Tollcross Community Centre

In Edinburgh they are still promoting SPSC antisemitism

The more I engage with antisemitism, the more I realise that when it comes to people who hate Jews, most people really do not care. What happened this week in Edinburgh is a good example.

Two months ago, my report into the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign was published by Jewish Human Rights Watch. The research identified incredibly high concentration levels of antisemites within the SPSC. In fact, when it comes to their leading ‘on the street’ activists, the report found over 40% of them have shared highly offensive antisemitic material.

The findings suggested a correlation between levels of Jew hate and levels of anti-Israel activity. It is something we always knew existed, but were unable to show in detail. The report succeeded because it separated comments about Jews, from comments about Israel, before drawing them all together again to highlight the relationship. Recent academic research by Daniel Stajecki, discusses an ‘elastic view’ of antisemitism and further cements the existence of this connection.

My report into the SPSC suggests pockets of hard-core antisemites congregate wherever public anti-Israel activity is undertaken. Groups such as the SPSC (and the PSC in England and Wales) become magnets for Jew haters.

Yet if we are to gauge the dangers of antisemitism properly, we shouldn’t look at the groups like the SPSC, but rather, how wider society deals with these groups. In an ideal world, antisemitism should be roundly rejected and vilified. However, this knock-on ‘rejection’ simply isn’t happening.

Initial outrage

After the SPSC report was published, a few media outlets ran stories calling for a societal response. In the Telegraph, Andrew Percy MP suggested that ‘we must acknowledge we have a problem‘. John Mann, head of the parliamentary body tackling anti-Semitism also called forurgent action‘.  Other MP’s including from Scotland, spoke of the findings and the need to take action. In the Scottish Sunday Times, Alex Massie said the report ‘is a clear warning for platform-sharing politicians‘.

The report was sent to many political figures in Scotland. In an ideal world, the job is done. Everyone knows now and nobody would give Jew haters a platform.


In the real world, the SPSC simply do not care. They brushed off the report with empty personal attacks and suggestions the people (their own activists) in the report do not represent them. This from their response:

Collier’s attack on SPSC as ‘antisemites’ and ‘Holocaust deniers’ is part of the Israeli Embassy’s widely publicised campaign against the BDS movement.. The end result is that nasty stuff by individuals most of us have never seen is listed by the Israeli Embassy front man as supposed proof that the ‘core membership’ of SPSC is involved…. Collier doesn’t only work with a keyboard – he is part of a team that actively disrupts Palestinian support activities on campuses…. All of them report back to the Israeli Embassy.

Firstly, I have never disrupted a meeting in my life, nor am I a member of any ‘team’. Secondly I entirely reject any notion that my opposition to Jew hate, is somehow part of an official ‘Israel Campaign’ (a good moment to point out to the SPSC that accusations against British Jews that they report to the ‘Israeli Embassy’ is, well, antisemitic). Finally, their dismissal of the core activists as ‘having never been seen’, by Mick Napier (SPSC Secretary) and Sofiah MacLeod (SPSC Chair) is simply absurd.

5th October 2017, Edinburgh

At this point, we can bring into the discussion an event that was held on October 5 2017. Hosted by Edinburgh PSC and the SPSC.

SPSC Edinburgh

The speaker at the event was Khaled Khalil.

Khalil 17

Incredibly, Khaled was included in my report (p124-125) because of several hard-core antisemitic posts he had shared. So the SPSC, who have been through this report , must know this too. Yet still they create events with him as the speaker.

The posts of Khaled Khalil

These are just some of the social media posts, that the SPSC speaker has shared. BE WARNED, some of the links in this section may not be safe to open within a work environment.

Khaled Khalil 1

The YouTube video link is here. Powerful Jews controlling world events, forcing nations to go to war for their own gain.  It suggests Germany found out that the Jews were responsible for their defeat in World War 1. Thus German anger towards Jews becomes understandable. Germans were angry and the Holocaust becomes punishment for Jewish treachery.

Khalil 2

This is the link to the video. This one talks about how Rothschild owns all the central banks and has manipulated everyone into attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, mainly through the use of the 9/11 ‘false flag’ attack on the Twin Towers.

Khalil 3

This is a link to the video. The video discusses the ‘Jewish war on terror’.  The Charlie Hebdo attack becomes a ‘lesson in Israeli payback, due to France voting for a Palestinian State at the UN‘.  Going on to point out ‘the Jews have descended on Paris’, ‘bringing their clash of civilisations with them‘, ‘where civil strife brings on a Jewish police state‘.


This post is long, and contains a long list of Facebook links to ‘prove it’s point’ and to give the reader further information about the twisted ideology behind it. These links highlight the mindset of those that share it. Have a look at some of them:

Khalil 7

Jews, Jews, Jews. Jews killing Jesus, Jews and ritual killings, the New World Order, Israel is ISIS, attacks on Jewish religious writing and Jews faking hate crimes. The word ‘Zionist’ doesn’t even get a mention. Many other links not in the image, dealt with Rothschild or 9/11 conspiracy. An entire library of hard core antisemitic tropes, and a vilification, not of Zionism, but of everything Jewish.  This is the link to the video on the Talmud, talking about how some Jews disguise themselves to pretend to be like ordinary people.

Khalil doesn’t just share one or two posts of this type. He shares many:

Khalil 13

And so many of them are about ‘Zionist’ control of the United States. Jewish manipulation and control of the world. He wants everyone to understand ‘what is going on’. Khalil also pushes the Israel is ISIS conspiracy:

KhalilAnd shares conspiracy posts by David Icke:

Khalil 15

This is the person that SPSC ‘knowingly’ invited to be the main speaker at their event.

The Edinburgh venue – Tollcross Community Centre

In the two months since the report was published, the SPSC have hosted events featuring several of those people building careers on the back of their own, or other people’s antisemitism. Both Jackie Walker and Thomas Suarez toured Scotland in August. Jackie Walker is completely lost inside a dangerous ideological straw man of her own making, and Suarez wrote a book that distorted history to such a degree it is no longer recognisable. So where does a group so tainted with antisemitism hold its events? The answer is that the event on the 5th October, like many SPSC Edinburgh events recently, was held at the Tollcross Community Centre in Edinburgh.

I am aware that others have written and complained to the Edinburgh Tollcross Community Centre about hosting such events. The Edinburgh venue is a public building, the centre is inside a school, and email enquiries to this centre even use a school email address. I am also told that emails are rarely, if ever responded to.

In my own email to the centre, I simply asked:

‘I am writing a piece on the event, and obviously your hosting of it & provision of legitimacy for a hate-group forms part of that story. I would like to understand how such a group can gather to hear a speaker inside a school venue just weeks after the report was published (and widely commented on). The report suggests 40-50% of those who gathered last night on your premises share hard-core antisemitic views. Do you have examples of events you hold where Islamophobes can gather? How about hard-core anti-black racists?’

I am unlikely to get a response, and will certainly not have the central question answered. But if I were to receive a response, then who would write it? It is time to meet the manager of the Edinburgh Tollcross Community Centre:

The Venue Manger

David Hewitt is Facebook friends with both Mick Napier (SPSC Secretary) and Sofiah MacLeod (SPSC Chair). He is also the Manager of the Tollcross Community Centre. His Facebook profile is not open, but some posts are still public. This should give us some clues:

David Hewitt

According to Facebook, Hewitt was also at the May 18th Edinburgh protest, when Israeli Ambassador Regev came to the Scottish Parliament. Here is another public post:

David Hewitt 2

The article pushes the line that nobody has been as good as exploiting 9/11, than Israel, because: ‘no one is as good as the Israelis when it comes to exploiting opportunities and events.’ Even horrific tragedies it seems. Those pesky Jews are feasting on blood again. Hewitt like many anti-Israel activists, shares fake news and uses extremist sites for information.  Here he is pushing David Icke:

It isn’t just Icke. Hewitt is a ‘CLD worker‘,  who is supposed to work on inclusion and social justice. He shares posts from websites that hold reprehensible views

Hewitt 4

Ignore the headline. As Muslims are massacred throughout the Middle East, and Christians also face persecution (or genocide), the article wants to suggest that those Arabs, Muslims and Christian, inside Israel, are the ones in ‘real danger’. We are used to these lies that anti-Israel activists share as ‘truth’. However, I want to focus on the website, ‘‘. Hewitt has used it as a source more than once. The website contains a range of documents that support the idea Israel is a ‘bad place’ that has to be destroyed.  Along with articles on prostitution and drug abuse in Israel, are articles on abortion and Gay & Lesbians.

Now I am not for one minute suggesting David Hewitt has a problem with homosexuality. Far from it. I fully believe he would be horrified to learn he is sharing material from groups that consider liberal gay rights laws as a valid reason to boycott Israel. What this shows, is how anti-Israel activists have a blind reflex with Israel. They link with conspiracy theories and hate groups and extremists, because that is simply where much of the anti-Israel material is being born. They don’t assess the source, it is enough that it is in the ‘hate Israel’ camp.

If I were to send a message for David Hewitt, it would only to suggest he looks long and hard in the mirror. He has entered a world where he shares posts from David Icke, false news sites and places where homosexuality is considered a crime against humanity.  He probably discusses people like me with those that run the SPSC. Inside his world now, I have become the problem, because I oppose the hard-core antisemitism being given air inside his community centre. He protects groups that line up speakers who promote anti-Jewish hate speech. Somewhere along the line, he has taken a wrong turn.

The one in the group

This highlights the difficulty of the fight we are in. Whilst we are mainly passive, these ‘haters’ are aggressive. Single actors in a variety of settings become ‘enablers’. In unions, on councils, in schools. Intersectionality drives their strategy and in every setting where just one single member of the group has been tainted, the poison is spreading.

In this example someone who shared hard-core antisemitic material was a speaker at an event held by a group known for hard-core antisemitism. Yet such poison is still allowed to spread inside a school setting, just two months after the groups antisemitism had been laid bare.

This isn’t an exception. In February, my report into antisemitism inside the England & Wales PSC threw light onto the activities of Tapash Abu Shaim. A PSC activist who had helped run the PSC stall at the 2016 Labour Party Conference. Despite this receiving national coverage, despite complaints to the Labour party. Nothing changed. As I reported from the 2017 conference last week, Tapash was there, back at the PSC stall. Once again my own research is being shared, but if people are looking to groups like the PSC or SPSC, or even political parties like Labour, to ‘self cleanse’, they misunderstand the depth of the problem.

On every council, in almost every school, in every community centre, wider society is not dealing with toxic groups the way that it should because of individual sympathisers who have become activists. It takes just one member of the group to have ‘fallen into the trap’ of believing that antisemitism cannot exist where a humanitarian flag is waved. Where that happens, hard-core antisemitism is promoted and allowed to spread.  When left unchallenged this turns each environment into a hostile environment that sees Jews as the problem.  Because of this, society is not dealing with Jew hate in the same way it does other forms of racism. We have a real fight on our hands. We cannot stop, we cannot relax. Not for a second.


Help support my research

I fight antisemitism and the revisionist narrative that removes context and demonises Israel. My research is intensive and I am currently working on both short and long-term projects.

This research does make a difference. I was recently named as one of the J100 (top 100 people positively influencing Jewish life) by The Algemeiner. The generous donations I receive from the community allow me to carry on with this work. I am independent and cannot continue without your support.

Please if you can, consider making a donation to help with the fight. I believe that attacking the lies and distortion is vital. We need to be there to expose it. We need to research the facts to tell the truth. Even producing just one of these pieces 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.


166 thoughts on “In Edinburgh they are still promoting SPSC antisemitism

  1. Phew – The videos are bad enough, but the responses are frightening. When you scroll down to the feedback and comments, it reads like the Völkischer Beobachter. However, we must not be intimidated. NEVER AGAIN.

  2. …’when it comes to people who hate Jews, most people really do not care…’ True. But at least there are some who do.

    1. you are right. In fact, I almost edited that sentence out before posting. I think the problem is that most people, even most of those that ‘care’ are not equipped to handle the ‘I am an anti-Zionist, not an antisemite’ argument. Worse still, when the ‘haters’ use Jewish outliers like Peled or Blumenthal to support the case.

  3. All because others try to re-brand Israel as ‘the Jewish State’ when Israel is NOT the Jews. Most Jews(ie the majority of world Jewry) prefer not to live there and are no doubt not supporters of its brutish, illegal measures. Feel for you, David.

    1. Primarily your post makes no sense whatsoever, but the ‘intent’ is obvious. As rampant antisemitism existed before Israel, a politically motivated attempt to blame Israel for antisemitism becomes odious. The victims become responsible for the hatred towards them. How awful a position you have taken up, all so you can take a swipe at Israel.

      1. Sorry if you can’t follow my post. The fault lies with yourself. Nowhere did I take ‘a swipe’ at Jews. My intent is to remind readers that Israel does not equate to the Jews, as the Islamic state of Isis doesn’t equate to Muslims, the majority of whom also don’t live there and on many equations condemn its actions. Is criticism of any state/country to be dismissed as invalid by your euphemism?

        1. Once again, I am left try to understand why someone is so certain that his particular method of deflection will work. The post is about antisemitism. The article lists numerous examples of antisemitism. Israel has nothing to do with any of this. Further, as antisemitism was around long long before Israel, attempts to make antisemitism ‘all about Israel’ are pretty odious.

          You said:

          All because others try to re-brand Israel as ‘the Jewish State

          which clearly blames antisemitism on everyone’s shoulders but the antisemites. And attempts to blame the victims of antisemitism for antisemitism (93% of Jews identify with Israel). Now you even try to draw parallels between Israel and ISIS. All quite a disgusting strategy really. So putting your blatant attempts at deflection aside, what did you think of the examples of antisemitism in the blog?

  4. We now seemed to have established that Israel is NOT not the Jews and criticism of Israel and its methods are in no way an indication of antisemitism. I am of the opinion that the constant reference to Israel as the ‘Jewish State’ does not help the interests of Jews worldwide. It maps Israeli humanity to the humanity of Jews and could possibly, even probably account for some antisemitic feelings. I suggest that part of the blame for ‘Jewish’ having negative connotations is the constant Jewish State references. But back to the blog.
    You will have to point out specifically the antisemitic examples that you wish me to comment on. It does seem that there is dislike and criticism of the Rothschilds, whether for their actions or for them being Jewish. Loath to say, given that posters to the various are told on many occasions that only Jews can define just what is and what is not antisemitism. I myself would recognise the IHRA definition of “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.”. Other supposed examples such as drwaing parrallewls between Israel and the Nazis are ridiculous for as you say this has nothing to do with Israel. Just to say that personally I feel that accusations of antisemitism with the Labour party are unfounded even given reerences made by Mr. Livingstone, none of which could possibly be classed as breaching the definition that I recognise above.

    1. Not sure what you mean by saying Israel is not the Jews. It isn’t a point I have conceded, it is a point I have said is irrelevant. Simply restating this irrelevance over and over again carries as much wierght as trying to pretend we have ‘established’ something because of it.

      I was just talking about people who do not reflect on the Rothschild posts as being antisemitic. You can see my comments in my response to Jane.

      Drawing parallels between Israel and the Nazis is clearly antisemitic. Israel is in no way at all similar to the Nazis. It is a deliberate slur. Throwing a banana at someone is disrespectful. Throwing it as a Scotsman for example, may see you get punched. But it isn’t racist. Throwing a banana at a black man however, most certainly is racist. And entirely unacceptable. A vile disgraceful racist attack. So whilst I can argue that banana throwing is merely disrespectful, I cannot argue that thrown at the wrong target, it doesn’t become a racist act. Similarly, exaggerating a nations actions by calling them Nazi-like is merely disrespectful and inaccurate. Unless the target is the Jews. At this point, it becomes a racist act. Suggesting it is not, merely shows you either fail to grasp the severity of the accusation or the seriousness of the Nazi acts against the Jews. Effectively you are saying throwing a banana at a black man is just disrespectful, not racist. I completely reject that and find your comment disgraceful.

      Livingstone is an spiteful fool who goads Jews. Anyone who has read Mein Kampf would know exactly what Hitler thought of Jews and Zionism. He talks specifically of Zionists and the creation of the ‘Jewish state’. There is no room for misunderstanding in his comments. To say Hitler supported Zionism / was a Zionist is a deliberate provocation, intended to raise in 93%+ of Jews, an emotional response. At best it is a sick provocation of the victims of a genocide. Enough there for me to believe someone should be expelled. As the target here are Jews, I am comfortable to call it antisemitic. Would you consider a comment as valid if it attacked victims of other genocides?

      As a side note, I have little interest in how you define antisemitism. Just as I have little interest in how Harvey Weinstein would define sexual assault.

      1. Do you have the same lack of interest in how the 1.5 billion speakers of the language understand the expression David ? ( obviously deduct those that have no understanding and the miniscule number that think its all about Israel)

          1. I can understand you not wanting to answer. No matter. I just wanted to ensure, before I do your ” write up” so to speak, that I misrepresented you as little as possible.

            1. 1.5 billion? What are you trying to argue? That people decide for themselves what words mean? Nonsense. Definition like this are always argued over and then ‘spread’ into the population. Or perhaps it is better to suggest the process is iterative. It fits more with reality.

          2. err no David. The meanings of words and expressions are a consequence of the sum force of the use of expressions. So everytime you use the expression it has a certain force, and you in effect cast a vote. The sum force of these usages give us the meaning, establish THE concept. Jewish votes carry no more weight than the votes of the rest of us. So like the dictionaries are able to tell us that the expression ” antisemitism” means something like hatred of Jews as Jews.

            So you can sit around a table and dream up as many definitions as you like it won’t alter the meaning of the the expression.

            So if you stand on any random street and ask a 1000 passers by what they understand by ” antisemitism” the odds are overwhelmingly that Israel won’t get a mention.

            If you have decided that the 1.5 billion speakers of the language are wrong what plans do you have to inform them of this ? Do you plan to force the dictionary publishers to reprint ?

            1. nope…nice response though. A little inventive, an absolute distortion of course, but all the same, it was well put together. When I am finally not trying hard to convince people that suggesting Jews control the world is actually antisemitism, I will start paying attention to questions like the one you put above. Or alternatively when you put forward a proposal that doesn’t allow an antisemite with an IQ of over 70 to simlpy scrub out the word Jew and replace it with the word Zionist, I might start paying attention to you too.

          3. David this isn’t a political point. We are talking about natural language, which the expression ” antisemitism” is part of. How did, for example , the word ” serenity” acquire its meaning ? A bunch of people sat around a table, dreamed up the word, decided what it meant and ” fed it out into the population” ?

            Are you serious ?

            I do believe you are.

            1. 1. I fully believe that a definition of antisemitism that does not include a hatred of Jews for what they are not, is missing the point
              2. Any explanation of the definition (rather than the definition itself) must take into account people switching the word Jew for Zionist. Else it becomes meaningless.

              I have no argument over natural language.

            2. I would suggest, if you really want to engage with someone over the definition itself, you approach an academic like David Hirsh. This is not my field at all, but then I have the feeling you are not really seeking to honestly engage.

          4. And well I am going to soon have toget along without your attention soon anyways so I may as well start getting used to it o:

          5. I absolutely am trying an honest engage. You can have a concept. you can give it a name, say serenity. Fred can have a concept and give it the same name. and Sue and Jane and the IHRA. So here we have five concepts all named the the same. Five concepts all called serenity. They are all speaking a private language, the expression serenity means what I mean by it.

            Unfortunately there is THE concept OF serenity and it is what the 1.5 billion speakers of the language are conceptualising when they use the expression.

            Now the IHRA can speak a private language if it wants to and you can join it making it slightly less private. Alternatively you can carry on speaking English. It is not incumbent on the rest of us to join YOU.

            Now you can theoretically generate enough uses with the force you would have it have that the meaning of the expression changes. This does happen. Examples include gay, fantastic, fabulous. But at the moment you are a tiny grain of sand on a very large beach so good luck on that one.

            As for engaging with David Hirsh, I don’t think he would fancy that to be honest.

            Tell me what did antisemitism mean before the IHRA ? What does it mean to those who have never heard of the IHRA ? What will it mean two years from now ? Do you seriously not see how ludicrous is the notion of the meaning of a word ( outside of a highly technical context) being changed by the stipulation of a bunch of bums around a table, however illustrious the bums?

            Outside of the pro Israel/ anti Israel bubble that we are both part of nobody buys this bullshit. Certainly the judiciary don’t as evidenced lots of times. Nor it would seem do OFCOM.. No do the serious researchers of JPR.

            There is no need for anyone other than volunteers to fear the big bad definition.

            1. Oh Stephen, you really do need to take this up with someone who is more into linguistics that I am. Like I said, this isn’t really my field. If you haven’t noticed, I don’t really engage the line between what is antisemitism and what is not. I find the area ripe for deflection. It creates rabbit holes, of the type I spend most of my time avoiding.

              What is clear is that in any definition, there will be arguments, because wherever you draw a line, some people will oppose it. My work covers two central areas, historical distortion of the conflict and antisemitism. Where I engage it, there is rarely any doubt. You’ll note for example, I hardly mention the IHRA, I didn’t really engage with the Labour antisemitism issue when it first broke out and so on. Fighting with someone over the Naz Shah post, or indeed many of the posts where the actions of Israel are exaggerated, isn’t really my thing. My own research often explicitly avoids those issues (see the reports for examples).

              That isn’t to say that I disagree with the IHRA definition. It means that I do not feel it necessary to engage in personally arguing over the fine lines, when there are so many hard-core examples out there. I do however clearly understand that when lines are drawn in the sand, people will argue over the fine lines.

              My problem with your argument is simple. When I produce reports that attack what is blatant antisemitism. I still get trolled. I still have people like Mike coming to play with me. Groups like freespeechonisrael openly attacked me for the PSC report. After the Scottish report (which was worse than the PSC one), another anti-Zionists Jew in Scotland wrote an article attacking it. Even though I have gone out of my way, only to include blatant examples of antisemitism, which would be included in almost any reasonable definition, I am still the enemy. So anti-Zionist Jews end up defending Nazi style posts. Which means opposition to antisemitism is highly political. Just as you say Zionists seek to amplify accusations of antisemitism, anti-Zionists seek to make it all invisible.

              Which means I take issue with those who are trying to reduce antisemitism to something that almost doesn’t exist. One only needs to look at social media to realise anybody belittling the levels of antisemitism, is playing a very dangerous game. You for example, who misuse the results of the JPR survey, which most definitely draws strong correlations between anti-Israel activity and antisemitism, play this dangerous game too.

              Bottom line is this. A Jew hater who has learnt to cross out the word Jew and replace it with the word Zionist, simply does not get captured by your definition of jew hate. Which is disingenuous. As you engage in an attempt to politically downsize the problem, it becomes deliberately dishonest. Therefore, even if you refuse to accept the IHRA, your over simplification also has to be rejected. You have to find a way of including those who has switched terms. Those who have clearly replaced ‘Jew’ with ‘Zionist’. If you don’t, you cannot be taken seriously.

          6. does not get captured by your definition of jew hate.

            David I am not saying anything difficult so you feeling a need to step around it is interesting. It is not MY definition of antisemitism it is THE definition of antisemitism.

            You are coming very close to acknowledging that there is not enough antisemitism to serve the political purpose so we will devise another concept and label THAT antisemitism. People won’t notice the sleight of hand, get confused and voila levels of antisemitism have gone through the roof, virtually overnight.

            1. I am acknowledging nothing of the sort and your deflections over ‘the’ definition, that set out to imply that ‘the’ definition, cannot include people who swap the word Jew for Zionist are no more than meaningless acrobatics. Do you actually think you have a point when you say ‘the definition’? There is no sleight of hand involved. There is clearly an issue with people who do not like Jews, who have become embedded in anti-Israel activity. The longer anti-Israel activists try to sweep it all under the carpet, the more damned their position becomes.

          7. David are you saying that the 1.5 billion speakers of the language, and the dictionary publishers that publish definitions based on their observations of the force of the utterances of this 1.5 billion are ” deflecting” ?

            I rather fear, mon ami, that it is you that is deflecting.

          8. ‘the’ definition, cannot include people who swap the word Jew for Zionist are no more than meaningless acrobatics. Do you actually think you have a point when you say ‘the definition’?”

            THE definition of antisemitism, like THE definition of any other English language expression, doesn’t include or exclude people it merely tells us what the expression means. If you are going to call someone antisemitic you better have some evidence that they hate Jews, and/or want to discriminate against Jews, and /or want to persecute Jews or some combo thereof. Otherwise we can only conclude that you are a deliberate dissembler and/ or a coward.

            1. I think the evidence I provide speaks for itself. I think the amount of responses I receive, threats I get and so on, from people trying to deflect attention away from people who share posts from neo-nazi sites is deeply disturbing. These people (in the posts) use white supremacy websites as source material, and people who believe themselves to be left wing humanitarians arrive to defend or deflect from the material shared. It isn’t me who has my head screwed on wrong.

        1. David what evidence do you have that the founders of the Bristol Palestine Museum hate Jews/ and/or want to discriminate against Jews and/or want to persecute Jews? The screen shots on your section on them is unreadable.

    1. Jane, I think it is something so clearly within any reasonable definition of antisemitism, that such a post would only not be considered antisemitic, by hard-core antisemites. Take the Rothschild conspiracy for example.. you would have to have some serious issues, to imply antisemitism wasn’t involved, and if you truly believe the Jews are running the world to some great plan, then I think ‘hard-core’ antisemite would be an apt description.

      Do you seriously have difficulty with this? Forget Jews. You have a mate, now and again he says something racist. You slap his wrist now and again. He argues with you that he is not a racist. Or, you have a mate, he detests black people and is a member of secret clubs that think anyone not white should be deported. Isn’t it fair to say hard-core racist?

      I use the term frequently because unfortunately, those are the sewers I visit. It isn’t about my over-use, but rather a reflection of how bad it is out there.

        1. Firstly because if it isn’t disruptive, I see no reason to block anyone. Secondly I profit from it as it allows me to test new arguments, and to see if there are serious challenges to my posts. If they can highlight for me a weakness in my own position, then I will be all the stronger for it.

  5. If Israel is not the Jews, and I contend that Israel occupies, annexes the land of others and collectively punishes the persons that it occupies should an occupied commit an act against them and point out that the Nazis also did such things, how can that be classed at antisemitism? I haven’t said that all Jews do that which the Nazis did.
    Saw your reply to Jane.I would guess that she’s none the wiser, as was your intention.

    Why would you think that throwing a banana at a black man is certainly racist? Explain your thinking please,if you would.

    Ken abhors Zionism. I consider it a racist endeavour, as is the creation of an Islamic state. I don’t think that Ken ‘hates’ a Jew because that person is a Jew. He perhaps ‘hates’ those that commit, to him, heinous acts AND are Jews.

    You inform me that 93% of Jewry support Israel. Is that in every aspect of its actions?

    1. The Nazis ate breakfast. You are not doing as the Nazis did when you eat breakfast. If we are to use such descriptions, we do so to draw comparisons. Israel IS NOT doing what the Nazis did. Period. As no reasonable man would look at Nazi actions and think Israel has replicated those actions (or even come close), the comparison is vile and unreasonable. It is made to exaggerate and demonise. As it is directed towards those who were victims of Nazi genocide, it becomes a deliberate act of spite. Why the Nazis? Why? Does it have to be the Nazis? Your argument is disingenuous and dishonest.

      You ask me why would I think that throwing a banana at a black man is racist. I’d argue it is for a black man to tell you. Go ask. As it is, I think the comment is too obvious to warrant an explanation.

      Zionism isn’t a racist endeavor. It wasn’t Zionism that created partition. Balfour was a one state declaration. By 1920, Arabs began massacring immigrants. How would you view people if they started massacring Syrian refugees because they think refugees are coming to steal jobs and homes. Sound familiar? That violence, the murder of those refugees fleeing the Nazis, was what led the British to understand partition was inevitable. In any event Ken’s comments were historically inaccurate, intended to spite and delivered towards 93% of Jews. It is enough for me that someone seeks to maliciously attack a people. I believe that should be cause for expulsion. That the targets were Jews, makes it antisemitic. I don’t care how he chooses to define it. Like I said. It isn’t up for those that hate me, to tell me what is acceptable and what is not.

      Of course 93% don’t support every action. Why would they? Do 93% of Brits have to like Theresa May’s government to identify as British, or to be willing to fight for the UK if the nation was threatened? It’s a poppycock argument. Zionism represents the spectrum. But if you cannot differentiate between telling a Brit you have a problem with a Tory policy, and suggesting to a Brit, you think England is a demon state that is like Nazi Germany and needs to be dismantled for there to be peace in the world, then the problem isn’t with the way that I view these things.

      1. Balfour wasn’t a one state declaration. The British didn’t envisage any sovereignty but their own in the region. Oopps did I venture into history ? In the immortal words of Antoine St Just, l’enfant terrible de la revolution, ” today I have done badly, tomorrow I will do better”.

        1. Rather than get into an argument about the evolving British understanding between 1917 and 1922 about their waning ability to control, I suggest that the point being made is unconnected to this. People suggest that Balfour led to ‘naqba’ and partition almost as if, the words of these deeds were contained within the document. This is historically false. It was the events of 1920-1947, that led to partition, Balfour and the Mandate instrument, viewed the area as one piece of land. The Palestinian argument is both enticed by it (from the river to the sea), and yet at the same time rejected by it (it wasn’t because of the Jews that the one state scenario failed.)

          1. Well I kinda agree with most of that. The Balfour declaration started off irrelevant and became more conspicuously so very quickly.

  6. Given that the Nazis occupied, annexed the land of others and engaged in collective punishment in addition to more heinous actions that Israel does not engage in, does that mean that that what Israel similarly does to its occupied people is not deserving of criticism to both Israel and the Nazis? Perhaps not “vile and unreasonable” but a reminder of the dangers of ‘absolute power’.

    You term ME dishonest, and then, after telling me that the banana/black man comment is to you disgraceful refuse to confess as to why.

    Your mapping of Ken’s Zionism comment to Israel to 93% of all Jewry to antisemitism is a ‘clutching at straws’ exercise. Ken’s targets were Zionists.That you find things unnacceptable does not define them as satifying the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

    1. Many nations have had their armed forces outside of their internationally recognised borders. Many nations have controlled people not of their nation, and many nations have engaged in what others see as ‘collective punishment’. I see nothing definitively ‘Nazi’ in those descriptions. Within this example, it becomes possible to defend yourself from attack, win a defensive war, try to negotiate peace, work to keep the suffering and casualty count down for as long as peace remains unobtainable, and have no ill-intent towards anyone. That isn’t what the Nazis did.

      The idea of the corruption of ‘absolute power’ is also obscene. The Nazis had absolute power. The Israelis do not have that power, nor will they ever acquire it. You simply cannot look at Israel being unable to end the tiny situation with the West Bank or Gaza for 50 years and say ‘this is a sign of power’. It is clearly a sign of weakness. Militarily and politically, the Russians, the Chinese, the French, the Brits, the Americans, none of them would have been dealing with a situation like this for 50 years. Go look at the casualty counts, wherever any of those nations fight. If Israel was what anti-Israel activists pretend it is, the conflict would have ended decisively in 1967. Again you are reliant on accusations that DO NOT HOLD HISTORICALLY, OR GEO-POLITICALLY.

      You are viewing this entirely the wrong way round. Given there is no historical support whatsoever for comparing the actions of Israel (a democratic state surrounded by enemies), with the Nazi state, and given the central Nazi victim of its genocidal policies were Jews, you have to ask those making these comparisons, why the Nazis? Given the total civilian casualty count of all the wars in the last 50 years, barely make up a single day in Auschwitz, why the insistence on comparing the defensive action of Jews with the Nazis? It doesn’t hold historically. It doesn’t hold ethically. It doesn’t hold morally. It doesn’t hold on any level whatsoever. Is the level of understanding so weak, so shallow, amongst anti-Israel activists, that the only example they can find in history is one that doesn’t hold at all? Of course not. It is a deliberate and vicious attack. It is to take the victims of a genocide and bang them over the head with accusations they are as bad as those that committed genocide against them. It is too weak to defend, not sure why you remain so insistent.

      Of course I termed you dishonest. I am still not sure why you are having trouble with the banana comment. If someone threw a banana at me, I wouldn’t consider it racist. So why ask me? Surely, if you want to understand why throwing a banana at a black man is racist, the best thing to do is ask a black man. Then, if you understand history, and the atmosphere of racism, you would quickly come to respect him and his views on the matter. So telling you to ask him, is me acknowledging he is the primary source for explanation of what is racism and what is not, in the eyes of the victim.

      If I choose to ignore him. To belittle his suffering, to suggest he is a man of privilege rather than a victim and continue to insist on throwing bananas his way… well that would make me a racist. Why you, and others are so insistent on telling the Jews what is and what is not racism against them. Telling them how they should and should not feel and where the boundaries are. All the time whilst continuing to throw proverbial bananas their way… well, you know.

      93% of Jews is not a clutching at straw exercise. More Jews adhere to Zionism than Christians believe Christ was resurrected. A Christian defending the resurrection as being central to his faith is not ‘clutching at straws’. Zionism is a central part of being Jewish. Whether you want to accept it or not, during the 20th century, the Jews finally fulfilled their right to national restoration and self determination. Not every Jew has to engage it, but it is there. On the map. Why are you so insistent on trying to define me for me? You can come at me either with a tiny esoteric cult on the fringes of orthodox Judaism, or with a bunch of Marxist Jews whose families are on their way out of the community, but neither can distract attention from the enormous majority of Jews who are, well Zionists. What Ken did, is make a historically offensive and highly disturbing remark that he almost certainly knew would hurt almost all of the Jews of the UK. Hitler neither supported nor was a Zionist. This is what Hitler said about Zionism:

      ‘They have not the slightest intention of building up a Jewish State in Palestine so as to live in it. What they are really aiming at is to establish a central organisation for their international swindling and cheating… it can serve as a refuge for swindlers who have been found out, and at the same time a high-school for the training of other swindlers’ – Mein Kampf

      That man went on to direct the slaughter of millions of Jews. To call him a Zionist or a supporter of Zionism so as to attack his victims deserved expulsion. Period.

      1. David do Palestinian Arabs get to determine what is racist against them ? Hmmm I thought not. It was a rhetorical question anyways.

  7. Initial answer.

    YOU are not a victim of Hitler. In fact the Zionists have gained from that foul episode, The world recognised their suffering and provided them a home for refugees in the land of others. The Zionists continue to benefit by being appeased for the actions of their state because of it. It has become an industry. Yes,it should be remembered that similar attempts to iradicate sections of humanity should not happen again but to see it as a unique event in history will not do that. We appear to be overlooking modern examples with our fixation on those times. Key is working to prevent NOW.

    1. Piece by piece you have fallen by the wayside on all the central issues. And having left all those other distortions behind you try another one. ‘Israel is the result of the Holocaust’. Balfour preceded the Holocaust by 25 years, the Mandate preceded the Holocaust by 20, and by 1936 the Jews already had a ‘state within a state’. So placing the cart before that particular horse shows you have no interest in adhering to even a pretence of historical honesty. Millions of potential citizens slaughtered, family members burnt, and you call the Holocaust a Jewish ‘benefit’

      And what is left? Now you have been reduced to screaming at the black man, that he himself was never a victim of slavery. Factually, you may think you have a point, but one would still be left stupefied at witnessing such a horrific scene. Do my missing relatives not count? I can list 1000 ways, the Holocaust has impacted me, and to be brutally frank, this entire exchange hasn’t done you any favours. The Zionists ‘continue to benefit’ by the fact their families members suffered in a genocide? I tend to think people like you help prove my points far better, than many of my own blogs do.

      Having suggested the black man was never a slave himself, and should therefore perhaps ‘get over it’, you move on to suggest blacks have actually benefited from slavery. After all, upon the realisation that slavery was so bad, the liberals amongst us, helped push forward both the abolition of slavery and went on to join civil rights movements that eventually led to blacks being equal members of our society (apparently not their right, but according to you, something we ‘gave them’). You seem to imply that blacks today should be thankful that slavery existed, because of all these benefits you are suggesting they received because of it. Black rights, according to you, are no less than an industry. I don’t often swear but this entire line is a f..king disgrace.

      Mike. Go have a long hard look in the mirror.

  8. Dave, Balfour built a shelf for the home. It stayed on the shelf until the 40s . The war, the Holocaust and not a little Jewish terrorism as catalysts succeeded in Britain handing the created problems over, The US pushed for its creation by strong-arming recipiants of its aid to vote thus, and to prevent crowds of immigrants arriving on its shores. Perhaps it’s guilt at this or having what is basicly a US base and weapons store in the region that now causes it to be anything but an honest broker in any peace negotiations.
    Unwarranted tripe from yourself re. Your ‘black man’ imaginings. Have looked in the mirror. Nothing wrong there…… and yes, haven’t we wandered somewhat from the fabled ‘worldwde antisemitism’?

    1. Koff

      You know I have just spent ten days in the ( now) glorious city of Bristol. The best city in the country by many a mile. A city whose prosperity was largely built on the slave trade. So I have been genning up on it a little. And I have to say I too find David’s recently discovered penchant for black men and bananas ( should it be black men and sugar) analogies rather distasteful and exploitative.

      1. But anyway there is in Bristol a wholly unique Palestine museum. ( though I understand there is shortly to be a naqba museum in Amsterdam) And on saturday they are showing a short film called 100 Balfour Road and it is going to be live streamed.

        1. Yes, I know about the museum. Those who founded it were picked up in my report on the PSC that was published in February. Both were found to share hard-core antisemitic material. No surprise there.

      2. I suspect that Davebt is ashamed of his comment that has shown him for what he really is.

        “If they can highlight for me a weakness in my own position, ” …. Dave has today highlighted it himself.

      3. Don’t you like it? Someone used it about two weeks ago, and I thought I would explore it. I think it works quite well actually. I am trying it here like a test drive. Both to see how it forms itself as an argument and how it is countered or received. I often do that. Some work, some don’t. It is difficult to know whether anything has merit before it is tried. Sometimes you come up with brilliant arguments this way, sometimes you fall flat on your face. I am not interested in your ‘exploitative’ comment, drawing analogies between suffering or racisms can always be called ‘exploitative’ to a degree. What don’t you like about it. In your mind, why doesn’t it work?

        1. “It is difficult to know whether anything has merit before it is tried. ”

          So, your posts aren’t the truth as you see it, they are empty words that you think will counter the posts of others?

          What a shell ‘no morals’ David Collier is.

          1. It is to take what I said and distort it. You have come simply to troll. You provide nothing of any worth to the debate, evade questions and skip from point to point. Now you engage in nothing but personal attacks.

    2. This isn’t history Mike. It is an anti-Israel activist pushing non historical rhetoric. For example, can you tell me which book this history is taken from?

      As for talking about antisemitism. I have done little else in this discussion. I thank you for the co-operation.

    1. Mike, this post was about some pretty awful antisemitic posts shared by an SPSC speaker. It speaks volumes that rather than address the posts, all you do here is deflect.

  9. It’s hiistory that you haven’t been exposed to, unlike the narratives you’ve been weaned on.

    1. Oh Mike. That was a pitiful comment. There isn’t an anti-Zionist book of note (in English) I haven’t read. Didn’t you see me dismantle the Suarez narrative? What book did you take that history from?

        1. Yes, a while ago though. If you suggest I re-read it, I will happily buy it. It is not currently on my bookshelf.

    1. nope. that history is not in there. I have it on my shelf and your narrative isn’t present. Try again.

    1. would you prefer it if I list the 100 or so books of the ‘narrative I have not been exposed to’ that are both on my shelf and I have read? Then you can search for a book that isn’t on the list and you can pretend your imaginary little narrative came from one of those?

  10. It doesn’t mention Begin, head of Irgun … Deir Yassim ….. ethnic cleansing of Jaffa, Najd et al.?

  11. David – you talked earlier about the 93 percent of Jews identifying with Israel. I’m assuming you’ve taken that from a survey. Can you let me know which one, or if not a survey, where the figure comes from please.

  12. If you have 100 or so History/Zionist Narrative books on your shelf that don’t relate Begin, his being the head of Irgun and his terrorism please list them. I would love to be amazed. Exciting times.

  13. But it is those who wish to see antisemitism in every comment on Israel that replace Zionist by Jew, gives them a cause, feels good to them to drench themselves in victimhood, which acts as a shield against criicism.

    1. Your comments, every since your arrival here have been disgraceful. You are not addressing the antisemitism in my articles at all, you are addressing whatever argument is in your head. Research has highlighted that 40% of those people who stand on the streets in the UK and wave the Palestinian flag at demonstrations, have shared hard-core antisemitic material. That is a problem. It has to be considered a problem. Instead you choose to come here and try to deflect, insult, misrepresent, troll. When you did address antisemitism, you either blamed the victim for the racism he experiences, or suggested it doesn’t exist. When I asked you to comment, you asked me to pick one out specifically for you to comment on, like it is a game. It isn’t.

      How does your definition of antisemitism, deal with someone clever enough to switch the word Jew with Zionist when he speaks?

  14. I looked at your examples. Some of which I couldn’t see what was anti-semitic about them. Saying that those that control the money are Jewish. … and??

    Tell me something, Dave. I may be wrong but as I understand it, to move to Israel and become a citizen of that state I must have a Jewish mother or say that I follow Judaism. Am I correct?

    1. I have no interest in fueling your deflections. You do not think that Rothschild conspiracy posts, about Jews controlling the money and secretly engaging in a manipulative plot to control the world, are antisemitic?

  15. If I thought that Muslims “controlling the money and secretly engaging in a manipulative plot to control the world” or Hindus “controlling the money and secretly engaging in a manipulative plot to control the world” was OK but that Jews “controlling the money and secretly engaging in a manipulative plot to control the world” was wrong then ‘yes’, if only because they were Jews was I against it, that would be antisemitic of me.

    If I just said that many Jews seem to control the world’s money that wouldn’t be intended as antisemitic. But then it seems that others would describe it as such.

    1. A Sunday Times journalist wrote that you would have to work very hard at being an antisemite, to be included in one of my reports. You cannot even see it. Scary stuff.

  16. David
    Reading Friends of Palestine host the notorious antisemite Gilad Atzmon book launch

    This goes a long way to prove your meticulous research that Palestinian Solidarity has no problem aligning with antisemites and Holocaust Revisionists. Here at once is the seamless intersect between so called Palestinian Solidarity and Jew hate ( as a Jew and Neturei Karta being the exception )

  17. David, you said in reply to Mike on Oct 11 that his post made ‘no sense at all’ and you accused him of taking ‘a swipe at Israel’ – which he denied – then you went on to argue that your blogpost was
    focused on antisemitism. “Israel has nothing to do with any of this.” You couldn’t be more wrong.
    The so-called ‘new’ antisemitism is very much about Israel, and the IHRA definition is proof of that. Israel’s supporters have been conflating Judaism and Zionism in Israel’s interests for some time now. While it obviously isn’t ALL about Israel (and what you call ‘hard core antisemites will inevitably jump on the bandwagon) you can’t deny that the (self-defined) Jewish state of Israel plays a significant role in antagonism toward Jews internationally. How else do you explain spikes in recorded A/S incidents during Israel’s bombing of Gaza – three times since 2000, or is it four? Blaming the victims? That’s something those who support Israel unconditionally – Christian as well as Jewish – habitually do, as I’m sure you’re aware..
    In that same reply you brought up the figure of 93% of British Jews identifying with Israel, and you kindly let me have the survey link. The thing is, that 93% is not as straightforward as your comment suggests. I’m not even sure why you brought it up – a bit of a straw man, perhaps? The actual wording is that Israel “forms some part of their identity as Jews”. Indeed it would be strange if Israel did not, given the biblical accounts. But when you look further, you find a more complex picture. For example, only 59% of respondents call themselves Zionists, a decline form 72% in the 2010 JPR survey. The Yachad report suggests this change requires ‘further examination’. There is much more and I’d encourage anyone interested to read the report, bearing in mind the significant variables such as demography.
    Finally, you accused Mike of equating Israel and ISIS – he did no such thing! Denying that he was taking a swipe at Israel, he actually said:
    “My intent is to remind readers that Israel does not equate to the Jews, as the Islamic state of Isis doesn’t equate to Muslims, the majority of whom also don’t live there and on many equations condemn its actions”.
    You talk a great deal about ‘methods of deflection’, David, and accuse others who disagree with your views of practicing it. I suggest you use that accusation, as well as the charge of anti-Semitism against critics of Israeli policy, to silence them.

    1. You bring up the IHRA definition and accuse me of creating a straw man? Oh Jane. I didn’t speak about the ‘new antisemitism’. Nor about the IHRA definition. I have maintained that this is old antisemitism, that has (in places) simply swapped the word Jew for the word Zionist. The conversation was dragged by the comments of others, down the Israel as Nazi route, but that wasn’t my direction. I remain astounded so many anti-Israel activists pop up to defend posts shares that originate from white supremacist websites in the United States. Why?

      How do I explain a spike in antisemitic attacks? Because that is how antisemitism works. It is like suggesting if there were no Jews, there would be less antisemitism. It is kind of a no-brainer. Antisemites don’t like Jews breathing. Anything they do, including defending themselves from attack, riles antisemites. If Israel did well in the Olympics, there’d be a spike. If Jewish schoolkids do well in school in Barnet, there are likely to be repercussions from their schoolmates. The Jewish kid who wins the chess competition, may get beaten up. When Jews are in the news, antisemitism spikes. Believe me, some Jew is currently being beaten up because of the abusive actions of a Hollywood producer. It is a do we have to apologise for existing moment…

      The 93% is absolutely as straightforward as I suggested because it is supported throughout the survey. Whether you didn’t read it properly or not I cannot be sure, but the second most important statistic is missing from your post. That 90% support Israel’s right to exist as a ‘Jewish State’. This categorically reduces ‘anti-Zionist Jews’ into a minority box with a ceiling of 10%. Nor can it be deflected away with comments about ‘biblical’ issues. It clearly supports the 93% figure and renders it important (and pretty straightforward). The 59% you mention is an interesting statistic, because it shows a reluctance of Zionists to self identify as Zionists, which as you point out, is cause for investigation but apart from being misused by people like Tony Greenstein, it has no relevance. As you chose not to mention the vital 90% figure, I completely reject the straw man suggestion, and believe my use of the survey was correct, and justified.

      You can suggest whatever you like Jane, but you wouldn’t be correct. For as long as you entertain people who clearly have an issue with Jews (and if you cannot see that in Mike’s posts, you are seriously blind), you are on the wrong side of the ethical discussion, whatever your take on the conflict is. When 40% of those who line up at UK demonstrations waving a Palestinian flag, share horrific antisemitic material, and all you can do on a thread about that antisemitism, is line up with those attacking me, well, it kind of speaks for itself. Your priorities are all shot.

      1. Wait a minute, David, let’s get one thing straight – I’m not defending posts originating in white supremacism. How dare you make such an insinuation! And I’m not defending anti-Semitism per se, in fact I find the sentiments expressed in your examples generally abhorrent.
        And I didn’t fail to mention the 90% in favour of Israel’s right to exist, any more than I didn’t mention any of the other figures and findings – it’s a lengthy report. That one pertained to the 93% and was simply an example of how much more there is to the findings than you indicated. People can look the link up for themselves if they’re interested to know more.
        Nor was I deflecting the argument by mentioning the biblical heritage. It was a statement of fact. Christians feel the same attachment, for similar reasons. For some people, that is probably as far as their attachment goes – although that’s speculation.
        Speaking of which, I’d like to point out that your explanation for the sharp decline in self identifying Zionists- the 59% – is flimsy speculation at best, considering respondents were answering a survey anonymously for a Jewish organisation.
        No, I don’t see from his posts here that Mike has an issue with Jews, only that he has an issue with Israel’s behaviour.
        And now you’ve given me another statistic, so I have to ask, where does the 40% come from?

        1. Jane. It isn’t difficult to work out. 90% of respondents believe in Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. It is a stand-out statistic. It also places these 90% into a ‘Zionist’ category. Unless you want to suggest that believing in Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is not a Zionist position? In turn it places a light on the 59% exactly as I describe. Why would at least 31% of Zionists, not self identify as Zionist is the secondary question. You can call it ‘flimsy speculation’ if you like, but the results led to that exact question being asked by those who conducted the survey. It doesn’t mean these people publicly did not want to identify as Zionist but suggested they, like many people, had started to mistakenly conflate Zionism, with a political position regarding the 67 lands. It is an interesting side note, but unconnected to the point that the vast majority of Jews (90%+) take strong Zionist positions.

          I would suggest again, if you cannot see problems with Mike’s posts, you are going to be blind to much of the antisemitism around you. You state you are clearly troubled by the ‘abhorrent’ posts, Mike does not. Not only does he not call them ‘abhorrent’, he defends some and deflects every time someone asks him about them directly.

          The 40%. From both the PSC report published in February, and the SPSC report published in August. These reports were further strengthened by the Daniel Stajecki research that suggested a correlation between anti-Israel and antisemitic activity, and in the theoretical application of his ‘elastic model’ confirmed the findings of my own work, that pockets of hard-core antisemitism would exist. What this meant was that you couldn’t use general statistics of the whole to understand antisemitism. For example, if you say 10% of people are antisemitic, you would be wrong to expect one in every ten to return a positive result. They would be grouped together within specific areas (high concentrations in the far right and far left). It allows for deflectors to suggest the left doesn’t have a problem. But that is distortion because they include vast areas of the left that has almost no antisemitism at all, to excuse the behaviour of highly concentrated elements. Particular pockets of leftist ideology is extremely tainted with antisemites.

          I am glad you can see the posts shared in my articles are abhorrent. It is scary so many anti-Israel activists either share the material themselves or pretend it isn’t a problem. 40% IS A PROBLEM..

    2. “And attempts to blame the victims of antisemitism for antisemitism (93% of Jews identify with Israel). ”

      Dave really meant 93% of BRITISH Jews. I’m surprised that anyone with the British sense of fair play would so claim unless there was no accompanying choice of how they identified.

      1. Mike, we are in the UK, arguing about examples of antisemitism within the UK. I find your point odd. It is like someone discussing the UK economy and suggesting 90%+ of children are literate, being attacked for not specifying he was talking about British children. Trying to personally attack my character by implying I wasn’t being honest, simply fits with the rest of the posts you have made on this site.

    3. Jane, in your post you guess “during Israel’s bombing of Gaza – three times since 2000, or is it four? ”

      Actually the following lists the consecutive attacks on the Gaza strip:

      2000 Muhammad al-Durrah incident
      2004-05 Operation Rainbow (2004)
      2004 Raid on Beit Hanoun (2004) Operation Forward Shield
      2004-09 Operation Days of Penitence
      2005 (Israeli disengagement from Gaza)
      2006 Operation Summer Rains
      2006 Gaza beach explosion (2006)
      2006 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict
      2006 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun
      2006-11 Operation Autumn Clouds
      2008 Beit Hanoun April 2008 incident
      2008-02 Operation Hot Winter
      2008 (2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire not an attack; ended November 4th, 2008)
      2008-09 Gaza War (2008–09)
      2009 List of Israeli attacks on Gaza, 2009
      2010 March 2010 Israel–Gaza clashes
      2010-05 Gaza flotilla raid (in international waters)
      2011 August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids
      2012-03 March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes Operation Returning Echo
      2012 Operation Pillar of Defense
      2014 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict

  18. Janet
    Suggest you gen up on David Hirsch’s Livingstone Formulation . See where you are going wrong.

    As for Judaism and Zionism being entirely different, let me remind you Zionism is simply the right of Jews to express their natural right to self determination. You would deny that right by seeking to create some significant schism where it does not exist. I understand that imperative. It is merely a further attempt to undermine and finally overwhelm Israel following the failure of three wars and two Intifada. Boycott and denial of Israel’s right to exist is merely a third means to achieve the same ends. The attempt to create this schism within the community where none exists is a part of that strategy. It will fail as every other attempt to eradicate Israel has failed and will fail in the future.

    I strongly advise a visit to a Synagogue any Shabbat – Sabbath morning. A prayer for the state of Israel and the IDF is integral to each and every service throughout the Diaspora. We have family and friends there. We visit, work with and support the Jewish nation state. Please don’t base your denial of our eternal connection to the Jewish nation state on the ramblings of a small minority of disaffected people with their vapour thin association to Judaism, religious, traditional or cultural. We see through the venal attempt to use feigned allegiance to Judaism in order to shield the myriad of antisemites within the PSC and elements of Labour. It fools no one.

    Perhaps you believe in no nation state in which case you would deny the 57 declared Islamic states . If you do not, your motives are suspect but then again you already know that .

    1. Harvey – I assume ‘janet’ was a typo – thank you for the link. It’s interesting but I heard him speak at a conference on antisemitism at the Pears Institute earlier this year, and watched him bully another speaker whose views he was at odds with. It didn’t endear me to him.
      But more to the point, like David, you have distorted what I said. I did NOT say or in any way indicate that I would deny Jews the right to self determination, nor that I would create a schism where there isn’t any, as you suggest I did. I have never disputed Israel’s right to self determination, or that Palestine was a fitting place to establish a homeland, only the way they have exercised it at the expense of another people. And what do you mean by “don’t base your denial of our eternal connection to the Jewish nation state on…”? I didn’t, and nor do I, for one minute deny the Jewish connection to Israel! You’re either a bully or a plonker to make such accusations, and I’m veering towards the bully.

        1. Personally I veer towards plonker. Being bullied by Harv is reminiscent of being savaged by a dying sheep.

          1. @ Bellamy
            Funny that .
            Armbach would used the same absurdity comparison. Then he disappeared .

          2. Actually Harv Richard Nicked it off me and I nicked it off Iris. That was ok what was mine was theirs and what was theirs…..

            Iris nicked it off Denis Healey.

  19. Well its not expensive. If only Corbyn and his what passes for advisers had read it.

  20. Jane
    You can veer any way you like. It’s not of the slightest import to me . I’ve been around the anti Israel far too long not to detect a ‘ wrong on ‘ . You can deflect and dissemble all you like but when someone writes ‘ so called new antisemitism’, I pretty much know which way the wind blows. The IHRA definition encompasses the new antisemitism as perceived by Jews – one Jew or many . It is not for you to define what is or isn’t antisemitism any more than I and perhaps you can inform a black person what is or isn’t racism. Again I suggest you read the Macpherson Report. Once again, perhaps you feel it pertains to all ethnic minorities save Jews.
    Your comments regarding Israel’s wars with Gaza and the spike in antisemitic attacks in the Uk appear to justify such attacks. Do you also use Islamist terrorism as a means to justify a spike in Islamaphobic attacks on the Uk Muslim community?
    Jane you evidently have to coin Mel Gibsons memorable remarks , ‘ a dog in the fight’. I suggest you have a rethink of your underlying motives. It’s always good to have an occasional moral and ethical rethink of ones life choices.

    1. It is not for you to define what is or isn’t antisemitism any more than I and perhaps you can inform a black person what is or isn’t racism.

      Or any more than you or I can inform Palestinian Arabs what is racist against them ? u
      Unless you don’t intend this as a universal principle but a piece of Jewish exceptionalism.

      I will be generous and assume the former.

      So since Palestinian Arabs experience Zionism as Jewish racism against them, the issue is settled.

      The State of Israel is a racist endeavour. But we knew that already.

      Unless you want to change your mind about this principle Harv ?

      1. Unlike you and your grotesque attempts to define antisemitism, I am not sufficiently presumptuous to define racism as directed towards the Palestinians and Arabs in general. Your use of the term Jewish exceptionalism is a standard antisemitic meme and something I would expect from you. Your referral to Israel as a racist endeavour is another fiction from you . Stay off the Kool Aid is my recommendation

        1. I hope you are not sufficiently presumptious Harv. Because if it is for Jews to say what is racism against them you surely will allow that it is for Palestinian Arabs to say what is Jewish racism against them, and they would overwhelmingly say that the State of Israel endeavour is racist against them. That is, the State of Israel is a racist endeavour. And if they are saying that it must be so right ?

          It is not me saying this Harv I am merely universalising your very own principle. . If, once again, you are saying that the principle is not to be universalised but is just for Jews, then forget I said anything.

          Jezuz I ran this past my aunt Cait’s canary’s retarded cousin and it had no difficulty grasping the point.

          I made an attempt to define antisemitism when Harv? Where ?

  21. I think the expression is wrong ‘un, Harvey.
    I’m not anti-Israel; what I am is critical of some Israeli policies towards the Palestinians, whose right to self-determination has been eroded to the point of extinction.
    Nor do I claim to have the right to define anti-Semitism; but I have observed that there is sufficient debate amongst Jews themselves about whether the IHRA definition is credible to warrant my use of ‘so-called’ when talking about it.
    And no, I don’t have a problem with protecting ethnic minorities, including Jews – I have no idea why you would insinuate such a thing! – and again no, the spikes in anti-Semitism during Israel’s attacks on Gaza is simply an observation, not a justification. Since you mention it, the same thing does happen to the Muslim community following terrorist attacks in Britain – and no, of course that doesn’t justify such behaviour, any more than spray-painting swastikas or vandalising Jewish graves is justifiable after Israeli operations in Gaza.
    Re the Mel Gibson quote – you’re right, I’m not impartial. What I am partial to are human rights, which I understand Judaism to be too. I’m sorry Harvey but I have to revise my recent estimation of you as bully or plonker; I’m now veering toward the plonker. But that’s nothing to what you’re calling me, so let’s call it quits, eh?

    1. Jane
      I really wouldn’t pin your hopes on a few far left radicals whose primary connection to Judaism is merely an accident of birth . I’m not even talking about religious adherence . I’m thinking zero connection from a traditional , cultural and / or familial aspects of the religion . Nor would I look towards the likes of fringe groups such as Neturei Karta, who are shunned as medievalists by the ultra Orthodox . In any case, they number but a few thousand globally. You should do a little background research as their religious observance not only precludes a man made state of Israel , ( as opposed to one created by the return of the Messiah ) but also necessitates a land cleared of all but their own in order to facilitate the return . In other words no Palestinians. Now I know for a fact that they are pretty much loathed by the Islamists within the Palestinian Solidarity who regard all Jews as the descendants of apes and pigs cf Bukhari and Muslim from the Hadith. However both sides are useful to each other in their toxic symbiotic alliance.
      Fact is the vast majority of the global Jewish diaspora are inextricably linked to Israel. We have family, friends , cultural and historical attachment in ways that you could not begin to comprehend. Our prayers for the state its people and defence form part of prayers in Synagogues every Sabbath and High Holiday . The prayer for our ‘ Return to Jerusalem ‘ has been recited for 2000 years every year in our Passover services and has not changed even though we have recovered the cradle of our birth place.

      So Jane what I’m trying to say is that you waste precious time alluding to a non existent schism between Zionism , the emancipation of the Jewish people and their right of self determination, and Judaism. No matter how much you and your fellow travellers seek to sever that bond you are doomed to failure. The connection transcends the petty machinations of those with an animus towards Jews and mask it behind so called antizionism.
      Having said that , and although I don’t know you, I don’t place you in the same categorary of the antisemite that trolls this blog on a regular basis.
      You are however misguided. It would be good if you could read up a little in order to get a better understanding of what is a hugely complex but ultimately solvable problem

      But thanks for the tip on ‘wrong un ‘ . Auto spell doesn’t recognise. As for plonker, I’ve been called a whole lot worse so yes let’s desist with the ad Homs and call it quits

        1. He isn’t, He is just as tired of accommodating those that clearly have an issue with Jews, as I am.

          1. But your research neccessitates ‘accommodating’ those who you catagorise as “having an issue with Jews”. It’s what you’re paid to do, Dave!

          1. Oh I did Harv. After Jane called it quits. Anyway look out for the forthcoming series ” David Collier and his brown shirts for Israel”. You get more then a few dishonourable mentions.

            1. Oh Stephen, now you come here, suggesting I am some type of ‘head Nazi’. I am just a researcher, a blogger, who exposes antisemitism (such as inside the SPSC) and historical falsehoods (such as with Suarez). That I am such a target for personal attack (like the Mondoweiss article) only indicates I am having an effect and those antisemites and liars, consider me an important target. The more you target me, the more motivated I will become. It is really that simple.

          2. Hum maybe I should change the title to blackshirts. Don’t want to be having Nazi analogies.

            David your ” exposing” of alleged antisemites doesn’t trouble me in the slightest. Nor am I exorcised by you arguing that some historian or other is a charlatan. Who cares. I am not even troubled by your hypocracy in slamming everybody and his cat as a racist, while at the same time collaborating closely and being on joint frolics with some of the most disgusting proven racists around. It just causes me to smile wryly.

            Here is what does get to me, and I think I am repeating myself, I have told you this before. What gets me is you and your acolytes stalking and trolling individuals and organisations and trying to get them blacklisted and denied access to venues. Then , failing that getting the meeting disrupted. Don’t tell me you have never disrupted a meeting in your life. You sound like a guy that hires a hitman to kill his wife, drives him to the agreed location, stands and watches then drives home and declares that he never killed anyone in his entire life.

            Your ” research” doesn’t hurt anyone. I doubt it has any measurable effect. This blog post suggests you have similar doubts yourself. I still smile at your assumption that you were going to get the University of Bath to withdraw Hilary Aked’s PhD candidate accreditaion. That really was away with the fairies stuff.

            I learnt long ago that Israelists can’t be stopped, all one can do is empower their targets. Venue mansgers etc are entitled to know just who and what is harassing and blackmailing them.

            1. Stephen, the Jooz you imagine in your head, betray you every single time you write about me. It would all be hysterically funny, if antisemitism wasn’t so bloody dangerous

    1. But as a final word I can’t believe you haven’t yet grasped that I am not intimidated by being called antisemitic. I was expecting something much more withering than that. But life is full of disappointments I guess.

      1. Oh Stephen, I didn’t make the antisemitic comment to ‘offend you’. I am surprised you don’t know I understand some already see it as a badge of honour, others just ignore it completely. We are at the stage were even Holocaust Denial is strategically defended by Mondoweiss. I said it simply as a point of fact. The linkage you see in your head simply isn’t real.

        Two points of order. One, that is the second time you have linked me with racists or racist tendencies in the last two comments. I entirely reject it. I spend my life not only fighting it, but trying to educate about it. Racism is a dangerous human weakness, and like a cancer it can spread, even disguising itself as something it is not. I have refused to associate with groups I consider over the line, and opposed causes I identify as picking on other minorities and find your ‘racist’ comment about me particularly vile. If for one moment, I believed humans capable of utopian universalist existence, I’d be waving that flag myself. The problem stems from the fact humans are not capable of such equality, and from this point a defence against racists becomes a necessity. You talk of disappointment. Two years you have been hanging around these parts, and you try to paint me with that brush. Seems like you haven’t been paying attention at all.

        Then there is the ‘disruption’, that you are so eager to link me with. I have openly opposed it, and regardless of how desperate you are to create real ‘linkage’ between me and others attend these events, no such linkage exists. I personally believe all manner of disruption actually has a negative net effect. No event should ever be disrupted. The people actually at these events are already beyond help and irrelevant. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose by playing into their hands through disruption. Everyone knows I feel this way, and you spouting nonsense about how I am somehow secretly inside myself ‘conspiring’ so this goes on, is very wide of the mark. Hundreds of events a year and I think one, perhaps two have been slightly disrupted, yet you seek to make it look like a community strategy. That is so weak. You need me to be a racist and a fascist, and after two years, you have nothing to go on but baseless incorrect accusations, that actually go against my openly stated core beliefs.

        But hey, that is how conspiracy theorists work. They create situations that simply are not real…And well, antisemites, they love to make up stories about Jews.

          1. Of course there is no linkage. What you have done is classic conspiracy nonsense. Take any research paper, two academics produce a report. Forever ideologically linked? Agree on everything? Stephen… I produced many dual research papers during my academic stint. Please stop seeing Zionist conspiracy everywhere.

            1. It is a valid point Stephen, but only to a degree. At the point that Jonathan, who is no extremist, is being compared to Duke or Icke or Atzmon, it all falls apart. People’s problem with Jonathan isn’t that he is rowdy at times, but rather that when he is not being rowdy, he is very effective. It is this effect, that creates a need to demonise someone who is basically, a good guy who doesn’t like antisemites. I don’t agree with some of Jonathan’s tactics, because I think he lets his frustration take control sometimes, but at no point would I want to dissociate from him as a person. There is little in his ‘views’ to take opposition to. I haven’t considered every one, or vetted every statement, but to begin to draw comparisons between a decent Human being like Jonathan, and vile racists, well, there is no weight to that argument whatsoever.

          2. I don’t think the objection to Hoffie is that he is effective. To the best of my knowledge his only success to date is getting Ahava on Monmouth Street shut down.

            And decent human beings don’t do THIS

            ” Then Jonathan Hoffman shoving one into the hands of Rachel Corrie’s mother is the latest demonstration of what a vile, horrible, amoral creature he is.

            Imagine shoving a leaflet into the hands of the mother of one of the other Rachel’s telling her that her daughter wasn’t killed by terrorists. She shouldn’t have been there. She was killed by the State of Israel, by the Zionist enterprise.

            Sick sick Sick Sick”

            1. Jonathan is damned effective. Your ‘twist’ on the Corrie event is a nice sound byte, but doesn’t work in real life. People are often given flyers by opposition demonstrators, including those that have lost loved ones. Like I said, nice sound-byte.

  22. Dave, it seems Harvey is ignorant of the criteria. Are you hinting that you have to be Jewish? Could you elaborate?

  23. “recovered the cradle of our birth place. “? Abraham’s birthplace was what is now modern day Iraq. Read a book once that told how Jews came from elsewhere, butchered the inhabitants; men, women, children, pet rabbits etc. and took the land for themselves. You probably won’t find that in any Israel library no doubt. The allegations are prob. seen as anti-semitic. Forgot who wrote it but had Mossad been around at the time …. whoa!

  24. “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.”

    I live of my state pension.

  25. “if antisemitism wasn’t so bloody dangerous”? …… and been so wildly interpreted to fund a livelihood,

    1. Mike I don’t for a moment think that David ( not Dave) is in this to earn a living, that he is part of the antisemitism industry. I think he is motivated by a great anger and paranoia. And a sprinkling of racism.

      He spends an awful lot of time working out his angst and I don’t think his appeal for a bit of funding is unreasonable given the orgasmic thrills he gives those that take his rhetoric seriously. If I was an Israelist I would cheerfully bung him a few bob

  26. I think he’s a victim of his own desire to have anything and everything classified as ‘antisemitism’. So many variations to complete a separate treatise on. Must spend a fortune on coffee.

  27. I asked you the criteria for becoming an Israeli citzzen, Dave. I may have spotted a case of racism but as you ‘educate’ on racism I need to satisfy myself in that regard before I can satisfy myself on it.

  28. Stephen
    Jewdas – legends in their own minds . Geoffrey was probed ages ago and found to be benign . Not the Messiah . Just a naughty wannabe Bundist . Received the harmless Hecksher seal and good for a laugh

    1. Harvey
      That’s torn it…I was genuinely pleased to read your last, more civil reply to my (last) comment, way back now on this thread, and happy to give you the last word.
      But now I have to come back to you over your recent cryptic reply to Stephen. Please explain: who is Jewdas, Geoffrey, and the one you call ‘ a naughty wannabe Bundist’? And what is a Hecksher seal?

  29. Ok Stephen – I guess this must be ‘insider talk’. But seeing’s Harvey’s pass the ball to you, please illuminate me!

  30. That’s a bit of a cop out Jane . As the author of ‘outsourcing Zionist propaganda in the UK ‘ , I’m sure you are more than capable of a little research of your own. Incidentally, an extended visit to Israel in order to gain a more balanced perspective would I’m sure only enhance your research and take it out the realms of the polemicist. We have enough of the Ben Whites of the world. Conflict resolution does not come about through blind allegiance to one side or another , but to listening to both sides and gaining a measure of their hopes and fears. From that comes persuasion and the convincing of deep and meaningful concessions from both sides to arrive at understanding and hopefully an irrevocable peace accord. Papers on so called Zionist propaganda ( yet to read your paper on Palestinian propaganda – I’m sure it’s in the pipeline ) may be cathartic but do little to aid the cause of peace but plenty to fan the flames of intolerance. Take a fresh approach. Look at the conflict through the eyes of an Israeli and understand what three major state wars, two Intifada which left more than a thousand Israelis dead with thousands more injured. Understand what it’s like to live with an existential threat for some 70 years . BDS is just the latest instalment following the failure of the aforementioned strategies. You have to decide whether you are a force for good or just another hackneyed polemicist who happens to have tenure.
    Incidentally the Hecksher Seal is not to be found off the coast of Newfoundland.

    1. I like your comment about the Hecksher seal, Harv…I think we’re beginning to know each other well enough for me to call you that? Actually I did look it up for myself (thinking like you that it was a cop out) but I was more interested in who Geoffrey is/was, and the ‘wannabe…’. From Stephen’s links I can see it’s all an eleborate and esoteric game that (forgive me) older men play. So moving on…
      You’re right, it must be frightful to live under existential threat, anywhere, whoever you are. And there is indeed a lot of Palestinian propaganda around – inevitably so, under the circumstances. After all, we’re talking about a people who were refused the legal right to return to their ancestral homes after the 1948 war, while Jewish immigrants flooded in to take over their properties. Yeah I know some were sold to immigrants etc. I know they didn’t have a state, a language, a currency etc. And yeah I know about the kicking out of Jews from other ME countries in retaliation but then, Israel needed more Jewish immigrants anyway, right? Yeah I know the Palestinian leadership turned down the 1947 Partition Plan – who wouldn’t have? That’s no excuse for Israel to refuse their rights as refugees under the Geneva Conventions, to which I believe Israel is a signatory, after hostilities ended. I realise you can twist that in all sorts of ways to argue that Israel is morally and legally justified in doing what it has does and continues to do to discriminate against its Palestinian citizens and those under occupation – I’ve read Jeremy Havardi for one. And as it happens, I have spent time in Israel, and the West Bank – three times, in fact. But you were ‘t to know that. In terms of BDS, in case you haven’t noticed, it’s a non-violent resistance movement that let’s face it, hardly touches Israel. At least that’s what pro-Israel propagandists tell us. BDS is, however, a thorn in Israel’s side because the international community is waking up to Israel’s brand of democracy, as well as its manifestly expansionist intentions. Facts on the ground, Harv, facts on the ground! I’m fully aware that the death toll for Israeli Jews over the decades has been abominable – I remember the sight of burned out buses and streets being cleared after a suicide bombing. But they are no more tragic than Palestinian losses are to them – many of them young men, women and children on both sides. Sure, they celebrate their fallen as martyrs but that’s a cultural difference stemming from a religious belief system which neither you nor I ascribe to, and hardly understand from our western perspective. However, I doubt that it lessens their human pain. Two years ago, Elie Wiesel (rip) wrote a letter that was published as a paid-for ad in major newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic – I expect you remember it, in the midst of Operation Defensive Edge. It shamelessly demonised and dehumanised the Palestinians, who at that time were being bombed by the fourth most powerful military in the world, linking them to the ancient practice of child sacrifice. It was a practice Jews had abandoned by Jews three millennia ago, Wiesel wrote. In my view, that letter was despicable, and what motivated me more than anything to examine Israeli propaganda. Tell me, was Wiesel not ‘fanning the flames of intolerance’? When Netanyahu makes the spurious link between Hamas and ISIS, is he not ‘fanning the flames of intolerance’?
      And before you say it (an assumption on my part that you might) no, I don’t side with terrorists, terrorism or Hamas militancy. Nor does my criticism indicate that I would wish to delegitimise Israel as a homeland for the Jews as an ethnic group, and indeed as a state. Neither do I necessarily agree with BDS. In fact I haven’t yet decided where I stand on it.

  31. @ Bellamy link
    Tony Greenstein lying as usual. He’s never 5’5″
    Maybe in his 60 s Cuban Heels. I take it he’s still suspended from Labour for alleged antisemitism.

  32. Harvey, – “but do little to aid the cause of peace but plenty to fan the flames of intolerance.”. Unlike the illegal settlements, eh?

    But thanks for the link to Jane’s take.

    1. nonsense. Supporting the right for battered women to live in protective shelters doesn’t make me a sexist.

  33. Who do Jews need protecting from in this day and age, Dave? If things are so bad how come most ‘battered women’ prefer to live elsewhere? Is Jonathan being ‘battered’?

  34. Cooeee, Dave. Still waiting for you to tell me the criteria for becoming an Israeli citizen.

    Now, you won’t forget, will you?

Comments are closed.