Saturday, June 03, 2017

"Liberating" Palestine, Boycotting a Film Tainted by Israel

"I am sending my love and prayers to my fellow Israeli citizens."
"Especially to all the boys and girls who are risking their lives protecting my country against the horrific acts conducted by Hamas, who are hiding like cowards behind women and children."
Israeli actress Gal Gadot
Israeli actress Gal Gadot arrives at the premiere of Warner Bros. Pictures' 'Wonder Woman' at the Pantages Theatre on May 25, 2017 in Hollywood, California. (Frazer Harrison/Getty Images/AFP)
Israeli actress Gal Gadot arrives at the premiere of Warner Bros. Pictures' 'Wonder Woman' at the Pantages Theatre on May 25, 2017 in Hollywood, California. (Frazer Harrison/Getty Images/AFP)
"In typical Lebanese fashion and because we definitely have our priorities in order, Lebanon’s government decided to rise up from its slumber and resist, even though the movie has been announced for over three years now."
"The fact of the matter is that if you have a problem with the content of a movie, the actor or actress leading it or anything pertaining to it… Simply don’t go watch it."
"Call for a boycott, but you sure as hell have no right in making sure no one else gets to watch it too."
Blogger Elie Fares --  “A Separate State of Mind” blog
It is a cardinal sin to be an Israeli. All the more so, an Israeli who served in the Israel Defence Force. And since everyone in Israel, male or female, is expected to serve through general conscription for a two-year period in defence of their nation, those who wish to see Israel destroyed feel justified in considering all Israeli Jews as criminal persecutors of Palestinians. The simple fact that Israel must maintain a standing army in preparedness for any contingency owes to the other fact; that its neighbours wish to destroy it.
Palestinians cannot have it both ways; waging both physical war with Israel and expecting Arab Palestinians to recognize their obligation to attack Jews in an effort to 'recapture' the land it sits upon as its ancient heritage, but which Palestinian Arabs contest as their very own, and engaging in slanderous propaganda popular wherever anti-Semitism thrives, eager to join the Boycott-Divestment movement. But eager and prepared to present itself as a partner for peace with Israel.
The film Wonder Woman, which sets out to portray women as physically powerful, courageous and as determined as any man, in a campaign to save the world, has garnered lots of praise and worldwide attention. Advance premieres have resulted in critics giving it excellent reviews, and people are eager to see the film, considered a first of its kind because it features a woman in a super-hero role, usually reserved for super-men.
"She's incredibly strong, but she also stands for something which is the opposite of being violent -- which is love, truth, compassion."
"As a woman, it was interesting sometimes that I would say, 'I think [females] might fight a little differently than [males] might fight."
"The challenge is to see both the good and bad of mankind..."
"We all want to bring, not only a hero to the world, but a message of helping anybody find their voice."
Patty Jenkins, director, Wonder Woman
Perhaps the director's words hit the issue square, though of a certainty they weren't intended to be political. But what she says and how she describes the film and what it explores in human relations appears to lead directly to Israel-as-metaphor.
Wonder Woman is opening during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and theatres in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait are scheduled to run the film. Oman and Bahrain are also going to feature this blockbuster that has aroused interest in theatre-goers worldwide. But film enthusiasts in Lebanon are just plain out of luck, because its ministry of economy has banned the film. Not because the theory  of a woman daring to do what men have always done is offensive to a religion where women are neither seen nor heard in public.
But because its star, a woman, is an Israeli Jew; a combination that makes for detestation and anger. Beirut had prepared to schedule the film at one of its cinemas but though posters and billboards went into play no one in the capital of Lebanon or elsewhere in the country will now see it because it has become symbolic of the state of war between Lebanon and Israel. Lebanon's Iran-led Hezbollah paramilitary group and the Islamic Republic of Iran, both committed to Israel's destruction, have, needless to say, great influence in this matter.
An Islamist Republic whose focus is on supporting terrorism world-wide and its creature, a terrorist group, both of which are helping Syria's mass-murdering president in his sectarian war against his own people would like the world to believe that it is Israel and its presence in the Middle East that is responsible for the violence, bloodshed and barbarism that floods the nations of Arab and Aryan Islam. The freedoms that Lebanese once enjoyed in a country once admired for its openness and social advancement has disappeared, with Druze, Christians, Sunni and Shiite Islam at one another's throats.
And it all began when the Palestinian Liberation Organization under the late Yasser Arafat made Lebanon its conflict outpost after Jordan's then-King Hussein refused to allow his country to continue to be overrun by Palestinian militias, attacking Israel over the border and destabilizing both Israel and Jordan. What the PLO failed to accomplish in Jordan (though a slow-simmering effort continues) it accomplished handily in Lebanon before it was forced from there, too.
But the chain of events leading from Lebanon's dystopian malfunctions which bred Hezbollah when the Iranian Republican Guard Corps infused Shiites with the sacred vision of jihad and martyrdom has entirely disrupted the country and its administration, the larger waves of which stimulated Sunni states like Saudi Arabia to encourage their own brand of death-dealing-and-loving jihad beginning with al-Qaeda and ending with Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Should anything untoward happen to ISIL, the Muslim Brotherhood hovers in the background, infesting the Islamic nations of the Middle East and North Africa, and installing themselves throughout the Western world, infiltrating Europe, North America and Oceania.

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Pieface @ Saturday, June 03, 2017

Sunday, February 05, 2017

Hatred and Murder By Design

"I know no Muslim who was surprised. We've been saying again and again that we didn't know what, we didn't know when, but we knew something bad was going to happen."
"We've seen a huge amount of love [expressed support since the fatal attack on the Quebec City mosque on Sunday last] from our fellow citizens. We think we can build on this. Every citizen has a role to play, every media outlet has a role to play, and specifically every elected representative has a role to play, to put in place policies against racism."
Haroun Bouazzi, spokesman, Quebec Muslims, Montreal

"We have a small Muslim community here -- about 250,000 people out of a population of roughly eight million -- who have had a spotlight shone on them, not a flattering one, for the last ten or twelve years. There hasn't been any respite."
"Having this nightmare version of what we have been dabbling into, in comparatively small ways, I think may serve as an anchor for what otherwise might have been one or two weeks of mea culpa followed by business as usual."
Daniel Weinstock, professor, faculty of law, McGill University, Montreal

"It communicates the idea that there is something wrong with those people, that we can't give them the same rights as others, because they represent a danger."
"Every time there is a campaign of this sort, there is a proliferation of hateful incidents."
Charles Taylor, Quebec philosopher

"Our politicians, for the most part, let things slide and contented themselves with timid, useless initiatives, apparently untroubled by the explosive nature of intercultural issues."
"And when they finally resolved to act once and for all, with a charter, they worsened the situation by deeply dividing Quebecers and placing ethno-cultural minorities against the majority."
Gerard Bouchard, Quebec public intellectual
Seven-year-old Hajar Djilali-Merzoug, left, and her sister Affafe, of Saguenay, Que., hold handmade signs at Sunday's march in solidarity to the victims of the mosque shooting.
Seven-year-old Hajar Djilali-Merzoug, left, and her sister Affafe, of Saguenay, Que., hold handmade signs at Sunday's march in solidarity with victims of the mosque shooting. (Jacques Boissinot/Canadian Press)


Six people dead and 19 injured, Canadian Muslims gunned down while at prayer, the bullets spraying their backs at a mosque in Quebec City last Sunday. Previously, Mr. Bouazzi had prepared documentation he presented to Quebec authorities wherein a number of Muslim organizations asked for government action against online intimidation and vandalism. Hate crimes were documented in Saguenay, Montreal, Quebec City, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Sherbrooke against Muslims living in Quebec, mostly citizens of Canada.

An appalling crime that  has shocked the province and the nation. And the reaction from the Islamic community is one of fear and  trepidation. If someone was sufficiently enraged and deranged to kill people at at mosque in Quebec City, how safe are Muslims elsewhere in the country? The Province has a somewhat unsavoury reputation of xenophobia, a prevalence of resentment against non-French speakers. English Quebecers have long complained of their perceived second-place status and being under-serviced in English in an officially bilingual nation.

Orthodox Jews with their peculiar religious customs many French Quebecers view as irritating in the extreme, as well as French-speaking Muslims who have migrated from abroad in greater numbers to
Quebec from former French colonies are experiencing their share of suspicion and slander. None of it muted and much of it likely on the increase as a result of global Islamist terror incidents. Modern Quebec is dedicated to its secular political status and takes offence at the sight of overtly religious garb or practices.

The former separatist Parti Quebecois brought forward a debate over a values charter reflecting the-then government party's Quebecois objection to the sight of conspicuous religious symbols, seeking to outlaw the wearing of Sikh, Jewish and Muslim recognizable religious garb. At the same time emphasizing that government services would not be made available to those wearing face coverings, as well as the expectation that those delivering public services would not wear identifying head gear such as turbans, kippahs or hijabs.

The murderer of the six Muslim men at prayer held a distinct resentment noted by his friends and acquaintances, for immigrants, and targeted Islam for complaints of particular dislike. He was said to be an admirer of right-wing politics and political figures. He was fascinated with firearms, and was said to be a loner, though he had an identical twin. Some of his friends denied that he was a loner, but without exception all who knew him were shocked that he was identified as the killer of six, wounding another 19 men in his shooting spree.

And while many in Quebec, remorseful and empathetic at the horrors that unfolded last Sunday at the Quebec City mosque have gone out of their way to reassure Muslims that they have emotional support among non-Muslims, 'business as usual' has resulted in Montreal police reporting an increase in hate incident reports the week following the massacre. At the same time, it should not be overlooked that Islam has been responsible for wreaking havoc all over the world in violence and gruesome murders, sectarian conflict and ongoing threats within and without the world of Islam.

And nor should it be forgotten that many Muslims living in Canada have gone out of their way to incite leftist groups against Jews and the State of Israel, bringing campaigns of Boycott-Divestment-Sanction and isolation on to university and college campuses, and raising signs declaring slanderous accusations against Israel and Jews at every opportunity, at protests sites, alongside posters in support of Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic State.

One of the anti-Semitic posters, found on Papineau Street, Friday, October 9, 2015.
Karol Dahl/Global News  Signs were also placed near Concordia University, McGill University and Westmount Square

Fires are kindled by embers of hatred resulting in violence doing great harm to communities not only targeting the Muslim community, but by those among Muslim communities expressing their cultural-religious-social inclinations to sow hatred toward other communities within Canada.
"Just a few short months ago, McGill students were faced with a decision: Support a motion led by Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights, calling for the Students’ Society of McGill University’s condemnation of Israel — a motion polarizing the student body and marginalizing Jewish and pro-Israel students — or defeat it." 
Montreal Gazette
A poster being put up by an unidentified people near Westmount Square.
A poster being put up by unidentified people near Westmount Square during the 2015 federal election. FILE PHOTO

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Pieface @ Sunday, February 05, 2017

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

The Viral New Anti-Semitism

"A new organization called American Muslims for Palestine is the leading driver of BDS, through its sponsorship of Students for Justice in Palestine, which is the most visible arm of the BDS campaign on campuses in the United States."
"At least seven individuals who work for American Muslims for Palestine have previously worked for organizations shut down in the United States for providing financial support to Hamas. Among them [is] the Holy Land Foundation, which before being dissolved, transferred $12.4-million to Hamas."
"One of the officers of this Holy Land Foundation is an individual called Mohammed El-Mezain, identified as the Hamas leader for the United States."
Jonathan Schanzer, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, subcommittee on terrorism

"The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is really dead. Good riddance!"
"We are witnessing the rapid demise of Zionism and nothing can be done to save it."
"I, for one, support euthanasia."
Omar Barghouti, founding member, BDS movement

"I was born in Hungary. Before the Holocaust, Hungarian Jews took pride in being the most assimilated in all of Europe. They were convinced that their social status, their distinctions and achievements and Hungarianized names like my own made them untouchable. Yet, the majority of Hungary's Jewish population was murdered in a few months."
"It began with words. The words set the stage, which then legitimized the violence that followed. Words are powerful weapons."
Robert Lantos, Hungarian-Canadian filmmaker
BDS


And nor was it any different for German Jews, who thought of themselves as the elite of Europe's Jews, culturally, academically, socially; in any way that mattered. German Jews simply could not conceive of themselves -- being loyal and proud Germans -- that their lives and those of their children would be vulnerable to a plan of genocidal extermination. But the Nazi propaganda machine did its work well, opening a social chasm and a cultural schism that breached the earned legacy of Jews in Germany. As it did throughout Europe.

That lesson, that despite integration, despite a willingness to become more German, more Hungarian, more French, more Italian than the non-Jewish populations of European countries, Jews would always be set apart from others and seen as strangers, interlopers, viewed with suspicion, accused of malice toward the state and its inhabitants. Which made it possible for latent anti-Semitism to be launched into full-blown acceptance of a concept to deprive Jews of citizenship, of normalcy within society, and ultimately state-organized death.

The re-creation of a Jewish state in a landscape whose heritage was their own and which was never void of the presence of Jews, in the creation of the State of Israel seemed to Jews -- haunted by the annihilation process that completely hollowed out the presence of Jews in Europe -- to be the solution. In a land of their own, the nation dedicated to world Jewry would look after its own. And in the years since Israel declared itself in the wake of the United Nations' agreement and Partition Plan of Palestine, this is just what the state has done against great odds to its survival.

But the campaign to delegitimize Israel and to slander Judaism and Jews has resurged. That latent hatred of Jews has been re-ignited, the message emanating from the determinedly malicious sources in the Arab/Muslim world discrediting the Jewish democratic state as an apartheid state when in reality it is a nation of pluralism and equality, surrounded by apartheid states, has found a ready and eager audience in Europe and in North America. First the words, then the violence; stealth no longer required.


Palestinians walk past a sign painted on a wall in the West Bank town of Bethlehem last year calling for a boycott of Israeli products coming from Jewish settlements. (Thomas Coex/Agence France-Presse via Getty Images)

The European countries whose left-leaning governments bleed tears for the underdog, view those elements in the Middle East whose purpose for existence is to attack Israel, sympathize with the cries of oppression from the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, two entities which excel in oppressing their own people. The standards expected of Israel in reflection of its traditions, culture and democratic and humanitarian values force it to walk a tightrope, while no standards of civilized decency are imposed by international opinion on its enemies determined to destroy it.

From Britain's Labour Party's representatives' opinions and recommendations for Israel's destruction, to professional, union and academic units in Europe and North America, it has become fashionable to distort and to slander Israeli legitimacy in a landscape of unbridled tyranny, oppression, conflict and atrocities. The same critics who enjoy the right to describe their criticism of Israel as having nothing whatever to do with anti-Semitism, seem to find nothing particularly offensive about Syria's slaughter of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens.

The country whose laws respect all citizens irrespective of gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, is the one country that garners condemnation in the hallowed corridors and theatres of the United Nations where human rights bodies are regularly represented by the very countries whose abuses of human rights are most egregious. This is a bleak, black story written in blood and tears.

Labels: , ,

posted by Pieface @ Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Friday, March 11, 2016

BDS Connivance in Academia


"The Divestment movement, couched in the language of human rights, is in reality a malicious campaign that targets and singles out the Jewish community as a collective, demonizes Israel and Israelis, applies unfair double standards to Israel at the exclusion of other nations in the Middle East and rejects the legitimacy of Israel as the only Jewish state in the world, thereby inciting an abhorrent resurgence of anti-Semitism."

Avi Benlolo, president, chief executive officer, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies
th-antisemitism

In Canada, the ongoing exercise of slander and hate-mongering continues with the Boycott-Divestment and Sanction program initiated by Palestinian groups and adopted by trade unions, university student groups, some church groups and others in whom latent anti-Semitism sees a release of the tensions of living amongst Jews in society while having to keep a tight lid on a tradition that views the presence of Jews in some inimical manner.

By presenting Palestinians as a pathetic underdog, whose aspirations to statehood are continually obstructed by a land-greedy, racist population in Israel whom the Palestinians claim have illegally taken land that is theirs by right of heritage, the liberal-left communities in North America and Europe have been enabled to take part in a discriminatory bludgeoning of Jews and Israelis and the State of Israel under cover of righteousness.

The libelous campaign which sought from its initiation to delegitimize the very existence of the Jewish state has been rebuffed time and again by pointing out the multitude of lies and exaggerations, manipulation and malice that propels BDS, but it is resilient and refuses to pass into the oblivion it deserves. Through its popularity it has been enabled to label Israel as an apartheid state, one that plots genocidal wars against the Palestinians.

While even a cursory glance at history, past and present, and the reality of life in Israel for people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds attests to the contrary, the popularity of the campaign propels it into the continual glare of public opinion readily manipulated by distortion and innuendo. The BDS campaign was faltering and needed to inject new life into its purpose, so it rebranded itself as "Divestment", suggesting that it is really the financing of arms manufacturers that is at issue.

So the country that safeguards minority rights, gay rights, women's rights, Palestinian rights and equality and freedom for everyone is maligned as the outlier of all peace-loving and well-administered countries of the Middle East, as an "apartheid state". And "Students against Israeli Apartheid" continue to convince university students and faculty alike of their obligation to support human rights for Palestinians against their oppressor.

Interestingly enough, there are some universities who take principled stands against this current of wretched slander. The University of Texas at Austin is one, where a professor with an Israeli background, director of its Institute of Israeli Studies, was recently accused by the Muslim Students Association of violently attacking some of their members. During a guest lecture delivered by an Israeli academic, Palestine Solidarity Committee students attempted to disrupt the event, and Professor Ami Pedazhur quietly tried to convince them to just listen to the lecture.

A lecture by Stanford Professor Gil-li- Vardi was hosted by the Israel Studies program. Students from the Palestine Solidarity Committee shouted that Israel should be destroyed, waved Palestinian flags and chanted "Long live the Intifada!" Professor Pedazhur suggested the students either "sit down and learn something" or leave. In the aftermath the claim was made of Professor Pedazhur using physical force and intimidation and an official complaint was lodged against him. A video of the event validated his innocence. This is how it turned out.
Today, the University of Texas released a statement backing a report issued by the Office for Inclusion and Equity (OIE) stating that this professor’s decision to vilify me and my Arab and Muslim comrades as “terrorists” … was not discriminatory. In so many words and in a move to blame the victim, the OIE stated that the professor’s decision to describe us as “red flags” for “terrorism” was motivated by our actions or decisions alone.
Not only that, but the President of this University took it upon himself to reaffirm his support for the professor in question. In doing so, President Fenves sent a clear message to Muslim and Arab activists on this campus: when it suits our interests, we will throw you to the dogs. law student Mohammed Nabulsi
Now that the provost has accepted the findings of the OIE report, [Prof. Pedazhur … did not violate the university’s Nondiscrimination Policy and did not engage in harassment of the student organization], I want to express my strong support for Professor Ami Pedahzur.
Over many years, Dr. Pedahzur has fostered open, responsible dialogue, often on contentious political issues, including those involving Israel. He is known for working in a constructive and proactive manner with people from across the political spectrum. Dr. Pedahzur hosts speakers representing a wide range of views to foster in-depth inquiry. His classes attract students from diverse backgrounds. I look forward to Dr. Pedahzur’s many future contributions in teaching, scholarship, and public service at UT.
Free discourse is vital to The University of Texas … Yet free speech also carries with it responsibility. The expression of free speech is not a license to drown out the speech of others, or to shout down ideas one disagrees with.  UT President Gregory Fenves

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Pieface @ Friday, March 11, 2016

Saturday, November 14, 2015

The Stages of Conquest

"I went to the window and there was this guy with a kalashnikov firing. It was at the corner and he was firing in all directions. Then a car came and he entered the car and it went away. There were three guys who were not killed by this killer. I did not expect such a terrifying situation. I saw... people going to a body on the ground and I called the police. I went down to the street and realised that in a bar there were four or five more bodies. There were cars where the driver and the passenger were dead. The police told everyone to go home. I stayed at home without lights. A few minutes later there was a knock on my door and the police asked if they could use my apartment. I stayed in the bathroom because it was the safest place and I did not want to distract the police. I think they stayed at the window, they were fully armed."
Paris atrocity eyewitness as told to the BBC
Les premières Unes des journaux en France, disponibles ce samedi 14 novembre. #ParisAttacks #Fusillade

Paris is under attack. So too is Jerusalem under attack. French citizens targeted for slaughter because they are French citizens, and likely their attackers are other French citizens. The difference between them is that the assailants are Islamic jihadists and the victims are not. In Israel, Jewish citizens have become a target because they are Jewish Israelis, and their attackers are often Muslim Israelis. As Palestinians they have been taught from the cradle that the Jews are their oppressors.

Israel has become an 'occupying' power over the West Bank and the Gaza strip for the simple reason that terror stalks Israel out of the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Palestinians would far prefer to live in an orderly, civil environment with a state representing their interests. The problem for them is that no leaders have yet arisen that comfortably fit the task of engaging civilly with the Jewish state to bargain for the land that will represent them.

This problem is of long-standing. Back when the United Nations offered their plan for partition of Palestine. Even the claims of Arabs to be "Palestinians" is false, just as their claims of always having lived in the region are false, since they originate from Egypt and from Jordan. During the Second World War years when Jews were being rounded up for extermination in Europe and before, epithets from Poles identifying the Jews who had lived among them for a thousand years were that they should 'return to Palestine'.

When Israel leaped at the opportunity the United Nations offered, the surrounding Arab neighbourhood launched a collective military assault to drive them out of the Middle East, and it failed, and so did the succeeding military assaults over the years from allied Arab armies. Until finally in the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel proved conclusively that it meant to stay and no force on Earth would budge it from its historical heritage.

And that included Jerusalem. When the Palestinians spurned the offer to establish their own state, they set the stage for the 65 years of declared victimhood as 'refugees' whom the world has since supported, unwilling to themselves muster the energy to embrace the dignity of independence. They dreamed of destroying Israel, of pushing the Jews out of the Middle East, and that dream solaced those who hated, and never questioned the motives of their leaders.

One wave of violent hatred after another led the Palestinians to 'demonstrate' and 'resist' the occupation, an 'occupation' that results from a need to defend against carnage. Another 'resistance' is currently taking place with random episodes of young Palestinians, nurtured on murderous hatred, attempting to kill Jewish men, women and children in surprise knife and vehicular attacks. The world is silent.

But the world comes alive when the issue of settlements arise. And when, from within those settlements, consumer products are produced for sale on the world market, the issue of provenance arises. The Palestinian penchant for slander and their skills in manipulating European public relations within a background of anti-Semitism works wonders for them. The European Union has ruled that goods produced in places Israel gained after 1967 be labelled as coming from Israeli settlements.

This is an 'administrative' and not 'political' issue the EU hastens to add. Certainly not discriminatory irrespective of the fact that many other countries also have jurisdictional disputes very similar to Israel's, yet no such action is taken to distinguish them in similar fashion. Of course, there is the issue of a large and steadily growing Muslim population in Europe, and their growing political influence.

So Gaza, administered by a terrorist organization dedicated to destroying Israel, is looked upon with favour, and Israel with disfavour. Arabs may be Semites, but Jew-hatred is pointedly special. From labelling to boycotting and divestment is no great distance; it's a start, and one led by a smug sense of righteousness.

After all, goods such as fresh fruits, vegetables, cosmetics, wine, honey, olive oil, eggs, poultry and organic products are all singularly contaminated and as such must present a threat to the health of those consuming them outside of the Jewish community, since they're produced on land that the international community condemns Israel for winning in a series of wars, enabling them to settle on their ancient Biblical lands.

Europe, which appears to have little sympathy for Israel's plight of being encircled by Arabs who have such a low regard for Jews -- and for the incessant attacks that Israel's Jews are exposed to, while absorbing into its population Palestinian Arabs among other non-Jews, all with entitlements not given them elsewhere in the Middle East -- has absorbed quite a population of migrant Muslims. And among that demographic there are those who espouse violent Islam.

And it is from among that finite number of violent Islamists that Europe finds itself under siege, its culture and heritage disappearing down a wormhole of the black hole of sucking energy representing Islam's prioritization of conquest. And when matters do not move sufficiently rapidly and the Islamist jihadis become impatient, they take matters into their immediate hands by staging atrocities in places like Paris.

What do jihadi violence, Allahu Akbar! and the labelling of Israeli West Bank products have in common? Everything.

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by Pieface @ Saturday, November 14, 2015

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Gatestone Institute


The NGO Campaign to Destroy Israel

by
  • When an NGO receives a sizeable portion of its budget from governments, it is no longer a non-governmental organization. And when such funding to NGOs is provided by allied states such as the U.S. or the UK, or international unions such as the EU, it constitutes disproportionate interference by external governments in the internal affairs of another democratic state.
  • "NGOs are meant to represent civil society, not the interests of foreign governments. Israeli NGOs that receive foreign government funding benefit from the misleading image of being 'non-governmental,' non-political, and based in 'civil society'" — NGO Monitor.
  • NGO Monitor research reveals that a number of funders made their grants conditional on the NGO obtaining a minimum number of negative "testimonies." It should be clear that a wide range of church organizations, human rights NGOs, and a number of European governments are engaged in an extremely one-sided enterprise to bring about the defamation and destruction of the Jewish state. All of these NGOs have much the same political agenda of defaming, pressuring and undermining Israel; and using human rights issues to promote a steadily negative view of the country, its government, its laws, and its defence forces.
  • Many never criticize the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, nor do they turn their attentions to the desperate state of human rights in states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, China, Russia and Lebanon, among others. NGOs are being well paid to urge total changes in the constitutions of other nations, and in the total abolition of another nation's right to exist at all. No other country in the world would stand for it; why should Israel?
The Western world is full of charities that do nothing but good, such as fight disease; help the less fortunate, or offer legal protection. But there are other sorts of charities, the so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs); these often work on the international stage, supposedly for human rights, humanitarian aid, and peace. These NGOs are funded by foundations, businesses, private persons -- oh, and governments. They exist in astonishingly large numbers: 1.5 million in the US, 2 million in India, and thousands in Europe, over 500 of which are lobbyists in the European Parliament. The total income of OECD-linked NGOs amounts to around $16 billion. Unfortunately, some of these betray their love of humanity by adopting discriminatory policies.

Many of these NGOs -- especially those heavily dependent on government money -- seem to be driven by an ideological or political commitment, and are inevitably drawn into political engagement.

In a desire to help the underdog, wherever he may be, many NGOs make ideological choices as to whom they place in that category, and who falls into the category of "oppressor." This view often means that their good work may be used as "air cover" for people and actions that are less admirable.

It is not uncommon to find NGOs ignoring human rights abuses in countries they seek to have as allies, or with whom they are obliged to work. Sometimes, NGOs adopt a political stance that is deliberately prejudiced or prejudicial. The vast majority of politicized NGOs, whatever their original remit, are those who condemn only one country and who do so time and time again. That country is, of course, Israel. Within Israel, the community they attack is, without exception, the Jewish community. Israelis, it seems, can never do right, while on their borders, the Palestinians, who are seen as underdogs and victims, can never do wrong.
Quakers, for example, have always been known for their support for non-violence. Yet Quaker NGOs claiming to work for peace in the Middle East grossly ignore Palestinian violence while condemning Israel's right to self-defence against it. In cooperation with the World Council of Churches, the Quaker-led organization calling itself the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in the Palestinian territories and Israel (EAPPI), repeatedly blasts Israel for its use of checkpoints, while saying nothing about the would-be Palestinian suicide bombers who make Israeli security such an imperative -- a hypocrisy that does not seem to trouble their consciences much. And this is exactly where these politicized NGOs do damage. Their contribution to the recent UN report on Israel's 2014 war in Gaza has warped it to such a degree that it is useless for any serious enquiry.

This selection of Israel that emanates from countless NGOs -- as well as from non-transparent and unaccountable supra-national organizations such as the UN and the International Criminal Court (ICC) -- is also reflected in the totally unbalanced singling out of Israel for rebuke by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Last week, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Keith Harper, protested in no uncertain terms about the fact that the UNHRC criticizes Israel more than it does all the other countries in the world combined:
We remain troubled, however, by this council's standalone agenda item directed against Israel, and by the many repetitive and one-sided resolutions under that agenda item. None of the world's worst human rights violators, some of whom are the object of resolutions at this session, have their own standalone agenda item at this council. Only Israel receives such treatment.
For centuries, almost no other religious or racial community has received such universal hatred or been subjected to such high levels of hypocritical double standards and persecution as the Jewish communities of Europe and the Middle East. Today, the obsessive focus on Israel is a simple reanimation of these classic hatreds. It is manifestly anti-Semitic in nature, yet dozens of NGOs that claim to be opposed to racism are happy to employ it.
Readers who want to gain a broader picture of how this anti-Israel discrimination works for NGOs can do no better than to consult the many articles and press releases of NGO Monitor, an Israeli information, legal advisory and advocacy organization established by Gerald Steinberg, a professor of political science at Bar Ilan University. NGO Monitor is the most crucial resource for the media, the international community and for anyone who needs to know about the frequently anti-Semitic charges levelled against the Jewish state -- whether "war crimes," "apartheid," or ethnic cleansing.

What is significant is not so much the evident hatred of Israel expressed by some NGOs, as that so many of them are heavily funded by foreign governments or foreign institutions
According to NGO Monitor, "NGOs are meant to represent civil society, not the interests of foreign governments. Israeli NGOs that receive foreign government funding benefit from the misleading image of being 'non-governmental,' non-political, and based in 'civil society.'"
When such funding is provided by allied states such as the U.S. or the UK, or international unions such as the EU, it constitutes disproportionate interference by external governments in the internal affairs of another democratic state.

These foreign agents of influence are why the new government of Israel needs legislation to bring accountability for those activities, in part by insisting on transparency in all funding.

A 2008 conference on "Impunity and Prosecution of Israeli War Criminals," held in Egypt in 2008, was sponsored by the European Union. (Image source: NGO Monitor)

It should come as no surprise to learn that Israel's efforts to curb unregistered foreign agents -- NGOs that together receive tens of millions of dollars every year, primarily from Europe -- have been, and are, condemned as "undemocratic." This charge is usually levelled despite the fact that no country would tolerate undue interference in its internal policies by other states, beyond a very limited and truly humanitarian level.

The pushback began in earnest in 2011, with two bills proposed and approved for consideration by Israel's Ministerial Legislative Committee.[1] Neither was passed into law, but both reflected the widespread realization that Israeli democracy has the right and obligation to defend itself against such foreign attacks and manipulation. The proposed mechanisms included a 45% taxation rate on income derived from foreign government donations to highly politicized NGOs, and placing limits on the amount of donations from governments and international bodies (such as the UN or the EU).

Although these and similar proposals have been condemned as discriminatory and anti-democratic by many organizations, and were not adopted, it is hard to see why that accusation is true. The NGOs are not being banned, and will continue to be free to act as they please, so long as they remain within the law. Democracies place restrictions on all sorts of things. There are those who think a ban on smoking in public places is a denial of smokers' rights, while others think the benefits to the nation's health outweigh any absolute claim to democratic priority.

The need for some sort of control on foreign funding stems from two considerations, both essential to the proper working of a real democracy. First, there must be limits to how far foreign governments and entities can interfere in the politics of another nation. Second, the sort of intervention to which Israelis object involves the funding and support of NGOs whose purpose is to attack, weaken -- and, for some, ultimately destroy -- Israel from without or within. These include groups and individuals who might well be described as seditious or insurgent, given that Israel finds itself in a more or less constant state of war-readiness and of being under attack -- militarily, economically and diplomatically -- by governments and organizations that would clearly like to see this lone pluralistic democracy in the region obliterated.

NGOs such as Breaking the Silence (BtS) use anonymous "testimonies" to undermine the reputation and morale of the Israel Defense Force, and to promote allegations of war crimes. Other NGOs issue reports replete with distorted or false information, clearly designed to weaken Israel's position within the international community; ignore or downplay Palestinian terror and thousands of rocket attacks from Gaza; call for an end to supposed Israeli "apartheid," or demand the establishment of a Palestinian state without necessary negotiations, agreements, checks or balances. Israel is singled out obsessively and through double standards, while the worst human rights violators are given a free pass.

A high-level delegation from Human Rights Watch (HRW), for instance, went to Saudi Arabia in 2009, according to the Wall Street Journal "to raise money from wealthy Saudis by highlighting HRW's demonization of Israel... Apparently, [HRW spokesperson Sarah Lea] Whitson found no time to criticize Saudi Arabia's abysmal human rights record. But never fear, HRW recently called on the Kingdom to do more to protect the human rights of domestic workers.... But Whitson wasn't raising money for human rights. She was raising money for HRW's propaganda campaign against Israel."

So far, Israel has been remarkably indulgent toward anti-Israel NGOs and their activities in Israel or the West Bank. But countries openly targeted for genocide, as Israel is by Iran, may be hampered when they provide such indulgence. By contrast, this May, Russia's State Duma passed a bill for the banning of "undesirable organizations" -- foreign NGOs that pose a threat to Russia's defence, security, public order or public health.

Unlike Russia, if any of the Israeli bills are passed, it would be in a thoroughly transparent and democratic manner.[2] Further, once the bill would be made law, any individual or NGO may address the High Court of Justice on issues of rights, infringements or contradictions to existing laws. It is very hard to see how such a painstaking and open process can be "anti-democratic."

In analyzing the legislative options, NGO Monitor argues that when an NGO receives a sizeable portion of its budget from governments, it is no longer a non-governmental organization:
"NGOs are meant to represent civil society, not the interests of foreign governments. Israeli NGOs that receive foreign government funding benefit from the misleading image of being 'non-governmental,' non-political, and based in 'civil society.' The government funders also use this framework to justify their use of NGOs as a policy instrument, and on a scale which is unique to Israel."
A current and controversial example of this is the Swiss government's funding of Breaking the Silence (BtS), a small group at the fringe of the political spectrum. The Swiss Foreign Ministry and the Zurich municipality have sponsored an expedition by this famously anti-Israeli NGO on the grounds that it has increased "dialogue about human rights." But Breaking the Silence refused to include in its events Israeli soldiers who would tell a different story. This means that the Swiss Foreign Ministry and a Swiss municipality are willing to interfere with Israel by funding a wholly one-sided narrative that impacts the country's reputation overseas and opens it to charges of criminal activity.

Breaking the Silence exists for one purpose only: to report on and quote from the views of anonymous disaffected former Israel Defense Force soldiers, who accuse Israel's armed forces of war crimes. BtS uses, according to NGO Monitor, "sweeping accusations based on anecdotal, anonymous and unverifiable testimonies of low level soldiers." In doing so, BtS deliberately undermines military morale, exposes Israel to international opprobrium, and brings about a likelihood of IDF officers and politicians facing war crimes trials.

No country at war -- and Israel, to its disquiet, is always at war -- should be exposed to an international attack on such a scale. Of course, there are countries and movements that do commit war crimes -- from Syria to Iran to ISIS and Hamas (recently highlighted by a rare and major Amnesty International report); and it is right that they be brought to book, which they seldom, if ever, are.

The irony here is that the Israel Defense Force is widely known to be among the most cautious and law-abiding armies in the world. British military commander Col. Richard Kemp has repeated this many times and in many forums. "No other army in the world has ever done more than Israel is doing now to save the lives of innocent civilians in a combat zone," he said in an interview with Channel 2 News during the last Gaza conflict.
But the role of NGOs in distorting information about Israel's military actions has reached crisis point. The June 2015 UNHRC report on the 2014 Gaza war, taken by many as gospel, relied heavily on NGOs. NGO Monitor takes up this point:
The report of the Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza War is different both substantially and methodologically than its predecessors, including the 2009 Goldstone Report, according to NGO Monitor. However, it still quotes extensively from biased and unreliable political advocacy NGOs. By repeating the unverified and non-expert factual and legal allegations of groups such as Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Palestinian Center for Human Rights, and Al Mezan, the UN investigation is irrevocably tarnished.
"The UNHRC report would be entirely different without the baseless and unverifiable allegations of non-governmental organizations," said Anne Herzberg, Legal Advisor at NGO Monitor. "Despite efforts to consult a wider array of sources, the report produced by McGowan Davis and her team lacks credibility as a result of NGO influence."
NGO Monitor's initial review of the Commission of Inquiry's "detailed findings" shows that NGOs were referenced, cited, and quoted at a high volume: B'Tselem was the most referenced NGO with 69 citations, followed by Amnesty International (53), Palestinian Center for Human Rights (50), and Al Mezan (29). UNWRA and UN-OCHA were also featured throughout the report. As repeatedly demonstrated by NGO Monitor, these groups are not appropriate for professional fact-finding.
Further commentary by NGO Monitor on the UN report may be found here. It includes a full list of the NGOs and their donors.
Writing of the Breaking the Silence report of May 4, 2015, NGO Monitor explains that,
Contrary to BtS' claim that "the contents and opinions in this booklet do not express the position of the funders," NGO Monitor research reveals that a number of funders made their grants conditional on the NGO obtaining a minimum number of negative "testimonies." This contradicts BtS' declarations and thus turns it into an organization that represents its foreign donors' interest, severely damaging the NGO's reliability and its ability to analyze complicated combat situations.
A screenshot of a document from 2009 (obtained from the Israeli Registrar of Non-Profits) shows how the British Embassy in Tel Aviv, the Dutch church-based aid organization ICCO (primarily funded by the Dutch government), and Oxfam Great Britain (funded by the British government) required Breaking the Silence to obtain negative testimonies...
In its report, Breaking the Silence thanks the following for financial support:
"Broederlijk Delen (Belgium), the CCFD - Terre Solidaire (France), Dan Church Aid, Die Schwelle, Foundation for Middle East Peace, Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat (funded by Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, and Sweden), Medico International, MISEREOR (a German "humanitarian aid" organization), Moriah Fund, New Israel Fund, Open Society Foundations, Pro Victimis, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Sigrid Rausing Trust, SIVMO, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, The Royal Norwegian Embassy to Tel Aviv, Trócaire (Ireland) and countless private individuals."
There is no need to look at these funding bodies here, but it should be clear that a wide range of church organizations, human rights NGOs, and a number of European governments are engaged in an extremely one-sided enterprise to bring about the defamation and destruction of the Jewish state. The report also brings these organizations and individuals in line with the many anti-Israel groups that engage in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, and in daily propaganda hostile to Israel.

Some NGOs do not restrict their activities to claims about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the conflict in Gaza, or general Israeli "crimes." It has just been announced that the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) will unveil a new tax-exempt lobbying group, named NIAC Action, which will launch with 30 chapters across the U.S.

NIAC itself has been exposed as an agency of Iran's Islamic regime, a claim supported in 2012 by U.S. District Judge John Bates. Not only does its new NGO have an openly anti-Israel agenda, it has undertaken to support the Iran nuclear deal by working against the Israeli opposition to it. In February 2015, NIAC itself paid for a full-page advertisement in the New York Times to condemn Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's March 3, 2015 speech to the US Congress. The head of NIAC Action, Jamal Abdi, has made no secret that they plan "to shift the political landscape in Washington away from groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which has criticized the talks with Iran, and toward movements more inclined to pursue diplomacy with the longtime U.S. nemesis."

One Israel-based NGO, the New Israel Fund, plays by far the most important role in funding and encouraging other Israeli NGOs working against Israel's interests. It has recently been studied in a somewhat haphazard way by the American journalist Edwin Black in his book Financing the Flames. With a per annum income of $35 million, the NIF has financed smaller NGOs to the tune of $250 million over seven years and poured money into organizations such as the Arab-run Adalah, B'tselem, the pro-Palestinian Hamoked, Ir Amim, Rabbis for Human Rights, the lobby group Shatil, and others. All of these NGOs have much the same political agenda of defaming, pressuring and undermining Israel; and using human rights issues to promote a steadily negative view of the country, its government, its laws, and its defence forces. They never acknowledge the many positive human rights activities of the country or its basic qualities as a democratic, open, free and human-rights-observant state. Many never criticize the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, nor do they turn their attentions to the desperate state of human rights in states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, China, Russia and Lebanon, among others.

Western democracies host many human rights organizations, NGOs that battle for civil rights, for legal action against discrimination, for support of minority groups and mistreated individuals, and that advocate for religious, political, and sexual freedom. Even the best countries are not perfect; democracies could function perfectly well without groups that call governments or institutions to account for their misbehaviour. Nowhere in the West, however, do we find such an array of haters who seek to bring about the demise of their own free nations.

How many foreign governments finance hatred against themselves to the extent that NGOs finance antagonism to the United States, the UK, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, or Canada?


NGOs are being well paid to urge total changes in the constitutions of other nations, and in the total abolition of another nation's right to exist at all.

Writing in Politically Incorrect Politics, Noru Tsalic demonstrates in a sequel that, "Despite the pretence, the 'Israeli NGOs' are neither 'Israeli' nor 'Non-Governmental': although operating in Israel, they depend on foreign funding... by foreign governments -- especially those from the European Union. In short, they are not 'Israeli NGOs', but Foreign Political Subversion Groups (FPSG)." Often called Foreign Agents or Agents of Influence, their job is to manipulate the internal workings of countries not theirs -- usually in ways they would not like other countries to do in their own countries.

Even if some governments may be forgiven for financing what purport to be human rights NGOs, it is a disgrace that so many private foundations and individuals (including many Jewish charities) use their money to promote what are deeply political, rather than humanitarian, agendas through NGOs in an open, pluralistic democracy such as Israel, possibly the one bright spot in a region of authoritarian repression.

The New Israel Fund has, until recently, obtained about twenty percent of its financing through its partnership with the Ford Israel Fund, an organization that emerged as an alternative after the US-based Ford Foundation was exposed for having paid to bring thousands of anti-Israel radicals to the infamous 2001 Durban conference.

Other organizations from around the world abound, however, adding to the wide pool of hostile and interventionist funding. These include many Christian aid, pro-justice and human rights organizations such as the UK's Christian Aid, Ireland's Trócaire, the USA's Catholic Relief Services, and the World Council of Churches. All of these have missionary and evangelization agendas, in addition to their obsession with politically destroying Israel and leaving the Palestinians to the tender mercies of their corrupt leaders.

In this regard, the World Council of Churches works chiefly through its Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), which brings members of many churches to Israel and the West Bank. The stated role of participants in this program is:
  • Monitoring and reporting violations of human rights and international humanitarian law
  • Supporting acts of nonviolent resistance alongside local Palestinian and Israeli activists
  • Offering protection through nonviolent presence
  • Engaging in public policy advocacy
  • Standing in solidarity with the churches and all those struggling against the occupation
The British and Irish member organizations in EAPPI are:
  • Baptist Union of Great Britain
  • CAFOD
  • Christian Aid
  • Church of Scotland
  • Church Mission Society
  • Churches Together in Britain and Ireland
  • Iona Community
  • Methodist Church
  • Pax Christi UK
  • Presbyterian Church of Wales
  • Quaker Peace & Social Witness
  • Scottish Episcopal Church
  • United Reformed Church
  • Us
  • Trócaire
As written previously, many of these groups came together in 2012 for a conference held in the UK, where they gave their approval to only one side in a complex conflict, and lambasting Israel at every turn.

With such a one-sided pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel agenda, it must be asked why it seems undemocratic of Israel to want to exercise some degree of control over the rights of its citizens not to be exposed to such unrelenting disinformation, hatred and ruin. No other country in the world would stand for it; why should Israel?

Israel, a beacon for human rights in a region of war, prejudice, denial of free speech and opposition to democracy, should be singled out for its humanitarian commitment to these values. Instead, the diplomatic jihad, which is the usual response, is -- let us be frank -- nothing more than the same old anti-Semitism, only on a national, gargantuan scale. Israel has every right to defend itself from what everyone knows is the oldest and most vicious hatred in history, and again in the world today.
Denis MacEoin is a lecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies. He has an MA in Persian, Arabic and Islamic Studies from Edinburgh University, a PhD in Persian Studies from Cambridge (King's College) and an MA in English Language and Literature from Trinity College, Dublin.
[1] Translations of both bills may be found in appendix 2 of "NGOs in Israel 101: Background to the Debate and FAQs".
[2] The process begins with a first reading before a Knesset plenary session; then the proposed law is sent to the Constitution Law and Justice Committee for debate and revision, with the revised version sent back to the Knesset; then a second review by the committee; and a second and third reading in a plenary session.

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Pieface @ Saturday, July 18, 2015

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Gatestone Institute


Europe: "Je Suis Charlie"? Maybe. "Je Suis Juif"? Not Really.

by Abigail R. Esman
January 18, 2015 at 5:00 am
To call for an end to Israel, or to its sovereignty, is now, more glaringly than ever, to call for an end to the Jews.
The four people gunned down in Paris on January 9 had not even been buried yet -- four men murdered by a Muslim terrorist just for being Jews -- when Amsterdam's pro-Palestinian student group demanded an academic boycott against Israel.

Not that they are anti-Semitic -- not a bit, insists Studenten for Rechtvaardig Palestina [SRP], which models itself on the American Students for Justice in Palestine, an organization that accuses Israel of genocide. A leader of the group, Sarah (who would not give her last name to reporters, she said, for fear of reprisals), declared, rather, "I find anti-Semitism terrible. We are against it, and we said so from our first informational meeting. I find Israel as bad as IS," she continued, "and I am Muslim myself."

Comparing Israel, the sole democracy in the Middle East and a country regularly subjected to terrorist attacks, to the Islamic State would be surreal under any circumstances; but even more so when four European Jews have just been killed by Muslims, and when IS has not only applauded their murders but called on Muslims everywhere to commit more.
But it is not, it turns out, inexplicable.

The SRP's outburst was set off by the decision last week by Amsterdam's Vrij Universiteit [VU] (Free University), to cancel a previously planned "debate," called for by SRP, on encouraging the school to join the international academic boycott against Israel. This debate, to which not a single pro-Israel speaker had been invited, was to have taken place the following day at VU. The debate was to be led by former Dutch Socialist Party member Anja Meulenbelt, wife of convicted former Fatah terrorist Khaled Abu Zaid. Abu Zaid, by his own description, once trained fellow Palestinians in the use of explosives against Israeli targets.
Also scheduled to speak at the event was the Dutch-Iraqi journalist Abulkasim al-Jaberi, who recently blamed the Paris attacks on French imperialism. "Were France not part of the trigger-happy international Mafioso, this would never have happened," he wrote in an article for the online publication "Voorbeeld allochtoon" ("Exemplary Immigrant").

To their credit, before cancelling the "debate," VU president Jaap Winter announced that the university had no intention of conceding to the SRP's demands; rather, he said, they felt it appropriate that an academic institution provide "open and honest debates over difficult, sensitive, and controversial issues, such as the Palestinian question."

The failure of the SRP to offer a real debate -- rather than one-sided, propagandistic arguments -- was not, however, the reason VU revoked their permit for the event. Rather, university officials said, "We have determined that, in light of social unrest in response to the events of last week, this debate could engender feelings of insecurity and exclusion with the university community." Why such concerns were not raised by the presence at the event of the Dutch wife of a convicted Palestinian terrorist remains a mystery -- at least formally.
Nevertheless, Sarah and her fellow SRP members quickly found an alternative site: the peaceful-sounding Nelson Mandela Center in Amsterdam.

The Nelson Mandela Center, however, is merely the name of a building. It houses the offices of (among others) Holland's Euro-Mediterranean Center for Migration and Development [EMCEMO], a Dutch-Moroccan organization that has been accused of urging Dutch Moroccans to resist efforts to crack down on welfare fraud by Moroccan immigrants. More pointedly, last August, as Dutch-Moroccan extremists chanted "death to Jews" during pro-ISIS demonstrations in The Hague, EMCEMO called on Holland's Jews to distance themselves from Israel. In the end, by all accounts, the evening passed relatively peacefully, other than the arrest of one attendee who allegedly issued threats against another.


The debate on an academic boycott of Israel, staged by Studenten for Rechtvaardig Palestina in Amsterdam, on January 13. (Image source: Studenten for Rechtvaardig Palestina Facebook page)

This, however, does not mean that the issue has played itself out. Far from it. In America and Europe, from politicians to universities, ongoing efforts to demonize and alienate Israel continue. Yet, as Esther Voet, Executive Director of Holland's Jewish rights organization, the Center for Information and Documentation Israel [CIDI], pointed out in a recent phone conversation,
"To all those people who waste their energy now on the BDS [Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions] movement, I would say, first, you are either naïve or really vicious. And second, ask yourself why you are focusing on Israel, and not on the vicious stuff that is going on right now in the rest of the world. If you want to fight for something in this world, fight for the incredible, beautiful civilization that we have: the civilization of freedom."
The recent attacks in Paris made clear the threat we all live under now; but more, they made clear that Israel is the only place on earth where Jews -- especially European Jews -- are truly safe. To call for an end to Israel, or for an end to its sovereignty, is now, more glaringly than ever, to call for an end to the Jews.
Let's stop pretending that it's not.
Related Topics:  Abigail R. Esman

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by Pieface @ Sunday, January 18, 2015

Tuesday, November 04, 2014

Everything you need to know about SodaStream’s move

SIGN UP FOR THE JTA DAILY BRIEFING
Some of the hundreds of Palestinians who work at SodaStream's West Bank factory that is shutting down. (Nati Shohat/Flash90)
Some of the hundreds of Palestinians who work at SodaStream’s West Bank factory that will be shut down. They could be put out of work with the facility’s relocation to southern Israel. (Nati Shohat/Flash90)

TEL AVIV (JTA) — SodaStream, the Israeli at-home seltzer machine company, announced last week that it would be closing its West Bank factory and moving the facility’s operations to southern Israel next year. Here’s what you need to know about SodaStream, the controversy that has bubbled up in its midst and what the actress Scarlett Johansson has to do with it.

What is SodaStream?
SodaStream is an Israeli company that makes and sells seltzer machines for home use. Since it was founded in 1991, the company has sold more than 10 million machines in 39 countries. The foot-and-a-half-tall machines turn still water into seltzer in 30 seconds. The company also markets dozens of mix-in flavors, such as cola, ginger ale, lemon-lime and fruit punch.

Why is SodaStream controversial?
Until this week, SodaStream’s main factory was located in Mishor Adumim, an industrial park in the Israeli West Bank settlement of Maale Adumim, east of Jerusalem. Because the settlement is likely to be included in Israel in any future peace deal with the Palestinians, many Israelis don’t view it as all that controversial.
But groups that oppose Israel’s occupation of the West Bank have called for boycotts of SodaStream due to the factory’s location. The debate over SodaStream gained attention earlier this year when the actress Scarlett Johansson became the face of the company, appearing in a SodaStream ad during the Super Bowl. Johansson ended up resigning as a spokeswoman for Oxfam International, an anti-poverty group that opposes the West Bank factory, after it criticized the actress’ involvement with the company.

What is SodaStream’s position on its West Bank factory?
SodaStream CEO Daniel Birnbaum has touted the Mishor Adumim factory, which has been in its current location since 1997, as a successful example of Arab-Jewish coexistence in the West Bank. Some 500 Palestinians work at the factory alongside Israeli Jews, and Birnbaum says he pays them well and treats them as equals with their Jewish co-workers, though pro-Palestinian groups allege that the Palestinian employees are treated poorly. The factory includes a mosque for Muslim employees. Closing the factory, Birnbaum says, could mean putting hundreds of Palestinians out of work.
Birnbaum is a proponent of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has noted that Mishor Adumim is defined as an area under Israeli control by the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Accords, and argues that Israeli industry there is thus not a violation of international law.
The company drew more criticism this summer after it fired 60 of its Muslim employees, claiming they refused to work. The employees countered that SodaStream did not provide them with sufficient meals following the Ramadan fast and therefore were unable to safely operate machinery.

So what caused the move?
SodaStream’s third-quarter revenue dropped 13 percent, and sales in the Americas dropped 41 percent — numbers the company says are unrelated to the boycotts.
Moving to Lehavim, a town in southern Israel, near Beersheba, will yield savings of 2 percent, according to a brief SodaStream statement about the move. The Israeli government gave SodaStream a $20 million grant for the new facility, part of a larger government effort to incentivize business growth in the country’s South.
The company claims the motive for the move is “purely commercial,” though Birnbaum told the Forward this year that the Mishor Adumim factory is a “pain in the ass.”
Birnbaum said in the statement that he’s working with the Israeli government to obtain work permits that would enable his Palestinian employees to work at the relocated plant. However, the new facility is 60 miles away from the Mishor Adumim workplace.
“While we are enthusiastic about our new Lehavim facility and the exciting promise it brings to our company, we are committed to doing everything in our power to enable continuity of employment to our family of employees,” Birnbaum said in the statement.

What are protest groups saying about the move?
They have praised the decision … but they’re still boycotting SodaStream. Activists say that the Mishor Adumim factory’s closure is evidence that the BDS movement, which aims to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel, is working.
“Today’s news is just the latest sign that these global BDS campaigns are having an impact on changing the behavior of companies that profit from Israeli occupation and apartheid,” said Ramah Kudaimi, membership and outreach coordinator for the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, which represents 400 organizations.
But Kudaimi’s group, as well as the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee, say they will continue to boycott SodaStream because they claim its new factory abets dispossession of Bedouin land in Israel, even though the factory will be in an existing industrial park.

Tags: , , ,

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Pieface @ Tuesday, November 04, 2014

Saturday, March 29, 2014

European Boycotts of West Bank Products Based on Faulty Premises

by Timon Dias
March 28, 2014 at 4:00 am
If the Israeli presence in the West Bank, and the "settlements" from 1967 on, are the root cause of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, then why does Article 14 of the 1964 PLO Charter call for the destruction of all of Israel?
Because Judea and Samaria had no recognized sovereign, apart from the Ottoman Empire, prior to the illegal Jordanian occupation, the current Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria cannot possibly be designated as illegal.
It seems therefore that nothing Israel offers that is less than 100% of its entire land -- in other words if Israel agrees not to exist -- will affect the Palestinian Authority's willingness to make peace.
In a world ablaze, European governments and companies still see fit to boycott Israeli companies and products from the so called West Bank. The boycotting parties claim to base their actions on the fact that the West Bank is occupied territory and that the Israeli presence in the West Bank is the one true obstacle to durable peace.

It is apparently unbeknownst to them that both premises are entirely false.

In the West, the so-called "Green Line" is usually referred to when the "peace process" is being evaluated. Someone usually states that Israel should retreat behind this Green Line in order to maintain legitimacy and legality. The Green Line is allegedly synonymous with "the Borders of 1967." This is a highly misleading semantic trick. By asserting the Green Line as the borders of 1967, the case is made to sound as if this is the border from whence the Israelis started an aggressive expansion. The truth is the opposite. The Green Line is in reality the armistice line of 1949: the border where the Arab war of extermination was halted and where the Israelis finally prevented the attempted genocide of their people.

The term "occupied territories," even if not correct, is enough to nonplus the average Israel supporter and send left-wing and Muslim front groups into a twist. It is probably worthwhile to examine the legal accuracy of the term "occupied" as it is applied to the West Bank.

First, it is important to realize that the West Bank had no legally recognized sovereign prior to 1948. After the proclamation of the state of Israel in 1948, which then counted a scarce 660,920 Jewish inhabitants, Israel, literally on the day of its birth, was immediately faced with a war of extermination launched by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq, complemented by Saudi Arabian forces fighting under Egyptian command and a Yemeni contingent.

During this effort to obliterate the nascent state, Jordanian forces took control of the area that had, from biblical times, been known as Judea and Samaria. The Jordanians, in 1950, changed this name to the "West Bank" [of the Jordan River], apparently in an attempt to semantically strengthen their case of "occupation" by making the territory sound as if it were a legitimate part of their East Bank. The move also appears to be an attempt to delegitimize Israel's claim to the area by de-Judaizing its name[1] -- a strategy first adopted by Roman emperor Hadrian, when he changed the country's name from Judea to Palestine, after a nomadic maritime people, the Philistines, who had been in constant armed conflict with the Jews.

Moreover, only Britain, Iraq and Pakistan recognized the Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria. The rest of the world, including Jordan's Arab allies, never recognized the Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria as legitimate, let alone legal. The same goes for the Gaza Strip, only there, it was the Egyptians who ended up illegally occupying the area after the 1948 war of extermination.

During the Six Day War of 1967, Israel was faced with another war of extermination launched by its Arab neighbors. To survive yet another attempted genocide, Israeli forces conducted, in response, a war of defense in which the Israel Air Force destroyed Egyptian aircraft before enemy troops could reach Israel's fragile borders. In the process of this defensive war, the Israelis ended up expelling the Jordanians from the part of Jerusalem they occupied and the West Bank of the Jordan River: Judea and Samaria.

Because Judea and Samaria had no recognized sovereign, apart from the Ottoman Empire, prior to the illegal Jordanian occupation, the current Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria cannot possibly be designated as illegal. After all, from whom are they occupying the area, save from the former Ottoman Empire? The area can only be correctly designated as "disputed" territories, just like Kashmir, the Western Sahara, Zubarah, Thumbs Island, and a lengthy parchment of other disputed territories.

It has been alleged -- originally by diplomats of the Arab and Muslim world, and later parroted by a gullible European political elite -- that to leave this dispute unresolved blocks not only the peace process but also the general stability of the region. Any impartial examination of facts, however, shows that the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria has no significant relationship to either the "peace process" or regional stability. It is probably just irresistibly convenient for autocrats to keep telling diplomats to focus on Israel and the Palestinian problem to throw them -- as well as their own people -- off the scent of their own questionable governance.

If the Israeli presence in the West Bank, and the "settlements" from 1967 on, are the root cause of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, then why does Article 14 of the 1964 PLO charter call for the destruction of all of Israel? "The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty. Its responsibilities fall upon the entire Arab nation, governments and peoples, the Palestinian peoples being in the forefront. For this purpose, the Arab nation must mobilize its military, spiritual and material potentialities; specifically, it must give to the Palestinian Arab people all possible support and backing and place at its disposal all opportunities and means to enable them to perform their role in liberating their homeland."

In 1964, there was not a single Israeli in Judea and Samaria, nevertheless the PLO called for the obliteration of Israel. It is this '64 PLO mentality that has pervaded the upper echelons of Palestinian administration ever since. With the signing of the 1993 Oslo accords, although PLO leader Yasser Arafat said 'yes' to peace, in the period following his actions led to the first massive wave of terror attacks, known as the "Second Intifada." In 2000, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak made Arafat an offer that shocked the world. Barak offered the PLO nearly everything it demanded, including a state with its capital in Jerusalem; control of the Temple Mount; the return of approximately 97% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip, and a $30 billion compensation package for the 1948 refugees.[2] Arafat turned this deal down. In 2008, then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas almost 98% of the West Bank, and again accepted nearly all Palestinian demands. Olmert too, was turned down.

It seems therefore that nothing Israel offers that is less than 100% of its entire land -- in other words, if Israel agrees not to exist -- will affect the Palestinian Authority's [PA] willingness to make peace. The Arabs rejected a plan to partition the land, they did not want peace when there were no Israelis in Gaza, the West Bank or the Jordanian-occupied eastern part Jerusalem, and have repeatedly turned down generous peace offers.

Judea and Samaria are not occupied territories, and the Israeli presence there has no relationship to the PA's willingness to make peace.

Why then would European governments and companies boycott the region? They do not boycott other comparable regions. Even more revealingly, in 2006, the EU even actively aided an occupying power, Turkey, by approving a $259 million aid package for Turkish occupied Northern Cyprus.

Anti-Israel protestors in Melbourne, Australia in June 2010. (Image source: Wikimedia/Takver)

Why these double standards and what do they tell us about the morality -- or lack thereof -- of the people who hold them?

As Thomas Friedman once wrote "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."
[1] Wim Kortenoeven, De Kern van de zaak

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

posted by Pieface @ Saturday, March 29, 2014

Follow @rheytah Tweet