Then this is how it would have been reported (if it was reported at all)....
Monday, June 29, 2015
Sunday, June 28, 2015
I have sent the following self-explanatory letter to the Innocent Foundation:
Concern about one of the charities (War on Want) supported by the Innocent Foundation
I regularly buy and enjoy your excellent fruit smoothies. I had never realised, until I studied a carton this evening, that 10% of your profits are given to charity. This can be a noble aim, and I checked the website www.innocentfoundation.org to see which charities benefited.
I was horrified to discover that one of the 'charities' was War on Want. This so-called 'charity' is in fact an extremist left-wing political organisation which is almost exclusively dedicated to the delegitimization and ultimate destruction of the State of Israel. In pursuit of this goal War on Want relies on lies, propaganda, bullying and antisemitism. In addition, one of War on Want's Council of Management members is Atif Choudhury who is a founder of the openly terrorist supporting organisation the International Solidarity Movement - an organisation which played a role in the suicide bombing of Mike's Place bar in Tel Aviv in 2003, by helping the two British-born Islamic terrorists Asif Muhammad Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif enter Israel. Two musicians and a waitress were among the dead in that attack. Further details of War on Want's activities can be found here:
I would very much appreciate answers to the following:
- Is the Innocent Foundation aware of the above facts about War on Want?
- Why did the Innocent Foundation give money to War on Want?
- Does the Innocent Foundation intend to give any further money to War on Want?
Obviously, until I receive confirmation that the answer to the last question at least is a definitive NO I will not be buying your products and will be advising other like-minded people not to do so.
I have no doubt that the Innocent Foundation will say (just as Comic Relief did) that the War on Want projects they have funded are unconnected with Israel. But how can they possibly know that War on Want did not use that money to subsidise its political campaign to deligitimize the Jewish State?. Its campaign against Israel has been almost the ONLY activity War on Want has undertaken in the last 5 years (as proven by the material I have previously provided). Every one of their employees spends almost 100% of their time on the campaign against Israel and it is therefore impossible that money from organisations like Innocent does not contribute to this.
It is also interesting to note that War on Want seems to get all of its funding not from members of the public who really want to fund it, but rather from other organisations (like the British Government, the EU, Comic Relief and Innocent) whose 'leaders' believe it is a cause that should be supported. Yet these 'leaders' are simply using money from consumers and tax payers who would never dream of donating to a bunch of freaks and bigots like War on Want. It's all very well to say that Innocent is being noble in donating 10% of its profits to such 'charities'; but that 10% all comes directly from consumers who buy their products and who have no say in how that profit is spent. If they were asked they may very well prefer that the price was lowered by 10%. Seems like Innocent is not much different from Lush.
Update August 2015:Confessions of an ISM member
Saturday, June 27, 2015
It seems like the only thing of concern to British Jews at the moment is next week's planned demonstration by a handful of neo-Nazis in Golders Green to "end the Zionist occupation of Britain". Never before has the community been so united.
While the people behind the demo are clearly despicable attention-seeking antisemites deliberately trying to provoke trouble, I am somewhat bemused as to why this tiny piece of antisemitic theatre has so grabbed the attention of the Jewish community. On almost every day of the week on the streets of the UK there are much better planned and coordinated displays of antisemitism that use exactly the same pretext as the one planned in Golders Green (i.e. 'ending the Zionist occupation'). Just look at the future events on websites of organisations like the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the Socialist Workers Party, the UK Boycott Israel Campaign, and the dozens of other trade unions and students associations. These events range from weekly (and even daily) protests against shops and businesses with any connection to Israel and those selling Israeli products through to protests to stop any Israeli performer from appearing or any person at all speaking in public in support of Israel. Often they are quite elaborate, lavishly funded pieces of real street theatre with the sole intention of convincing normal Brits that Israeli Jews are the most demonic and evil people in the world. Every one of these events has more antisemitic participants than the number likely to turn up in Golders Green. And, of course, these events pale into insignificance when compared to the daily mass (often violent) rallies of antisemitic hatred that fill the streets of London whenever Israel dares to defend itself from terrorist attacks.
What is common about all those antisemitic demonstrations (apart from the fact that they, like the Golders Green demo, are dressed up in the language of anti-Zionism) is that (unlike for the Golders Green demo) there has NEVER been any significant coordinated counter-demonstrations by the "official Jewish community" (such as the Board of Deputies, CST or the Jewish Leadership Council). Instead, in the small number of cases where there are counter-demonstrations they are organised and attended by the same small groups of heroes from independent organisations like the Sussex Friends of Israel.
What it comes down to is that Britain's 'official Jews' feel comfortable demonstrating against anti-semitism when the proponents are white racists, but will not get involved when the proponents - -in far greater numbers - are Muslims and socialists. By making the Golders Green counter-demo such a 'big event' we also now have the bizarre situation whereby among the fellow counter-demonstrators will be some of the very people and groups most prominent in the anti-Israel demonization (such as the dubiously named United Against Fascism and Hope not Hate**, as well as some Muslim Brotherhood fronts and even members of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign). It has even been rumoured that George Galloway will attend the counter-demo (although, interestingly, he has been formerly invited to speak by the demonstration organiser Joshua Bonehill in his capacity as a 'fellow anti-Zionist'). In fact, the event even gives these people the publicity to claim that they are 'not antisemitic, only anti-Zionist'.What is also troubling is that the 'official Jewish community' has used up a lot of its political currency lobbying against the demo when there are far more robust legal grounds for lobbying against the multiple 'boycott Israeli goods' demos (something the 'official Jews' have never done - in part because some of them support the boycott of Israel).
So while I am not demeaning those who are organising counter-protests at Golders Green, perhaps we can hope that the thousands of Jews who have said they are going to Golders Green will also make the effort to counter-demonstrate at the many anti-Israel events (of which there are several planned in London even before next week).
**Update: A Facebook friend has posted this about Hope not hate (Hnh): "Hnh had a major project to discredit UKIP during the May general election. Hnh also teamed up with the BoD and LJF in July to run their joint "Golders Green Together" project, a module in the Hnh national "together" scheme, that said an attack on Jews is an attack on all ethnicities, thus diminishing the increasing rise of Antisemitism in the UK. Hnh is run by Haredi Jemma Levene. The BoD is elected by the Jewish community to represent its interests. Being a diverse community, Jews span the political spectrum.
Hnh received in 2013 £63,000 in government funding. Think about it: the representative organisation elected by UK Jews from all walks of life joins forces with an ultra left wing organisation that uses government funds to discredit a legitimate political party. So not only is the BoD remiss in its duty to represent all of the diverse Jewish community, but it supports a group of anti Israel lefties that abuses government funding to influence the outcome of a UK general election. It couldn't get worse."
See also: anti-semitism v ant-Zionism
Update 28 June: I posted the following question on the CST facebook page in response to one of their many postings about the Golders Green event:
Can somebody at CST explain why the Golders Green demo is seen as so much more of a threat than, say, the multiple (and much better planned and attended) antisemitic events that take place daily under the guise of 'anti-Zionism'This lead to the following dialogue:
Probably because it involves neo-Nazis in Golders Green using explicitly anti-Jewish language.Me:
Dear CST: By far and away the most serious threat to the Jewish Community in the UK comes from Islamists who are also explicit in their antisemitism. Yet CST's response to that is to 'engage with the Muslim community' which has involved teaming up with Muslim Brotherhood front organisations. The only difference between the MB and ISIS is that the former claim to want a non-violent shift to an Islamic state. Using CST's logic the way to respond to the Golders Green event would be to reach out to all 'non-violent' neo-Nazis - which curiously is what Bonehill claims to be. Also when it comes to the 'boycott Israel' events these often result in violence against Jewish owned businesses and have the very explicit aim of destroying the Jewish State by isolating it economically. Why is that not a concern for British Jews?CST:
We agree that the most acute threat comes from jihadists and tackling that threat is our top priority. We do this in lots of different ways, including counter-terrorist security for the community, pressing for appropriate policies from police and government, and working with Muslim allies who are trying to reduce extremism and antisemitism within their own communities. We do not work with Muslim Brotherhood front groups and if you read the CST blog you will see we have written extensively about the problems posed by the MB and their supporters.Me
I'd be very interested to know exactly which 'Muslim allies' you work with. The Muslim Council of Britain most certainly is a Muslim Bortherhood front organisation and since the BoD certainly works with them, I obviously assumed CST did. I know for sure you have worked with the disgraceful frauds "Tell Mama" - even after they were exposed by the Daily Telegraph. I also understand you worked with Baroness Warsi long after both her family's Muslim Brotherhood links and her anti-Israel obsession were exposed. I'd also be interested to know how working with the 'Muslim allies' has reduced the threat against the Jewish community. It also seems to me that, by stressing the concern about "anti-Jewish language", the CST is explicitly allowing itself to ignore the 'death to Israel' rhetoric of the leftists (and many Muslims).CST
We aren't going to start listing here all our interactions with Muslim allies. Many of them are confidential for obvious reasons. But several of your assumptions are incorrect. More generally, we do not accept your inference that we are soft on Islamist extremism. We have spent 25 years trying to raise awareness of this problem and we continue to do so.Me
Don't get me wrong - I have tremendous respect for the work CST does in keeping the Jewish community safe. If CST really has never worked with the MCB, Tell Mama, or Warsi then I'd like to know that, but it is a matter of record that the BoD has worked VERY CLOSELY with every one of those, and the new Chair of the BoD Mr Arkush has gone on record as saying he plans to extend the dialogue with Muslim groups. My concern is that groups and individuals which appear to be moderate (such as Tell mama and Warsi) turn out to be very much part of the problem. And there is also the unanswered question about why CST has never really been interested in confronting the 'boycott Israel' events.
After the massacre of tourists at the Bardo museum in Tunisia in March the Tunisian government launched their "I will come to Tunisia this summer" campaign to promote tourism to the country.
ISIS made their own intentions clear in multiple messages like those above, and their response yesterday proved their intent. Sadly, of the 38 people killed a disproportionate number were British tourists.
Those tourists would certainly not have seen the warnings posted by ISIS because the British government and media continues to cover up for, and deny, the threat of Islamic terrorism and the mainstream Islamic ideology that underpins it everywhere. That same politically correct refusal to acknowledge reality and warn people accordingly meant, for example, that the tourists would almost have certainly been oblivious to the following relevant facts when they chose their holiday destination:
- They were going to an Islamic country during Ramadan - the time of year when Muslim terrorists believe they have a special duty to launch attacks on 'infidels'. ISIS had even specifically threatened to attack tourists in Tunisia during Ramadan.
- In addition to the attack in March there was a suicide bombing in October 2013 at the very same resort (Sousse) that was attacked yesterday. Moreover, in recent years Islamists in Tunisia have carried out multiple terrorist attacks against both foreigners and 'secular' Tunisians. These attacks (such as the one on a synagogue as recently as 2014) are simply ignored by the British media.
- Tunisia has by far the largest foreign contingent of ISIS fighters in Syria and Iraq (estimated at 20,000) and because of the large numbers going the Tunisian government recently stopped a further 5,000 leaving meaning that at least 5,000 known ISIS member were in the country.
- After the 'Arab spring' (which actually started in Tunisia) in their first 'democratic' elections the Tunisians voted for a hard-line Islamist government. That means over half of the Tunisian population supports the political objectives of ISIS. Although the government fell in 2014 (replaced by a more moderate regime) Tunisia remains deeply divided between the more secular residents of the major cities and Islamic fundamentalists who dominate everywhere else (incidentally secularists and fundamentalists are all totally united in their hatred of Jews and Israel - another fact the British government and media will not acknowledge).
While the government and media continue to peddle the 'Islam is a religion of Peace' lie and the 'Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam' lie, uninformed Brits will continue to be murdered for believing it. And that includes Brits in the UK, like Palmira Silva who was beheaded in London in 2014 by Nicholas Salvador whose conversion to Islam and obsession with ISIS prior to the attack was not only ignored at the time by friends and police, but was 'written out' of almost every media report of his trial last week (even this one ignores his conversion to Islam). And by refusing to accept the role of Islam in motivating such terrorist acts, they can always be passed off as 'acts of insanity' - which is exactly why Salvador was found not guilty of murder. And so the cover-up continues...
Postscript: Tunisia has announced it will close 80 mosques in response to yesterday's attack. So their government understands the reality of Islamic ideology a lot better than the British government who would never dare close a mosque, no matter how many terrorists are incited to violence from its preachers. Indeed, Cameron again asserted that yesterdays' multiple Islamic attacks had 'absolutely nothing to do with Islam'.
UPDATE: Imagine if the Tunisian attack had been by a Palestinian on Tel Aviv beach ....
Saturday, June 20, 2015
In a terrorist attack claimed by Hamas today near the Israeli town of Dolev, Israeli Danny Goren (aged 25) was killed and his friend wounded after being shot at point blank range by a Palestinian who they had got out of their car for to help find water. If and when the terrorist is arrested, like all 'resistance fighters' who have killed at least one Jew, he will be guaranteed a minimum salary of $40,000 for the rest of his life paid for by 'the Palestinian Authority' which is about 10 times the average wage of a Palestinian worker (if he was imprisoned without killing a Jew he would only get $2,000 per month). But, of course, the Palestinian Authority's money comes exclusively from European and US taxpayers. It turns out that the scale of Britain's contribution to this terrorist infrastructure funding (which I have written many times before about) is far in excess of what I have previously reported.
IsraellyCool reports that Britain's funding to 'the Palestinian Authority' was £265 million in the last 3 years alone (my understanding had been that it was in the order of £40 million per year). Moreover, this does not include Britain's funding of NGO's inside Israel (such as Btselem and Breaking the Silence), which are exclusively anti-Zionist and which are dedicated to deligitimizing Israel. Nor does it include Britain's contribution to the 600 million euros annually provided by the EU to 'the Palestinian Authority'.
The average Brit is totally unaware of just how big a chunk of Britain's foreign aid goes to fund this corrupt terrorist regime. And British Jews, who should know better, continue to believe that PM David Cameron is a 'great friend of Israel'. Even after two of his first major foreign policy decisions in his new term were to 1) instruct his UN Ambassador to vote in favour of a motion that Israel was the worst violator of health rights in the world; and 2) lead the antisemitic EU labelling of Jewish-made goods from Judea, Samaria and the Golan.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015
I have seen comedian Jackie Mason perform many times before and never expected that a visit to the opening night of his latest 'final London farewell' season would trigger a blog posting. But observing the audience interaction provided some profound and depressing facts about the UK which I think are worth sharing.
For a start you would think that people who pay big money to see Jackie Mason (and we are talking about £90 per seat for a very short show) would have some knowledge of his political views (i.e. views not dissimilar to this blog) and be sympathetic to them. OK there were plenty of politically correct /leftist Jews who came to his Zionist Federation performance at Wembley arena a few years back and complained like hell that he was 'racist', but on that occasion he was just one of several acts and the ticket price was minimal. But this was different. Although Mason has steered clear of genuine political material on all previous West End appearances I always had the impression that the audience were intelligent people who understood him.
So, to cut to the chase, one of the only places in London where I would expect NOT to come across a whole bunch of jerks who still think Obama is great is a Jackie Mason gig. Yet, depressingly, the jerks were out in force. There were indications early on that the audience were not really tuned in to his thinking (I won't go into the details) but half way through the show he asked the audience if they liked Obama and incredibly a clear majority did (which I think surprised him as much as it disgusted me). He still launched into an anti-Obama monologue (although it was very tame and politically correct compared to what he says outside of theatres) and it was obvious that most of the audience did not approve.
It seems to me that there can be no better example of the extent to which the British media continues to brainwash the public about Obama and cover up for him. Obama's incessant failings and lies have had almost no impact on his popularity in Europe because the media have simply censored them. American friends find it hard to believe that Obama is still essentially considered as a God-like figure by a majority of Brits (including most conservatives and even most Jews). But those whose only news comes from the main stream media have never been told differently. Which is why, for example, the only time I have ever been severely threatened in my professional work (which I keep free of politics) was when someone interpreted something I said (which was completely neutral) as being not sufficiently deferential to Obama; I was told by another professional that, by even suggesting that Obama was not the greatest modern politician, I was a right-wing racist and that if I did not apologise for my comment he would ensure that nobody would work with me again.