Jackie Walker hatefest26 Nov 2016. Norwich. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) had organised a ‘fundraising dinner’ with Jacqueline Walker as the guest speaker.

Walker was suspended from the Labour party in May over ‘alleged anti-Semitic comments’, then reinstated. She was then suspended again for further comments she made over security in Jewish schools and criticism over remembrance of The Holocaust. Even the hard left movement Momentum removed Walker from her position declaring her comments to be  ‘ill-informed, ill-judged and offensive’.

Jackie Walker is someone who seems to like baiting the Jewish community. Jackie Walker is someone whose words are too extreme even for Momentum. Jackie Walker is seen as fundraising material for the PSC. That in itself says everything.

The fundraising dinner was set to be hosted in Chapel Field Methodist Church. There were complaints over a church hosting someone clearly viewed as hostile by the vast majority of Jews. The church apologised and at some point on Friday, notified Norwich PSC that they would not be allowed to proceed with the event.

I had a ticket and was unsure whether or not it was still going ahead. The event website had stopped selling tickets. At about noon yesterday, Jackie posted on her Facebook page she was ‘on her way to Norwich’.  The organisers placed a ‘we have a new venue’ post on Facebook too. It was on. Upon arrival at the Church I was directed to the new venue, the ‘Friends Meeting House’, the Quakers building in Norwich.

Food before words

There were about 100 people present. Quite a turnout. This wasn’t however the power of the Norwich PSC, but rather a union of several groups. The church, Stop the War, the PSC, a local Muslim group called ‘The Neesa Project‘  and the Quakers. As I learned through the evening, in Norwich, a handful of activists mesh all these groups together.

On the table with me were about 10 people. Not one a PSC activist. During the introductory speech, I needed to ‘translate’ the words ‘BDS’ to those around me because nobody knew what they were. I was not amidst the already converted. These were local ‘humanitarians’ that were ‘ripe’ for PSC picking. The PSC hosts gave a brief introduction. It is worth watching this short speech as it highlights part of the complex  argument over community pressure placed on venues to cancel events already scheduled:

This was clearly framed as a case of the application of Jewish /Zionist power.  The ‘faith’ comment towards the end of the clip was also troubling, creating the ‘Jew bad’, ‘Muslim good’ equation. 100 people last night had the venue of their dinner changed. Were the people in the room, many of whom had only turned up for food, introduced to the paradigm of Jewish power because of the action of the Board of Deputies?

It is not a criticism. The discussion is a complex one. However people who believe cancellation is a straightforward victory are downplaying some of the inevitable side effects. This issue of ‘power’ was the theme for much of the evening.

Dinner first, speakers later. I dined.  One note on the food. The PSC continually push the notion they are an inclusive group. That the Jews form an integral part of their movement. There was meat served so I asked the question, the meat was Halal. Doesn’t this beg the question, why was a kosher option not available? The PSC proudly display their ‘Jewish speakers’, they applaud their Jewish guests, yet only cater for the Muslim dietary laws.  No room for equality in the PSC kitchen.

School indoctrination

After a tasty Middle Eastern meal, we moved into the meeting room for the speakers. There was a short speech on Balfour and then Nick O’Brien was called up.  Nick was introduced as the Norwich ‘Stop the War Coalition’ Chair. He also teaches at Dereham Neatherd High School. Nick got up to bring poetry to the evening, and the first presented to us was ‘I Come From There’ by Mahmoud Darwish. Then Nick told us he is a teacher. What followed is well worth watching:

The NUT resource material is available online. This is the resource page specifically mentioned. The NUT resource pack was highly criticised for being ‘one-sided’ and was temporarily pulled when pictures emerged of a child involved holding ‘a gun’. The NUT were accused of pushing ‘pro-Palestinian extremist agenda’. The film ‘My Name is Saleh’ is clearly a cleverly made propaganda video.  It is designed to emotionally engage our young children.

However, this teacher is an anti-Israel activist proudly bringing evidence of the minds he has helped to shape. Is there anyone who actually believes the PSC should be in charge of our children’s education? Is there anyone who thinks these 13 year old children have been given a balanced education on the conflict? Was there a video shown to these children to explain just how much harm is sometimes done to the Jewish population as these Arabs just walk by ‘minding their own business’.

This is evidence of propaganda propagating propaganda. How the false narrative spreads unchecked. The tale of the Jewish Nazis who oppress the boy who just wants peace. Proudly disseminated in UK schools. From the entire evening, this was the event that shook me the most. The true meaning still churning me up inside. I still feel disturbed when watching it again, so I leave it to others to decipher fully. Eventually the poetry section ended and it was Jackie’s turn to speak.

Jackie Walker and the invisible Zionist monster

Jackie Walker is lost. Having listened to her speaking of why events have unfolded around her the way they have, she acts like someone who is unable to engage in introspection. Without the ability to search inwardly for any explanation, the only logical reasons for her current position must be external. Hounded, rejected and spurned, the more Jackie feels persecuted, the larger and more powerful the enemy becomes. These wrong turns in the logical process can have serious consequences. Informal fallacies that are built in the mind, can take us to some truly dark places. Jackie Walker is evidence of this.

Unable to see her rejection as simply the reaction of normal people to unacceptable comments, ‘Zionists’ are public enemy number one.  This is how she describes them:

This turns Jewish people like me, into part of a secretly deployed ‘Black – Ops’ force. My opposition to Jackie cannot be because I find her position intolerable, insulting, wrong. But rather because I have been activated through the power and money of the Israeli government. I am ‘Hasbara’, doing the will of the Israeli secret service. This entire global conspiracy works only if you adhere to the image of Jewish power and the sneaky, underhand, divisive, characteristics of classic antisemitic stereotypes.

The rest of her talk was nonsensical. She accused the President of the BOD of ‘welcoming’ Donald Trump, accused the Israel Advocacy Movement of ‘Hacking’ public accounts to ‘bring people down’, distorted the reasons she ran into trouble over her comments, and got entirely lost in the argument over anti-Zionism and antisemitism. These non orthodox anti-Zionists who claim to be Jewish, hang to the argument on an ever weakening cliff.  At a certain point universalist principles turn being Jewish simply into a matter of errant faith.

To me, because we are a people, a nation, secular Jews exist as Jews. This situation distinct from other ‘religions’. My right to self determination as a Jew is a cardinal principle. When the anti-Zionist Jews produce a leaflet suggesting my belief in Zionism is nothing more than a political position, they attack my Jewish identity. If they do not believe in Jews as a people, this is their right, but if Jews are not a people, and if these anti-Zionists are not religious either, then just what Jewish identity are they holding onto? Is it self-maintained simply so they can attack other Jews?

One final video of note. At the end, someone from the Quakers got up to speak. A short video worth watching:

This short clip pushes several awful tricks into just a few seconds of footage. First she speaks of German heroes who stood up against the Nazis by saving Jews. She draws the equation by next mentioning Israeli ‘refuseniks’ who are I suppose, in refusing to put on the IDF uniform, comparable to the ‘righteous gentiles‘. Rounding off the vulgar exercise she mentions Palestinians, who need to display a similar steel of character just to hold themselves back from engaging in violence against those new Nazis. The moral equaivelance engaged here is truly sickening. As if we were not sure of the sentiments,  a direct comparison between Apartheid South Africa and Israel is then made. Evening over.

The entire event was simply a hatefest. One that required Jackie Walker’s expertise to drive home. One has to ask if this is now what the PSC needs to advertise. Are there no depths this group will not sink to?

It was going to be a long drive home, but I had a lot to run over in my mind.

 

Follow, like, donate

Please if you can, consider making a donation. Mine is an independent 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.

Keep up to date, subscribe to the blog by using the link on the page. Follow the FB page for this blog: and follow me on Twitter.

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

125 thoughts on “The Norwich PSC / Jackie Walker fundraising ‘hatefest’

    1. It always makes me proud to be a Quaker when once again they stand up to bullying by Zionist Zealots. The only Church or quasi church to consistently do so.

      1. I am sorry Stephen. I haven’t been paid yet this month, so am currently ‘off work’. If the Israeli secret black ops choose to recharge my batteries, I will no doubt engage you once again.

      2. Mr “I am proud to be a Quaker” Stephen Bellamy,

        Perhaps you would enlighten me as to how the Quakers stand up to “bullying by Zionist Zealots?”

        I do not understand who you mean by “Zionist Zealots.” Who are they? Where are they? How exactly do they “bully” the Quakers?

        Why, as a proud Quaker, do you refer to yourself as a “quasi” church?

        Stephen, what you seem to imply is the existence of a “conspiracy” against the Quakers, as if the Quakers are somehow so important to “Zionist Zealots.”

        You use the term, “Zionist Zealots”, in a very “unChristian” manner. This is because, Stephen, a Zionist is simply someone who believes in Jewish self-determination. Therefore, if you refute Jewish self-determination, this means you exclude Jews from the same rights of self-determination, as other peoples. By so doing, you are claiming that Quakers are acting in a very “unChristian” way. Not only that, by singling out only Jewish self-determination, you are inviting the accusation that Quakers are behaving as antisemites.

        The term “Zealot” first applied to Jews who, rather than live under Roman rule, which prohibited Jewish practice, would rather die. You therefore further insult Jews, who take their Judaism seriously. This is, sadly, another example of your”unChristian” behaviour which certainly many Church officials would condemn.

        Unfortunately, Christians have been behaving rather badly towards Jews for 2,000 years. Next year, is the 500th Anniversary of Martin Luther pinning his 95 theses to All Saints’ Church, Wittenberg. Now, I know you are not a Lutheran, but even the Lutherans area against his antisemitic rants.

        I find it curious that a proud Quaker trolls Jewish websites in order to spew hatred and vile and venal antisemitic statements.I am curious because your activities seem utterly pointless other than giving you some perverse satisfaction in writing your meaningless and unpleasant rants. You seem to be obsessed with Jews, Judaism and the Jewish State, which suggests a kind of morbidity for destructiveness. There is nothing of worth in any of remarks. You want to offend, but alas, what you achieve is a big yawn, for your are neither well informed, nor are you worth the time in reading your trite comments.

        1. AZ they stand up to them by simply telling them to FO in the nicest possible Quaker way of course.

          Who are the Zionist Zealots ? The Israeli Embassy shills. BoD , JLC , CST, BICOM etc etc etc and the sans culottes storm troopers that they manage and fund. Eg SFI and NWFOI and individuals too numerous to mention.

          How do they bully Quakers ? They don’t that is my point. They try notably over the EAPPI programme but don’t get anywhere.

          ” Zealot ” may first have meant that. It has evolved into the language meaning something like fanatical extremist. ” Zealotry” is used by people with no knowledge of Jewish problems with the Romans.

          Nothing and nobody self determines. Otherwise I would be the absolute king of the whole world. Unfortunately other people keep getting in the way. When Zionists talk of Jewish self determination they mean Israel can do whatever the effing hell it wants.

          I describe The Religious Society of Friends as a quasi Church because it is not a church as such but has certain church like characteristics.

          The rest of your post is just very bad poetry. It may be a yawn at my input but it is an extremely extended one.

          BTW I speak for myself not the RS of Friends

          Postscript

          A web site does not have ethnicity or religiosity. That is a category mistake.

      3. The only zealots on display here are obsessive Israel bashers. The Quakers have acted in a disgusting manner, inviting haters like Jackie Walker. This isn’t a discussion, it’s a verbal lynching of the Jewish state and its people. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

        1. The only haters here are Zionists. You know the type of people w ho defend the demolition of Palestinian villages even in Israel to make way for Jewish towns, or who applaud the banning of Arabs from renting ‘Jewish’ property (Safed) or who would defend the new law banning the call to prayer from the Muezzin.

          Israel is a racist state. Get over it. we hate racism and if that makes us haters so be it. By your definition Hitler was a lover!

  1. The Quakers have entirely lost the plot if Stephen Bellamy is an example of their racist bigotry. How ashamed of them would be the Quakers who rescued Jewish children from the Nazis. If Stephen Bellamy had been around then he would have helped send them to concentration camp.

    1. yes, because comparing Israelis to Nazis is a reasonable judgement. So is suggesting Jews who believe in self determination across the globe must all be secretly paid black-ops determined to hunt down people like Jackie and destroy them. No hate at all in any of these positions. That you can seriously listen to the hate that is present in some of these meetings and not identify it (because I believe you really do not see it)… highlights the problem better than any article I can write.

      1. And of course comparing a peaceful demo outside an Israeli shop selling stuff ripped off from the occupied territories to Krystallnacht is a reasonable judgment too. Hey ho we go. ever so high.

        1. You can’t see that mobs gathering to hound Jewish shop owners reminds Jews of similar events in Nazi Germany? You weaken your argument by being so blind.

          1. Except the shops you and I both have in mind are not demonstrated against because they are Jewish owned but because they are closely involved in the Israeli economic exploitation of the territories which, as you well know is a war crime.

            Demonstrations against the Jewish owned bakery, or cobblers shop down the road would be legitimately evocative of events in Nazi Germany.

  2. Only a zionist would call this meeting a “hatefest”. They can’t stand the truth. Remember, this article is a catalogue of opinions, not facts.

    1. Yes and it is a fact that my paid undercover mission is to destroy people who simply criticise the Israeli government policy. That is clearly a factual statement. So is comparing IDF soldiers who line up against Islamic terrorism, to Nazis… that is factual too. Or that everyday, settlers in Hebron steal children’s bags. That too is the absolute truth. Stunning.

  3. “ripped off”? I have VISITED factories in the West Bank, an area occupied by the Arabs that is really part of Israel and should have been annexed immediately after the Six-Day War, and they employ local Arabs, paying them exactly the same wages and giving them the same rights as their Jewish colleagues. As for local Arab industry, there is none, the reason for that is because the sort of people who would open businesses are doing so nicely from the donations given to them from the EU and the Gulf States, among others, that there is no incentive for them to produce anything at all.

    1. What you have described is classic colonialism, destroy local industry, make the colonised dependant on your largesse.

        1. but they do have the happiest Arabs in the Middle East. Unfortunately the ingrates are rarely grateful for the occupation, sorry the ‘return’ to the Holy Land. It must be anti-Semitism that motivates them.

  4. Bellamarse is an antisemitic shit. He knows that his comments get deleted on jc and Jewish news website.

    1. Joseph there is no facility to comment on the JC website. My comments don’t get deleted on Jewish News site. Your surname wouldn’t begin with a W by any chance ?

    1. Interesting. Myself and others were visibly recording using our phones. They were publicly speaking to 100 people, some of whom had their phones aloft. Nobody told anyone to stop filming. Do you think there was an expectation of privacy here? Or is the problem that you are just unhappy about the way I view their politics?

  5. It is well known that the Israeli government spends millions to suppress any criticism of its policies. It has been very successful in suppressing criticism by the US and UK governments, the BBC and most national newspapers.
    I attended this supper and I heard no hate speech, and no encouragement for anybody to break the law or do any violent or illegal act. The only hatred of which I was aware is in the video and statements by David Collier, especially the very offensive “Hatefest” word scrawled crudely across the video.
    David’s website has a headline “The Truth Matters” But the truth is that Israel will go to extraordinary lengths to suppress the truth about its actions.
    Many world religions base their morality on the commandments of Moses.
    Israel, a “Jewish” state routinely breaks these commandments, in the same way as “Christian” states who have made war and invaded other countries.
    Speakers at this event would criticise all such states, not just Israel.

    1. Tom

      It is “well known” that they spend millions to suppress *any* criticism of its policies!! (WOW). Methinks Tom, you spend too much time in a world that does not exist. Have you ever read Haaretz? You do of course know that Israel, as a functioning democracy, has various political parties that spend their entire time *slamming* Israeli government policy.

      The problem is, you actually believe that what you say is factual. That it represents a *hidden truth* that is *well known* amongst those who spend their time investigating (by investigating, I mean reading the latest tweets from PSC, talking amongst yourself and so on.) You probably use Haaretz headlines a lot, because they are so critical of Israel, without actually understanding their existence completely undermines your entire argument. If you spent a single day around a family table inside Israel, you’d understand how absolutely pathetic your argument sounds. As it is, as a naive peacenik from Norwich… you should at least try to build consistency in your argument even if you don’t have the broad range of experience you would need to support it.

      Also as someone who does criticise Israeli government policy a lot, I can tell you that you clearly wouldn’t recognise hate if it stood up and spat at me in the face whilst you were staring at me. I also note you chose to pay to go to see someone who has been twice suspended from the Labour party and ousted from her position in Momentum…The local church also chose not to host the event. If she had been similarly sanctioned for offending the ‘black community’ or the ‘gay community’, I doubt you would have come to this forum to defend her. And before you begin to protest that Israel is not ‘Jew’, let us remind ourselves that the reason for her eventual sanction from Momentum had nothing to do with Israel. Rather, it was comments about the Holocaust and security levels at local Jewish schools. Only Jewish people in this country have to face this kind of blind protection of those that continually bait us.

      As for telling the truth. Yes, this site is certainly set up to do that. I post evidence and I comment upon it. 3 videos. All with commentary. When you compare the victims of the Nazis to the Nazis themselves simply because they are involved in an long standing and ongoing low boiling conflict, I’d say there was a little bit of hate within. So too with the conspiratorial nonsense but then judging by your own comment, you’ve already bought into that part.

      If you ever choose to actually engage the conflict from an academic and serious perspective. One that can critically discuss both sides and seeks real dialogue , don’t hesitate to let me know. In the meantime, I’d advise you to stay well clear of those groups like the PSC, who actually prefer to perpetuate the conflict rather than seek achievable ways of bringing it to an end.

      1. Jackie Walker was first suspended from the Labour Party, an enquiry was held, and she was exonerated. Her second suspension still awaits a hearing, so unless you don’t subscribe to the doctrine of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, your statement that she was twice suspended demonstrates nothing – it is simply a deliberate and groundless smear.

        As for her removal from Vice Chair of Momentum, that was the result of an internal struggle within Momentum and nothing whatsoever to do with the claimed reason (which was not, in any case, anti-Semitism.

          1. Hilarious! And the best example of truth inversion you could ever read! Erm, Stephen, remind me. Who was Labour leader at the time Walker was suspended? Was it a “Blairite?”

            Oh no. Wait. It was the saintly JC himself. He, the victim of these “Blairite purges” and his pals from Momentum who are, by the way, the only group talking about purging by means of deselecting the “traitors” who dare to criticise the Dear Leader.

          2. The suspensions were conceived and implemented by the NEC compliance unit which consists of a handfful of members of the hard right progress organisation and administered by like minded McNicol

            Corbyn had no direct part in, or control over the suspensions. He is, however heavily complicit by virtue of his silence over it. Particularly as the victims got targeted because they were visible supporters of his. This was understandable in the election campaign, he couldn’t be seen whining in advance of the outcome. Now he has no excuse except for the perceived need for party unity.

            However the Labour Party has been seen to be breathtakingly corrupt. There can be no unity until this corruption is dealt with.

            Unfortunately Corbyn is heavily under the influence of Jon Lansman so far as these matters are concerned. Along with McNicol, Lansman has to go. If they could take the abominable Tom Watson along that would be nice.

            I Will let you know after the response to my SAR and appeal hearing. o-)

    2. Yes the hate fest scroll is pretty disgusting. The kind of thing we would expect from the Jewish Chronice, the Zionist answer to The Daily Express. It makes a good headline I guess.I wonder if David would be willing to personalise this. Like name or otherwise identify who was hating and who they were hating.

      Afer the Israeli black ops dept have recharged his battery of course.

      Mention of the JC brings me to an interesting postscript. The abominable Marcus Dysch congratulated the Methodists for heaving Jackie out of their church. Obviously Marcus has no concept of what a church is and what a church is for. I don’t know enough about Jewish practice and religious organisation to know if heaving people out is what happens at synagogues. But a Church of Jesus Christ is meant to be universally inclusive and is meant to be dragging people in not heaving them out.

      Marcus’ ignorance is no tragedy. Ignorant is what he is, always has been and always will be.

      The tragedy is that the Methodist leadership share his misconception.

      1. “But a Church of Jesus Christ is meant to be universally inclusive and is meant to be dragging people in not heaving them out.”

        I am quite certain that Jackie Walker would be welcomed at any church she might choose to attend this Sunday. But being “universally inclusive” does not mean giving a platform to a lady who has a track record of making antisemitic statements.

        It would seem that Stevie B feels differently.

  6. Well known, is it? Well-known to you perhaps, but you are utterly deluded. If you had replaced the word “Israeli” with “Arab” there might have been some sense to it, fortunately the Israeli government has lots to spend its money on, such as granting social security payments and old age pensions to all its citizens, Jewish or Arab, and most members of the Israeli government would find such a statement hysterically funny, in view of the raging criticism of all and any Israeli government policies from within Israel itself. Just look at Haaretz!

  7. Excellent report as usual David . Looks like it’s acted as ‘ chum ‘ to encourage a veritable feeding frenzy of Israel deniers . Some of Bellamy s ‘chums ‘ no doubt

    1. Well done Nemeth. That is called a straw man. You successfully created it and demolished it in a single post. How clever of you.

      BDS isn’t about criticism of Israel is it. BDS is about taking Israel apart until it doesn’t exist. If you scroll back up the thread you will see the comment made was

      “It is “well known” that they spend millions to suppress *any* criticism of its policies!”

      I am sure that even you can tell the difference. Israel is absolutely justified in spending money to counter a movement that seeks to destroy it. What Israel’s enemies have done is pretend (create the argument) that Israel is against all criticism. Therefore naive peaceniks go around thinking Israel spends money to attack those that think it shouldn’t build settlements or should negotiate with Hamas or should pull back to the 67 lines and so on. This simply isn’t true. All of these opinions are represented in Israel’s own political system. So your entire argument fails.

      Additionally. That report above doesn’t turn me into part of a global paid and well trained black ops unit does it? Willing to go out and take ‘Jackie down’ because she takes issue with a few Israeli policies. Couldn’t it simply be that her comments on the Holocaust and security in Jewish schools and Jewish finance of the slave trade (note NOTHING TO DO WITH ISRAEL) were simply over the edge, insulting to Jews and needed to be retracted. Rather than do this, it seems she began to create conspiracy theories. You can walk down that journey with her if you must, the earlier poster Tom Foxe might join you, but I’d hope you will have a little more intelligence than that.

      1. David I know I am in the naughty corner at the mo. but if I might briefly get a temporary pass. There is something I have often wondered about and I am sure you have a view. I am not trying to be cute I really want to know.

        Can something be true and at the same time be an antisemitic conspiracy theory ?

        1. Stephen. I don’t think I have a naughty corner. It is a bit difficult to wind me up with words. As for the question, I’d answer no. Even if you could prove the conspiracy, even if the conspirators were all Jewish, I’d suggest it isn’t the ‘Jewishness’ that is the cause of their deviousness, but rather the ‘human condition’. At least that’s the way I read it. If you are coming at me from a different angle and I’ve missed it, clarify it for me and I will try to provide my thoughts.

          1. Well I think you missed the angle a little. First to say that a bunch of people come together to plan stuff. isn’t necessarily some kind of prjorative.

            I guess an example is in order.

            Suppose I said that the BoD and the CCJ came together to deceive the Bishop of Guildford and stitch up Stephen Sizer I would be accused of expounding an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

            Well that might be the case. I am not concerned here with the truth or falsehood here. What I mean is the truth or falsehood of what I say relevant to whether we are in the presence of an antisemitic trope. Is ” It is true” any kind of a defence ?

          2. Ah, areas people do not like to tread. If it true it is isn’t antisemitism is it, because people who are Jewish can conspire just like all people can conspire. Antisemitism isn’t about whether some of the bad people who exist in the world are Jewish or not. If a Jewish person was to kill a child and drain his blood, accusing him of such wouldn’t be antisemitic. Suggesting his Jewishness had something to do with it, changes the entire equation.

          3. Ah, Stephen suggesting that Stephen Sizer was “stitched up” (i.e. he didn’t really post a Facebook post suggesting Israel had a hand in 9/11).

            That really tells us everything we need to know about both Stephens, really.

        2. So in my example in order for it to be antisemitic be it true or be it false, I would need to add something like, ” and as is well known, Jews do that kind of stuff “?

          1. No, now you have changed track and added a few variables. Let us put Jews aside because it makes people jumpy.

            Let us talk about a police officer and black youth. A police officer can arrest a black youth without it being racist. The black youth can be a criminal. If an officer seems to be arresting a disproportionate amount of black youth, you’d surely start to ask questions. The more disproportionate his actions, the more likely racism is driving the officer.

            The innocence or guilt of the youth is important but is only part of the equation. The motive and reasoning of the officer is also important. What the officer does or does not say is almost irrelevant. You don’t let a racist off just because he learned to avoid saying nasty stuff about black people. Look at his actions.

            So if you fire accusations almost exclusively at black people, it is pretty likely you are a racist. If one of the accusations is right, it changes nothing, you are still driven by racism. So it isn’t about what you do or do not do on that one occasion, it is about how it fits in with the rest of your behaviour. You are focusing on a single example, that is not the way bigotry works.

          2. That isn’t how accusations of bigotry work either David. Jackie has come in for treatment going way beyond treatment handed out to other alleged ” miscreants” .Further what seems to upset certain people the most ( including staff at the Jewish News ) is her being Jewish. She seems to represent a double whammy. Being none Zionist and being black. The undercurrent of racism becomes clearer by the day

            Further it is clear that the persuing of her is both sustained and tightly coordinated. And it extends into the minutiae of her life. Pulling out all the stops to keep her out of a church for freaking hell’s sake.

            If she feels a little persecuted, well, I would too.

            I have not noticed anyone seriously wondering about her motivations. Motivations that you tell us are all important.

            While we are on the subject. What is the difference between what happened at UCL and what happened in Norwich?

            The protestors had the power to occupy a space to prevent someone speaking there. An amalgam of Zionists had their power over a compliant, subservient church to prevent Jackie speaking in a certain space and used it.

            Hello ???????

          3. Jackie has clearly had a difficult year. I try to avoid the simple ‘sinister’ accusations, trying to build a more reasoned explanation for people’s behaviour. Most actions are the conclusion of a logical thought process. Most people believe themselves justified. As I mention in the article, I think Jackie took a serious wrong turn somewhere down the line. I am also troubled by her comments on the Holocaust and on schools. These, like her comments on the slave trade, are unrelated to Israel and do highlight, at best, a deep ignorance. Why on earth did she ‘go there’?

            I am sure she feels persecuted, her frequent protestations about her Jewish identity only make it worse. If I had said something that insulted another group, I would probably have apologised, with or without fully understanding the reason for their protests. I can also draw distinctions between a refusal to back down over the political stance (however wrong I may view it) and the refusal to back down over an attack on a religious or cultural group. Not apologising for being an anti-Zionist is not the same as not apologising for comments about Jewish life outside of Israel. Notice that the hardest hit of the anti-Zionists, all mix and match topics that are completely unrelated to Israel. As if there is a fixation, not with Israel, but with Jews. This is not a coincidence.

            As I also mentioned, this does have side effects. As Jackie becomes more and more ‘persecuted’ by the response to her comments related to Jews, the concept of Jewish power develops more and more in the mind. But this is delusional, and such a process takes place in the mind of all those that lock themselves up in informal fallacies. Perhaps the reaction to Jackie is just a normal reaction given the provocation. Had she apologised rather than reinforced them, those demons in her mind may just have slipped silently away.

            So she now arrives at a point where venues are denied because her appearance can apparently disrupt community cohesion. It is a shame really that the PSC is becoming so redundant, the only way it can attract attention is by platforming those who claim Jewish heritage and who seem to anger the vast majority in the Jewish community by commenting on issues such as the Holocaust. Nowt to do with Palestinians at all then.

            Is it the same as UCL? Really. That is where you want to take it? It is a pretty lame comparison.

    1. you continually create straw men. If Kenya and Uganda and Nigeria pull together to create teams to fight against anti-African racism online, would you even begin to use that to suggest they are simply against criticism of government policy. Of course not. Only with Israel does this type of ridiculous false argument arise. Do not conflate BDS with criticism of Israeli policy nor antisemitism with criticism of Israeli policy. They are both straw men. Therefore the legitimate fight against both has nothing to do with Israeli government policy.

      1. They are asking students to “expand hasbara activities”. That’s code for propaganda for the Israeli state, NOT fighting racism, as I’m sure you are perfectly aware..

        1. My goodness there’s even a Hasbara Handbook on how to propagandise on Isreal’s behalf. I dare say you know all the talking points off by heart.

          1. Here is something from the Zionist Fed

            What Messages Work

            ‘Persuadables’ need to see empathy for both sides
            Explain principles – raise kids w/o hate; children should not be taught to be suicide bombers
            Never justification for deliberate slaughter of women and kids
            Does Israel make mistakes – yes but we want a better future and are working towards it
            Do not be patronizing/paternal. Israel cannot “allow” Palestinians to do things
            Always be positive apart from terror.
            Israel wants peace – most pro-peace speaker will win debate
            Israel long-term commitment to peace. Camp David 1, Jordan, Camp David 2
            Let people know about good that Israel does – alt. energy, high tech, equality (women homosexuals, Muslims) Israel only country in region with women judges in supreme court etc.
            Draw parallels between N. American and Israeli freedoms – democracy, freedom, security
            Don’t talk about religion
            Talk about the future
            How can it be a cycle of violence? If Israel stopped fighting terror would it stop?
            KISS – keep it simple stupid
            Blaming media is not as effective as pushing peace agenda
            Start comment with best, positive message.
            Concede a point. “You make a good point”
            Never be declarative – “Always” “Totally” “Promise”
            Mutuality is a key concept – cooperation, “both have a right to…” mutual respect, side by side
            Iran-backed Hamas; Iran-backed Hezbollah
            “What is happening in Gaza isn’t pleasant but…”
            Don’t blame Palestinians but HAMAS. 52% in Gaza blame Hamas for ills
            There is suffering in Gaza. It is Hamas’ fault
            Israel has a responsibility to its own citizens
            FACTS – how many missiles? What range?
            Use Hamas charter – read it out loudly
            Israel has right to defensible borders
            Don’t talk in terms of 1967 borders – it turns audiences off in best case
            PEACE IS THE CENTRAL MESSAGE
            Share this:

          2. An advisory over which messages work best when arguing Israel’s case? What on earth has that got to do with it. I went myself to BDS training days. So what? They’re allowed aren’t they?

          3. David so far as I am concerned just about everything is allowed except violence. But its also ok to shine a light on what is being allowed.

        2. You are engaged in an argument in ever decreasing circles. See where you are now. Dependent on a single document that was set up to provide a subsidy to some students in return for providing information online mainly inside Israel to other students, but also additionally to fight online antisemitism.

          The Hasbara argument is meaningless because the term is meaningless. You are taking it to mean whatever you want it to mean. It is part of the delegitimisation exercise. Israel is at war with the BDS over the very legitimacy of the state and the well funded BDS campaign spend lots of money spreading lies over the history of the conflict. Countering this is ‘Hasbara’ and has anything to do with government policy. It is funny, considering how much time, effort and money, Israel’s enemies place on their own propaganda machine, that you need to rely on a this to demonise Israel in 2016.

          I am also aware the page title places the date as being an archived document from 21/10/2004. From this, you have created a global conspiracy of black operatives in 2016 that hunts down Momentum activists worldwide and treats them as a hostile army. Nicely constructed conspiracy. No chance Jackie just overstepped the line locally and was dealt with by internal UK political forces. Oh no, it has to be the global Zionists. Stunning.

          1. Actions by the Israeli state or the student body have nothing to do with “global conspriracies”. That is one hell of a ludicrous reach. You accuse me of straw man arguments but use them freely yourself.

            “Students offered grants if they tweet pro-Israeli propaganda. The students making the posts will not reveal online that they are funded by the Israeli government, according to correspondence about the plan revealed in the Haaretz newspaper.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/students-offered-grants-if-they-tweet-pro-israeli-propaganda-8760142.html

          2. you are taking this down a rabbit hole. You keep coming at me as if Israel is not engaged in a PR war over its existence. Fighting against the delegitimisation campaign of BDS and fighting online antisemitism are perfectly legitimate positions for a nation at war to undertake. I am not sure with whom or about what you are arguing. The existential fight, like the fight against racism (antisemitism) are both legitimate and not concerned with individual Israeli policies. It isn’t hard to understand.

            Jackie walker suggested something very different. She spoke of Black Ops treating her as a legitimate target and like a foreign enemy army. Placed alongside Hamas and Iran. She said it is worldwide. If you do not buy into this ridiculous global conspiracy, then great, but then I am not sure why you picked up that mantle in the first place.

  8. Another enlightening article, David. You deserve great credit not just for highlighting these public hate meetings, but also for engaging with the “comments of contempt” that are increasingly clogging up your threads.

  9. EUMC WORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM
    WORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM
    The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism.

    Working definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism 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 collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

    Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

    Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

    Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

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

    Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

    Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

    Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

    Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

    Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

    Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

    Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

    Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

    Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

    However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

    Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

    Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

    Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

      1. And your problem Bellamy is that there is no such thing as antisemitism unless it ‘s spelt Islamaphobia . In any case you have no more right to tell Jews what is or isn’t antisemitism than a white person has to tell a black person what defines racism .

        1. Jews have no more right to tell us what ” antisemitism” means than anyone else has. The meaning of words and expressions is not established by decree or by bums on chairs around a table. Or by Jews or anyone else saying it means what I mean by it. That idea was one of the surer signs that Humpty Dumpty was nuts.

          They are established by observation the sum force of the uses of the expressions by the speakers of the language. In the case of English . 1.5 billion of them. Natural language is the most democratic of phenomena. Sorry Harv, we are not going to be disenfranchised by you.

          If you are unsure of the meaning invest in a dictionary.

          1. That’s where you are wrong and what qualifies you ( among a host of other reasons ) as a classic antisemite .

      2. That’s some combination Bellamy .
        Intersect between Irish Provos and Palestinian solidarity. Next up Hitler and Mussolini .

      3. In 2005, the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), adopted a “working definition on antisemitism” which has become the standard definition used around the world, including by the European Parliament, the UK College of Policing, the US Department of State, and the 31 countries comprising the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. In 2016, the powerful House of Commons Home Affairs Committee joined Campaign Against Antisemitism’s longstanding call for the British Government and its agencies, as well as all political parties, to formally adopt the International Definition of Antisemitism.

        You are wrong again Stephen

        1. https://bookburnersrus.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/lets-get-clear-about-this-eumc-definition-nonsense/

          ” We are not aware of any official definition of antisemitism.”

          ” We have never viewed the document as a valid definition of antisemitism”.

          ” The document has been pulled along with other NON OFFICIAL documents”.

          ” The Agency does not need to develop its own definition of antisemitism in order to research these issues” .

          ” The Agency has no mandate to develop its own definitions.”.

          An FRA press officer went on to explain to the BBC Trust that the definition was ” never adopted by the European Union.”

          The European Commission Directorate emphasised ” Neither the Commission nor the European Union have an established definition of antisemitism and there is no policy to create one.”

          1. Stephen I think you are being disingenuous. We all know that several legal definitions are in play across the globe and all you are doing is deflecting by arguing over an acknowledged *fact* that there is no accepted legal definition that works across the board here. Rather than say what is not antisemitism, what I would like you to do is give examples of what is antisemitism. Not about Jews, but connected to Israel. It has to be accepted that antisemites wouldn’t think much of a whole nation of Jews, so how can we identify when comments about Israel cross the line. Let’s say you provide us with 3 examples, related to Zionists or Israel, that you personally would accept as antisemitic. Is there such a thing?

        2. I don’t think there is anything you can say about Israel that establishes antisemitism unless you attribute the pejorative to the the fact that there is a Jewish majority in Israel. Like if you also say something such as ” But then Israel is awash with fucking Jews so what would you expect”.

          Of course the person in question may well be antisemitic and what is said may be motivated by antisemitism but you need to show this independently of discourse on Israel otherwise the argument is circular.

          OK maybe not quite that. The discourse about Israel may be supporting evidence I guess.

          Like I think that Israel is a crappy racist, kleptomaniacal basket case. If you want to establish that I am antisemitic you can’t rely on that. You need to show some hatred of, / and or wish to discriminate against / and or a wish to persecute / Jews.

          There is no room for argument here. That is what the expression ” antisemitism “means. If you stood on a random street in your town and stopped 100 people and asked what they understood by the expression, I can as near as makes no difference guarantee, that Israel wouldn’t get a mention. Myself and my daughter have actually done that, except it wasn’t 100 people it was more like 270. And you guessed it, Israel didn’t get a mention.

          Of course, it would be reasonable for you then say that this probably went a long way to explaining why I think Israel is a crapppy, racist, kleptomaniacal basket case.

          1. Let me rewrite that last para.

            Of course having established that I am antisemitic it would be reasonable for you to then say that my antisemitism probably goes a long way to explaining my thinking Israel is a crappy racist kleptomaniacal basket case.

            If I said stuff that was a bit marginal vis a vis Jews,, that arouses a suspicion, then you can reasonably regard a virulently pejorative attitude to Israel as grounds for further suspicion, perhaps.

            The idea of a ” legal definition ” is nonsense. Language doesn’t work like that. If there were an absolute monarch of the English speaking world. that decreed from now on THIS is what it means it wouldn’t change the meaning one iota. He/she would have to find a way of forcing the language speakers to to use the expression with the kind of weighted force necessary. And it would be that that changed the meaning., not the decree.

            The meaning of words and expressions is beyond the reach of governments , courts , and the idiots spewing antisemitism reports.

  10. You can’t even spell Kristallnacht! It is EXACTLY the same thing, except that Kristallnacht was state-sponsored and the disgusting hounding of more than one business was passed over in silence by the authorities (to their utter shame). By the way, I am delighted to own up to possessing a Sodastream machine.

  11. Sodastream moved to a new plant in the Negev and over 500 Palestinians lost good jobs, which are now being done by Jewish and Muslim Israelis.
    I have no idea what resources can be plundered from the West Bank as there are no resources to plunder.
    Labour was not being plundered as it was being payed at well over the going rate for other Palestinian workers.
    So what is/was plundered; pray tell

  12. I have a copy of the document downloaded a few days ago
    It is a definition accepted by quite a lot of organisations and countries and is probably the most widely used document on Antisemitism available.
    Your ignorance of it does not mean that it does not exist; it means you are ignorant of it and the fact that it is extensively used and quoted

  13. according to Jewish Law she is not Jewish as her mother was not Jewish (as far as I am aware) as Judaism is taken from the matriarchal line.

    1. Not just that Richard . Just like Greenstein and the rest of the motley crew of ‘ As a Jews ‘ , her supposed Judaism is merely a device to deflect genuine accusations of antisemitism from within the Palestinian Solidarity cause. After all, how can the movement be perceived as antisemitic when all these ‘ good Jews ‘ are involved . Same for Neturei Karta . Jews on the extremes margins even by ultra orthodox standards .
      So not Halachically Jewish and not Jewish by tradition , adherence to the religion etc . All these wretched individuals bear no more than a vapour thin connection to the wider community .

      1. When the term ‘as a Jew’ was used at Oxford by Zionist students, apparently others mocked it. The Janet Royall inquiry found this was anti-Semitic. Harvey Garfield has no problem in mocking it himself, but as a Zionist.

        But yes, some Jews retain the integrity and honesty to say that we condemn all forms of racism, be it anti-Semitism or Zionism. The kind of racism that allows the demolition of a Bedouin village al-Hiran in the Negev in order to make way for a Jewish town.

        It is irrelevant if Jackie is Jewish according to Halacha or not. Firstly she is recognised as Jewish by Liberal/Reform/Progressive Jews. Secondly she is a Jew according to the Israeli Law of Return as amended in 1970. The Law of Return is modelled on the Nuremburg Law definition of a Jew. Indeed it is wider! I won’t comment on the irony or Harvey’s ignorance.

        1. Hey Tony. It is my nation you keep arguing about. The place my kids were born. And you, despite waving your arms in the air a lot, are not going to be able to turn the clocks back. It happened, it is history. With so many ethical arguments on both sides, we can disagree between today and the next century over the level of unfairness of the events as they unfolded, but the crap we see lying around on the floor today are the pieces we need to put together. Our disagreements over the causes, the rights, the wrongs, the effects, are all secondary. You only perpetuate suffering by refusing to accept what cannot be changed. Yours is a wasteful argument that harms those you suggest you stand beside.

          Israel is far from perfect, but then so is the UK. Racism in Israel, yeah, racism in the UK, oh boy yes. Hey, you place yourself on a pedestal, feeling superior to those around you, you just use different criteria to arrive at the same point as others. The superior clique of those that deny the substance behind the existence of cliquedom. Big applause for the enlightened. You confuse issues though, just as you do with the situation of the Bedouin. Similar issues arose in the 1950’s as they sought to dismantle Maabarot. Those people were Jews. You turn every social issue in Israel into evidence of racism. It is a convenient weapon for you, however inaccurate sometimes. You need it to build an excuse to attack Israel behind its 1949 borders. You even use some of the effects of Arab nationalism to argue that Israel’s actions are racist. Absurd.

          Rather than throw stones from afar, why not go over there and try to make it better. It is a democracy, with a need for those who seek to improve the lives of its citizens. If we were over there and you were fighting for equality inside Israel, heck, I’d support you. Let’s face it, as implausible as you find the notion, if our lives as Jews were to deteriorate to such a degree over here, you would seek refuge there. That after all, is why it exists in the first place. Because our future as Jews in the Diaspora was always dependent on history unfolding around us kindly. Sometimes it doesn’t.

          ‘As a Jew’, yeah, it is lousy. Personally, I think everyone is missing the big picture. History unfolds slowly. The diaspora existed for a long time, reacting to the ebb and flow of persecution and temporary acceptance. In good days, the Jews assimilated, in bad, their Jewish identity galvanized. Today that equation has changed. Israel exists. There is a convenient blindness that assumes the Diaspora and Israel can exist in unison on the same planet. I’d argue there is no reason to believe this is true, rather I’d suggest the future of the diaspora is bleak and headed for turbulent waters.

          Which at the moment makes Jewish people such as yourself and Jackie useful to Israel’s enemies. Which is why you have weight above your numbers and are shown illusionary respect by those who utilise your identity as a way of inflicting harm upon your extended family. The microphone that is placed in front of you when you speak, is there because you are Jewish, not because of what you believe. This in turn creates a dynamic all of its own. I am sure you see large demons just as Jackie does when she looks in her rear-view mirror. One day, I hope we can sit down over coffee and you can tell me all about them. I find the subject fascinating.

          1. Some random Jewish guy on the Clapham Omnibus…..

            ” Um well I don’t do this Zionist stuff. In fact I don’t like it one little bit. But these Zionist guys have good Jews and bad Jews and I would be a bad Jew. Anyway if anyone listens to me it will be just because I am a Jew. I better just stay quiet”

            How do you get to have a microphone David? Because it is well known that you are invariably just so goddam right ? Because you are so voluble it is impossible not to hear ? I dunno.

            And you have the chutzpah to talk of people and demons. David, take the log out of your own eye.

            It is you that sees demons literally everywhere.

            It is you that labels anyone whose perspective is different to yours as participating in a hate fest.

            It is you that makes like everyone that has a perspective different to yours wants to kill you.

            For what it is worth ( not very much I imagine) I think your work and writing would greatly benefit from you turning down the patronising tone a little.

          2. Oh Stephen. Your tone has changed. Are you having a difficult morning? It is odd that you speak of microphones, when our only contact happens on this site. You choose to give me a voice and to pay attention to it, why not turn that question round on yourself. How / why have you given me a microphone?

            As for the remainder of your post, I stand on a particular and rather fluid point in a spectrum defined by perspective. Because of the way this works, almost everyone disagrees with everyone. People just align more closely with some than they do with others. The vast majority of peoples opinions therefore differ to mine. I visibly have little trouble with almost all of them, which tends to deflate your argument completely. However, I clearly do have an issue with those who seek to focus on and demonise the one tiny sliver of democratic land in the Middle East. If it makes you feel better to suggest this makes me intolerant, or suggest I see demons everywhere, then you are free to pursue this line of thought regardless of how blatantly errant it may be.

          3. I wouldn’t say a bad morning. A moment of exasperation perhaps.

            Why have I given you a microphone ?

            ” because you are Jewish, not because of what you believe” maybe ?”

      1. Harv you are telling ME this why ? What care I for The New Statesman. To be honest I have more affection for The Jewish Chronicle. At least the JC is a decent laugh

  14. Hate Crime What is it?

    A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

    If you, or anyone you know, has been called names, been bullied or had anything happen to them that you think may be because of one of these factors, then you should report this as a hate incident. Even if you dont want the incident to be investigated, it is important that the police know about it, so that they can build up a picture of how many incidents are happening and where. This information can help police investigating other hate incidents.

    Not all hate incidents will amount to criminal offences, but those that do become hate crimes. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the CPS have agreed a common definition of hate crime: “Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”

    UNLESS they are Jews…..in which case everyone else will decide for them.

    1. what utter rubbish. Hate incidents are anything u think is such, regardless of objective evidence. So calling a fascist a fascist is a hate incident? or a racist Zionist a racist Zionist (e.g. Harvey) is a hate incident? or calling my wife’s cat ‘mouse’? Utter nonsense. All this ‘hate incident’ nonsense depoliticises racism and other forms of bigotry reducing it to personal animus. The ACPO/CPS definitions has no legal standing (assuming it is a correct translation) because it misses out a little question of evidence, proof, judicial determination etc. Things aren’t what they are just because someone says they are. They have to exist in fact, independently of the subjective interpretation of the ‘victim’.

      Is the perception reasonable in all the circumstances? is a question that is usually asked. A criminal offence is something that a court of law determines as such, not the perception of the person who makes the allegation. What this is all about is Zionists who feel the heat because they don’t like to be called out because they are racists and worse

  15. The pussyfooting around definitions of antisemitism is another ploy adopted by antisemites to disguise their racism. David Hirsh provides an excellent definition in his book “The Left’s Jewish Problem”. Another way of defining antisemitism is that it is very easy to distinguish between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel. And you don’t have to be a non-Jew to be antisemitic, the German courts have created a precedent by prosecuting a Jew for antisemitism.

    1. Haaa antisemitism means what the megalomaniac David Hirsh means by it. Fraid not. It means hatred of Jews, discrimination against Jews, prejudice against Jews or some combination thereof. It is a perfectly well understood expression. If Hirsh or anyone else wants to quit speaking English and speak a private language he is free to do so. Except that a private language is no language at all.

      1. yes of course anti-Semitism is anything us Zionists say is anti-Semitism. We get to define it as criticism of the apartheid state of Israel. Of course genuine bona fide anti-Semites like Trump’s Steve Bannon of Breibart aren’t anti-Semitic, even though they run a website full of anti-Semitic shit because they love Israel.

        Except you can’t be racist against a state, since it’s not a human being. Another attempt to protect the world’s most racist state.

  16. It was a definition
    It is simple and concise
    Because you post a link of your own waffle does not mean that this definition is either worthless or irrelevant.
    Nitpicking over definitions that perfectly illuminate why six million Jews could be mass murdered by industrial means with nary a peep of dissent from the great and good of the world, puts your mendacious put downs of this document in perspective
    Therefore as a Jew I accept the EUMC working definition of Antisemitism as the document of reference.
    I find it both disingenuous and disgusting that non-Jews attempt to try tell me what is, and is not Antisemitism; that in itself is a form of Antisemitism
    And on that note I close my participation in this discussion as I have both a life to lead and other things to do

    1. Richard the active ingredient in my waffle was the FRA waffle.

      ” We are not aware of any official definition of antisemitism.”

      ” We have never viewed the document as a valid definition of antisemitism”.

      ” The document has been pulled along with other NON OFFICIAL documents”.

      ” The Agency does not need to develop its own definition of antisemitism in order to research these issues” .

      ” The Agency has no mandate to develop its own definitions.”.

      An FRA press officer went on to explain to the BBC Trust that the definition was ” never adopted by the European Union.”

      The European Commission Directorate emphasised ” Neither the Commission nor the European Union have an established definition of antisemitism and there is no policy to create one.”

      Reply

    2. Nitpicking over definitions indeed. The Working Definition was rejected because it att empts to elide criticism of the racist State of Israel with genuine anti-Semitism. Yes we tell you what anti-Semitism is just as u try to tell others what anti-Semitism is. Your Jewishness is irrelevant since what counts is your Zionism and racist bigotry. I’m also Jewish but an anti-racist and anti-Zionist Jew.

      Anti-semitism is quite simple. Hostility to Jews as Jews. Simple. Even a Zionist should understand that one!

  17. So where’s your hatred for those Arab countries who expelled their Jewish populations, not because they in any way supported terrorist incursions but merely because they were Jews….not Israelis, or even Zionists, just Jews who had lived in those countries for centuries? Where’s your hatred for those countries who refuse to let Jews in even to visit, …again not Israelis, just Jews? Amd where’s your hatred of those preachers who claim that Muslims have a religious duty to kill Jews wherever they find them….yet again, not Israelis, not Zionists, just Jews?

    You see, your refusal to shout out, demonstrate or protest THEIR actions which are not done because of any, even remote , fear of those Jews yet continually condemn Israel, as a Jewish state, with a real fear of attacks which are ongoing on a daily basis IS antisemitic BECAUSE you are clearly holding the Jewish state to a standard which you do not hold any other state to. You are hoist with your own pétard sir.

  18. If Jackie Burns were to consult Marion woolfson’s Prophets in Babylon or many similar books, e.g. Tom Segev’s writings she would find that the Jewish population of Iraq weren’t expelled. It was Zionist agents who simulated anti-Semitism throwing bombs into Jewish synagogues and cafes which caused the stampede in 1950-1. As we see today with the Zionist Organisation of America’s welcome to Steve Bannon of Breitbart, Zionists love anti-Semitism because it drives Jews to Israel

  19. Rewriting history doesn’t make lies true, Tony. Why am I not surprised that you apply the taqiyya belief?

  20. Zionism is based on the rewriting of history. Israel is constructed ideologically on the basis of foundational myths – from the ‘return’ to the Palestinian refugees ‘voluntarily’ leaving to the Holocaust which has been refashioned as a Zionist myth whereby the Zionists fought rather than collaborated.

    What happened in Iraq was covered in detail in Israeli papers such as Haolem Hazeh, Black Panther as well as in the individual testimonies of the Zionist agents such as Naim Giladi. Only suckers like you believe the lies that the Zio state poured forth.

  21. I don’t know what you have been sucking, Tony but it has clearly addled your brain.

    1. Tony. The trouble with anti-Zionists is they always try to both have their cake and eat it. Considering where you sit on the political spectrum, I find it difficult to digest that you use Zionist actions to belittle the expulsion of the Arab Jews. You make no such calculations about external interference when you deal with the Nakba. Given also that the anti-Zionist argument suggests the Arab Jews were unwanted second class citizens, it seems odd now that you are trying to suggest Israel was so desperate to receive them, it was actively pursuing them all over Arabia and North Africa.

      I have no doubt that there are examples of some activity. There are always examples of almost any activity on all sides. It is how conspiracies are built. However almost all, like my wife’s father, fled in fear or were expelled. The documentation is overwhelming. My wife’s father was expelled from Egypt in 1956. Her grandfather’s business was seized, his bank account confiscated and for his freedom, and the freedom of his son, he needed to sign them all away. Your position is entirely destroyed when we also take into account some of the very violent actions that led to Arab Jews fleeing long before Israel even existed.

      Yet you treat all these victims with disdain. Can the UK kick out, or chase away, its Muslims because of what is occurring in the Middle East? Are we justified in doing so? If we do, would you Tony, ever dream of hiding or distorting such a diabolical act? Because that is what you are doing here today. It is shameful. Only with you, as we see the way you treat this expulsion, perhaps it is different with the Jews. For example, what type of twisted logic would ignore the effects of the introduction of Nazi propaganda when discussing the fate of the Jews of Iraq?

      I also take offense at the use of the word ‘racist’ to describe Zionism. Whether it suits you or not, Zionism was designed as a response to persecution. A ‘safe house’ for the Jews. At its core, the exclusionary nature of Zionism is a response to the racism of others. In this way we can compare its origins to other ‘safe houses’. Jews didn’t single themselves out, they were singled out by others. Just up the road from me is a house designed to protect women from abusers. Every single facet of that house carries a headline of ‘sexist’. There are even angry men outside sometimes trying to get in. What would you call those angry men Tony? Zionism is no more racist than a home for battered women is sexist. Both are designed to protect the victim from the abuser. Now, we can argue about the way Israel acts, some of the historical events, and whether or not the entire enterprise is justified. But the Zionism = racism accusation is disgraceful. Until you are willing to call for an end to the home protecting the women from the angry men on the grounds it is sexist, I suggest you back off a little.

      Finally, can you keep it somewhat civil please. You are free here to push your beliefs, however errant they may be. I only ask that you do so politely.

  22. The call to prayer is not being banned in Israel; unless you want to mangle the meaning of words.
    This law is simply to curtail the volume of the loudspeakers on the minarets.
    Remember in the time of Muhammad there were no loudspeakers or mobile phones. The call of the muezzin to prayer was called by voice only. Therefore it is quite possible to prevent the use of sound amplifiers for the call of prayer without limiting freedom of religion.
    That is unless you are a knee jerk hater that decries anything coming out of Israel that is proposed by Jews.
    How is it that the call to prayer in the UK is not an issue. Perchance its because the amplified sound of the call to prayer in the UK would breach, at the very least, noise pollution legislation.
    The over reaction to this legislation is driven by an anti-Israel bent far divorced from either the practicality or logic that would be displayed in reference to other countries

  23. illegal villages are demolished in every country of this world.
    If anyone is talking crap it is you

  24. You weary me your with your pusillanimous repetitions about Israel causing the Jews of Iraq to flee.
    If the Jews of Iraq had left without the Iraqi state forcing them, they would have left with their possessions and wealth. Yet they left these all behind and landed in Israel penniless
    Also , no ethnic cleansing regime in the world leaves those being ethnically cleansed to remain in the country. Within a short period of time almost the entire Jewish population of Iraq was expelled; as happened to Jews throughout the Arab/Muslim world/. And the wealth and possessions they were forced to leave behind far exceed in value that left by the Palestinians when they fled Israel during and after 1948
    Finally , how much money and resources did Israel possess in the early 1950’s that they had the supposed ability to send agents all over the Arab world to cause Jews to flee. The new state of Israel was financially broke and ravaged after years of war, and there was no spare money to invest in such endevours
    Your logic and reasoning concerning these matters is disingenuous as you continue to manufacture facts to suit your bias’

    1. I suggest you try reading something for the first time in your life which isn’t Zionist harbara. There was an agreement between Ben Gurion and the Nuri e Said that the Iraqi state would take their possessions and in consequence the Iraqi parliament passed legislation enabling Jews to give up their citizenship. The Zionists wanted a working class and were willing to forego any material possessions. It’s called Cruel Zionism and we see that again today with Israelis openly welcoming US anti-Semitism as a means of dislodging the comfortable diaspora.

      No illegal villages aren’t demolished everywhere in the world you fucking racist.

      Only in Israel is a village established for 60 years as a result of previous forced dispossession then rendered illegal in order to allow a legal Jewish town in its place. You have the mentality of a Jewish Nazi you are utter scum

  25. Re the Jews of Iraq: they lived in Iraq long before the Islamic era and were in all walks of life, from the poorest to the wealthiest. Many stayed on as long as they could but the tide of antisemitism became too great as successive dictators (with the exception of Qassem) used them as scapegoats for the country’s ills. There are no musicians left in Iraq, the music industry was almost entirely Jewish. See and hear the memoirs of Moshe Kahtan on YouTube.

  26. yes that’s right. The oldest Jewish community in the world which the Zionist agents who also operated in other Arab Jewish communities were determined to uproot to provide Aliyah fodder for Israel. It is all documented

    Uri Harari described the ‘logic’ thus:
    When we hear of riots, pogroms or hanging (of Jews) we seethe with anger and justly so… Still later and deep in our heart there is also a tiny flicker of vicious joy…. we sometimes forget the negative aspects of Zionism, its cruel worldview… But does the state of Israel have duties towards Jews who can immigrate to the country and do not wish to do so? Furthermore do we have the right to tell them, “We know better than you what is good for you and we shall therefore act to get you to immigrate to this country, we might even act in order to facilitate the deterioration of your situation (in the Diaspora) so that you have no other choice but to immigrate to Israel.” One should note that this last question is not imaginary. We have already had to face this question in very concrete situations and we may have to face it again in the future. [Uri Harari, ‘Our Responsibilities Towards the Jews in the Arab Countries, Yediot Aharanot, 9. 2. 69 cited in Uri Davies Utopia Incorporated, pp. 18/9, Zed Press, 1977.]

    What Uri Harari described in 1952 had already occurred in Iraq, Egypt, Morocco and Algeria. In Iraq, Zionist emissaries had been operating since the beginning of the Second World War. Haganah had infiltrated the British army, who were stationed there, and had easy access to arms.
    Accounts of what happened in Iraq are described by the Guardian’s former Middle East correspondent David Hirst, , Marion Woolfson Abbas Shiblak and Israel’s Black Panthers.
    Baruch Nadel, a journalist on Yediot Aharanot, asserted that Ben Gurion had arrived at an agreement with Imam Yahya of Yemen, Nuri e-Said of Iraq, and other Arab rulers. The Zionists agreed that the Arab rulers should take possession of the wealth of the Jews in return for allowing them to emigrate to Israel.
    As a correspondent in an Israeli newspaper noted, one of the richest Jewish communities in the world had lost everything. From a highly educated group with a very large proportion of university graduates, it was reduced to one that was poorly educated, oppressed and discriminated against by Israel’s Ashkenazi dominated society. Kaduri Saleem, who was injured by the bomb at the Masuda Shemtov claimed in Black Panther, the militant paper of Israel’s Oriental Jews that ‘I was hurt by the bomb… The Court of Law established that the bomb was thrown by the Movement. The Israeli Government has to give me compensation.’
    (Saleem) lost his right eye at the door of the Masuda Shemtov synagogue. ‘I was standing there beside the synagogue door…. Everything went black around me. I felt something cold running down my cheek, I touched it—it was blood. The right eye. I closed my left eye and didn’t see a thing.
    Gilbert Achcar described the reaction of Iraqi Jews to Zionist attempts to portray those who were hanged as heroes; ‘This is God’s revenge against the movement that brought us to such depths’
    Black Panther 9.11.72 ‘The Iraqi Jews and their coming to Israel’ cited by Davis & Mezvinsky, p.130.

    Under the heading ‘Self-defence against persecution’, Encyclopaedia Judaica explained that:
    In June 1951 several dozen Jews were arrested, a few of whom were accused of planting bombs. In December 1951 two of them, a lawyer, Joseph Basri, and a shoemaker Abraham Salih, were condemned to death. They were hanged publicly in January 1952. Salih was in charge of the Haganah arms caches. He broke down under questioning and took the police from one synagogue to another, showing them how he had hidden his weapons.

    These two young men had been active in the clandestine Hehalutz, established in 1942. In 1951 they decided to hide the arms and were caught, together with other members of Haganah.
    Sassoon Khedduri, Chief Rabbi of Iraq explained that ‘The Jews – and the Muslims – in Iraq just took it for granted that Judaism is a religion and Iraqi Jews are Iraqis. The Palestine problem was remote and there was no question about the Jews of Iraq following the Arab position.’
    HaOlam Hazeh, an Israeli satirical weekly, published by Uri Avneri, who was then a member of the Knesset, wrote that it had decided to tell the story because all those who had been involved in the events in Iraq, with the exception of the two who had been hanged, were in Israel. Part of the article was later reprinted in Black Panther and Middle East International.
    On one point all the immigrants who followed the Iraqi affair closely or were involved in it, including the families of those who were hanged, were agreed. They praised HaOlam Hazeh for its decision to expose the secret. The time has come for the people of Israel to know what efforts were made to bring the Jews of Iraq to Israel and what they left behind them.’
    Besides Joseph Basri and Abraham Salih, other Zionists involved included Mouzad Kazzaz who, changed his name to Mordechai ben Porat. He was the local commander of the underground. Haolam Hazeh referred to Yehuda Tajar, a Haganah agent who became a Defence Attaché at the London Embassy, as ‘the big fish’ in the affair. Tajar was sent to Baghdad in 1950, but he was arrested because he was recognised by a Palestinian working there. Ben Porat blamed Tajar for the arrests as the Iraqi detectives found his notebook in which were written the telephone numbers of the Zionist agents. Released after ten years, Tajar told all to HaOlam Hazeh, which published an account of the emigration of Iraqi Jewry based on his testimony. Porat claimed that anti-Jewish elements in Baghdad had thrown the bombs. A number of the emissaries have admitted the part they placed in the affair. One such was Naim Giladi, who wrote a book discussing how Zionist movement planted bombs in Baghdad. Giladi, when he came to Israel, helped form the Black Panthers in disgust at the racism Oriental Jews experienced.

  27. Al-Shawaf | The Exodus of the Iraqi Jews
    Iraqi Jewry
    On the eve of their exodus, there were up to 140,000 Jews in Iraq, [2] where
    they had maintained a presence for some 2,500 years. The majority resided in
    Baghdad, where they comprised over one-sixth of the capital’s population, while
    other significant concentrations could be found in Basra and Mosul. Jews were
    well integrated into Iraqi society, being especially indispensable to the economy;
    the Jewish community was heavily involved in finance and import. Iraqi Jews also
    played an important role in the emerging Arabic literature of the period, and were
    the most prominent and skilled of Iraqi musicians.
    Apart from the struggle between Arabs and Zionists in Palestine/Israel, which led
    to discriminatory employment measures against Iraqi Jews during the 1936-39
    Arab rebellion in Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, two local events shook
    the Jewish community of Iraq in the 1940s. These were the Farhud of 1941 and
    the trial and public execution of Shafiq Adas in 1948. The main feature of the
    Farhud, which means ‘breakdown of law and order,’ was a massacre of Jews during
    a power vacuum. Although many Muslims were also killed, the violence largely
    targeted Jews, who suffered disproportionately and may have been targeted because
    of their perceived sympathy for the British reoccupation of Iraq. In addition to
    the deaths and injuries, [3] many Jewish-owned shops and businesses were looted
    and destroyed. Seven years later, the trial of Shafiq Adas, a prominent Jewish
    businessman accused of having sold scrap metal to Israel, made even the most
    prosperous and well-connected members of the Jewish community realise that they
    were not immune from anti-Zionist purges. Adas may well have been innocent, a
    scapegoat for Arab military failure in Palestine and a symbol at which Iraqis could
    vent their anger at Zionists, but he was found guilty and publicly hanged.
    Generally, however, the position of Jews in Iraq was secure, and relations between
    Jews and their Muslim and Christian neighbours were not characterised by
    communal feuding. Yet in 1950, after rising illegal emigration (to Israel) and
    Western pressure on the Iraqi government, a law was promulgated allowing Iraqi
    Jews to forfeit their Iraqi nationality and emigrate. The reason such a law was
    considered somewhat liberal was the open secret that many of the emigrants would
    go to Israel, with which Iraq had just been engaged in war and refused to recognise.
    In March 1950, then, the Iraqi government promulgated Law 1/1950, or the
    Denaturalisation Law, to facilitate the denaturalisation of those Jews wishing to
    emigrate from Iraq and go to Israel. ‘The Iraqi government’s main justification for the
    Democratiya 7 | Winter 2006
    | 66 |
    law was the rising rate of illegal Jewish emigration’ (p. 105). The Iraqi government
    had also been subjected to criticism in the Western media due to reports of the
    mistreatment of Jews. Most of these reports were exaggerated and some wholly
    untrue, having been deliberately fabricated by Zionist emissaries in Iraq in order
    to gain international support for the cause of evacuating Iraqi Jews. [4] The Iraqi
    government thought that the new law would allow those Jews unhappy in Iraq – at
    most some 7,000 – to leave, but that the vast majority would remain. 9 March 1950
    was the day the Denaturalisation Law came into effect, and 8 March 1951 – one
    year later – was set as the deadline for prospective emigrants to register. [5]
    When it became clear that the number of registrants was going to include virtually
    the entire Jewish community of Iraq, the Iraqi government decided that it had to take
    action to prevent the outflow of capital. Though most Iraqi Jews were comfortable
    – not affluent – those who were members of the higher socio-economic classes had
    much of the country’s wealth concentrated in their hands. The loss of such wealth
    would have adversely affected the Iraqi economy. The fact that this capital would
    have made its way to Israel, a country whose founders had just expelled much of
    the native Arab population, presented an added political risk insofar as the Iraqi
    government was concerned. As a result, a day after the expiration of the 8 March
    1951 deadline for registration, the Iraqi government announced that the assets of
    all registrants – who now included all but 5,000 Iraqi Jews – would be frozen. This
    Property-Freezing Law caused much consternation among the registrants. Indeed,
    one of the ironies of this entire affair is that the mass exodus of Iraqi Jewry might
    never have occurred had the Jews known that registration for emigration would
    mean the loss of their property and assets.
    Between April 1950 and June 1951, five terrorist bomb attacks occurred against
    Jewish targets and places frequented by Jews in Baghdad. The attacks occurred on 8
    April 1950, 14 January 1951, 14 March 1951 (according to Gat, 19 March 1951),
    10 May 1951, and the night of 5-6 June 1951. The devices used were hand grenades,
    small bombs, or small explosives (with these planted in advance). Casualties
    were not high (Shiblak and Gat provide differing figures), but the attacks clearly
    unnerved the Jewish community. Few Jews signed up between 9 March 1950, when
    the Denaturalisation Law came into effect, and 8 April 1950, when the first bomb
    was thrown. Yet in the period between 9 April 1950 and the registration deadline
    of 8 March 1951, during which the second bombing occurred (on 14 January
    1951), virtually the entire community of Iraqi Jews signed up for emigration. A few
    months later, almost all the Jews of Iraq were in Israel, the result of an airlift dubbed
    | 67 |
    Al-Shawaf | The Exodus of the Iraqi Jews
    ‘Operation Ezra and Nehemiah’ [6] by Israel and its Zionist emissaries in Iraq.
    The identity of those who perpetrated the terrorist bombings, and the role these
    attacks might have played in prompting the exodus, are debated to this day. While
    Abbas Shiblak believes that the bombings were the work of Zionist emissaries who
    succeeded in their cherished aim of stampeding the Jews of Iraq to Israel, Moshe
    Gat argues that the attacks, which he presumes were the work of Iraqis of extreme
    Arab nationalist persuasion, did not spur the exodus. Gat believes that the lifting of
    martial law on 18 December 1949 and the enactment of the Denaturalisation Law
    in March 1950 enabled the majority of Iraqi Jews to leave a country in which they
    had grown to feel uncomfortable and even unsafe, especially as a result of events
    in the 1940s. These events included the farhud, the trial and execution of Shafiq
    Adas, the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and a wave of arrests targeting Jews in OctoberNovember
    1949 after the discovery of the illegal Zionist underground, an event
    which threw the Jewish community into disarray and forced the resignation of its
    head, who had largely failed to ameliorate his community’s woes. [

  28. when your argument descends to the level of personal insult and cursing/swearing , then you have no argument. Your language and argument are bereft of value as you meander about cherry picking any facts that you can use to try and demean Jews and Zionists
    You have been at it for so long that you mindlessly believe anything that denigrates Israel
    Do continue though as most of us are well aware of you and your narrative and have moved on to other greener and more interesting pastures

  29. what a depressing dialogue of the deaf. hardly edifying or enlightening to those who would like to see: an end to Israel’s occupation, a recognition of the fact that Israeli settlements have continued to receive government support as they expand further into ‘Palestinian’ territory, and some kind of one state arrangement in which Jewish, Arab Christian and Muslim identities are recognised and ALL citizens have a democratic voice and systematic defence of their human rights, and Jerusalem as a recognised and respected heritage centre for ALL. The issue of the so-called ‘right to return’ is more problematic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *