The problem I wish to highlight is the actual question up for debate. The headline of the article poses the question: “Should Amazon be selling Nazi flags?” Yet, in the article, the introduction poses the “crucial question” as follows: “should flags that represent a racist and offensive ideology be up for sale?” These are two different questions. If the second one is the actual question that John Rentoul and Matthew Bell were posed, then the question is not worded in a way that makes it clear what is exactly being asked. Does it mean that Nazi flags should be banned from sale or does it mean that businesses should freely choose not to sell Nazi flags? The lack of clarity in the question does not make answering it with a simple “for” or “against” easy. Finally, at the end of the article, a third variant is posed: “do Independent readers agree or disagree with the sale of new Nazi flags?”

John Rentoul answers “For” but without knowing the question it is unclear to what. He certainly seems to be for the sale of Nazi flags and suggesting that the sale be ridiculed. However, he does not discuss Amazon as an outlet for their sale. What he actually says is this:

It is easily mockable that Amazon lists Mein Kampf as something “frequently bought together” with a swastika flag, but once someone suggests banning the sale of books, we can surely see that a line has been crossed into curtailing freedom of expression.

The implication from this sentence is that either Amazon sells the flags or the sale of the flag is banned. This is not the answer I would give. What I would say is that there is no curtailing of freedom of expression by Amazon not selling the flags: the flag manufacturer would have every right to advertise the flags on its own web site and sell them there or they could try and locate a different retailer for the vile product. And, indeed, this is my position: I would not ban the flags from being sold but I would hope that retailers such as Amazon refused to facilitate their sale.

Matthew Bell has also answered the question for the Independent and his answer to the mysterious question is “Against.” But what he is actually against, I am not sure, and nor, it seems, is Norman Geras. Bell ends his contribution as follows:  ”[D]o we want to live in a society where you can pick up a new, giant swastika flag with your weekly shop? Probably not.” But he declares earlier: “And as with any other trade, making it illegal won’t make it go away, it just pushes it underground.”

I think it is an interesting debate. I am not opening comments on this blog post as those who wish to comment can do so directly at The Independent’s website.

The Jewish community’s reactions to Obama’s remarks were auspicious for the White House: There was great enthusiasm from most quarters, along with restrained criticism from Orthodox Jewish opponents of same-sex marriage.

…

Polls have found that upwards of three-quarters of American Jews support same-sex marriage. Outside the Orthodox world, Jewish groups generally back it as well.

Words like “historic” peppered statements by Jewish groups welcoming Obama’s remarks.

“It is a significant and historic step forward in the pursuit of equal opportunity, individual liberty and freedom from discrimination,” the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement, “and underscores the fact that no American should be denied access to the benefits of civil marriage because of his or her sexual orientation.”

…

The Reform movement’s Religious Action Center described the president’s remarks as “a key moment in the advance of civil rights in America.”

“These rights are due no less to same-sex couples than heterosexual ones, as the president’s comments today acknowledge,” the RAC said.

Among other groups praising the president’s endorsement were the National Council of Jewish Women, Hadassah, the National Jewish Democratic Council and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism.

Another Orthodox umbrella group, Agudath Israel of America, refrained from directly criticizing Obama in its statement, noting that the president was expressing his “personal feeling.”

…

The OU said in a statement that it was “disappointed” by the president’s new stance and reiterated Orthodox Jewish opposition to “any effort to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions.” But the group also said that it “appreciated” Obama’s praise of New York State’s same-sex marriage law, which offers some protections for religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage.

Here is a petition put together by Orthodox Jews, opposing the Orthodox Union’s opposition to gay marriage:

Our mission is to give a voice to the members of the Orthodox Jewish community who are disappointed by the Orthodox Union and National Council of Young Israel’s condemnation of President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex civil marriage.

Please sign this petition to have your name added to a public list of Orthodox Jews  who are disappointed by the OU and NCYI’s condemnation of President Obama’s endorsement.

Here are some signers’ comments:

Orthodox institutions must worry about their constituents, not imposing halakha on the rest of the country. They might be surprised to discover that President Obama doesn’t keep shabbat, either.

…

I am a 29 year old, deeply committed Orthodox Jew who believes that Jewish organizations should celebrate the separation of Church and State. While same-sex relationships are halachic issues, that has nothing to do with civil marriages. There is no actual evidence that these unions are harmful to anyone, unlike unemployment, the federal budget and funding for women’s health, major issues where your organizations are largely silent. If you feel the need to be involved in politics, why not start with social justice?

…

As a committed Orthodox Jew, I recognize the halachic issues with homosexuality. However, this has absolutely no bearing on the nature of civil unions in a country with separation of church and state. Jews in the United States have long benefited from the country’s long history of religious liberties and ignore this history at their own peril. I am disappointed in the OU and NCYI, two organizations that would claim to represent me, an American Orthodox Jew, would take such a stance, effectively saying that one’s religious beliefs should be used to judge others on a governmental level.

…

Although I know this is against halakha, I don’t feel anyone has the right to tell someone else his/her actions are wrong. The same G-d we believe in made us all in His/Her image. Doesn’t that include sexual proclivities? Not my place to judge or try to tell someone else what to do.

…

I am an Orthodox Rabbi in Providence, RI. While the Torah clearly forbids homosexual relationships, I am proud to live in a country where there is separation of church and state. The OU and NCYI shouldn’t be making these statements, as marriage is civil in our country. No one is forcing us to perform any type of marriage, and we should refrain from conflating religious and civil marriage.

Here is an article by Elli Fischer:

I hope one day to marry off all of my children by means of huppah ve-kiddushin, according to the law of Moses and Israel. But the task of educating children about the importance of these values belongs to parents and communities — not to governments.

Here is the Minister of Strategic Affairs in Israel, Moshe Ya’alon:

A high-level minister came out in support of same-sex marriage in Israel on Monday.

Speaking to Army Radio Monday morning, Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya’alon said he believed such decisions were personal and the government should “give people the freedom to choose.”

The former chief of staff, who is often characterized as a hard-liner on security issues, said there was a partial precedent for this, in that the IDF recognized partners of the same sex for the purpose of common-law marriages. Not every personal choice needs to be approved by the rabbinate, said Ya’alon, who sits in the prime minister’s high-level inner cabinet.

And, for good measure, here’s the TV rabbi, Schmuley Boteach:

What if government withdrew from the marriage business altogether, and provided only Civil Unions to two consenting adults wishing to unify their lives, leaving the spirituality of the union to other entities to recognize, name, sanctify, and define? These Civil Unions would equally assure that all couples receive all the legal entitlements that have previously been enjoyed by those who have been “married,” such as hospital visitation rights and end-of life decisions, insurance benefits,  and tax benefits. After all, what business does the government have entering a church, synagogue or mosque to legitimize or define the spiritual nature of a person’s marriage? We are supposed to have separation of church and state in America.

…

I recognize that for those who oppose gay civil unions this would still not be a solution. However, I vehemently disagree with their opposition.  Whom does it bother to have gay couples granted the decency to visit each other in hospital during serious illness, making end-of-life decisions, and receiving tax benefits as a couple?

The news that student groups on Tel Aviv University campus will be commemorating the Palestinian “nakba” this week with a special ceremony should come as no surprise. Why shouldn’t they join the thousands of youngsters around the world protesting the “catastrophe” of Israel’s birth and the creation of hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees? Palestine is one of the great global “radical chic” causes.

None of these indignant protestors will spare a thought for the other “nakba” — the Jewish one. For, while 700,000 refugees fled in one direction — from Palestine — over 850,000 fled in the other — from Arab countries.

The cause of the flight of the Palestinians in 1948 was war — a war their side launched. In the Arab countries, the cause of the Jewish flight was ethnic cleansing. If Israel had had a deliberate policy to drive out the Arab population, Arabs would not constitute 20 percent of Israel’s population today, nor would they be occupying prominent positions in government and the judiciary.

In Arab countries, by contrast, the Jewish population is down from a million to about 4,000. The Arab Spring is taking a further toll on the Jewish remnants in Tunisia, Yemen and Morocco. A drastic reduction of over 99 percent cannot be explained away as “Jews leaving their homes of their own free will.”

Arab students protest in front the Hebrew University of Jerusalem on Nakba Day 2011 (photo credit: Ruben Salvadori/Flash90)

Where their suffering is acknowledged, and not swept under the rug, “the Jews only have themselves to blame,” goes the argument. Riots, executions, internment and abuse were justifiable payback for the “usurpation of Palestine.” (In Tunisia and Morocco, a gentler form of exclusion and harassment ushered the Jews toward the exit.)

All those exercised by the destruction of 400 Palestinian villages in Israel should spare a thought for the Jewish life, culture and civilization erased from almost every city and town in the Middle East and North Africa. According to the World Organisation of Jews from Arab Countries, Jews lost not only homes, schools, shops, markets, synagogues and cemeteries, but deeded land and property equivalent to five times the size of Israel itself.

The “understandable backlash” theory exonerates the scapegoating of innocent civilians as “enemy aliens” hundreds of miles from the battlefield. To claim that before Zionism Jews and Muslims coexisted in harmony masks another inconvenient truth. Anti-Semitism in Arab countries did not suddenly spring up as a reaction to Zionism; it predated the establishment of Israel by centuries. Under Muslim rule, Jewish life was precarious and often dispensable, depending on the ruler of the day. The dhimmi rules, humiliating the Jews but sparing their lives in exchange for payment of a poll tax, may have appeared tolerant in the 9th century. Today they appear arbitrary and racist.

Furthermore, the “understandable backlash” theory collapses under the weight of evidence that the Arab League drew up a plan to persecute their Jews in 1947 — before it declared war, and just two years after the slaughter of six million Jews in Nazi camps had come to light. The brutal truth is that Arab states conspired to get rid of and defraud their Jews. In other words, the Arab regimes imposed a set of “Nuremberg Laws“ on their own Jewish citizens. The result was ethnic cleansing and dispossession.

In 1948, five Arab states launched a double jihad on the Jews: they lost the military war on the Jews of Israel, but comfortably won the “civil war” against the defenseless Jews of Arab lands. What the keffiyeh-clad youngsters demonstrating on university campuses at Nakba Week events are really doing is deploring the Arab failure to wipe out the Jews entirely from the region. How progressive is that?

It is no accident that the fascism that precipitated both jihads will not tolerate Christians and other non-Muslims, heretical sects, and anyone else who doesn’t fit the Islamist “one nation, one people, one religion” straightjacket.

Rabbi Aharon Cohen, the head of the Jewish community in Casablanca, is one of only a handful of Jews remaining in Morocco today. (photo credit: Abir Sultan / Flash 90)

Impressionable students and their professors are taken in by the lie that Jews came to steal land belonging to the natives. The refugees of the Jewish “nakba” are living proof that Jews are not colonial interlopers, but indigenous to the region, members of communities that in many cases predated Islam by centuries. The fact that some 50 percent of the Jewish population of Israel descends from these refugees is a powerful statistic.

Moreover, the anti-Semitism that Arab-born Jews suffered is key to understanding the Arab world’s deep religious and cultural resistance to the idea of a Jewish state. For 14 centuries Jews lived under Muslim rule as dhimmis – inferior subjects — surrendering their right to self-defense to Muslims. For all its shortcomings, Israel has delivered these Jews from the yoke of Arab-Islamist supremacy.

In all conscience, every liberal ought to see the self-determination of a small, indigenous Middle Eastern people – the Jews – as a progressive cause. Instead, students and their teachers supporting the Palestinian campaign against Israel – deceptively cloaked in the language of human rights — have become unwitting agents for ethno-religious fascism.

The recent Greek general elections have seen the rise of Chrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn), which gained 7 per cent of the popular vote and 21 seats in parliament.

Golden Dawn is a fascist political party and a street movement with an occasionally violent history. Exploiting fears about immigration and thriving on a widespread sense of insecurity caused by the country’s economic crisis, Golden Dawn is likely to become a permanent feature on the Greek political landscape.

Its blend of populist politics, social welfare activism and street fighting is deeply reminiscent of the tactics used by the national socialist movement in Germany in the 1920s.

Where do they come from?

Golden Dawn was registered as a political party in 1993. It  took inspiration from the fascist regime of Ioannis Metaxas, which ruled Greece from 1936-41, and its founder, Nicholas Michaloliakos, had close links to the leaders of the Greek military junta, which ran the country from 1967-74.

Though the party is rooted in the history of Greek fascism, recent years have seen a growing influence of neo-Nazi ideology and symbols. Michaloliakos has used Nazi salutes and his party’s symbol resembles the Nazi swastika.  (The party claims it is based on a meander found in ancient Greek art.)

When Golden Dawn was formed, one of its main concerns was Albanian immigration into the country. At the time, many Greeks associated the influx of Albanians with rising crime and unemployment. Members of Golden Dawn – often in association with football hooligans – became involved in beatings and murders.

Another wave of immigration – this time from Afghanistan and Iraq – provided the backdrop for the party’s first electoral success in 2010. Following a series of attacks against immigrants, Golden Dawn received 5.1 per cent of the vote at the local elections. Michaloliakos gained a seat on Athens’ City Council.

Why are they successful?

The rise of Golden Dawn is often explained as a result of Greece’s current economic crisis. To some extent, this is true. Greeks are deeply unhappy about the ‘political establishment’ and their handling of the economy. The strict financial conditions imposed on the country by international institutions have sharpened economic divisions. They also gave rise to a sense of national humiliation, which Golden Dawn has captured and articulated.

The underlying reasons for Golden Dawn’s appeal, however, are more profound. At the heart of Golden Dawn’s agenda is the failure to manage immigration. For around 90 percent of illegal immigrants entering the European Union, Greece is their first stop, but many never leave. Many cities have seen the growth of immigrant ghettos, which have been abandoned by the state and where crime has escalated.

With the failure of successive governments to respond effectively, Golden Dawn has presented itself as the only defence for indigenous Greeks. The elderly, often afraid to leave their homes, are escorted to supermarkets and cash machines. In the Athens neighbourhood of Agios Panteleimonas, party skinheads serve as vigilantes, roaming the streets and exacting their own form of justice. Others are said to be selling protection to shop-keepers.

Golden Dawn, therefore, is ingraining itself into the social fabric of the country and its success must not be written off as a temporary protest vote. Though its share of the vote remains small, its infrastructure and presence on the street is extensive. In the recent elections, the party did well throughout the country. Most disturbingly, exit polling shows that more than half of the country’s police officers voted for the party.

What do they want?

Much of Golden Dawn’s rhetoric is similar to that of other European far right parties. As leader, Michaloliakos portrays mainstream parties as plutocratic establishments serving only the needs of a privileged minority, while selling the country out to immigrants and foreign institutions. In his own words:

We embrace all those Greeks, and only Greeks, who want to be part of this movement… [W]e are not going to become a party of the petty bourgeoisie, appointing friends to senior positions and doing favours… Instead, [we] will fight to free Greece from both domestic and foreign tyrants who sell out this country and exploit the hard work of the Greek people.

The party’s policies reflect popular sentiments on issues such as immigration, the economy and banks, law and order, and what is presented as the European Union’s ‘attack on Greek national sovereignty’.

Immigration is often referred to as Greece’s ‘single biggest problem’. Speaking at a recent party meeting, one of Mihaloliakos’ deputies, Ilias Kasidiaris, lamented the influx of ‘foreigners who have come into this country and ruined everything’. He wants to seal off Greece’s borders with armed soldiers and anti-personnel mines ‘to prevent these Muslim invaders from coming into the country’.

The party’s stance on law and order is an extension of its immigration policies. In Kasdiaris’ view, ‘The immigrants have taken advantage of [our weakness] by robbing, stabbing and raping the Greek people’. To stop this, Golden Dawn want to establish labour camps for immigrants who have been convicted of crimes.

On the economy, Golden Dawn blames previous Greek governments and banks in equal measure. Party leaders such as Kasidiaris frequently pour scorn on ‘thirty years of being sold out by our governments’ yet also demand ‘the immediate nationalisation of all [banks] that have received funds guaranteed by the Greek people.’

Harking back to a practice used by the country’s military juntas, Golden Dawn suggests that the political elites who ‘have sold us out’ be sent into internal exile on specifically designed Greek islands.

Are they violent?

The party and its associates have a history of violence against immigrants stretching back to its foundation in the early 1990s.

In October 1999, a member of Golden Dawn carried out a racially motivated shooting spree in Athens, killing three people. More recently, party supporters have been involved in the raiding of unofficial mosques in Athens, vandalising properties and terrorising worshippers. In May 2011, they organised a coordinated series of beatings of foreigners in Athens.

During the recent election campaign, the party’s website threatened a Greek journalist and her family after she had published an article critical of the group. With a nod to the group’s neo-Nazi inspirations, the piece ended in German: ‘Kommt Zeit, Kommt Rat, Kommt Attentat!’, which roughly translates as ‘Watch your back!’

Though unlikely to launch a terrorist campaign, it is reasonable to conclude that the group or its supporters will continue to engage in violence. Any challenge to its street presence – especially in areas where it has become part of the social fabric – is likely to be met with a response.

As with the surprise I felt at seeing “simples” mentioned by James Joyce, it left me wondering what other so-called recent coinages favoured by hoi polloi are much older.

The only two parties whose combined seats could have reached the 151 seats required for a majority Coalition were the centre-right New Democracy and radical leftist Syrzia with 108 and 52 seats respectively; a partnership which would have been difficult to reconcile.

The increase of 39 seats to 52 for the emergent Syriza, led by the cherubic Alexis Tsipras can be appreciated as rejection of the last few decades of musical chairs between New Democracy and Pasok led by technocrats or hereditary politicians whom Greeks blame – in many cases, quite rightly – for appalling mismanagement of a low industrialized economy which they believed could compete with North European economies.

Pasok – New Democracy’s partner in the previous Coalition – saw its seats plummet further than the LibDems know will happen to them, with a paltry return of 41 compared to the previous 160. Despite this, New Democracy gained 19 seats, albeit with a near halfing of their percentage vote.

In comparison, a relatively untainted option from the centre-right, Liberal Alliance aka Drasi scored under 2% of the popular vote with no seats.

(The oft-repeated claim that during the boom years, it was cheaper to send Greek rail passengers by taxis than by rail appears to have originated from a quip made by Drasi leader, Stephanos Manos when finance minister in 1992. BBC News considers this claim.)

An entirely unwelcome beneficiary of the 6 May election was the neo-Nazi Party, Golden Dawn with 21 seats (previously none) and 7% of the popular vote; the first and possibly last time, Greek politics were discussed on music websites. Their support base included the areas of Kalavryta and Distomo, scenes of massacres by the previous Nazis to have held power in Greece.

It is hoped that this represented a protest vote, which will be quashed
in a new election.

Regardless of the outcome of this election, the assumption is that Greece will exit from the Euro and return to the Drachma as Greek depositors take heed and start a run on the banks to withdraw Euros.

It is going to be messy.

So I was pleasantly surprised to read in Haaretz:

In a meeting held last week in Los Angeles between Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and Sean Penn it was agreed that the State of Israel would collaborate with the American actor and director in aid efforts at disaster zones across the globe.

Penn stands at the head of a humanitarian association that offers aid to victims of the Haiti earthquake as well as other disasters around the world. Penn resides in Haiti for four months of the year offering aid to the locals who are still affected by the earthquake.

It was in Haiti that Penn became familiar with Israeli aid officials who still operate in Haiti to this day.

In the meeting with Penn, Ayalon invited the renowned actor to visit Israel. Penn accepted the invitation and it was decided that during his trip he would make a visit to MASHAV, Israel’s Agency for International Development Cooperation and to Magen David Adom and would examine how best to collaborate with Israeli aid organizations. At first cooperation would focus on Haiti, but would then expand to other countries.

The visit will take place in a few months and according to Penn, will be his first to the Holy Land, in spite of the fact that his father is Jewish and would be happy to cooperate with Israel on humanitarian aid efforts.

Speaking to Ayalon Penn praised Israel and said that in Haiti Israel demonstrated amazing capabilities and was the first country at the scene of the disaster working with a great deal of efficiency.

Apparently Penn has not observed any of the rampant organ-harvesting alleged by some of Israel’s enemies.

Penn surely will come under pressure from some of the BDS usual suspects. He deserves our support. Let’s hope he starts to wise up on some other matters too.

[W]henever I get discouraged, I recall an incident several years ago at the University of California at Irvine, which is a hotbed of anti-Israel hate speech. This is the very same campus where radical Islamic students tried to prevent Israel’s moderate ambassador, Professor Michael Oren, from speaking.

About a year before that incident, I spoke to a full audience of students that included some of the same radicals that tried to shut Oren down. About 100 of them sat to my right. Another 100 or so students, wearing pro-Israel shirts and kipot, sat to my left. Several hundred additional students were in the middle – both literally and ideologically. I know that because I asked for a show of hands before I began my remarks.

I first asked for students to raise their hands if they generally support Israel. All the students to my left and several in the middle raised their hands. I then asked how many students supported the Palestinian side. All the students to my right and several in the middle raised their hands. I then posed the following question to the pro-Israel group: “How many of you would support a Palestinian state living in peace and without terrorism next to Israel?” Every single pro-Israel hand immediately went up. I then asked how many on the pro-Palestine side would accept a Jewish state within the 1967 borders, with no settlements on territory claimed by the Palestinians. There was some mumbling and brief conversation among the people to my right, but not a single hand was raised.

The debate was essentially over, as everyone in the middle now recognized that this was not a conflict between pro-Israel and pro-Palestine groups, but rather, a conflict between those who would accept a two-state solution and those who would reject any Jewish state anywhere in the Middle East. The pro-Israel view had prevailed because I was able to use the extremism of the anti-Israel group to demonstrate the ugly truth about Israel’s enemies to the large group of students in the middle with open minds.

I have now used this heuristic repeatedly on college campuses, and with considerable success. The lesson, I believe, is not to try to persuade irrational anti-Israel extremists, but rather, to use their extremism – which often includes anti-American and anti-Western extremism – against them and in favor of a reasonable and centrist pro-Israel position.

There is a necessary corollary to this approach, I think. Friends of Israel should not be so eager to narrow the definition of acceptable support. If people genuinely acknowledge Israel’s right to exist permanently as a Jewish state within secure borders, I don’t think it’s necessary to probe them for further signs of loyalty based on their positions on settlements and the like.

Which brings me to Labour MP Andy Slaughter.

He should be put on the spot at the earliest opportunity: does he or does he not acknowledge Israel’s right to exist permanently as a Jewish state within secure borders, along with the creation of a viable Palestinian state (the official position of the Labour party)?

If he does acknowledge it, why does he have anything to do with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which opposes “the Zionist nature of the Israeli state”– i.e., the existence of Israel as Israel?

Richard Millett is a blogger who attends anti-Israel hatefests, and reports on the hysterical and often racist rhetoric which is commonplace at such events.

We are grateful to him. Were it not for Richard’s preparedness to wade through this sewer, we would have little idea of the extremism which is routinely promoted at British universities.

At last night’s event, involving Abdel Bari Atwan – famous for saying: ”If the Iranian missiles strike Israel, by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square, and dance with delight” - or Oxford University’s “one state” advocate Dr. Karma Nabulsi, Richard had his property grabbed, while he was abused as “a typical Israeli” and subjected to a slow handclap. Their intention was, clearly, to intimidate Richard and discourage him from filming the public event.

This took place at SOAS, a British University: Richard Millett’s alma mater. It is unacceptable that this should have happened.

The bullying and intimidation of Richard Millett is now a routine event. Last week, at another anti-Israel event at the University of London Union, he was confronted by the anti-Israel activist, Yael Kahn who told him to leave saying:

“We don’t want you. You’ve been undermining people’s meetings. You interfere with people’s freedom of speech. We don’t want you here. Goodbye to you. We don’t want you. You are here for one purpose; to interrupt and to undermine people. I’ve seen you many times. I’ve seen you in action many times. You’re not invited.”

…

Once I told her that I wasn’t leaving as it was a public meeting and that she should have arranged the meeting in her home she shuffled off to chair the event instead.

Richard Millett always behaves with absolute propriety and avoids confrontation. The reason that Richard Millett is attacked in this manner is, quite simply, because these guys don’t want others to know what they get up to. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech: their motive is a desire to hide their conduct. Perhaps they are ashamed of themselves. They should be.

Please consider complaining to the Director of SOAS, Professor Paul Webley – email - pw2@soas.ac.uk tel - 0207 898 4014.

Read Richard’s account, and see more video here.

3:26:

“We have in Israel now, a Far Right government that has an unprecendented level of support among the Israeli people, we have a very weak opposition, a very weak Left in Israel. We have a US election here, which always means that any control of the Israelis, is neutered by the dealings whoever is seeking election to win the various layers[?] of vote in the US”

“We also see an increase in popular support across the world [...] because of the work that people like you do here, in telling the truth about Palestine [...] the reaction to that from Israel [...] to be more aggressive on a propaganda level, which is why organisations like the PSC are now demonised by the Israelis and their supporters in this country.”

And then:

“13 Israelis were killed and over 1400 Palestinians were killed [...] the disproportionately [...] is disguised by the Western media”

“You inspired myself, my colleagues”

“Well done for everything that you’ve done, and let’s keep up the fight”

Imagine a scenario where Ken Clarke saying something as vile and incendiary as this – for example, telling the EDL to “keep up the fight”, telling them they’ve got Pakistan scared, which explains is why the EDL are being smeared by British Pakistanis.

Imagine Ken Clarke praising the EDL for inspiring him.