Daphne Anson

On Al Beeb's Twin Down Under, A Suggestion That The Israelis AttackedTheir Own Diplomats

2012-02-15T12:47:00.000-08:00

"Where does the BBC get these people from?" That's a question that must have passed through the minds of pro-Israel viewers and listeners scores of times, given the types of commentators (including an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood) Al Beeb regularly invites into its studios to pontificate on this or that development in the Middle East.

(It was, though, pleasing to see that it had the good sense to interview the superb Douglas Murray today, regarding the scandalous situation imposed on Britain by the European Court of Human Rights, which forbids the extradition of danger-posing radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada to Jordan because of fears for his personal safety, never mind that of the British population in general.)

Andrew Bolt, the popular columnist for the Melbourne Herald Sun newpaper, has posed a comparable question - "Where does the ABC get these people from?" - in his latest online article.

It was provoked by the appearance on the ABC (Australia's answer to Al Beeb in more ways than one) of Iranian-born former Guardian journalist Geneive Abdo, giving her take on the terror attacks this week on Israeli envoys in India and Georgia.

In answer to the radio interviewer's observation that, in order to discredit Iran, Israel had planted the bombs, Ms Abdo replied

"Well I think that’s entirely possible. I mean, if you consider what the Israelis did for many years in Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East, that theory is not so farfetched"

and went on to say of the current situation:

"...[Y]ou have the Israelis not willing to live with a nuclear Iran. You have the Iranians going forward with their nuclear program. And you have an American president trying to be re-elected with a Jewish lobby in the United States that’s extremely powerful....

[W]e’re dealing with a very extremist Israeli government.

Read all of Bolt's piece here and Honest Reporting's analysis of the incident and its implications here
Hat tip: readers Rita and Ian G

If You're In Sydney, Spend Sunday Night At The Movies

2012-02-15T05:10:00.001-08:00

This speaks for itself (hat tip: reader Shirlee):

In Florida, Romney & Gingrich Stand By Israel (video)

2012-02-15T00:25:00.000-08:00

In response to a question from a "Palestinian American Republican" from the floor last month, the two presidential candidates firmly blame the lack of peace on the Palestinian leadership ...

Hat tip: reader Shirlee

Achtung! Aussie Holocaust Denier Fred & Friend (video)

2012-02-14T14:36:00.000-08:00

Here's a freshly uploaded video concerning notorious Adelaide Holocaust Denier Fredrick Toben, whose name is made to sport an umlaut, and who appears at the beginning talking about "the persecutor" ...

The viewer is left guessing as to exactly when the video was made, what the "total victory"mentioned is, to what precisely fellow-Aussie Lady Renouf refers in her speech, or who her listeners are.

I include this video here just for the record. Note the uploader's introduction:

'In 1999 he [Toben] was imprisoned for nine months at Mannheim Prison for breaching Germany's Holocaust Law, Section 130, that prohibits anyone from "defaming the dead". Töben and his associates at the Adelaide Institute have denied "being Holocaust deniers" in interviews conducted by Australian media, claiming they cannot deny that which never happened.'

"This Despicable Vitriol Is Left Unchallenged": Aussie Parliamentarian Highlights The Greens' Moral Bankruptcy Regarding Israel and Iran

2012-02-14T01:42:00.004-08:00

Clearly, O'Dwyer is Golden, while Silence is Green.

For what a magnificent speech by Australian legislator Kelly O'Dwyer, Liberal member for Higgins, in yesterday's debate in the House of Representatives concerning Human Rights (or rather, the lack of them) in Iran.

All praise to to her for highlighting so ably and comprehensively the unconscionable hypocrisy of the Greens:

"In Australia during this time one must ask the questions 'Who stands conspicuously quiet? Who stands silent while these human rights are abused?' .... It is ... the Greens, those people who suggest that they are the champions of human rights and the keepers of the moral chalice, those professed keepers of all that is right and ethical. Where, I ask you, is Senator Brown in condemning these actions? Where is Senator Hanson-Young on her soapbox demanding justice? Where is the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, in this chamber supporting this motion? Where are the Greens protests in the streets? Most importantly, given all that we have learned about the Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions scheme that grew from the Greens' local council movement in Marrickville, where are the calls for the boycotts of Iranian companies or even of Syrian ones, to be truly consistent? No, all that is simply reserved for Israel.

Interestingly, the Greens also profess to be strong champions of human rights, particularly for those who are homosexual. Yet it is the country of Israel, the only democracy in the region, that legislates rights for women and homosexuals. In fact, in a recent poll conducted by GayCities.com in conjunction with American Airlines, Tel Aviv was rated the best gay travel destination of 2011. Yet here the Greens condemn Israel and not Iran.

Could you imagine if the Prime Minister of Israel had prayed for the ‘annihilation’ of the Palestinians? How many motions would the Greens have moved by now? How many press releases, demonstrations and media conferences would they have called? I conducted a search on the Greens' website. I typed ‘Iran’ into their search feature, 23 results were returned and in those results there was not one mention—not one, single, solitary mention—of the atrocities that have taken place, of the abhorrent preachings of the President of Iran or of the blatant human rights abuses posed against ethnic minorities, women and homosexuals. However, if you type in ‘Israel’ you will find pages and pages and pages—in particular pages as to how you can be involved as well in the BDS movement. This is a truly sad state of affairs and it is of great concern in particular to me that the Greens do not stand with us in this chamber against such violence against human rights workers, women’s rights activists, journalists and government opponents.

The Greens seem to quote the UN when it suits them and ignore them when it does not conform to their agenda. And make no mistake: the Greens' agenda on Israel is well and truly on show. It is incumbent upon all of us who, at times, take our freedoms for granted to stand up for those who do not share the same freedoms. I call on all members of this parliament, including the Greens - including Senator Bob Brown - to support this motion and to highlight the atrocities and depravity of the Iranian government and to stand up for the fact that these depravities must come to an end. For too long we have turned a blind eye to the signs that have been staring us in the face, and we must not accept what is unacceptable. I call on the Greens to stand with us in this chamber and support the human rights that are being abused in Iran and to make a very strong and public statement about it.”

Those remarks came at the end of her speech, which began by condemning "the abhorrent and repugnant human rights abuses that are currently occurring in the so-called Republic of Iran" and after she bemoaned the dashed expectations of the so-called Arab Spring:

"We did not want Israel to continue to stand as the lone beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Alas, on the ground, the Arab Spring has not matched the anticipation. For all of the hopes that we had, the people of Iran, Syria, Libya and Bahrain have been met with bullets,aggression and brutality...."

She then focused on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, before launching that well-deserved attack on the Greens:

"One needs only look at a number of his public statements to discover the depths of this so-called leader’s depravity. On the state of Israel he has stated that it ‘must be wiped off the map’ and that ‘with God’s grace this regime will be annihilated and Palestinians and other regional nations will be rid of its bad omen’.

On the Holocaust he has said:

“Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail … we don’t accept this claim.”

He went on to say:

“They, Germans or Europeans, have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets.”

On Zionists - read Jews - he has said:

“The Zionists and their protectors are the most detested people in all of humanity, and the hatred is increasing every day.”

And he has said:

“The world powers established these filthy bacteria, the Zionist regime, which is lashing out at the nations in the region like a wild beast.”

Finally, on the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel’s independence, he said:

“Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken.”

Any one of these statements on its own warrants immediate condemnation, yet this despicable vitriol is left unchallenged and has been left unchallenged too often and for too long. It is only now that the world is starting to take notice of Iran. It is only after the tragic loss of life that the world is paying Iran the attention it should have paid many years before.

Words of a tyrant lead to deeds of a tyrant. It should come as no surprise that the owner of such vile words could be a perpetrator of such vile acts. The only question that remains is: how many people must continue to die before the international community stands against such repression?"

Source for speech: J-Wire

Isi Leibler Interviewed Regarding A Nuclear Iran (video)

2012-02-13T01:51:00.000-08:00

"Iran is a genuine existential threat to us ... and the whole of Western civilisation," stresses the veteran Jewish leader and Jerusalem Post columnist in an interview with Mark Golub on Shalom TV. "I would like to believe the world is coming to its senses ...I do not believe that sanctions alone are going to stop these people."

Fast Facts For Busy People: Who Are The Palestinians? & Other Questions Answered (videos)

2012-02-12T14:24:00.000-08:00

It's elementary!

Here's a series of new videos that might enlighten those who are still teachable.

On the "Palestinians" and "Palestine":

On the "Occupation":

On Nablus and its name:

On that so-called "Wall":

In Australia, Anti-Israel Leftist Fanatics Allegedly Eye[d] A Shul

2012-02-12T09:02:00.000-08:00

The Adass community in Melbourne is a tight-knit one that keeps largely to itself. It is centered on the district of Ripponlea, and its shul is in a quiet spot not far from the magnificent old colonial mansion that gave the district its name. It's very near the perhaps incongruously-named Hotham Street (geddit?), where each Shabbat numerous Jews in traditional strictly Orthodox garb can be seen going to and coming from one of the relevant shuls in the area.

For a number of years I lived in the heart of this district, surrounded by members of the Adass community. Although I was not one of them, I found them delightful neighbours. And although I was not one of them, I occasionally experienced the harassment that is often the lot of Jews like them whose dress leaves no doubt as to what their identity is. Thus, as a pedestrian on heavily Jewish Hotham Street, I once experienced a small stone whizz past my head (the lout who hurled it from a car also yelled antisemitic abuse) and on another occasion a carload of goons called out to me "Hitler is coming!" It's the type of thing that many Jews endure from yobbos every day.

In Australia, overt antisemitism used to be largely the preserve of post-war immigrants from continental fascist backgrounds and of the homegrown right-wing League of Rights, founded in 1946 by Eric Butler, an elder of the Anglican church. Most of the League's members believed in crackpot "funny money" ideas and in conspiracy theories, and for many years they ran a bookshop in central Melbourne stocked with all the "classics" of judeophobic literature. Time, it would seem, has carried away most of these nutters to that land from which no traveller ever returns.

Not that the political Left, as we know, has been immune from manifesting "the longest hatred" but I can't think of any instance in which the Left, at least in any English-speaking country, would stoop so low as to target a synagogue. (Imagine how they would react if rightwing extremists targetted a mosque!)

But that is reportedly what they aimed to do, if a current report is correct, and what's more, the Adass congregation was the one in their sights.

The report (written in three stages, including updates) claims, inter alia, that

'Australia’s Jewish community is bracing itself for a horrifying escalation by the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” movement notionally against Israel but increasingly seen as thinly-disguised anti-Semitism.

[A] group led by former Melbourne University student union official Vashti Kenway has instructed its troops to take their Israel-hating protests to Adass Israel synagogue during the time it would have Jewish religious services, on Saturday February 25th. The protest is aimed at Rabbi Joseph Gutnick, a strong supporter of Israel, in whose honour the centre accommodating the synagogue is named....

Increasingly, Kenway and her band of protesters are blurring the lines between hating Israel and engaging in blatantly anti-Semitic protests. The move to attack a synagogue during religious services is the most blatant act in that direction we’ve seen across Australia.

Kenway’s protests have previously targeted Israeli-owned chocolate shops on the basis that some of their chocolate had been sent to the young men and women who protect Israel from those sworn to its destruction. Her behaviour was such that she and a group of comrades have been arrested and prosecuted for their riotous behaviour....

[Update] Shock and fear has swept the congregation of the Adass Gutnick Hall after learning their synagogue could be the victim of an attack by an anti-Israel group. One congregant, Norman Rosenbaum has emailed his concerns to friends, revealing that Mr Gutnick himself does not regularly attend the venue, expressing fears the angry protesters may be become frustrated and violent at the congregation if the target of their enmity is not present....

[Update] We are pleased to say the “Boycott” bigots have ... backed off their plans to attack the Addas [sic] synagogue, which had previously been the victim of arson attacks. They have moved their silly protest to an office of a company associated with Gutnick. Just as stupid but much less harmful and destructive. Being concerned about the people of the Palestinian Authority is perfectly legitimate, although it’s interesting that those who suffer much more do not generate the same concern, but this sorry episode has amply demonstrated what we’ve always suspected that there is a hideous underbelly of anti-Semitism associated with those who wish to boycott Israel....'

Read the full report here

"A Racist Country": Blood Libellers Against Max Brenner In Melbourne (videos)

2012-02-11T09:54:00.000-08:00

These western BDSers, they seem to like girls who are screamers, don't they!

Immediately below, a dollop of manic high-pitched screeching from a girl cheerleader of the so-called Coalition Against Israel Apartheid and Students For Palestine as she leads her robotically chanting cohorts on 10 February into the usual offensive and moronic leftist accusations against chocolatier Max Brenner - "There's blood in your hot chocolate" and "You're supporting genocide". Note the "Race Against Evil..." hyperbole in the introduction...

Morsels:

The level of ignorance prevalent can perhaps be gleaned by one of the uploader's dodgy spelling of Israel as "Isreal".

David Singer On His UNESCO Petition & His Facebook Group "Help Restore UNESCO's Funding"

2012-02-10T06:13:00.000-08:00

In his latest article (entitled "UNESCO On The Nose") via the antipodean J-Wire service, Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer pinpoints five main reasons for opposition to his petition from some perhaps unexpected quarters, and urges a rethink on the part of those who have proved reluctant to sign. He also draws attention to a group he has set up on Facebook, called "Help Restore UNESCO's Funding" and urges readers to join.

Writes David Singer:

'UNESCO seems set to preside over a looming global humanitarian crisis as it continues to struggle in its efforts to cope with the loss of $260 million – 22% of its projected budget – until the end of 2013.
Trying to make up the shortfall – including lobbying America and Israel to resume the payment of their dues and establishing an Emergency Fund to solicit donations from its other 193 member states and the public at large – have clearly failed so far.

UNESCO‘s finds itself in this sorry situation because of its decision to admit “Palestine“ as its 195th Member State on 31 October last.

In an effort to recoup the shortfall – I have proposed to UNESCO that it approach the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on whether the requirements of UNESCO’s Constitution were satisfied in admitting “Palestine”.

If the Court rules that the provisions of the Constitution were complied with – then this avenue as a means of recouping the $260 million would be closed – but the provisions of the Constitution would have been judicially interpreted to prevent a repeat of the current controversy when dealing with other applications to join UNESCO in the future.

If however the Court found the decision to be unconstitutional – then the $260 million would start to flow into UNESCO’s coffers immediately and the emerging global crisis impacting on scores of millions of people world wide would be averted.

Faced with continuing UNESCO resistance to discuss my detailed submission to it on 1 December last – I started an online petition on 1 January seeking public support for this proposal – which has so far attracted more than 1000 signatures from people in 26 countries. Please also sign it if you agree with the views expressed in this article.

What has been surprising – and very disturbing – has been the opposition expressed to signing my petition – which I have been able to attribute to five main reasons gleaned from the responses received so far to my proposal:

Some have expressed their utter contempt for UNESCO and its continued existence – suggesting it has become ineffectual and politicized and should be shut down.
They delight in the financial difficulties being faced by UNESCO – which they see as a self-serving organization that exists to feed an over bloated bureaucracy of overpaid and well travelled employees – rather than spending its budget on helping the hundreds of millions of people world wide who are crying out for some hope to relieve their distressing lives.

Some Americans are supportive of their country’s decision to stop the payment of its financial dues – automatically suspended as a result of an American law dating back to the 1990’s which prescribed such action should any UN agency act as UNESCO did.

These people are more than happy to see this money – about $100million yearly – go towards helping America solve its own pressing domestic financial problems.
They are hostile to UNESCO‘s lobbying attempts to try and get America to change its law or to otherwise circumvent the legislation to get America‘s dues back via some back door manoeuvre.

Some have shown a total lack of concern or compassion for the difficulties facing hundreds of millions of people world wide if UNESCO is forced to curtail its humanitarian assistance.

This attitude was succinctly expressed in the following comment:
“Palestine suffers from the actions of the world, the world can suffer from Palestine for once”

Some have expressed no confidence in the International Court being able to arrive at a fair and unbiased opinion – a waste of time and money

By far the largest number of those refusing to sign the petition are those who are opposed to UNESCO taking any steps that could possibly lead to Palestine’s admission to UNESCO being ruled unconstitutional.

People are entitled to their viewpoints – and to be criticised for holding those views. I have urged many expressing these views to think again and sign the petition – but to no avail.

UNESCO cannot allow its decision on Palestine – and its dire consequences – to simply end in UNESCO cutting its programs and its employees for 2102-2013 in accordance with a drastically revised budget – until it has explored every option to avoid this happening.

The consequences of such program cutting will clearly impact on the lives of millions of people world-wide. UNESCO would be clearly irresponsible if it failed to take any possible action available to arrest this emerging humanitarian landslide.

Spending $100000 approaching the International Court in the hope of avoiding this parlous situation is an option that UNESCO should grab with both hands.

The International Court cannot possibly hope to satisfy all of the above objectors.

If Palestine’s admission to UNESCO is found to be lawful – those espousing the views in groups 3 and 5 above will be happy and the rest will not . The status quo now existing will be maintained.

If Palestine’s admission to UNESCO is found to be unlawful – only those in group 4 may be persuaded to rethink their view of the International Court. None of the other 4 groups will be happy – but the status quo existing at 30 October 2011 will be restored – for better or for worse.

UNESCO should not be afraid to institute such legal action for fear of upsetting these objectors – since the number of people signing and still continuing to sign my petition clearly outnumber those opposed to signing it.

I have been encouraged by such response to set up a Facebook group called “Help Restore UNESCO’s Funding”.

I urge everyone – in favour of or opposed to UNESCO approaching the International Court – to join, have their say and to follow developments as they unfold at UNESCO and in the international arena..

UNESCO needs to be very careful that it does not create the impression that it can ignore its own constitution with impunity. Its failure to even discuss my detailed submission on the legality of its decision renders it open to such a charge and only serves to reduce its status and credibility among those signing the petition.
Seeking to resolve the current impasse by resorting to the law is not a known or an accepted practice in a large number of the 195 member states that make up UNESCO – where the rule of law and respect for the law in such countries is unknown.

Approaching the International Court in the present circumstances will help these states understand this still remains the best system yet devised for finally resolving issues between people with different viewpoints.

The law is not perfect and its decisions are often controversial and open to criticism and different interpretations.

However it beats bullets, demonstrations and dying, tear gas and trauma – hands down.'

"We Are Anonymous ... Israeli Government, Expect Us"

2012-02-10T00:38:00.000-08:00

A threat of cyberwarfare against Israel has been unleashed by an international group of hackers. Their video and a report can be seen here

The text of the video (which I've since added below) runs as follows. (Spot the old-style antisemitic tropes).

"To the government of the state of Israel.

We are Anonymous.

For too long we have tolerated your crimes against humanity and allowed your sins to go unpunished.

Through the use of media deception and political bribery, you have amassed the sympathies of many. You claim to be democratic, yet in reality this is far from the truth.

In fact your only goal is to better the lives of a select few while carelessly trampling the liberties of the masses. We see through the propaganda that you circulate through the main stream media and lobby through the political establishment.

Your Zionist bigotry has displaced and killed a great many.

As the world weeps you laugh while planning your next attack. All of this is done under the veil of peace but so long as your regime exists peace shall be hindered.

You label all who refuse to comply with your superstitious demands as anti-semitic. And have taken steps to ensure a nuclear holocaust.

You are unworthy to exist in your current form. and will therefore face the wrath of anonymous. Your empire lacks legitimacy and because of this you must govern behind a curtain of deceit.

We will not allow you to attack a sovereign country based upon a campaign of lies.

Your grip over humanity will weaken and man will be closer to freedom.

But before this is accomplished the people of this world will rise against you and renounce you in all your worth. Our crusade against your reign of terror shall commence in three steps.

Step one will be initiated after the release of this video and will be comprised of systematically removing you from the internet.

Step two will be later disclosed and is already in initiation.

And as for step three, well think of this one as a present from Anonymous to you. We will not stop untill the police state becomes a free state.

We are Anonymous.

We are legion.

We do not forgive.

We do not forget.

Israeli government, expect us."

In London, Anti-Israel Ranters On the "Peace" Offensive (videos)

2012-02-09T06:42:00.000-08:00

The British "Stop The War Coalition" held a demo outside the American Embassy in London at the end of January to demand that no action be taken against Iran for its impending nuclear capablity. That well-known anti-Israel activist Jeremy Corbyn MP introduced others of his ilk such as the first speaker, Anthony Wedgwood Benn (Tony Benn as he likes to be known to the plebs), and flytilla alumna Sarah Colborne, executive director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Here's a taste of the nonsense, uploaded by InMinds.com, which prefaces the uploads with this message:

"As the US and Israel ratchet up the rhetoric in preparation for an attack on Iran, hundreds of Londoners demonstrated outside the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square on 28th January 2012. The protest was organised by the Stop the War Coalition."

Here's old Tone:

Here's Kate Hudson, chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), inveighing against Israel's capacity to defend itself:

And here's young Sarah, ranting sickeningly on the theme of "Hypocrisy and Jerusalem" and inviting the faithful to a big do on 30th March:

Full report with photos and videos of all speeches see http://www.inminds.com

"If Someone Says They Want To Annihilate You, Believe Them": British Voices On The Iranian Threat (videos)

2012-02-08T13:44:00.000-08:00

If the morally courageous and highly articulate young man in the first video below did not exist, Britain's pro-Israel supporters would certainly have to invent him. He's the marvellous author and journalist Douglas Murray, speaking recently in a debate at the Cambridge Union on the motion "This House Would Rather Have A Nuclear Iran Than War".

Speaking in favour of the motion were former Middle East-based diplomat Sir Richard Dalton (now of Chatham House), journalist Michael Smith, who specialises in defence issues, and Professor Scott Lucas, a specialist in American Studies at Birmingham University.

Opposing the motion were Murray, Dr Alan Mendoza, executive director of the Henry Jackson Society, and Professor Mervyn Frost, who heads the War Studies Department at King's College, London.

The Noes carried the day, with 100 votes, ten more than the Ayes mustered (there were 77 abstentions):

And here's Dr Alan Mendoza, to whom Murray refers in his speech, who also helped so ably to carry the day:

See the entire debate and read more about the speakers for each side here

Iran: Graphic Designs

2012-02-08T10:55:00.000-08:00

Cartoonist Steve Benson totally gets it. With such graphic eloquence, who needs words? (Hat tip: Ian G)

Meanwhile, there's one helluva scary video doing the rounds. It, and a reassuringly optimistic commentary, are available here.

"I Couldn't Agree More With That Statement" Said The BBC Newsreader To The Anti-Monarchist

2012-02-07T11:13:00.000-08:00

Her Majesty In Robes By Dhimmi Designs, Foreign Office

Yesterday marked the 60th anniversary of the accession of Queen Elizabeth II to the British throne (and so truly began this Jubilee Year of hers).

The leftists who infest Al Beeb's news programming could not just lie back and enjoy the historicity of the occasion, of course.

So, invited onto News24, was a bloke with the right royal name of Graham Smith. Smith has a right royal grievance about the monarchy - he heads a group called Republic - and he also has (or rather, had) a right royal gripe about the BBC.

A year ago, as the nation geared up for the Royal Wedding (Kate and Wills), Al Beeb gave Mr Smith a guest spot on its College of Journalism (CoJo) website, so he could rant at length.

(Al Beeb's other critics, especially those of us who bemoan its anti-American, anti-Israel thrust, and deplore its suppression of the Balen Report, should be as lucky!)

This is part of what he wrote:

'The BBC has failed to convey the diversity of opinion about the monarchy. It has presented the issue as being one-sided and implied that the whole country is excited about the wedding. It has covered the plans and expectations of monarchists (who in a sense are also a minority) while ignoring Republic and republicans....

I believe one source of this problem is the BBC's failure to categorise the monarchy as a 'controversial issue'. I would stress that even without this categorisation our argument stands up and the Corporation's duty of impartiality applies. However, categorising this issue as controversial is not only appropriate, it would place greater emphasis on the need of editorial staff to ensure balanced and impartial coverage....

The issue is regularly a subject of debate in the media and is certainly contentious.... [O]pinion is clearly divided on the various issues around the monarchy. A number of MPs support the abolition of the monarchy, including Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party [and, incidentally, a veteran critic of Israel - D.A.]. Parliament has recently debated reforming the finances and secrecy of the institution....

Republic is not alone in questioning the BBC's royal coverage: there is a widespread view that the BBC has a pro-monarchy bias, a view even shared by some of the Corporation's own distinguished journalists. Not least, apparently, Jeremy Paxman, who in 2008 accused the BBC of "fawning" over the royal family, adding that the BBC did not know whether to "report" or "celebrate" royal events. I would suggest that the job of the BBC is to report, yet instead it ends up celebrating.

And that is why Republic is seeking a meeting with BBC executives, asking for a review of royal reporting and a fairer, more balanced and more representative take on the issue of the monarchy.'

BBC executives obviously caved into him. It was surely on the cards that they would. After all, it has been some years since Al Beeb instructed its staff not to refer to Wales as "The Principality" anymore (even though, constitutionally, a principality is exactly what Wales is) for fear of offending Welsh republicans!

In welcoming Smith to the airwaves yesterday newsreader Emily Maitlis observed:

"We love plurality on the BBC, Graham Smith, but this is going to be a tough old year for you, isn't it?"

The interview started well but ended with Ms Maitlis (notwithstanding the expectation of neutrallity inherent in the BBC's much-flouted Charter) giving her own personal endorsement to Smith's closing statement that the institution of monarchy should be subject to scrutiny and criticism:

"I couldn't agree more with that statement."

So here's my message to Ms Maitlis and the gang. You want to put the right royal British Establishment right royally on the spot? You want to demonstrate afresh that love of pluralism, to ensure a voice for the dispossessed?

Right, then.

Next time a representative of the Foreign Office is interviewed, ask him/her point blank why, in her 60-year reign, the Queen has never once visited Israel (almost uniquely snubbed in this regard), whereas she has paid many visits to Arab countries, and when we can expect this right royal wrong to be put to rights.

For further posts by me on this subject see here and here

On The Low-Down With Delta Airlines

2012-02-07T05:26:00.000-08:00

According to its website Atlanta-based Delta Airlines flies to the following destinations in the Middle East:

'Bahrain; Egypt; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Iraq; Israel; Jordan; Kuwait; Lebanon; Occupied Palestinian Territory; Oman; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; Syrian Arab Republic; United Arab Emirates (composed of Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras El Khaimah, Sharjah, Umm Al Qaiwain); Yemen, Republic of; Kazakhstan; Kyrgyzstan; Uzbekistan'

"Occuped Palestinian Territory"? What airport would that be, then?

Is Delta implying that Ben-Gurion Airport, Tel Aviv, is on occupied territory?

As the British satirical magazine Private Eye might say, "shome mishtake shurely" ...

To contact Delta click here

Israel Is Not An Apartheid State (video)

2012-02-06T11:42:00.000-08:00

This video, made to combat Israel Apartheid Week last year, is interesting, not least for the interviews with Israelis regarding the Security Barrier.

Still, it's not likely to cut any ice with these conspicuous upholders of human rights, who have reiterated their bitter enmity towards "Apartheid Israel".

That Old Big "Apartheid" Lie Again (video)

2012-02-06T11:05:00.000-08:00

Gearing up for this year's Israel Apartheid Week, the usual suspects come out with the Big Lie as usual. They can scream "Israel is an Apartheid State" until they're blue in the face, but that won't make reality fit their warped fantasy. Mark Tapson has a good piece about the so-called Apartheid Week here

US Greens Won't ScrapeThe Bottom Of The Barr-el ... Will They?!

2012-02-04T11:11:00.000-08:00

Aussie Greens Keeping Company With Hezbollah Fans

So that cringeable "comedienne" Roseanne Barr is standing for nomination as the Green Party candidate for the US Presidency!

An uncouth slovenly loudmouth, at any rate in her eponymous TV show during the 1990s, she has said some truly bizarre and despicable things about Jews and Israel, for instance here and here and here.

Who knows what deep psychological need such views satisfy in an individual who utters them.

But perhaps even worse than Ms Barr's expressed contempt for her Jewish heritage is the delighted reaction from the audience, as seen in this video.

Britain's Greens Leader With Her Chums

A person could be forgiven for concluding that such a reaction has the stench of antisemitism about it, that people of the audience's ilk may well love and defend Jews, but only when Jews are extinct or victimised ... Ah, yes. So many leftwing "philosemites" have, it seems to me, evinced that mindset in the past.

Could such a risible wretch as the woman who once baked "Jewish" gingerbread men in an oven while in the guise of Hitler gain the Greens' candidacy? Well, I suppose that all depends on whether the warped views of all-too-many Aussie and British Greens, who spend an inordinate amount of time demonising and inveighing against the sole democracy in the Middle East, rather than on environmental matters, are mirrored by the Greens across the Herring Pond!

The Twelfth Imam Cometh ...

2012-02-03T08:45:00.000-08:00

This video, which consists of edited and translated selections by Iranian former CIA operative Reza Khalili from the long original, was issued last year.

It takes on a fresh relevance given the recent remarks of Ayatollah Khamenei (on the right of this photo) to Arab youth from many countries, including Palestinians, as related in Reza Khalili's article here

UNESCO: David Singer On The Poison & Its Antidote

2012-02-03T01:16:00.000-08:00

Sydney lawyer and foundation member of the International Analysts Network David Singer, author of this petition, has a new article via the antipodean J-Wire service. Its title is "Palestine Poison Pill Paralyses UNESCO" and, being an admirer of his articles, I take the liberty of reproducing it here.

Writes David Singer:

'Palestine’s admission as the 195th member state of UNESCO – in possible breach of UNESCO’s own Constitution – has become a very painful poison pill for UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova to swallow.

This is becoming increasingly evident as she addressed a special information session of permanent delegations to UNESCO on 26 January to present her assessment of the crisis that has enveloped UNESCO since its controversial decision to admit Palestine on 31 October 2011.

Putting on a brave face – Ms Bokova disclosed that the establishment of her much vaunted Emergency Multi-Donor Fund on 10 November 2011 had fallen far short of recouping the $72 million shortfall in unpaid American dues for 2011. Even worse – pledges made by some states still remained unpaid.

Ms Bokova initially claimed on 10 November that this shortfall – caused by American laws dating back to the 1990‘s and amounting to 22% of UNESCO’s budget – had stimulated an unprecedented outpouring of support for UNESCO from individuals, associations and private corporations from all corners of the globe.

Having announced that the Fund would be open to all donors including public institutions, foundations and individuals – Ms Bokova now revealed that the fund had received just $30000 from these sources in the two months since the fund was established..

Incredulously – Ms Bokova had the effrontery to tell the delegates:

“I would mention that this amount is much higher than that collected during previous campaigns …it is a sign of popular support”

Ms Bokova pointed out the following measures that had been taken to try and make up the 2011 shortfall :

1.   Cutting down the number of missions from an average of 319 per month to 70 in December – with a saving in mission costs of 65% in November/December
2.   Reducing the number of temporary consultants and temporary contracts from 482 people to 160 people
3.   Postponing or cancelling a number of activities

- all of which no doubt affected UNESCO’s delivery of help to millions of people world wide relying on UNESCO to bring some hope into their distressed lives.

The position for 2012 – 2013 appears to have worsened in the space of three weeks from a projected deficit of $167 million to $188 million – as Ms Bokova announced that her budget of $653 million was now only funded to $465 million due to the suspension of contributions from America and Israel

Drastic measures to cope with this crisis will be presented by Ms Bokova at the next meeting of the UNESCO Executive Board on 27 February.

The 58 Board members will not be hearing any good news.

Ms Bokova made no bones in telling the representatives of the permanent delegations:

“In terms of the reduced funding available, I requested all Sectors/Bureaux/Offices to prepare Work Plans for 2012-2013 that reflect an overall reduction of 29% in the Approved Budget. I determined 29% as a realistic measure of good contingency planning in the face of the accumulated deficit.”

No UNESCO program will be spared the axe – but the cuts will not be 29% across the board as Ms Bokova hastened to add:

“Rest assured, the Global Priorities of Africa and Gender Equality are programmatic priorities,and targeted action will be identified in favour of youth,Least Developed Countries,Small Island Developing States and countries in post conflict and post-disaster situations.”

How Ms Bokova hopes to achieve this delicate balancing act will make for fascinating reading.

She continued by issuing this stern warning:

“Early analysis of work plans for the five Major Programmes and the rest of the Organization as of 20 January 2012 shows the profound impact of the severe funding constraints across the entire Organization, which reaches into core priorities and operations.”

Jobs in UNESCO and programmes world wide are set to go in this massive shake up – which will be devastating for those affected..

For many who view UNESCO as being an over-staffed and bloated bureaucracy – this will be seen as a blessing in disguise. Others who see a severe contraction in UNESCO‘s current and future programs will be alarmed at the prospects of what lies ahead. Yet others will rejoice in seeing UNESCO wallowing in a problem of its own making that could have been avoided.

Ms Bokova revealed some pills that UNESCO employees and conference junkies have already swallowed – including:

1.   Suspending the printing and distribution of her own Ivory Notes ($793 per Note)
2.   Increasing the hours required for business class travel from 8 hours to 9 hours.
3.   Reducing regular program travel budgets by 20% across the board
4.   Reducing daily subsistence allowances to programme meetings and conference participants by 25%

In the meantime one possible solution to all of UNESCO’s financial woes – that would cost it $100000 to pursue – is apparently still not in contemplation.

That possible solution involves UNESCO seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to determine the legality of UNESCO’s decision to admit Palestine as a member state.

The 107 countries that voted for Palestine’s admission should be urging such action be taken – since a reversal of that decision would end UNESCO’s current parlous position by immediately restoring the lost American funding and allow UNESCO to resume all its global programs. Seeking this outcome should surely be the priority of each such member state and in its best national interest – since the populations and economies of many of these countries will become the first victims of UNESCO’s growing financial crisis

The 87 countries that did not affirmatively vote for Palestine’s admission – but urged a more cautious approach – should certainly support testing the legality of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO at the ICJ.
Only states can become a member of either the UN or UNESCO. The UN vetting Committee did not accept that Palestine qualified to be admitted as a state – but UNESCO’s Executive Board apparently did. My attempt to find out why has fallen on deaf ears at UNESCO headquarters.The ICJ would certainly not tolerate this wall of silence.

There is a further legal issue requiring the ICJ to interpret and reconcile inconsistencies between different clauses of the Constitution regulating the vote required to admit new member states.
UNESCO’s large Public Information Division and its well staffed and resourced Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs don’t even want to discuss these issues.

Will all their jobs still be there after the Executive Board meets on 27 February?

Whilst UNESCO refuses to take the prescribed ICJ antidote that could aid its complete recovery – this poisoned pill will continue to claim many more victims – including permanent UNESCO employees – as its effect is continued to be felt by scores of millions of people around the world.'

So This Is Why That Rifle Doesn't Look Jewish!

2012-02-02T06:40:00.000-08:00

Remember this post of mine?

It seems we have the answer to the puzzle (update But see this):

In Adelaide, Another Useful Idiot For BDS (video)

2012-02-02T03:58:00.000-08:00

Well, Just Fancy That! SBS Internal Investigation Finds "The Promise" Not Antisemitic

2012-02-01T02:08:00.000-08:00

As anyone who has ever made a formal complaint to the BBC knows, internal investigations into allegations of bias, if they proceed at all, tend to be dismissed and Al Beeb thus vindicates itself, amid its characteristic self-puffery.

Until there is a complaints procedure that is independent of the broadcaster itself, conducted by an external body which is genuinely free of Al Beeb's influence, this will always remain so.

Internal investigations tend, in all likelihood, to favour an organisation put on the defensive and eager to extricate itself from blame, especially when political bias is so ingrained in the culture of that organisation that it fails to recognise bias as such.

Since SBS has a long track record of bias against Israel, it doesn't really surprise me to learn via J-Wire that an internal investigation by the Australian multicultural channel SBS into a complaint made by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) regarding the four-part series The Promise, broadcast late last year, maintains that

“the series does not, demonise Jews either individually or as a collective, nor deny their individual and collective right to self determination and therefore does not vilify Jews or Israelis.”

The SBS.s decision has been described by ECAJ Executive Director Peter Wertheim as “disappointing and unsatisfactory”.

J-Wire continues:

'In dismissing the complaints, the SBS Complaints Committee found that the series did not violate the SBS Codes of Practice and that “the ordinary reasonable viewer fully appreciated that The Promise was a fictional drama and nothing more than that”. It also noted that “accuracy per se is not a Code requirement in respect of a drama such as The Promise.”

In a 7-page response to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), which had submitted a 31-page complaint to the SBS Ombudsman, SBS described it as “an oversimplification to cast the drama as being bad Jews versus good Palestinians.”'

It quotes Peter Wertheim as follows:

“SBS has simply failed to address many of our principal contentions. They have failed to engage in detail with any of the 75 examples of negative stereotyping of Jews which we provided to them. I am also surprised that SBS has suggested that it is acceptable to portray entire nations in a negative light as a part of a dramatic work. One wonders which other nations will be next in line for vilification masked as drama. SBS is supposed to be committed to social inclusion.....

Five of the seven members of the SBS complaints committee were from senior management and were clearly not at arm’s length, even though their bona fides are not in question. Further, these managers lack the expertise and insight to deal adequately with complaints of racism.”

He explains that the ECAJ complaint was not about the controversial history that forms the backdrop to the series:

“It is the use of discriminatory stereotypes to deal with that history that was our central objection. All of the principal Jewish characters are ultimately portrayed in a stereotypically negative way. If a series about the Israel-Palestinian conflict portrayed all of its Arab characters and their supporters as murderous terrorists, betrayers and thieves, perhaps the racism would have been more evident to SBS.”

Reports J-Wire:

'Wertheim also took issue with the Complaints Committee’s conclusion that the audience would have fully appreciated that The Promise was a fictional drama, and nothing more, pointing to the description of the series that had previously appeared on the SBS website, “The Promise: Political History’”, which was later removed, and adding, “I have a collection of media and online comments from viewers which signify that they were misled into believing that the series is a documentary, or else a factual and accurate account of historic and current events.”

Wertheim dismissed claims that the ECAJ’s complaint was intended to “censor” the series. “Our entire complaint was in the public domain as soon as we sent it and we welcome the debate about the series”, Wertheim said. “The more scrutiny it receives, the more apparent its flaws become”.

Wertheim said that the ECAJ had not demanded that the sale of the DVD of the series should be banned regardless of the outcome of its complaint. “We asked only that the marketing and promotion of the DVD be suspended until the complaint was decided. SBS itself did not suggest that this request was unreasonable. On the contrary, they assured us that our complaint would be assessed before sales of the DVD were due to commence. If the complaint had been upheld, SBS would not have been in a position to promote material that had been found to violate its own Codes of Practice.”

Describing as “completely false” claims that the ECAJ had threatened to refer the issue to a Senate Estimates Committee, Wertheim said “We made no threats. The Senate Estimates Committee reviews SBS and other government-funded bodies on a regular basis and will make its own decisions about what matters it wants to investigate”.

Asked about the ECAJ’s controversial reference to the Nazi propaganda film Jud Süss, Wertheim responded, “This was solely to illustrate that even a film that has been nominated for a prestigious award and has received acclaim can be racist to the core. We do not suggest that the nature and severity of the anti-Jewish stereotyping is the same in each film.”

“Not every criticism of Israel is antisemitic”, Wertheim continued. “It is equally false to suggest that no criticism of Israel is antisemitic. There is clearly some overlap. One test is whether the criticism makes use of anti-Jewish stereotypes. The Promise certainly does so.”

Under the SBS Codes of Practice, the ECAJ may appeal to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, but Wertheim ruled out an appeal.

“Complaints alleging a breach of SBS Code 1.3 should be able to be referred to a different body with specialist knowledge and experience in dealing with racism,” Wertheim said.

According to SBS, The Promise was produced in association with SBS TV “although SBS had no editorial control over the production”.

A spokesperson for SBS told J-Wire: “We can only confirm that all complaints about the program have been responded to. The sale of the DVD will go ahead as planned. In any event, it is available in many countries.”'

Here is an interview with the writer/director of The Promise, Peter Kosminsky (hat tip: J-Wire):

Melbourne Zionist Uproots Sherwood's Forest Of Stones

2012-01-31T00:27:00.000-08:00

The Age once carried this cartoon ...

Harriet Sherwood, Jerusalem correspondent of the notoriously anti-Israel Guardian, frequently features on the Guardian-monitoring website CiF Watch, and with good reason. The Melbourne Age, one of the worst offenders in Australia as far as bias against Israel is concerned, recently published an article of hers entitled "No Stone Left Unpunished".

Emily Gian, Israel Advocacy Analyst at the Zionist Council of Victoria and a doctoral candidate in Israeli literature at the University of Melbourne, has issued a riposte, carried in the latest J-Wire:

Writes Emily Gian:

'An article appeared in last Thursday’s Melbourne Age entitled "No stone left unpunished". Penned by Harriet Sherwood of The Guardian, it told the story of Palestinian children detained by Israeli authorities for committing crimes such as "throwing stones at soldiers or settlers… flinging petrol bombs… [or] more serious offenses such as links to militant organisations or using weapons".

I couldn’t help but sense from the way Sherwood dismissed such activities as stone throwing and flinging petrol bombs as not being serious, that the writer was preparing to unleash what is now becoming stock standard fare from this publication on matters relating to Israel. Plenty of one-sided accusations without context and a token response from the Israeli side usually derided or sneered at by the author in the next paragraph or somewhere further down the line.

In its original incarnation in the Guardian, it was a termed a “special report” but, to its credit, the Age avoided the embarrassment and described it more correctly as an “opinion piece”. Perhaps “propaganda” might have even been more apt.

Dealing with children involved in conflict is a serious issue that needs to be handled responsibly. So does reporting on their treatment and, in this case, allegations of their mistreatment. Sherwood’s piece is problematic on three levels.

In the first place, there is the matter of the veracity of the claims made against the Israelis. Both Honest Reporting and CiF Watch have comprehensively refuted many of the article’s allegations so I will not repeat too much of what they say. However, what is of interest is how little time Sherwood dedicates to the Israeli response to the claims made and the inadequacy of her fact checking. It seems as though she simply wishes the allegations to be true and leaves it at that hoping that nobody (and certainly not the editors at the Guardian or the Age) will detect or care about the shoddiness of her work.

The Israel Security Agency (ISA) responded directly on the claims to the Guardian before the article went to print but the response was never fully published. The ISA states that “the claims that Palestinian minors were subject to interrogation techniques that include beatings, prolonged periods in handcuffs, threats, kicks, verbal abuse, humiliation, isolation and prevention of sleep are utterly baseless”.

The full ISA statement explains how all employees act within accordance of Israeli law and that those detained receive the full rights for which they are eligible. The statement also provided a categorical denial of “all claims with regard to the interrogation of minors. In fact, the complete opposite is true – the ISA guidelines grant minors special protections needed because of their age”.

Sherwood simply chose to ignore much of this statement, and instead used information provided to her by an organisation called the Defence for Children International. The DCI is a BDS supporter that calls for the full Right of Return of Palestinian refugees and previously lobbied for the now discredited Goldstone Report to be endorsed. Given its commitment to causes aimed at deligitimising the Jewish State and ultimately destroying it (a fact not disclosed in the article), the DCI is hardly an objective observer. Interestingly, one of its board members is Shawan Jabarin, a member of the terrorist group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. CiF Watch notes that his position on the board of a group that purports to protect children is strange “for someone involved with an organisation with such obvious disregard for the lives of either terror victims or the brainwashed teenagers sent to perpetrate terror attacks”.

It goes without saying that Sherwood also brushes over the crimes committed by some of the children. Her emotive piece attempts to paint a picture of harmless little pebbles being tossed at Israeli soldiers carrying guns – the old David and Goliath image. Never mind that such attacks have had fatal results such as the instances of Asher Palmer and his infant son Yonatan, who were killed when a rock hit the car in which they were travelling last September.

We see occasional instances of people throwing rocks at cars on Australian roads which have also caused serious injury but there is no reason to make light of such behaviour (see more) let alone of the throwing of petrol bombs which Sherwood doesn’t apparently consider too seriously when those attacked happen to be Israeli.

The second matter is one of timing. The initial Guardian piece appeared on Sunday 22 January. Honest Reporting and CiF Watch both published their rebuttals on Tuesday 24 January reprinting the Israeli response, which had already been ignored by the Guardian. The Age decided to republish the Sherwood article on Thursday 26 January, days after all of the information was available.

One expects that Age editor Paul Ramadge, Foreign Editor Carolyn Jones and Foreign Desk News Editor Maher Mughrabi are intelligent, well-read people, who would have seen the ISA response to the Guardian piece, and yet somehow, it appeared in its original form days later. Unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened (see more here and here).

Thirdly, and to their everlasting shame, it seems that neither the journalist nor any of the agencies mentioned in the article appear to have the slightest interest in coming up with a solution to the problem of children becoming embroiled in the violence of the conflict. That their usefulness is measured only as a propaganda tool for those with more sinister motives leaves a stench far greater than that which offended Sherwood so much when she visited Cell 36, deep within Al Jalame prison in northern Israel.'

John Bolton On Ron Paul's Isolationist Foreign Policy (video)

2012-01-30T03:24:00.000-08:00

Here, in a short clip, is the former American envoy to the UN ...

Yes, Virginia, There Are Jews In Oz (videos)

2012-01-29T09:34:00.000-08:00

And here's a brand new video from the Sydney Morning Herald showing an historic event that's just taken place at the East Melbourne shul. (I think the reporter should learn not to talk of a "church" in this context, though, nor to use "temple" as a substitute term for an Orthodox synagogue.)

Jews arrived in Australia on the very first day of European settlement - 26 January 1788, when the First Fleet sailed into Botany Bay with between six and fourteen Jews among the convicts being transported from England to the new penal colony on the other side of the world. One of them, Esther Abrahams, transported for stealing a small quantity of black lace from a London draper's shop, married George Johnstone, a Royal Marine officer she met en voyage. He ultimately became Governor of New South Wales, and so Esther the convict lass would up as First Lady of the colony. Although her children with Johnstone were brought up as Christians, her descendents were not entirely lost to Judaism - some years ago, a woman who traced her descent to Esther entirely through the female line, and is thus Jewish according to Halakhah, reconnected with Judaism.

Esther was by no means the only Jewish convict who made good. Many became successful in both mercantile and public life. During the nineteenth century, especially after "free" (as opposed to convict) immigration began in earnest in the 1820s, there were many Jews in country towns in Australia. A number of Jews, not only from England but from continental Europe too, kept hotels and acted as storekeepers during the gold rushes of the 1850s. Unless their descendents moved to one of the big cities, where Jewish communal life was more viable and there were more prospective marriage partners, the rural Jewish families tended to become totally assimilated, with the result that around 250,000 Aussies today can claim a Jewish ancestor.

During the inter-war period, when, incidentally, Australia had a Jewish Governor-General, Sir Isaac Isaacs, as well as an iconic Jewish military hero, Sir John Monash, the Australian Jewish community seemed on the verge of disappearance owing to the inroads of apathy and assimilation. The arrival of thousands of Jews from Eastern Europe both immediately prior to and after the Second World War changed all that, and today Australian Jewry remains one of the most flourishing in the Diaspora. It is strongly committed to Israel.

Below is a comparable video of Jews in New Zealand, which, by the way, was never a penal settlement:

Barghouti Demonising Israel In California & Seattle (video)

2012-01-28T10:13:00.000-08:00

Here's Omar Barghouti, who's been in California too, pimping BDS in a long address before a congregation of useful idiots in Seattle Cathedral recently, introduced by a bishop quoting Tutu.

I wouldn't be surprised if the ignorance displayed, in cut-glass British tones, by this BDSer in Sacramento, California, is typical of the infantry of the BDS movement as a whole. The Palestinians have been there "for hundreds if not thousands of years" she explains to an unseen male interviewer, who replies "That is true. They are the indigenous people ..." Such preposterous twaddle! Perhaps that's why the video's been uploaded by "thequeernews"...

And here is an unheavenly choir which performed in Oakland, California, when Barghouti addressed Christian lefties there under the auspices of the so-called Middle East Children's Alliance and those whacky dames from CodePink:

David Still Harping On The UNESCO Giant's Sins

2012-01-27T00:45:00.000-08:00

David Singer, the Sydney lawyer and foundation member of the International Analysts Network, is by now no stranger to regular readers of this blog.

His petition (please spread the word!) is still open for signing here

Meanwhile, he continues to concentrate on the consequences of UNESCO's unconstitutional admittance of Palestine, as in this article entitled 'UNESCO Unmoved To Try To End Humanitarian Crisis,' which comes as usual from the antipodean J-Wire service.

Writes David Singer:

Read on for articleThe Director of the Division of Public Information at UNESCO – Mr Neil Ford – has made it clear that UNESCO still refuses to approach the Imternational Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion on the legality of the admission of Palestine as the 195th Member State of UNESCO…writes David Singer.

'The Director of the Division of Public Information at UNESCO – Mr Neil Ford – has made it clear that UNESCO still refuses to approach the Imternational Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion on the legality of the admission of Palestine as the 195th Member State of UNESCO.

This approach was suggested by me to UNESCO in a detailed submission on 1 December last – following what I considered to be an inadequate response to my concerns first raised with UNESCO on 5 November – five days after Palestine’s admission to UNESCO.

On 31 December – and only after considerable prodding – I was advised by Ms Suzanne Bilello – Senior Public Information and Liaison Officer with the UNESCO Office in New York – that UNESCO had no comment to make on my submission.

I then started a petition to in the hope of persuading UNESCO to review its decision.

I wrote to Ms Bilello on 2 January in the following terms:

“I can only take UNESCO’s refusal to comment further to mean that:

UNESCO cannot legally justify the decision to admit Palestine as a full member of UNESCO since a two thirds majority vote of 130 member states required by Article II (2) of the Constitution was not met – as I claimed in my email to you dated 1 December 2011

UNESCO is not prepared to supply me with a copy of the recommendation of the Executive Board to the General Conference to admit Palestine to membership of UNESCO and any reports that formed part of that recommendation or were considered by the Executive Board prior to making that recommendation

If I am mistaken in drawing the above conclusions – please advise me why within the next seven days.”

Ms Bilello did not respond.

Surprisingly however – Mr Ford sent me an email on 18 January – but it failed to comment on my detailed submission. Instead Mr Ford sought to justify the legal correctness of a statement issued by UNESCO that I had criticised in various articles and blog posts.

Mr Ford was quite peremptory in again letting me know that UNESCO would provide no further comment on the subject.

Undeterred. I asked him to confirm whether he had seen my detailed submission sent to Ms Bilello and asked him two further questions that required simple “Yes” or “No” answers.

True to his word he refused to comment. A three-word email was obviously too hard to draft and send for the UNESCO Director of Public Information.

In all of these ongoing discussions the very large Legal Department of UNESCO has remained silent – apparently hoping that its spin doctors in Public Relations will make the legal issues go away.
UNESCO’s conduct seems very hard to fathom.

UNESCO is sailing into uncharted waters as its decision on Palestine has cost – and will cost it – the loss of 22% of its budget in unpaid American dues totalling about $225 million dollars to 2013. Even worse – loss of funding to the tune of about $85 million per annum is set to continue annually after 2013.

Facing this funding shortfall, UNESCO has halted all new projects, and may be forced to lay off staff.
The Center For Humanitarian Rights and Humanitarian Law (CHRHL) has spelled out the serious consequences of losing that funding:

“UNESCO, which has a budget of $653 million for 2011-2012, works to attain equal education around the world, mobilize support for sustainable development, and encourage intercultural dialogue. As a key player in fulfilling the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG), UNESCO supports and promotes literacy programs across the developing world. The right to education is enshrined in Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. UNESCO’s Education for All initiative, which seeks to meet the second MDG of universal primary education by 2015, has faced large funding gaps since its inception. UNESCO’s own funding shortfall as a result of the Palestinian vote is likely to exacerbate budgetary constraints on this crucial program. Specific programs that may be affected include: literacy training for Afghan police, an Iraqi curriculum development program, and education infrastructure support in South Sudan.”

UNESCO’S response to this developing crisis has been to sail on its merry way – virtually oblivious to the dangers that lurk just beneath the surface that could cause this giant colossus to run aground.

Whilst busy raising the flag of “Palestine” at UNESCO headquarters in Paris – UNESCO has attempted to recoup this staggering shortfall by:

Establishing an Emergency Fund – which has met with little success.

According to CHCRL the Fund is unlikely to cover the initial shortfall of $65 million and UNESCO will be forced to reformulate its future budgetary plans as the US is expected to withold budgeting for the coming years caused by the automatic suspension of the payment of any funds to any UN agency that admitted Palestine to membership of that organization.

Attempting to get America to resume its payments to UNESCO by changing its domestic laws – a forlorn hope according to CHCRL because of a desire in the U.S. to cut government spending.
I believe there is a far more cogent reason this will not happen – especially in an election year.

That reason is US Congressional disapproval of the PLO attempting to unilaterally seek recognition of a Palestinian State outside the negotiations agreed to be conducted between Israel and the PLO under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

Ironically the one lifeline that could possibly end this growing humanitarian crisis – my suggested approach to the International Court of Justice – continues to remain unconsidered by UNESCO .

If my submission is upheld – and UNESCO has yet to dispute its conclusions – Palestine’s admission to UNESCO will be declared null and void – but the budget short fall will be eliminated and a multitude of UNESCO’s global humanitarian programs will be saved from the funding axe.

If my submission is not upheld – then Palestine’s admission to UNESCO will be confirmed, the meaning of the UNESCO Constitution will be clarified and UNESCO can hold its head high in having attempted to take some positive action to reinstate the loss of 22% of its funding.

I estimate the approach to the ICJ to judicially determine whether Palestine’s admission to UNESCO was legal or not – would cost UNESCO $100000 .

Will UNESCO take the plunge – or just keep rearranging the deckchairs whilst the ship sinks?'

Lord Sacks's Message On Holocaust Memorial Day (video)

2012-01-27T00:08:00.000-08:00

Here is Lord Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Britain and the Commonwealth, with eloquent reflections on the Shoah:

Hat tip: reader Shirlee

A Garden of Eden in Hell (video)

2012-01-26T11:30:00.000-08:00

It's Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January, and here's an uplifting video about a remarkable 108-year-old Shoah survivor and very gifted pianist, Alice Herz Sommer, now resident in London.

Hat tip: reader Shirlee

Pow Wow On BDS At King's College, London (video)

2012-01-25T13:39:00.000-08:00

Here's a long video showing Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, Omar Barghouti, and other BDS activists speaking at King's College, London, a few days ago. There are interesting insights into BDS tactics, strategy, and general thinking here.

For example, one speaker talks about the academic and cultural boycott of Israel, how the BDS movement is a valuable educational tool, and how a well-known television scientist is being worked upon to try to shun visits to Israel in the future.

The Globe Theatre is also in the BDSers' sights, it seems. So stick with the video, if you can.

You don't have to look, just as long as you listen ...

In the words of the uploader:

Omar Barghouti is an independent Palestinian commentator and human rights activist. He is a member of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC). He holds Bachelor's and Master's degrees in electrical engineering from Columbia University, and a Master's degree in philosophy (ethics) from Tel Aviv University.

Omar was joined by:

Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, Chair, British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP),

Mehdi Beyati, King's College London student and KCL Action Palestine activist,

The meeting was chaired by Maha Rezeq, an independent Palestinian activist and journalist.

Meeting was supported by: British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP), KCL Action Palestine, LSESU Palestine Society, UCL Friends of Palestine, University of London Union (ULU) and Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).

Jews, Jizya & Jihad

2012-01-25T11:04:00.000-08:00

Dr Andrew Bostom is an American medical specialist who in the wake of 9/11 has emerged as a leading authority on Islamic antisemitism, dhimmitude, and jihad. During a recent interview with Mark Tapson of FrontPageMagazine, Dr Bostom cogently explained the nature of dhimmitude and the doctrine behind it, and gives a clear exposition of Islamic attitudes to Jews, and by extension to their possession of Eretz Israel.

Not the least interesting and useful aspect of the interview is Dr Bostom's summarised sample of known historical incidents of Islamic violence towards Jews:

'Here is but a very incomplete sampling of barely known pogroms and mass murderous violence against Jews living under Islamic rule, across space and time, all resulting from the combined effects of jihadism, general anti-dhimmi, and/or specifically Antisemitic motifs in Islam: 6,000 Jews massacred in Fez in 1033; hundreds of Jews slaughtered in Muslim Cordoba between 1010 and 1015; 4,000 Jews killed in Muslim riots in Grenada in 1066, wiping out the entire community; the Berber Muslim Almohad depredations of Jews (and Christians) in Spain and North Africa between 1130 and 1232, which killed tens of thousands, while forcibly converting thousands more, and subjecting the forced Jewish converts to Islam to a Muslim Inquisition; the 1291 pogroms in Baghdad and its environs, which killed (at least) hundreds of Jews; the 1465 pogrom against the Jews of Fez; the late 15th century pogrom against the Jews of the Southern Moroccan oasis town of Touat; the 1679 pogroms against, and then expulsion of 10,000 Jews from Sanaa, Yemen to the unlivable, hot and dry Plain of Tihama, from which only 1,000 returned alive, in 1680, 90% having died from exposure; recurring Muslim anti-Jewish violence—including pogroms and forced conversions—throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, which rendered areas of Iran (for example, Tabriz) Judenrein; the 1834 pogrom in Safed where raging Muslim mobs killed and grievously wounded hundreds of Jews; the 1888 massacres of Jews in Isfahan and Shiraz, Iran; the 1910 pogrom in Shiraz; the pillage and destruction of the Casablanca, Morocco ghetto in 1907; the pillage of the ghetto of Fez Morocco in 1912; the government sanctioned anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims in Turkish Eastern Thrace during June-July, 1934 which ethnically cleansed at least 3000 Jews; and the series of pogroms, expropriations, and finally mass expulsions of some 900,000 Jews from Arab Muslim nations, beginning in 1941 in Baghdad (the murderous “Farhud,” during which 600 Jews were murdered, and at least 12,000 pillaged)—eventually involving cities and towns in Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Syria, Aden, Bahrain, and culminating in 1967 in Tunisia—that accompanied the planning and creation of a Jewish state, Israel, on a portion of the Jews’ ancestral homeland.'

Read all of Dr Bostom's interview here

Shtum & Shtumer: The moronic mindset motivating much media mischief

2012-01-25T06:12:00.000-08:00

"Half The Story, All The Time." With that phrase the very talented and tenacious team at that wonderful website, Biased BBC, hit the nail on the head of what is so scandalously wrong with Al Beeb's reportage. Not only on Israel and the Middle East. But on so many other topics too.

"We are all guilty." That was one of those asinine buzz phrases droned by the fanatical Left during the Vietnam War era. Its legacy can be seen in those present-day institutions (such as the BBC and its Aussie counterpart the ABC) that the Left has infiltrated and influenced increasingly ever since, each generation of recruiters evidently taking on newcomers cast in their own image.

The impact of "We are all guilty" can be seen in the way the BBC reports issues of race, according extravagant, breast-beating,sometimes almost fetish-like coverage to white-on-black or white-on-Asian crime, but generally soft-peddling cases in which the miscreants are non-whites and the victims white.

The recent abominable murder of a young Indian postgraduate student at Lancaster University, shot in the head at close range in a seemingly unprovoked attack in Salford by some sick scumbag, has rightly caused widespread grief and outrage. I'm sure that many people, of all backgrounds, feel like tearing the perpetrator apart with their bare hands.

Similarly, no tears need be shed for feral racists who have just been convicted, after many years at large, of stabbing eighteen-year-old Stephen Lawrence to death, apparently for the sole reason that he was black.

But since the "We Are All Guilty" mindset is embedded in an anti-"Western imperialism" or post-colonial guilt trip, for the BBC and other leftwing media non-whites, in marked contrast to whites, can seldom be innately racist.

Thus, like the legendary three wise monkeys, the BBC and other outlets of its ilk, wise only by the criteria of their own warped Weltenschauung, are wilfully blind, deaf, and dumb regarding such crimes as this and this.

Crimes which, I might add, have earned the most derisory sentences. (See an interesting take here)

When you have time, take a look at this, and pay special attention to how the media (including the odious BBC) treated two murders that occurred on the same day, miles apart: one of a black teenager by whites in Manchester and one of a young white man by a black youth on a bus in London.

Effectively, what is being practised here is censorship. Consequently the public, since facts are deliberately being withheld from them by a press that is voluntarily fettered, is not entirely free.

Just the other week, in the wake of the conviction of the two thugs found guilty of murdering Stephen Lawrence, the BBC sent a reporter out to discover whether attitudes to race (that is, white attitudes to blacks) had improved since that heinous crime was committed in 1993. It seems racists (white, naturellement) were rather thin on the ground, for when at last the reporter encountered an angry white man, who obliged by cursing with the N word (at least, we were told he did), the reporter looked positively orgasmic, skipping in his gait as he continued to badger the old guy for amplification of his views.

Virtually all the man's bottom teeth were missing. He's evidently too poor to afford the cosmetic dentistry that the suburban middle classes take for granted, and I suspect he was as angry, if not angrier, at a toff from the BBC coming slumming into his neighbourhood to patronise and probe people like him as he is towards his black neighbours.

There is a racist bee in Al Beeb's bonnet. We had more evidence of it last week with yet another of its features on "Stop and Search". The BBC, of course, in examining the current status of "Stop and Search" only told one side of the story. (No prizes for guessing which one.)

The National Union of Journalists' 'guidelines on reporting race' (admirably commonsensical in many respects) contain this decidedly dodgy assertion:

'Black can cover people of Arab, Asian, Chinese and African origin.'

Arabs black? Chinese black?

What a curious figment of a politically correct mindset which has jettisoned all reason, which sows divisiveness in society, and which perhaps, in reportage of the Middle East conflict, encourages the portrayal of Arabs as victims! (Forgetting, of course, that if Arabs are black, then so is half the Israeli population.)

By such means are whites constructed as a demonic "Other."

By such woolly thinking, the Black Police Association contains people who are no more "black" in either physical appearance or ethnic origin than is an olive-skinned Italian.

Ha'aretz's Blunder Draws Thunder From Down Under

2012-01-24T02:54:00.000-08:00

Been and seen Down Under

The leftwing Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz recently carried this highly tendentious article by Akiva Eldar about Australian Jewry and Israel. Its headline? "Israel is shaming Australian Jews"

I know for a fact that online ripostes, even by well-informed and well-respected Middle East analysts, failed to find their way onto the Comments section. Deliberate suppression on the part of a newspaper which prides itself on its own gift of free speech, no matter how critical it is of the policies of its beleaguered nation? It would seem so.

But unfortunately for the newspaper, and for Eldar, the leadership of Australian Jewry is made of sterner stuff than its lily-livered counterparts in the Mother Country. There are comparatively few "trembling Israelites" in Australian Jewish circles, perhaps because such a large proportion of the Jewish community Down Under is derived from Holocaust survivors and their descendants.

Peter Wertheim, Executive Director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, has written to Ha'aretz as follows:

"My organisation, which is the peak national body representing Australian Jewry, has been besieged with complaints from Australian Jews about the egregious falsehoods and childish oversimplifications contained in the article. I understand that many complainants have posted comments in response to the article but, so far, you have failed to publish any of them.

I am writing to ask you for two things.

Publish all the posts (unless they are obscene or abusive), and allow the link to the article to remain on your home page for a few days to give visitors to the site a fair opportunity to read them.

Publish our 750 word reply to Eldar – to be supplied.

I would appreciate your urgent response. Kindly note that the Jewish community media in Australia and elsewhere are keenly observing how this matter unfolds."

Been and seen Down Under

And Danny Rod, a young law and international studies student and board member of the State Zionist Council of New South Wales, has written a splendid "Open Letter" to Eldar:

"Dear Akiva Eldar,

It is you who are shaming Australian Jews.

I was outraged to have read your piece in Haaretz on the 23^rd of January because you openly slap in the face the thousands of ordinary Australian Jews, who every day seek to support Israel and prevent anti-semitism in Australia.

These people are not the so called lobbyists but everyday people, youth movement members, Jewish Communal leaders and University Campus leaders. You are not here to witness the hate and the vitriol that we experience each and every day on campus and you are not there when ridiculed for your belief in the right of a Jewish State to exist. These things happen each day and as a past Chairperson of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students in NSW I saw it with my own eyes. I saw and still see the passion in the Young Adult Community’s eyes when celebrating Yom Haatzmaut and the dedication of so many young university students to attend our events just to show their support for Israel.

I see ordinary working men and women, who give up their spare time volunteering to ensure that there are events which promote Israel in our community and provide an outlet to express our love even if we are not in Israel physically.

Been and seen Down Under
Your article demonstrated no understanding of our community and shows a great deal of ignorance. Our community is not as affluent as you might think and it is up to organisations that do amazing work such as Jewish Care and Jewish House which provide amazing services to those less fortunate in our community. The ties that bind our community together are strong and the passion and love we show for Israel is unbreakable.

In case you were wondering, Middle Eastern Affairs does feature prominently in the Australian news cycle. You may have heard of the Marrickville BDS campaign and related horrific campaigns by the NSW Greens last year and the public outcry that it received. The so called ‘spineless lobbyists’ were not the ones who were able to effect the changes in the policy of both Marrickville Council and the NSW Greens but rather grassroots campaigning and mainstream media coverage which showed the hypocrisy that BDS promotes. This was by both Jews and Non-Jews, both seeking to show that they supported peace in the Middle East.

Been and seen Down Under
The assertion that Middle Eastern affairs is on the bottom rung of priorities for Australian politicians is simply wrong. We are privileged to have strong bi-partisan support from both of Australia’s political parties on Israel and when issues arise that are of concern to our community, they are the first to help out and lend a hand to the community – not because of lobbyists but a shared belief that Israel and Australia share the same values. You are forgetting that Kevin Rudd, when Prime Minister was prepared to take Iran to the International Criminal Court for it’s actions against Israel or the fact Israel has been the subject of numerous parliamentary motions all of which passed with bi-partisan support for Israel.

Despite your ridiculous article, I am proud to say that Israel is not something we are ashamed of. In face of attacks on our Synagogues and large often anti-Semitic protests on campus we still believe in Israel. We believe that although Israel is not the perfect place we envision it to be, we fight to make it that way. To the thousands of volunteers who work each day to promote Israel and Zionism in Australia, I thank you. Your work is very much under appreciated and thanks is often unspoken but no less valuable. To the politicians on both sides of parliament, thank you for your support – I’m sure a ridiculous article such as this does not put a damper on our appreciation of your support."

Hat tip: reader Shirlee; text sources J-Wire.

Why Do The Palestinians Want To Divide Jerusalem? (video)

2012-01-23T03:02:00.000-08:00

Another one I missed when it debuted (a year ago), consisting of a dialogue between a familiar-looking gentleman and a Palestinian representative:

Hat tip: reader Shirlee

Britain Gets Rid Of The Press Gang, & More Good News, Naturally

2012-01-22T11:18:00.000-08:00

"Press TV seems to have disappeared!" came the excited, if incredulous, voice on Friday. "I keep clicking on [Sky digital channel] 515 and there's nothing there!"

Knowing that a serious complaint had been filed with Ofcom about the Iranian satellite propaganda news and current channel, and that last month the channel had been fined £100,00 for multiple transgressions, I googled at once, and saw the announcement of the withdrawal of Press TV's licence to broadcast in Britain, effective immediately.

So it's goodbye to the gang who've graced its airwaves, putting the knife into Israel ... Yvonne Ridley, Lauren Booth (pictured), George Galloway (leaving little to the imagination when attired in a tight girly-pink leotard on TV, needless to say not Press TV) ...

The willingness of the western women, in particular, to act as presenters on a station that is funded by a regime which stones women to death and colludes in the gang-rape of virgin female prisoners prior to execution is especially repulsive and odious...

So, therefore, is the willingness of anti-Israel female activists such as Baroness (Jenny) Tonge to give interviews to Press TV.

And so, of course, is the willingness of so many common-or-garden female Israel-bashers to act as apologists for the Iranian regime.

Launched in 2007, Press TV, broadcasting 24/7, claimed a regular viewing figure of almost 10 million British homes.

Among those regular viewers, evidently, is the all-female coven that constitutes my local Palestine Solidarity Campaign branch. A trio of these middle-aged/elderly women (whose antics range from harassing shoppers outside supermarkets stocking Israeli produce to initiating an online petition asking David Cameron to apologise for the Balfour Declaration) spent much of Wednesday beside a stall, bedecked with those four infamous maps (you know the ones), they'd set up in the town centre, complete with a huge banner inquiring "Whatever Happened To Palestine". They were thrusting anti-Israel propaganda at passers by, and one rattled a collection tin.

Some weeks ago, between tweets decrying the United States and Israel and promoting BDS, their leader tweeted "Tell Ofcom that PressTV's the one UK channel reporting what the mainstream don't. And it's virtually trivia-free..."
Last week they carried the message: "....There's no proof Iran has nuclear weapons program!..."
And their latest tweet is: "Please campaign to get Ofcom to put Press TV back on Sky...."

I imagine the entire anti-Israel movement in Britain evinces similar indignation at the passing of the Press Gang.

And there was more good news for Israel's supporters in Britain this week. As reported recently in the Jewish Chronicle,

"Filmmakers Ken Loach and Mike Leigh have condemned the Natural History Museum for collaborating with an Israeli firm on a research project.

They were joined by Liberal Democrat peer Jenny Tonge and a number of other critics of Israel in writing a letter to the Independent newspaper.

The signatories complained that the museum was guilty of breaking international law by working with cosmetics company Ahava on a research project into the possible risks of "nanomaterial" (microscope man-made cells which could be used to treat illness in the future)...."

To its credit, however, the Natural History Museum has refused to budge. Israel Matsav , following the Jerusalem Post, has the details.
(Hat tip: reader Shirlee)

“Israel will exist, and continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it"

2012-01-21T14:41:00.000-08:00

Israel swings in Tahrir Square

Robert S. Wistrich, Professor of Modern History and Director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has written in this month's issue of The Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs a scholarly but highly readable analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimim), which, along with Salafists, has benefited so hugely from the overthrow of the Mubarak regime.

Reminding us that the Brotherhood still cleaves to the motto "Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope" the article laments

"how few professors of Middle East studies at American or European universities seem able or willing to grasp the true nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, let alone display any interest in its visceral anti-Westernism or ferocious anti-Semitism. Today, very few academics seek to elucidate its core ideology or long-term goals, let alone acknowledge their incompatibility with liberal democracy, human rights, or a stable world order. Instead, the general consensus was that overthrowing Mubarak would lead to pluralistic democracy with the Muslim Brothers pursuing a benignly constructive role. Typically, fundamentalist attitudes to Egypt’s Jews and Christians, or to the anti-Semitic legacy, were either whitewashed or simply ignored. ...."

Regarding its attitude to Jews and Israel, he observes:

"Anti-Semitism and conspiracy-mongering have, of course, been part of Egypt’s political discourse ever since the military coup that brought Nasir to power almost sixty years ago.... But the anti- Jewish conspiracy theories of the Brotherhood and Egyptian preachers are in a class of their own. In an interview on ‘al-Rahma TV’ (26 October 2011), the virulently anti-Semitic cleric Amin al-Ansari even claimed that Jews manipulate women in order to maintain their control of the world, citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and adding: “... when Zionism and Judaism benefit, it means the decline not only of Muslim women, but of humanity as a whole.”

Such Muslim concern for women evidently did not extend to the chief correspondent for CBS News, the non-Jewish American reporter Lara Logan. In February 2011, she was beaten and raped in broad daylight by a frenzied throng of Egyptian men in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, who were screaming “Jew! Jew!” even as they assaulted her. This shocking event (studiously ignored by the ‘New York Times’ print edition [and of course by the BBC]) was virtually contemporaneous with the return of Yusuf al-Qaradawi (the most celebrated Muslim Brotherhood cleric in the world) to Egypt after fifty years in exile.

Having given several examples of Qaradawi's blood-chilling invective against Jews, Professor Wistrich continues:

"If this is not genocidal anti-Semitic incitement, then the term has little meaning. The current supreme leader of the Brotherhood, Mohamed Budi, undoubtedly shares such views on Israel, Zionism, and the Jews. His advice in 2010 to the Mujahideen in Gaza to continue to “raise the banner of jihad against the Jews, [our] first and foremost enemies” was essentially echoing an undeviating gospel of hatred.

Like Sheikh Qaradawi, the current leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood clearly believe that loathing of Jews and the destruction of Israel is mandated by God himself. Every Jew in the world is thereby designated an enemy within this ideology. Nor is it an accident that Qaradawi, like other Egyptian clerics, should quote an anti-Jewish saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad in a notorious hadith on the preconditions for the Day of Judgment. In his commentary, Qaradawi emphasized that the coming apocalyptic battle will not be “between Arabs and Zionists, or between Jews and Palestinians, or between Jews or anybody else.” His conclusion could not be more explicit. “ This battle will occur between the collective body of Muslims and the collective body of Jews, that is all Muslims and all Jews.”

Such Muslim fundamentalist doctrines on Israel and the Jews are intimately connected to an obsession with purging Muslim countries of all and any Western influences—seen as part of a larger Jewish-Zionist conspiracy against Islam. Since 1928, when Sheikh Hasan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brothers in Ismailiyah, the notion that Jews are by nature evil and can never peacefully co-exist with others has been axiomatic for the fundamentalist organization. An equally self-evident corollary is the denial of any possibility of Jewish self-rule (let alone a Jewish state) or even of civic equality with Muslims.

A viewpoint expressed in Londonistan

The establishment of Israel in 1948 further reinforced this Islamist doctrine of Zionism as a malevolent force and a permanent enemy. It was given a more systematic expression in the 1950s by Sayyed Qutb, the most important and influential of the Brotherhood’s thinkers, who was repeatedly imprisoned, tortured, and eventually executed by Nasir’s police state in 1966. For Qutb, the term ‘Jews’ became virtually interchangeable with ‘enemies of Islam’. The struggle against the Jews would continue indefinitely because the Jewish enemy would never rest until Islam was destroyed. Qutb was even convinced that Nasir himself was an “agent of Zionism” as were all the secular nationalist westernizing regimes in the Middle East. Qutb also railed against the “army of the learned”—the secularist professors, philosophers, writers, poets, and scientists carrying Muslim names yet undermining the sacred religion of Islam “in the service of Zionism.” Qutb’s heirs in the Brotherhood were especially outraged by President Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem in 1977 and his “fallacious peace” with the arch-enemy Israel.

After 1979, their spiritual leader and the chief editor of 'al-Dawah' [The Call to Islam], Umar al-Tilmisani, spared no effort in denouncing the diabolical nature of the Jews and Israel’s malicious intent to destroy the Islamic foundations of Egypt....

For al-Tilmisani and his fellow Muslim brothers thirty years ago, normalization with Israel was the greatest “catastrophe” imaginable — nothing less than “the most dangerous cancer eating away at all the life cells in our bodies.” Exchanging ambassadors with the Jewish State was equivalent to “opening the gates of evil on Egypt,” a spiritual death in exchange for the bribe of billions of American dollars and final capitulation tothe “world Zionist conspiracy.”

Courtesy: Edgar Davidson

Following Sadat’s assassination (a revolutionary fundamentalist act), the already cold peace with Israel became virtually frozen - not least because of the strength of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies. During the next three decades of Hosni Mubarak’s repressive rule, demonization of the Jews continued unchecked in the Egyptian media, despite massive American economic aid to Egypt and a common strategic interest with Israel in containing Islamism. Nonetheless, anti-Semitism remained, as before, the daily bread of Egyptian politics. Mubarak and his government colleagues permitted it as a safety valve and an outlet for popular rage that might otherwise have turned against the corruption of the regime. The fundamentalists, in turn, maintained their long-term goals of one day destroying the peace with Israel, thereby “saving Islam” and establishing an authentic Islamic state ruled by Sharia law.

As recently as 1 January 2012, the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood,Rashad Bayoumi, told the Arabic daily al-Hayat that his organization will never “recognize Israel at all,” whatever the circumstances. He emphasized that the Brotherhood regarded Israel as a “criminal enemy” and would initiate legal proceedings toward cancelling the 1979 peace treaty....

With regard to Israel and the Jews, the fundamentalist attitude has never deviated during the past few decades, closely linked as it is to a truly paranoid fear of “Judaization”—often a synonym for secularism, westernization, liberal modernity, or “globalization.” Paradoxically, Brotherhood ideologues, despite their rabid anti-Westernism, have no problem in drawing liberally on non-Muslim sources for their radical anti-Semitism .... Egypt has long been saturated by this type of semi-pornographic stream of anti-Semitic vitriol directed at the “Satanic Jews,” publicly licensed and frequently legitimized by seemingly respectable journalists, academics, and Egyptian intellectuals. Such libels have been common among Nasirists, a number of Egyptian “liberals,” and even some leftists as well as among Islamists of every shade or coloring. Though the question of Palestine is often present as the trigger for such deep antagonism, much of the hostility also relates to the presumed “cultural assault” on Egypt that derives not only from Israel’s physical existence but from the imagined “essence” of Judaism and Jewry. [My emphasis]

The current unleashing of radical Islamist forces throughout Egypt has hardly improved matters. Thus, at a venomous Muslim Brotherhood rally in Cairo’s most prominent mosque on November 25, 2011, Islamic activists ominously chanted “Tel Aviv, judgment day has come,” vowing to “one day kill all Jews.” The rally had been called to promote the “battle against Jerusalem’s Judaization” and was peppered with hate-filled speeches about the “treacherous Jews.” There were explicit calls for jihad and for the liberation of all of Palestine as well as references to the well-known hadith concerning a future Muslim annihilation of the Jews. Ahmed al-Tayeb, head of Egypt’s Al-Azhar University (the most senior clerical authority in Sunni Islam), even claimed that to this day Jews everywhere in the world are seeking to prevent Egyptian and Islamic unity. He added: “The al-Aqsa Mosque is currently under an offensive by the Jews... We shall not allow the Zionists to judaize al-Quds [Jerusalem].” Such threats have been a consistent theme among Egyptian Islamic preachers and spokesmen of the Muslim Brotherhood for the past eighty years.

The theme of the “treacherous Jews” has deep roots indeed in the Quran and hadith. It has also animated the Palestinian Hamas ever since its creation twenty-four years ago—inspiring its visceral Jew-hatred, rabid anti-Westernism, and jihadist ideology. Not surprisingly for an organizational offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’s Sacred Covenant of 1988 includes in its preamble an emphatic quote from Sheikh Hassan al-Banna: “Israel will exist, and continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it...” [My emphasis] Hamas’s Islamic credo, its advocacy of jihad, its anti-Semitic world-view, and hatred of Israel are all inextricably linked to the ideology of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood—of which it proudly claims to be the Palestinian wing. Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant underlines, for example, the continuous jihad of the Brotherhood against “the Zionist invasion” in 1936, 1948, and 1968, as the unbreakable chain connected to the founding of Hamas itself in 1988. All of these revolts were driven by the same conviction that Palestine is an inalienable possession “for all generations of Muslims” until the end of time.'

Read all of Robert Wistrich's footnoted article here
And while on the subject of brotherly love:

Irish Anti-Israel Fanatics Protest Portuguese Singer's Upcoming Visit To Tel Aviv (video)

2012-01-20T08:13:00.000-08:00

Portuguese singer Ana Moura is due to perform in Israel on 27th January, and to date hasn't responded to a letter from Raymond Deane, the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign's Cultural Boycott Officer, who told her:

"Your Irish fans and the many Irish lovers of Fado music will be eager to give you a warm Irish welcome when you perform in our National Concert Hall on 19th January next.

However, if you persist with your plan to perform in Israel on 27th January, in violation of the Palestinian call for a cultural boycott of the Israeli state, that welcome will be balanced by a demonstration against your indifference to the fate ... of the Palestinian people....

Please ensure that your welcome to Ireland will be unconditional by cancelling your planned performance in Tel Aviv."

The ISPC fanatics (you may recognise two of them from the video in which outraged Jewish visitors gave them a well-deserved tongue-lashing not long ago) were therefore outside the National Concert Hall in Dublin on Thursday, 19th January, to make their feelings known.

Hear these anti-Israel fanatics spewing their venom against the "racist" Jewish State, which they want consigned to "the dustbin of history". It "clearly is not" a "liberal democratic state on the Western model" but "an ethnocracy for Jews first and foremost" in which Ana Moura will be performing for a "segregated audience" and which is setting up "concentration camps" for illegal immigrants. Of course, these Irish fanatics very conveniently don't mention what the illegal immigrants are escaping from, and why they are willing to risk everything by trekking across desert to enter the - ahem! - Apartheid State. Oh, and they invoke Martin Luther King, apparently forgetting that Dr King wrote "When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews" and a whole lot more on that theme in similiar vein

Danny Ayalon Addresses The Royal Institute of International Affairs, London (video)

2012-01-19T08:10:00.000-08:00

Here's Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister addressing the RIIA (Chatham House) on 17th January:

Hat tip: reader Shirlee

Mistakes People Makes About Israel (video)

2012-01-18T11:10:00.000-08:00

A video I missed when it first came out.

Slice Of Reilly: A Catholic Thinker On 'Understanding the Palestinians as the "invented" people they are and [why] the invention was made'

2012-01-17T13:41:00.000-08:00

Robert R. Reilly is music critic for CrisisMagazine and author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created The Modern Islamist Crisis (2010).

His latest article, "Why "Invent" The Palestinians?', written in the wake of the furore over Newt Gingirch's description of the Palestinians as an "invented" people, constitutes a masterly and most accessible overview of the historical reality to which Gingrich referred.

The peg on which Robert Reilly hangs his analysis is this remark of Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security adviser in the Bush administration:

"There was no Jordan or Syria or Iraq, either, so perhaps he [Gingrich] would say they are all invented people as well, and also have no right to statehood. Whatever was true then, Palestinian nationalism has grown since 1948, and whether we like it or not, it exists."

Observes Reilly:

"This critique seems to confuse two things. Palestine, of course, has never been a state. In 1920, Palestine was carved out as a territory by the British, against the wishes of the Arabs living there who thought of themselves as inhabitants of Greater Syria. When it was within their power the Arabs never thought to create Palestine as a country, nor did the Ottomans. Were it to become one, it would have to be "invented," just as have been all other states, like Jordan, Syria or Iraq, all of which are 20th-century creations. In this respect, Abrams is correct.However, states are human constructs; peoples are not. Peoples exist according to ethnic and linguistic distinctions. For instance, the Kurds are a distinct people, as are the Berbers. So are the Arabs. They were not "invented"; they simply are. Ignore them at your peril. Their existence, however, does not translate automatically into a right to Kurdish, Berber or Arabic statehood. For that, other things are needed, including viability.Never having possessed a state, do the Palestinians nonetheless exist as a people? Are they distinct linguistically or ethnically from the sea of Arabs in which they live? The answer is no. In this Gingrich is right. There is no such thing as a Palestinian people and to speak of them as such is clearly an "invention." The real question that needs to be asked is why have they been "invented"? The answer to this can be suggested by an analogy that removes us from the immediate passions of the Middle East in order to see this situation more clearly.'

Read the rest of his splendid article here
(Hat tip: B.L.)

Strasbourg Rules Britannia:The "Human Rights" Ruling That Favours A Jihadist Over Britain's Security

2012-01-17T10:45:00.000-08:00

“London has traditionally been a place of refuge and tolerance; Marx after all wrote his classic work in the British Library. London was the favourite place of exile of anarchists and revolutionaries. More recently it has been seen as the home of Muslim opposition forces, even leading to the French coining the term Londonistan. This is a heritage that we are proud of, even if it makes us occasional enemies of other governments.” [My emphasis]

So enthused Britain's then Ambassador to Lebanon, Frances Guy, an avowed admirer of Hezbollah cleric Sheikh Fadlallah, in a speech at Beirut Arab University a couple of years ago.

The name of the speech? "The Legal framework of Human Rights as a necessary protection for individual citizens and for diversity".

Here's another of its gems:

"Today in the UK these rights are enshrined in a Human Rights Act which was agreed in 1998 and which in turn ensures the primacy of the European Human Rights Convention agreed in 1950 over other aspects of English law. That development in itself: the enshrinement of a Human Rights Act and the acknowledgement of international law as paramount was a very significant step forward in the evolution of English justice."

This seemingly archetypal (save in gender) representative of the FCO Camel Corps (no great friends to Israel, they, and that's a classic British understatement) continued:

"Muslims represent about 3% of the total British population, about 2 million people. There are now over 1,200 mosques in the UK and more than 110 Muslim schools. Some of these are state schools.... Muslims in the UK have been able to use human rights legislation successfully to argue that if the state provides other faith schools, in this case, Church of England and Catholic schools, then the state should also provide Muslim schools where demand justified such a provision. This now happens."

Quite so. But there's a more negative side to the Human Rights Act, as glimpsed recently in a couple of cases discussed - here and here - in the Daily Express by Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard.

In fact, the situation (except for so-called Human Rights lawyers, of course) wrought by this piece of legislation is far far darker. Britain has lost control of its sovereign jurisdiction regarding the fate even of the vilest po;tical extremists who pose a clear and present danger to its citizens.

One of the "Muslim opposition forces" which, to the evident delight of such metropolitan elites asthe Camel Corps and the Human Rights Industry, were offered sanctuary in the UK, was (crazily enough) radical Islamist cleric and al-Qaeda crony Abu Qatada. And as we saw today the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has thrown a spanner into the British Home Office's works by ruling that he cannot be deported to Jordan.

One of the best commentaries on this abhorrent state of affairs comes from the Henry Jackson Society, and I reproduce it here, with no further input by me:

States the Henry Jackson Society:

"Qatada, a Jordanian national, stands accused of conspiracy to cause explosions in his home country, but has never been charged with any offences in the UK, despite a long and damning record of terrorist activity. Qatada has served as the spiritual advisor to a host of radical Islamists including 9/11's '20th hijacker' Zacarias Moussaoui and the 2001 'shoe bomber' Richard Reid. He was the mentor of Abu Hamza, the former imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque who was convicted of soliciting to murder and inciting racial hatred in 2006.

Qatada has been linked to the terrorist group Egyptian Islamic Jihad (now merged with al-Qaeda) through Ayman al-Zawahiri and is believed to have known Osama bin Laden since 1989.

The ECHR judgment found the UK legal system did everything it could in processing Qatada and that the UK's extradition arrangements with Jordan were sound. Further, Qatada is not staying in the UK because he is at risk of torture, but because the evidence against him might have been obtained from others under duress, breaching article six of the ECHR, the right to a fair trial.

Before his arrest in London in October 2002, Abu Qatada was the most prominent jihadist scholar in the UK. Widely seen as wielding more theological authority than his student Abu Hamza, he issued fatwas on behalf of the GIA (Armed Islamic Group) in Algeria and in the late 1990s and early 2000s played a key role in radicalising several key al-Qaeda individuals.

Eighteen video recordings of Abu Qatada's talks were discovered in the Hamburg flats of Muhammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attacks and when he was arrested in February 2001, police discovered £170,000 in cash in his home, including £805 in an envelope labelled "For the Mujahedin in Chechnya".

In February 2007, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that "He has given advice to many terrorist groups and individuals, whether formerly a spiritual adviser to them or not. His reach and the depth of his influence in that respect is formidable, even incalculable."

The 2008 report Virtual Caliphate, by the Centre for Social Cohesion, now part of the Henry Jackson Society, found many Islamist websites hosting audio recordings by Abu Qatada calling for jihad as the way to establish the Islamic caliphate, and demanding the execution of Muslim secularists, whom he describes as "kaffirs" (unbelievers).

In one lecture, 'Wajib al-Muslim' ('The Duty of Muslims') Qatada claims that it is the duty of Muslim to wage jihad against "oppressors" (both Muslim and non-Muslim) who do not fully apply sharia law until the caliphate has been re-established, saying

"The only way to have a khilafa is through jihad."

Qatada also explicitly calls on Muslims to murder non-Muslims, saying that:

"Our countries have been infiltrated by kaffirs [non-Muslims]. It is farid [duty] for us to turn our swords on to them and kill them."

"We must fight the kaffirs. We can't reason with them. We can't reach a compromise and we can't be friends."

In another recording entitled 'Seerah' ('The Path') he launches a tirade against Christians and Jews while outlining his apocalyptic visions of the future, describing Christianity and Judaism as "devil worshipping" and saying:

"There will be a great battle against the wathaniyah [Jews and Christians] where the saviour will come back to this earth, the king with an army in the sky, killing the Jews, wipe them out, and rid of the planet of the Jews. Esa [Jesus] will return and spread peace; the majority that remain are those who believe in Esa."

He then tells his listeners that:

"In Jewish law, when a Jew enters a village in war or peace it is his duty to rape the land, take kill the men and turn the women into slaves. He will take the land and the money and that is what that religion says. This war is for existence, to exist or not exist."

Robin Simcox, Research Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, said today:

"Abu Qatada has been detained for almost ten years without trial while awaiting extradition to Jordan. This is a man who aspiring terrorists and jihadists from around the world sought out for spiritual advice. His continued presence in the UK poses a grave national security threat.""

Year Of The Yordim?

2012-01-17T00:15:00.000-08:00

The antipodean J-Wire service carries an article by Raffe Gold, himself from Israel, which suggests that 2012 might well be "the year of the foreign passports" as for one reason or another people reluctantly seek a life outside the Jewish State. I'm sure that many readers will disagree with some of his assertions, including his confidence in the credentials of the New Israel Fund (see this new revelation, by the way). But his is an interesting, and disturbing, overview that I am taking the liberty of reproducing.

Writes Raffe Gold:

'Left wing Israelis are preparing themselves to leave the nation of their birth, and of their dreams, because the dream for them has turned into a nightmare. Many are planning on joining their family members, cousins, brothers, sisters or parents, in the West to restart their life. A 2008 Menachem Begin Heritage Centre Poll found that 59% of Israelis surveyed had approached or intended to approach a foreign embassy to apply for citizenship and a passport. A Bar-Ilan University study found that more than 100,000 Israelis hold a German passport and the number rises by 7,000 every year. The foreign passport was originally acquired as a last resort in case the Arab armies managed to go through with their plans of the annihilation of Israel. Passports were updated in 2001 when the Palestinian terrorists waged their war of bus bombings and massacres and it is being updated again under the threat of the Zionist dream dying.

Those Israelis that are looking for a escape route are leaving for a number of reasons. They leave for a life free of religious and right-wing coercion. They leave for a better economic future. They leave for a life for their children that is not dominated by religion. They leave with a heavy heart. This is not what they wanted. They remain proud Zionists and they know that with the growth of extreme right wing religious extremism, there is nothing here left for them. Israelis who cannot leave warn their friends not to return. This is not a country to start, or restart, a life. It is a country that is on the brink of abandoning liberalism, once a happily celebrated value by Jews and Israelis the world over.

This is not, in any way, to say that modern day Israel has become Saudi Arabia, Iran or Gaza. Only around 10% of Israel’s population identify themselves as ultra-Orthodox and an even smaller number insist on this gender segregation. There remains a vibrant community of thinkers here who are free to say and do what they wish. Haaretz continues with its proud tradition of challenging government authority and all faiths are free to worship as they see fit (unlike Gaza where Hamas, in an almost cliched villainous move, literally outlawed Christmas). Israel remains a strong democracy with a free press and our neighbors look on in envy as their own governments trample their basic rights. Israel remains a beacon of light amongst a sea of totalitarian dictatorships but lately the beacon has been wavering slightly and this is why some are looking for an escape route.

Israelis see the battle in Bet Shemesh as but another nail in the coffin of Israeli liberalism. They see the increased construction within the settlements as a cause for alarm, they see the potential shut down of Channel 10 as a threat to the Fourth Estate and they see ‘loyalty bill’ as curbing the right of freedom of speech. They feel that the right-wing coalition formed under Netanyahu has damaged Israel irrevocably. Ultra-orthodox groups, a minority in terms of the population, are imposing their will on the majority. A recent bill, thankfully defeated, proposed turning electricity "kosher". Essentially electric companies would operate according to Jewish halachic demands and the rabbinate would have the authority to cut off power. Israel is a country that truly appreciates freedom of religion but it seems that it is forgetting that freedom of religion also demands freedom from religion; secular Israelis should not be subject to the will of the faithful.

Right-wing groups and various MKs paint many in left wing NGOs as traitors. The New Israel Fund has been demonized as anti-Israel and has sparred with the Knesset and the right-wing media alike. Many of those who eye foreign passports fear that they do not have an adequate voice at the parliamentary level. Kadima chairwoman Tzipi Livni is considered a failure in her goal to create a credible opposition. Despite her party holding a majority of seats she is outnumbered by right wing and religious groups and can resort only to name calling against Netanyahu.

It is presumptuous to declare the modern-liberal Israeli State "over". It is, however, teetering on an edge that leads to a very dark and uncertain future. Many centrist Israelis hope that the recent decision of Yair Lapid, a popular television commentator, to enter politics will lead to a resurgence of a strong opposition to take on the right-wing coalition. These Israelis who believe that the darkness is overcoming believe that Israel is in need of a major intervention. They had hoped that the recent protests over the summer would lead to a renewed sense of vigor but many are disappointed in their inability to change anything. These Israelis, who serve in the army with pride and built the State from nothing, will sigh in frustration as they line up at Embassies to collect their foreign passport.'

"Ripples" Into "Whirlpools"? UNESCO's Crisis Following Its Unconstitutional Admittance of Palestine

2012-01-16T12:15:00.000-08:00

Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer's petition against UNESCO's unconstitutional act in admitting Palestine to membership now has over 750 signatures. He is hoping for many more ...

Meanwhile, in this article, entitled "UNESCO Commissioner Spells Out Global Fallout From Palestine Decision," originally published by the antipodean J-Wire service at the weekend ago, he provides an update regarding the debacle:

Writes David Singer:
'Global programs in literacy, gender equality and clean water initiatives will be impacted as a result of America suspending its dues to UNESCO totalling about $225 million dollars until 2013 – according to United States National Commissioner to UNESCO – Emilya Cachapero.

Hundreds of millions of people in third world countries stand to suffer as these programs are curtailed or abandoned because of this black hole opening up in UNESCO’s recurrent funding – resulting from the admission of Palestine to membership of UNESCO on 31 October.

Two American domestic laws passed in the early-mid-90s specify that if Palestine becomes a full member in any UN agency, the US would end funds to that agency.

This legislation was designed to ensure that no unilateral action was taken by the Palestinian Authority to declare statehood outside the negotiations prescribed by the Oslo Agreements and the Bush Roadmap.
The global fall out from this loss of American funding – 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget – has been spelled out In a highly revealing article “Ripples from Palestine Membership Into UNESCO” – written by Ms.Cachapero – the Theatre Communication Groups Director of Artistic Programs/International Theatre Institute – US.

Ms Cachapero indicated the fallout was going to be far wider than just UNESCO’s programs:

“However, the withdrawal of funds could also have huge repercussions throughout UN agencies and this is much bigger than just a UNESCO, UN or Palestine issue.”

She points out that:

“The UN meeting calendar is determining which other agencies are approached by Palestine to petition for full membership. The next agency meeting where Palestine is expected to request membership is the World Patents Organization and other meetings on the calendar include the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the World Bank, and later the Atomic Energy Commission.”

Obviously if Palestine is admitted to membership of these organizations – then American funding will automatically cease.

Ms Cachapero disagrees with the politicization of UNESCO – brought home very forcefully by Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riad Maliki who heralded Palestine’s admission to membership of UNESCO in these terms:

"Today’s victory at UNESCO is the beginning of a road that is difficult, but will lead to the freedom of our land and people from occupation. Palestine has the right to a place on the map.”

The price the rest of the world is now being asked to pay for this diplomatic assault outside the negotiations agreed on by the Palestinian Authority with Israel seems to have had no place in Mr Maliki’s thinking – nor those 107 states that voted for Palestine’s admission knowing full well that it could lead to the loss of America’s monetary commitment to UNESCO.
Like it or not – politics appears to have been an important factor in relation to Palestine’s admission to UNESCO.

I first raised questions with UNESCO concerning the legality of Palestine’s admission some two months ago.
I sought access to the reports of UNESCO’s Executive Board recommending the admission of Palestine to UNESCO – which has been ignored. Six weeks ago I also prepared and submitted to UNESCO a submission on the majority vote I believed was required to admit Palestine. UNESCO continues to maintain a wall of silence – indicating it will not be commenting on my claims.

I have now instituted a petition seeking public support to demand UNESCO review the decision and if necessary seek an advisory opininion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
700 people from 19 countries have signed the petition in the 10 days it has been on line.

Is there any alternative to this course of action – which could help get American funding restored if the ICJ finds Palestine’s admission was unlawful?

Ms Cachapero offers one alternative suggestion:

“We encourage you to send messages to Members of Congress urging them to amend the laws and allow US funds to flow again to all impacted UN agencies”

She acknowledges that such action is unlikely to have any effect by revealing that:

“US Ambassador to UNESCO David Killion informed the US Commissioners that he is working with other State Department officials to encourage US legislators to amend the laws, which are not likely to be repealed.”

Given this is an election year in America – Mr Killion’s opinion is probably correct.

UNESCO has attempted to replace the lost American funding by establishing an Emergency Fund in November – urging its remaining 194 members to make up the shortfall.

The Emergency Fund has yielded very little in voluntary contributions to date.

Certainly the 87 member states that did not vote for Palestine’s admission, or abstained from voting or simply did not turn up for the vote would not be very sympathetic to such a plea stemming from a decision they did not support.

UNESCO is clearly in a bind.

If the ICJ found UNESCO acted unlawfully, then Palestine’s admission would be declared null and void but American funding would be restored. If the ICJ found UNESCO had acted legally, then the loss of American funding would be continued but Palestine’s admission to UNESCO would be confirmed.
Given the “out” an ICJ opinion could possibly give UNESCO – it would be acting irresponsibly if it did not approach the ICJ.

I believe that UNESCO could have avoided the dilemma in which it now finds itself – had the Executive Board properly dealt with Palestine’s application when it was first presented to the Executive Board.
The action of the Executive Board is to be contrasted with the Committee that dealt with Palestine’s application to become a member of the United Nations – where that application failed to convince such Committee to forward it to the Security Council for a vote.

It would be very interesting to learn how Palestine’s application could have been recommended by UNESCO’S Executive Board but rejected by the UN vetting Committee – since only States can be recommended for membership to both organizations.

Palestine does not satisfy the criteria for statehood under customary international law as recognized in the Montevideo Convention.

Was this a fatal impediment to Palestine’s application to join the UN – but thought to be of no consequence in regard to its application to join UNESCO?

The ICJ might well have something to say on this issue.

Irrespective of what occured at the Executive Board – the vote taken at the UNESCO General Conference has the smell of illegality about it – reinforced by UNESCO refusing to justify the constitutional provision which enabled Palestine to be admitted to membership on the affirmative vote of only 107 member states – rather than the 129 I maintain are required by the Constitution..

In the end some declaratory ruling by the ICJ is necessary to possibly rescue UNESCO from the hole into which it is sinking further every day as its programs are impacted by the sudden withdrawal of American funding.

Ms Cachapero’s description of the problems as “ripples” seems set to turn into ” whirlpools” – unless UNESCO seeks advice from the ICJ instead of hoping the problem will simply disappear if it maintains its present course of inaction and continuing silence.

Should politics take precedence over legality? That is the question UNESCO needs to face – and answer – without delay.

Hundreds of millions of people losing out on the abandonment or curtailment of projects designed to improve their daily lives seem to make the choice a very easy one.'

A Call To Genocide (video)

2012-01-16T08:54:00.000-08:00

This video (made by Palestine Media Watch) shows a Palestinian Mufti expressing some warm and fuzzy sentiments last week about the "descendents of apes and pigs".

British University Investigates Alleged Assault On Jewish Student During Nazi-themed Game

2012-01-15T13:21:00.000-08:00

It seems that rehabilitating the Nazis for fun and frolics is becoming quite the trend in some British quarters, even (it's alleged) among members of the Athletics Union of that bastion of leftism, the London School of Economics (LSE), during a ski trip to Val d'Isère in December.

The LSE's student newspaper, The Beaver, reports:

'LSE students are facing disciplinary action after participating in a Nazi-themed drinking game during the Athletics Union’s ski trip... Later in the night, two students were engaged in an altercation, one of whom sustained a broken nose from the incident.

‘Nazi Ring of Fire’ involved arranging cards on the table in the shape of a Swastika, and required players to “Salute the Fuhrer.” A video featuring students making antisemitic comments was uploaded to Facebook, but has since been removed....

This incident is the latest in a series of antisemitic incidents at British universities. Last November, four of the most senior members of the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) resigned after accusing other members of engaging in antisemitic behaviour, including singing a Nazi-themed song.

In January 2010, the University of Huddersfield investigated claims that two of its students had created a Facebook group for a Nazi-themed drinking game they are thought to have invented.'

The report, which carries photographs of the game, quotes a Jewish student leader thus:

“LSE Students’ Union Jewish Society (J-Soc) and the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) are appalled by a reported antisemitic assault that occurred after a Jewish student objected to a Nazi-themed drinking game, that was being played by his fellow students on a recent LSE Ski Trip in France. Nazi glorification and antisemitism have no place in our universities, which should remain safe spaces for all students.

There is simply no context for what has happened here. Those who believe the game was all in good humour need to realize that when a Jewish student is subject to violence and the Nazi ideology glorified it is no joke but a spiteful, collective attack on a community.

This incident highlights the worrying trends of contemporary antisemitism, but beyond all else indicates a depressing lack of education from students of an esteemed institution.”

A Booty Of Arab Books?

2012-01-15T01:16:00.000-08:00

According to this report the author of a doctoral thesis to be submitted next month at Ben-Gurion University claims

'that Israel destroyed the Palestinian books in the framework of its plan to "Judaize the country" and cut off its Arab residents from their nation and culture.

.... IDF troops plundered the books from the homes of Palestinians expelled during the "Nakba" and handed them over to authorities. The State proceeded to establish a library in Jaffa and other towns for the books, he said.

....This was a cultural massacre undertaken in a manner that was worse than European colonialism, which safeguarded the items it stole in libraries and museums," the researcher charged.

He added that some books were sold at discounted prices to Arab schools, while the others were transferred to the Hebrew University's library in Jerusalem.

The researcher estimated that about 6,000 Palestinian books are currently available at the National Library at Hebrew University. However, he claimed that many other books in Arabic, English, and French were not recorded, charging that most of them are being held in the library's warehouses and cannot be accessed. '

However, in 1948, in an article entitled "Arabs in Israel," Norman Bentwich, Professor of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, noted in regards to the work of the Ministry of Minorities, set up to safeguard the welfare of Arabs (and other non-Jews) in the newly-proclaimed Jewish State:

'Perhaps the most striking work in the Ministry is its effort to develop cultural life, in the midst of the uneasy truce, for the Arab population. It has already established some fifty primary schools in the towns and villages, with free education. A former Jewish Inspector of the Mandatory Education Department is in charge of the schools; another, an Oriental Jew, with a thorough knowledge of Arabic, assists him. The Ministry has also established one or two Arab clubs for reading and recreation, and has promoted a daily Arabic newspaper, El Yom (The Day). This is the first Arabic daily to appear in Israel. Several of the staff are Arabs, who have full freedom of expression; and some educated Arabs write to the Palestine Post, the English[-language] daily, voicing grievances about rent and employment, and the like.

A remarkable cultural enterprise is the establishment in Jaffa of an Arab library, which includes close on 100,000 books and periodicals salvaged from private houses that were deserted and broken into during the fighting. It includes, too, some Arab manuscripts from the ninth and tenth centuries, which may have value for scholars. The books and manuscripts are being catalogued by a Jewish scholar of Baghdad. The library is housed in a private mansion of one of the richer Arabs of Jaffa, and there is a project of making it a cultural centre. The whole cost to the Government so far has been only a few hundred pounds.

In Jerusalem 30,000 books were similarly salvaged and handed over for safe-keeping to the [Hebrew] University of Jerusalem. It is likely that the owners of the books will come to identify their property and collect it back; but the action of the Ministry will have prevented looting and destruction, and it has received the appreciation of the Arab population.'

Does that look like deliberate plunder to you? No, not to me, either.
Read more of the Bentwich article here

Update Since this looted books story is already being used as anti-Israel propaganda by the usual suspects, it's as well to be reminded that in Hebron in 1929 Jewish manuscripts, including notable ancient documents, were looted from Jewish homes and synagogues. It's possible that some of this loot surfaced among Jewish manuscripts shown by Arab dealers to the Rockefeller Museum. Furthermore Jewish homes and synagogues/yeshivot were looted in the Old City of Jerusalem in 1929 and 1936-38; during the latter period, there was a pogrom in the south Jerusalem neighbourhood of Talpiyot, and at least one important Hebrew writer residing there had his books vandalised and looted. (Hat tip: E.)

"I Am Jewish ... What It Means To Be A Jew" (video)

2012-01-15T00:03:00.000-08:00

Written and performed by Andrew Lustig, and well-viewed already (hat tip: Shirlee)

An Egyptian Cleric On Europe's Demographic Doom (video)

2012-01-14T09:14:00.000-08:00

Those who followed the 1970s mantra "Zero Population Growth" (see cover at left, dating to 1970) in order to save the planet from environmental disaster, and feminists who decided not to have children at all (frequently expressing contempt and/or pity for those women who did), have unwittingly cost Europe dear, if Muammar Gaddafi (see my post here) and the Egyptian cleric in this video are proved correct.

Not that it does to air anxieties about the Islamic demographic weapon (or even to base opposition to mass immigration into small already overcrowded countries like Britain and Holland on ecological grounds) in front of the kind of 1960s/70s radicals who spawned the "Zero Population Growth" mantra and child-free radical feminism.

Greyer, wrinklier, but certainly not invariably wiser, all too many are likely to have swapped their tie-dyed hippie T-shirts for keffiyehs and to be marching with the "We Are All Hezbollah/Hamas" brigade these days, and to call those who dare to question the colonisation of Europe by persons (including practising polygamists taking advantage of state benefits) whose agenda is very different from a liberal-progressive and feminist one by the intimidating terms "Islamophobes" and "fascists".

Jihad in Academia (video)

2012-01-13T01:48:00.000-08:00

Another terrific, and terrifying, video from the David Horowitz Freedom Center (hat tip: reader Shirlee)
Just the job for Friday the 13th!

Sleep comfortably. If you can.

Jihad Against Christians (video)

2012-01-12T09:05:00.000-08:00

Another fine, deeply disturbing, new video from the David Horowitz Freedom Center (see my previous post for the Center's one on Hamas)

A hard-hitting exposure of the persecution of the Cross under the Crescent. Something for all those Israel-demonising bishops and other clerics to concentrate their ire upon. To say nothing of all the secular "human rights activists" who ignore these vile crimes to concentrate on the supposed misdemeanours of Israel.

Hamas: The Terror Elite (video)

2012-01-12T05:09:00.000-08:00

A great new video from the David Horowitz Freedom Center (hat tip: reader Shirlee)

And how about this for double standards on Facebook? (Hat tip: yes, that girl again!)

The BDSers Count Their Winnings

2012-01-11T13:14:00.000-08:00

From a report of the Third International BDS Conference, Hebron, 17 December (hat tip: reader Shirlee)

'The conference was an opportunity to take stock of the movement’s achievements worldwide, and to develop strategies to face the challenges ahead. The BDS movement witnessed impressive growth in 2011. Achievements include the withdrawal of German company Deutsche Bahn from construction of the A1 train line connecting Jerusalem to Tel Aviv; the forced closure of settlement company Ahava’s London flagship store and the loss of a $10 bn contract by French company Alstom in Saudi Arabia as a result of its role in the construction of the illegal Jerusalem Light Rail in occupied Jerusalem. 2011 was also the year when Israel’s foremost agricultural export company and a major BDS target – Agrexco – went bankrupt thanks in part to a sustained Europe-wide campaign.

The movement has now visibly spread beyond its traditional base of Palestine solidarity groups. The call for a military embargo of Israel received an enthusiastic response in Brazil and South Korea while in Australia, a nationwide debate involving government politicians and national media outlets ensued following the adoption of the movement’s principles by Marrickville Council in Sydney. A number of well-known artists have cancelled their scheduled performances in Israeli venues following appeals from BDS activists. Over a hundred Swiss artists vowed to boycott performances in Israel. Similarly, over 200 Swedish academics pledged to implement an academic boycott of Israel. The campaign for the academic and cultural boycott of Israel (ACBI) has undoubtedly been one of the most visible, and successful campaigns this past year.'

Read the entire report here

http://palsolidarity.org/2012/01/report-third-national-bds-conference-hebron-december-17/

Fatah "Moderate" Speaks With Forked Tongue

2012-01-11T11:17:00.000-08:00

In an article entitled "Voices Of Palestine: Nabil Shaath" Arnold Ahlert, a former columnist on the New York Post, examines the evident double-speak of Fatah's ostensibly "moderate" head of foreign relations.

Explains Arnold Ahlert:

'Despite all misinformation to the contrary, the futility of negotiations between the Arab-Palestinians and the Israelis hinges on the Palestinians’ categorical rejection of Israel’s right to exist; certainly not as a Jewish state. Second, the Palestinians remain steadfastly committed to the annihilation of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic Arab Judenrein, as most recently represented by the attempted reconciliation between Fatah and the genocidal terrorist organization Hamas. Hamas’s founding charter not only calls for the destruction of Israel, but also the genocide of all Jews.

Although the fact fails to be acknowledged by some, the so-called “moderate” Fatah party shares Hamas’s objectives, and Shaath’s own words expose this common cause. ”The Palestinian Authority will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state,” he declared on September 8, 2010. “Such a declaration would directly threaten the Muslims and Christians in Israel and prevent Palestinian refugees, who left their homes and villages a number of decades ago, from being granted the right to return to them,” he added. The “right of return” that Shaath mentions is little more than a tactic to demographically destroy the Jewish character of Israel.

On July 13, 2011, Shaath made where he stands even clearer in an ANB TV (Lebanon) interview. (This was when hopes were still high among Palestinians that they could get the United Nations to recognize their independence unilaterally). “At the end of the day, we want to exert pressure on Israel in order to force it to recognize us and leave our country,” he said. “This is our long-term goal.”

The full article can be read here

It would seem, then, that the sentiments in this poster, dating to the start of the PLO, are as alive as they were back in 1964.

All Gaza & Gaiters

2012-01-11T08:35:00.000-08:00

Remember the Christmas sermon of the Archbisop of Westminster, which I predicted would act as a clarion call to action to Britain's Roman Catholics to join the Israel-demonising brigade?

Well, writes Giulio Meotti,

'Eight Catholic bishops from Europe and North America have just visited the Christian community in Gaza.

The Vatican high profile delegation included Patrick Kelly, archbishop of Liverpool; Richard Smith, archbishop of Edmonton, Canada; Gerald Kicanas, bishop of Tucson, US; Michel Dubost, bishop of Evry, France; and Riccardo Fontana, bishop of Arezzo-Cortona-Sansepolcro, Italy.

French Bishop Dubost's comment was, “Last week, I asked prisoners in the largest prison in Europe (in Evry) to pray for you”.

The inference is clear: Gaza’s Christians are living in a big prison and terrified by Israel ...

Not a word about the Islamic repression of that tiny Christian community in Gaza - and Bethlehem and the rest of the PA.

The prison comparison was reiterated by another bishop. “I have just returned from visiting two of the largest ‘open prisons’ in the world – Bethlehem and the Gaza strip”, wrote William Kenney, auxiliary bishop in Birmingham who led the Catholic delegation. Bishop Kelly said that “violence is evil especially when it blocks humanitarian relief desperately needed”....'

Raymond Field, auxiliary bishop of Dublin, also defined the Gaza Strip as “a large prison”....'

Read more here

On the subject of Gaza, here's a video which shows the UN Secretary-General's spokesperson, Martin Nesirsky,unprepared for a question from UN Watch on 6 January on whether the UN considers Gaza still "occupied territory":

And here's another (hat tip: reader Rita) showing how riled some UN members get when tricky questions are raised regarding human rights:

Protesting The Promise's Poison: The ECAJ Slams SBS

2012-01-10T09:53:00.000-08:00

The Promise, by Peter Kosminsky, is a four-part drama series depicting events in Mandate Palestine leading to the establishment of Israel in 1948 as well as the contemporary situation. It first aired in Britain (on Channel 4) early last year, to widespread condemnation by supporters of Israel.

In November and December the four episodes were shown in Australia on SBS, the special broadcasting, multicultural, multilingual channel never distinguished for its warmth towards the Jewish State. (And from 8 February DVDs of the series will be on sale, SBS has announced.)

In what constitutes a leonine tour de force, Peter Wertheim, executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) has written a formal complaint to SBS Ombudsman Sally Begbie.

The full, impeccably documented, text of Mr Wertheim's magnificent megilla appears here

But because it is so impressive and important a document, a veritable model of its type, I have taken the liberty of reproducing it here, though shorn of the footnotes that enhance the authority of the original. Needless to say, I've added the illustrations, to relieve the long text.

'1. Outline of complaint
....
The credits for all four episodes included a statement that the program was “produced in association with SBS-TV Australia”. The precise details of this “association” have not been disclosed to the public, but presumably it means that SBS must carry some responsibility for the content of the program, as well as for broadcasting a program produced by another party.

The complaint is that in direct violation of SBS Code 1.3, the series promotes, endorses and reinforces demeaning stereotypes about Jews as a group. All of the principal Jewish characters (and thus by implication Jews generally) are portrayed negatively and, ultimately, without any redeeming virtues. They are cast as variously cruel, violent, hateful, ruthless, unfeeling, amoral, treacherous, racist and/or hypocritical. The ancient libel that holds all Jews throughout history to be collectively guilty of killing Jesus has been segued into the equally ludicrous proposition that all Jews are collectively guilty of the wanton shedding of innocent blood, a staple of contemporary Palestinian propaganda. The series also panders to stereotypes about Jews being immoderately wealthy and having acquired their wealth unfairly. The cumulative effect of these consistently negative portrayals of all of the principal Jewish characters and of the series’ numerous misrepresentations of the relevant historical background in a way that consistently casts Jews in a negative light is to demean Jews as a group.

We assume SBS would never contemplate screening a series in which all the principal characters who are identifiably Muslim are either ruthless, murderous terrorists or morally coarse people who condone terrorism or sympathise or co-operate with terrorists. Yet this is precisely the way all of the principal characters who are identifiably Jewish are portrayed in The Promise.

To be clear, the series does not simply convey demeaning imputations about Jews in the way, for example, that dramatizations about the events of World War II have often portrayed German and Japanese characters in an unflattering light. In the latter cases, the negative stereotypes have been used as a way of highlighting the character of major figures in the story. There is never a suggestion that the Germans and Japanese as a people are forever marked by collective guilt and beyond redemption.

The Promise is far more insidious. The relevant historical events (and their misrepresentation) and the principal Jewish characters are vehicles for attributing negative traits to Jews generally across time and space. The Promise utilizes and reinforces racist tropes about Jews that, but for a brief post-WWII respite, have been embedded in western civilization since pre-Christian times and are not in any way comparable to negative portrayals of other groups.

2. The SBS Codes
SBS Code 1.3 relevantly provides:

1.3 PREJUDICE, RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION

SBS seeks to counter attitudes of prejudice against any person or group on the basis of their race, ethnicity, nationality… religion…

SBS views intolerance of difference, and racism in particular, as a serious impediment to achieving an equitable and harmonious society.

SBS aims to ensure that programs either counter or do not promote, endorse, or reinforce inaccurate, demeaning or discriminatory stereotypes.

It follows that the broadcast of material which repeatedly promotes, endorses or reinforces demeaning racial stereotypes of any racial, ethnic or national group violates SBS Code 1.3, irrespective of the frequency with which these or similar stereotypes are, or have in the past been, promoted, endorsed or reinforced against the targeted group, or against any other group.

Nor is it relevant that the 44 complaints about the series that were made when it went to air in the UK in early 2011 were dismissed by Ofcom (the UK Office of Communications). Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code is in very different terms to the SBS Codes. In particular the Ofcom Code does not require broadcasters to aim to ensure that programs either counter or do not promote, endorse, or reinforce inaccurate, demeaning or discriminatory stereotypes. The nearest equivalent standards in the Ofcom Code are to be found in Ofcom Rule 2.3 and Rule 3.1.

Rule 2.3 requires a broadcaster to:
“ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context”.

The rule thus applies only if the material complained of has caused subjective offence to members of the audience which is not justified by the context. “Context” is defined in Rule 2.3 to include a wide range of considerations including the editorial content of the material and the likelihood that it will cause “harm”. In the case of The Promise, Ofcom found that offence had been caused by the negative portrayal of the Jewish characters but this was justified by the context in which there was also a negative portrayal of some non-Jewish characters.

These sorts of considerations are different to those specified in SBS Code 1.3 which requires an objective assessment to be made as to whether the material complained of will either “counter … inaccurate, demeaning or discriminatory stereotypes” or at least “not promote, endorse, or reinforce” them. It follows that even if one were to accept (which we do not) Ofcom’s reasons for determining that there was no breach of Ofcom Rule 2.3, this would not preclude a finding that the screening of The Promise breached SBS Code 1.3.
Ofcom also determined that the broadcasting of The Promise did not breach Rule 3.1 in the Ofcom Code which provides:

Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services.

A breach of Rule 3.1 of the Ofcom Code therefore requires that a broadcast does something more than simply promote, endorse, or reinforce inaccurate, demeaning or discriminatory stereotypes. It must also “encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder”. It was only because Ofcom found that this last requirement had not been met that it concluded that The Promise had not breached Rule 3.1. In reaching this conclusion, Ofcom conceded that:

there were Jewish/Israeli characters and their actions that, arguably, could have led to members of the Jewish faith…being perceived in a negative light to some degree.

The basis of Ofcom’s conclusion that there had not been a breach of Rule 3.1 was that the:
portrayal of members of the Jewish faith and/or Israeli nation featured in the series would not, on a reasonable view, be likely to encourage or incite the commission of a crime (eg harm or prejudice against members of the Jewish faith).

SBS Code 1.3, rightly in our view, establishes a broader and more exacting standard against the promotion of racism than that contained in Rule 3.1 of the Ofcom Code. Under SBS Code 1.3, the promotion of racism against about Jews generally is sufficient to constitute a breach, even if the offending material would not be

“likely to encourage or incite the commission of a crime (eg harm or prejudice against members of the Jewish faith)”.

It follows that the material complained of does not need to rise to the level of seriousness specified in Rule 3.1 of the Ofcom Code (that is, encouraging the commission of a crime) in order to constitute a breach of SBS Code 1.3.

It is noteworthy that Appendix 2 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code reproduces parts of the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive (Directive 2010/13/EU), including Article 6 which is in the following terms:

“Member States shall ensure by appropriate means that audiovisual media services provided by media service providers under their jurisdiction do not contain any incitement to hatred based on race, sex, religion or nationality.” (Emphasis added [by ECAJ])

However, this provision is not to be found in specific terms in the body of the Ofcom Code and no reference was made to it by Ofcom in dismissing the complaints against The Promise.

In any event, for the reasons already stated, Ofcom’s dismissal of such complaints is not determinative of the present complaint under the SBS Codes. The integrity of the SBS Codes depends upon the rigorous and impartial interpretation and application of its provisions in their own terms. The credibility of SBS depends, inter alia, upon SBS being held to account when those provisions are breached, regardless of any extraneous considerations.

3. The Promise – the basic story
The series tells a fictional story about Erin, an 18 year old British girl, who visits her Israeli friend, Eliza, and Eliza’s parents and brother Paul, in Caesarea in Israel in 2005. Erin carries and progressively reads through the diary of her grandfather, Len, which describes Len’s experiences while serving as a sergeant in the British army in the 1940s.

The diary begins with Len’s description of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camp at Bergen Belsen in Germany by British forces in April 1945 and refers to the atrocities that had been committed against the Jewish inmates by their Nazi captors. The remainder of the diary focuses on Len’s period of service in British-controlled Palestine from 1945 until the British withdrawal and Israel’s Declaration of Independence in May 1948.

The Promise portrays Erin’s experiences during her 2005 visit and those of her grandfather in the late 1940s.

It continually intercuts between the two, juxtaposing and drawing parallels. The entire story is told through the eyes of Erin and Len. As Britons who are neither Jews nor Arabs they are presented as fair and impartial observers of the conflict between the two peoples. Both Len and Erin are also portrayed as essentially good people, compassionate and courageous. Even though they are fictional characters, it is clearly intended that a predominantly British or western audience will identify with them and will embrace their stated attitudes and opinions about the conflict, which in turn are equally clearly those which the author of the series seeks to promote.

The title The Promise refers to a promise made by Len in 1948 to Hassan, an Arab boy who is the son of Mohammed, an Arab working for the British army whom Len befriends. In Episode 4, Hassan is shot by a sniper and is dying in Len’s arms. He gives Len a key and makes Len promise that he will return the key to the boy’s family who have just fled from their home in Ein Hod. It is the key to the front door of their house. In the chaos of the 1947-8 war Len is unable to fulfill his promise, despite his best efforts. The key has been kept in his diary ever since. Erin takes it upon herself nearly 60 years later to fulfill her grandfather’s promise by finding the family of Hassan and Mohammed and returning the key to them.

The message to the audience is that the British (symbolised by Len) were implicated in depriving the Palestinians of their ‘rightful ownership’ of the country (symbolised by their loss of the key) in the late 1940s and accordingly the British, and the West generally, are now morally obliged to ‘restore’ ownership of the country to the Palestinians (symbolised by Erin returning the key to the Palestinian family).

The story is premised upon the following view of the origins of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as conveyed to the audience by a British officer in Episode 1:

“The Jews and Arabs have been living here in relative harmony for years. But our victory over the Germans has turned the trickle of Jews coming to this land into a flood. You must understand, the Jews see it as their holy land. But the Arabs, who have been here for over a thousand years, see them as stealing their land”.

In point of fact, the Israel-Palestinian conflict did not begin with the events leading to the establishment of Israel in the late 1940s. The conflict predates by several decades the Holocaust and the Jewish revolt against British rule. Arab rejection of any kind of substantial Jewish presence in the country can be traced back to 1891, if not earlier. The conflict has always had many dimensions, including a conflict of narratives. In The Promise, the Palestinian narrative as summarised in the previous passage is swallowed whole and the audience is expected to do likewise, there being no accurate or even close-to-accurate presentation of the Jewish narrative. The Jewish narrative is either falsified or simply not told. For example, there is no mention at all of:

the history of Palestinian Arabs attacking Jews before 1948, including the 1886 attack on Petah Tikva, attacks against Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall in 1911, murders of Jews in 1912, riots and deadly pogroms against Jews in 1920, 1921 and 1929, the Hebron Massacre in 1929, the years of Arab terror between 1936 and 1939 and atrocities committed by Palestinians against Jews in the period 1946-8;
the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel for more than 3,000 years, including the existence over many centuries of the independent and at times sovereign States of Israel and Judah, all of which is attested to by an abundance of archaeological and documentary evidence;
the fact that the Hebrew language and culture of the Jewish people is a Semitic language and culture which is indigenous to the land of Israel;
the fact that there were five waves of mass Jewish immigration into the country between 1881 and 1939 and that the Jewish immigrants established the institutions of statehood and civil society and a viable economy well prior to the Holocaust and World War II;
the fact that the international community, as early as 1920, recognised the legitimacy of the Jewish people’s aspirations to reconstitute their national home in Israel and obligated Britain, as the Mandatory power, to “facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes”.

Instead, The Promise puts forward the patently false suggestion that the modern State of Israel exists merely as a consequence of the Holocaust and the need to find a home for the displaced surviving Jews of Europe epitomised by Len’s statement in Episode 1 that “If I’d been through what these people went through, I’d want a homeland too.” The historical and legal justification for the establishment of Israel is effectively ‘censored’ out of the story. As the home which Erin symbolically restores to the Palestinian family befriended by her grandfather is located in the heart of modern-day Israel, the unmistakable message is that the ‘rightful ownership’ of the Palestinians extends not merely to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but to the entire country, including Israel itself, the existence of which is thus portrayed throughout the series as wholly illegitimate.

The internationally accepted “Working Definition of Antisemitism” includes the following passage:
Examples of the ways in which Antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
• denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
• drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

The Promise does not even pretend to address the deeper historical justification for Israel’s existence as the State of the Jewish people. Nor does it portray (let alone question) the decision of the Palestinian leadership and the Arab League to use force to prevent the implementation by the UN of its resolution in favour of partition in November 1947. As Professor Benny Morris, one of the most thorough, impartial and widely respected academic historians of the period, has observed:

“it cannot be stressed too strongly that…the events cumulatively amounting to the Palestinian Arab exodus occurred in wartime and were a product, direct and indirect, of that war, a war that the Palestinians started. The threat of battle and battle itself were the immediate backdrop to the various components of the exodus”.

The ultimate cause of the war, in the words of Professor Morris, was

“the intention of the Palestinian leadership and irregulars and, later, of most of the Arab states’ leaders and armies in launching the hostilities in November-December 1947 and in invading Palestine in May 1948 to destroy the Jewish state and, possibly, the Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine) itself”.

The Promise dares not trust its audience with a portrayal of any of these well-documented facts. The Jewish narrative is either denied a hearing or presented only in caricature. Instead of confronting history honestly, The Promise unrelentingly portrays the entire Jewish presence throughout the country, including modern-day Israel, as an act of usurpation by Jews who, without exception, are aliens, predators and thieves and who enforce their usurpation by brutal, racist policies akin to those inflicted by the Nazis upon the Jewish people. The basic concept of The Promise, and the premises on which it rests, are therefore not merely a gross misrepresentation of history, they also fall squarely within the above passages of the Working Definition of Antisemitism.

It is entirely possible, though increasingly difficult in the prevailing post-modernist intellectual environment, to have rational and evidence-based discussions about the history of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and about contemporary Israeli and Palestinian policies and practices. However, The Promise is not such a discussion. It goes well beyond criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country and damns an entire national group, the Jewish people, as psychopathological. Worse, it uses the art of cinematography and its capacity to evoke emotions and shape opinions as the means to do so. This is precisely what the SBS Code against the promotion or reinforcement of inaccurate, demeaning or discriminatory stereotypes is supposed to prevent SBS from putting to air.

4. Particulars of breach of SBS Code 1.3
Attached to this letter is a Table with details of particular instances throughout the series in which anti-Jewish stereotypes are utilised and thereby promoted, endorsed or reinforced. Whilst in our view each instance constitutes a violation of SBS Code 1.3, the inaccurate and demeaning portrayal of Jews as a group is so deeply interwoven into the story, and so integral to its message, that the entire series can fairly be seen to have been corrupted by racism. The stereotypes listed in the Table, which are used by The Promise, should be compared to the following passage in the Working Definition of Antisemitism:

Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of Antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective ….

• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

In addition to the one-sided and highly polemical portrayal of historical events, the negative portrayal of each of the principal Jewish characters in The Promise is a further means by which these forms of Antisemitism are conveyed. In the final analysis, the principal British characters, Len and Erin, and all of the Arab characters, are portrayed favourably and in a way that evokes the audience’s sympathy for them. Yet not a single principal Jewish character emerges in a positive light.14 Without exception they are portrayed in a way that is calculated to evoke the audience’s disapprobation, if not hostility. One British character, Len’s Corporal Jackie Clough, eventually deserts and fights on the Jewish side, and is likewise portrayed negatively. The Jewish characters are all fictional but the implication is that the flawed values and behaviour that The Promise attributes to them are in some sense “typical” of Israeli Jews, or Jews generally, who are therefore collectively guilty of causing and perpetuating the conflict.

Eliza
Eliza is portrayed in a seemingly sympathetic way to begin with, a typical western 18-year-old and Erin’s best friend. Beginning in Episode 1 the portrayal steadily turns from sympathetic to hostile. Eliza is about to undergo basic training for her compulsory Israeli military service, but her alien-ness from the country she is to serve is hinted at in Episode 1 by the entirely gratuitous device of giving Eliza dual UK/Israeli citizenship. In point of fact, the vast majority of Jewish 18 year olds in contemporary Israel are native-born, many of them 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation Israelis. In the same episode, as Eliza’s brother Paul makes a soap-box-type speech about Israel being a military state, Eliza fortuitously appears dressed in an army uniform with a rifle.
By Episode 4 Eliza is condemned outright. As a member of an Israeli army unit serving in the Gaza Strip, she participates in the demolition of the home of the family of a Palestinian suicide bomber. A sweet young girl, Samira, is the sister of the bomber and lives in the home. The trauma she suffers with the impending demolition is graphically highlighted. Erin chains the Palestinian girl and herself to the house to try to prevent its demolition. When Eliza comes to cut the chains Erin rebukes her saying:

“Don’t do it, it’s wrong…You (sic) drove them out of Haifa and Hebron, please don’t drive them out of Gaza”.

One suspects that the only reason for selecting the year 2005 as the setting for Erin’s story (when the series was in fact filmed in 2010) is so that this damning polemical statement against Eliza, and everyone else encompassed by the word “You”, can be put in Erin’s mouth to further sway the audience. (Israel in fact dismantled all settlements in Gaza and withdrew all its military personnel and civilians in August-September of that year, so such a statement in a post-2005 setting would be nonsensical). Eliza replies “I’ve got no choice”, implying that she acknowledges that what she is doing is wrong and that she lacks the moral fibre to do the right thing – yet another Jewish betrayal of friendship and of trust. Eliza cuts the chain and the demolition proceeds. To ensure that the audience draws the ‘right’ conclusion and morally condemns Eliza, she is damned by an accusing glare from Erin.

Max (Eliza’s father)
Outwardly refined and courteous, the character of Max is a former IDF general who criticised the occupation and is now a leading member of Israel’s political left. But the audience is almost immediately turned against him by his son Paul, who denounces him as a hypocrite. Paul says that the very existence of a political left in Israel is a ruse to mislead people into thinking Israel is a normal country like their own; when the truth (according to Paul) is that it is a “military dictatorship”, dominated and led by a series of former military leaders. (In point of fact, some of Israel’s most famous Prime Ministers were not military leaders: David Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharrett, Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir and Shimon Peres. Israel is a multi-party democracy whose parliament includes communist and Arab representatives. Israel’s Supreme Court regularly rules against the government in cases that come before it and has even intervened in military operations. Not all of its Justices are Jewish). Max’s cool reception of the Arab peace activist, Omar Habash, is shown to be ungracious and racist. The audience is not trusted to come to this conclusion itself. The message is conveyed by Erin’s accusing glares and other disapproving facial expressions.

Leah (Eliza’s mother)
Leah’s character is not strongly developed in the series. Her main contribution is to refer to Palestinians as “animals” when she hears of a suicide bombing and for this statement she is thoroughly rebuked by her son Paul and shamed as a bigot in the eyes of the audience. Leah snaps at Omar in response to his question about where she comes from (Europe). The latter incident is the vehicle for conveying the alien-ness of Leah and her husband Max (and by extension all Jews) to the land, further estranging them from the audience’s sympathy.

Paul (Eliza’s brother)
The character of Paul is used as a vehicle for putting every conceivable condemnation of Israeli policy (about the settlements, the security barrier, the behaviour of settlers, the behaviour of the Israeli army and atrocities committed by Jewish fighters in the 1940s) into the mouth of a Jew. In Episode 4 he tells Erin,

“You can do literally anything you want to the Palestinians… steal from them, sleep in their houses, take their cars, beat them to death with your bare hands in broad daylight”.

The audience is supposed to see these highly tendentious statements as some sort of Jewish “admission of guilt”. We are told that Paul has come out of the army transformed into a radical Leftist. He takes Erin with him to Nablus in the West Bank where he addresses a meeting of Combatants for Peace together with Omar, a Palestinian and a former member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades. At the end of the meeting, the two shake hands. Paul tells Erin,

“Once you’ve met your former enemy … you can never take up that weapon again.”

Yet even Paul is ultimately portrayed in a deeply negative light. He is shown up to be an even worse hypocrite than his father. In Episode 4 Paul goes to Hebron to secure the release of Erin from an Israeli military post where she has been detained. Paul had previously been stationed at this post for 3 years while serving in the Israeli army. When he arrives at the post he discovers that the soldiers there, who have just been damningly portrayed as complicit in settler violence towards Palestinian women and girls, are some of his old comrades and they greet each other with great warmth. Erin is released and she and Paul go to the roof of the post to have a beer. Erin accuses Paul’s friends of “standing by while they (the settlers) commit murder”. Paul replies

“It’s a grey area”.

Erin stares at him bug-eyed with incredulity and scorn for his answer and scoffs loudly.
During his conversation with Erin, Paul describes a past incident in which he bullied a young Palestinian girl and this, he says, made him crack and refuse to continue serving in the army:

“I just couldn’t do it any more”.

But any sympathy Paul might garner from the audience evaporates soon afterwards when the post comes under gunfire. Paul picks up a gun and joins his comrades in firing back. Erin sardonically reminds him that he had previously said,

“Once you’ve met your former enemy … you can never take up that weapon again.” Paul replies “It’s called loyalty”.

The damnation of Paul to the audience for this response is again made plain by Erin’s panoply of facial expressions: skeptical smirk, accusing glare and loud scoffing.

Paul’s use of the word “loyalty” is especially telling. He does not say, “When someone is shooting at you, firing back is called self-defence or self-preservation”. The possibility that Jews defending themselves from gunfire might be right and proper is nowhere admitted. Using loyalty as his reason is a device to ‘prove’ to the audience that, despite all his expressed convictions, Paul is after all presented as an Israeli and a Jew who cannot be trusted. This also fits with the stereotype about Jews always sticking together as if part of a conspiracy. The antipathy towards Paul is made absolutely plain after Erin has sex with him and then rebukes herself for having done so. The audience is given no explanation of why she tells herself “This was a mistake”, but the inference is that she has a sense that she has been sleeping with the enemy, and ‘the Jews’, or at least Israeli Jews, are the enemy.

Eliza’s grandfather

This is another fictional character who, we are told, was involved in the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946. The audience, incidentally, never learns the true history that an earlier attempt to attack the hotel was foiled when the mainstream Jewish military organisation, the Haganah, learned of it and warned the British authorities. As with the other major atrocities portrayed in The Promise – the kidnapping and hanging of two British sergeants and the massacre at Deir Yassin – which were all carried out by Jewish minority groups the Irgun Zevai Leumi (IZL) and Lohamei Herut Israel (LHI), any mention of the active opposition of the mainstream Haganah and religious leaders is completely omitted and the false impression is given to the audience that all or most Jews supported and were complicit in each atrocity. The effect of this device is to establish the Jews’ supposed collective guilt in the eyes of the audience.

Eliza’s grandfather is a survivor of the Holocaust in which we are told many members of his family perished. Yet he is portrayed as utterly obdurate and unapologetic for his part in committing an atrocity. Any sympathy he might attract as a Holocaust survivor is forfeited by his portrayal as someone who completely lacks a moral compass. This is highlighted when he tells Erin that after the Holocaust members of his generation were determined to carve out a land which could be safe for Jews forever. The British stood in their way, so the Jews “wiped them out. It was as simple as that.” The Promise has this speech delivered in a tone of blind self-righteousness. Having portrayed horrible killing by Jews, words are then put in the mouth of a supposedly representative Jewish Holocaust survivor to justify it. The implication is that Jewish Holocaust survivors generally were brutalised rather than refined by the traumas they endured, a disgraceful generalisation and calumny which of itself condemns the entire series.

The impression of amoral ruthlessness of the grandfather is reinforced in the scene immediately following. Len and Jackie and another soldier are driving through town off-duty in a Jeep when a car stops for a suspiciously long time in front of them. Len reaches for his revolver, but two men with handguns appear and shoot all three soldiers. One has his brains blown out, in a graphic close-up shot. As Len and Jackie struggle for life, bystanders in cafés take absolutely no notice of what has happened. They continue their conversations, smile and drink coffee. The odium of the atrocity is thus attributed not just to Eliza’s grandfather and the other perpetrators but, once again, to Jews at large. It is therefore a tawdry evasion to suggest that the series is about Israel, not Jews. In The Promise, Israel becomes paradigmatic of the Jews’ refusal to be improved by affliction.

Clara Rosenbaum
Clara is a principal Jewish character in the series who in Episode 3 is shown to be party to a ruse in which she is tarred and feathered by Jewish militants to make it appear as if she is being punished for being pro-British. She thereby lulls her British lover, Len, into trusting her and giving away intelligence which is used by the Irgun to kidnap and hang two of Len’s comrades. The kidnapping and hanging of two British sergeants by the Irgun were real historical events, although they are portrayed in The Promise shorn of most of the relevant context.
On the other hand, the character and the role Clara plays in the incident are entirely fictitious. Yet her insidious treachery, betrayal and amoral ruthlessness evoke anti-Jewish stereotypes that have a long and disreputable history in western culture. Furious at being betrayed at the cost of the lives of two of his comrades, Len comes looking for Clara at her home in order to take revenge. Len only finds Clara’s father Leo, another Holocaust survivor, and brutally and capriciously brushes aside Leo’s protestations that most Jews condemned the hangings.

In perhaps the most significant line in the series, Len screams at Leo: “I don’t know what’s happened to you people” (emphasis added), again signifying the collective guilt that is ascribed to all Jews for the actions of a few (see passage from Working Definition of Antisemitism last quoted above).

The negative portrayal of Clara is reinforced in Episode 4 when she is depicted as a participant in the massacre of Arab villagers at Deir Yassin. There is no question that such a massacre took place on 9 April 1948, when around 120 fighters from the IZL and LHI paramilitary groups attacked the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, a Palestinian-Arab village of roughly 600 people. According to the most reliable estimates, 107 villagers were killed, including armed fighters and women and children. It was the first time Jewish forces had gone on the offensive, as opposed to responding to attacks.

The Episode makes no mention of the fact that there was a fierce battle between Jewish and Arab militias for control of the village as Jewish militia sought to relieve the blockade of the Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem by the Arab Liberation Army and other armed Palestinian Arab groups. The blockade and the attempt to starve the Jews out are not portrayed or even mentioned. Nor is there any mention of the wider context of the civil war in which the battle occurred, as summarised by Professor Benny Morris:

The battle for Deir Yassin occurred in the middle of, and was part of, the civil war between Palestine’s Arab and Jewish communities that constituted the first half of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. (Its second half began with the pan-Arab invasion of Palestine on 15–16 May 1948 and ended with the signing of armistice agreements between Israel and its neighbors in 1949.) That war was triggered by the Arab (Palestinian as well as pan-Arab) rejection of the United Nations Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947 (No. 181) that called for the establishment of two states in the area of Mandatory Palestine, one Arab and the other Jewish. The actual hostilities were launched at the end of November and early December by Palestinian Arab armed bands. In the course of the civil war, Arab militiamen attacked Jewish traffic and settlements and Jewish militiamen—of the Haganah, IZL and LHI—retaliated by attacking Arab traffic and settlements. Both sides also used terrorism.

Also omitted from the Episode is the fact that the killings were publicly condemned at the time by the Jewish Agency for Israel (the organization in charge of immigration and absorption of Jews from the Diaspora into what is now Israel), the Haganah and the country’s two chief rabbis.

None of these crucial facts can justify the massacre of villagers that indeed took place. The complete omission of all of these facts, however, is inexcusable as it conveys the false impression that, as a matter of policy and practice, Jews supported or were complicit in the atrocity. The massacre is falsely presented as representative of Jewish war conduct, a generalization that is openly articulated by Len later in Episode 4. It builds on the defamatory portrayal of Eliza’s grandfather noted above. There is not a single reference to the existence of a war against the Jews, or the violent rejection by its neighbours of Jewish statehood. The suppression of any hint of desperation on the part of the Jewish forces in seeking to relieve the besieged Jews of Jerusalem, and of the fact that they initially faced armed resistance, shuts off any possibility that the viewer might understand how Jews who saw themselves as fighters for a noble cause could commit atrocities. All the Jews, including Clara, are portrayed as wanton murderers, or their accessories, and all the Arabs as innocent, unarmed villagers.

The scene concludes with Len symbolically turning his back on Clara in utter disgust. Any sympathy the audience might have felt for Clara in earlier episodes evaporates. The audience is completely turned against her (a fictional character) and, through her and the other perpetrators, against the Jewish people in general (who are real).

Avram Klein
This character is based loosely on the real-life historical figure of Dov Gruner. The real Dov Gruner joined the British army in Palestine in 1941 in order to fight the Nazis. He served in the British army’s Jewish Brigade for 5 years and took part in heavy fighting in Italy where he was wounded. After the war, he and his comrades came to the aid of Holocaust survivors in Europe. In 1946 he took part in an Irgun operation to obtain weapons from a British army depot and in an attack on a police station. He was severely wounded and initially denied medical treatment. While in prison, he became close with some of his British guards, who came to respect and admire him, which is the exact opposite of the process posited by The Promise. Although Gruner was a prisoner of war, his British captors did not accord him any of the rights or protections to which he was entitled under the 1929 Geneva Convention. He was charged with ‘firing on policemen, and setting explosive charges with the intent of killing personnel on His Majesty’s service’. He was never charged with murder. It is accepted that Gruner never shot anybody, yet he was hanged with three of his comrades at Acre Prison in April 1947.

Although the character of Avram Klein is at first shown to be quiet and dignified, in the end he is portrayed as a blinkered fanatic who could have saved his own life by appealing his sentence to the Privy Council. Words are put into his mouth to demonstrate that he refused to do so in a vainglorious quest for martyrdom. This is in contrast to the real figure of Dov Gruner who in a famous letter to the Commander in Chief of the Irgun, Menachem Begin, wrote “Of course I want to live: who does not?” The implied parallel with modern-day Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who boast of a ‘love of death”, does not stand up to scrutiny.

None of the grisly details of Gruner’s trial and execution are shown in The Promise, even though the entire incident is essential background for understanding the subsequent kidnapping and killing of the two British sergeants, every appalling detail of which is graphically portrayed. The hangings of the British sergeants were indeed acts of barbarity, as were the hangings of Dov Gruner and his comrades by the British. It should all have been portrayed, not just one side of it.

Worse still, The Promise denies the character of Avram Klein the eloquent voice of the real Dov Gruner to explain his actions. This is what he said to the British court that eventually condemned him:

I do not recognize your authority to try me. This court has no legal foundation, since it was appointed by a regime without legal foundation.

You came to Palestine because of the commitment you undertook at the behest of all the nations of the world to rectify the greatest wrong caused to any nation in the history of mankind, namely the expulsion of Israel from their land, which transformed them into victims of persecution and incessant slaughter throughout the world. It was this commitment – and this commitment alone – which constituted the legal and moral basis for your presence in this country. But you betrayed it wilfully, brutally and with satanic cunning. You turned your commitment into a mere scrap of paper…

When the prevailing government in any country is not legal, when it becomes a regime of oppression and tyranny, it is the right of its citizens – more than that, it is their duty – to fight this regime and to topple it. This is what Jewish youth are doing and will continue to do until you quit this land, and hand it over to its rightful owners: the Jewish people. For you should know this: there is no power in the world which can sever the tie between the Jewish people and their one and only land. Whosoever tries to sever it – his hand will be cut off and the curse of God will rest on him forever.

The presentation of this short speech, taken from real life, would have been enough to destroy the propaganda effect of the entire series and shatter the anti-Jewish stereotypes that are its essential vehicle. Perhaps this explains why the Avram Klein role has been so heavily attenuated and fictionalised.
Also omitted is the statement of Gruner’s three comrades Mordechai Alkahi, Yehiel Dresner and Eliezer Kashani, rejecting their supporters’ plea that they ask for clemency:

“Do you not understand that your requests for clemency are an affront to your honour and the honour of the entire people?…At present we are in their hands…We cannot resist them, and they can treat us as they choose… But they cannot break our spirit. We know how to die with honour as befits Hebrews”.

Gruner and his comrades were hanged within half an hour, and each of them, as his turn arrived, sang Hatikva (the Israeli national anthem) until he died. As the condemned men walked through the gaol, all the Jewish prisoners in the prison rose to their feet and sang the national anthem with them. It is not surprising that the real life drama of these events is nowhere to be found in The Promise. In every episode, The Promise denies the Jewish side its authentic voice, presenting it (if at all) only in caricature.

Contrast with portrayal of Arab characters
The anti-Jewish stereotyping throughout the series, exemplified by the inauthentic and negative portrayal of each of the Jewish characters, is reinforced by the conspicuously positive portrayal of each of the Arab characters.

During Episode 2, each member of the family of Abu-Hassan Mohammed, the Arab whom Len befriends, is portrayed as gracious, trustworthy, humane and hospitable. They speak with quiet dignity, charm and respect. They treat Len with honour, modesty, sincerity and warmth. In the 2005 period, the character Omar Habash is similarly portrayed. The sympathy the audience is intended to feel for Omar is underlined by the fact that Erin develops a crush on him. None of the Arab characters speaks with a raised voice, in stark contrast to the violent, quarrelsome, hate-filled Jewish families.

The Jewish characters are each shown as betrayers of their British friends. The Arab characters are shown as trustworthy and loyal. It is they who are betrayed – inadvertently of course – by their British friends. Mohammed complains with dignity and bitterness to Len that the British have let the Jews “come from Europe and steal the land”, this being the view which The Promise seeks to impress on its audience. The Jews are not only betrayers but thieves. More than that, they are murderers too, a recurring theme in the series which comes to a climax in Episode 4 when Mohammed’s son Hassan, extracts ‘the promise’ from Len after being shot by a faceless Jewish sniper. He is shown dying in Len’s arms, blood spurting from his mouth. Collective guilt is ascribed to Jews generally for the killing of emotive figures like Hassan, Arab women and children, a British nurse and even, ludicrously, Hassan’s pet dog.

In contrast, not a single Arab character that the series develops is associated with any kind of morally reprehensible act. We learn nothing of the female Arab suicide bomber in Episode 1 or of the Arabs who shoot at the military post in Hebron in Episode 4. In the whole series, the few acts of Palestinian violence that are shown are de-personalised in this way so that there is no human focus for any resulting blame or antipathy the audience might feel. The only characters in the series with whom violence, fanaticism, ruthlessness and the dehumanising of the enemy are associated are Jewish characters.

It is therefore entirely unsurprising that the series omits all reference to the blood curdling calls for a ‘massacre’ of the Jews made by Arab leaders in October 1947, which marked the initiation of their civil war against the Jewish population, well before the mass arrival of Holocaust survivors, and overlooks the numerous Arab atrocities against Jews that occurred in that war and subsequently. Nor is there even a hint of the intimate wartime alliance between the Palestinian leadership and the Nazi regime and the ongoing assistance to the Palestinians after 1945 from Nazi fugitives and “hundreds” of British deserters with pro-Nazi sympathies.

The negative stereotyping of Jews in the series is best summarised by author Howard Jacobsen in the following passage:

One-sidedness is a failure of imagination; aesthetically, The Promise failed because it couldn’t conceal the dramatic monotony of its bias. Just about every Palestinian was sympathetic to look at, just about every Jew was not. While most Palestinians might fairly be depicted as living in poor circumstances, most Israeli Jews might not be fairly depicted as living in great wealth. The family life of Palestinians, when it was not rent with fear, was loving and considerate; family life among the Jews consisted of spitting words of violence against Arabs and callous socialising around a pool built on appropriated land. Juxtaposition counts for much in art, and when every juxtaposition – of beauty, wealth, humanity, kindliness, suffering – favours one party to the conflict at the expense of another, the simplicity of view begins to show itself in uninventiveness and repetition. Though I, too, have found Palestinians to be people of immense charm, I could only laugh in derision at The Promise every time another shot of soft-eyed Palestinians followed another shot of hard-faced Jews.

The Antisemitic motif of the greedy Jew
The series shamelessly and persistently utilises the Antisemitic motif of the greedy Jew. The desire for a homeland is portrayed as the result of greed rather than the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their historic homeland. The ‘greedy Jew’ motif is juxtaposed against the image of ‘the key’ as a symbol of Palestinian ‘true ownership’ of, and ‘right’ to ‘return’ to what is now Israel.

The ‘greedy Jew’ motif is emphasised in Episode 2 by the complaint aired to Len by Mohammed during the dinner hosted at Mohammed’s home. He declares that all the problems began when European Jews began to arrive. “They want everything” is the verbal motif. The grotesque inversion and factual error is plain. The issue however for SBS is reinforcement of the imagery of the greedy Jew.

One sees the Arabs eating, sitting on the ground with little or no furnishing in the place where they dine with their English soldier guest. This is then immediately juxtaposed with a lavish party at a Jewish home in Israel in 2005.

In Episode 4 Mohammed again declares without contradiction that the Jews want “the whole of Palestine, not just the part you are allowing them to steal”. Again, as in Episode 2, the Jew is presented as a greedy thief. Again, the greedy Jewish thief motif goes unchallenged.

Put aside for a moment the deceitfulness of the historical claims made in The Promise, which is easily demonstrated.

Dogged use of the Antisemitic motif of the Jew as greedy is a stand-alone violation of SBS Code 1.3. 18

5. Absence of mitigating factors
Sign boards screened by SBS
To its credit, SBS accepted that there was a substantial risk that viewers might mistakenly believe that The Promise fairly and accurately portrays real historical figures and events. At the beginning of Episode 2 a sign board appeared for eight seconds stating:
“This program is a work of fiction inspired by a true story.”
SBS subsequently recognized that the juxtaposition of the words “fiction” and “true” was also potentially confusing to the audience. Episodes 3 and 4 opened with a different sign-board reading:
“This is a drama inspired by the accounts of British soldiers who served in Palestine.”
This sign board also appeared for eight seconds and could easily have been missed by the viewer. Further, the word “drama” fails to convey that The Promise is not and could not be a fair and accurate portrayal of real historical figures and events. The use of the word “accounts” suggested a degree of historical verisimilitude that is clearly not warranted by the content of the series. This message also was confusing and open to misinterpretation. The confusion would have been compounded by the description of the series on the SBS website: “The Promise: Political History”.
Even an experienced television reviewer seems to have been misled into thinking the series was authentic history.

The writer-director of the series is Jewish
The fact that the writer-director of the series, Peter Kosminsky, is Jewish has no bearing on the present complaint, which requires an assessment to be made of the objective effect of the material complained of. Kosminsky’s subjective motives are therefore irrelevant and cannot be known with any certainty. No person’s public statements to explain their motives can simply be accepted at face value.
It is in any event false to assume that Jews cannot be the authors of material which is objectively antisemitic.

As Howard Jacobson observed:

It matters not a jot to me that the writer/director of The Promise is a Jew. Jews succumbing to the age-old view of them and reviling what’s Jewish in themselves has a long history.

In his most recent book, A Lethal Obsession, the acclaimed historian of Antisemitism, Robert Wistrich, devotes an entire chapter to “Jews against Zion.” He summarizes the history of antisemitic Jews starting with the apostates in Christian Spain after the massacres of the Jews in 1391 and concludes:

“Self-hating Jews, whatever their motives for betraying their own people and negating its history, have throughout the ages provided invaluable ammunition for the Antisemites. That still remains the bottom line.”

The racist stereotyping of Jews is justified by ‘artistic licence’
It is tempting to believe that a film with artistic merit cannot also be morally abhorrent. This, however, is a fallacy. Cinematography has a long and infamous history of high artistic achievement in the service of politically psychotic messages, most notably by Leni Riefenstahl, the German director of the Nazi propaganda films, Triumph of the Will (1935) and Olympia (1938). Both films feature hero-worship of ‘supermen’ figures, in keeping with Nazi racial theories. Technically and aesthetically, both films are of a very high quality.

Kosminsky, with his crude use of tendentious commentary and cardboard cutout characterisations (Arabs good, Jews bad), is not in the same class as a film-maker as Riefenstahl. Nevertheless, Kosmnsky’s use of negative stereotypes of Jews as materialistic, immoral, treacherous, ruthless and murderous is not so strident as to overwhelm or stand apart from the compelling story-line of . The series succeeds in insinuating its propaganda as an almost subliminal message within a story with which the audience can identify.

In this respect, The Promise bears a degree of comparison with another Nazi propaganda film (not one of Riefenstahl’s), Jud Süss (co-written and directed by Veit Harlan in 1940). Like The Promise, Jud Süss:

(i) was a fictional drama set against real historical events;

(ii) interpreted those events not only as a human tragedy but as a tale of “Jewish wrongdoing”;

(iii) featured negative portrayals of its principal Jewish characters;

(iv) made liberal use of anti-Jewish stereotypes (ruthless, amoral, betrayer, usurper, thief);

(v) was, at the time, acclaimed by critics and also achieved great popularity. (Jud Süss was launched at the Venice Film Festival in September 1940 and received the “Golden Lion” award and rave reviews. Although the film’s budget of 2 million reichsmarks was considered high for films of that era, the box-office receipts of 6.5 million reichsmarks made it a financial success. By 1943 an estimated 20.3 million people had seen it).

Jud Süss graphically demonstrates that the public expression of racial vilification in any form is not merely a harmless exercise of the right of free speech, even if it is done in an artistically meritorious way. On 18 August 1940, after screening the final cut of the film Jud Süss, Nazi Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels wrote in his diary:

“An antisemitic film of the kind we could only wish for. I am happy about it”.

On 30 September 1940 Reichsführer SS, Heinrich Himmler, ordered all SS and Gestapo personnel to watch Jud Süss during the coming winter. It was shown to SS units and Einsatzgruppen (special action squads) just before they were sent to the east to carry out mass shootings of some 1.5 million Jewish civilians – men, women and children. Jud Süss was also shown to non-Jewish populations in areas from which their Jewish neighbours were about to be deported to the death camps.

Harlan was the only film director of the Third Reich to be tried for crimes against humanity. After three trials, he was given only a light sentence because he was able to convince the courts that the antisemitic content of the film had been dictated by Goebbels. He was eventually reinstated as a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany and went on to make nine more films. He remained a controversial figure and the target of protests.

Like Jud Süss, The Promise only loosely corresponds to the historical sources available concerning the actual events that are covered. As in Jud Süss, key historical facts are omitted, inverted or entirely fabricated, under cover of the excuse that the work is dramatic art. Yet the omissions, inversions and fabrications in The Promise and the negative portrayal of all of the principal Jewish characters go well beyond mere artistic licence. Cumulatively their effect is to convey derogatory messages about Jews as a group.

6. Conclusion
Despite the length of this complaint, which is regretted, there is much more we could have said. Whilst many of the anti-Jewish stereotypes employed in The Promise date back to medieval times or earlier, in recent decades they have taken on new manifestations, especially in the discourse concerning the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and they have proliferated on a global scale. The Promise should be understood in that wider context. It is a landmark in the creeping rehabilitation of Antisemitism in western culture.

Kindly note that the racist content of The Promise caused considerable distress to Holocaust survivors and other members of our community who complained to us about it. To alleviate their concerns we propose to post a copy of this letter and the Attachment on our website early next week. We look forward to hearing from you.

The ECAJ awaits a response from SBS.'

"We Don't Have Any Rights In This Country": The Plight Of Palestinians Under Apartheid (video)

2012-01-09T05:55:00.000-08:00

Here's a taste of the discrimination that Palestinians face every day...

That's right. Discrimination by their fellow-Arabs. All praise to StandWithUs for peeling back the layers of anti-Israel propaganda.

The Emergency Committee For Israel On Ron Paul (video)

2012-01-09T02:03:00.000-08:00

Those guys have his measure!

The Escalating Cost To UNESCO Of Its "Palestinian Blunder"

2012-01-08T12:17:00.000-08:00

In his latest article via the antipodean J-Wire service ("Palestine Blunder Costs UNESCO $167 Million In 2012-2013"), Sydney lawyer and founder member of the International Analysts Network David Singer (originator of this petition, mentioned in the article below) continues to focus on the troubles confronting that UN agency.

Writes David Singer:

UNESCO’s deficit has skyrocketed from an estimated $120 million to $167 million for 2012-2013 as a result of its decision to admit Palestine as its 195th member in breach of UNESCO’s own Constitution.

In addition UNESCO has lost another $65 million in American dues for 2011 – automatically withheld by the United States as required by domestic legislation existing on its statute books since the 1990s.
UNESCO continues to refuse to review or to justify the legality of its decision to admit Palestine – which if reversed – could immediately restore this massive shortfall in its revenue and enable the resumption of essential programs suspended or curtailed as a result of this financial black hole.

Those 87 members of UNESCO who did not vote for Palestine’s admission to UNESCO must be increasingly alarmed at this blow out in the deficit – and also at two highly embarrassing issues involving UNESCO and Palestine – one of which came to UNESCO’s notice in December and the other which is set to explode in February. .

The December issue has led to UNESCO withdrawing funding from a Palestinian children’s magazine – Zayzafouna – published by an NGO under the same name and coming under the patronage of the Palestinian National Commission of UNESCO – a national body set up by the Palestinian Authority.
The February edition of Zayzafouna contained an article by a 10-year-old girl in which Hitler was quoted by her as stating that he:

“killed [the Jews] so you would all know that they are a nation who wreak havoc on Earth”

In finding this statement may be interpreted as an apology for the holocaust and contrary to UNESCO’s constitutional mandate and values UNESCO declared :

“UNESCO supported the publication of three issues of the Zayzafouna Magazine six months after the February 2011 issue. The support was provided for these issues following agreement with the editors that they would focus on building greater appreciation amongst Palestinians for their heritage and culture. They were to open the way for positive dialogue aimed at overcoming the consequences of the Middle East conflict, and to fight against stereotypes that may be conducive to violence. It was UNESCO’s intention to foster a positive view of Palestinian heritage based on the values of tolerance and UNESCO’s mandate of building peace in the minds of men and women. This vision guides all of UNESCO’s activities, and we urge all partners to work in this direction.

UNESCO is shocked and dismayed by the content of the February issue, and has requested more detailed information and clarification from the editors of the magazine and the Palestinian Authority.

UNESCO strongly deplores and condemns the reproduction of such inflammatory statements in a magazine associated with UNESCO’s name and mission and will not provide any further support to the publication in question.

The Organization, which is deeply committed to the development and promotion of education about the Holocaust, disassociates itself from any statement that is counter to its founding principles and goal of building tolerance in the full respect for human rights and human dignity."

UNESCO’s approach to this outrage was principled and undoubtedly correct.

However any concern for complying with UNESCO’s “constitutional mandate” seems to have gone out the window when the charge is made that Palestine has not been constitutionally elected to UNESCO.

UNESCO – in announcing Palestine’s admission to membership incorrectly stated:

“Admission to UNESCO for states that are not members of the United Nations requires a recommendation by the Organization’s Executive Board and a two thirds majority vote in favour by the General Conference of Member States present and voting (abstentions are not considered as votes)."

The words “present and voting” do not appear in Article II (2) – the article that expressly deals with applications for full membership.

However those words do appear in Article II (3) – the article which deals with applications for associate membership.

The majority vote required in each case is therefore very different – more stringent for full membership and less stringent for associate membership.

Whilst the majority vote – 107 – would have been sufficient to admit Palestine as an Associate Member – it was insufficient to admit Palestine to full membership for which the majority vote required was 129.

The 87 members who did not vote for Palestine’s admission should themselves be asking for an urgent review. – given the substantially increased loss in funding just announced and the use of UNESCO funds by Palestine for unauthorized and morally offensive purposes.

I am still seeking answers from UNESCO – but it appears they continue to be reluctant to review or justify the provisions of the Constitution that enabled Palestine to apparently slip through the cracks and join UNESCO’s ranks.

The issue set to erupt next month – as revealed by Giulio Meotti – involves Palestine applying for UNESCO World Heritage listing for the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron – a site holy to both Jews and Moslems.

Khaled Osaily, Hebron’s Mayor, said recently:

“It’s a mosque!, You don’t have to be an architect to see it! Will you allow me to pray in a synagogue or a church?”.

Several days ago, the Palestinian Rehabilitation Committee raised the UNESCO flag next to the national ‘Palestinian’ flag in front of the Tomb of the Patriarchs.

Osaily, just returned from Paris where he took part in a UNESCO conference at the Institut du Monde Arabe in support of adding Hebron’s holy sites to the World Heritage List, stated:

“We started a campaign three years ago to add Hevron to the UNESCO list”, . Now the request is ready and we will present it to UNESCO in February”.

I have started an on-line petition to help gauge the strength of public reaction to getting UNESCO to review what appears to be a clear breach of its own Constitution – which already has had – and will have – serious and ongoing financial, operational and political consequences.
490 people have already signed the petition in the last 4 days. [At present, the figure stands at nearly 600 - D.A.] I invite you and your social network to do likewise and circulate it to others to follow suit.

Those who don’t live by the law are destined to get their just desserts at the hands of the law.
UNESCO needs to come clean and review or justify its questionable decision – or continue to wither on the vine.

Iran's Gallows' Way & Galloway (video)

2012-01-07T10:04:00.000-08:00

As the video editor says, "This is a Must See". Hat tip to the Vlad Tepes blog, where I found it. And hats off to gorgeous George, for those stirring remarks of his, at the beginning ...

Paul's Epistle To The Persians

2012-01-07T09:21:00.000-08:00

It's as well to be reminded that US presidential hopeful Ron Paul has not been beneath appearing on the propaganda satellite channel of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose latest threat to Israel is reported here

In this video, dating to 2009 (but worth another look), the naive and ill-informed Mr Paul, who says "the Palestinians have been ripped off" and are being kept by Israel in "concentration camps," defends Hamas and advocates ending America's "special relationship" with Israel.

Hat tip: golemsbar, whose YouTube videos are well worth checking out.

Israeli Exports Up By 4.5% In 2011 (video)

2012-01-06T07:24:00.000-08:00

This won't please the BDSers ...

When A Map Seems Key To The Aim (video)

2012-01-06T02:46:00.000-08:00

Here's an attractive short video showing something of the work among Palestinians of the MDG Achievement Fund, a UN humanitarian initiative which is financed by the Spanish government. If you blink, you may miss the eyebrow-raising map of "Palestine" that a child is about to colour-in, and the big key (symbolising the return of the "refugees," or perhaps more accurately the land's "liberation" from the River to the Sea) that a smiling little girl is holding.

Antisemitism & Death Threats "not in violation of Twitter rules at this time"

2012-01-05T13:21:00.000-08:00

Labour MP Diane Abbott, the first black woman to enter the House of Commons, has hit the headlines with her preposterous anti-white comment on Twitter. It's an example of reverse racism which Labour leader Ed Miliband swiftly condemned (though of course he hasn't sacked her from the Shadow front bench).

But as an example of offensive tweets Ms Abbott's comment pales (if you'll forgive the expression) into insignificance beside those that Martin Bright of the Jewish Chronicle reports on today.

Twitter, his report informs us, has refused to take action against an (erstwhile?) Labour Party activist and self-described Miliband lookalike surnamed Abdallah, who has, we're told, tweeted "a stream of death threats and antisemitic abuse".

Apparently, violent sexual fantasies are often involved, and his tweets frequently end with R.I.P.

To an Anglo-Israeli woman he has reportedly made such remarks as "I will beat you to death ... a promise" and "I will hunt you down & fight you min by min. hr by hr. day by day. wk by wk. month by month. year by year for the rest of yr life."

Yet, Twitter told a complainant:

"We have investigated the reported account and have found that it's not in violation of the Twitter rules at this time. We have a policy against violent threats, but the content of this account lacks the specificity to meet the criteria of an actionable threat."

Read Martin Bright's disturbing report, which includes a Jerusalem-based lawyer's claim that Twitter is "providing services to groups such as Hizbollah," here

John Bolton On A Nuclear Iran (video)

2012-01-04T13:13:00.000-08:00

On New Year's Day John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, was interviewed on this merry topic by Fox News:

Russia's Envoy To The UN Speaks About The Middle East (video)

2012-01-04T12:15:00.000-08:00

Mark Regev On The Jordan-Hosted Peace Talks (video)

2012-01-04T10:32:00.001-08:00

This Babe In The Wood Doesn't Deserve The Republican Party Nomination

2012-01-04T05:24:00.000-08:00

It's five minutes to midnight as far as Iran's nuclear capability is concerned. We live in a "Devil's Decade," as did the generation that saw Isolation and Appeasement met with inevitable aggression by crazed dictators.

Texan Republican "libertarian" presidential hopeful Ron Paul, no particular friend to Israel, and an apologist for Hamas, has taken a remarkably naive stance towards the Iranian threat.

As was said of the Hapsburgs, such people have "learned nothing and forgotten nothing".

Let's hope, then, that political pundits who seem to think that there is no chance whatever of Ron Paul (whose son defends him in the Jerusalem Post today) getting the Republican Party nomination are correct in their prediction.

Petition To Reverse Palestine's Admission To UNESCO

2012-01-03T03:33:00.000-08:00

Many readers will no doubt have seen the important article on the consequences of Palestine's admission to UNESCO that Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer had as a guest columnist in an Israeli publication several days ago. It augments earlier articles by him that I reproduced here and here

Readers may not, however, be aware that David Singer has drafted a petition

"to reverse UNESCO's illegal admission of Palestine without the required majority of 129 votes required by article II (2) of UNESCO's Constitution.

This decision has cost UNESCO the loss of at least $100 million per annum in American funding."

In answer to queries from me, David Singer explains:

'Petition will be presented to UNESCO

The Executive Committee of UNESCO can recommend the resolution to admit Palestine be nullified since the required majority of 129 members was not obtained OR resolve to obtain an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice as to the legality of Palestine's admission to UNESCO

UNESCO should be concerned to ensure it acts at all times in accordance with its Constitution. Where there is any doubt then steps should be taken to remove such doubt. Nothing I have received from UNESCO to date has rebutted my claim.'

The petition is available for signing here

Jihad How It Is, Or How It Isn't?

2012-01-02T13:34:00.000-08:00

The BBC, going well beyond its original remit (it has money to squander, of course, thanks to the mandatory licence fee it is permitted to expropriate from every household in Britain with a television set, and so is able to pursue various agendas to its heart's content), has something on its labyrinthine website called "Bitesize". This is aimed at British teenagers who are revising for the secondary school examinations known as the GCSE. In the section entitled "Religious Studies" there is a sub-section entitled "War and Peace". That has a further sub-section entitled "Islam: attitudes towards fighting and warfare," which asserts:

"Islam is a religion of peace in which fighting and war are seen only as a last resorts....

There are different levels of Jihad:

Jihad means ‘to struggle in the way of Allah’.
Greater Jihad is the way in which every Muslim makes a personal effort to follow the teachings of Allah (God) and to fight evil.
Lesser Jihad is when Muslims fight to protect their religion.

....

The idea of Jihad is often misunderstood by non-Muslims who then see Islam as not being a pacifist religion.

Muslims may fight in self-defence but are forbidden to begin a fight. The aim of fighting is to create a situation where Muslims are free to worship Allah and live in peace.

One aim of Holy War may be to create a democracy where people are free to live their lives without beliefs and politics being imposed on them. There must be no hatred or vengeance in the fighting. As soon as peace is offered, fighting must stop. Once peace has been restored the differences between people must be resolved...."

I don't normally mention Islam on this blog except when the context is directly relevant to Jews or Israel. But when I read something like the above, from the BBC, and then view something like the video below, which is new, and tells us something diametrically different, I ask myself who is (perhaps unwittingly) deceiving whom.

Is the man in the video a hopelessly out-of-touch bigot, or is the notoriously leftist Al Beeb, and perhaps the curriculum itself, feeding school students an apologetic interpretation, perhaps through wishful thinking? For if the man in the video is right, those students may one day be in for a rude awakening...