eugenics, university of warwick

Jews denied entry to eugenics libel event at the University of Warwick

Last night, at the University of Warwick, Faculty arranged a public talk that accused Israel of eugenics. Let us digest a simple truth. Like with most medical or technological innovations, Israel is a global powerhouse in fertility treatment. Every Israeli citizen, regardless of race, religion or colour, receives equal treatment. If you are Muslim and in need of IVF then no citizenship in the world, guarantees you the sort of world-class treatment that being an Israeli does. If you have doubts, talk to Prof. Foad Azem, I am sure he would be happy to convince you.

Eugenics is defined as ‘a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population‘. Eugenics were most famously used as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany. They are clearly associated with the Holocaust. False accusations of eugenics against Israel, places an accusing finger on the biggest victims of 20th century eugenic experiments – the Jews. The Jews are a people who lost one third of their number to genocide. You cannot spread these type of lies, which clearly fall under the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and then ignore complaints about your failure to protect Jewish students. There is something rotten in Warwick.

Dr Siggie Vertommen

The event was a talk by Dr Siggie Vertommen. It was titled ‘Anti-colonial Resistance is Fertile: Sperm Smuggling and Birth Strikes in Palestine/Israel‘. Vertommen is Marie Curie Research Fellow at the Department of Global Health & Social Medicine at King’s College London. Like many activist academics, Vertommen places her pseudo-science atop a biased and twisted view of Zionism. As Vertommen specialises in ‘the political economy of global fertility chains’ then this is what she places on top of her twisted views of Zionism. 

To understand the mindset, Vertommen wrote a piece on the social unrest in Israel in 2011 and 2012. It was published as a chapter in a book. The title was:  ‘Help, de onderdrukkers worden onderdrukt! Sociaal protest in Israel‘. This translates as ‘Help, the oppressors are being oppressed‘.

Unpack the title. In Israel, people are oppressors. Not the government, not a political body, not an ideology, but the people. In every other nation, social protests such as this are viewed as being carried out by those fighting for change, as opposition to the status quo. In Israel, they were labelled ‘oppressors’ by Vertommen. It perfectly demonstrates, that for Vertommen, there seems to be no way out for the Israeli whatever their views. It suggests a highly racist mindset.

The University of Warwick event

This is how last night’s event at the University of Warwick was advertised:

Eugenics University of Warwick

It suggests that Israel is well known for its pronatalist stance, but goes on to say that ‘critical scholars have rightly argued that Israel’s pronatalism is a selective one, primarily to serve the reproductive rights of its Jewish population at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian population‘. It argues that ‘rather than understanding Israel’s fertility policies in terms of rights, choice, peace and reconciliation‘ Vertommen will propose a ‘reproductive sabotage framework‘ – or in other words – eugenics. She complains Israel is seeking to enhance the Jewish population, whilst she is herself actively promoting ‘reproductive sabotage’. Note the Causality Reversal. Not only is she falsely accusing Israel of eugenics, but her solution is a eugenic one.

How did Vertommen do it?

The advert alone should automatically be rejected as a vile antisemitic slur. The way modern pseudo-science works is clear. It begins with a bias, upon which an academic then constructs a theory. The question then becomes: Can the academic bring together enough linkage to make the argument look innovative enough to be swallowed and propagated by other academic activists? Truth is not part of the calculation.

In Israel this works because of the variables thrown up by the conflict and because every society has unique elements to it. If every aspect of every society is slightly unique, then there is space for academic research to investigate that uniqueness. Yet one of the variables in almost any study on Israel, is the Jewish majority. Now follow the logic, if every element of every society is slightly unique, and the Jewish majority is also a unique element of Israeli society, then *every* negative aspect of Israeli society will correlate with the Jewish majority. Through a strategy of omission (in Vertommen’s case ignoring the equal rights of Israel’s non Jewish citizens, and blurring the 1967 lines) you can academically create an argument to blame the Jews for just about everything.  Even eugenics.

And look at this case. This isn’t even a ‘negative’. Israel’s innovation, strength in the medical field, and the freedom given to every one of its citizens, is twisted to become the most spiteful of slurs. Jews cannot want to strive for parenthood for natural reasons, there has to be a demonic reason for Israel to invest so heavily in fertility treatment. Jews as the devil.

The audience has no interest in what is true. They have bias, there are many Jew haters amongst them, and they are only interested in feeding the hate, not seeking genuine academic knowledge. It is antisemitic pseudo-science. Our universities have no place catering for this type of hate-speech, whether it is driven by students, financial support, or driven by Faculty.

Vertommen’s pseudo-science

Because boy is Vertommen pushing pseudo-science. Her entire argument could be placed onto any nation, which has majority and minority, wealth and poverty, prisoners and freemen, and any type of social stratification. So the core question of a researcher with integrity would be – does my example replicate itself even if I remove what I argue may be causal elements? With Vertommen, the answer is yes, they replicate everywhere, even in the total absence of Zionism, the Jewish State and the Palestinians.

There are for example, about 200,000 inmates in Federal prison in the United States – all denied conjugal rights. And sperm is smuggled there. Why is less sperm smuggled there? Perhaps because the security is tighter. Or perhaps, Israel turns a blind eye to sperm smuggling. Maybe there are not 100,000 cameras focusing on the wives of federal prisoners, so it simply isn’t reported. Or perhaps Palestinians seek to publicise it as a PR exercise, whilst federal prisoners do not. Maybe it is just that academic activists aren’t interested in sperm smuggling in Salford? Who knows. What we do know is that Israel’s citizens are all equal and the number of long-term Palestinian political prisoners is insignificant when discussing population growth.

Or in other words – she might have wrapped everything up in academic double speak to make it sound scientific, but the entire thesis is still bunkum. Or, back to the basic point, Vertommen seems to possess a ‘hate Israel’ bug and has simply placed her research on top of it. She has of course signed the academic boycott. Nothing that hundreds of other academics in UK universities are not already doing, except that Vertommen has pushed the antisemitic eugenics label onto the Jewish State.

University of Warwick Faculty

This wasn’t my first time at the University of Warwick. I went to a full-day conference there last year and have been in contact with several Jewish students who have found the university response to their special case – unhelpful. What is the special case at the University of Warwick? It is that the extremism isn’t a battle between students – the problem is with members of the Faculty.

If you want to understand academic anti-Israel activism, Warwick is one of the universities that you need to place under the microscope. There are two Palestine societies at Warwick. The regular student one, and the one created by the Faculty. In the first meeting of the Faculty driven society in late 2016, it was explained that they had created the new anti-Israel group, because the student group was not extreme enough. The beginners guide to the history of the conflict that evening was given by Teodora Todorova. It was nothing more than an error-laden rant, by a pseudo-academic with a fetish for Israel hate. How a university can allow a person to lie so blatantly to students, and still teach them in any discipline, is beyond understanding. Either accuracy and truth is important – or it is not. Clearly at the University of Warwick it is not a requirement.

Nicola Pratt is Todorova’s main supporting act. Pratt once supervised an Israeli student, Smadar Bakovic, who felt intimidated by the academic’s anti-Israel activism. The university ignored her complaints. When the student’s mark did not meet expectations, the student complained again. Eventually the work was re-marked and Bakovic obtained a distinction. In Pratt’s comments she had said that ‘Bakovic had a tendency to adopt Israeli/Zionist narratives as though they were uncontested facts’. Given Pratt’s ‘tendency’ to spread anti-Israel falsehoods amongst students, this is rank hypocrisy.

Another at last night’s event was Lisa Tilley. Others such as Sara Salem and Alice Panepinto have also been involved in the anti-Israel activism, but I am not sure if they were present last night. The Faculty at the University of Warwick contains an antisemitic vipers nest.

Unpalatable truth

Last night, Warwick held back-to-back events, with a second ‘Palestine discussion event taking place. Two anti-Israel events in one university on the same day. Internal protests against them proved unsuccessful. Students had been clearly unsettled by the eugenics event, and following up, Jewish Human Rights Watch had also called to register their complaint against a ‘blatantly antisemitic eugenics event’. All this in turn has led to a third event being scheduled for early February, that wanted to see these ‘academics’ discuss ‘Prevent and the Misuse of Antisemitism‘. What they want students to believe, is that in a nation that delivers 176 anti-Israel events in a single month, their voices are being brutally suppressed.

The unpalatable truth, is that anti-Jewish hatred is spreading almost unabated, academia is proving to be fertile ground for the virus, and Jewish students and their parents are suffocating under the strain. When the victims of this racism complain, the antisemites feel their fetish is unfairly being stifled, and use free speech arguments to defend themselves. 176 events against 1 tiny state isn’t enough, they want more, they even want to accuse the Jews of practicing eugenics, and they will be damned if they have to pay any attention to Jewish sensitivities.

Let’s face it, when it comes to pushing antisemitism onto students and then denying it exists, the Faculty at the University of Warwick are pretty active.

Denying the Jews entry

I decided to travel the distance to support the students and to see how bad the speech actually would be. I did not travel alone, both Mandy Blumenthal and Yochy Davis were with me. We did not get in. This had been advertised as a public event:

University of Warwick 1

It was advertised outside of the university forums, by local Palestinian groups:


University of Warwick 2

And the organisers put out several calls for people to come:

University of Warwick

It is important to note that they do know how to advertise a private event. Look at how the February event has been advertised:

University of Warwick 7

In fact, the argument was not that it hadn’t been advertised as a public event, but rather that the organisers had changed their minds during the course of the day. When we arrived, we were spotted by Teodora Todorova, who was sitting next to Lisa Tilley in conversation. My own assumption is that this is when the decision was made. When we went to enter the lecture hall, it was Tilley who stood in our way:

Lisa Tilley - University of Warwick

Tilley asked us for ID, explaining that only Faculty and students would be allowed in. We pointed out that we had driven two hours to a public event. She shrugged. It’s the ‘Prevent strategy’ she said. There is irony here. These people hate Prevent, and yet they used it as an excuse to exclude us. It shows the hypocrisy of their arguments of free speech. We politely protested, and Todorova came to the door to stand alongside Tilley. Todorova asked us for ID, which she wanted to ‘photograph’, which seems like an outrageous invasion of privacy and a clear over-step of her position. It also contradicts the Prevent statement. If we could not come in, then what use were our ID’s? Never one to blink, I handed her my ID, she didn’t take it, shrugged and turned away. Bluff called.

Protecting hate speech

Yochy and Mandy refused to let go, but remained polite throughout. With the door now closed, and the three Jews outside, we tried to speak to another academic standing outside. He was also at the anti-Israel conference last year, and therefore is clearly part of the ‘clan’. He was abrupt, rude and visibly had a problem with our presence. I said to him that surely he can ‘understand that having driven two hours for a public event, we were disappointed at being refused entry’. He said ‘ there is nothing to talk about’, and he ‘was waiting for security’, obviously to escort us off the premises.

UW academic

There is no point doing anything in this position but politely press the point and then accept the verdict. From the point of a denial of entry, right or wrong, any security system will side with Faculty. We are the aliens. Jewish aliens no less. Todorova reappeared, and I said to her this exclusion was unnecessary. Mandy attempted to speak to her as well. She brushed past all three of us, ignoring our presence and without saying a word.

Think about this for a minute. She had organised the event and she had made it public. Todorova was responsible for our wasted journey, and was the academic representative on site. As the face of the university, she at the very least should have given us polite apologies. But this isn’t about academia. This is an anti-Jewish movement, she is an anti-Israel activist, and with that hat firmly on her head, she completely blanked us. It exposes the unacceptable truth of our exclusion. Had it been genuine, she would have behaved differently.

Mandy and Yochy spoke for some time with the sympathetic and friendly security. We were supplied with the information necessary to lodge a formal complaint.

It is also important to note we were the only three people excluded. Apparently to an event that was public, not one other person turned up. At this point we have reason to believe local anti-Israel activists were allowed into the room, but we were excluded because of our identity. We are currently chasing that information.

It is difficult to describe the emotions we felt as we stood there. Excluded as Jews, we were not permitted to enter a room and defend Jewish rights, inside a place where antisemitism was being fomented. Not in some private Nazi’s living room, but inside a lecture theatre of a UK university. And the thugs responsible for all this, were not some shunned section of our society, but those gifted with teaching our children. And the university security, however polite, were there to reinforce the rules that discriminated against us. Institutionalised antisemitism.

Academics at the University of Warwick used Prevent as an excuse to ensure that their twisted antisemitic narrative would go unchallenged.  They knew, that if they allowed us entry, then during the Q&A we would provide an alternative argument to the one they wanted students to believe. And the university allowed them to do it. To actually suggest Jews practice eugenics, whilst barring Jews from being able to put up a defence. That is the standard of academics at the University of Warwick. Something it is clearly worthwhile remembering.

A complaint is being drafted.



Help support my research

I fight antisemitism and the revisionist narrative that demonises Israel. I was recently named as one of the J100 (‘top 100 people positively influencing Jewish life’) by The Algemeiner. My work is fully independent, and your support makes much of what I do possible. This research does make a difference.

Please if you can, consider making a donation. Either a single amount or if you can a small monthly contribution.  Research such as this is intensive. We need to be there to expose the lies. Every contributions 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.


163 thoughts on “Jews denied entry to eugenics libel event at the University of Warwick

  1. Ha yes the IHRA ” batshit ” definition ” , the one that hasn’t been adopted by the Labour Party. The truth matters.

    Maybe your entry problems have something to do with Mandy Bluthenthal having a penchant for intimidating and then assaulting other attendees.

    1. Stephen, how can you possibly use the word ‘truth’ in the same comment you accuse Mandy of assault. As everyone knows, and the footage clearly shows, the violent activist arrested at the War on Want demo a few months ago, grabbed the phone from her hands. As anybody would, she went to retrieve her stolen property. If you cannot even play honest in situations like that – what hope is there for you?

    2. Dead right Bellers. Let’s keep a focus on the real issue here; the door policy of the management. When me a Gabriel were denied entry when we went to review the new Goebbels Curry Cottage I wanted to say that they were antisemites but he reckoned it was because we weren’t wearing ties. Batshit crazy if you ask me.

  2. “Tilley asked us for ID, explaining that only Faculty and students would be allowed in. We pointed out that we had driven two hours to a public event. She shrugged. It’s the ‘Prevent strategy’ she said. There is irony here. These people hate Prevent, and yet they used it as an excuse to exclude us.”

    This is an obvious pretext. ‘Prevent’ says nothing about excluding people. Yeterday before the meeting I spoke to Manus Conaghan at Warwick U. He is the Prevent point person. He specifically told me that they did NOT consider that this meeting came under the ‘Prevent’ provisions, since it did NOT encourage extremism in their view.

      1. jonno? There were three of us in the car. Me, Mandy and Yochy. I saw nobody else anywhere, nor at the event. Was he hiding in the trunk?

        1. So are you saying Hoffman is being economical with the verité and wasn’t actually there?

  3. David you have a habit of prefixing or suffixing highly disputable propositions with expressions like ” as everybody knows………” ” clearly”

    But hey ho nothing turns on it. Once again you suffer the inevitable consequences of lying down with dogs.

    1. sorry Stephen, it doesn’t work. Yesterday I was unfairly evicted from an event. Next time, I can be evicted as someone always evicted from events. I don’t buy into this fascist method at all. Mandy goes to 100’s of events and was assaulted at several. If you exclude her, it isn’t because she is a troublemaker.

  4. David
    I admire your attempt to play by their rules but the deck is rigged . The means is there to realign the cards while remaining within the law . Anything else is a waste of time. You are dealing with faculty fascists aligned with student Islamlofascists

  5. Err… That’s 3 right wing activist Jews not allowed in, not all Jews as implied in your headline.
    Quick query, though. Who funds all your gallivanting around the country and attending events?

    1. Yeah David. Dick does well to remind us of the key issue here; namely the fiscal propriety of social media bloggers. I do not want to have to suspend my monthly standing order if this is shown to be frivolous and wholly recreational gallivanting. Do you have petrol receipts?

      1. Damn Ian… I will have to cancel my subscription to Netflix if you do that. What will I watch when I am pretending to be an activist. I do have the apple core, I didn’t have anywhere to put it and left it in my pocket. Will this suffice?

    2. not sure. Mandy was driving, Yochy bought me a coffee, oh and one of them gave me an apple. Is this like a government gift thing, where I can get into trouble if I don’t declare it? Jeez… Ian is right. anything to deflect.

      1. And now to the main point… It was only 3 right wing activists who weren’t let in, wasn’t it? Not all Jews.
        You may make light of your funding sources, but that’s just a deflection too.

        1. Dick I do hope you realise the disgraceful nature of your argument. Firstly, I am not a ‘right wing activist’ and anyway – my political position is irrelevant. But try this on for size. ‘The MET police were not institutionally racist because some non-blacks were also arrested’. Or, ‘not every black was arrested so there was no racism in the police force’. Your argument isn’t disgraceful because it is so weak, it is disgraceful because you use this type of ridiculous strategy to deflect from anti-Jewish racism.

          1. David the analogy is ridiculous. There are two issues. What reason was given for not letting you in? The ” prevent” argument is stupid. The other issue is why didn’t they want you in, which is not quite the same question.
            You offer the reason that it is because you are Jewish. You know that isn’t it at all and Dick’s point stands. To be frank it reads like a self pitying whine.

            Hi Amie.

            1. Dick’s point doesn’t stand. You are right, the Prevent argument is stupid – but it is the one we were given at the door. The question becomes when did they decide to turn this from a public to a private event. You and I both know, if we are being honest, it was probably when I was sighted by Todorova. At this point, it becomes about the distorted way she views me. You may claim that racism is not involved. I believe it clearly is. That you or Dick may or may not view with the same type of glasses Todorova does, doesn’t validate his point. As I am someone who does nothing but write, the exclusion is unsupportable however you choose to describe it. When it is placed into context – that they sought to push antisemitic falsehoods onto students unchallenged, and we threatened that strategy, then I think the entire antisemitic cap fits quite nicely.

                1. the two are connected. As we are probably both of the mind that the decision was only taken upon us being sighted – then one is intimately linked to the other. They maintained the decision was taken prior to this, which is almost certainly not true – therefore when, rather than why, is the question that carries the weight.

                  1. Not following this David. I am sure your judgment is sound on the when question. On that they are being economical with the actuality to put it as kindly as I can.

                    . Dan was addressing the why.

                    You are telling us it because you guys are Jewish. Like ” Oh look those folks look like a bunch of Yids. THEY are not coming in.”

                    What if it had been, say, Simon Cobbs and that yob from Students Rights ( sic) of UCL fame. Forgot his name. And they knew all about them. I instinctively think whatever reason you were excluded would have extended to them too.

                    Neither is Jewish. Simon is about as Jewish as my grand ma Maggie O’Hara.

                    So having settled the when the why becomes important. Dan’s question remains unanswered.

                    1. I am pleased that we both agree that they were being rather deceptive when they suggested this was a prevent issue and that they had only decided it was private the moment they realised I was there. There are things we will not agree on, and your refusal to see antisemitism, even when it is wearing a bit fat t-shirt with the words ‘antisemitic activity’ blazing in high quality print across the front, is part of the problem. Can we agree that for academics, who push the argument of free speech as being the primary defence of their right to discuss whatever they want, there is rank hypocrisy, and perversion of the central pillars of academia in their refusal to allow in, people that they know hold different viewpoints?

                    2. okay. I have long accepted there are bridges that we cannot cross. Given the limitations presented by our positions, I think I can be satisfied by the level of agreement we do have on this event.

          2. David, you still are avoiding the issue that it wasn’t All Jews who were barred, just you, your 2 friends and possibly Hoffman. And if it was open only to faculty and students, and you are not faculty or students, then your argument about distance travelled is a bit moot.
            Anything else in your reply is deflection par excellence.

            1. The event was open – and they only chose to close it upon my arrival. I have no interest in playing your game.

              1. A little bit more light relief for you David 🙂

                David I was more than content to go along with your assumption that the decision to exclude you was taken after you were spotted and you made the journey with no idea this was going to happen. It added up. Or seemed to. However, a problem has arisen.

                Ir looks like Scoffie may have dropped you in it. This is not an infrequent experience of people that lie down with the narcissistic idiot. I call it Scoff in mouth desease.

                Apparently he wasn’t there. However, he has an impulse to tell us he was involved and he has zilch impulse control when it comes to self promotion. He tells us this……….

                “Yeterday ( his ryping skills don’t seem obviously superior to mine ) before the meeting I spoke to Manus Conaghan at Warwick U. He is the Prevent point person. He specifically told me that they did NOT consider that this meeting came under the ‘Prevent’ provisions, since it did NOT encourage extremism in their view.”

                So if he wasn’t there the convo presumably was earlier in the day . Why was he talking about the prevent alibi to the prevent officer earlier in the day? He must have had information that there was to be exclusions and prevent was to be the stupid excuse. If Scoffie knew then you knew before you made the journey.

                I am sure you can clear this up. One possible explanation is that this conversation didn’t happen and that it was another example of his look at me !!! look at me !!! destructive impulse.

                1. I think you are confusing issues. In my blog I specifically mention that JHRW registered a complaint with the university during the day. I am sure others did as well. It seems Jonathan was one of those that called. None of this has anything to do with the events of the evening. Jonathan apparently called, and spoke to the Prevent person. Why you think that he thought or knew people were going to be excluded is beyond me. From your details, it seems during the call, the person advised Jonathan, that his complaint about the event had nothing to do with him, as the meeting did not fall under the provisions. It’s your conspiracy bug playing with you again.

                  1. That was my other theory, and I think it is close to the truth. I think you were taken by surprise, and that it probably was Scoffie that gave them the idea of quoting prevent.

                    So you guys stupidly try to get the meeting shut down on prevent grounds and then whine like ripped off crack hos when the faculty quote prevent as grounds for excluding you.

                    Then Scoffie spills the beans.

          1. Not at all. Only those who shout ‘get out of my country’ at non-white students at a university gathering.
            I would suggest also that Israel advocates UJS, Bicom, JLM, etc are not close to being right wing.

          1. Why should three pro Israel activists be denied entry Dick Mullet? Is it simply because they hold opposing views to the organisers – even YOU cannot defend that nonsense!

        2. Mr. Mullett, you are out of order. Accusing the Zionists of being right-wing is childish and factually incorrect. May I suggest you read up on countries which had leftwing governments and come back to me with a list of those countries that enjoyed the prosperity, equality and pluralism that Israel offers. I await the results of your research.

    3. “Right wing activist Jews” David is clearly standing up to a bigoted, anti-Semitic prejudice, which, in any sane persons eyes, makes him a liberal.

  6. What is the birth strike, as promoted by gays against surrogacy?

    Bellamy must be perpetually frustrated that you consistently fail to rise to his offensive bait and keep treating him like a rational, normal human being.

  7. The claims remind me of the days back in the seventies when gay and lesbian self styled revolutionaries used to claim that their acts of having sex— especially in non monogamous relationships— were bringing about The Revolution by undermining the structural basis of capitalism.

    Honestly, these are acts of resistance against the colonialist settler might of the state of Israel?

    Exactly how many women are having themselves impregnated by Palestinian jailbirds?

    And just how many Israeli gays are there not spilling their seed or donating their eggs in the Gays Against Surrogacy collective?

    We should be publicising this parody of serious research for all we’re worth!

    The leeast we can do is nominate it for the IgNobel junk research awards……

    1. Good suggestion Judy. There was also some talk of the Darwin Awards recently (you will know that these commemorate the individuals who contribute to the improvement of our gene pool by removing themselves from it.) I was sure that some of the contributors here might qualify until it was pointed out that you had to be dead to be eligible. To be honest I’m still not sure that this rules some of the out.

      1. Actually the Symbionese Liberation Army thought this sex thing highly politically important. So the girls would get themselves admitted to max security prisons as visitors and make out with the black prisoners. Not sure how on topic this is but the thought occurred

        1. Very ‘on topic’ Bellers. You forgot to mention that the guys on the door wouldn’t let Patty Hearst in because her name sounded too Jewish.

  8. Stephen Bellamy’s insulting language when referring to the International Holocaust Remembrance Assassination’s definition of antisemitism, highlights his own “critical” stance of being another malicious antisemitic troll, whose raisin d’etre is to spend his waking hours, seeking out Jewish websites, so he can insult Jews, Judaism and the Jewish state. This is Stephen ‘s sad life! But, don’t cry for Stephen as this is his choice!

    1. Given this may be true, the more time he spends here doing absolutely no harm at all, the better.

        1. I do not believe you cannot work out the “who exactly!” You use the word “batshit” which refers to bat’s faeces. You use it to reference the IHRA. You use it to denigrate the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which itself is a variant of the EUMC,which then became the FRA. The US has a variant of the EUMC and so on regarding the definition of antisemitism. You chose to be offensive. You choose to be offensive. You did not have to use the word “batshit” to make a point, other than to make the point of using “shit” in reference to Jews.

          You cannot have a dialogue without being offensive, using offensive language. That’s what you do. This is who you are. You troll Jewish websites in order to insult Jews, Judaism and the Jewish state. It shows you have a pathological obsession with Jews.

      1. David, you’re right about Bellers. He just doesn’t get it. He sent me a private message earlier asking “what’s all the fuss about Eugenics? Is Annie Lennox making a comeback?”

  9. Antisemitism is rife no less than it was before 1939. The only difference is that at present we have our defensive weapon it’s called Israel, not because of its military capability (although mighty) but for its ingeniousity in invention & creativity in Technology leading to its success in the World Trading Market. It’s called none the less Yiddisher kopf and that is something money can’t buy ! Is it a wonder that the antisemites are trying to create a smoke screen by calling themselves Anti Zionists which will go to any extent to soil Israel’s name ?

  10. The University of Warwick should bar Jews from entry. It would be the logical next step. It would demonstrate their unashamed anti-semitism and would be the ‘honest’ thing to do.

  11. I am seeing the barring of Zionist atttendees at the Warwick University event as a victory. It is only in the last year or two that Zionists are being refused entry to pro-Palestine events. How do we interpret this? is it fear of the meeting being disrupted? Probably. Is it a fear of what is being discussed as highly questionable? Probably. Or, is it that what will flow from the mouths of the pro-Palestine protagonists is a complete and utter hatred of the Jewish state,, a plethora of lies and propaganda that will not stand to questioning.? of course it is.

    Take heart fellow Zionists, we might have lost this battle, but, we are winning the war.

  12. David, where is the evidence to support your assertion that Vertommen believes that Israel’s policy of pronatalism constitutes a form of eugenics?

    1. First of all Josh, there is a bit of a straw man in your question. But ignoring that, had I been allowed inside, I would have heard Vertommen’s argument in full. I wasn’t permitted entry, which is not my fault but theirs, which means I can only work through an understanding of the argument as it is presented in the summary (I do hope to be able to listen to the full event in a day or two). I did seek advice as eugenics is not my field, and reading from the summary, I have yet to talk to a fair minded person that does not see some form of a two-way eugenic discussion contained within it. It clearly runs in parallel to a definition of eugenics. I am not entirely convinced that whether Vertommen believes it constitutes a form of eugenics or not is relevant to the problem or the blog. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why it is important?

      This – “critical scholars have rightly argued that Israel’s pronatalism is a selective one, primarily to serve the reproductive rights of its Jewish population at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian population‘.”
      alongside this
      ” it will propose a ‘reproductive sabotage framework”

      Seem pretty self-explanatory.

  13. This is being studied by people all over the world, I am in Nicaragua.
    Universities like Warwick are showing us that the fish is rotting from t he head down. Perhaps the faculty should go right back to elementary education including history of the world and work from there.

  14. Surely people who refuse to allow others into a public meeting do so because they are afraid. Cowards refuse to allow public discussion because they are afraid of being shown up as idiots and fear they will be unable to answer relevant and justified questions. If people have a brain, they relish discussion with all, but bigots run scared and behave like bullies.
    Shame on an august institution with a reputation such as Warwick has, for allowing such behaviour.

  15. Surely the time has come to ban the vile creature Bellamy.
    And now, here we have another ghastly new troll, Dick.

    1. George,

      Please don’t forget me, I mean, I am a member of the ‘swivel-eyed’ brigade allegedly, one that promotes tolerance & respect for human life. Still, as such a belief system now makes me ‘anti-semitic’, one really can’t win with the actual ‘swivel eyed’ brigade!

      1. nope – you are the one making stuff up to justify unacceptable behaviour. You promote lies to hide intolerance and an abuse of freedoms. You did it here, on this blog, just a few hours ago.

  16. As Mr Collier makes some grave allegations, its useful perhaps to detail Warwick for Justice in Palestine’s Code of Conduct, specifically its final Paragraph: “We would like to emphasise that no intimidation of any kind will be tolerated at our events, either towards members of the audience or towards speakers and organisers, and we expect all those speaking at or attending our events to abide by the Dignity at Warwick policy (…/equalops/dignityatwarwick/)”

    Now, I concur with Mr Collier that the event/lecture was advertised as a Public Lecture, however, and in light of the fact that Mr Collier was escorted by one Jonathan Hoffman, a well known agitator & disrupter of numerous events, its seems logical, given the organisers are not stupid, that they uphold their own Code of Conduct, namely that detailed above.

    Now, given what’s known about Hoffman the organisers were within their right to stop a well known agitator entry to said gathering knowing full well he respects no Codes whatsoever – plenty of video evidence to support this. Alas Mr Collier, you have admitted trying to attend this Public Lecture with Hoffman

    Now, Mr Collier, in light of the Code of Conduct, which is here for all to see:
    Please explain why the organisers should allow known agitators within this lecture, given their Code of Conduct is quite clear, namely, agitators are not wanted.

    Obviously, if Hoffman had not journeyed with you, I may well have had some sympathy. However, given the facts, the organisers are actually in the right, and as ever, you make mountains out of mole hills, mountains the size of K2 I hasten to add.

    In future, perhaps remember, if you are unwilling to comply with Public Codes of Conduct openly displayed, don’t be surprised if you are turned away if your interest is nothing less than academic, which in Mr Hoffman’s case, it certainly was not.

    1. Jonathan wasn’t there. It is that simple. These rumours – that Hoffman was somehow there are a perfect example of how one side speaks the truth, and the other tries to make stuff up to justify their unacceptable behaviour.

      1. David, Lets clear up some issues here. First, Hoff was not with you. No issue, this is a fact as presented by you and you colleagues, one that would stand in any court.

        Second, given this Blog evolves with the hours, we are instructed by Hoff he already had been in contact with the University on the afternoon of the day of your journey, no doubt trying to get this small ‘PUBLIC’ lecture banned or cause as much hassle as possible for the organisers and guest speaker, not to mention the Faculty & University itself!

        Now, accepting the fact that Hoff was not physically present with you, may I enquire, given Hoff had already let the cat out of the bag, i.e., he alerted the University that the event was under scrutiny by known agitators ( I don’t use the word lightly), do you think a few red flags were raised and the organisers of the Lecture alerted to the fact that rabble rousers may try and gain entry under false pretences in order that they stop the Lecture completely by disreputable behaviour, which Hoff is well known for, as are his fellow journeymen.

        Now, can we get back to the Code of Conduct I detailed, can we pay attention to the paragraph I detailed on this thread, and can we, that is you, hand on heart, state categorically that your intent was academic & that you and your colleagues, as members of the public, were willing to uphold the Code of Conduct. Which is axiomatic actually if you were legitimately trying to gain access.

        Indeed, my interest is such, that I’m actually now in the process of corresponding with the organisers as a concerned citizen to garner further information. Information that will either refute your claims, or actually reinforce your claims, namely, that you were barred from entry for being Jewish.

        Also, can you instruct if any of the other attendees were Jewish, or was it just the Zionist agitators refused entry, or presumed Zionist agitators given you are well known in Palestinian support group circles.

        1. Chris

          This is no different than a case of three innocent black people turning up and being refused entry to an event. The decision to turn them away was made when the white racist organiser saw them there and didn’t want the event ‘sullied’. The white man said it was ‘members only’, even though it was advertised as public. They also gave another excuse about irrelevant university policy that was quickly ridiculed. Others have suggested it happened because it was ‘full’. Or because the black people were there to cause trouble. Everything the university and its supporters are doing, is typical of all the ways racist behaviour against black people was always protected and excused. Let me surmise your question

          Did the white racists know that black people may turn up to cause trouble? Were there other black people inside you ask (You mean like a quota system?) Maybe the ‘right type’ of black person was let in? Or perhaps as black people, we are agitators (Even though none of us cause trouble)? Is this really the line you are using. Is this what you are asking me now?

          1. David,

            Please sir, don’t utilise the African analogy as it don’t have wings I’m afraid. As with me, you are European, which means you have a pinkish complexion. As such, and given most Europeans look much alike, this analogy stinks, unless of course you are both Jewish & of recent African descent – can we qualify this with Hoff please?

            Now, given in your OP you have detailed you are actually known to the organisers. I mean you have named and shamed them, please explain why anybody, bar yourself and band of followers you journeyed with, and in light of the Code of Conduct, why you suggest Jews were barred from the Lecture, given your global reputation, a reputation of suggesting any critique of the Israeli State is anti-semitic.

            Had you and your colleagues not been known, and had Hoff not rang the University with the intent to derail matters, I too may have been alarmed and cried actual anti-semitism. This clearly is not the case though.

            It will be interesting to see if the Organisers respond to my own enquiries, which I shall of course convey to your readership.

            1. I am not European. Europeans have spent centuries persecuting my ancestors because they were not European. You are an idiot. I also don’t have a ‘reputation’ for suggesting any critique of the Israeli state is antisemitic (others say I rule the world, control the banks and so on). I do hope you are not expecting anyone to take this seriously. As you will not find a single quote of mine *ever* that suggests this is the case, you are now blatantly just piling on false accusations on me, as you piled them on Hoffman earlier.

              The black person analogy holds and is accurate and no amount of whinging will change it. Your discomfort with it, is because it so clearly highlights what we are really dealing with here.

              1. You are as European as they come.
                Anyhoo… Being associated with Hoff is the death knell for any sensible pro Israel advocate. The moment he got involved, your card was marked

                1. I reject that entirely. you do realise that 99.95% of the people in this country, do not even know who the Hoff is. I am really not going to bother with you anymore. not sure why I tried.

    2. This is brilliant. We have erstwhile contributor, Gabriel reviewing books he’s never read and now Chris commenting on an attendee that never attended. What next I wonder; The spurious Mullet offering us a short essay on his life as Mollie Sugden?

    3. Hypocrite. PSC have been disrupting israeli events for years including the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra at the Proms in 2011 Bathsheva dance and Habima theatre troupes to name but three . J. Hoffman for the most part asks questions in the Q+A to which he is ignored. Unlike the fascist thugs of the PSC .
      What’s sauce for the goose etc.

  17. Are there no Warwick faculty critical of anti-Semitism who could have demanded entry even to an event restricted to Warwick faculty and students?

  18. Stephen Bellamy, Your contribution in summary : David , Yochy and Mandy are “right wing ” activists. therefore whatever they say is wrong. I am left, progressive the least anti-Semitic guy you can ever meet, and even if I’m totally stupid (which you are Stephen) I’m always right. That’s you Stephen in a nutshell. You are a bore Stephen and you have taken 10 minutes of my life reading rubbish. and I’m really really upset about that. You try to use language , ambiguity and other techniques to make fatuous points. You have not made one good point at all. You have not even supported the speaker at this conference. You have not given one good reason why David and his tiny team should have been excluded, even if you don’t like their opinions. You just like to bate people.

    1. Nice summary Joshua, although no post from Bellers is complete without the airing of some personal grudge. His own bijoux blogette seems to exists entirely for this purpose. I think he calls it Tir Amasu. I suppose that naming it after a sickly pudding has a certain poetry.

      1. “metta mi giu” ( a put me down) would have been a more appropriate name to describing Stephen’s efforts.

    2. Aw Joshua this makes ten minutes and three seconds.

      I don’t recall saying

      I am left


      I am progressive


      I am least antisemitic guy You could wish to meet.

      I don’t recall ever being bored in my entire life though. Get a freaking hobby ffs

  19. Found the link to this from Melanie Phillips’ blog. Truly it is shocking that this happens in 21st century Britain, at a university no less.

    1. It’s been happening for years. These proto fascists have been disrupting Israeli events including the Israel Philharmonic at the Summer Proms . Now they are making inroads into academia which comes as no surprise given the far left influence in our university faculties. Mr Collier and others were banned because their presence and reporting would have shone a light on the foul lies and propaganda presented by this activist academic. She constructs the academic discourse to fit her own prejudices and disseminates it to an audience of eager unthinking and uncritical students. David Collier kicks away the stone to shine a light on these people who prefer to operate in the shadows but we see you and more are beginning to understand the rot which has been allowed to set in. The only way to deal with the matter is for the government to make good on their recent pronouncements and get to grips with the relevant universities and hit them hard in the pocket. Student society , Charitable status needs to be scrutinised and reported for evident breaches of conditions set down by the Charity Commission.

      The government needs to act firmly to prevent universities becoming a no go zone for Jewish students .

    2. This would be the same Melanie that flew to Athens with the nut job fascist Douglas Murray in an attempt to persuade the authorities there not to allow the establishing of a mosque in that city

        1. Aw Ian that was the comment of a man trying way too hard. If you feel an urge to be witty but can’t think of anything witty to say, the wisest thing is to sit on your hands.

          BTW the next time you are writing reviews of restaurents you haven’t visited you might think of bringing in David on the wheeze. He just has made an awful fool of himself writing blog posts about meetings he didn’t attend.

          1. I haven’t made a fool of myself at all Stephen. The advert, as everyone knows, reeks of antisemitism. In addition, however you seek to utilise the quote from the Jewish students, the Hawthorne effect is in place, so I could (but can’t be bothered to) argue the speaker only toned down the racism because by this point they were aware complaints would be made. This is what is implied in the full quote from the Jewish students.

            So as to keep you in the loop, a second issue has opened up. Not only does the complaint deal with the problems of the exclusion, since my blog post, at least two members of the Faculty have been spreading lies about my behaviour. One central player, a female academic, has suggested (quote from the media) I am ‘very well known’ for ‘aggressive behaviour towards female academics’ and that my ‘physical and verbal intimidation tactics were very much on display on Wednesday’.

            That a female member of Faculty should invent an allegation of sexist abuse, aggression and harassment is not just libellous, but a betrayal of those who truly suffer from such abuse. This second element is also in the complaint. They really are digging a hole for themselves.

          2. Why would I do that Bellers when it’s loads more fun reading your reviews of jokes I didn’t make.

  20. This is appalling.

    Warwick University should be ashamed of its dirty little self. The left are truly saturated with foul anti-semites. They make me sick.

  21. David Sir,

    Given how confusing this Blog becomes when it has multiple comments from readers, would it be possible to actually add a ‘Time Stamp’ to the post, rather than just a date stamp, that way, persons can keep up with who says what and when, rather than the thread being all over the place?

    1. Noted. I am looking at using an external system, such as Disqus (or other variety). The native WordPress comment system is limited. However, I won’t do it, if it means losing the archive of comments.Does anyone else want or care if there is a change? Does anyone know of a better system plugin to WordPress?

    2. Posted on 20th Jan 2018 10.46 am Jewish State time

      Loving the desperation of the naysayers in this thread; like 40 year old virgins watching the porn channel in boxing gloves.

      “blah blah… accounting irregularities…blah, blah …reckon you’re mates with some bloke we don’t like and nobody else has heard of….he was there…oh no he wasn’t …oh yes he was…oh no he wasn’t…..blah,blah… Melanie Phillips hates Greeks…blah, blah, blah”

      Quality activism. Altogether now “Free-eeeee, A-hed Taaamimi”

      1. I love reading your comments.

        Bloggers log – Stardate 41153.7 – (posted from the occupied New Ariel district on Tatooine, within the occupied galaxy of New, New Israel.) – FREE TATOOINE!

  22. Even taking in to account the forgivable exuberance of youth, the sheer joy of allowing your intellect to run unshackled from any reality, the sort of thing one is sure to encounter coming from the strong young minds of university students – even with all of that, this discussion reveals that there are far too many ordinary minds on Warwick campus now. Attending a university has become too easy and too commonplace, and far too many supermarket cashiers are getting pumped out dressed up as intelligentsia.

    Clearly, Warwick University has a serious problem. If this discussion is in any way indicative of its intellectual standards, then its Antisemitism is among its lesser problems. Any Yob can learn to express himself with fancy words, but that won’t raise the level of his mind. The fact that so many comments were elicited in favour of the exclusion of Jews from the meeting under discussion, is the best indicator of how badly Warwick has failed as a university. The fact that the whole fiasco originated in the faculty itself, simply underscores that failure.

    Perhaps anyone seriously considering a higher education, should seek it elsewhere.

    I will not respond to follow-up comments, so if you were going to answer me, rather don’t bother.

    1. Harry the University of Warwick doesn’t have a problem. The University is serenely and happily going about its business. Its you Zio guys that have the problem.

  23. Looks like David’s hoof is in his mouth

    However, Warwick University’s Jewish/Israeli society (JISoc) told the JC that the event was not as bad as their members had feared.

    “We were deeply concerned with the event’s Facebook description, which we believe amounted to dog-whistle antisemitism,” the group said in a statement.

    “As such, a couple of our members attended the event, which had a turnout of 10 to 15 people, and found that the speaker and her content were not antisemitic, and therefore, not worthy of further comment.

    1. Stephen, you know I think you are being somewhat selective in your quote. Why not use all of it?

      “As such, a couple of our members attended the event, which had a turnout of 10 to 15 people, and found that the speaker and her content were not antisemitic, and therefore, not worthy of further comment. It is important to note that there was a divergence between the event as advertised, and what was heard on the day.”

    1. no, I don’t think that is what a lie is. As I said in my complaint to the university (which has now been sent)

      The really sad thing is that the whole episode seems to have been unnecessary, but the actions of some members of your Faculty, both before and after the event, have left me with no choice but to take on this battle.

      I go to lots of events you are unaware of, because nothing of note happens. you only know of this one because I was excluded. If you are suggesting that because I responded to ‘dog whistle’ antisemitism in an advert for an event, and was then excluded from the event, I am somehow in the wrong for not having accurately portrayed the event itself through being blinded because of the ‘racist’ exclusion – your ethical vision is a skewed sometimes as your logic.

    1. Funny thing is, he picked that up from those doing the work on the good side. Didn’t even give the credit. When he learns to give credit where it is due, I’ll consider his application.

    2. There you go again David . ” as everyone knows” . Everyone knows so matter settled. Well everyone doesn’t know. I for one don’t know. I have read the ad several times and I don’t understand a freaking word. This is why I have not commented on it. I for one am clever enough to understand the difference between cleverness and expertise.,

      I wonder if you are. I can’t help wondering when someone who seems to have zilch understanding of what logic is, what it can do for us and what it can’t do for us, criticises MY logic.

      You keep banging on about the faculty, but don’t tell us which faculty. You tell us that this mysterious ” faculty” formed its own anti Israel club because the student one isn’t extreme enough. You provide no evidence of this and I can’t find any elsewhere. Is this something else you just made up ?

      So you are going into battle with the University of Warwick. Hopefully you will have better luck than when you went into battle with the University of Bath.

      Your personal grudge against certain academics at Warwick has not served you well here. With a bit of help from certain idiots I won’t bother mentioning again, you have screwed up big time. You sensed an opportunity to do them over and it blew up in your face. My personal advice would be to ruefully lick your wounds, and be more careful next time.

      1. Here David, I fear Bellers may have the advantage. When it comes to manipulating social media almost exclusively for airing personal grudges he is peerless as his brutal Tir Amisu blog proves. If he gets the merest sniff that I’m a pretend Jew, a bent brief or Melanie Phillips, I’m done for.

        1. Except Ian Confucias he say…….

          ” It is not the puruit of personal grudges that will do for you it is getting so careless and over excited that the pursuit blows up in your face.”

          1. Confucias also say

            ” best not to get spotted at the same time cross posting the pursuit of your grudge on the racist cess pit Harry’s Place ”

            Probably at the invitation of her fragrance, Sarah. Though equally possibly at the invite of David Toube, AKA Habibi, AKA Lucy Lips.

            Here is Lucy on one of her more famous homophobic rants


          2. The coincidences of life are weird Bellers. My son and some of his army mates were just explaining to me the components of their new drink of choice “The Irish Car Bomb” and you come on here talking about blowing shit up. It was only a matter of time I suppose.

      2. Oh Stephen, I admit I do forget that when I talk about ‘everybody’, this would include all those who are determined to oppose everything I write, all those who think Jews are controlling the word, all those who never see antisemitism anywhere and so on. Given this, I accept some of your criticism and should refrain from doing so. I also forget that even my casual responses are picked up, so each time I write something, I should perhaps send it through to the ‘Elders’ for editorial checking.

        This same problem arises when we discuss logic, so I accept that to some people, some of my arguments, will appear illogical, despite the inherent integrity of the logic behind them. Here though, I need to concern myself only with the integrity of the logic itself, rather than bending it to ‘fit’, the skewed perception of others. I am not surprised you think I have zilch understanding of what logic is. I think I can live with that.

        I am not the conspiracy theorist, so when I talk about Faculty, I am talking about some of the Faculty. Those specifically involved in the incident. Like if I say I was attacked by Millwall supporters, I do not mean I was attacked by all of them, and if I reference Millwall supporters in my report, I am of course only referring to those who attacked me. I didn’t think I needed to spell this out, but then I forget that not ‘everyone’ involved in this discussion is inside it to gain understanding or discover truth. Some are there to set out hurdles. This I can do nothing about.

        I never went to battle with Bath, I addressed an issue there. As I am doing here. I did not seek anyone out as part of a personal grudge, after all, they excluded me, not the other way around. It is important to remember the way this works – the racists are the bad guys – I fight racists – If you are not a racist, I have no problem with you. Nothing has blown up in my face, I was excluded on discriminatory grounds, and I will fight that position, as well as the smears people use as a way of trying to discredit me.

  24. David’s travails bring to mind the epigraph to one of Christopher Hitchens’ finest essays:

    In his imperishable Treatise on the Art of Political Lying, published in 1714, Dr. John Arbuthnot laid down a standard for falsifiers and calumniators that has yet to be excelled. He wrote:

    Detractory or defamatory lies should not be quite opposite to the qualities the person is supposed to have. Thus it will not be found according to the sound rules of pseudology to report of a pious and religious prince that he neglects his devotions and would introduce heresy; but you may report of a merciful prince that he has pardoned a criminal who did not deserve it”.

    The Chorus and Cassandra: What Everyone Knows about Noam Chomsky (Grand Street, Vol. 5, No. 1 Autumn, 1985), p.106.

    1. This is a helpful contribution Josh.

      On the occasions when I happily engage on the subject of our wondrous Jewish State with contrary, self styled anti-Zios I always ask them what date they would like to use to start the conversation; 3000 BC, 1922, 1948, 1967, today? I had never considered 1714 as an option but I will now. Cheers.

    1. Harvey Sir,

      How wonderful to be called a toady by you, perhaps given I’m polite enough to call you a Groupie of Mr Collier. Further, whilst I agree with Mr Goldstein on many issues, on others I fundamentally disagree, hence I’m hardly a Toady I’m afraid. But happy to instruct I’m associating with many of those within the JVL, Free Speech on Israeli and other Left of Centre groups that actually focus on human rights issues for all, rather than a chosen few.

  25. David is unceasing in his praise of the methodological rigour of his own research, yet in this case, he failed to undertake the most elementary research in order to determine Dr Vertommen’s views. Ironically, had he done so, he would have seen that, in her analysis of the Israel policy of pronatalism, Vertommen disavows any comparison with Nazi eugencis policy:

    “In its crusade to create and consolidate the Jewish majority in the Holy Land, Israel has attempted to enlarge its Jewish population in two significant ways. First and foremost, by installing a strong immigration policy to attract Jews from the Diaspora, crystallized in the Law of Return which gives every Jew in the world the right and privilege to “ascend” to Israel (aliyah) and to become an Israeli citizen, and by simultaneously denying Palestinian refugees their Right to Return. Second, by installing pronatalist reproductive health policies that would stimulate Jewish Israelis to “reproduce the nation”. Leading gynecologist, fertility researcher and founder of Israeli Family Planning Associations Yitzhak Halbrecht (quoted in Hashash 2010) summarized it well when postulating that “the future of the State of Israel depends on its number of citizens and their quality –both aspects depend on the magnitude of immigration from various countries of origin on the one hand and the natural increase of the local population”. While Israeli migration policies are meant to promote an “external aliyah”, its pronatalist reproductive health policies are to encourage an “internal aliyah”. When commenting on Israel’s exceptionally generous IVF policy, former Chief of Staff and Minister of Health Mordechai Gur stated that “IVF is still cheaper than a newcomer” as means of increasing the size of the population (quoted in Birenbaum-Carmeli 2004, 900).

    However, as Jacqueline Portuguese (1998) and Rhoda Kanaaneh (2002) have convincingly argued, this state-sponsored pronatalism should be viewed as a selective pronatalism since it is mostly the Jewish part and not the Arab “residual” part of the nation that is being encouraged to be fruitful and multiply. Analyzing Israel’s fertility policy, Portuguese (1998) concluded that the Israeli government has been as concerned with lowering the Palestinian birthrate as it has with raising the Jewish one. She emphasizes that this has never resulted in an explicit anti-natalist design for Palestinians. For instance, there is no history of forced sterilizations of Palestinian women, nor were there any special provisions or allowances for Palestinian women to undergo abortions. Moreover, Palestinian women living inside Israel are citizens of the State by which they are entitled to the same health care provisions as Jewish Israelis. There are nonetheless some indications in Israel’s history of reproductive policies of what Shellee Colen (1986) has dubbed stratified reproduction, a policy by which certain groups in society are encouraged or coerced to reproduce and parent and others are not. For instance, in 1949 David Ben Gurion issued the Heroine Mother award, financial award to every heroine woman on the birth of her tenth child. The Heroine Mother award was dropped after ten years when it turned out that it were mostly Arab women who were benefitting from it. Ben Gurion commented that ‘any future prenatal incentive must be administered by the Jewish Agency [parastatal Israeli organisation which is only accountable to Jewish citizens, S.V.] and not the state [which is supposed to take care of all its citizens, including the Palestinian, S.V.] since the aim is to increase the number of Jews and not the population of the state (quoted in Kanaaneh 2002, p.35). In 1968 Israel established a Fund for Encouraging Birth, which was only available for those who had relatives in the Israeli army, clearly excluding Palestinians in Israel since they usually don’t serve in the army”.

    Sigrid Vertommen, Towards a political economy of egg cell donations: ‘doing it the Israeli way’ (2016), Critical Kinship studies: Kinship (trans)formed, pp.7-8.

    1. And here comes someone else to suggest that because I was not let into the event, I am somehow responsible for not being able to accurately judge the content of the event itself. I read and researched Vertommen as much as I could before going to Warwick, and this is yet another straw man being created. How on earth does this piece (which itself contains several problematic positions) excuse exclusion on discriminatory grounds, or excuse the antisemitic overtones of the event advert? The advert seemed to be implying an argument of eugenics, one that wasn’t just picked up by me, but by most (with all the usual exclusions) of the people that read it.

      1. David you seem to be acknowledging the inaccuracy of your headline and your first sentence………..

        ” Last night, at the University of Warwick, Faculty arranged a public talk that accused Israel of eugenics. ”

        An apology to the University and the indivuals smeared is too much to hope for but would not a revision be the honourable thing to do ? You acknowledge that you were not able to accurately judge the content of the event but you make emphatic uneqivocal statements concerning the content.

        1. Stephen, her entire argument contains eugenic implications. I have no idea what you expect an apology for. All I am willing to do is accept I wasn’t in the room, and that two Jewish students seem to believe the talk may have been toned down. How do you run from that into a declaration of innocence over an argument about an event that clearly suggests (running from the PDF Josh just linked to) Israel is using fertility treatment to push a ‘logic of elimination’. Get real.

  26. David, the claim that you were subjected to discrimination on grounds of ethnicity is demonstrably false. If the organisers had, as you claim, exercised a policy of racial exclusion against Jews, then members of the University of Warwick Jewish/Israeli society (JIsoc) would have been denied entry to the meeting. Given that members of JIsoc were able to attend the meeting without obstruction on the part of the organisers, will you now withdraw your unfounded allegations of racial discrimination?

    1. no of course not Josh, your reasoning is flawed. The people at the door were completely powerless to stop students walking through the door. Your argument suggests the MET was not institutionally racist because it employed some black people as police officers. I think we all know (with the obvious exclusions), that had we not been Zionists, but visibly pro-Palestinian, the event would have remained open.

  27. Thanks for the clip Bellers. Don’t know much about all that stuff. It’s all a bit Craggy island for me. I was once in Antrim where they have all the Israeli flags by the roadside. I felt well at home and apparently it winds the Republicans up a treat. Is that right? Anyway can’t dawdle. We’ve got the under 16s mixed waterboarding tonight and there’s fresh meat in from the Jenin raids. The time will fly by.

      1. Sorry Bellers. You put it in inverted commas. I assumed this was another of your Carry On euphemisms. Or, are you just waiting for a latte?

  28. Crickey, he sounds pretty cross with us. No worries though. Mike Pence reckons his gods are on our side so there are clearly more powerful forces at work here than you and me Bellers.

    1. But since you mention Pence’s God, which option are you going for ? Are you going to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour or are you going to burn in hell ?

  29. Think I’ll keep an open mind Bellers. Frank Turner always seems quite cheerful and he said ” We’re definitely going to hell. But we’ll have all the best stories to tell.”

  30. David, in your latest tweet, you assert that “[l]ike most Jewish organisations, the #JLC supports the 2SS and PEACE”. Can you explain how JLC’s opposition to UN Resolution 2334, which reaffirmed support for a “region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders”, is compatible with your stated claim?

    1. yes of course. I opposed 2334, but would be ecstatic if Israel and a new Palestinian state lived side by side in peace. Whatever Israelis decide (with the usual exclusions – unnecessary ones in this case) and negotiate with the Palestinians has my support. If I were there, I’d vote in line with my own opinion, but accept majority rule. All this has diddly-squat to do with 2334. It is like saying this

      Because I oppose UNRWA I therefore must oppose EVERYTHING they do, they give Arabs food, therefore I am against giving Arabs food. Which leads to the question – David, why do you want the Arabs to starve?

  31. David, in his last post Josh asks how the opposition by the JLC to UN Resolution 2334 is compatible with your stated claim that they support the 2SS and Peace. Given that the establishment of an Arab state inside my country will create neither peace nor security I would have thought that the answer to his mendacious and wholly disingenuous question was fucking obvious.

  32. Spellcheck man, for heaven’s sake. There are impressionable readers here and they both have a right to expect better !!

    1. Nah I don’t give a fuck about the spelling and grammar police. As evidenced by my refusal to be bullied into not beginning sentences with and or but or because. The impressionables will have to look out for themselves.

      Nice to see you quickly revert to passive again though. It suits you much better than aggressive. Best leave aggresive to those of us with an aptitude for it.

  33. Dead right Bellers. Horses for courses. Imagine sending Private Godfrey to do a punishment beating or kneecapping some old dear for being a grass. As you rightly say ” c’est la guerre.”

      1. Go on then we’ll play the caption competition.

        “Gerry and the South Down lads thought they’d finally nailed it but still finished a distant third in Europe’s Best Dressed Terrorist”

      1. Aaah right so Bellers. Thanks for that. I really am an old eeejit but remember I’m not a real activist like you. Loved the little filem. I was in the scouts too. I had badges and everything; knots, good deeds, charity collections, colonial oppression . How about you?

Comments are closed.