I’ve been to their meetings. It seems to function very well. On what grounds should it lose its charitable status?

“Not surprised at Dan’s hysterical comment. He obviously has emotional problems”
Ah, here comes the pop psychology.

“Incidentally, re Sharia banking. If it’s such a good deal, can I as a non-Muslim apply for it too?”

Yes. Islamic portfolios are also likely to perform better than the conventional market at the present time.

“Why do all these groups want to be involved in Palestine anyway?”
Regardless of what you may think of the political issues, the Palestinians are very poor. As such, aid organisations go there.

“I am sorry, knowing how wealthy some individuals are in many of the famine-ridden and drought-ridden societies are, I prefer to give my money to Cancer Research or the Woodland Trust.”
I also donate to the Woodland Trust, sponsoring trees. I also sponsor a little girl in Haiti through Action Aid, or perhaps you think she doesn’t deserve it because of Haiti’s immense natural resources – oh, and Haiti’s democracy has done so well under American patronage.

“If this man wants to spend his money usefully, why not use it to provide relief for many of the teeming millions in India who are short of food and shelter?”

Maybe he does, do you know? How many British multi-millionaires give up their fortunes for charity in the UK?

I don’t suppose many multi-millionaires ‘give up their fortunes for charity’, although some will give a fair amount. They don’t sponsor mischievous films about other countries police forces though. What about Vijay Prikash, a minister in Bihar State, urging the lowest caste Hinus to eat rats. In fact, he wants to them to farm rats for food, claiming they are extremely nutritious and with hardly any bones. He makes the claim that the French eat rats, but I think the only time they ate rats was during the Paris Commune when they were blockaded by the Prussians. Can’t imagine they do it now. Ratatouille is vegetable in tomato sauce. It’s not a question of charity anyway. It’s a question of politics and control of a society’s resources. Incidentally, they eat rats in Haiti too.

Have you been to Bihar, Sue?

David Lindsay,

Like you, I find the unwarranted shrieking of “antisemitism” abhorrent, and so I must ask you to clarify some things.

In an earlier thread you made the following comment:

“I’m not advocating [destroying Israel in a nuclear attack]: I have no desire to eradicate the Holy Places and their Greek, Latin, Melkite, Maronite, Syrian Catholic, Armenian, Anglican and Lutheran custodians”

Your principled, yet idiosyncratic aversion to the nuclear destruction of a Jewish-majority state seems to be the for the preservation of its Christian holy sites and its Christian inhabitants. Would you support such an attack if these sites and people could be safeguarded, or – ceteris paribus – were such an attack to take place in a hypothetical Jewish state with no non-Jewish inhabitants or Christian “Holy Places”?

Further, could you please indicate in your response whether this position is held in a personal capacity, or whether it represents official policy of the British People’s Party? The voters, and your party have a right to know.

Moderation queue? Are there newly proscribed words now that “monkey” is off the banned list?

On what grounds should it lose its charitable status?

Why should any such group qualify for charitable status?

The BDS leaflet War on Want has published on its web site is quite clear: not even Israeli peaceniks are to be trusted. NGO comrades are duly warned:

”…For example, NGOs and faith-based organizations in Europe and North America have backed and/or begun various initiatives that tend to focus only on the urgent need to end Israel’s occupation and colonization of the 1967 areas. These do not usually include ending discrimination against Palestinians under Israeli rule since 1948, or the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Indeed, campaigns can be influenced by the Israeli “peace” lobby which sees the ‘67 occupation as the issue to overcome, but does not consider the right of return as an acceptable platform for BDS work.”

Charming.

Why are people pushing such an extreme position – and with regards to return it really is an extreme position for anyone even casually familiar with the whole tale – receiving funding from DFID and the EU?

Ministers are keen for London to become a centre for Islamic funding and have looked at issuing a shariahcompliant sukuk — the equivalent of a bond — in sterling.

“…it’s disappointing to hear that the Government is being subjected to enormous pressure by those who believe Islamic banking is the thin edge of the wedge, a precursor to the UK becoming a Muslim nation. The pro-Israel lobby especially is very worried and consequently vociferous in opposing it.”

This was in Monday’s Evening Standard (By Chris Blackhurst – City Editor).

Most city correspondents, in my experience, bear the imprint of the last person to stand them lunch. Presumably as belts tighten, lunches with spokesmen for the Islamic lobby become more attractive.

Just found this on the War on Want website:

“Palestine is facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. The UN reports that 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are now living in acute poverty, a figure comparable to poverty levels in sub-Saharan Africa. Over 50% are now dependent on food aid.

“This poverty is a direct result of 40 years of Israeli occupation. According to the UK government’s Department for International Development: “Poverty in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is a product of occupation and conflict.” Only by ending the occupation can the root causes of poverty be addressed.”

Note the last sentence – product of occupation and conflict. Then WoW’s summing up, no mention conflict which has been air brushed out.

Plus of course there is no mention anywhere of the corruption endemic in Hamas and Hezbollah, the divided loyalties of West Bank and Gaza and the tribal clan control of the Gaza strip. Or throwing people who don’t agree with them off buildings.

Still one more charity to cross off my list. I’m sticking to Action Aid unless someone can demonstrate they have a similar agenda to WoW.

Mr Blackhurst really should substantiate his “vociferous” “pro-Israel” allegations about opponents to UK Islamic finance. Has he?

“Why should any such group qualify for charitable status?”

Because the Charities Commission deems that it is involved in activities that are charitable and meet the objects set down in its governing document. Charity status not only assists organisations in securing donor funding, it is supposed to protect donors from having their funds misused for non-charitable activities (eg political activism). If War on Want or HJS are failing to meet the objects set down in their governing document or are behaving in a way that contravenes the Commission’s guidelines, they could lose their charitable status.

I personally know the executive director of HJS, Alan Mendoza, and am confident that he conforms to the regulations and I know the trustees pay very close attention to the organisation’s activities. Regardless of whether or not you believe in what they are doing, they conform to the guidelines. If you think the guidelines are wrong, then complain to your MP and suggest a change in the law. As for War on Want, you have a right to lodge a complaint with the Commission and, bearing in mind what Jeremy Newmark says, there may be a strong case against the organisation.

As a chair of two small charities, I find it galling to see organisations abuse their charity status for nefarious ends and scooping up significant sums of money in the process, money that could be better spent elsewhere. Securing any donor funding is an onerous task, particularly for a small organisation with no paid staff. I find WoW quite abhorrent, given the fact that there are small, home-grown initiatives that could do with the money (eg towns in the UK that twin with towns in the developing world and want to pay for new classrooms or a medical facility) are losing out to an organisation with officers that have more political and financial leverage with potential donors.

I would also like to point out that the film ‘Shoot on Sight’ about the killing of an innocent Muslim on the London Underground, based on the Des Menseses (Menezes) case, has been financed by an Indian Hindu billionaire. If this man wants to spend his money usefully, why not use it to provide relief for many of the teeming millions in India who are short of food and shelter? Sue R

I think what upset many ethnic minorities in London (and many indigenous Londoners like me) was that an innocent man was killed on the basis of flawed intelligence just because he had an olive skin. This is an important issue for indians, Asians, Arabs, Brazilians, Pakinstanis even Southern Europeans.

“Only by ending the occupation can the root causes of poverty be addressed.”

Gaza is no longer occupied.

“I think what upset many ethnic minorities in London (and many indigenous Londoners like me) was that an innocent man was killed on the basis of flawed intelligence just because he had an olive skin. This is an important issue for indians, Asians, Arabs, Brazilians, Pakinstanis even Southern Europeans.”

Sure, but it should upset everyone that the police killed someone without getting a positive identification and without the guy behaving in any suspicious way whatsoever. Moreover, Commissioner Blair’s false claims that the guy had wires sticking out of his jeans and had jumped the turnstiles were a shoddy cover-up – the likelihood is that he was poorly informed, but he pre-empted an inquiry with this ridiculous statement. Wherever you stand on the powers that security services should have to combat terrorism, the Menezes affair was a black mark on the Metropolitan Police and is a set-back in the war on terrorism, given that good community relations are essential to identifying terrorist threats.

War on Want wears its politics on its “About Us” web sleeve:

War on Want knows that poverty is political. The decisions of politicians in rich countries can mean life or death for people in developing countries. We have the power to reshape the global landscape – to ensure that people across the world can live in justice and peace.War on Want works with some of the bravest and most inspiring groups in the world. In rural communities, in factories and sweatshops, in conflict zones and on the margins of society, we work with people fighting for real, lasting change.War on Want challenges the structures that keep poor people poor. From trade rules rigged in favour of rich countries and their multinational companies to poverty in Palestine, War on Want campaigns in the UK and internationally to deliver real lasting change for the world’s poorest people.

Voluntary declaration of interest: political.

Only country named in “About Us”: Palestine.

Anti-poverty campaigners? Ha ha

I agree. Poverty is political. Fighting poverty need not entail political activism, ie campaigning for a political party. As I said, if you have a case against WoW, submit it to the Charities Commission. My belief is that the trustees are very well versed in the law and that everything they do and say is carefully considered so it can promote their values and beliefs without breaking the law. WoW has, after all, been under intense scrutiny in the recent past. The Charities Commission has already ruled in its favour following complaints, so perhaps you should campaign for a tighening up of the law. However, be careful of what you wish for.

I would have no quibble with the ‘Shoot on Sight’ film if it was an accurate depiction of events, but from what I have read (ok, I haven’t actually seen it) the man who is shot is a Muslim. No doubt this will be shown in Muslim countries where it will feed the ‘distrust’ of the West, and even in this country, it will encourage the whole ‘victimization’ mindset of some people. Just like the ‘Bonekickers’ episode that had Christians beheading a Muslim. Doesn’t it say in the New Testament, ‘Remove the moot (log) from your own eye before you complain about the speck in your neighbour’s’.?

Sue: For what its worth, I’ve been involved with assisting tribal groups in Jharkhand, a state that used to be part of Bihar. As one of the most mineral rich regions of India, Jharkhand is immensely wealthy yet it has some of the country’s worst poverty indicators, has been heavily deforested and is suffering the results of global warming. Yes, its political leaders are atrocious, but most of the people cannot read and their opinions are formed from simple sloganeering (often on the basis of religion or caste), watching politicians fly around in helicopters and seeing their 10 metre high effigies on display on every street corner. Without literacy, the poor are alienated from political debate. Yet, they know something is wrong: mines are sucking out billions of dollars from the land every year and they remain poor. These mines are established by large corporations, either in joint ventures with foreign companies or with the backing of foreign banks – including European and North American firms. White men’s pension funds are profiting from ensuring that as little profit as possible is redistributed to the poor in places like Jharkhand. In order to do that, you bribe the politicians. And for them to maintain their position, they keep the people ignorant. When the poor are really upset, they get violent, hence the Maoist violence in the region, which is often bound up with criminal activities like banditry. I was on a train that Maoists tried to hijack and was forced to lock myself in the toilet in case they kidnapped me for ransom, but I still empathise with them even if their tactics are absolutely wrong. These are desperate people and the world is taking the piss out of them. So don’t start blaming tribals for their own problems, consider the fact that the causes may be far closer to home.

Rather than any messy tightening of laws, Dan, I’d prefer to see DFID and the EU and others stop funding “charitable” organisations that are plainly sympathetic to Hamas.

I see no condemnation of Palestinian terrorist violence on the WoW web site. Not one.

Instead, a “green light” is offered in the BDS leaflet:

BDS movements, no matter how powerful, cannot and should not look to replace the resistance and struggle of those people they are trying to support.

Whilst brimstone is summoned for Israel.

This crew is real old Europe.

Here’s a great joke for you: Israel purchasing crude from Iran – http://www.hopoi.org/irannews-oil.html

Well, Ami, what did it last do? When did you last hear anything about it?: Now I know that not only are you a useless idiot, but a lazy useless idiot. Just a visit to the HJS website would show you a constant stream of meetings and symposia with high calibre speakers, as well as briefing papers etc. Whether you agree with them is not the issue.

Is WoW receiving funding from DfID?

Dan, yes, so they say:

http://www.waronwant.org/Our+Funders+12894.twl

So don’t start blaming tribals for their own problems

What about clans Dan? Are they not to blame for their own problems?

“IT BEGAN with a mango three years ago. A member of Gaza’s powerful Masri clan had stopped to buy fruit at a roadside stall in 2005, but the vendor did not have enough small change to break his 20 shekel note – equal to $5.

The Masri man pulled a gun and killed the vendor, who was a member of the Abu Taha clan.

By the end of last year, the ensuing feud had claimed the lives of 29 people – 10 from neither clan. Sixty had been wounded and homes and businesses on both sides had been torched.

“We want to kill one more to be equal,” a member of the Abu Taha clan told a researcher for International Crisis Group. But then the toll moved to 10 Abu Taha and 11 Masris dead – and the Masris vowed revenge.

This is the feud that is thought to have claimed the life last week of Akram al-Masri, 31, who was denied refugee status in Australia in 2002 and then deported.

There was no need for al-Masri to commit any particular offence to become an assassin’s target in Gaza. His membership of the trouble-prone Masri clan was reason enough.

Tribal clans such as his are powerful players in the inter-factional cauldron of Gaza politics. The mango row was just one of hundreds of feuds caused by the slightest transgression.

In 2006 the Masris went to war with another clan because one of the Masris, while driving a donkey-cart, collided with a car driven by a member of the equally powerful Kafarneh clan.

Six people were killed as neighbours who had lived side-by-side for decades turned guns on each other in the name of clan honour. Houses were sand-bagged and women who had married across clan lines on both sides were locked up while hundreds of gunmen fought it out for two months.

“We fought the Kafarnehs like they were the Israelis,” a senior Masri man said at the time.

Under Yasser Arafat’s rule, the Masri clan had control of the General Intelligence Department, or Mukhabarat, through the appointment of General Mohammed Masri.

Interclan rivalry over the appointment and the power and resources that flowed to the Masri clan as a result has been cited as a cause of the enmity between the Masris and Kafarnehs. Their ongoing feud prompted the Masris to erect a four-metre-high wall around their enclave in the southern Gaza town of Khan Younis.

But the clan is fighting on other fronts. It has vowed to inflict death on the Dughmush clan, which was responsible for the abduction last year of the BBC reporter Alan Johnston, and it has made threats against Hamas since the party took control of Gaza last June.

Many clans have struggled to come to terms with the new power structure in Gaza and Hamas is trying to bring them to heel.

“There are about 6000 men in the Masri family, and Hamas knows that if it enters the family quarter it would face a battle far worse than [any] it has already fought,” a senior Masri figure has warned.

The Masri leadership refuses to co-operate with the new state of affairs. A clan leader said it needed to avenge the death of three of its fighters during the Hamas takeover, and said “the vendetta remains outstanding”.

But allegiance is a murky issue in the new Gaza. Another member of the clan complained that some of his relatives had joined Hamas and refused to act by the traditional practice of family loyalty.

Focusing on one of his own brothers who had joined the Islamist movement, he said: “Hamas members are standing with the movement against their family – their loyalty is to their paymaster, Hamas.”

Which NGO with an interest in Palestinians shows any interest whatsoever in trying to assist democratic Palestinians reform the unaccountable and murderous so called ‘honour’ institution of clan justice?

Didn’t George Galloway once work with them?

“What about clans Dan? Are they not to blame for their own problems?”

I was referring to the context of Bihar and Jharkhand, which Sue brought up. Arab tribalism is often ridiculous. Indian tribes are a different matter, since they are at the bottom of the pile in society. Tribes are indigenous groups that often have their own deities, customs and lifestyles that are distinct from the dominant Hindu culture. They are akin to Dalits, but not so integrated with the social heirarchy. The tribal people I met were either hunter-gatherers or one generation from this lifestyle and desperately poor.

Yes, field, he did – Galloway was their General Secretary between 1983-87.

I’d be careful about typing his name – he might sue you for doing so. Ever so sensitive, is George.

BTW – great piece, Jeremy.

Thanks Ibnaz, for posting that article. Particularly liked the ‘four-metre-high wall’! I suppose this wall must be entirely halal, since it was built by palestinians.

habibi: And Guernsey Overseas Aid Commission and the Isle of Man Overseas Aid Committee, according to the website. I would love to know how WoW manages to get aid funding from these offshore, tax haven territories.

Dan,

I was questioning HJS’s charitable status, not WoW’s. I’m have no doubt that they fulfil the requirements laid down by the charities commission, it just seems to me that if organisations such as HJS qualify for charitable status then the rules are too loosely drawn.

The survival of tribal people is a cause dear to my heart (I might add Survival UK to the list of my approved charities), however, when they are eradicting themselves as in Palestine, my synmpathy evaporates. I am currently reading Israel Finkelstein’s book on ‘David and Solomon’, a work of Biblical archeology concerning those two famous Biblical kings. It is interesting that the late Bronze Age society that he describes Judah as being, (it appears to me from the distance of London) is a simulcrum of modern day Palestine. And no doubt for exactly the same reasons. The semi-nomadic, brigandage tribes that rely on their settled neighbours for many goods and services but are also ready at the slightest provocation (or none) to enter into conflict.

I read about the al-Masri case teh other day, in the Australian newspaper. The thought occurred to me that this is a clear example of abuse of the asylum system. He was denied asylum in Australia about four years ago, why the blazes should he had had it? Are the we just here to give shelter to criminals fleeing from other countries, no matter how many wives and children are left fatherless? It’s up to Palestine to deal with their problems of lawlessness. Another reason I refuse to give money specifically to Palestinian charities is that they have received BILLIONS and it has obviously all gone into individual’s bank accounts. They haven’t even spent it on weapons, if they did they would have heavy armour and might possibly out-gun the Israeli army. They are just bandits. As I said, Dan, as a Brit, I believe that the best thing I can do is campaign for political change ie against large scale enviromental projects that destroy people’s homes, in favouar of education etc. BUT NO MONEY TRANSFERS FROM MY POCKET INTO THEIRS. As for orchestrating change. Look around you. The West didn’t start out as a haven of democracy (in so far as it is). The fact of the matter is that ordinary people, peasants and then workers, organised themselves to wrest concessions for the ruling class. I appreciate that in a peasant economy where there are many social divisions, there may not be a ‘class in itself, for itself’ (to use the classic Marxist terminology) but fucking hell, that didn’t stop the Russian peasantry, or the Latin American peasantry. Now, we all know that they turned sour, but at least they tried.

“if organisations such as HJS qualify for charitable status then the rules are too loosely drawn.”

Why shouldn’t organisations like HJS qualify for charitable status?

“I believe that the best thing I can do is campaign for political change ie against large scale enviromental projects that destroy people’s homes”

Actually, I am in favour of large-scale industrial projects, even if they destroy people’s homes – in fact, it is impossible to industrialise without turning farmland into factories. And industrialisation is essential to transforming people from peasants into workers. Even Marxists can see the logic in that. The problem is ensuring that these people are adequately compensated through a fair and transparent system and that they have a stake in the industrialisation process.

“The fact of the matter is that ordinary people, peasants and then workers, organised themselves to wrest concessions for the ruling class.”
Don’t you think they do that? There is not a week that goes by when there isn’t a large-scale protest in India. In fact, the bandhs in Kolkata are so numerous they have ceased to be useful and are simply annoying.

It is very simple to define whether or not professed anti-zionism is in fact anti-semitism.

When Israel is held to a different standard than another country in the same situation, and he only difference between the two countries is that Israel is a Jewish state, that is anti-semitism.

That statement that the Israel lobby is somehow blocking the development of Sharia compliant financial instruments, betrays the fluidity of the terms Israel and Jewish. It is so improbable that Israel would have the slightest interest in this issue, and the issuers of this statement are clearly used to automatically substituting Israeli for Jewish to avoid accusations of antisemitism.

Jewish bodies represented by such figures as Chief Rabbi Sachs I am sure would enthusiastically endorse faith related initiatives such as these- for him the more faith of any stripe in the public sphere the merrier.

Chris Blackstone should have spotted this. I have an issue with him about lazy journalism in the past, but can’t recall just now what it was.

Sue, it is beyond doubt that foreign aid is counter-productive, unless it is directed towards a natural disaster.

The biggest slice of all aid disbursements lines the pockets of the tyrannical leaders, thus perpetuating their tyranny and misrule. Much of the financing directed towards specific development projects is degraded via corruption and bribes. The proportion that actually reaches the needy is too negligible to register. Just as bad is that aid creates a culture of entitlement and dependency, depriving these countries of an incentive to develop.

There are three problems that plague the palestinians – career thieves at the helm, their brainwashing of the people to direct their ire outwards, and the banditry you mentioned. The West Bank is bad enough, but gaza is in a class of its own – so much so, that when Israel rescued some fatah people from gaza’s hamas earlier this month, West Bankers rejected them and they were returned to gaza.

The take-over and desecration of the Church of the Nativity by palestinian clans in 2002 is a case in point (the Abayat clan being the worst). When they were finally removed from the scene (and exported to Europe), the Christian residents of Bethlehem breathed a sigh of relief at the sudden drop in criminality in their town. The dwindling Christian minority is a terrorised population that avoids complaining about the violence against it for fear of retribution. The Abayat graduated from running a car theft ring before the intifada to heading arafat’s Tanzim terrorists in Bethlehem.

I have an issue with him about lazy journalism in the past, but can’t recall just now what it was.

Could it be related to this ami? http://tinyurl.com/5wquz7

“When Israel is held to a different standard than another country in the same situation, and he only difference between the two countries is that Israel is a Jewish state, that is anti-semitism.”

Maybe not. The far-left judges states that are close US allies differently from those who are its enemies, because of its opposition to US political power. As such, criticising Israel more harshly than Iran from a left-wing perspective is not necessarily anti-semitism, it is based in anti-Americanism.

Ibnaz: No it was an August 11 column of his blaming the UK US relationship after the foiled plots in UK of 2006.
I reproduce most of it with apologies for length as no ES link:

When I heard the news, though, relief and fear soon shifted to
fury. I found myself thinking, why us? What have we done to deserve this
hatred? Why are we the brunt when other countries escape relatively
lightly? Why can’t we be left alone to get on with our lives?
Tony Blair will tell us that the whole of the West is under threat, that al
Qaeda is intent on destroying a collective civilisation. Tony, that’s not
how it feels. It’s true, it’s not just our soldiers who are being killed in
Iraq and in the NATO force in Afghanistan. Likewise, Britain is not alone
in standing alongside America. No other country, though, has aligned itself
so closely with the US; no other leader has positioned themselves quite so
firmly in the world mind as George W Bush’s quasi-international deputy.
Make no mistake, there were two targets in this latest, foiled outrage:
ourselves and the US. Nobody else. Of course, politicians in both
administrations will argue the danger is aimed wider. But it can’t be
coincidence that these were aircraft flying from Britain to America, that
it’s British and American passengers who would have perished. Neither too,
is it a matter of chance that of all the nations in the world, those are
the two seen to be leading the war in Iraq, committing themselves so fully
to the fighting in Afghanistan, refusing to push for an immediate
cease-fire in Lebanon. Others are involved – but in dispatches from Osama
Bin Landen and his lieutenants, courtesy of Aljazeera, two are singled out
for special mention – and we’re one of them.
Ministers and other Blair supporters will accuse me of naivety and
presenting a gross simplification. I don’t care. It’s our boys dying in
Basra and Southern Afghanistan; our fellow commuters that were blown to
bits; our airports closed; our routines turned upside down. It’s also our
children we’ve got to try and explain this mess to.
Apparently, say Blair and the rest, this is the price we pay for defending
freedom. To which I say, the all too depressingly familiar ritual yesterday
certainly didn’t feel like freedom.
Are we paying the price of upholding our cherished traditional values, our
way of life, as they claim, or are we paying the price for their blinkered
stupidity? With no foreign policy to call our own we’ve sided with the
playground bully. Only the US, or so it seems, gets what we’re about,
understands and shares our aspirations and ideals. Lining up with the
strong man is fine – but not, surely, if he is universally loathed.
Other countries have Muslims and they, too, have been subjected to
bombings. Somehow, though, it’s as if we’re permanently on the receiving
end. They’ve got their racial tensions also but we’ve become locked in an
especially vicious spiral of extremism: of disaffection, exhortation, cold
calculation, investigation, prosecution, alienation; and yet further
disaffection, exhortation, cold calculation, investigation, prosecution and
alienation.
In their panic, the government pushes for national identity cards. As if
they would make a difference – all four of the 7/7 bombers would have had
cards. They argue as well for tighter safeguards on airports and railway
stations – although the determined terrorist will always find somewhere to
murder and to maim. They press for community leaders to educate and
integrate – when all the time, the militant propaganda from the Middle East
serves to undermine.
No, what would have an impact would be if we loosened ourselves from our
unpopular pal. That won’t happen, not while “Yo Blair” is in charge. He
will continue to stand there, all earnest and extracting every last drop of
emotion, proclaiming the special relationship.
Try as I might, however, I can’t think what, in this post-Cold War age,
this partnership is actually bringing us. I don’t see any economic benefit,
can’t discern any direct material gain.They may be our friend but the
Americans have a funny way of showing it – in the trade wars, for instance,
the US is carving us up just as badly as they’re doing the rest of Europe.
What the alliance is giving us, in abundance, is hatred, death and
destruction.

And this was the response by a member of my family which was published, in edited form:

Chris Blackhurst opines that ‘in dispatches from Osama Bin Landen and his
lieutenants, courtesy of Aljazeera, two are singled out for special mention
- and we’re one of them’. In fact, countries as far apart as Norway and
Spain, and Australia and Denmark, have also been ’singled out’ in such
dispatches. So too has France, most recently when they sought to impose
more widespread ban on the wearing of the Hijab in schools. Despite Spain’s
withdrawal of its forces from Iraq, and the election of a new government,
further attacks on the scale of the atrocities in Madrid were foiled. And
so Blackhurst makes a throw-away concession: ‘Other countries have Muslims
and they, too, have been subjected to bombings’. This rather destroys an
initial argument that, had we hidden behind a hedge, we’d have been safe.
He says that instead of hiding away, ‘we’ve sided with the playground
bully’. This is an interesting moral inversion: so, those who attacked the
World Trade Centre, a building whose normal activities symbolise the
deepest interests of a City Editor, are some sort of reactive simpletons,
and those whom they attack are bullies? Those who attack the transport
system of the very City about which he edits are, apparently, no more
morally culpable for their actions than abused children, but we, with our
’superior’ moral appreciation, have the responsibility to ignore their
enormities in the hope that this will somehow remove the venom from their
repeated stings? Perhaps the City Editor should think twice before writing
simplistic diatribes about geo-political complexities beyond the Markets
that provide his usual domain. Blackhurst laments that ‘lining up with the
strong man is fine – but not, surely, if he is universally loathed’. But
what if, in opposing a cult of death that seeks mass murder on a wide
scale, this ’strong man’ is universally- and morally- right?

Why shouldn’t organisations like HJS qualify for charitable status?

I just don’t see anything in what they do which would justify it.

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2053

The Blackhurst/Evening Standard story is on ‘Engage’

What the devil do you mean, “This comes uncomfortably close to the classic antisemitic theme of Jewish Power”? This IS the classic antisemitic theme of Jewish Power! It pervades the ‘charity’ (LOL) sector, it motivates much of what you see in the Independent and the Guardian and the BBC.
Politicised organisations like Oxfam et al are NOT charities, they are political bodies. They are acting illegally, and should be stripped of their charitable status (and be prosecuted for antisemitism as relevant).

“Regardless of what you may think of the political issues, the Palestinians are very poor. As such, aid organisations go there”

Yes, and none of them use it as an excuse for Joo-bashing, of course, like the disgusting rant by Oxfam’s tsarina …

“I guess Jewish organisations are withdrawing their accounts from HSBC, one the world’s leading providers of Islamic finance”

Don’t know if they do, but I will now that you’ve mentioned it.

“It’s the Muslim Global Conspiracy versus the Jewish Global Conspiracy”

I am sure that the great and learned Dan will remind us of the last time that Jews exploded bombs on trains in several European capital cities.

“It is very simple to define whether or not professed anti-zionism is in fact anti-semitism.

When Israel is held to a different standard than another country in the same situation, and he only difference between the two countries is that Israel is a Jewish state, that is anti-semitism”

Bravo, but don’t confuse the antisemites and their useful idiots with common sense, mate: their little brain cells might explode.

Mind you …

Some people will see anti-semitism whenever there is criticism of Israeli policy. You know, it is possible to support the existence of Israel while condemn the actions of the government in power. In fact, many Israelis do just that.

Dan “Some people will see anti-semitism whenever there is criticism of Israeli policy”

WHo are these people Dan ? Can we have examples. How representative are they ? Who do they represent ?

Richard

Well, Ken Livingstone for a start

Board plot against Ken a ‘complete fantasy’
JC 26/10/2006
Bernard Josephs
CLAIMS by Ken Livingstone that the Board of Deputies and London Tories had plotted against him were dismissed as “complete fantasy” this week by Board director general Jon Benjamin.

The London Mayor had been speaking after winning his High Court appeal against a finding by the Adjudication Panel for England that he had brought his office into disrepute by likening Evening Standard journalist Oliver Feingold to a Nazi concentration-camp guard. The judge found the remark “unnecessarily offensive,” but added: “Surprising as it may appear to some, the right of freedom of speech does extend to abuse.” However, he could have laid the matter to rest by apologising.

A previous judgment had overturned a 28-day suspension.

“This was not about an apology,” Mr Livingstone said. “The Board of Deputies sat down with the London Tories and the Evening Standard and that campaign had to be challenged.

***I’d like to say to the Board of Deputies that we probably won’t ever agree on the policies of the Israeli government and the idea that anyone who disagrees with the policies of the Israeli government is antisemitic.***

However, I hope the Board will work with me where we do agree — on the value of the Jewish community of London.”

Accusing the mayor of “trying to rewrite history,” Mr Benjamin dismissed the notion that the Board had colluded to attack him. “He said that if we had phoned him he would have apologised. But the Prime Minister, his deputy Nicky Gavron, the GLA and Holocaust survivors all called on him to apologise. The judge has branded the mayor’s comments as indefensible so maybe he will apologise now.”

“Some people will see anti-semitism whenever there is criticism of Israeli policy”

Just the usual idiotic figleaf from the usual idiotic quarter.
The ‘criticism’ to which Israel is subjected from the Western media, and from the airheads of Islington, is 1000 greater in quantity and 10,000 greater in screeching viciousness than anything we see directed towards Sudan, for example, or Syria (remember Hama?) or indeed China. This is antisemitism.
Israel is expressly singled out for bashing every day in what are laughingly known as ‘quality newspapers’ (and Al Beeb). The amount of lies published about it, the deliberate distortions, the deliberate nasty digs, are easily seen by objective people for what they are: antisemitism.

“The amount of lies published about it, the deliberate distortions, the deliberate nasty digs, are easily seen by objective people for what they are: antisemitism.”

I’ve heard Iranians complain about anti-Iranianism, Chinese who claim the media is advancing the interests of separatists in order to destroy their country, Russians who moan that there is a distorted version of events in relation to Russian foreign policy, pro-Palestinian activists who accuse the media of failing to report the true extent of Arab suffering in the Occupied Territories. Every nationalist seems to think they are hard done-by and subject to some extraordinary prejudice, particularly the BBC. Accusations of anti-semitism are really quite absurd unless someone is genuinely hateful of Jews and believes in something along the lines of the Protocols. Criticising Israeli policy is not anti-semitism.

Here we go, once again the special pleading from the ignorant corner:

“Accusations of anti-semitism are really quite absurd unless someone is genuinely hateful of Jews and believes in something along the lines of the Protocols”

So anything less than blind belief in the Protocols cannot be antisemitism … what a jerk.

“Criticising Israeli policy is not anti-semitism”

Do you really have such a fundamental reading comprehension problem? Or are you deliberately playing dumb?
Nobody said that criticising Israeli policy PER SE is antisemitism. You are using a classic Goebbelsian tactic: namely, the big lie.

The totally disproportionate focusing on Israel for extreme, screeching vilification, where vicious fascist dictatorships like Syria and many many others are given a free pass; the huge volume of straightforward lies published about Israel (especially by the BBC, the Independent and the Guardian) – these are antisemitic in the most literal sense.

The BBC is not anti-semite, nor is the Guardian. You may or may not have a case that there is disproportionate coverage of issues affecting Israel and you can argue there is a bias, but claiming that this is necessarily rooted in anti-semitism is downright silly.

The trouble with accusing a broad range of people of anti-semitism – including many of those who are not anti-semite – is that the definition of anti-semitism loses its meaning, making it harder to tackle attacks on Jews when they happen.

You can accuse me of playing Goebbels if you like and I will laugh in your face.

The usual nonsense is trotted out again, right on cue: you can’t accuse anyone of antisemitism, because that devalues the accusation of antisemitism.
Pathetic.
The consistent bias against Jews and their country is antisemitism, and your denial of it is infantile.

“The BBC is not anti-semite, nor is the Guardian”

So this is fabricated presumably … :

http://www.zionismontheweb.org/CommentIsFree_ParliamentASCttee_July08.pdf

Absolutely superb, Jonathan.

I await your similar thesis about the BBC comments site, which despite pre-moderation (!) still allows a lot of antisemitic comments through.

And then you could move on to the BBC’s mendacious ‘background history’ pages …

A slack moderation policy is not evidence that the Guardian website is anti-semitic, it is evidence that the owners have not got a full grasp on moderation. It’s a fact of life that open fora on the internet attract a disproportionate number of extremists and nutters. I note that there are plenty of anti-Muslim statements on HP – including recent comments calling for collective punishment of all Muslims. I look forward to Jonathan’s submission to a parliamentary committee on this.

Weasely words from Dan: what a surprise. The whole editorial policy of the Guardian is hysterically anti-Israel.

Here are a few articles that appeared in The Guardian this week. Please explain how they are anti-semitic.

Patrick Clawson criticises Pilger et al for scapegoating Israel and says that Iran’s nuclear programme is a more urgent issue: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/14/israelandthepalestinians.iran

Petra Marquardt-Bigman gives a favourable assessment of Olmert’s peace proposals: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast

Khaled Diab writes on what Syria must do to convince Israel that it is a serious negotiating partner: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/15/syria.middleeast

On this basis, not all comment in the Guardian is anti-Israel. Nor is it proven that the Guardian’s owners, editors and journalists are anti-semitic in intent or in their actions. A few lunatics make stupid and hateful remarks about Jews and the moderation system is not working to remove them, probably due to a systemic problem. Throwing accusations of anti-semitism – a very serious charge – at the entire newspaper because of these lunatics cheapens the issue of anti-Jewish racism.

Dan, stop digging. I can find you antisemitic comments in all three.

For example, Clawson: Here is Arkasha on the Wshington Institute: “Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues”

And here is Milanista91 denying that Ahmadinejad denied theHolocaust: “It is quite amazing how many people believe the lie that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust. Tehrankid77 joins in later in the thread.

I really don’t understand your agenda Dan – I conclude you are simply a provocateur – a pure unadulterated troll.

“…cheapens the issue of anti-Jewish racism”.

Yup, the usual dumb gambit yet again: “Only I know when a case of Jew-hatred is sufficiently important to be called antisemitism, only I will decide this point – and nothing that MY friends ever do will come under that heading, so there, na na nana na!”.

Nobody ever said that EVERY article in the Guardian is antisemitic, you muppet. We are talking about a cumulative manifestation over a great many years.

Dan

If you look in the comments on the Clawson article you will find Holocaust denial and denial that Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust. Both are antisemitic. There isn’t any AS in the Diab comments but there are only 29 of them, comments have ben closed. There are some on the Petra thread. See if you can find them. I’m not your research assistant.

Petra thread: Here is Scouthale talking about Israel: “A threat to the colonial supremacist sectarian racist mindset that created such a monument to intolerance, obviously.”

To call Israel a racist state is antisemitic, see EUMC Definition: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination e.g by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”

Well, Timothy, fair enough: but do we really need the EUMC to tell us what antisemitism is? It has existed for rather longer than the EUMC has, and no rational person has ever had any difficulty in identifying it by the way it walks, talks and quacks.

I don’t need it and neither do you. But Dan and his Ilk clearly do.

Yes, that’s true.

I said stated that slack moderation of racist comments is to blame, but this does not mean the Guardian agrees with them or pushes them. Note that there is no moderation of hate speech in the comments on Harry’s Place, but that does not necessarily mean the owners of the website are prejudiced or endorse the comments.

The Guardian publishes a range of opinions, including those who are very pro-Israel. As such, it is not possible to argue that there is a “hysterical” anti-semitic editorial policy, even if hysterical anti-semitic comments may appear in the comments section of CiF.

Dan hath spoken: it is ‘not possible’.

Do you have any idea what a pompous twit you are?

I do argue exactly that, thereby demonstrating that it most certainly is possible.

Dan, please read my paper above. The articles that Guardian CIF commissions on Israel and the peace process are disproportionately from authors who wish to see an end to the Jewish character of Israel – for example Seth Freedman. Inevitably these articles attract antisemitic comments. Further, I document examples of where posts pointing out antisemitism have been deleted. As for the main paper, you only have to look at how they covered the ‘marginalia’ story to see how institutionally slanted is their editorial policy on Israel:

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1673

If you continue to be unable to accept what I have demonstrated then we will have to agree to disagree, but I would be mystified as to why you are so resistant to the argument, when you have been given the facts on a plate.

The WarOnWant website carries this text in its comment about the anti-Israel ‘Enough’ march in London on 9 June 2007: “Over 20,000 people demonstrated in London to send a strong message both to the Israeli government and to No 10 Downing Street that we want an end to the Israeli occupation and justice for the Palestinians.”

I was at the counter-demonstration that day. 20,000 was a ridiculous exaggeration and I contacted Paul Collins of WoW to point this out (Independent Catholic News had already agreed to change the 20,000 figure on their Website).

“Dear Paul
The police estimate is 8500 in Trafalgar Square, of whom 1600 were on the march and 1200 were assisting. You can check this with the Met Police Press Office 0207 230 2171 – the head of which is Bob Cox but any of the Press Officers can confirm the information. This email is copied to an email address I was given for the Met Press Office. If you do not accept the official police figures and correct the Website then I and journalists and the Charity Commission will conclude that you are deliberately disseminating falsehoods on your Website.”

He tried to maintain that the difference (20,000 versus 8,500 – a 135% difference) was due to ‘the usual gap’ in estimates between the Police and event organisers.

Here was his final response:

“Perhaps reporters at the Jewish Chronicle and similar media will use your story. As a journalist, I doubt others will see as news the usual gap between figures issued by the police and demo organisers.”

So according to War on Want, only reporters at “the Jewish Chronicle and similar media” care about gross overestimates of the numbers attending anti-Israel demonstrations.

Do you think he’s right…….?

Jonathan,

surely he meant ‘The Zionist Chronicle’?

“I would be mystified as to why you are so resistant to the argument, when you have been given the facts on a plate”

Surely this is not the usual reason that we can all recognise easily enough by the way it quacks?
Naaah …

Zharya
No doubt.

But would you not agree that it is completely obnoxious that WoW feels free to carry blatant exaggerations on its website in the belief that only journalists “at the Jewish Chronicle and similar media” will care? (the unwritten text being ‘and who gives a **** about them anyway?’)

I find that totally unacceptable and I think there is something wrong with the Charity Law if the Charity Commission is unable to do anything about it.

Jonathan: I think you have done a good job in bringing attention to the serious flaws in the CiF’s moderation policy, which has failed to combat the problem of anti-semitism, and the failure of the Guardian to adequately address the issue. However, I don’t agree that the flaws the result of anti-semitism among the journalists, editors and owners of the Guardian and I don’t think the Guardian’s website is contributing to anti-semitic attacks. In my mind, your paper fails to do this.

“I would be mystified as to why you are so resistant to the argument, when you have been given the facts on a plate.”
The facts are that there are anti-semitic comments on a poorly moderated and open internet forum. But the claim that this is indicative of anti-semitism on the part of the owners is not a fact, it is an opinion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/13/israel.comment

Dan you are unconvincable when faced with the facts. Just consider this for starters: The Guardian gives spaces to Hamas leaders. The Hamas charter is viciously antisemitic:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/07/10/were-being-sued-by-hamas-uk/

If you want to insinuate that I am anti-semitic, then you are only proving me right about the arbitrary use of the term to denigrate perceived opponents. If you knew me, you’d know how this is a ridiculous accusation.

Dan you are really boring

Dan ‘Is WoW receiving funding from DfID?’

Yes. See its Annual Review.

http://www.waronwant.org/Latest20Research20for20Download+8247.twl

Click on the fifth item down on this page; then see three pages from the end of the PDF.

It also gets mopney from the EU

War on Want’s accounts are
here.

In 2007 they got £258,689 from DFID, £227,198 from the European Commission and £297,981 from – wait for it – Comic Relief (you won’t find that on the Comic Relief Website). Comic Relief provided 16% of their non-investment income in 2007.

Please remember that, on ‘Red Nose Day’ in March 2009. Comic Relief only publishes the generic causes to which it donates – not the names of the specific Charities.

http://www.comicrelief.com/our-events/red-nose-day/

I am astonished that we haven’t yet had the ‘Some of my best friends are Jews’ line.

“Dan you are really boring”

Is that the best you can do, Jonathan?

Dan, for heaven’s sake.

One, I did not “insinuate that you are anti-semitic”

Two, I have given you incontrovertible evidence of antisemitic content in both the comments and the articles on CIF. You don’t agree.

But to then accuse me of ‘insinuating that you are antisemitic’, and to suggest that that is a term I might arbitrarily use to denigrate perceived opponents, is simply gross intellectual laziness on your part.

You are using the same ridiculous argument as Ken Livingstone, see Jeremy’s post above (16 August 2008, 8:36 am) – that advocates of Israel arbitrarily call their opponents ‘antisemitic’.

That’s just facile, insulting and a lie.

Yup, that ‘arbitrary’ accusation is either the product of intellectual bankruptcy or a deliberate lie. I wonder which one it is.

http://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

This is the most widely accepted definition of antisemitism by the way – as used by the UK Parliamentary Committee on AS and the US State Department, for example.

“One, I did not “insinuate that you are anti-semitic””

I wasn’t responding to you, but Nearly Oxfordian’s comment at 4:42 pm: “Surely this is not the usual reason that we can all recognise easily enough by the way it quacks? Naaah …”

“advocates of Israel arbitrarily call their opponents ‘antisemitic’.”

No, I didn’t say that all advocates of Israel call opponents anti-semitic, but certainly you are using the term too loosely. You’ve made a causal link between the supposed prejudices of Guardian editors, based mainly on the failure to apply stated moderation policy, with racist violence against Jews. For instance, according to your report, criticism of Israeli policy is just one small step from anti-semitism and, as such, encourages violence against Jewish students. I just don’t think this argument stands up.

Ok, sorry I thought you were accusing me.
Dan, let’s agree to disagree.

OK. I didn’t make it clear who I was responding to.

You can pooh-pooh the link between demented, psychotic, obsessive demonisation of Israel, indeed obsession with Israel and Jews generally, and antisemitism, all you like. When Al Guardian devotes 25% as much space to venomous and mendacious attacks on Syria or Sudan or China or Iran as it does to such attacks on Israel and has been doing for decades, I’ll concede that it’s just stupidity and not antisemitism. Until such time, my position remains as it has been.

The above refers to editorial content in the printed newspaper, if I didn’t make that sufficiently clear.

“Maybe not. The far-left judges states that are close US allies differently from those who are its enemies, because of its opposition to US political power. As such, criticising Israel more harshly than Iran from a left-wing perspective is not necessarily anti-semitism, it is based in anti-Americanism.”

Dan is spot on. The Israeli blogger Benjamin Kerstein understands this point.

What hot air. What self-delusion. And to imagine that this is proved because some Israeli blogger said so …