A dhimmi ([ðimi]; Arabic: ذمي, meaning “protected person”) refers to specific individuals living in Muslim lands, who were granted special status and safety in Islamic law in return for paying the capital tax.
Almost everyone in the UK knows SOAS is a hotbed of radical Islamic hatred. Except perhaps those that are themselves beyond the edge of rational thought. So on Tuesday 24 Jan, at the Union General Meeting, I thought it wise to take a closer look at the atmosphere. They wouldn’t have wanted me there, they asked for those present to display their student cards, but with around 150 in the room, they were never going to notice one extra attendee. Anyway, this is Senate House, I’ve spent 8 years at Birkbeck. I know my way around.
I don’t like SOAS. I have seen too much extremism, intolerance and Jew hatred displayed here. I consider it a cesspit. If the government, if those in charge at the university are aware that SOAS is a hotbed of extremist hate, then it becomes their duty to protect the minorities that are at risk. None more so that the Jews. It is clear from the recent news that those responsible for upholding our rights are letting these Jews down.
Those in the room make me uncomfortable. They are bullies, the social media mob (smob), with their hashtags and hypocritical self-righteous indignation. Aggressively swarming around their targets, seeking anybody they can link with enemy number one, the greatest evil known to SOAS students, ‘Zionism’.
The three motions on discussion that were of interest where seven, eight and nine. Seven, dealing with Zionist control of the world and the fact that the NUS Vice President has now clearly been infected with Zionism. Eight was a motion seeking to make Jewish students feel more comfortable and welcome at SOAS, and nine was regarding which external groups SOAS students should welcome onto the campus.
The Dhimmi Jews of SOAS
Motion seven was a predictable tirade against the way Jews control everything, but I watched in fascination as motion eight was discussed. Clearly put forward by a Jewish student, it went to the heart of what SOAS would need to do to make Jews feel welcome. Then the amendments started. The definition of antisemitism was changed, so as to exclude all reference to Israel. Comments critical about the current SOAS attitude were removed. Then of course, Jewish students were denied the right to self-determination.
I think of the SOAS students present, the vast majority of students have parents or grandparents who arrived to the UK from nations such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. What they were willing to permit the Jews to do, was pray. Anything directly to do with practicing religious sensibilities was left almost unopposed. Anything to do with equality, self or national identity was removed. The Jews of SOAS are offered the status of ‘Dhimmi Jews’, a protected but second class citizenship. Jews are subordinate, they are tolerated.
Whether we choose to accept it or not, this is what is happening on campus. Jews are not equal here, nor are they treated as equal. This Dhimmi attitude from Muslim lands has been imported into the UK and applied on the SOAS campus. All elements of Jewish equality, such as their right to define themselves, is banned. Jews are told what is acceptable. They have a ruling class. The antisemitic ‘smob’.
As a Jew, all you have to do is pay them the Dhimmi tax and they will leave you alone, and the going rate is a total rejection of Zionism.
Banning Jews from SOAS
Motion nine did not at first glance seem interesting. It was proposed by someone of Kurdish origin (I think), and dealt mainly with the AKP’s Turkey. Except of course when the opening speech was delivered, the whole focus had changed. Someone who should really be dealing with the horrific events of Syria, went straight into an attack against Zionism.
The motion was about groups that host events or have a presence on campus. Which ones are to be accepted, which denied. There was an amendment that was applied to clarify that the students should be left to decide who is acceptable and who is not. The most frightening element of this section was the ease in which talk of upholding freedom of speech was inserted into comments that blatantly sought to do the opposite. There is no logic here, no moderation. These students have entirely lost sight of what freedom is.
Jewish attempts to criticise were cast aside. Those speaking in favour were applauded. Then another student got up to speak in favour of the motion. Breathe deeply and listen to the audio.
It is important to understand the meaning of what is being said here. It must also be stressed that the chair did not criticise the speech, or point out its unacceptability. The speaker went on to deal with the AKP and received loud applause when he finished. The antisemitic motion passed with an overwhelming majority, when it is referenced, this speech makes up part of the historical record.
A cesspit of a campus
I am not welcome on SOAS at all. Nor is almost every Jew I know. Nor is the Chief Rabbi. According to this motion, the Chief Rabbi entering SOAS to participate in a Holocaust memorial event is ‘not to be tolerated’. SOAS students just passed a motion banning Jews. This isn’t just about presenting a case for Zionism, this is about tainted Zionist feet walking on their holy campus. Just as radical Islam seeks to limit what other identities can do, where they can go, when they are permitted to join in and when they are not, so too it now acts on the SOAS campus. SOAS is the Al Aqsa Mosque of the London university scene. There is a huge sign outside the campus now, it reads ‘Jews not wanted’.
This is what is happening. Jews are now Dhimmi on campus. Let us call it out for what it is. Either the UK government takes action against it or accepts it as fait accompli. The choice is theirs to make. Us Jews? We have other decisions to make.
EDIT 16:21 on 26/1 SOAS Student union released an empty statement that suggested no organisation was banned from speaking on campus. For whatever reason they mentioned but chose not to condemn the outrageous quote. These people need to cut the empty PR talk and accept the environment on their campus now is toxic to their Jewish students.
Follow, like, donate
Please if you can, consider making a donation. I believe that attacking the lies and distortion for what they are is important. We need to be there to expose it. Mine is an dependent action and research is expensive and time consuming. Even producing just one of these piece does take days, sometimes weeks, and whilst I do what I can, there are serious constraints that impact on what is possible. Your assistance can and does make a difference. Every contribution is greatly appreciated.
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.
40 thoughts on “The Dhimmi Jews of SOAS”
Are the university authorities aware?
The measure also bans every Christian who attended (and supports) the CFI Parliamentary lobby yesterday. so we have allies against this racist madness, but it still may well end in tears and aliya.
It is what the intention of my work is. I go, I report and it gets brought to the intention of the authorities. At the moment, this is being delivered to the press, university authorities and government.
Somebody needs to do a bit of growing up
There are some interesting arguments in that one Stephen. Thank you, I hadn’t read it before. I always say people should read anti-Zionist positions, there are so many nuances. Casting aside most of the post as irrelevant to this particular discussion (although it provides food for thought for others), I would like to quote this particular nugget:
“Let us make an important distinction that seems to me is rarely made. There is a difference between opposition to Zionism and the expression thereof, and abusive behaviour towards Jewish students that makes their participation difficult. There is no requirement for someone to tone down their anti Zionism because Jewish students might be offended by it. There is a requirement to respect their right to be where they are and to speak as they may, without, with justification, feeling intimidated and bullied, on a personal level.”
Given this, I am sure you are also opposed to Zionist groups being refused the right to appear on campus, for Jews to be allowed the right to self determination and so on. After all, this opposition in the union, isn’t an argument about the right to speak up about Israel’s behaviour, but rather about the Jewish right to defend it.
Using your position, do the Jews have the same rights to propagate their ‘political ideology’ as lets say, Marxists? Would you turn round a deny a ‘Marxist’ the right to define himself, to push his position, or would you simply allow for people to believe what they like and let human sensibilities decide which vision is more popular through rigorous debate? If one side, lets say, the anti-Marxists, simply refused to debate Marxists because it would give ‘legitimacy’ to them, refused to allow Marxists on campus, refused to even let Marxists speak without shouting them down, then wouldn’t you need to stand up and oppose this discrimination and denial of basic freedoms?
“Using your position, do the Jews have the same rights to propagate their ‘political ideology’ as lets say, Marxists?”.
Of course. My attitude to freedom of expression is almost absolute. It obviously stops at incitement to violence,threatening behaviour etc.
“Would you turn round a deny a ‘Marxist’ the right to define himself, to push his position””
No I wouldn’t, nor would I deny any Jew the right to define himself be he a Zionist or no. Anyone can define his/her self and push a position to their hearts content.My problem is not with people defining themselves but with the increasing tendency for Jews to claim to be the arbiters of the meanings of words and expressions in the English language.
“Given this, I am sure you are also opposed to Zionist groups being refused the right to appear on campus, ”
Absolutely, with a small proviso that the authorities on each campus have the right to consider whether individuals and groups that are there solely to provoke trouble should be welcome on their campus. For example if I was the appropriate authority at UCL I would think long and hard about the presence of the likes of Jonathan Hoffman, Simon Cobbs, Elliot Miller and Harvey Garfield.
“…..for Jews to be allowed the right to self determination and so on. ”
I have a problem with this. Nothing and nobody self determines. Were it so I would be be the absolute monarch of the whole world.Unfortunately other people keep getting in the way. For example, The State of Israel is said to be an expression of the self determination of the Jewish people. This seems to me to be no more than saying ” we can do whatever the heffing hell we want”
“No I wouldn’t, nor would I deny any Jew the right to define himself be he a Zionist or no. Anyone can define his/her self and push a position to their hearts content.My problem is not with people defining themselves but with the increasing tendency for Jews to claim to be the arbiters of the meanings of words and expressions in the English language.”
I am not happy with this. It implies Jews have ‘controlling’ traits, and suggests myself and Ilan Pappe have similar tendencies because we are both Jews. I’d prefer it if after accepting the actual point, you had restricted your criticism to those people, Christians amongst them, who in your opinion, are fighting over the meanings of words to push and protect their own ‘political ideology’.
Putting aside your personal quirk of being unable to respond, even in agreement without somehow squeezing in personal attacks, there isn’t much going on here that we are arguing over. Yes, we view the issues differently, but this is about basic freedoms that underpin our society, not the political disagreements that divide us.
I do take issue with the self – determination position, and I have seen you use it before. Doesn’t everyone self-determine? Either individually or as a group? You are more than welcome to consider yourself monarch of the whole world. You can write a book, make it look old, bury it, discover it and proclaim you have found the true word of god and it incredibly supports your claim to the throne. Not sure why it would bother me. I will of course oppose any step you make that treads on my own rights, but this too is in defence of self-determination, mine.
Beyond the individual rights issue, I see the Jews as a people, Zionism as the Jewish national liberation movement and Israel as the physical realisation of that movement. I also consider that in a post holocaust world, the argument that Jews as a people do not have a right to an area where they can forge their own destiny to be ethically redundant. Not sure where I would have sat on the whole Zionism thing in 1920 (how can I be sure), pretty sure where I would have sat in 1945. Since Israel not only exists, but is a regional, nuclear armed, superpower I think the entire movement that seeks to make Israel crumble before peace can come to be patently absurd. If you want peace, work with the pieces you have on the table, don’t make it dependent on the impossible.
None of this in reality has much to do with my own fight, which is against those in the UK that have made peace dependent on the impossible, are pushing regressive ideologies, creating a historical farce and are bullying Jewish students in the process. Let the Zionists speak, give them the right to be heard, let them defend the position, and let the truth win out.
Stephen, I find it hard to guage your understanding of world history when you state that it it is not within the remit of people to realise self determination for themselves. Not only is history full of people’s doing so but it is littered with examples of external forces trying to determine for others. Many of the nation states in the world today have been determined by external forces and reactions of peoples self determining their peoplehood and nationhood. Where does that equate to we can do what the xx x we want. Your example of becoming an absolute monarch doesn’t hold any relevance really.
“I do take issue with the self – determination position, and I have seen you use it before. Doesn’t everyone self-determine? Either individually or as a group? You are more than welcome to consider yourself monarch of the whole world. You can write a book, make it look old, bury it, discover it and proclaim you have found the true word of god and it incredibly supports your claim to the throne. Not sure why it would bother me. I will of course oppose any step you make that treads on my own rights, but this too is in defence of self-determination, mine.”
There you are you see I would never get to sit on the throne because other folks, you for starters, would get in the way. Given that everyone wants to self determine it is perfectly obvious that nobody can.
I take your point about the controlling traits. I do of course restrict my criticism to those I have in mind.
Delighted to have been included in Bellamy’s roll call of honour . Note to self – must make effort to attend more hate fest jamborees in 2017 .
You have always been a bit of a coat tailing after thought though haven’t you Harv ? Running behind Jonny and Dickie Millett hoping to be noticed. I like to help you out once in a while by giving you a mention
You are looking a little pale Stephen . Try to spend a little less time trolling , get out more and pretend you support the Palestinian cause .
Nah I look like a refugee from Bay Watch
What power does the union have?
Can they actually enforce these absurd resolutions?
I think to focus on that doesn’t truly address the problem. Firstly, it is the impact this has on the other students. The rule does not have to be legally enforceable to work. There are things you don’t do, even though legally you can do them. You self regulate under threat. Secondly it is a path, what we allow to grow gets stronger. This mob believes they are in the right, they believe they are justified and they believe Zionists are guilty of such crimes that almost any action against them is permissible. You do not let that type of mob rule continue unopposed. It is a direct threat to our freedoms.
Clearly any academic discussion on the old testament prophetic vision to return to Zion is strictly forbidden. Has any one told the vice provost or the head of the department of middle eastern studies. Never mind democracy and freedom of speech that is part of the what I thought was the constitutional right in the UK unless contravening the law.
who is the best person at SOAS and ULU to email?
For someone like me who doesn’t totally understand implications “Zionist Jews” means Jews who believe that Israel is / has a right to statehood, is that correct? Those people are banned from events on campus? thanks in advance
Michael. The best people to contact are probably the Director or Principal at SOAS. I have no doubt you can find those responsible listed under the board or trustees or governance section on the SOAS website
You can also direct a complaint to the Government Minister responsible for education.
The issue it appears is not so simple, because they amended the article, directing themselves to further discussion. In this way the Student union has denied anybody has been banned. I find this disingenuous, because it contradicts their own position on BDS. They have already decided that such groups will be banned, and proudly announced this to be the case, why now, they seem to be blurring it, I have no idea. My own guess would be the recording of the very extreme comment has left them with no option but to play ‘moderate’, even though the lunatics have long ago taken over that particular asylum.
How about funding to hire lawyers to sue the university over harassment?
Its time to rename SOAS – School of Anti Semitism. Great work David – shocking but not suprising
These people are deliberately ignorant. Don’t they know there has been a Jewish presence in this country since Roman times.
A new book called Hitler’s Philosophers by Yvonne Sherratt is available. The importance of this work is the evidence of the remarkable similarities that 1930s Germany went through and now.
Dr. Alfred Goldberg, a leading Nazi and inspiration to the Nuremberg Laws 1935, created the framework for Nazifying Germany through the university system. This meant that many pro-Nazi philosophy professors such as Heidegger, now taught Nazi philosophy rather than Greek or Roman.
Move forward 80 years and history is repeating itself not just here in London but in Europe and the USA where anti-Zionism is rife on the campuses.
Based upon the account I have just read, the ‘indoctrination that anti-Zionism is right and supporting Zionism is wrong’ is a mere variation of 1930s Germany. However, I cannot see a legal way to restore the status quo on the campuses. We live in a democracy where freedom of expression is a right. The challenge of defining anti-Zionism as racist is a massive undertaking and if this can be proven by law, how do you control it?
How about the following:
Young and old Zionists must not feel bullied or intimidated. We need to gather in numbers at these meetings and rant and rave as much as they do. Anybody up for it because I am.
It’s happening . UCL October 28th 2016. Not so much ranting and raving as you put it but calm methodical recording of events on the ground as they unfold with submission of evidence to the resultant inquiry . David does this on a weekly basis . I’m sure Richard Millett will get back in the saddle when he’s good and ready . Others need to do the same . The cesspit of anti Israel activism which includes no platforming Israeli speakers needs to be degraded by all means which remain within the law .
Is this the same Richard Millett that got arrested for trying to disrupt a Memorial Meeting ?
Count me in. Also speak to Sussex FoI, they might like this sort of thing.
Ha ha ha Sussex FOI .
Here is the reality
They most certainly do like this sort of thing. In fact the JLC and the BoD pay them to engage in this sort of thing.
Oh Stephen, I wish the BOD and JLC were financially assisting the grassroots activity the way everyone thinks they are. Chance would be a fine thing.
David it is established fact. NWFOI cheerfully acknowledge it as does Simon Johnson.
Also what do you think the item ” 45k for FOI activities” in the JLC accounts means ?
Also the Bod entered into an agreement with SFOI whereby fundind is contingent on signing up to a code of conduct . Check it out with Gabriel Webber. I would but he is sulking and won’t talk to me o-)
You have twice referred me to your blog.
Dave’s blog (with all due respect to Dave, who does an absolutely fantastic and brave job, sitting through hours of racist, anti-semitic, bare-faced lies), is a very niche, arcane blog read (sadly) by far too few people.
Similarly, Sussex FOI, which also does a magnificent job standing up to racist bullies, are, in the greater scheme of things, but a small group of volunteers based in a small, but beautiful, British seaside town.
Explain to me why your obsession is so great that you have subordinated all your other cares, and gone to the enormous trouble of coming here and writing thoroughly unpleasant screeds about them .
Does beheading, stoning women to death, slitting people’s throats, kidnapping and raping young Christian, Yazidi and other Muslim girls, all the while gloating and shouting Allahu Akbar in celebration, giving out sweets to children to celebrate (for example) the stabbing to death of a young Jewish girl asleep in her bed, or the shooting in cold blood of rabbis in a synagogue, not bother you?
How would you describe someone who wrote the same scornful words as you have, about a group of people who stand up for black, gay or Muslim rights?
You maybe might like this one too Leon
Click on watch on vimeo and it will play
Hello – can you reply to my question, please?
Thanks and so what would some good bullets to weave a letter to send to the director be? I am a writer and can argue and i understand your points but it’s slippy and slidy…
I’m part of a cadre of people who a) went to the UL and b) are looking for a cause to take up given the climate, so I think I might be able to help
I would go with whatever angle angers you the most. For me it is all about the denial of a platform and creating an atmosphere where some students become intimidated. This site is full of two years of research and arguments. I would read some discussion and simply write about which elements you find most distasteful. It isn’t for me to suggest to you what should annoy you. It isn’t like you can look at the current situation on campus and not get angry at something.
No you misunderstand me. I’m just not exactly clear what they are saying and how they get away with it. Anyway thanks
Not one who has any understanding of University life or it’s structure where are the university administrators who should be standing against such actions and behaviour?. What is happening is obviously anti-Semitic and discriminatory going against everything such an establishment should stand for and encourage, freedom of debate and belief,this is one of the ways we learn. Such actions should be condemned and countered in the strongest legal way possible, their behaviour must not be tolerated.
I see that the rise in anti-Semitism is, according to the Community Security Trust (CST), entirely down to the racism following Brexit and the tightening up of procedures in the Labour Party. A picture of a Swastica and C18 daubed on a wall are clearly meant to lead us to think that it is being done by white neo-nazis. No mention at all of Islam! The cover-up continues.
The report itself does mention Islam(ism):
Thanks, James, it was interesting reading through that. I was referring to the BBC interpretation, which completely ignored the real reason for modern-day anti-Semitism.
Oh for goodness sake. Are there really people out there, I mean real live if you cut them they bleed people, seriously buying this CST bullchit ?
Comments are closed.