Ray Cook - As I See It

Israel, Zionism and the Media

Category: Other (Page 8 of 17)

Abbas supports the perpetrators of genocide

23/01/2011 / / 5 Comments

Title Updated after fair criticism)

Yet again I am indebted to palwatch.org for this story

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has expressed his personal support for the president of Sudan, Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, who is accused of being responsible for the genocide in Darfur. In a letter to the Sudanese president, Abbas wrote that he and Palestinians “have complete faith in the wisdom of President Omar Al-Bashir.”

In 2008, evidence was presented in the International Criminal Court of Justice that showed that “Al-Bashir committed the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur.” The crimes against humanity include “murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape.” [http://www.icc-cpi.int accessed Dec. 8, 2010] Warrants for his arrest have been issued by the International Criminal Court.

Those who bang on about Israel committing genocide whilst Palestinian numbers are growing should think carefully before they throw their support behind people like Abbas who is prepared to support the perpetrator of the greatest genocide of recent years.

In supporting Bashir, Abbas and all Arab leaders and those around the world who don’t just keep silent but actually support him, are accessories to genocide.

Jack Straw, political correctness, Question Time and the ‘M’ word

16/01/2011 / / 4 Comments

I may be a little off topic here, after all, this blog is about Israel, Jews, the media, antisemitism and Zionism.

So why am I writing about the media and how it reacted to former Home Secretary and Justice Secretary (and MP for Blackburn) Jack Straw’s comments on a specific court case about the sexual grooming of young girls in Derby?

Two men were jailed for picking up under age girls over an extended period and then sexually abusing them, raping them and physically abusing them.

So how is this connected to my usual topics?

Well, as I see it, this is a mirror image of the accusation that anyone in the Jewish community who characterises much of the discourse in the media, and by elements in the far Left and Muslim community, about Israel as ‘antisemitic’ is immediately accused of ‘closing down the argument’.

In other words, the accusation of antisemitism is itself off-limits and is seen as an easy way to rebut attacks on Israel when any other counter-argument would fail.  It’s the ace up the pro-Zionist sleeve, so they say, which is pulled out at every opportunity.

Yet, accusations of Islamophobia, racial stereotyping and even racism are hurled at Jack Straw because he dare draw an obvious conclusion from irrefutable statistics.  My point is no-one is then accused of ‘closing down the argument’ or using the ‘race card’ to deflect these criticisms.

Let’s remind ourselves what Jack Straw said:

Pakistanis, let’s be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders’ wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders.

But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men… who target vulnerable young white girls.

We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way.

These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they’re fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically.

So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care… who they think are easy meat.

Straw’s big mistake was to use the word ‘meat’. This allowed feminists and the self-righteous  to change the argument away from a problem in a particular community to attack Straw himself.

It is clear that Straw was doing all he could to address the problem honestly and at the same time to point out that this is not an attack on the Pakistani community per se. The use of the ‘M’ word was a mistake but he was referring to the perception of others, the perpetrators themselves,  not his own perception of these girls.

The statistics support Straw’s argument. The Daily Mail reported on January 5th:

… researchers identified 17 court prosecutions since 1997, 14 of them in the past three years, involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men.

The victims came from 13 towns and cities and in each case two or more men were convicted of offences.

In total, 56 people, with an average age of 28, were found guilty of crimes including rape, child abduction, indecent assault and sex with a child.

Three of the 56 were white, 53 were Asian. Of those, 50 were Muslim and a majority were members of the British Pakistani community.

The BBC News website smacked my gob when it reported all this here:

Keith Vaz who is chairman of the home affairs select committee “said it was wrong to stereotype an entire community and a proper inquiry was needed.”

Surely this was not stereotyping of a whole community.

On BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme he said:

What I don’t think we can do is say that this is a cultural problem. One can accept the evidence which is put before us about patterns and networks but to go that step further I think is pretty dangerous.

Why can it not be a cultural problem? Is not Keith Vaz jumping to a conclusion before the enquiry he is so keen to have? Do not the statistics actually indicate quite the reverse?

He thinks it is ‘dangerous’ to draw the conclusion. Why is everyone trying so hard to deny such clear evidence? Why is it dangerous? Do we have sacrifice truth so as not to offend a minority because there are elements in society which will leap on this to push a racist agenda?

How many times have we seen criminals gratuitously and unnecessarily tagged as ‘Jewish’ when there is no pattern within the Jewish community for the crime of which they stand convicted?

The issue is clear from the statistics that there is a problem, as Jack Straw correctly identified, with Pakistani-origin men of a certain age. If these crimes were committed by predominantly non-Pakistani-origin men of a certain age then it would be wrong to call this a problem specific to that demographic.

Next up in the BBC article was Helen Brayley, from University College London’s Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science.

She actually wrote the first academic analysis of child sex trafficking which is something rather different. Nevertheless, she too is trying very hard to deny the statistics:

So by racially stereotyping this early on without a national scoping project… we don’t know what the situation is in other areas around the country… you might be leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy of if people are looking for Asian offenders, they will only find Asian offenders.
So now we have an enquiry and a scoping project. I submit that a lot of public money could be saved by the glaringly obvious statistics that we already have before us. When it comes to a certain section of British society we have to tread on eggshells, it seems, and do everything possible to deny, obfuscate or defer the obvious conclusion.
Next up, Ed Miliband, who you may forgiven for forgetting is the leader of the Labour Party.
Labour leader Ed Miliband said Mr Straw was right to say there must be zero tolerance of criminal activity against young girls in any community.
But he added: “That said, we’ve got to be careful about generalisations about particular communities. As Jack himself said, we find sexual crimes committed by people of all backgrounds.”
So here we go again but this time with ‘generalisations’. He has invented this. Jack Straw was, in fact, very specific. He neither generalised or  stereotyped.  However, once again, someone is emphasising a politically correct  scepticism rather than face facts.

It required a member of this ‘stereotyped’ community to actually tell it how it is, albeit whilst still denying that the problem was cultural and attacking Jack Straw for suggesting it was.

Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Muslim youth group the Ramadhan Foundation, rejected any suggestion such abuse was “ingrained” in Britain’s Pakistani community, but he said it was an issue.

He said: “I first raised this two or three years ago and I got a lot of stick within the community from people who said I was doing the work of the BNP and stigmatising them.

“Most people didn’t realise the seriousness of it. But now, after a series of court cases, things have changed. I have had a lot of support.”

But he added: “These gangs that operate are criminals. There’s nothing in their culture, there’s nothing in their religion to suggest that this sort of thing is ingrained.

“And for Jack Straw, a former home secretary, to suggest that this somehow is ingrained within young Pakistani men, I think is quite dangerous.”

Again he twists what Jack Straw said. No-one suggested it was ingrained or somehow connected with religious beliefs. What Jack Straw said is that it is a problem with a certain element of the Pakistani community and that means it is cultural. Religion was never mentioned. While acknowledging that Jack Straw was correct in identifying the problem, at the same time he was somehow incorrect.

Melanie Phillips does believe this behaviour is fuelled by religious culture and you can read her alternative take here.

The BBC article continues with another apologist who ignores the statistics:

Martin Narey, chief executive of Barnardo’s, called for more research to be carried out.

He said: “I don’t think this is so much about targeting white girls – because black girls are also victims – it’s about targeting vulnerable, isolated girls.”

Eh? What black girls? The report quoted above clearly states that in ALL cases the girls were white.  That in itself is interesting.

Finally from the BBC someone who has direct experience:

Ann Cryer, a former Labour MP for Keighley, she had been made aware of a problem in her constituency in 2003 after she was approached by about six mothers who said their daughters were being groomed for sex by Pakistani men.

She said she tried to intercede with the community by asking a councillor to speak to Muslim elders, but they said it was not their affair.

“Instead of drawing it to a conclusion then, it’s drifted on, so it seems now every year we’re getting more cases of very young, sometimes 12-year-old girls being abused by these gangs of men. I wish it would stop, I wish it would go away,” she said.

Then, on Thursday, my gob was well and truly smacked by the BBC’s Question Time. This is a debate programme where public figures, mainly politicians, but also journalists and others with an opinion, are confronted by a studio audience with their pre-selected questions on topics of the day.

This week someone asked:  Was it right for Jack Straw to say that Pakistani men saw young white women as ‘easy meat?’.

The question is already loaded and ambiguous and is actually the wrong question. Firstly Jack Straw did not say all Pakistani men think this way as the questioner implies. he has already skewed the arguement.  Secondly, he puts the emphasis on the ‘easy meat’ blunder without addressing the actual issue.

Nevertheless, the panel all took this as an opportunity to show their PC credentials, their total lack of of racism and their multiculturalism. But it was the extent to which each of them evaded the question or subverted Jack Straw’s concerns, sometimes to a ludicrous extent, which infuriated me.

Chairman David Dimbleby changed the focus of the question by stating that 50 out of 56 men convicted of this crime, as mentioned above, were Muslim and mainly Pakistani. Indeed, throughout the debate he tried desperately to get the panel to address the statistics, but they side-stepped it.

The first panellist was James Caan who is a successful businessman an entrepreneur and a member of the Dragon’s Den team on the BBC; he also happens to be of Pakistani heritage.

I think irrespective to what nationality you are, I think the crime itself is  an atrocious crime and I think the crime itself is what should be in focus and not necessarily .. which race or colour you are in. If you commit a crime … you should be punished for that crime [applause from audience] And I think what’s happened … is that the media has got so carried away about, you know, which ethnic group it is, … and I don’t think that really matters. We need to focus on the issue at hand … what’s happening to these young ladies who are vulnerable in society …

So Caan’s rather poorly argued case is that we have to ignore the fact that 50 out of 56 were Pakistani and we have to be more concerned about getting vulnerable girls off the street. But they wouldn’t be as vulnerable if they weren’t preyed upon by these gangs, would they, James?

Dimbleby then tells Caan that the point is that this is an ‘Asian’ issue (even Dimbleby can’t bring himself to say Pakistani) and he quotes Ann Cryer. He states it’s a cultural matter.  Caan just repeats that it doesn’t matter who you are ‘a wrong is a wrong’. An absurd response because no-one, as Dimbleby points out, is denying it is wrong. He again puts it to James Caan that this is a cultural phenomenon. Caan says he does not see this and he ‘looks beyond the whole issue of race or culture’ . Again he ducks the question and reiterates that, whoever you are, it is wrong whilst confirming that we live in a multi-cultural society.

His definition of ‘multi-cultural’ seems to be that your race or culture is  somehow subsumed into a homogeneous melting pot where everyone is just ‘British’. But multi-culturalism is the exact opposite of this definition; it is characterised by different cultures existing side by side and distinct from each other where mutual respect and toleration enables society as a whole to function.

The next panellist was Diane Abbott who is a Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and she is of black West Indian heritage. Her constituency is very mixed ethnically and culturally diverse.  She has Hasidic Jews, West Indians and Asian minorities in her constituency.

Her answer revealed her to be in complete denial of the whole basis of the question. She first states that Jack Straw is a friend, so we know she is about to criticise him. She ‘found his language distasteful’. Well I have already said that the “M” word was a blunder.

If Jack thinks that it is a particular Pakistani crime to go out and groom under-age girls and pimp them out [yes, she did say that and isn’t that just as distasteful?], why didn’t he do something about it when he was Justice Secretary?.

She does have a point, but it does not change the statistics. She then goes on about how she was on an all-party commission on prostitution and that girls who are or have been in care are particularly liable to be vulnerable to be picked up, given drink and drugs and then used by gang members for sexual gratification.

So it’s now the girls fault, is it, Diane?

I know of no evidence that this is a uniquely Pakistani crime.

Who said it was? But it is a preponderantly Pakistani one if you look at the statistics.

Abbott says it is right to have a survey and establish the facts. But we have them, don’t we?

It won’t help these young girls by claiming it is a particular problem with a particular group of men.

Yes it would if the facts point to this crime being mainly, though not exclusively, the product of a particular culture. Surely it would be helpful if that fact were established and eradicated or ameliorated by communal or other action. How desperately Diane Abbot tries to convince herself, and us, that the facts can be discarded because it cannot be the cases, that it is impossible in her multi-cultural nirvana for any crime to be disproportionately prevalent in any community.

Then she repeats James Caan’s point that we should focus on the crime. No doubt this is to ensure the purity of the multi-cultural vision rather than admit that it can sometimes produce culturally based anomalies such as this.

Abbott receives muted applause from the audience indicating they are not convinced by her argument which is only marginally better than Caan who is not a politician.

An audience member says it’s a form of racism for Jack Straw to associate a particular crime with a particular ethnic group. Well, it would be if the claim were not supported by facts. PC rules OK once again.

If the facts don’t fit, deny them.

Apparently young Asian men are being victimised by Stop and Search just like blacks were at one time. She ignores that fact that these men were not that young (late twenties) and had families.  The young female Asian audience member gets more applause than Diane.

Dimbleby is apparently bemused by this PC blindness.  He repeats the patent facts, but Abbott is not having any of it. She says it was in a part of the country with a very large Pakistani population (Derby) . “If you went to Newcastle you would find that most of those sorts of cases involve a white man.” The demographics would be different.

How desperate can you get. Firstly the 14 cases were across England and were naturally in areas where there was a Pakistani community. But is Abbott saying that 50/56, that’s 90% of the population of Derby, and other areas where these crimes occurred, is Pakistani? With her Oxbridge education I am surprised she cannot do simple arithmetic. Once again, the facts must fit her world view or they must be subverted to fit.

Panellist number three is Jeanette Winterson a writer, journalist and broadcaster and Oxford graduate whose books look at gender issues and sexuality.

Her answer was to focus on women always being at ‘the bottom of the heap’ [Isn’t that as offensive as the ‘M’ word?] ‘across race and across class’.

She emphasises the “M” word and avoids the real question. She ignores the race and ethnic question and specifically says ‘it’s a women’s issue, I don’t want to turn it into a race issue’.

As I have already said, if you ignore the statistics, then you do not improve the vulnerability of women. If women are vulnerable because of men’s attitudes, and a majority of those men come from a particular ethnic background, then targeting that community would help women in a more effective way than if we ignore race because it makes us feel uncomfortable and liable to self-accusation as racist.

Charles Kennedy, former leader of the Lib Dems tells us that it is the responsibility of politicians ‘to choose their words with care’.  he doesn’t say which words he is referring to. Let’s presume it’s the “M” word. So he too is answering the audience member’s question without addressing the issue as defined by David Dimbleby.

Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education is the final panellist. He agrees with an audience member who says ‘we should put our own house in order’ citing the Catholic Church’s problem with grooming of young boys.  He also expresses agreement with Charles Kennedy.

However, Gove is more subtle; he makes a party political point by accusing Jack Straw of making unnecessary public statements which can damage community relations when ‘the authorities’ are already aware of the problem.

Gove also tells us that if there is a particular problem in a community it is often the case that outsiders are ‘particularly ill-equipped to address those problems’. It is somehow ‘counter-productive’ to be ‘lectured from outside your community’.  Finally he makes the Winterson point that society has let down these vulnerable girls.

Is he really saying that the Pakistani community has to sort out their own problem? What if they don’t? Furthermore, his approach actual emphasises that in this country individual ethnic communities have some sort of right to autonomy, even when that community has a particular penchant for a particular crime.

If the Romany community had a predilection for car theft (which they don’t, of course) or the Hasidic Jewish community were disproportionate offenders in Rackmanism, is Gove saying that the government would have a hands-off approach and leave it to those communities to put their own house in order?

One member of the audience suggests that outsiders can often see what insiders do not or don’t want to see. Gove believes that the community is, indeed, engaged in a ‘lively debate’ on this and other issues and if we outsiders have to comment we should do so ‘respectfully’.

So once again the Pakistani community and, presumably, any other community that finds itself in this position, is ring-fenced when it comes to criticism or public debate because they may react badly to ‘outsiders’ pointing out their failings. What of the community of white girls who are being targeted? Do they care about the sensitivities of their assailants’ community or do they just want to reduce the instances of this crime?

It’s as if the Pakistani community’s sensitivities are more important than the protection of vulnerable girls.

I don’t want it to appear that I have an animus against the Pakistani community or 20-something Pakistani men. I would make the same point whatever community is being protected in this way.

It may well be the case that covert investigations are under way with these shady ‘authorities’. The point is that when a politician makes a statement which is truthful, but clumsily worded, any number of people come down on him/her like a ton of bricks in self-righteous indignation and spout a number of different reasons, mostly spurious, as to why he/she should keep mum.

So, bringing this back round to my usual topic: when it comes to the sensitivities of my community, the Jewish community, the attacks on Israel are relentless and remorseless and I feel vulnerable because of the lack of caution in the press and by politicians which these same politicians and journalists are exercising when it comes, in this case, to the Pakistani community.

Why are their sensitivities more important than mine?

Cameron, China, Israel – spot the double standard

11/01/2011 / / 0 Comments

Trade links between the UK and China are very important. Why? Because China is emerging as the superpower and economic giant of the 21st century whilst the United States is in deep financial difficulties.

The Chinese market is huge. EU countries are falling over themselves to make deals with China.

The BBC today announced:

Mr Li, tipped to become China’s next premier, has also been pressing to get EU trade bans against China lifted.

The EU has an arms embargo in place that limits high-technology sales to China which could have a dual military use.

…

Elsewhere, BP and the China National Offshore Oil Corp signed a deal on deep-water exploration in the South China Sea, while Jaguar Land Rover committed to sell 40,000 vehicles in China in 2011.

Agreement has also been reached to bring two giant pandas to Edinburgh Zoo, the first to live in the UK for 17 years.

Now hang on. Remember Tibet. Remember the destruction of Tibetan culture and the suppression of its religious and cultural heritage. Remember that Tibet is being swamped with Chinese and that the ethnic and cultural heritage of Tibet is being destroyed. remember that Tibet is more or less closed to the outside world.

The two men had not shirked from discussing “difficult” issues such as human rights, Mr Clegg added, acknowledging that “persistent differences” remained between the countries.

Hmm, Yes. This is the soft pedal approach. Heaven forfend we offend the Chinese by being too heavy-handed. Widening cultural and trade links will hasten democracy.  And Edinburgh zoo gets a breeding pair of Giant Pandas into the bargain.

Personally, I see this as realpolitik. I don’t actually blame the UK government for doing this. Maybe this approach will work.

Now look at Cameron on Israel in Turkey last year which I wrote about last year here.

“Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza can not and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp,” he said.

Cameron has no problem dissing Israel to an Islamist regime. Cameron has no problem with saying:

I have. Unlike a lot of politicians from Britain who visit Israel, when I went, I did stand in occupied East Jerusalem and actually referred to it as occupied East Jerusalem. The Foreign Office bod who was with me said, most ministers don’t dare say. So, yes, I thought I had quite an argument when I was in Israel with Tzipi Livni about settlements and I think Obama is right to take a robust line. I think we have to but it is depressing how little progress is being made right now.

Yet he is so mealy-mouthed about China.

The sad fact is that foreign policy is not about truth or principles, it’s about getting what is best for your country, for the UK. It’s about being liked by the nice Americans. It’s about showing how important and influential the UK is.

Israel is dispensable. Israel is an easy target. The UK has little to lose by calling East Jerusalem ‘occupied’ whilst ignoring Tibet’s repression and loss of autonomy within China.

I’d like to see Cameron in Taipei criticising China’s Tibet policy. I’d like even more for Cameron to go and stand in Lhasa.

In 2008, the Dalai Lama criticised the then Labour government for not speaking out against a “cultural genocide”. (See TimesOnline here.)

Mr Brown has been accused of kowtowing to Beijing by refusing to invite the Dalai Lama to Downing Street for formal talks. Instead he will meet the spiritual leader at Lambeth Palace on Friday enabling the Prime Minister to claim that he is receiving the 72-year-old monk in a spiritual rather than political capacity

Successive governments have tip-toed around the Tibet issue so as not to offend almighty, rich, big-spending China.

But Israel gets the big stick. It’s small, not as powerful as you have been led to believe, it doesn’t spend big in the EU, it cannot harm anyone’s economy.

Yet how many academic, trade union, student or cultural boycotts or calls for such have you seen lately?

Maybe we could say that the UK government is panda-ing to the Chinese

First they came for the Saturday people – the Egyptian Copts and why a one-state solution in the Middle East is not possible

05/01/2011 / / 1 Comment

(AP Photo/Ben Curtis) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

We are all probably now painfully aware of the onslaught against the Christians of Iraq.

I have previously written about the harassment of the Christians of Bethlehem and the Middle East here.

Less is reported about the plight of the ancient Coptic Christian community in Egypt.

Ami Isseroff has published the contents of a letter by a Coptic Christian living in the US to President Obama. It makes painful reading. (see IsraelNews at http://www.zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2011/01/04/letter-from-a-coptic-christian-to-president-obama/).

The Copts are increasingly being harassed and murdered by Islamists. The clear intent is to drive them out.

If Israel / Palestine became a single state with a Muslim majority or even a large minority filled with the bile of Hamas, Hizbullah and Fatah, who do you think would be harassed first? And then they will come for the Sunday people.

This is the expressed aim of Hamas and Hizbullah and a cornerstone of PLO/Fatah: destroy Israel and drive out the Jews.

And then they will come for the Sunday people and the Druze and the Baha’is.

As in Egypt, so would it be in a future Palestine that has consumed Israel.

I reproduce the letter here in full. It is a warning of how things will go if the world doesn’t wake up to this madness. It was written on Dec 24th. The very next week 21 Copts were murdered by a suicide bomber in Alexandria, Egypt as they celebrated mass on New Year’s Day.

Friday, December 24, 2010

Letter from a Coptic Christian

Mike, a Coptic Christian who has immigrated to the United States, has asked Restrain the Blade to publish this letter to President Barack Obama. Out of concern for his safety, only the author’s first name is made public.

President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C.

Dear President Obama,

I am writing to you as Coptic Christian who immigrated to the United States in the late 1970s.

I am an American citizen.

I have grave concerns about what is going in Egypt regarding the Copts.

To put it bluntly, I fear that something very bad is going to happen to this community in the very near future.

Coptic Christians have been the victims of systematic abuse and oppression in Egypt for a long time. On November 17, 2010, the U.S. Department of State recently issued a report on religious freedom in Egypt that details the abuses they suffer on a daily basis. January of this year, six Coptic Christians were murdered outside their church after celebrating Christmas.

Sadly, I fear another attack will happen again sometime in the near future.

The tendency of blaming the State of Israel for every problem in Egypt, and linking it to the Copts, is on the rise, especially in the past a few months. By associating the Copts with the Jewish state, extremists and government officials are inciting hostility toward a beleaguered, defenseless minority.

The anti-Israel polemic is fairly well known. One official accused recent shark and jellyfish for attacks on swimmers at Sharm el-Sheikh on the Mossad. The alleged goal was to kill the tourism season.

What is less well known is that Muslim Imams throughout the Middle East are demonizing Coptic Christians in Egypt. One oft-repeated claim is that Israel is using Coptic churches to store all kinds of weapons to attack Muslims. Such accusations lead to threats of violence.

For example, Sheik Wagdi Ghoneim recently said in a video message from the State of Qatar “I swear by God, you will not have time stay alive until America and the West arrive, this is for your own good, if you understand. Do you think the Muslims inside Egypt will say thank you and may Allah give you health? “No, by God.”

And on September 16, 2010 Mr., Muhammad Salim Al-Awa, Secretary-General of the International Union of Muslim Scholars announced on Al-Jazeera TV (Qatar): Copts Amass Weapons in Egyptian Churches and Are “Preparing for War against the Muslims”.

Copts are even being blamed for the violence perpetrated against them by Muslim extremists in Egypt. For example, after a mob of 5,000 Egyptians recently attacked a Christian service building, President’s Mubarak former assistant, Dr. Mustafa El- Feki from Ain Shams University stated that Israel and the Copts were at fault for the attack and the two deaths that resulted from it. Dr. El Feki stated that Israel was behind the subsequent protests: “”It is almost certain that the Mossad is involved in these events. The State is dealing with dangerous events that could not have succeeded without external intervention with Israel at its head.”

Here, it is important to note why the mob attacked the building in the first place. While the Egyptian government does not allow Christians to build churches, it does allow them to build “service buildings” where social services can be provided to the elderly and to young people in the Coptic Christian community. The mob attacked this service building after hearing rumors that the building itself was going to be used as a church and not merely to provide social services to its members.

Mr. President, in light of numerous acts of incitement and previous acts of violence, I fear that Coptic Christians in Egypt are going to have a very tough Christmas season. I implore you to use your good offices to insist that the Egyptian government protect the rights of its Christian citizens.

For reasons of my own safety, I can only sign my first name, but nevertheless, I offer wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

I ask that you use your influence to make sure Christians in Egypt can celebrate their holidays in safety.

Michael
Dec. 24, 2010

Israel and China co-operating with technology to change the world

22/12/2010 / / 0 Comments

A Stumbleupon entry linking to the English Language version of the Chinese People’s Daily Online was brought to my attention.

The headline was “Israel, China discuss cooperation in search for renewable energy”.

Note that this is Israel (size of New Jersey, population about 7 million) and China (which is the size of a planet).

Why would China be interested in Israel?

Israeli and Chinese experts on Thursday wrapped up a three-day conference at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HU) that focused on the prospects of joining forces in the search for affordable, efficient renewable energy.

Well, that seems important in a world of decreasing energy stocks and a huge increase in consumption from China and India. If China is serious about reducing its emissions and not having to destroy the environment with vast coal-mining projects, it needs to find an alternative. You would think that, maybe, the super-power America would be a more natural partner or even India.

But it’s little beleaguered Israel that is making the running.

The meeting, the first of its kind, brought together technical experts from the engineering sciences and industry, as well as from economics and policy-making fields, to consider energy planning and policy over the next decades.

“Basically, you’ve got two aspects here,” organizer Richard Hardiman, HU professor, told Xinhua. He said the conference was an attempt to build a bridge between Israel’s technology and China’s market.

So China has enough confidence in Israel’s technological know-how to want to buy in the expertise. This would be of immense benefit to Israel’s economy.

It’s Israel’s leading role in PV (photovoltaic) cell technology which is exciting the Chinese.  China is the world’s leading manufacturer and is already predicting a huge growth in PV energy 20 20 gigawatts by 2020. So there is a definite natural alliance here between Israeli research and development and Chinese manufacturing skills.

There is a possible added bonus. Jordan is interested. Clearly, countries with vast amounts of solar energy potential in the region would be stupid to ignore it.

Jordan also sent three representatives to learn how the country and neighbors in the region can model such efforts.

One of them was Malik AboRashid, president and CEO of Opus Resources Limited, a San Francisco-based management company active in the Middle East.

“Should this be successful, how do we model it, and solicit assistance to do something very similar in other parts of the world?” AboRashid said.

“China and Israel are powerhouses of technology and centers of excellence, so how do we learn from that, to use their technology and what they’ve learned to implement that in other countries,” he said.

Would it be too fanciful to ponder that Israel’s technological skills can be a force to bring peace via scientific co-operation and interdependence?

China is no model of democracy and human rights but it is a profound truth in Realpolitik that when a country becomes so important to the world economy, becomes the USA’s banker and the world’s leading energy and resources consumer, all such niceties become the stuff of polite political enquiry.

If the Europeans are so eager to trade with China despite its appalling human rights record  and its destruction of Tibetan culture, then it is certainly hypocritical of them to try to bully Israel when it comes to the ongoing conflict because that country has only a tiny global footprint.

BBC: Sharm – offensive

06/12/2010 / / 1 Comment

Fire rages in Northern Israel for 3 days with more than 40 people killed and involving a massive international effort and the BBC reported about 10 seconds of it over the weekend, and nothing this morning. Nothing to tell us the fire was more or less out.

Instead, it was Egypt and the resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh that was given 5 minutes of air time with British divers telling us very uneventful stories about how they weren’t attacked by the shark that killed a German tourist.

So, no Palestinians killed in Israel, only 38 prison service staff going to rescue Palestinian terrorists held in an Israeli prison and dying as a result. BBC not interested in that.

Nor were they concerned about the ironies of the Turks flying with the Greeks or the mixed reactions of the Islamic world.

There may have been more on BBC’s News 24 channel, I don’t know, but on the BBC website, a brief mention and then the story became unimportant and the home page link disappeared.

It seems the story was beyond boring as there was nothing in it that could be used to show Israel in any negative light. Giving too much attention would surely risk some actual sympathy. Whoa!! None of that, please.

No conflict, no news. The significance of the international assistance given to Israel soon disappears from the radar like the Turkish fire-fighters returning to base.

Carmel Fire

03/12/2010 / / 0 Comments

I have just received a couple of important links from CiFWatch

http://www.actforisrael.org/

http://sinaitemple.org/israelcrisis/index.php?option=com_jdonation&view=donation&Itemid=2

There is also a great thread on OvVaGoy:

http://www.oyvagoy.com/2010/12/02/israel-needs-our-help/

Chas, on OyVaGoy makes a point that I had thought of myself; namely that it’s so often Israel that is first to help others, it’s now very inspiring to see how so many countries, some of them quite unlikely, sending help to Israel.

These are the countries I know about:

USA

Russia

Canada

UK

Germany

France

Azerbaijan

Turkey!

Egypt

Jordan

Greece

Cyprus

Bulgaria

PM Netanyahu has sent a message of thanks to Turkish PM Erdogan in a telephone call as follows:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke a short while ago today (Friday), 3.12.10, with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and thanked him for the assistance in the efforts to control the Carmel brushfire: “We very much appreciate this mobilization and I am certain that it will be an opening toward improving relations between our two countries, Turkey and Israel.”  Prime Minister Netanyahu noted that his Turkish counterpart had expressed his willingness to help and Turkey’s condolences, as well as his personal condolences, to the families of the casualties.

Let’s hope some good can come of this tragedy.

Mick Davis, Israel, ‘apartheid’ and the right of the Diaspora to criticise

01/12/2010 / / 2 Comments

Where to begin. I have about a dozen blog articles and some newspaper articles about the fallout resulting from Mick Davis’s statements almost a fortnight ago now.

I have kept my powder dry because the questions raised are complex and lead off into many different avenues.

So first, for the uninitiated, who is Mick Davis and what did he say that has so divided the Jewish community in Britain?

[And even that statement is problematical; to say he has divided the Jewish community, maybe the affair has simply brought out into the open an existing schism. And when I say ‘Jewish community’ that is shorthand for the majority Jewish establishment, mainly conservative and mainly supportive of Israel. It does not include those Jews who have already picked up their camp standard and moved it over to the left and the pro-Palestinian side, yet still consider themselves to be the true representatives of British Jewry.]

Mick Davis is a South African-born businessman who heads up the UJIA (United Jewish Israel Appeal), the leading fundraising organisation in Britain for Israel (although it also supports domestic Jewish charitable ventures). I worked briefly for its predecessor, the JIA in what is now called a gap year, back in the seventies, but that’s another, albeit interesting, story.

Mick is also a luminary of the JLC, the Jewish Leadership Council. This is, apparently, a self-appointed group of, mainly wealthy and influential community leaders of all affiliations and has the following Mission:

Mission

1. Enhance the effectiveness of communal political representation, advocacy and relations with Government.

2. To influence communal strategic priorities.

3. To demonstrate the community’s desire for greater strategic coordination and cooperation.

Just who gives them the right for such a mission is uncertain. Let’s just say they abrogated that right for themselves as a group of well-meaning oligarchs, a sort of secular sanhedrin. But more on this later.

Mick Davis is, therefore, a wealthy man who wants to help Israel and the Jewish community in Britain. The UJIA is a charity and, I presume, its trustees appoint its leader rather like the BBC appoints its Director General. Remember that Davis is also one of the aforementioned ‘oligarchs’.

At the now infamous meeting Davis is reported to have said the following:

1. If you try to characterise the leadership of the Jewish community…you would probably find most of them are left of centre in thinking about Israel, that they strongly support a two-state solution, they are worried about the rights of minorities.

Not too controversial, except it is an opinion not backed up by any direct evidence that I am aware of. He is probably right as he knows many of the leaders of the community but he is already overreaching here in claiming opinion as fact.

2. I think you have a left of centre leadership with a genuine concern about minority issues, concerned about the moral dilemmas that we face, concerned about where Israel goes, but it’s a leadership which has never, ever spoken up publicly about that.

Not to mince words, he is saying that the leadership, which he again claims to know, are troubled by many of Israel’s actions and ‘minority issues’, which presumably refers to Israeli Arabs and, perhaps, Palestinians. He says the ‘we’ face moral dilemmas. By ‘we’ I assume he means British Jewry and I assume the moral dilemmas are, as he appears to imply, the occasions when Israel acts in a way that he/the leadership do not agree with but feel constrained not to speak up against.

Of course, this implies that he and the Jewish leadership, nay, the Jewish community has the right to speak up; and if it has that right, it has a moral duty to express disagreement.

This is one of the points which has caused most controversy and debate. I shall return to this later, too.

3. Additional building on settlements, or the bulldozing of houses of people in circumstances which just doesn’t seem to be morally conscionable… forcing non-Jews to take an oath about the nature of the Jewish state…the fact that many Arab Israelis live in circumstances of extreme poverty – that is not to say some Jewish Israelis don’t either – and have a second class service delivery from the state.

Well now the genii is truly out of the bottle. Davis has here done the unthinkable and directly criticised a number of policies both of the present Israeli government and previous governments. House demolitions and so-called settlements are not just the province of this current government, but are on-going policies stretching back decades. The oath of allegiance issue is definitely a policy of the present government whilst Arab poverty and second-class citizenship accusations are a statement of concern about the nature of Israeli society.

Davis’s line here, having established the left-leaning credentials of the leadership, is now aligning worryingly with the rhetoric of the far Left. Although none of the issues he names can or should be denied, they are all mentioned without context.

To berate Israel for the ‘additional building on settlements’ is the Obama line. It fails to spot the fact that before Obama made settlements a grand excuse for the Palestinians to avoid talks, they had never in any previous negotiations, even with Arafat, been seen as an impediment to peace.

I have never liked bulldozing homes because they were once or are the family home of a terrorist. I have no choice but to agree with Davis on this one.

The oath of allegiance also troubled me. That is, until new Jewish citizens were included in the bill. The oath is one of those Israeli specialities, creating problems where there is no need. The Israeli constitution is clear on the nature of the state. I see no reason for anyone to do any other than swear allegiance to the State of Israel and its constitution. Expressing the Jewish nature of the state in such an oath is redundant and just gives food for enemies to chew on. Yet, it is a minor issue.

Why does Davis say that Israel is ‘forcing’ non-Jews to take the oath which is a further misrepresentation of the facts. The oath is intended for all NEW citizens and no-one is forcing them to become Israelis. In the US new citizens give their allegiance to the flag, the constitution and American values. Where’s the difference?

The issue of Arab ‘extreme’ poverty whilst acknowledging there is Jewish poverty, is a strange one for me. I agree there are inequities and many of these are cultural and historical but there are many wonderful examples of Arab integration and success.

What is most egregious about this is that it ignores the fact that Israeli Arabs are, in general, better off than their counterparts in the surrounding countries. I see no issue with the UJIA joining in efforts to raise the status, education and medical well-being of Israel’s Arab population but Davis makes it sound as if the situation is deliberate and one of neglect. It’s a context-free zone, the sort of easy point-scoring that Israel’s enemies are only too happy to use against it. And how does he measure ‘extreme’ poverty?

4. Those are issues that ideally we would like to talk about…but you are fearful of doing that, because you then suddenly say: ‘Well, is it possible that those things will get picked up and woven into the debate of the delegitimisers and present a platform from which they then grow in strength?’

Well, not quite. It depends how you address the issues or perhaps, whether they are actually any of your business. Which is also a question arising from this whole debate. The question is: is it possible to have a free and frank discussion on Israel’s shortcomings in a climate of delegitimisation and demonization? Here’s the moral dilemma: if you believe you are morally obliged as a member of the British Jewish community to speak out against perceived injustices, how to you square that with the fact that, (and especially if you are a communal leader, self-appointed or otherwise), your words can be used as ammunition to denigrate Israel?

Some have questioned that anyone in the Diaspora has any right at all to criticise Israel.

5. In Europe, and this country in particular, there is a strong sense amongst the leadership, and I guess most of the community, that there is a concerted effort to delegitimise the state. Not to attack Israel’s policies, but actually question whether the state as a Jewish state should exist.

Precisely. And that’s why, maybe, as a community leader, you should be a bit more circumspect when it comes to contextualising perceived inequities in Israeli society or government policies. Or maybe not?

Where Davis drew most flak was a direct criticism of Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu.

6. I object to the fact that Netanyahu hasn’t got the courage to take the steps that he would like to take. I think he would like to be seen as the person who makes the great advance…He is a prisoner of the past and a prisoner of the circumstances that he finds himself in. I don’t understand the lack of strategy in Israel.

Some commentators have leapt to Bibi’s defence citing his army service in response to accusations of physical courage. This is a ludicrous response. Davis was talking about moral courage, not physical courage. But this doesn’t make Davis right. What steps does he think Bibi wants to make? What is the great advance? Why does Davis imply here that lack of progress in peace negotiations is due to Netanyahu’s lack of courage? Is he suggesting that he is in thrall to the religious right over settlements? What lack of strategy? The strategy to defeat its enemies and not give in to pressure from the United States to commit suicide, perhaps.

It is at this point that any sympathy for Davis’s position begins to erode, if you have any, that is. What does a philanthropist know about what it is like to make day to day decisions as the Israeli Prime Minister? I think he is wrong about Bibi. I’m not a fan of this current Israeli government but it seems to me Netanyahu has walked a difficult line between appeasing an aggressive and frankly stupid US administration and holding together his coalition.

Davis, in apparently holding Bibi to account for failure to move the peace process forward, completely ignores the real culprits: the Palestinian Authority lead by Mahmoud Abbas which has been greatly assisted by Obama’s naivety in maintaining the long tradition of Palestinian rejectionism.

And now we come to the really bad bit.

7. If… the world community no longer believes that a two-state solution is possible, we de facto become an apartheid state because we then have the majority who are going to be governed by the minority.

Israel is not today an apartheid state… Even though we have things that are entirely offensive to us passed in the Knesset, those things come from tactical issues rather than from anything else and do not represent the mainstream of Israeli society. We still have wonderfully fertile ground to build the moral nation that we want to have.

First, what’s with the ‘we’? Davis is not an Israeli.

Second, to use the apartheid analogy, even for a putative future situation, and even immediately correcting this by saying Israel is not ‘currently’ an apartheid state, is to use the language of every Israel-hater, every Hamas apologist and every Guardianista left-wing anti-Zionist. No Jewish leader should place the words ‘apartheid’ and ‘Israel’’ in the same sentence let alone a South African of an age to know better.

There are so many things wrong with this whole statement. What Davis is saying is that if there is to be no two-state solution, then Israeli Jews will inevitably become a minority west of the Jordan. However, this ignores the fact that Israel has not annexed the West Bank and is increasingly handing over responsibility for its administration to the PA.

Furthermore, why does minority rule have to equate to apartheid? Apartheid is surely something quite different from simply a minority group ruling a larger one. And in any case, how would this come about? I don’t recall a single Israeli administration ever arguing for an annexation of the West bank.

Apparently Davis is using the royal ‘we’ when he says “we have things that are entirely offensive to us passed in the Knesset”. So what? Why does the Knesset have to avoid offence to Davis?

Then another truly unforgiveable utterance:

8. We still have wonderfully fertile ground to build the moral nation that we want to have.

So Israel is not a moral nation and he and the JLC will put Israel on the path of righteousness. The chutzpah of the man. Considering its history and its genocidal neighbours, Israel is more moral than it has any right to be.

We now come to another statement that really put the backs  up of many in the community and outside:

9: I think the government of Israel …have to recognise that their actions directly impact on me as a Jew living in London. When they do good things it is good for me, when they do bad things, it’s bad for me. And the impact on me is as significant as it is on Jews living in Israel… I want them to recognise that.

What! Ok, it is true that Israel’s actions can directly impact me as a Jew living in the UK. During Cast Lead and after the Mavi Marmara incident, as I walked to the synagogue on Saturday morning, I felt a little more vulnerable than at other times. But why? Simply because I am aware that anti-Semites will find little excuse to attack Jews. Did I blame Israel? Not in the slightest. Why should I blame Israel for the anti-Semitism of others?

So why should Davis outrageously state that Israel has to worry about his levels of comfort? Davis’s attitude is somewhat patronising toward Israel. He appears to be over-identifying. Again, more commentary from others later.

10: I think there is not only amongst young people but quite a few Jews in this country a desire to see a discussion take place which echoes views about Israel which address the current dilemmas, without wanting to at the same time be attacked and labelled as a self-hating Jew.

Well, here at  least, I can see that Davis is well aware of the controversial nature of what he just said and pre-empts the unthinking chorus of those that would label anyone who doesn’t agree with their particular viewpoint on Israel as a self-hating Jew. I would not accuse him of that; far from it. I would accuse him of being somewhat arrogant and tactless.

So there we have it. The ten utterances, the Davis version of aseret hadibrot.

The fallout from these ten utterances is instructive. It asks of us the following questions – in no particular order as they say on all the best TV talent shows.

1. Is it ever permissible for an Israel supporter in the Diaspora to criticise Israel, and if so, when? If Israelis can criticise, why not Diaspora Jews?

2. If it is permitted to criticise under certain circumstances, where is the lines to be drawn? I think this leads to a reductive argument which I’ll discuss later.

3. Is there a real schism in the Diaspora now, not only between left wing Jews such as those who join Jews for Justice for Palestinians or join flotillas to break the blockade of Gaza or who attack Israel in the columns and commentaries of the Guardian, but also in mainstream, conservative Jewry?

4. Are we splitting up along the fault line of the New Israel Fund and Jewish Voice for Peace and their ilk on one side who represent a left of center view and the right wing on the other who view the NIF with suspicion and accuse it of colluding with the enemy.

5. Why do we need, in the UK, the Board of Deputies, the United Synagogue, the Office of the Chief Rabbi, the Zionist Federation, the Jewish National Fund, the UJIA, regional Rep Councils, Habonim, Bnei Akiva, the Federation of Zionist Youth and the JLC and many other charities and community organisations, when there are in ganzen only 300,000 identifying Jews in the UK? Why are we led by rich oligarchs who are not elected, not accountable and seem to come from another era? Why do we have so many machers?

6. Why do those professing Zionism and great love of Israel and dedicate their lives to Israel not go and live there?

Isn’t it wonderful how one person and his remarks can cause such repercussions? Only in the Jewish community perhaps.

Let’s now look at the fallout and how it addresses some of these questions.

One of the first into the fray was Samuel Hayek, a fellow JLC member and chairman of the JNF. He was reported in the Jewish Chronicle as saying categorically that “diaspora Jews should never criticise Israel”

Jonathan Hoffman, vice-chair of the Zionist Federation and a fearless activist for Israel gathered a petition which criticised Mick Davis in the following terms:

Most of Mick Davis’ reported comments were either incoherent or indicative of a breathtaking lack of knowledge and understanding. To imply as he did that only the Left is concerned about minority issues is ludicrous, as is suggesting there is no strategy in Israel (is he even aware of Bibi’s speech at Bar Ilan in June 2009?) and suggesting that anything short of a Palestinian state amounts to “apartheid”.

…

But the crassest comment was to suggest that Netanyahu’s policies have as much impact on Davis – sitting in London – as on Jews in Israel . We were not aware that Hampstead is within target of Iranian or Hamas missiles, nor that its residents have to send their children to defend the Jewish State for three years. However much philanthropists give to Israel , it is a thriving democracy and they cannot buy political control, just as donors to Universities cannot buy academic control. We are not shareholders in Xstrata (the mining company which Davis heads). Are we entitled to a say in its policies? Of course not. If Davis wants to become an Israeli politician, he should start by making Aliya and voting.

And if Israel ’s policies make Davis uncomfortable at the golf club, let him acquire the knowledge and pride to defend a democracy under fire. If he is unwilling, he is not fit to be a communal leader and should resign (unfortunately he cannot be voted out as he was never elected in the first place).

Which in typical combative Hoffman mode is very much as I see it. But it also adds the accusation that those with money, or who raise a lot of it, are under an illusion that that gives them the right, sitting comfortably or uncomfortably, as they do in Blighty, to attempt to dictate policy to Israel.

Hoffman’s views were not, however, mirrored by his leader Harvey Rose who said he agreed with much of what Davis had said and added:

“How Israel is perceived in the UK has a direct bearing on our comfort levels in Britain. It troubles me that so many people place the blame entirely on Israel.”

Which I am still trying to decipher. But Rose, too it seems, believes that his comfort levels are as important as Israel’s survival. I would have expected a more forthright defence of Israel from the leader of the ZF. It appears that Mr Rose is on the left of the fault line that I and others see opening in the UK Jewish community.

Even Rose’s stalwart Manchester ZF leader, Joy Wolfe said:

I am reluctant to criticise a fellow Zionist leader. But I strongly disagree with his concern that what Israel does should take into account its impact on Jews outside of Israel. Israel has to do what is right for Israel

So not reluctant at all, Joy. Clearly, veterans in the community are used to having to take sides. Times are a-changing, it appears.

A more traditional view came from Brian Kerner, who used to have Davis’s job as reported by Simon Rocker in the JC:

although “broadly supportive” of Mr Davis’s views, he was against voicing them in public because “it’s only picked up by our enemies, distorted and used against us”.

This is, perhaps, the most hypocritical standpoint possible: ‘I agree with you but I admit it can hurt Israel, so keep shtum.’

It’s impossible to keep shtum in the 21st century as Wikileaks testifies. As I have already said that Davis’s words can be used by Israel’s enemies you would think I would agree with Kerner. My point is slightly different in that all of us who profess to support Israel, if we are to criticise at all, must contextualise that criticism in light of history and the ongoing existential struggle which is taking place right now.

I am somewhat attracted by the view that criticism can be left for later; now is the time to stand behind Israel, but there must be some point at which anyone would criticise, even Israel’s ‘best friends’.

This is the reductive argument I mentioned earlier. Let’s say someone says it is never permissible to criticise Israel, as Samuel Hayek has said. Let’s take an extreme case: a right-wing religious party takes control of Israel and begins to drive out Arabs from Israel and the West Bank. Now, before you start shouting at me, I don’t believe this would ever happen. I am just making a philosophical point. Surely, any real supporter of Israel and any Jew worth his moral salt would protest vigorously to change the policy of the Israeli government.

So by this reductive argument, we then imagine a slightly less worse case scenario. Would you criticise then? It reminds me of the so-called Ground Zero mosque argument which says that two blocks is too close. So what about two and half? Three? At what point would a mosque be permissible? And at what point would criticism be permissible? The answer is that if you allow for the extreme case, then surely, it is always permissible to criticise because it is impossible to draw any precise line beyond which it becomes wrong to do so.

Samuel Hayek again:

If diaspora Jews want to criticise Israel legitimately, there is one simple solution: make aliyah and express your views at the ballot box.

Yet Lord Janner says:

Sadly, in recent years, much has changed about Israeli society. Fundamental red lines are being crossed that threaten to undermine what many of us have worked so hard for. As a Jew and as a proud Zionist, this deeply troubles me.

I accept, of course, that all Jews should robustly and proudly defend the rights of Israel as a Jewish State, and that all Jews should celebrate Israel’s great achievements since 1948. I have always proudly spoken out for Israel over the many years of my communal …

service – and publicly defended her, when she has been under attack, whether in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and in the media, or even in the United Nations. And I shall continue to do so.

…

Sadly, I have recently seen actions by this Israeli Government which have departed from the high moral purpose enshrined in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, which I proudly remember my hero and friend David Ben-Gurion signing. I cannot be silent when I know of unequal treatment afforded to some of Israel’s minorities and when the pursuit of peace is being compromised by inaction.

…

Mick Davis has reminded us that our obligation is to speak out against injustice, even when it is extremely awkward and fraught to do so.

Of course, we have an equivalent obligation to defend Israel from its enemies.

If Israel loses the support of the West and becomes a besieged State, that will not only be serious and damaging for Israelis, but for all Jews. Our destinies are linked.

I would ask Israeli ministers to listen to the convictions of those Diaspora Jews who love Israel, such as myself and Mick Davis.

By expressing our heartfelt convictions, we put before the public the views of many fellow Jews and Zionists, whether they are in Israel or in the Diaspora.

So Lord Janner agrees with Mick. And his is a powerful argument, no?

So we have had petition and counter-petition. Some want Davis to go, others support him and it doesn’t just divide down domestic political lines because Eric Moonman a Labour man like Lord Janner and also a co-President of the ZF, disagrees with Davis and says he should step down.

Melanie Phillips writing in the JC this week says that Davis has the right to free speech but believes he is ‘tragically’ wrong.:

Because, instead of truthfully identifying the cause of the conflict as Arab intransigence and genocidal hatred, they parrot the Israel-bashers’ false claim that the impasse is really Israel’s fault.

Bamboozled by the bullying, they cannot see that the received wisdom is actually a certain route to injustice, genocide and war.

Yet this only covers part of what Davis was saying. His main point, surely, is that there are injustices in Israeli society and he feels morally bound to speak against them.

Lord Kalms does not believe that Jews do not speak out against Israel:

It is simply not the case that British Jews do not speak out about their concerns relating to Israel. Every week across the national and Jewish press, in synagogues and community meetings, the widest imaginable (and often unimaginable) range of views are expressed. They run the gamut of opinions, from the most security-focused Likud sympathiser to those Jews who devote every waking hour to ending the existence of the Jewish state.

If his general points are off the mark, then Mr Davis’s specifics are no nearer to it. It is nonsense to claim that leaders did not speak out against the ‘loyalty-oath’. The UK media, like the Israeli media, was replete with people speaking out against such a ludicrous and repugnant idea….

There are many criticisms that can be made of the Israeli Prime Minister, as of any politician, but the claim that he lacks ‘courage’ is preposterous. His political and military career suggest otherwise.

What he lacks, like his predecessors, is a sincere and capable negotiating partner. The facts of this situation may have been lost on Mr Davis, but the significance of his comments will certainly not be lost on our mutual antagonists.

If someone is going to declare themselves a leader, then they have to take on the responsibilities which such a role brings. First among them is the responsibility to speak the truth. Mr Davis has not done that. He has entrenched lies. No more obvious example could exist than the fact that he has taken up the obscene language of ‘apartheid’.

To even start to talk in this language, as Mr Davis has done, dignifies a lie and eventually turns a lie into a possibility. This will give incalculable support to the most fevered haters of Israel.

Israel is no more going in the direction of apartheid than is Great Britain. But such terms have been created and chosen for a reason: to make Israel a state apart. Only Israel gets spoken about in this way. To join this, particularly as a ‘leader’, is to give an incalculable boon to those who wish to destroy Israel. It is to suggest that if they keep going long enough, continually raising the pitch of vilification, delegitimisation and exceptionalism, then eventually everybody will agree with them. At which point the debate can turn to the one they really want to have – how Israel can be ended.

Wow! I didn’t realise Lord Kalms was such a powerful writer.

So what is the view from Israel?

Quite interesting in fact.

Here’s none other than Tzipi Livni, a possible future Prime Minister, talking about the Diaspora as reported by the Jerusalem Post

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government has taken steps that have expedited the reportedly growing rift between Israel and liberal Diaspora Jews

She was about to set out on a tour of the US:

“The main idea of the trip is to open a dialogue with the Jewish Diaspora,” Livni said. “It’s been important to me for a long time, but it intensified over the past few months with the conversion controversy. It reinforced my belief that we cannot continue to deal only with ourselves when our efforts to define what it means for Israel to be the Jewish homeland and a democracy affect Jews all around the world.”

Livni said the conversion issue was not the only way the current government was alienating Diaspora Jewry. She also cited the lack of civil marriage, the lagging peace process and the deterioration of Israel’s image internationally.

“The Likud is supposed to be a liberal party, but it has sold out to the haredim on key issues,” she said. “Advancing the peace process is an Israeli interest and a Jewish one. It could help young people connect more at a time when Israel’s problematic image hurts their identity.”

…

“We need to get into dialogue that isn’t just telling Diaspora Jews to make aliya and support whatever the Israeli government does,” she said. “It has to be much deeper. We have to work on our common bond.”…

“The contribution of Diaspora Jews is not just money,” she said. “We must take their views into account on key issues when we make key decisions about Israel’s future.”

So here is a senior Israeli who think that the views of the Diaspora must be taken into account and that, surely, means taking on board criticism.

And finally weighing in against Davis is none other than the inestimable Isi Leibler in his blog piece “The de-Zionisation of Anglo Jewry”

First he has a go at the oligarchic aspects of Davis’s utterances:

[Davis] also heads a body known as the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) – essentially comprised of a group of wealthy British Jews and their acolytes who, by virtue of their financial largesse, assume a dominant influence on many levels of communal life. The power represented by their collective wealth enables them not to be accountable to anyone and few would dare question their policies.

I’m not sure they are that dominant actually. They just like to think they are.

Needless to say, Davis is fully entitled to say whatever comes to his mind. Nobody seeks to deprive him of freedom of expression.

Many Jews are critical of Israeli governments.

But for a person holding senior public office in a major Diaspora community to indulge in crude public attacks on Israeli leaders and relate to Israel’s security requirements in relation to their impact on his image in non-Jewish circles is surely bizarre and utterly unconscionable.

While occupying the role of chairman of the UIJA in a country in which hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism have reached record levels, Davis brazenly incites his fellow Jews to criticize Israel.

Incites? A bit strong. Leibler is saying community leaders have a duty of care because defence of Israel is far more important than petty criticisms.

And then back to the fact he is wealthy which seems to disqualify him from having an opinion:

Aside from implying that Israel is responsible for the anti-Semitism he is encountering, Davis is effectively warning that when considering defense issues which may have life-or-death implications for Israelis, the government must be sure not to create problems for him in his non- Jewish social circles. From his London mansion, he blithely brushes aside suicide bombers, rockets launched against our children and the threat of nuclear annihilation because his gentile friends might complain about the behavior of his Israeli friends.

On Jewish leadership in Britain today:

One of their leaders actually wrote in The Jerusalem Post, proudly boasting how their pro-Israel advocacy approach was based on “whispering” rather than “shouting.”

We’ve covered this ground already:

Today, by lacking the courage to challenge the propriety of one of its most senior “leaders” indulging in coarse public condemnations of Israel, the trembling Israelite establishment has further undermined the standing of the UK Jewish community.

But it has challenged him, as we have seen above.

One might ask what right Isi Leibler has to comment on the statements of Jews in the Diaspora if the opposite is disallowed.

As you can probably tell, I am mightily confused by all this. But one thing I’m sure of is that internecine arguments must quickly be scotched so we can get on with the more important work of doing our utmost to fight in Israel’s corner.

Should we criticise? We are accused as a community by many of ‘whispering’ and not ‘shouting’ but it appears we can only shout positive things, according to some.

In the end, it comes down to your world view and to a large extent that world view is coloured by your politics; left, right, center. And that is true in Israel as it is in the Diaspora.

I have often felt as Leibler and others that if you are so passionate about Israel you should make aliya and move there. So many community leaders strutting their Zionist credentials like peacocks, yet never having the guts to go and be a Zionist in Israel. And that includes me (not that I am a community leader), of course. I have my excuses and they have theirs.

If all Jews are exiles waiting to return and part of the Jewish people, does that not give them, as Tzipi Livni believes, the right to speak up, to debate and discuss, the right to let their views and criticism be known?

If the Diaspora is silenced because we don’t have the fervour to become Israelis, if we are silenced because we are made to feel like traitors, will that not lead to a further deepening of the schism that is appearing in all countries of the West that have a substantial Jewish population? Israel stands for democracy and freedom of speech. Why should it deny it to me because I live in the UK?

No-one is denying the right to speak, but there is a strong argument to temper criticism because Israel’s enemies leave us with little or no room for it. There is a bigger picture and a more pressing cause.

I don’t really have any answers. I can see both points of view on many of the issues.

Davis’s error was to make these remarks in the way he did and to abrogate to himself an importance he does not have.

Nevertheless, he does represent, or at least voice, a growing trend in British Jewish circles and this may well lead, as Isi Leibler says, to the de-Zionisation of Britain.

And, if it does become too uncomfortable in the UK, not because of Israel, but because of Jew-hatred, then maybe Mick and I will find ourselves on the same plane to Tel Aviv.

[Photo of Mick Davis – Jewish Chronicle]

UN subverted to deny gay rights

30/11/2010 / / 0 Comments

This was brought to my attention by reading OyVaGoy (Chas Newkey-Burden) about a week ago. Whose side are you on?

This week the United Nations voted to remove a reference to sexual orientation from its resolution against extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

So the United Nations is now effectively saying it is acceptable to execute men or women because of their sexuality. This is more than a symbolic development, given that 76 countries around the world criminalize homosexuality and five consider it an executable offence.

Among those that voted for the removal were: China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

Among those that voted against were: Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, all of Europe including the United Kingdom, United States and…Israel.

So it appears that the UN is bowing to pressure from the Islamic world to align with its own homophobia.

And one of the countries, as Chas points out, and the only one in the region who will have no truck with this stance is democratic, free Israel which has gay rights even though many of its religious citizens are uncomfortable with overt gay public demonstrations of their sexuality.

The moral failure of churches and the UN towards the persecution of Christians in the Middle East

30/11/2010 / / 0 Comments

Recently, the Methodists in the UK passed a resolution to promote the boycotting of goods from what it considers illegal settlements on the West Bank/Judea Samaria.

It did so because, as I have previously reported:

The decision is a response to a call from a group of Palestinian Christians, a growing number of Jewish organisations, both inside Israel and worldwide, and the World Council of Churches. A majority of governments recognise the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories as illegitimate under international law.

In my article I cited the systematic persecution of Christians among Israel’s neighbours whilst Israel’s Christian population is growing.

Now the Hudson New York has an article by Khaled Abu Toameh entitled Muslim Genocide of Christians Throughout Middle East.

Genocide is a strong word. Let’s see what he has to say:

It is obvious by now that the Christians in the Middle East are an “endangered species.”

Christians in Arab countries are no longer being persecuted; they are now being slaughtered and driven out of their homes and lands.

So what is the world doing about it? What is the evidence?

Those who for many years turned a blind eye to complaints about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East now owe the victims an apology. Now it is clear to all that these complaints were not “Jewish propaganda.”

The war of genocide against Christians in the Middle East can no longer be treated as an “internal affair” of Iraq or Egypt or the Palestinians. What the West needs to understand is that radical Islam has declared jihad not only against Jews, but also against Christians.

This, surely, is a vital point. So many commentators are fixated on the Israel/Palestine issue as being the fountainhead of all Islamic fundamentalism. If only the Israelis would give the Palestinians everything they want, the argument goes, the Islamists would desist from their terror attacks. In other words, it’s the Jews’ fault.

In Iraq, Egypt and the Palestinian territories, Christians are being targeted almost on a daily basis by Muslim fundamentalists and secular dictators.

What! In the Palestinian territories? Does he mean Hamas? Does he mean Fatah? But, according to the Methodists, it’s the Jews, stupid.

Dozens of Arab Christians in Iraq have been killed in recent months in what seems to be well-planned campaign to drive them out of the country. Many Christian families have already begun fleeing Iraq out of fear for their lives.

Indeed, and this has been reported, but it’s almost a sub-text with a shrug of the shoulders, as if to say, ‘what do you expect, fundamentalist elements are to blame in a volatile situation.’ Of course, the West does not want to have to face the fact that it has been Frankenstein to a new Iraqi monster, replacing Saddam with Al Qaeda at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

In Egypt, the plight of the Coptic Christian minority appears to be worsening. Just this week, the Egyptian security forces killed a Coptic Christian man and wounded scores of others who were protesting against the government’s intention to demolish a Christian-owned structure.

Hardly a day passes without reports of violence against members of the Coptic Christian community in various parts of Egypt. Most of the attacks are carried out by Muslim fundamentalists.

Had this been, Israel the calls for boycott and sanction in the UN would be deafening, but the world does nothing. As Toameh says, they see it as an ‘internal’ affair whereas if an Israeli sneezes on a Palestinian, it’s reported round the world in minutes and 150 UN bodies are convened to condemn the murderous Israelis using germ warfare.

Some of the Egyptian fury against its ancient Coptic community is fuelled by unfounded, paranoid and extremist rumours. It’s as if certain elements want to believe them as an excuse for their actions. A similar pattern can be found in Israel with unfounded and, frankly ludicrous, accusations of Israeli actions against the Al Aqsa fuelling riots and civil unrest. Even today I read on the Elder of Ziyon about the ‘Latest nefarious Zionist plot to “storm” the Temple Mount’.
Back to Toameh:

According to the Barnabas Fund, an advocacy and charitable organization based in the United Kingdom, “Fears for the safety of Egyptian Christians are growing after a series of false allegations, violent threats and mass demonstrations against Christians in Egypt.”

Muslim anger was ignited by unfounded accusations that Egyptian Christians were aligned with Israel and stockpiling weapons in preparation for war against Muslims.

As Toameh, himself a Palestinian, points out, this pattern is also prevalent in the Territories which the world wants as future Palestine.

Last week, the Western-funded Palestinian Authority in the West Bank arrested a Christian journalist who reported about differences between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and senior Fatah operative Mohammed Dahlan. The journalist, George Qanawati, manager of Radio Bethlehem 2000, was freed five days later.

In the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, the tiny Christian community is also living in fear following a spate of attacks by radical Islamic groups.

What would a future Palestine look like? No Jews, no Christians? And who is it in the Middle East that is constantly criticised for being an ‘Apartheid state’, of oppressing minorities and restricting access to religious sites? Why, Israel, of course. Except in Israel’s cases these are always lies or distortions. What excuses to Egypt and other Middle East countries have for Christian persecution?

All this is echoed in an article written on Cif Watch “.. then the Sunday People”:

There is an Arab saying, “First the Saturday people and then the Sunday people,” which is often heard chanted at anti-Israel rallies organised by the PLO/PA.  This is commonly held to refer to the deliberate eradication by Islamic regimes, everywhere they take root, first of Jewish and then of Christian kufar who refuse to convert to Islam.

Bataween, editor of “Point of No Return”, a blog mainly dedicated to creating awareness about the plight of Jews in Arab countries, informs us that Jews have almost been wiped out in Muslim countries (see also here).  The “Saturday people” have been almost completely eradicated.  Consequently – there now being very few Jews in Muslim countries – it would seem that Egyptian Muslim agressors [sic] are earnestly engaged in a murderous enactment of the second part of the saying.

I highly recommend your read this article in full.

How shameful is it when the UN is so fixated on Israel, mainly because of the influence of a built-in Muslim majority in many of its bodies, and does nothing about Christians.

How cowardly and shameful is it that the numerous churches around the world appear to sit on their hands when it comes to Christian persecution, unless it perceives Jews as the persecutors.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Ray Cook – As I See It

Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑