Tag Archives: Anti Semitism

It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a witch hunt

Those pesky Jews…… sorry Israelis.  They know how to make antisemitism work for them.

Over the next few days you will see various posts and feedback from a meeting held in Birkbeck College, London.

Birkbeck flier

The last time I was at Birkbeck was also a fascinating event, looking at a media product to teach students about the suffering of Palestinians and the evils of the Zionist project.  At that meeting I watched a PR lady tell the audience that Israel and the Jewish super wealthy bought politicians and I could buy a copy of a book by the leader of Hamas which promoted the terror activities of the terror group:

The political thought of the Islamic Resistance Movement – Hamas: Written by Khaled Meshaal, 2013 Edition, Publisher: MEMO Publishers [Paperback] [Paperback] [ASIN: B00SLV9MWW]

 

But this meeting was somewhat more vibrant and topical.  This meeting featured the most ardent of the Corbyn supporting Left.   They were there to discuss, in theory, anti Zionism, antisemitism, Palestine and the Left.  But mainly, they were to join in a chorus of hatred against Israel and provide all the narrative that one would ever need to prove that antisemitism

a) doesn’t mean you can’t hate Israel to oblivion,

b) doesn’t exist on the Left and

c) only exists to make victims of the decent people who hate Jews

Amongst the motley crew of decent Left leaning statesmen (or should that be states-people) were representatives of Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Stop the War, Unite against Fascism, veterans of the Left and the culture angle from Tariq Ali.

Others, such as David Collier, Jonathan Hoffman and Richard Millett, will write excellent political analysis of the events of the evening and bare witness to the hate.

birkbeck motley crew

The Motley Crew

So I will tell you just one simple message that tonight’s panel want you to know:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ANTISEMITISM ON THE LEFT, JUST A ZIONIST CREATED MYTH WHICH IS USED TO OBFUSCATE THE CRIMES OF ISRAEL AND DEMONISE THE LEFT

Chief amongst the victims of this malevolent antisemitic myth, Jeremy Corbyn.  If it wasn’t for those pesky scheming Zionists (insert Jews and Israelis) Jeremy would be sailing through to power with an overwhelming majority.  If it wasn’t for those conniving zio lobbyists, Jews wouldn’t have such a hard time with real bigotry.  If it wasn’t for those manipulating Jewish politicos (like Mark Regev) controlling the media airwaves there wouldn’t be a Jew hater in site and if wasn’t for those murdering Israelis killing Palestinian children with gay abandon, Jews the world over would be safe and loved by every decent human being.  And of course, if Israel would just let all those 6, 7, no, 8 million Palestinian refugees from around the world back in to Palestine and let the resulting Arab majority decide what should become of the Israel, then there would be World Peace.  Of course, as we were told by Tariq Ali, no less, the Muslims have a great history of caring for and working with the Jews (albeit he conveniently forgot the near million that were forcibly exiled from all parts of the Arab world around the same time as the State of Israel was created).

As those of you who follow me know, I’ve been writing to Jeremy Corbyn and some of his colleagues for the last 9 months or so on an almost daily basis about his “antisemitism problems”.  His personal relationship with it, his allies, parliamentarians and councillors in the Labour Party who freely bandy antisemitic tropes and his loyal membership who preach antisemitism without a care for who hears it and what they think.

Three outcomes I predict:

  1. Labour will continue to be the party of hate towards Israel until Corbyn and his cronies are defeated and this problem will not go away despite the best attempts of the extreme Left calling it a witch hunt
  2. The Labour inquiry into antisemitism will justify the suspension of those who are outspoken about hatred of Jews as a racial stereotype, but will find NO link between antisemitism and Israel
  3. Labour will state that anti Zionism is legitimate and is NOT antisemitism as it is the right of anyone to believe that Jews should not have the right to self determination, except they will call it “legitimate criticism of Israel policy”.

Birkbeck College tonight was the inner sanctum of Israel-, Zionist- and Jew-hatred.  There debating what antisemitism is, were the foot soldiers of the new antisemitism.

As a tidy dénouement to tonight’s episode, I recalled being sold that Hamas book.  I wondered whether I could buy a copy of this terror manual on line.  Sure enough Amazon would not sell such a hate ridden and vile book, but the Amazon marketplace has everything for sale.  There I found a copy for sale from a source close to the heart of Jeremy himself.  Corbyn, had, a few years previously vehemently defended a leading member of the Anglican clergy who had made mendacious antisemitic statements.  The church suspended him, just like the Labour party now does with its bigots.  The clergyman and the book seller were one and the same, Stephen Sizer.  Thus rounding off neatly a night of Jew hate.

 

Labour’s conspiracy theory

There is much confusion and concern regarding the ongoing scandal of antisemitism in the Labour Party.  We have watched in disbelief as Labour Party members have shown their darker side with outrageous bigotry directed at Jews.  But have we really understood what is going on?

I watched an interview on BBC with now suspended Labour Party councillor from Blackburn, Shah Hussain.  He was suspended for the following tweet: 

 
Shah Hussain tweeted: You are an complete and utter plonker, you and your country doing the same thing that hitler did to ur race in ww2

 

But maybe, just maybe Shah’s tweet to an Israeli footballer was nothing more than a mild jibe at a Jew and Israeli footballer, which was completely understandable given Shah’s outrage at the fact that he considered all Israelis child killing Nazis (except perhaps the 20% who aren’t Jewish).

‘You are a complete and utter plonker, you and your country doing the same thing that Hitler did to ur race in WW2′

Look beyond the outrageous bigotry that appears to be inherent in that tweet and all may become clear. Shah has revealed that is all

“a witch hunt and all because I am a Muslim”.

How foolish this whole “Labour antisemitism” thing is. Simple, it is all just a cover up. Shah Hussain has revealed that the Labour Party is getting away with outrageous Islamophobia by making out that Shah and many like him are antisemites.  This is a perfect slur.

How did we miss that….. A Jewish and Labour conspiracy with the Islamophobe in chief, Jeremy Corbyn, masterminding the whole conspiracy.  He just wants to make these poor Muslim politicians suffer by calling out perfectly innocent bigotry as racism!

Yet Jeremy’s real friends are rallying around him. They know how to be real Jew haters. Not some “plastic bigot” like these poor political victims.  JC’s friends, well, I say friends….

JC and Friends

JC and Friends

A spokesman for Hamas has now hailed Mr Corbyn for his refusal to condemn the terror group. Taher Al-Nunu said Mr Corbyn’s willingness to engage with it was a ‘painful hit that the Zionist enemy received’. ‘We welcome the declaration of the Labour Chairman and see his engagement as a very important statement.

But wait until Hamas find out what an Islamophobe he has been to the good and the great of his own party suspending Hamas and Hezbollah supporters up and down the land.  Surely then Hamas and Hezbollah will come rolling in to the UK in defence of the embattled “innocent 50″ Labour politicians, councillors and party workers.

Maybe this is the predicted coup come from the friends of Jeremy?  We’ll know shortly.

Labour’s Haavara Masterplan: Ethnic cleansing from the Party landscape

Probably by now this should refer to Ken Livingstone, ex-MP.

The suspended and somewhat disgraced MP had done his research into the myth of antisemitism in his beloved party.  He’d clicked on Wikipedia to find why everyone thought that there was a conspiracy to accuse his beloved Party of antisemitism (which according to Ken is not racism).  Then he stumbled on it.
HAAVARA, a company for the transfer of Jewish property from Nazi Germany to Palestine.  You can read about it here:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0008_0_08075.html

Let’s be clear, in the 1930s in Germany, of course Jewish leaders would try and negotiate with Hitler to ensure they did as much as possible to prevent the ensuing atrocities (albeit they could not have imagined what lay ahead).
There was a time in the early 1930s when Hitler thought Jewish ethnic cleansing of Germany by removing all the Jews (whilst appropriating all of their possessions and wealth) and packaging them off to the Middle East had some traction.  He explored and considered many options in how to deal with the “Jewish problem”.  Judenrein came in all shapes and sizes.  But, consistency was the key, consistently wishing to exterminate Jews.
That he plumped for a more “finite solution” to what he considered the Jewish problem just shows this as part of his clinical maturing thinking.  He also made approaches to leaders in the Middle East, such as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and other Arab leaders as to how this could play out.  Whilst some saw through his evil designs others were willing to go along with them and even invest and execute them with gusto.  The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was indeed pleased to plan industrial level extermination camps in the region to rival anything the Nazis could do.  His sycophantic behaviour towards Hitler has been well documented.
Back to Ken Livingstone.  The fact that Livingstone wanted to associate Hitler’s ethnic cleansing strategy with Zionism and say “well see, he was in favour of Zionism” is a very sick joke.
By now, you will have probably seen one British politician, John Mann’s, reaction.  But in case you have been living in a bubble:

https://youtu.be/tJCzVV5eIg8

 

And this is the reason John Mann reacted like he did.  Ken Livingstone’s apologist explanation for a fellow Labour MP’s anti-Semitic social media material:

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2016/4/28/461907/default/v1/mann-1-992×558.jpg

No, Livingstone is a nasty racist who finally showed his true colours and relished it as the attention seeking weasel he is, lapping up the ensuing media scrum and touring the studios in a most ungracious aggrandising manner.
John Mann, despite also knowing that this was a bit of a media stunt, intended to expose Livingstone and bring the problem to the surface because he was sick and tired of his party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, saying antisemitism doesn’t exist in the Labour Party (amazingly still saying so, claiming this is jealousy of his success causing it).
And this, knowing John, is surely true.
I met John Mann in October last year.  Just the day before I had attended a public meeting (with my friend and fellow blogger David Collier) where Sir Gerald Kaufman (Labour MP, and the “father of the House”, a moniker given the to oldest statesman in the House of Commons) hosted and spoke.  This, in the rarefied confines of the offices of the Houses of Parliament.  The meeting was for the Palestinian Return Centre, a group promoting the notion that all people of middle eastern decent and who are Arabs, have the right to claim Palestinian citizenship.  (As a Jew, I remained incognito for fear of a hostile reaction and censured opinion). Under the roof of our country’s political home Kaufman posited how wealthy Jews control British politics.  Of course, this is a classic anti-Semitic trope which was delivered with vitriolic fervour and roundly applauded by an equally opinionated audience.  At the time, when I spoke to John Mann, he looked furious because, I believed, he felt I had information which was damaging to his party, the Labour Party.  Now I realise (and should have at the time) he was furious because he can’t abide antisemitism such as that espoused by Kaufman and now Livingstone, full stop.
It is a depressing decline in the Left.  And one for which I am deeply saddened.  A strong opposition is always vital to good government.  Jews have always found good companionship on the Left.  But rather like Hitler’s plans to ethnically cleanse Germany of Jews, Corbyn seems to be achieving the same end for Labour’s political landscape.  But today, he’s one henchman shorter.
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Leader, reacted to all of this by saying people were jealous of him and his party.  Frankly, this looked like madness.  He extolled the grass roots of his party and thought that the anti-Semitic conspiracy / crisis was created to undermine and sully these roots.  But wouldn’t those roots include Jews?

Corbyn: “I suspect that much of this criticism about a crisis in the party actually comes from those who are nervous of the strength of the Labour Party at local level”.So the Jews offended by Jew-hatred and antisemitism in Labour are actually just trying to damage the Labour party because it is powerful?

Crisis, what crisis?
Maybe Wikipedia will find a new entry for the Haavara Agreement, the Labour Party Haavara Agreement which brings it up to date with expatriation of Jews from a political movement.  Dispossessing Jews of their right to self-determination of hatred and instead accusing them of making up a narrative to suit their own gains and jealousy in the success of the Party without them.
As Livingstone said when trying to excuse himself of antisemitism (which incidentally he says is NOT racism), this was “all in the 1930s before the Leader of the National Socialist Party went mad”.
Jeremy Corbyn’s eyes looked a little more furtive and crazed as I watched him be interviewed yesterday.  Maybe the madness is contagious if you behave like this.

 

What’s in a name

There is a very simple problem with anti-Semitism in the UK and Europe. We don’t know exactly what it is.

What is a Semite anyway? And what does being anti-Semitic mean? A Semite could be defined as “someone who belongs to the Semitic peoples. The Semites are supposedly descended from the biblical Shem, the eldest son of Noah.” But these decedents include Jews, Muslims, Christians and many Middle and near Easterners who derive their beliefs through the Abrahamic faith lineage. And being “anti” something or someone, could mean being a rival or being opposed to. But this is a very confused picture which suggests that Anti-Semitism literally means being “opposed to the descendants of Shem”.  So does an anti-Semite oppose most of the Middle Easterners?

I often refer to the EU Working Definition of Anti-Semitism when writing about it, when accusing people of it or when wishing to point out why society’s actions are performing it. The Working definition is as follows:

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectively. Anti-Semitism 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.

In truth, the definition doesn’t help much because by the time I’ve finished explaining why someone or something is anti-Semitic time has passed, people have moved on and the situation and the argument has been lost. Some of the most notable recent examples which fit this definition, here in Britain, include:

  • A recent survey proposed that only North Korea is more unpopular than Israel.
  • British students have been celebrating ‘Israel apartheid week’ with open anti-Semitism, intimidating those who try to voice any objection to their spite filled views.
  • British educational and political institutions can invite the very worst hate speakers to tell you “how Jews are the descendants of pigs.”
  • British universities can run completely one sided symposiums questioning the very existence of Israel with the full approval of their academic governors and peers.
  • British MPs can issue legal proceedings against individuals who correctly identify anti-Semitic narratives they have espoused.
  • British peers can use blood libel tropes in speeches within the Upper House of government with impunity.
  • Charities openly siphon funds for politically active terror groups involved in attacks on Israel.

And it goes on…..
It never stops…..
There’s always more…..

Yet here’s what I consider one of the biggest problem with anti-Semitism. Why can’t we call it what it is? Can’t we drop the anti-Semitism label and call it what it is JEW HATRED. So try this:

  • A recent survey demonstrated that only North Korea is more popular to hate than HATING JEWS;
  • British students were able to celebrate Israel apartheid week with open JEW HATRED, threatening those who voiced objection to JEW HATRED;
  • British educational and political institutions can invite JEW HATERS to espouse their invective scot-free;
  • British universities can run symposiums to justify and seek legality for JEW HATRED;
  • British MPs issue legal proceedings to the victims of their JEW HATING;
  • British peers can use JEW HATE speeches in parliamentary debate with impunity and even be applauded by some in their peers;
  • Charities can use their donations to fund international JEW HATING operations;

See, that’s the thing. Anti-Semitism doesn’t really tell you much. It’s anodyne, it’s anonymous, it’s unencumbered by connotations and it’s guilt free. Call a person a JEW HATER and the guilty are left in NO DOUBT of their crime and the victim is clearly identified.

HATE is the crime

The HATER is the criminal

The Jew is the victim.

It says it all, and it says it concisely and to the point.

And perhaps here we can learn something from Hamas. They have not bothered shrouding their JEW HATRED in metaphors or harmless synonyms. Read Article 7 of the Hamas charter. It hasn’t changed. It isn’t denied. It’s public, loud and proud:

The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!

So kudos to Hamas for their honesty. They know better than most how to be anti-Semites… correction… JEW HATERS!

Jerusalem Post’s Letter from London 22nd February 2015 3 Adar 5775

Let me start with a simple and humbling story. In London, where homelessness is an increasing issue, many of you will have walked through the streets of the city and seen sleeping bags, cardboard boxes and newspapers piled up next to heating vents and alley ways. I am privileged to run a homeless shelter in my local borough and along with some wonderful volunteers we provide, through a network of synagogues and churches, the food, warmth, bon homie and shelter for the less fortunate. Generally, it is a happy and pleasant time spent with decent people. I usually think “there but for the grace of G-d, go I” as we are all just a few steps away from disaster or success. Then, just occasionally I meet someone, they tell me their story, and I am humbled.

Hilda’s story
A middle aged South African lady turned up at our shul shelter last night. She was on the list of guests, but she was late. In fact, had she been half an hour later, we’d have been closed for the night with all the guests snuggled up in their sleeping bags on the floor. However, she was just in time. She was cold as it was a miserable winter’s night in London, rainy, cold and windy. It was late. Dinner had been served and guests were already bedding down for the night. So I made Hilda a cup of tea. She’d missed dinner, so I rustled up cheese, toast and cold veggie sausages. As we sat and chatted she told me that she’d have to be up at 4am to go to work the next morning. And then she’d be back at lunchtime; then she’d be off again until 10pm for work. From 4am until 10pm travelling and working. She had to catch 4 buses to work, 4 buses back to a lunch shelter to collect her night shelter voucher, 4 more buses back to work and 4 buses back. We worked out how to help her not have to travel back so she could do another job over lunch. Then she could afford a hostel, and then she could get a little more independence. I felt proud to help and humbled in her company.

Our synagogue is a proud provider of a community shelter. It works with different synagogues (United, Reform, and Progressive) and churches (Catholic, Church of England and others). We hope to add a mosque to our roster next season. We show how a multicultural society all has the same community spirit and values. It shows that we can work together and put aside our differences for the greater good.

A volunteer’s story
Volunteering at synagogue and community spirit is synonymous with our community and Jewish communities across the diaspora. Yet it was one volunteer that caught our attention in the most heinous of acts in Denmark. When a volunteer was shot outside the Central Synagogue in Copenhagen we were all horrified and devastated. His bravery may well have stopped further slaughter within the synagogue where a simcha was in full swing. It touched us all, but brought a sense of realism much closer to home. I wrote in the Times and the Independent later that week:

Last week I stood outside the gates of my synagogue in London.

I watched our children at the Sunday school practicing their terrorist evacuation procedures within the grounds of the building with its enhanced security systems, high wire fences and toughened glass. I watched as the police car patrol did its rounds, the CST officers in their bullet proof jackets did their checks and the synagogue’s own hired security did perimeter inspections.

And me, just an ordinary Jewish Londoner, at those gates doing my voluntary duty, just like the man on Saturday night in Copenhagen outside his synagogue.

Fear, life and death as a Jew in Europe today.

Humility not the case….. flag raising raises its ugly head again

As the Council’s of Britain finally started to drop their enthusiasm for political flag posturing they suddenly found a second wind. So, some of us started round 2 of the “have you really thought this through?” dialogue. However, we are a bit smarter now too. So here’s how I got to grips with our friends in local government:

In essence, the PSED requires councils to have regard to the impact on community relations before exercising any function (flag-raising included). This action would clearly significantly damage community relations.

   149 Public sector equality duty
(1)A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—
(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;
(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

We were in dialogue with both Manchester and Preston who had differing attitudes.  Manchester was happy to drop the provocative action in exchange for respecting community sensibilities.  Preston council has tried to justify its flag raising.  But curiously, the Head of Preston Council boasted of his wife and children’s Jewish heritage (whilst not being Jewish himself) whilst intimating that Israel was to blame for the rise in antisemitism.  So I felt compelled to point out to him when, in the summer, he approved the raising of the Palestinian flag:

In a recent article I read that your wife and children are Jewish.  Did you consider that the ruling organisation in the country whose flag you raised last summer have an article in their manifesto upon which they were voted into power and is supported to this day without waiver.   Article 7 reads:

“The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”

It is, I’m sure you’d agree a truly grotesque policy.

You raised a flag of a nation who support this.    This murderous tirade and policy applies to all Jews, both your family and mine.

There are powerful legal positions and reasoned thinking that ensures that actions such as these are not appropriate for councils and their employees.  But also, it shows what we are learning.  A year ago I didn’t think I could take on a Council in another part of the country with a legal argument or persuade with depth of knowledge and reason.  I, like many others, have found a voice and an inner strength and energy which I never knew I had.

The Day the Circus came to town

Last Thursday, 5th February the circus came to town.

In this case the town was Finchley and the circus was that venerable BBC TV political panel debate programme, Question Time. Thursday nights in the Bond-Ryde household usually reverberate to the sound of my wife and I discussing the on screen diplomacy or lack of it by various political VIPs. But our house remained quiet this Thursday as, rather than debating with the TV we got to participate first hand in the audience.

QT in Finchley

Before I go any further I should say that whilst we can be particularly vocal in our debates and reactions when behind our own front door, when we are in a public space we behave with the dignity and respect as decent people do. And this extends to a debate on the BBC. Even if the auditorium and panel contains individuals who I would not welcome into my home, let alone my sphere of conversation.

So the good folk of Finchley turned out on a freezing cold evening to “chew the political fat” with some of Britain’s best known political faces. And as we supped on the pre-show coffees and munched the pre-show biscuits, the 150 or so men and women discussed what we would ask, what did we think would be asked and how the panel would react. The real reason for such excited discussion was, of course, the make up of the panel.

  • The Minister for Education
  • The Shadow Minister for Education
  • An eminent writer and political commentator
  • A newspaper editor
  • And an MP from Bradford (not known for favourable views on Israel amongst other things)

Now why, do you suppose the BBC would put a show on in the middle of the largest Jewish constituency in the UK with a politician who, well, doesn’t have much in the way of anything nice to say about Jews and Israel?

At 8:30, the circus commenced. It started quite pleasantly, despite the freezing conditions due to the broken heating in the theatre. In fact it was no surprise that the debate wasn’t heated, it was sub zero!

The first question was about business and the relationships of political parties to the entrepreneurial society. Plenty of hot air from the audience and panel started to raise the temperature into the positive Celsius. The next question was about education and the reduction in funding. It got us warmed a little more. Everyone knows that education is at the heart of the Jewish community so it certainly got the temperature rising.

Then, the moment the broadcasters had been planning for…. the question that we all knew would turn up the climate to tropic heat. A young man, a cheeky smile starting to appear said “What does the panel think of the rise in antisemitism”. But, he added (unscripted to the question agreed) “and is one of the panelists in particular responsible for inflaming this issue”. So it was that the mob started to rule the debate and the show really began.

Firstly, Jonathan Friedland was allowed to respond. Now Jonathan being Jewish spoke eloquently enough. Although he made one large faux pas in referring to the summer’s events in the Middle East as the “conflict in Gaza”. Jonathan, do you not realise that the conflict requires two to tango. It was the conflict between “Israel and Gaza”. This shocking error showed Jonathan’s newspaper bias. The Guardian, for whom he writes, continually appears to side with the Palestinian cause and is often at the forefront of criticism of Israel.

Nonetheless, moving on, Jonathan showed a clear demonstration of the concerns of Jews in the UK and Europe with respect to the rising tide of hatred that Jews are having to endure and the lack of traction in dealing with this until very recently (when many feel it is already too late). Jonathan having made his points, the ring master, Jonathan Dimbleby, turned to George Galloway and asked for his thoughts. Thus debate turned to debacle.

Probably about a dozen or so people in the audience began to bate George Galloway and the whole debate took on a ridiculous Jerry Springer style. Sadly the opportunity to do some good for our community, to raise issues that would have shocked the viewers and to to see George Galloway entrap himself in his own hatred was squandered. No one exposed him for his racist remark about the make up of the audience. There was no unmasking his inability to differentiate between zionists and Jews (despite tying himself in knots trying to deal with that). What we got instead was a bunch of loud mouthed individuals yelling uncontrollably (in the name of our Jewish community). And to my mind doing the credibilty of Jews in the UK no good and, sadly making George Galloway look, yet again, like the victim!

So here’s my letter to George.

Dear George,

I was in the audience at the Question Time in Finchley last night.

Whilst I may not be your biggest fan, may I say how engaging you were compared to the other panellists. You were entertaining and made for compulsive “TV viewing”.

Like you, I was immensely disappointed to experience the “rowdy” and “unruly” behaviour of a small but vociferous element of the audience (I think it was no more than about 10 people, but they hijacked the debate). What a pity, as it really meant that a full and challenging discourse could not be held.

I am copying the Production Company, mentorn.tv, who should be able to forward to Mr Dimbleby (as chairman). I was disappointed that, as the chairman, he did not take more care to ensure that the debate was managed properly. Disappointingly it gave the “loud mouths” the floor because they shouted. In debates that I have managed they would have lost the right to speak. Why didn’t Mr Dimbleby simply say “if you shout, you’ll be ejected or loose the right to ask a question”. What do you think? Do you think Mr. Dimbleby was setting you up? Setting us all up, maybe?

There were so many questions regarding antisemitism and so much awareness that could have been raised for the better and I’m sure that you would, had a more dignified air of debate existed, provided us with clearer perspective of your views. Personally, I would have loved to ask the following:
■ Why the BBC is not prosecuting one of its own for publicy broadcasting antisemetic views?
■ Why the worst attacks on Jews and other civilians seem to be prevalent from extemist Islamic sources (not from a provocation point of view, but simple statistics). This is a hard question, I know, but it was an elephant in the room, although one person did mention it? But it would have given us a chance to hear your views on Islamic extremism (again, I expect you have some very profound insights).
■ Why politicians (and honestly, NOT reference to yourself, but the likes of Jenny Tonge) are able to get away with clearly antisemitic tropes with impunity?
■ And finally, what can we all do to make Britain a safer place for Jews?

However, I would like to point out that:
1. Audience racial balance.
Your reference to a balanced audience was “uncomfortably close to being racist”. It is a predominantly Jewish area therefore why wouldn’t it be representative? If you were speaking in say, Hounslow, I think it would be reasonable to expect a larger than national average audience make up from historically Indian immigrants for example. Surely not a surprise, but I suppose given the unruly behaviour a few heated and awkwardly placed comments are understandable. Do you think, in retrospect, this comment was inappropriate?
2. Terminology of a Conflict.
Please note that, unlike the panel, I correctly refer to the conflict as “between”, as conflicts indicate more than one entity. Saying the conflict in Gaza is grammatically and intuitively incorrect. Would you agree that the conflict was between Gaza and Israel?
3. Emotive Statistics.
Your statistical view of the conflict. You refer to 2000 dead Palestinians in the conflict. I’m sure that you are also aware that:
a. Some were as a result of Gazan rockets hitting their own
b. Some were as a result of the use human shields
c. Numbers can be very emotive and not condusive to the inherent argument. If Israel had not significantly invested in protecting its civilians (defensive strategies rather than offensive strategies, unlike Hamas who operate an almost exclusively offensively) the mortalities from Hamas rocket fire would have likely far outweighed the tragic deaths in Gaza. One successful rocket strike on a tower block in Tel Aviv could have caused a single statistical death toll to rival 9/11. And Hamas’s explicit and unwavering strategy was the targetting of civilians (let’s not forget that is a Human Rights breach, by anyone’s standards).
So I am disappointed that you felt moved to use emotive numbers rather than us all participate in an impartial debate. Do you feel that quoting numbers is not appropriate for a balanced debate as it disguises the real events, criminals and victims?
4. Personal Attacks.
I do understand your reason for raising the issue. As the shouting escalated, your felt the need to show that you were (again) the victim of your reputation. And quite rightly, the person who shouted “surprised?” was foolish. No excuse for personal attacks and every right for freedom of speech. I’m sure that extends to the Hebdo terrorist murders (which I noticed you called “affair”, why so?) and Hebdo’s right to freedom of speech, as long as legal. Offence is acceptable and in my case, even as a Jew who finds it hard to reconcile some of your opinions, as long as speech remains the right side of legal by our country’s laws then its fine by me.
5. Zionism.
You use Zionism as a “dirty word”. Why would a love of a country (in this case, Israel) be somehow soiled. In an imaginery world, pretend there was a word “Turkeyism” or “Suliemanism” which referred to the love of Turkey. If I made use of these words to portray Turkey (a Muslim state), where there was an illegal occupation (in Cyprus), the highest levels of journalist imprisonment on the globe and the main gateway for terrorists with ISIS as an evil axis and held Muslims of Turkish heritage and all other Muslims accountable in the UK we’d be in a bad place. Please use the word Israel if you mean Israel. Zionists have a right not to be conflated too. And by using the word Zionist, you and I both know it will simply be read as “Jews”. This despite the fact that I have many non-Jewish friends here in the UK and elsewhere who would call themselves Zionists. Will you, in future, choose your words more carefully to avoid igniting old hatreds by referring to Israel not Zionists?
6. Ritual Slaughter.
Sadly your point on ritual slaughter, a fair an correct one got drowned out in the volume of other over emotive moments. I think, along with circumcision, reasonable ritual activities should be protected. Although, I have read worrying evidence of a significant increase of FGM (which is definitely not reasonable) in the Islamic communities here in the UK (and the recent court case in London about a doctor performing such at the Whittington Hospital, a location where many of the audience are likely to have gone as it is very local would have been good for topical debate), so we also cannot give this over entirely to the control of the religious zealots who might push some boundaries too far. And I think your point could have prompted a really interesting discussion about where to draw the line. Again, I’d be interested to know your thoughts on the relationship between religious orthodoxy and where it goes to far. FGM, honour killings, burkas?
7. Gaza Prison References.
You made the reference that Israel had created a “prison” situation in Gaza. I presume this is based on the security walls between Israel and Gaza. If so, you surely neglected to mention that Egypt is also responsible for doing the exact same. In addition, those with “right of return” to Jordan are being denied by the Jordanian government thus keeping Jordanian Palestinians in Gaza (hundreds of thousands of them) for purely ethnic reasons. Why didn’t you mention Egypt and Jordan when referring to Gaza prison? You made it all Israel’s fault which is clearly not the case, would you agree? Would you accept Jordan and Egypt are equally culpable for your description of a Gazan prison?
And just as a final point to the “prison” remark, the ethnic cleansing by Syria of Palestinians and their appalling treatment in Lebanese camps means that, paradoxically, those in Israel probably have the best living status and conditions. Indeed, outside of Gaza Israel is the only country providing additional medical care for Palestinians (including recently some of Hamas’s leader’s own family members). Would you agree that Israel is undermined and unjustly demonised consistently by those ignoring the good in Israel and the bad of its neighbours?
I would really welcome a response and I hope you receive this as proof that there is no need for raised voices just a healthy discussion and thoughtful consideration of both sides.
Finally, you were bang on on one point…. it was bloody freezing! It’s amazing that any debate made it to “heated” considering the climate!

It is highly unlikely I’ll get a response? George doesn’t usually debate with Zionists.

Is he some sort of force of evil? I don’t think so. Much more the pantomime villain and circus clown.
But if the circus comes to town again, clowns and all, I don’t think I’ll be running off with it. I think I’ll stay at home and watch it on the little screen and go back to shouting at the telly with Mrs Bond-Ryde and a cup of tea.

At least I got to be a panellist

At least I got to be a panellist

Jerusalem Post’s Letter from London 25th January 2015 5 Shevat 5775

Is it a sign of the times that I greeted the following quote with an awkward grimace rather than the risible smile it deserved? Former Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan, on his death bed observed of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet in 1986 that “it was too little Old Etonian and a little too old Estonian“.

Prime Minister and humourist

Prime Minister and humourist

He was, of course, referring to the ethnic and racial makeup of her cabinet. For that cabinet was approximately one third of Jewish extract. For me there are two things that make the quote and observation remarkable. One, that Jews were so prevalent in the cabinet is extraordinary and two that such a comment could have passed without so much as bat of a defamatory eyelid. British politics has always been peppered with more than its fair share of Jews and British politics has been plastered with more than its fair share of anti-Semitic tropes, so what. I would surmise the following, no one was bothered and no one took offence.

So what is offensive? Well over the last couple of weeks (since the events of Paris) I’ve been trying to hold a dialogue with one of our British politicians. He is familiar to some of us for being, well let’s just say, “Not onside with Zionism”. David Ward is the MP for Bradford East. After the events of Paris, David shared his feelings on his social media using a cyber barometer, a hashtag. He hoped to trend with #JeSuisPalestinian following in the footsteps of other successful hashtags such as Charlie and Juif. But what, I wondered did this tag mean and where did it rate on the offence barometer? Now David is normally a very responsive sort of politician, but on this one he wasn’t willing to furnish me with a response despite several attempts. Even Daniel Taub seems unable to break his silence on the matter. This was my latest pitch to David. I was hoping to catch him in a good mood after his local football team’s historic victory over the Premiership giants of Chelsea in the FA Cup. But I also wanted to highlight just what British politicians can be like these days…

Dear David,

I imagine you are still recovering from the city’s remarkable FA Cup exploits. As a football fan (not Chelsea) I share in your joy! I think today maybe we are all #JeSuisBradfordCity.

But before we get to carried away, any explanation of another hashtag? I was hoping to hear from you by now regarding #JeSuisPalestinian reference to the Paris events (now becoming a more distant memory yet still painful). I have written to you 3 times previously regarding this. Previously when I’ve written to you on other matters, you have always responded promptly.

I have started to get a little paranoid as to why the silence. You might have gathered that I am not a Muslim. In fact, you may gather that I am Jewish. I am a member of our National Liberal Club in Whitehall as I have a political leaning towards Liberals (both with a big and little “l”).

My paranoia has been exasperated by reading that MPAC boasted about how it influenced the outcome of 2010 Bradford elections which you won.

The previous incumbent, Labour’s Terry Rooney (not Jewish, but pro-Israeli) lost by 365 votes in the 2010 general election after MPAC distributed thousands of leaflets calling him a Zionist Islamophobe and “warmonger” who could not represent Muslims. You appeared to be the beneficiary of this racial smear campaign, David.

And since then, you have fulfilled some of MPAC’s wildest expectations. In 2013, you were suspended from the Lib Dem parliamentary party after criticising “the Jews” for inflicting atrocities on the Palestinians and questioning Israel’s right to exist.

During the Gaza conflict last year you stated: “If I lived in Gaza, would I fire a rocket? Probably yes.”

Until January last year, you employed MPAC’s spokesman, Raza Nadim, as your constituency assistant.

Given all of this, would I really be making a wild leap of faith in assuming you might not dignify Jews with the same courtesies as others? You do seem to hold us responsible for some bad “stuff”?

David, I’m sure this would be easy to clarify if you would only answer my original question…… #JeSuisPalestinian? Porquois?

I hold out hope for a rational explanation and am sure you can dispel my paranoia.

I’m not holding my breath!

So with such established antisemitism heralded by certain communities and supporting politicians into power is it any wonder that the media trip over these narratives and journalists can’t always tell the right from the wrong.

Stand up Tim Willcox. Tim has caused quite a stir here in London and amongst those who watch with suspicion the behaviour of Auntie Beeb (the BBC’s fondly chosen moniker). Tim was on the march in Paris. He was there employed as one of the live reporters for the BBC. He thrust his trusty microphone in front of a couple of mourning Parisians (of potential Jewish extract) and proposed that the murdered Jews might have, in some way, deserved their fate due to the behaviour of Israel when dealing with its neighbours recently. His interviewees seemed speechless. He then followed up by trying to suggest there was justification for these murders. I expect there’s a good chance you’ve been following the whole messed up situation. Now many of us have complained and it appears that the BBC is taking the unusual step of expediting the complaint and dealing with all complaints in their totality. Well better late than never. But, here is the thing, if people hadn’t complained the BBC would have done nothing. A live reporter employed by the BBC at one of this decade’s most significant events is able to roll out an anti-Semitic narrative. That is quite remarkable. I can only imagine what Tim would have done if he was around at the time of Martin Luther King’s march to Selma?

Good luck Tim, I’m sure that British politics has a career waiting for you (strategist or PR, take your pick). Once the BBC finally work out what to do about racist opinions being delivered by their employees during live broadcasts, you’ll have the pick of the best Her Majesty’s Government has to offer.

And maybe, if Tim feels a strong leaning to the left he can join the Greens. Their leader, Natalie Bennett laid out the Green Party policy on membership of extremist organisations. She said it’s ok. If you want to join ISIS or al Quada you can. Natalie explained that people should be free to think what they want and to become members of organisations where similar values are held. So if you think beheading is good and slaughtering thousands of innocent children is just part of day to day life then it’s ok to go and join up with ISIS or other popular terrorist clubs. Well, it’s hard to know where to begin when our politicians are seriously espousing policies such as this. I could hardly wait to drop the leadership a line (and I’ll bet I wasn’t alone). I had two simple points:

1. Those that join terrorist organisations don’t normally stop there. The practice of getting involved is always encouraged. And getting involved usually involves murdering lots of innocent people for bad reasons.

2. If it’s ok to be a member of organisations that promote hate, I presume you’ll be supportive of those who wish to join organisations that promote hate and violence towards gay people, black people, Muslims, women, disabled people and so on. It’s ok to support and encourage terror and hate as long as they don’t “actually” do anything about it?

Are you sure this is a good idea?

PS. Before World War II lots of Germans joined a party. They didn’t have to do any terrorising themselves if they didn’t want to, just be supportive. It didn’t work out particularly well.

To finish on another MacMillan quote, “Events, dear boy, events” when asked what would be most likely to blow governments off course. However, Harold, it feels like “events” blowing chill winds through our society are currently knocking our moral compasses off course.

Jerusalem Post’s Letter from London 10th January 2015 19 Tevet 5775

I’m finding it strangely difficult to bring myself to write when the sights and sounds of this week are still so resonant. This may seem odd, given that it was fellow writers, putting their opinions into the public domain that apparently sparked these events of evil. Words seem so futile. And there are so many words that have been written and spoken regarding the events in Paris it seems that everything has been said. So I will talk of that which was not written.

In London, as we journeyed forward to New Year’s Eve, there was a sense that 2014 was a year we were all going to be glad to see the back of. Amongst my friends we talked of the relief at seeing out an awful year for Jews (as Queen Elizabeth once declared, an “annus horribilis”). We saw antisemitism reaching new highs, the conflict in Israel and Gaza in the summer and the attacks in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv later in the year. The fireworks over the Thames at midnight and the strains of Auld Lang Syne seemed to offer new hope and comfort for 2015. Also, for many of us here in the UK, it would also be an opportunity for us to look back at 2014 and say, “we made a difference”; “we made a stand”; “we found our voice”; “we changed for the better”. But whilst we felt we made a change, the calendar rolled over into the first days of January, we sadly discovered that the world hadn’t. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose (the more things change, the more things stay the same).

The First, Unwritten…..

Just before New Year, I wrote to HarperCollins about a World Atlas that they produced for their Arabic market. This atlas was designed in English for Arabic students as a reference book. In it one reference that was not apparent was Israel. Israel had been removed. The land mass was there, Gaza was there, Jordan was there, but no Israel. Once I had informed the CEO of the situation, HarperCollins, within a couple of hours, confirmed to me that they would be removing the product from sale and all remaining stock would be pulped. HarperCollins made a full apology. But the reasoning behind the original strategy revealed a sinister message. Their reasoning for the removal of the State of Israel was, according to the company’s representatives, that their customers would have found the inclusion of Israel “unacceptable” so the Atlas was amended for “local preferences”.

Missing Israel

Missing Israel

The Second, Unpublished…..

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack, many journalists and publishers in the UK immediately stood up and said that they would not kowtow to the terrorist threats of extremists. Free speech was everything. There was a certain sense of righteousness that the media would now not fear delivering the story with any censorship. We would all see what the commotion was about, why 12 people had been murdered for free speech. We would not see OUR press cower in fear. Yet the morning after the murders of these cartoonists, exactly as their editor, Stephane Charbonier had predicted but had hoped would not be the case, the press stood down. Stephane himself had said he would rather “die standing”. Not one British newspaper, not one TV channel was prepared to publish or show these cartoons. Some spoke bravely (such as Andrew Neill and David Aaronovich), but otherwise they all hid behind the “insensitivity” of publishing those satirical cartoons. This fear of offence has become a wider topic now here in the UK, yet we are still no closer to addressing it. It feels for many that the extremists have won. Jonathan Glass epitomized the feeling of many when he wrote imploring The Independent, an ambitious and usually brave broadsheet, to do the right thing. He said “all organs of the media must resist the assault on free speech”. And further, “If only our journalistic elite had the same concern about standing up for what is right”. But no….

The Third, Unmentioned…..

During these awful events, one fact is rarely being uttered. You see, if it were, it might cause us to think the worst. The French exodus. Here’s a very brief letter summarising the situation which I sent to The Independent, as a reminder of the situation the French Jews find themselves in.

Regular attacks on religious establishments and amenities, physical attacks on those going about their daily lives, terror, threat and murder. Jews are victims in France daily. And the perpetrators are always the same.

Jews in France are leaving in their droves. 20% of French Jews have fled France in the last 2 years (100,000 emigrated from France to Britain, US and Israel).

France will be Judenfrei before 2020 thanks to the Islamic terror campaign and the inertia of successive governments. This campaign achieving what even the Nazis failed to do, rid France of Jews.

In Europe, we are sleepwalking into a catastrophe. Wake up Europe before it’s too late.

It remained unmentioned in most of the reporting, that Islamic terror and the inertia of successive French governments is leading to the eradication of Jews in France. It is a powerful message, yet one the media are frightened to mention as only one conclusion can be drawn. Again, through fear of terrorists and extremists, it is easier to accept the victimisation of Jews rather than offend others with the truth. However, yesterday, Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle did speak out saying “Every single French Jew I know has either left or is actively working out how to leave”. And tonight as I prepared to publish this very article the BBC and ITV news did finally carry interviews with concerned French Jews. The message was “when are we leaving?” or “where will we go?”
The Fourth, Unspoken…..

“Not in my name”. This is the rhetoric spoken by many Muslim leaders. These leaders seem to be decent and caring people. They are genuinely concerned and as outraged as the next man. Yet, “not in my name” doesn’t help. It distances Islam from the extremists and hopes that they’ll go away by denying they exist within the boundaries of the faith. These radicals, these terrorists, these extremists are doing these egregious acts in the name of Islam. And rather than saying “not in my name”, Muslims need to come out and say what their name is. When I see tens of thousands of Muslims protesting against their brothers, marching on Westminster saying “Muslims against Jihad”, “Muslims against apostasy”, “Muslims want freedom of speech” and “Muslims for British values” and so on then I will start to believe. This is what is not spoken.

Unfortunately, with the exception of Paris this weekend, the only time we witness the outpouring of emotion is when global brothers are offended and not when others outside of their faith are. Where are the Keffiyeh clad protest marches for the Christians of Yazidi, the Israelis murdered in Jerusalem, the children of Nigeria, the slaughtered refugees of Sudan and even the victims of genocidal war of Syria? Muslim leaders must be brave. They must take ownership of Islamic terror. They must put their arms around it and smother it with love and saturate it with good not evil. Start this in the schools, continue it in the mosques and send it out into the world. Prove that Islam is a religion of love not war. Shunning the terror, ignoring it, excusing it, will just make it breed and prosper.


 

There is a tradition at midnight on New Year’s Eve of singing an old poem by the Scottish bard, Rabbie Burns (not to be confused with the Rabbi Burns). We sing “For the sake of Auld Lang Syne”, it means “for the sake of old times”. We sing it to reminisce for the good old times and we wish for more of the same. This year let us hope, despite the dreadful start, that we can put the bad times behind us and enjoy more of the good ones.

#JeSuisCharlie #JesSuisJuif

#JeSuisCharlie
#JeSuisJuif

Jerusalem Post’s Letter from London 8th Dec 14 and 16 Kislev 5775

The weather in London is getting a little colder, the nights are drawing in, and thoughts on the BBC turn to the Christmas season’s entertainment. Time was we couldn’t wait for the TV Times. But enough of the British sentimentality. And moving on to, British sentimentality.

 

 

TV Times

This week, the Bishop of Oxford, Bishop Harries decided it would be in the best spirit of inclusion and welcome to incorporate tracts from the Quran into the next royal coronation ceremony. It is a charming thought. And one not at all meant to curry favour with Britain’s ever growing Muslim community. Yet to be really inclusive, we shouldn’t forget those in Britain who are already well integrated into the British way of life. The Sikhs, the Hindus, the Buddhists and, of course, the Jews. And then there are those more traditional British spiritual faiths that we mustn’t forget like Quakers, Druids and, well, atheists. I think the TV Times Coronation Celebration Special Issue will be featuring a Coronato-thon of a show with hours of tracts from every faith.

In a further complication, how does Bishop Harries see this working out for the inclusion aspect? In the synagogues around Britain Jews say prayers of wellbeing for the Royal Family, the British government and the British Armed Forces every Shabbat. This is integration and respect for ones adopted community at its best. In other examples, Hindus and Sikhs have long shown their loyalties at their temples to their environment and the nation where they are free to practice their faith without trepidation or threat. Yet on several occasions the suggestion of putting such patriotic narratives into the mosques has been firmly batted back. This lack of reciprocation suggests that Bishop Harries welcome and inclusion is not a two way street.

But back to our fascination with the weather and as it gets decidedly chillier in London, David Cameron took the opportunity to go somewhere even colder. The PM went off to a very frosty Poland. He went to visit Auschwitz. Unquestionably, any man or woman who visits there is compelled to reassess their values and to address their perspectives of humanity. David Cameron didn’t need words to justify his visit. His actions spoke for him. He wanted to reflect and be touched by horror. At a time when we see the heinous cruelty with ISIS, (as Canon Andrew White points out, this is an organisation which is driven without any notion of negotiation towards the destruction of all that disagree or do not meet with their philosophy, nihilists or new age Nazis if you like) maybe the PM wanted to come face to face with the evil so as to understand it better. A chill wind that might blow some good.

He promised to assess how the Holocaust is taught here in the UK and ensure it remains prominent and relevant in our educational curriculum. But also, it was apparent he reached out to the Jewish community here in the UK to remind us that he stands by us. Anti Semitism is rife and his actions reaffirm his real determination to address this. It is not some vote grabbing headline or antic; it is the continued reinforcement of David Cameron’s moral belief. If he wanted to grab votes he might simply take the left’s tactic of appealing to the masses and joining the Miliband-wagon of anti Israel rhetoric to ensure he curries favour with the pro Palestinian lobby. It is a sentiment not lost on the Jewish voting public which is pulling away from its Labour roots in droves.

Finally, the ever erudite Daniel Finklestein got a rather cold reception in some quarters for daring to go all “Jewish humour” on us in The Times. A pity that some couldn’t enjoy some good ol’ fashion Yiddisher self deprecation. Fantastic and very old school.

“30 Reasons why I like being a Jew”. Amongst his amusing musings were:

2 Jews, 3 opinions and 4 cars. We’re never short of a lift home.

Chickensoup with matzo balls. One way to tell a Jew from a gentile. For all Jews chickensoup is one word.

What’s the difference between a Jew and a non Jew. A non Jew pays retail.

But numbers 29 and 30 were, I would suggest, on a level with Richard Pryor’s re-appropriation of the N-word. The last two reasons why Daniel (and I) like being a Jew

29. Control of the media

30. And Control of the international banking system

Bravo!

If there has been a 31st, it might have been “Being a Zionist”. But unfortunately here in the UK, the Z-word is still a little tougher to sell. Even to Jews.

Double Standards

What if…….

…. Jews stood outside a supermarket in Tower Hamlets handing out leaflets stating “Palestinians were murderers and boycott Gaza, the West Bank and Arab states that support them”?
…. Jewish Facebook groups blamed the death of a Palestinian on their faith, suggesting their practices included using the blood of Christian babies to make their bread at Ramadan”?
…. Israeli sympathisers marched on Westminster shouting for the eradication of Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank and proposed sending all of their residents back to Iran, Syria, Lebanon or other Muslim states?
…. Jewish schools taught that killing Muslims was a good thing and handed out sweets every time one such murder occurred?
…. British politicians tweeted that if they lived in Israel they’d probably target and kill civilians in Gaza or the West Bank or that not allowing people to pray is the same as slaughtering those at prayer.

And what if a country’s leaders and their political allies across the world venerated barbaric murder and encouraged and taught that it was just to eradicate another faith, another race.

This week I’ve experienced all of these sentiments and opinions against Jews and Israel.  The perpetrators have delivered these without fear of being ostracised, criticised or criminalised. If you’re in England all of these things meet with wide and hysterical approval if it’s targeted at Jews and Israel and disgust if employed against other nations or faiths.

In the dark shadow of the events in Jerusalem this week, I wrote to David Ward (MP for Bradford in Yorkshire) and Baroness Warsi (who recently resigned from government and was Minister for Faith and Communities) to ask some of these questions.

I wanted to know from David Ward why he said “If I lived in Gaza I’d launch rockets at Israel”. I asked whether using rockets or meat cleavers makes a difference. I wanted to know why he blamed Israel for the murders in Jerusalem as he suggested that Israel was the reason for these murderers actions. I believe that no human being can act like this out of nature, it is nurture. That nurture is the grooming of men and the incubation of terror before exploding that terror onto the streets. It is education demonising Jews and celebrating murder of rabbis in prayer with sweets. It is the promise of veneration and the tacit approval from Western politicians.

I asked Baroness Warsi why, when she said all lives are equal, she made a moral equivalence between the protests disturbing prayers at the Temple Mount and the murder of four rabbis at prayer. She didn’t have the courtesy to answer but left it to one of her staff. Her staff member didn’t answer the question but simply repeated how Baroness Warsi deplored the murders, but deplored the situation too.

To both I repeated that blaming Israel for these crimes is like blaming the rape of a woman on the way that she’s dressed. To both I repeated that Jews are facing unprecedented levels of hatred yet people stand idly by.  But like many, they are more concerned in maintaining this insincere duplicitous agenda against a tiny nation and tiny minority race.

Turning the victim into the victimised. Treating the human inhumanely. Praising the persecutor and justifying the persecution. It’s all too familiar. This week, Alan Johnson in the Daily Telegraph, gave the chilling warning “You ain’t seen nothing yet”, but many have seen it all before, and I have already seen enough.

Alan Johnson article from the Daily Telegraph:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/11243168/Blaming-Israel-for-Palestinian-violence-is-racist-it-denies-that-Arabs-are-moral-agents.html