Sunday, April 12, 2015

Which British Political Party is the most anti-semitic?

In response to claims before the European elections in 2014 that Jewish voters must not vote for UKIP since it was 'antisemitic' I produced a summary of the extent to which antisemitism is rampant in all the main stream parties (and note that I consider anti-Zionism as an example of antisemitism) awarding a number of Arafats (rather than stars) to each (where in the spirit of Debbie Schlussel, 5 Arafats is the worse possible). Here is an update of that summary. (Further Update: UK Pro-jihad Muslim group boasts: “negotiating with Tory & Labour leadership”and note that Baroness Warsi is part of the gig).

The Labour Party
"due to pressure that had been placed on the courts by .. Jewish friends who own newspapers and TV channels". He added: "My case became more critical because I went to Gaza to support Palestinians", something that these Jews "opposed".
Over a third of its MPs in Parliament (i.e. with real power unlike UKIP) are committed to the total destruction of Israel and actively push for a total boycott of Israel to achieve this aim. These MPs include the likes of:
  • Paul Flynn who accused Britain's first Jewish ambassador to Israel of having 'divided loyalties'; 
  • Martin Linton,  who spoke about the "long tentacles of Israel" reaching into British politics; 
  • Gerald Kaufman who stated that "Just as Lord Ashcroft owns most of the Conservative Party, right-wing Jewish millionaires own the rest," and said "Here we are, the Jews again" when pro-Israel MP Louise Ellman rose to speak in the Commons;
  • Jeremy Corbyn, Sadiq Khan, and Andy Slaughter (the latter who even holds the position of Shadow Justice Minister) who not only campaign obsessively for the destruction of Israel, but have a long history of support for Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists, and they have all shared platforms with members of terrorist organisations, and notorious anti-Semitic, homophobic Islamists.
  • Former Foreign Minister Jack Straw who claimed that "Unlimited Jewish funds control US policy, and block Mideast peace" while also demanding respect and sympathy for the aspirations of the Islamic Republic of Iran
  • Shabana Mahmood who in 2014 led a fanatical mob of anti-Israel demonstrators who forced the closure of a Sainsbury's store in Birmingham for selling Israeli produce.
  • John Prescott who in 2014 compared Israel to Nazi Germany.
The above is just the tip of the iceberg. The Labour Party has hundreds of elected local councillors and thousands of grass-root members whose antisemitism is channelled into their obsessive hatred of Israel and their belief in an international Zionist conspiracy.

The Conservative Party
The ambivalent, and at times openly hostile attitude of the Cameron government to Israel has been extensively catalogued on this blog (where I have argued it is the most anti-Israel government since Ted Heath - another conservative antisemite - was PM in 1973). This includes:
  • Taking the lead in the EU initiative to boycott Israeli goods from the "occupied territories"
  • Selling arms to just about every despotic Arab state yet maintaining an arms embargo against Israel.
  • Taking the unprecedented steps of expelling Israeli diplomats from the UK 'in retaliation' for the death of a Hamas terrorist in Dubai that was never proved to have any Israeli involvement. 
  • Threatening to break off all diplomatic relations with Israel because Israel had the audacity to issue planning permits for building new homes in its capital city.
  • Taking the lead in condemning Israel for defending itself against terrorist attacks. Cameron also voiced the most bitter and irrational condemnation of any world leader after the Gaza Turkish flotilla fiasco.
  • Taking the lead in vicious condemnation of Israel for daring to build anywhere in its 'settlements'
  • The appointment of William Hague - the most anti-Israel Foreign Secretary in living memory; a man seemingly obsessed with Israeli 'aggression' and 'settlements', since he was rarely heard to speak about anything else.
  • Massively increased funding for the 'Palestinians' which has been proven to have been widely used to directly fund terrorism and antisemitic incitement; requests to investigate this funding have been continually ignored (the standard response I have received from politicians is that withdrawing this funding will lead to increased terrorism!)
  • Britain taking the lead in the EU in 'lawfare' against Israelis and Israeli owned businesses. Leading Israeli politicians (including even Tzippi Livni) and military leaders continue to be stopped from entering the country for fear of arrest under the 'Universal Jurisdiction' law that has been applied only to Israelis on trumped up charges by the antisemites of the Palestine Solidarity Committee. Cameron promised he would stop this happening but, despite claims that the law has been changed, it has failed to make any difference
  • A number of trials in which the defendants who have admitted to physical attacks and destruction of Israeli owned businesses have been found not guilty and even been praised by judges for their heroic activism. (Update: see amie's comment below about the Government having no power over judges, but note that not a single Conservative MP has publicly expressed any condemnation of this and indeed there have now been numerous cases where violent 'anti-Israel' demonstrators have been let off on the basis of being merely 'political protesters').
  • The introduction of policing policies which enabled anti-Israel 'demonstrators' in 2010, 2012 and 2014 to run riot in the streets of London attacking what they believed were Jewish owned businesses as well as Jewish counter demonstrators without fear of arrest (in fact the policy was instead to focus police manpower on confining the smaller numbers of peaceful pro-Israel demonstrators); 
  • The introduction of policing policies which enable anti-Israel 'demonstrators' to violently disrupt every public event (without fear of arrest or prosecution) in which an Israeli appears
  • An environment of such increased hostility to Israel in all walks of life that the campaign to boycott and deligitimize Israel and to equate Israel with apartheid are more firmly in the main stream than any other country in Europe.
  • The appointment of the anti-Israel Muslim supremacist Baroness Warsi to multiple positions of authority, which has resulted in many negative ramifications for Britain's Jewish community.
  • The banning from the UK of American bloggers for being 'too pro-Israel' and hence 'likely to antagonise Muslims'. At the same time antisemitic Muslim hate preachers are allowed in all the time.
  • The introduction of laws on 'hate speech' that have been primarily used to silence the voices of those who highlight the dangers of Islamic terrorism. In April 2015 they even promised that 'Islamaphobic attacks' (the bulk of which appear to be comments and articles on the web complaining about Islamic terrorists) will become a specific 'hate crime' under new legislation if they are re-elected.
  • The refusal to replace - or even reprimand - the openly Hamas supporting Consul-General in Jerusalem Alastair McPhail (Britain's highest ranking official in the Middle East).
Remember also that Cameron - before he was elected - actually tried to establish his 'pro-Muslim' credentials by bragging:
 ‘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,’ he says. ‘The Foreign Office bod who was with me said most ministers don’t dare say [that].’
And to prove that he meant it one of his first appointments in Office was Simon Fraser as the new head of the Foreign Office. Fraser had been sacked from his job in the last Conservative Government under John Major for cohabiting with an official of the PLO (which at the time was still officially designated as a terrorist organisation). 

There are many current and former members of the Conservative party in parliament and the House of Lords who share the same obsessive 'Zionist conspiracy', anti-Israel world views of their Labour colleagues. In addition to Baroness Warsi, these include people like David Mellor who has a long record of antisemitism cloaked in 'anti-Israel' rhetoric and who recently described Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich as an 'Israel-obsessed Russian' and Chris Patten the anti-Israel campaigner who also happens to be the Chairman of the anti-Israel BBC.  There are also many good old-fashioned antisemite Conservative MPs like Patrick Mercer who was caught on camera describing a female Israeli soldier as a “bloody Jew” in 2013. And there are MPs like Aidan Burley who hosted a Nazi-themed stag party (although as one commenter points below out he is not an antisemite). And then we have the openly antisemitic Islamist Conservative politicians like Gulzabeen Afsal, a Tory council candidate in Derby who wrote in Arabic (about Ed Miliband): “Nah bro! never ever will I drop that low and support the al yahud [Arabic for Jew] lol.” 

The LibDem Party
While Labour's Ken Livingstone may be the most well-know main stream antisemitic politician, he is not the most antisemitic. That honour goes to Baroness Jenny Tonge who is so committed to the belief in a world-wide Zionist conspiracy that she is convinced that Israel steals the organs of disaster victims all around the world. She also famously expressed a desire to murder Israeli civilians as a suicide bomber. Yet Tonge is very popular in the LibDem party because her world view is shared by others MPs and most of the Party's grass-roots activists. She is not even the most senior LibDem to demand the destruction of the State of Israel since that is the wish and policy of none other than the Deputy Leader Simon Hughes, and there are few MPs more viciously antisemitic than David Ward, who equates Israel with the Nazis and who tweets about the power of the Jewish Board of Deputies. Not surprising therefore that the LibDems officially promote the campaign to boycott Israel.


The Green Party

While the Green Party attracts support from harmless (but brainless) environmentalists, there is no longer any dispute that antisemitic anti-Zionism is one of the core defining features of Green Party politicians in the UK. Comprehensive evidence of this can be found in this report. The Green Party is represented in Parliament by the MP and fanatical Israel-hater Caroline Lucas. She is not only one of the most active campaigners of the "Israeli apartheid" lie, but she has blamed Israel for most of the world’s problems, including bizarrely the Mumbai terrorist attack of 2008 in which Pakistani Muslims massacred nearly 200 people including the Chabad Rabbi and his wife. Not content with the Party's official and total boycott of Israel, Lucas also supports violent action against Israeli interests in the UK
A former member of the Green Party has explained in detail the extent to which the Party is  institutionally anti-Semitic. Lucas is certainly not alone. The Greens deputy leader since 2014 is Shahrar Ali who, as can be seen from the report here, is an anti-Israel fanatic and Islamist. The Green Party is closely aligned with the antisemitic Palestine Solidarity Campaign and some of its leading activists (like the insane Deborah Fink) are now standing as Green Party candidates. The Green Party is also increasingly aligned with the antisemitic socialist-Muslim party Respect (see below) - during the 2010 General Election the Green Party stood down in favour of Respect candidates in Birmingham Sparkbrook and Manchester, Blackley and Broughton.

The Party (led by George Galloway) whose only three objectives are sharia law, socialism, and the destruction of Israel. Galloway's evangelical hatred of Israel is legendary, but he has plenty of competition in the Respect Party for the honour of being the most antisemitic. Yvonne Ridley (Respect's parliamentary candidate in the 2012 Rotherham by-election) said that "any Zionists in the Respect Party ... would be hunted down and kicked out. We have no time for Zionists." Many others in Respect have been less careful in saying "Zionist" when they meant "Jew".  Abul Hussain, a former member of Respect's national council, posted antisemitic comments on Facebook about "chopping off a Jewish person's sidelocks and confiscating their kippah". He also wrote about Jews, "Here's a penny go put it in the bank and [you] just might get a pound after ten years interest!".  Following her appointment as Respect's women's officer in Bradford in October 2012, it emerged that Naz Khan had recently commented on Facebook that "history teachers in our school" were and are "the first to start brainwashing us and our children into thinking the bad guy was Hitler. What have the Jews done good in this world??” Carole Swords, the chairwoman of the Respect Party in Tower Hamlets, was convicted for a public order offence after an assault on a Jewish man in 2011. Inside a Covent Garden Tesco Metro supermarket she had struck him in the face while he was protecting Israeli goods from unlawful damage (a subsequent appeal cleared her of the offence). At one rally she described Zionists as "cockroachs ... bugs [which] need to be stomped out" and at a different rally, Swords had told a Jewish protester to "go back to Russia"


SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party)
This party's attitude to Israel is even worse than the Greens. Its leader Nicola Sturgeon is a fanatical Israel hater who has been happy to share speaking platforms not just with Hamas members and supporters but also with open antisemites. To give a feel for its policies, in 2011 the SNP-led West Dunbartonshire Council banned all Israeli books from its libraries.


Welsh Nationalists  (Plaid Cymru)
All you need to know is that their leader is Leanne Wood who is actually a member and activist in the antisemitic Palestine Solidarity Campaign.


In 2014 after every major media outlet in the country spent months trawling through the background and social media activity of every one of the thousands of candidates and also tens of thousands of supporters of UKIP the 'antisemite' they managed to come up with was  Anna-Marie Crampton, a candidate in East Sussex, who apparently posted a blog article claiming that Zionists conspired with the Nazis to kill Jews in the Holocaust  (a viewpoint, incidentally, that is widely shared by leftists including some of the MPs cited above who continually equate Zionism with Nazism; it was also  the main claim of PA President Mohammed Abbas's doctoral thesis).  In fact, if you criticise someone on the left as being antisemitic for making the Zionist-Nazi collaboration claim you will be told that anti-Zionism has nothing to do with antisemitism. In fact, she told the party her account had been hacked and she was not responsible for the posts. Nevertheless, she was suspended from the party pending an investigation. If only the other main stream parties would take the same approach to their genuine and proud antisemites.
My owns views of UKIP, based on attending a meeting with Nigel Farage, are described here.


So there you have it....

Monday, April 06, 2015

UK media continue to ignore the elephants in the room

The massacre of nearly 150 Christian students in Kenya, who were separated from Muslim students  by their Muslim attackers before being slaughtered, was presented in British media headlines as a story of unspecified Africans militants killings unspecified African victims. Any media outlet presenting the story in any kind of detail, however, was unable to avoid the fact that this was a terrorist attack by Muslims targeting non-Muslims, so they had to be especially creative to ensure that Muslims were still seen in a positive light or even as victims (update: see Telegraph report below).

Typical of such a report was that by Lisa Holland on Sky News, which started with scenes of female students in hijabs comforting survivors. Holland then stated that the area that was targeted was one of the poorest parts of Kenya whose population was almost exclusively Muslim, without any explanation as to why so many Christian students were there and why they alone were singled out. She went on to explain that the 'militants' came from Somalia (even though survivors had already said that most were Kenyan Muslims and one was actually the son of a Kenyan government official) and that they were simply protesting the presence of Kenyan troops in Somalia. She ended with the obligatory reference to the poor local Muslims fearing a 'backlash'.

With the Kenyan massacre coming at the same time as numerous other stories of British Muslims joining (or attempting to join) ISIS, there was no shortage of discussion about terrorism on the TV and radio.  The notion that Muslims were again the real victims because of the potential 'backlash' was also propagated by the usual talking heads on these chat shows. The commentators on these shows also stated without exception the standard diatribe that the attackers not only had nothing to do with Islam but were actually anti-Islamic. This was inevitably followed up by talk of Western imperialism and support for Israel against the Palestinians as being 'root causes' of Muslim anger. And there were the absolutely obligatory statements about 'right wing extremism' being as great a threat as Islamic terrorism.

Just in case people do not understand that Muslims must always be classified as the real victims of Islamic terrorism, the Conservatives have promised that 'Islamaphobic attacks' (the bulk of which appear to be comments and articles on the web complaining about Islamic terrorists) will become a specific 'hate crime' under new legislation if they are re-elected. I can therefore look forward, no doubt, to being charged with such a hate crime for this posting if Cameron is re-elected.

Update: Compare the way even 'conservative' UK newspapers like the Telegraph reported the Kenya massacre with the reality below.

Muslim woman centre stage among victims. No mention of Muslim killers and Christian victims

Compare with photo of some of the murdered Christians. This appeared in an Indian newspaper but was curiously missing from all UK coverage, presumably because it neither shows Muslims in a positive light or as victims. Had there been a hijabed victim it would have been shown in every UK media outlet.

Wednesday, April 01, 2015

Southampton University's disgraceful statement on cancelling anti-Israel hatefest

Southampton University statement in summary:  
"We are sorry but we have had to cancel this excellent unbiased event due to threats from the Zionists"

Southampton University has cancelled the planned anti-Israel hatefest. That ought to be a cause for a small celebration. However, the statement the University has issued is a disgrace, and probably far more damaging than the planned conference itself would have been. It does not mention any of the multiple arguments explaining why the University should never have supported the event in the first place, but instead justifies the cancellation on the grounds of public safety, implying that the planned protest by those opposed to the event (i.e. 'Zionists') posed too great a risk to University personnel and visitors.

The University is effectively promoting the idea (already prominent in the main stream media and not just among Israel haters)  that threats from 'Zionists/Jews' have put a stop to free speech. But it is even worse. Instead of criticising the blatant bias and antisemitism of the organisers of the conference (almost every single one of the scheduled speakers was an advocate of boycotting Israel) , the statement goes out of its way to actually praise them and invert reality:
"The University ... has been impressed by the commitment of the organisers to include a broad spectrum of views, and indicated to the organisers that it will work with them to find a venue suitable for a conference of this nature at a later date."
The University's statement is a disgrace which compounds the original error of supporting such an event. It was issued on 1 April but sadly it was not a joke. It is now time to challenge the statement as hard as we challenged the conference.

Jeremy Bowen in new BBC interview surprise

Following Jeremy Bowen's cosy BBC interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal (in which they agreed that Israeli extremism ruled out the possibility of a two state solution) the BBC today released rare footage of Jeremy Bowen's fireside chat with Adolf Hitler in 1944.

In the interview Bowen asked about Mr Hitler's well-known vision of a post-war Germany in which Jews lived safely and prospered in all professions. When Mr Hitler pointed to recent acts of appalling Jewish extremism (such as their defiance during the Warsaw Ghetto destruction) Bowen agreed with Mr Hitler that, despite his best intentions, the Jews had ruled themselves out of playing any useful role in a future Germany.

See also: Pimping Hamas Propaganda: BBC's Bowen Blows Khaled Meshaal's Trumpet  

Sunday, March 22, 2015

The hypocrisy of Obama: when words matter

This is covered in depth at Israel Matzav.

There is a useful (but far from 'complete' as claimed) log of Obama's anti-Israel activities here.

Update: Great article by Daniel Greenfield.

Some previous relevant graphics:

Obama has Israel's back, Jan 2015

The Iran nuclear deal in leaked, 9 March 2015

The ongoing world war against the Jews, 19 Jan 2015

Obama's hypocrisy over civilian deaths

Obama's love affair with Palestinian terrorists, 2014

Obama: The future must not belong to those who insult Islam, 2013

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Haaretz bitter post-election coverage

Look at the titles of all five articles on the Haaretz newspaper website this morning (screenshot taken at 11.19am). And there are people who still claim that Haaretz is not an anti-Zionist paper.....

p.s. to Haaretz: if Israel is the racist apartheid state that every one of your journalists claims it to be, how comes the Arab List became the third biggest party in parliament?

Friday, March 13, 2015

Whose idea was it to have an anti-Zionist and a Muslim Brotherhood supporter put Israel's case to the Cambridge Union?

Jewish Chronicle, 13 March 2015: Note the words of student Alex Davis
Last week Cambridge University Union debated the motion "Israel is a rogue state". The motion passed easily (51% voted in favour, 19% against, and 30% abstained).That is both astonishing and depressing to Israel supporters. Of even more concern is the fact that, while the main speaker for the motion was the very experienced and obsessive anti-Israel propagandist Norman Finkelstein, the Israel 'case' was made by two people whose 'support' for Israel is at the very best ambivalent:
  1. Hannah Weisfeld, the leader of the anti-Zionist Yachad - which is still trying to con British Jews into thinking it is pro-Israel, even though all the evidence suggests that they fully support the motion that their leader was supposed to be arguing against.
  2. Vivien Wineman, the useless and discredited Chairman of the Board of Deputies who has devoted his leadership of the Board to developing ties with the Muslim Council of Britain (which is the official Muslim Brotherhood organisation in the UK) and to stopping pro-Israel speakers from coming to the UK.
It's a bit like choosing a Dalek and a Cyberman to make a toast to Doctor Who. And irrespective  of their views, Weisfeld and Wineman are also both appalling speakers as anybody who has had the misfortune to hear them will know. It is difficult to imagine a more striking example of how the so-called Jewish leadership in the UK is failing the vast majority of British Jews; unlike Weisfeld and Wineman they are strong supporters of Israel and know that failure to properly support Israel (and counter the propaganda lies against it) is fuelling the rise in antisemitism.

I really would like to know how either of these goons got selected to make the case for Israel. Was it the Cambridge University Jewish Society? Did nobody raise any concerns? The result of the debate (which interestingly was a complete reversal of a similar motion in 2010) shows what a bad decision it was. But don't take it from me. In the words of history student Alex Davis* who was there:
"Many Cambridge students felt frustrated by the inability of some of the speakers to argue effectively in defence of Israel"

These are desperate times for British Jewry. Wherever you look for leadership and support (the Board, the JLC, UJIA, and both Jewish newspapers) there is an increasing dominance by a small unrepresentative clique who are eager to throw Israel under the bus and appease her enemies. Even BICOM is not immune to this, while the ZF continues to be timid and reactive, rather than strong and proactive.

*Alex Davis has since written an article for the JC about the meeting - see comments on this article. I was certainly not impressed

See also:

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Another update to the story of Southampton University's anti-Semitic hatefest

As previously reported, the University of Southampton is funding a three-day event in April devoted to searching for ways to use international law to deny the world’s only Jewish state the right to exist (the ZF has a petition about it). David Collier has done a very thorough analysis of the speakers - it is even worse than most people originally imagined. Another excellent analysis of the speakers is here.

My friend has had a further response from the University. Below is that response and his follow-up.

Letter from Southampton University 10 March 2015


Thank you for your follow up email of 25 February, and I apologise for the delay in responding.

You have asked a number of questions, to which I hope to be able to respond.

On speakers, as I emailed on Friday, the programme for the conference showing speakers and titles of presentations is now on line. There have been a large number of other speakers who were approached to speak at the conference but who were unavailable or did not wish to participate.

On funding, the cost of the 3 day conference is approximately £49,000. This will be funded by a mixture of conference fees paid by attendees and by donations. Donations have been received by both individuals and organisations, and all donations for the conference will be approved in accordance with our Gift Acceptance Policy (as is the case for any donations to the University). Speakers are unpaid but do have their travel and subsistence costs covered. The University will not be providing direct funding to support the conference. However, academic staff in the School of Law do have access to administrative support staff available to them in carrying out their work, and a small element of this administrative support is being used to help with the organisation of this conference. I am sorry that I cannot give you an estimate for the cost of this support, but it is certainly small compared with the cost of the conference.

You mention that the University would not support an event that challenged the legitimacy of any one of the 58 Islamic States. I wanted to assure you that if a member of the University’s academic staff proposed an academic event on such a subject then it would be considered in exactly the same way as this conference, according to our Code of Practice for ensuring freedom of speech within the law.

I hope that this provides an answer to the questions you raised.

With best wishes

Gavin Costigan 

Follow up letter:

Dear Gavin

Thank you for your response.
Your comment about the speakers is curious. For the record there is not a single participant to put the case for the existence of Israel. In a detailed analysis here the author has noted that 80% of the speakers have PUBLICLY demanded a boycott of Israel. I believe that the other 20% can also be defined as anti-Israel.
Hence the idea – as the University continues to maintain – that somehow this conference will consider different and balanced views is palpable nonsense.  As I said in my original letter, this is an anti-Semitic hatefest masquerading as valid academic activity. You should be totally ashamed of yourselves. The University’s reputation is going to be severely damaged by this.

Finally, regarding the financing could you please clarify whether or not the organisers are paying the full commercial cost of conference and lecture room hire.


And for those who keep telling me anti-Zionism has nothing to do with anti-Semitism please see here.

UPDATE 18 March 2015: 

Monday, March 09, 2015

Exclusive (leaked from top negotiator): The Iran nuclear deal in full*

The P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union) hereby agree to the following
  • Allow Iran to develop as many nuclear bombs as they wish, providing that for the next 10 years they are used only for peace-keeping purposes.
  • Provide $200 billion in immediate assistance to help Iran develop nuclear reactors for peaceful energy use. This is urgently needed since Iran's natural energy reserves consist only of the second largest oil reserves in the world and the third largest gas reserves in the world. Without the alternative of nuclear energy, Iran's natural resources will run out in less than 23 million years, at which point it will be unable to meet the energy demands of its own population.
  • Immediately drop all sanctions against Iran, but with the strict condition that this will be reviewed - and could even be reversed - as early as May 2160 if Iran does not abide by the terms of the agreement.
  • Provide $100 billion in aid to support Iran's peaceful long-range missile programme and a further $50 billion in aid to support the beleaguered Iranian Revolutionary Guards fighting heroically to preserve democracy in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq and Yemen.
In response Iran commits to the following tough conditions for a minimum period of 2 months
  • Iran promises not to launch a nuclear bomb against any country, providing that country is recognised by the Islamic Republic of Iran. 
  • Iran promises to allow IAEA inspectors to stay in the best hotels in Iran. All requests to visit nuclear sites will be carefully considered by the Ayatollah and the Al Quds forces. 
  • Iran will telephone Valerie Jarrett every week to assure her of Iran's compliance with its commitments
  • Iran promises that once its embassies are reopened they will be used to educate the local population about the world Zionist threat and will also help eliminate local Zionists.
The P5+1 have also assured Iran that any attempt by any country with a Jewish majority to compromise this glorious deal, will be considered a crime against humanity and will result in comprehensive sanctions against that country.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, who last week ridiculed Benjamin Netanyahu's speech in Congress saying "demanding Iran's 'capitulation' is no way to secure nuclear deal"** has today confirmed that, the only way to secure the nuclear deal was for the USA and its partners to capitulate.

*satire but not much different to what is actually being negotiated
** Kerry really did say this

Saturday, March 07, 2015

Why you should not give a penny to Comic Relief

No matter how many times I warn people about this it seems they do not get it, so let me spell it out this time in very simple terms:
So, unless you are an antisemite or an international socialist, I am sure you can find many more deserving charities to give your hard-earned cash to than Comic Relief (just make sure it also is not any of these). It is always best to give direct to a specific charity whose work you know you want to help.

See also:

Friday, March 06, 2015

Update on the tax-payer funded antisemitic hatefest at Southampton University

See 10 March 2015 update here.

The University of Southampton is funding a three-day event in April devoted to searching for ways to use international law to deny the world’s only Jewish state the right to exist (the ZF has a petition about it). A friend of mine has written to the Vice Chancellor of the University (see correspondence below, which is very interesting). The latest update is that the programme for the event is now available and it is even worse than anybody could have imagined. There are 58 speakers and, contrary to what Southampton University said in response to my friend, every single one appears to be an anti-Israel activist (see the excellent Open Letter to University of Southampton).

1. Email sent 20 Feb 2015
Dear Professor Don Nutbeam

Can you please explain why the University of Southampton is funding a three-day event in April devoted to searching for ways to use international law to deny the world’s only Jewish state the right to exist? I am referring to this:

Are you aware that the member of your academic staff behind this event (Prof Oren Ben-Dor) actively supports well-known anti-Semites such as Gilad Atzmon and is in turn supported by former Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke who has praised Ben-Dor as “perhaps the bravest and clearest thinking person of Jewish descent in the world.”

You must surely be aware that the recent massive increase in anti-Semitism is being fuelled in part by lies and propaganda directed against the tiny Jewish State. I find it incomprehensible that, in such a climate, your University is actually funding such anti-Semitism under the ludicrous guise of academic debate.


2. Response 24 Feb 2015


Thank you for your email dated 20 February to the Vice-Chancellor concerning the conference on International Law and the State of Israel. Professor Nutbeam has asked me to reply on his behalf.

The University of Southampton is legally obliged under Section 43 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986, to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the University as well as for visiting speakers.

Our ordinances state that academic staff “have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, with due regard for the need to respect others and promote the best interests of the University and academic learning, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges.”

The title of this conference raises an important question, but the conference itself takes no explicit perspective, and academic contributions from all interested parties are most welcome. The conference is designed to have a multi-cultural emphasis, and speakers and delegates have been invited from all perspectives. Their participation has been actively encouraged in relation to the presentation of individual papers and the running of dedicated panel sessions.

Details about the conference can be found at:

Separately from the conference, this University is very proud to host the Parkes Institute, the world's oldest and most wide-ranging centre for the study of Jewish/non-Jewish relations across the ages. The Institute was founded by James Parkes, a tireless fighter against anti-Semitism, who transferred his extensive library and archive to the university in 1964. The Parkes Institute carries out a range of activities. As well as teaching at both undergraduate and postgraduate level, and an extensive research programme, the Institute has a rapidly developing outreach programme which includes adult education classes and cultural days, schools and colleges visits, as well as public seminars and lectures.

Our academic staff from Parkes - and across the university - have a range of education and research collaborations with colleagues in Israel.

Yours sincerely

Gavin Costigan

Gavin Costigan
Director of the Office of the Vice-Chancellor
University of Southampton
Room 4035, Building 37, Highfield Campus
Southampton SO17 1BJ

3. Second email sent 25 Feb 2015 

Dear Gavin

Thank you for your response.

Unfortunately, there is a fundamental and demonstrably obvious error in your response. You said
“The title of this conference raises an important question, but the conference itself takes no explicit perspective, and academic contributions from all interested parties are most welcome.”

The conference website very clearly contradicts this.
Whereas the title is ambiguous, the theme is not since in the opening paragraph it says
“(The conference) is unique because it concerns the legitimacy in International Law of the Jewish state of Israel.”
It then says
“The conference aims to explore the relatedness of the suffering and injustice in Palestine to the foundation and protection of a state of such nature and asks what role International Law should play in the situation.”

To suggest, as you do, that this takes “no explicit perspective” is an insult to my intelligence, since the perspective is very clearly one that rejects the legitimacy of the Jewish State – a view very forcibly and openly known to be held by BOTH of the listed academic organisers of the conference, as well as all the other academics on the Southampton Organizing committee. As the conference website STILL does not list any of the speakers how can you possibly know that “academic contributions from all interested parties are most welcome.”? Perhaps you can let me know of speakers who will be presenting the unequivocal case for Israel.

There are other aspects of your response that I find deeply insulting. By stressing your commitment to freedom of speech and academic freedom to raise controversial issues, you are clearly implying that I am somehow against these principles. In fact, I was asking why Southampton University was providing FUNDING support for an event that is clearly an anti-semitic hatefest of lies and propaganda under the cover of simply being just ‘anti-Zionist’. I recognise that  these people are perfectly entitled to hold their views and even run events using their own funding, but not that of a tax-payer funded institution. I would also like to point out that I suspect your University would not, for example, support an event that challenged the legitimacy of any one of the 58 Islamic States (including, for example, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which was only recognised by the UN in the same year as Israel). 

I was also insulted by your reference to the Parkes Institute – this actually reminded me of the classic “Some of my best friends are Jewish” response to complaints of anti-Semitic behaviour. What on earth is the relevance of the fact that Southampton has a research centre on “Jewish/non-Jewish relations” got to do with my complaint. The Parkes Centre clearly has no input or relationship to this conference, and I was not accusing the University of institutional anti-semitism. I was asking why it was funding a demonstrably political anti-semitic event under the ludicrous guise of academic debate. And you have not answered that question.

I would, of course, welcome Professor Nutbeam’s comments on the above points.
I would also like to know how much funding support (including the time of support staff) that  the University is providing for the conference.

Yours sincerely


4. Follow-up sent 2 March 2015

Dear Gavin

I was wondering if you or the V-C were going to respond to the attached follow-up letter I sent on 25 Feb.
If not I will be taking the matter up with the University Council.

Perhaps I need to stress that Professor Ben Dor’s fundraising letter asking to support the conference notes explicitly that the “conference is fully hosted, and supported by the University of Southampton. The university enables us to use its hospitality services, event organisation, marketing network and financial administration for the organisation, delivery, recording of the conference. It is a remarkable achievement in itself that such a conference will be help [sic] in UK academia.”

What I am asking for is the real cost of the above-stated University services.


5. Response 2 March 2015


Thank you for your email, and I do apologise in the delay in responding. We have received a number of queries about this conference and we are currently preparing answers to questions that you and others have raised.

I hope to be able to respond by the end of this week.

With best wishes

Gavin Costigan

6. Followup email 5 March 2015


While I await your response, I think it is important to know that I have learnt that one of the speakers is going to be Richard Falk, a former UN advisor whose career has been marked by outrageous claims and statements. These include:
  • Publishing an anti-Semitic cartoon, for which he was condemned by the US.
  • Promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories, for which he was condemned by Ban Ki-Moon
  • Describing Israel as 'genocidal,' for which he was condemned by Canada.
  • Blaming the Boston Marathon bombings on American foreign policy, specifically her relationship with Israel. This was not only condemned by the US and Ban Ki-Moon, but the British Foreign Office specifically described his comments as being anti-Semitic.


7. Response 6 March 2015

I am writing to let you know that I will not now be able to provide a full response to your email until Monday or Tuesday next week, for which apologies. However, you asked about speakers and I wanted to let you know that the conference programme is now on the website and can be found here:

I will respond more fully next week.

With best wishes

See 10 March 2015 update here.