Last month I published a report investigating hard core antisemitism within the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC). Despite focusing on those pushing Jewish conspiracy tales or Holocaust denial, Mondoweiss, and other anti-Zionist Jewish forces, felt compelled to attack me for it.
The report into antisemitism was clear cut, and I am sure alarm bells rang throughout PSC HQ. Although I have not yet received an official response for saving them time and highlighting bucket loads of antisemitism within their organisation, the PSC can thank me later.
When I compiled the report, I attempted to remove all references to the Israel / Arab conflict and focus on classic antisemitic tropes. I also sought to ensure that only real activists would be included (impossible to seal hermetically, but I certainly tried). I tried only to catch serial offenders.
Despite the research receiving wide coverage, there was no public comment from the PSC, or indeed from any of the anti-Israel activists. Privately however, there were some dark days and I received numerous threats. Then, last week, someone called Jonathan Ofir wrote a piece published in Mondoweiss attacking the report. Following this, the UK based group ‘freespeechonisrael’, reposted the piece. So happy were the Jewish anti-Zionists in the UK, that the URL of their page reads ‘ofir-demolishes-david-collier’. Demolishes? Wow.
This entire response by these anti-Zionist Jews is sickening. Not because of the attack itself, but because of what they felt compelled to protect – hard core, rabid, Jew hatred.
The Mondoweiss gutter attack
The attack on the report is empty. The research is built on three central pillars. Firstly, that the antisemitism exists. Secondly that most of the activists mentioned are connected to the PSC and finally that the concentration levels (of these antisemitic activists) is extraordinarily high. To break down the research academically, you would need to attack those elements or explain the activity and presence some other way.
At no point does Jonathan Ofir do this. In fact, he accepts that the report “catches a whole lot of awful stuff.” He goes on to admit many of the posts are “horrible” and suggests that some of the antisemitism presented “should not be allowed or accepted in any circumstance.” He rounds off by accepting that perhaps the antisemitism “should be looked further into and investigated.” It would be safe to conclude that Jonathan Ofir visibly accepts the underlying logic of pillar number one.
And despite 3500 words and a detailed look at the screenshots, the report wording and my own website, pillars number two and three are never challenged. Ofir’s article in Mondoweiss is the work of an amateur trying too hard. Ofir distorts, he twists and he deflects. He deploys a strategy of ‘shoot the messenger’.
Jonathan Ofir doesn’t seem to know how to critically analyse academic study. Either he is simply incompetent or deflects from malice. As I tend to believe most people act from sincere intention, we will have to settle with incompetence. A long list of straw men are created as he strangely seems motivated to limit the damage the report can do. You cannot help but ask why Jonathan Ofir felt the need to write an article deflecting criticism of hard core antisemites? And then try to understand why Mondoweiss published it?
The random and the personal
So, if the research was not academically attacked, what did Jonathan Ofir write about for 3500 words? He spends the first 1200 words or so, loosely collecting comments I have made, trying to attach me to media sources and ideologies he considers extreme and building arguments built on logical fallacy.
Like almost all my work, my report was originally published on my own website. Ofir chooses to focus on a site that reposted it and introduces it as “an op-ed posted on the religious-nationalist outlet Israel National News”. The classic ‘guilt by association’ opening gambit. When someone does this, and in the very first sentence, you know there is no intention of playing straight.
I am not going to spend much time on these attacks, because it was all so random and ineffective. For whatever reason, he feels the need to describe my logo. He becomes fixated with suggesting I am biased. He returns to ‘bias’ on three separate occasions. In my own ‘about Me‘ page I say this:
“I found myself a man without many friends. It doesn’t mean I do not have bias, I do. I am 100% a Zionist”
Which he clearly must have read. In fact, he quotes from the paragraph that comment came from. The fixation was pointless. We are all inherently biased. But pretending to prove an empty point whilst having been given that quote on a plate suggests dishonesty or forgetfulness. Once more, in the interest of providing the benefit of the doubt, let us stick with forgetfulness.
Straw man after straw man
“Although it claims to be concerned with human rights, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign is not a movement of peace, but rather a group that seeks to push Palestinian political ambitions.”
And suggests I state that “seeking to ‘push Palestinian political ambitions’ is simply anathema to peace and human rights”. Ofir goes on to reinforce the point: “He couldn’t be more clear about that.”
Sorry Jonathan, but saying something ‘is not the same as’, does not mean it is ‘opposite to’ or ‘repelled by’. Still. Another straw man created, another 155 words written.
The next argument based on false logic occurs in the very next paragraph when he attacks my comments over anti-Zionist deflections on antisemitism. I point out that no Zionist is suggesting all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. He has a problem with this but becomes lost in a convoluted and nonsensical argument that I imagine made sense in his head. Remember, as my report set out to disconnect itself from this very discussion, Ofir spends a lot of time trying to divert attention back to the conflict. Needless to say, the image on the left speaks for itself. The anti-Zionist Jews have created a straw man argument and are currently pushing it down the throats of anybody willing to listen.
Eventually Ofir turns his attention to the report. Of over 200 screenshots from the report, Ofir seem to take issue with about seven. Ironically, it is when Jonathan Ofir attempts to attack the posts themselves, that he highlights how little he understands about the research, how artificially he approached his own task, and more worryingly, how blind he is to antisemitism himself.
The hopeful examples of Jonathan Ofir
His begins by criticising a screenshot from page 9 (‘5 Mossad agents’). For whatever reason he has completely ignored the issue of serial offenders, so absurdly spends time arguing over a single post about 9/11 conspiracy. Two adjacent posts show the same activist posting that al Baghdadi is a Mossad agent and that the French shootings are possible false flags “to stifle the growing European sympathy for the Palestinians”. Clutching at straws by suggesting the 9/11 article isn’t as bad as the clearly distorted ‘Mossad agents’ headline suggests, is at best limited thinking, at worst deliberately deceptive.
Next is a comment about a screenshot on page 11, ‘the complete guide to killing non- Jews’. The same issue. On the same page, that activist posted that al Baghdadi is a Mossad agent, and suggested the French attacks are false flags. But this activist has four example posts, not three, and the last one is about Israel seeking to become a ‘world power’. An article from the website “The Ugly Truth”; a site that loves conspiracy stories and which uses the byline ‘Intelligent anti-Semitism for thinking Gentiles’.
He makes the same rookie error again (surely this all has to be deliberate?) on page 19, where he talks of a post about ‘Greater Israel’. Yet the same activist has four other posts on the same page. One claiming Israel has brought “some 25,000 Ukrainian children into the occupied entity over the past two years in order to harvest their organs”. The next was that Israel took out the Egyptian flight that crashed, MS804. The final two, I will show in a screenshot. That Mondoweiss can be creating smokescreens over this type of classic Jew hatred is mind numbing
The second strategy was to deflect from the subject, rather than the activist. Wherever possible Ofir distracted attention by introducing subjects such as the ‘Yinon Plan’. He is clearly desperate to bring this back into a discussion about Zionism and Israel, something the report deliberately set out to avoid.
But you cannot discuss the Yinon Plan as a way of diverting attention from the ‘Israel is ISIS’ accusation. Which is exactly what Ofir did. Nor can you mention a 2009 Guardian article about organ harvesting as a way of deflecting attention away from accusations Israel kills Palestinians, or imports Ukrainian children to steal their organs. These do not equate. This is a perverse attempt to deflect attention away from the very real Jew hatred, and classic antisemitic tropes the report brings to light. This is what Ofir said:
“Now, I could say more about this, go into more detail. I could go in depth into why one of the subjects which Collier presents as the worse-of-the-worse – Israeli organ harvesting – is in fact a rather uncontroversial finding.”
See the deflection? I never touched on the 2009 Guardian article (he references) and it was not mentioned in the report. What I did, was take suggestions from 2014 and 2015, that Israel kills people for their organs or imports Ukrainian children to steal their organs and label it a classic antisemitic trope. Try as I might to give Ofir the benefit of the doubt, in the end even I was losing patience. These were examples of the posts I raised an objection to, the ones that Jonathan Ofir felt a need to deflect attention from:
Blind to antisemitism
Another highlight occurs when Ofir seems to suggest we discard the remarks of the activist (!), because the link itself isn’t as bad as the Activist comment suggests. This from page 45. Be prepared to read it twice:
“Could it be that Collier regards the activist’s heading to be problematic? It says: “We no longer have a democracy when the Jewish lobby can tell what we can and cannot discuss. With 80% of the Conservative Party belonging to The Friends of Israel group it is no surprise.”
Ofir then goes into a discussion about the Al Jazeera ‘lobby‘ documentary. Apparently because he personally believes the article itself to be legitimate, the activists added comment about ‘the Jewish lobby’ becomes what in Jonathan’s eyes? Acceptable? If Jonathan Ofir cannot see or acknowledge blatant antisemitic tropes when they reach from the page to grab him, he had no business looking at the report at all. Astonishing.
And that is it. Jonathan’s dismissal of my report in Mondoweiss is complete.
How such a second-rate analysis can be considered fit for publishing highlights the lack of cohesion of the thinking behind it. There doesn’t need to be an argument, there just needs to be 3,500 words of fluff so people believe the subject matter has been addressed. Embarrassing really.
Jonathan Ofir is a musical conductor based in Denmark. He seems relatively new to the activist scene. As an Israeli, he will be used and in demand. The anti-Zionist Jew, especially one with an Israeli passport, is a tradable commodity.
Some Zionists seek to create a science around these people. I think it a misguided approach. Each and every society has outcasts, these are ours. They are as interesting an anomaly as people who think they have been abducted by aliens. I don’t know why Jonathan Ofir felt comfortable swapping one mythical narrative for another, but today he believes in myths all the same. He may believe he has become intellectually ‘free’, in reality he has replaced one ideological shell with another (smaller) one.
What is certain is that jumping ship will take them from obscurity to the limelight. Before the transition, Ofir received no social media attention. Today, his posts are quickly shared. That some of those sharing his posts number amongst the people posting antisemitic conspiracy theory doesn’t seem to bother him. I am not a psychologist and it is for others to discuss motivations. If it were not for our enemies, these people would remain obscure. What raises them from insignificance, is the hate others have for Jews. If they are comfortable with this, I feel sorry for them.
The Mondoweiss piece was reposted on the website ‘freespeechonisrael’. A website created by Jewish anti-Zionists in the UK like Mike Cushman and Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi to suggest the Jewish connection to Zionism isn’t rock solid (it is). Jews who have dedicated their lives to deflecting issues with their own internal demons by attacking mainstream Jewish identity and thought.
Look at Naomi. She is free to do what she wants, as each of us are. She can marry whomever she pleases and hold whatever ideological stance she finds attractive. Naomi Wimborne was free to marry a Muslim, and become Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi. She was then free to name their child after the 36th sura of the Koran. I wish her and her family only happiness. But, given her life choices, is Naomi really in a position to talk publicly as if she is representative of British Jewish identity? At every event, every demonstration, this woman provides cover for those that hate Jews by cruelly suggesting they do not exist.
She, along with others from her group were present at the demonstration on the 6th February. The demonstration used as a case study in the report. Standing next to Naomi, were scores of people that have distributed truly horrific antisemitic posts. People who engage in holocaust revisionism and denial. Those that believe Jews control the world. As the report shows, this wasn’t one, or two individuals, but rather, many demonstrators. How does this group respond? By reposting an article that attempted to divert attention from the content of the report itself.
This website, and those that support it, have given cover to blatant Jew hatred. Nothing to do with free speech about Israel at all. They are deflecting criticism about people who share Nazi ideology. Absolutely shameful.
The very Jewish state
I have probably spent more time amongst Palestinians in the West Bank than the Danish ‘musician’ and most of the Mondoweiss mob. Cushman and Wimborne-Idrissi too. I can assure them aligning with Jew haters won’t see the Palestinians make any political advances.
It is true I find the entire Jewish anti-Zionist cause pathetic. When I speak to them, they seek to remind me that many Jews prior to Israel in Europe were anti-Zionists. But those people are not the anti-Zionists of today. They opposed a theoretical position. Furthermore, and a point the modern anti-Zionist Jew always skips over, is that the vast majority of European Jewish anti-Zionists of the early 20th century, burnt, along with all their family members, in places like Auschwitz.
The anti-Zionist Jews today are ‘destructors’, not ‘constructors’. Sitting in the comfort of London, New York or Copenhagen, they seek to fight a nation that they want no part of. Oddly they claim it is not a ‘Jewish state’, whilst at the same time they attack it because they are Jews. An odd bunch who for the most part have left ‘being Jewish’ behind, yet for some reason cling to an obsessive hatred of a Jewish state that has no part of their lives. If you want confirmation that Israel is the nation state of the Jews, look at what nation the anti-Zionist Jews target.
Anti-Zionism is a career path for failed Israelis. An ex-pat Brit who hates everything about the UK, can only resort to using whatever skills they possess to make a living wage. Having an Israeli passport, or being a Jew opens up a whole range of possibilities. For those with low-self-esteem, personal issues of unfulfillment or childhood playground scores still unsettled, the glare of the adoring Jew haters is an enticing option.
The shaming of Mondoweiss
And of course, Mondoweiss published the original, shameful article. An article about a report that does not deal with the Israel/ Arab conflict at all, but rather highlights the presence of hard core antisemites who have attached themselves to the Palestinian cause. The response of Mondoweiss? Deflection.
These anti-Zionists are people who are visibly deflecting criticism of hard core antisemites. So much so, they become attack dogs, picking on any Jew that has dared to highlight Jew hatred.
The article about my report on Mondoweiss is evidence of an unforgivable and disgraceful strategy. A badge of shame for the editors to wear. Mondoweiss – is this now where Nazi ideology is given protection? How sickening.
Perhaps we need to thank Jonathan Ofir, Mondoweiss and the UK Jewish anti-Zionist gang at FreespeechonIsrael for the clarification. If there was any doubt before that these people have completely lost all sense of what is morally acceptable, we have just had it thoroughly confirmed. Shame on them all.
Follow, like, donate
Please if you can, consider making a donation. I believe that attacking the lies and distortion for what they are is important. We need to be there to expose it. Mine is an dependent action and research is expensive and time consuming. Even producing just one of these piece does take days, sometimes weeks, and whilst I do what I can, there are serious constraints that impact on what is possible. Your assistance can and does make a difference. Every contribution is greatly appreciated.