Ahava staff carry on under pressure

This is cross-posted from Richard Millett’s Blog

Staff looking out from Ahava store in London

Imagine your journey into work worrying about what you might find when you arrive or whether your office might be violently stormed with you in it.

This is the daily fate of the Ahava staff who work in the shop on Monmouth Street in London’s Covent Garden.

As we all know by now Ahava lost two days of business when late last year the shop was invaded by activists who locked themselves inside while petrified staff looked on. Then last week the shop front was coated in red paint by a couple of “brave” souls who had covered their faces so as not to be picked out by CCTV.

Ahava after last week's paint attack

Yesterday the usual mob of anti-Israel activists turned up en masse with an array of Palestinian and Communist flags and the usual “Boycott Israel” and “Free Palestine” paraphernalia. They were allowed to position themselves a couple of metres from Ahava’s shop door and hand out anti-Israel leaflets to passers-by.

Sadly, one can forget any solidarity from neighbouring shop-keepers for now; Ahava is being told by some to shut up shop and go online.

By yesterday the red paint had been mostly removed at great expense to Ahava. Remnants could still be seen above the shop.

And if you had ever wondered where all the money comes from to fund both the attacks and legal representation, they hold fundraisers:

On September 11th we are putting on a fundraising party to raise money to fund direct actions in support of Palestine, such as blockades of Ahava or Carmel Agrexco. Come on down, with a banging line up and an amazing space to have a party in (the Ratstar comes with 2 rooms of music, a cinema room and even a roof terrace, oh yes), there has never been a funner way to support a great cause. The day kicks off at 4pm, with workshops on direct action, …Palestine related film screenings and a Palestinian cafe. Music starts at 8pm. The night is free before 8pm, £5 suggested donation afterwards, but pay what you can afford. All money raised will go to pay for actions like this;

No chance of any of that money making it to the starving or malaria-ridden of Africa then, nor the the flood victims in Pakistan nor even to the Palestinians themselves who the activists claim to care so much about.

Meanwhile, here is Channel 10 of Israel’s interesting video clip about the boycott Israel movement. Look out for insightful comment from Lauren Booth.

Categories: BDS

Tagged as: , ,

40 replies »

  1. If, as has been reported, protestors have been chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, then you have to question their real motives. Even if they haven’t, they seem like a sad bunch.

    As for that “fund-raiser” – I suspect it will raise less than a hundred quid.
    It’s more about “a banging line up and an amazing space to have a party” – oh, and feeling self-important.

  2. “On September 11th we are putting on a fundraising party”

    An interesting date to choose for an attack on Israel. Pure coincidence, no doubt.

  3. Just see the supermarket protestors in the Channel 10 link and the way they keep on having to check their slogan lists! Bizarre.

    Can someone translate those stats/graphs just after 2:00? Ta.

  4. What are the British police doing about this threatening behaviour or are they giving these toddlers free reign, just as they allowed the violent anti-Israel demonstrations during Cast Lead?

    Were police actually on duty?

    And where were the pro-Israel demonstrators allowed to stand?

    The UK is, for the time being at least, a democracy, and even these people are allowed to protest. They seem to have crossed the line, though.

    Is there not a law against interfering with trade by threatening behaviour?

    Has anyone forwarded this article to the brave boys in blue in the Met?

  5. pretzelberg you have to question all the motives of people who behave in such a threatening manner.

  6. Pretz,

    The graphs are Israeli popularity in percentage of population through out the 4 countries.

    UK, France, Germany and US.

    The German one is the decline in the last 4 years.

  7. Pretzelberg – those are ‘support for Israel’ statistics, showing a downward trend in the 4 countries since 2006.

    I saw the programme when it was aired on Israeli TV last week. To my mind it did not focus enough on the links between the assorted organisations organising anti-Israel campaigns and did not join the dots between them and the NGOs and terror groups at work inside Israel.

  8. Mitnaged.

    Sadly the police in the UK is much more tied up than the counter parts in Europe.

    There is very little they are allowed to do.

    With soaring crime rates this is hardly going to be high on the agenda.

    Unless you believe the UK interests in Israel should occupy more of the Israeli police’s time than Israeli crime in Israel.

  9. Greensleeves.
    That’s my point.
    The police’s hands are tied.
    They are not given anough liberty to handle things and when they do it is being thrown away out of courts on technicality.

    The fact is it is very fashionable to hate Israel today.
    There is no sense in it but there was no sense in being a facsist 70 years ago yet there you have it.

    Every body talks about Nick Griffin’s slick “new” look yet no one mentions that these organisations are using the same tactics which have been employed by hitler and his like.

  10. Itsik since you are there and other Jews are there surely there are people who point out how similar the Cameron government’s organisations are to those of Hitler and his like — or are they so frightening in their power that it is actually dangerous to do so?

  11. Thanks, ItsikDeWembley / Israelinurse

    Although exactly what “support (for) Israel” entails, of course, depends on the interpretation of individual respondents in the surveys.

  12. This looks like another round of Muslim debauchery in England, aided and abetted by a few carrot tops with a serious vitamin D deficiency. On a lighter note, those eejits could really use some Ahava products to make their ugly mugs look better.

  13. They tried something alone these lines in Maryland about a month ago but it all backfired right away. That store in Maryland sold out all Ahava products in three hours or thereabout.

  14. Bluesea

    You are so right

    Whose up for sending our not so luvely Lady Ashton some Israeli Ahava face cream to improve her looks?

  15. Greensleeves

    … how similar the Cameron government’s organisations are to those of Hitler and his like

    What a preposterous thing to say!

  16. Pretzelberg do you have limited vision or was your out of context quotation deliberate?
    You chose a piece of my question to ItzikdeWembley, using his information and made it a statement.

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

  17. Many thanks for your comment, Millfield

    CIFWatch is a serious gig doing great things. So I have to show my respect. Suffice to say that Ashton needs way more than just skin cream to better her looks.

  18. Pretzelberg

    Lemme level with you for once. There is more to life and living than just constantly arguing with others over trivial things. Go out. Enjoy yourself. Have a drink or two. Lechaim habibi.

  19. No Pretzelberg I will not explain.
    Read the final para of ItzikdeWembley’s comment at 10:55 and see for yourself how my question quotes him. You came into the middle of a conversation and made assumptions.

  20. Bluesea

    There is more to life and living than just constantly arguing with others over trivial things.

    Great response to Greensleeves there – ta.

  21. Off-topic but no apologies


    Four Israelis have been killed near Hebron when an Arab gunman opened fire.

    This is no doubt a “present” to mark the beginning of the peace talks.

    The scum hope to undermine them.

  22. Bluesea, you just beat me to it.

    A wordsmith friend of mine, a classicist, calls this sort of Arab behaviour an “autorhinectomy” – that is, the act of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

    And they are the world’s experts in it.

  23. This is a tragedy.

    The possibility of peace is severely damaged by the deliberate behaviour of what might well be a few terrorists bent on keeping the whole region from ending the current situation.

  24. Greensleeves, I’ll bet there wasn’t a few. For every one of them, there had to be support, from the planning stages right through to hiding them afterwards, in much the same way as terrorists anywhere have to have a support network.

  25. This kind of thing has always happened when peace talks are on the horizon or are in progress. As you said, cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

    There’s no consideration for the good of the region or of the people. It is to be assumed that the terrorists and their families get sufficient compensation from somewhere else to make the benefits of peace irrelevant.

  26. Hairshirt

    I don’t know for sure. All telltale signs point to hamas who acted on orders from Tehran to scuttle peace talks. The Israelis won’t enjoy tranquility as long as hamasniks and their puppet masters in Iran continue to breathe fresh air.

  27. Reuters:

    The statement from the armed wing of Hamas, a group that opposes any dialogue with the Jewish state, said the “Qassam Brigades announces its full responsibility for the heroic operation in Hebron.”

    Murdering a pregnant woman must surely be the very opposite of “heroic”.

    Who on earth could argue otherwise?

  28. Pretzelberg,

    “Murdering a pregnant woman must surely be the very opposite of “heroic”.

    Who on earth could argue otherwise?”

    I’ll tell you who. Why don’t you ask Khaled Mashal or Azzam Tamimi. The Guardian gave a platform for the first SOB, while the second SOB, a supporter of suicide bombings, has written quite a few articles in the Guardian.

  29. al-gharqad and Israelinurse, wasn’t it Ken Livingstone’s bosom chum Al-Qaradawi, spiritual adviser to the Muslim Brotherhood, who issued the first fatwa which declared open season on Israeli women, even the pregnant ones because their children would grow up to join the IDF?

    And of course the Mayor Ken welcomed him with (literally) open arms.

  30. SarahLeah,

    Bin Laden and thousands of others beat him to it, but he is the first one among the Muslim Bro bunch, which is one of the prevailing movements in Islam today. Qirdawi (Qird means monkey in Arabic) is the leading spiritual mentor of the Sunnis in the world today. No wonder Comrade Ken loves that sick SOB.

  31. SarahLeah
    “even the pregnant ones because their children would grow up to join the IDF?”

    This is correct and it is also true many beat him to it.
    What is beyond belief is that killing children according to Sunni Islam is forbiden.

    This is according to an explanation:

    “And verily the Messenger of God (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) did not kill children, so do not kill children.” Then he continued discussing the orphan without mention of the issue of Al-Khadir. I mention this because several possibilities exist regarding this issue according to the laws of hadith:

    1) The first report is being narrated by meaning, ad sensum, not word-for-word (ad litteram). This was a common practice amongst the early Muslims as Dr. G.f Haddadis discussed in length within his Sunna Notes and I need not delve into this issue deeply, however, for sake of knowledge we shall quote Imam As-Suyuti’s words from his tome “Tadrib Ar-Raawi”,

    “At any rate, the vast majority of the salaf and khalaf from the various groups, among them the four Imams, permit narration in terms of meaning in all the above cases provided one adduces the meaning.”1

    Basically, the scholars conclude that narrating the meaning is only permitted when the narrator is conveying the meaning of the hadith, undistorted and is of the highest trustworthiness. In other words, what is meant by this narration from the disciple of the Prophet Muhammad , Ibn ‘Abbas, is that children are not to be killed period. This will be made clear when we get to the explanation of this hadith by Imam An-Nawawi. Keep this point in mind as I will allude to it later in the article.

    2) That the other narrations are in fact weaker and thus take the ruling of shaadh and can not be accepted. We really do not even need to discuss this point as it would take too much time and space, and quite frankly I prefer to simply deal with this issue based upon point one as it is simpler for the layman to understand. However, if this were the case the blunder of Robert Spencer would be even greater.

    Now, briefly let us review the context of this hadith. A person known as Najdah is sending Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas (radhiya Allahu Anhu), a man who was a disciple of the Prophet Muhammad , a letter asking him five things about Jihad: 1) Can women fight in Jihad, 2) If so do they receive some of the spoils of war 3) Are children to be killed 4) The issue of entitlement of an orphan 5) Whom the Khums was meant for.

    Ibn ‘Abbas answers accordingly and according to the first narration of this hadith, as we stated prior, he simply states that children are not to be killed period because the Prophet Muhammad did not do so.

    In the second report of this narration Ibn ‘Abbas is recorded to have said:

    وَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَمْ يَكُنْ يَقْتُلُ الصِّبْيَانَ فَلَا تَقْتُلْ الصِّبْيَانَ إِلَّا أَنْ تَكُونَ تَعْلَمُ مَا عَلِمَ الْخَضِرُ مِنْ الصَّبِيِّ الَّذِي قَتَلَ

    “Verily the Messenger of God (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) did not kill children, so do not kill children, unless you know what Al-Khadir knew when he killed the child.”

    The fact is it is impossible to know what Al-Khadir knew. Imam An-Nawawi (1234-1278 CE), recognized as one of the most brilliant Muslim jurists and judges to have lived, explained these words in his commentary upon the Sahih of Imam Muslim:

    مَعْنَاهُ : أَنَّ الصِّبْيَان لَا يَحِلّ قَتْلهمْ , وَلَا يَحِلّ لَك أَنْ تَتَعَلَّق بِقِصَّةِ الْخَضِر وَقَتْله صَبِيًّا ; فَإِنَّ الْخَضِر مَا قَتَلَهُ إِلَّا بِأَمْرِ اللَّه تَعَالَى لَهُ عَلَى التَّعْيِين , كَمَا قَالَ فِي آخِر الْقِصَّة : { وَمَا فَعَلْته عَنْ أَمْرِي } فَإِنْ كُنْت أَنْتَ تَعْلَم مِنْ صَبِيّ ذَلِكَ فَاقْتُلْهُ , وَمَعْلُوم أَنَّهُ لَا عِلْم لَهُ بِذَلِكَ , فَلَا يَجُوز لَهُ الْقَتْل
    “It means: Verily it is not permitted to kill them (i.e. children), nor is it permitted for you to make a connection to the story of Al-Khadir utilizing it to kill children. For verily, Al-Khadir did not kill except by the command of God, the exalted, as this was specifically allotted to him just as was mentioned in the end of the story [of khadir], “And I did it not of my own accord.” So [Ibn ‘Abbas is saying] if you came to know of such from a child then he is to be killed. And it is known such cannot be known [by a person] and so it is not permitted to kill him.”2

    Now I’m not an expert at all and perhaps al-gharqad can help us here but it seems to me that Muslim authorities behave in one way when it suits them and in another way when it doesn’t.

    This is not surprising considering the muslims behaviour in the treaty Hudaybiyyah:

    “…The next year, the Banu Bakr, allied with the Quraish, attacked the Bedouin Khuza’a, allied with Mohammed in response to a pre-treaty attack by the Khuza’a. Mohammed considered the Banu Bakr attack a breach of the treaty, citing one of the clauses of the treaty: “an attack on an ally of the party, will be considered an attack on the party itself”. This is despite the fact that Muslims had been attacking Quraish traders repeatedly…”

    So even in 629 they were playing the blame game of who broke the cease fire first when it is clear to all they have odne it themselves.

    One can say some Muslim leader’s double talk gives politicians good name…

  32. ItsikDeWembley,

    “What is beyond belief is that killing children according to Sunni Islam is forbidden.”

    Congratulations for the impressive work you’ve done! Much patience is needed when you seek the truth behind Islam.

    I think that the questions should be:

    1. According to whose interpretation of Sunni (or Shia for that matter) Islam it is forbidden to kill children?
    2. What do the facts on the ground say.

    The site that you quoted looks like the typical apologist-for-Islam BS, promoting a “religion of peace”. It is meant for a Western audience. Even if we accept that the Koran and Hadith can be translated this way (no killing non-combatants), the facts on the ground show a completely different picture. In addition, I couldn’t see the name of the pseudo-liberal apologist for Islam who writes the stuff on that site. Could it be that he’s afraid of his Muslim brothers, like Bin Laden?
    What’s sure is that he probably doesn’t enjoy the prestige that Qirdawi enjoys.
    As for Qirdawi’s reasoning, as usual in fatwas he cites Koranic passages and stuff from the Hadith (you can twist the meaning of the vague stuff there anyway you want), but the bottom line is that he allows the killing of women and children, because:
    بعض الناس يعني يدينون هذه العمليات على أساس إنها تستهدف المدنيين، وأنا أريد أن أخالف يعني هؤلاء الإخوة، في أن هذه العمليات لا تستهدف المدنيين، المجتمع الإسرائيلي مجتمع عسكري، معروف أنهم عسكروا المجتمع، يعني كل المجتمع الإسرائيلي برجاله ونسائه مجندون، يعني إما هو جندي في الجيش الآن، وإما جندي احتياطي يستدعى في أي وقت، فكل العمال والموظفين والعاملين، كلهم جنود في الجيش
    “Some people condemn these operations (suicide attacks), basing their claims on that those attacks are aimed at civilians. I disagree with these brothers: these operations don’t target civilians. The Israeli society is a militaristic society. It is well-known that they have militarized their society. Israeli society as a whole, men and women are enlisted, they are either serving as soldiers now, or they are in the reserves, and can be called up anytime. All workers and officials, all of them are in the army.” Al-Jazeera TV (09/12/2001)

    Bottom line, everything can be justified in the name of Islam. Literally everything. The trouble is that for too long now, this “everything” has been, for the most, very negative…

  33. Thanks al-gharqad for your intake on these which sadly is what, as an Israeli, feel from viewing places in the middle east and talking to Muslims in general.

    Sadly most Muslims I talk to are just as worried by events because they are fully aware of the dangers and how little they mean to the antagonising crowds of “soldiers of Allah” which, like the Taliban, are happy to punish them by creating an unstable environment for Muslims and minorities to live in many western countries.

    What i find even more bizare is the reasoning which hold on pragmatic views in Islam and forbid any atempt to deviate from the scripts and written word yet are very happy to surf along using their own backword peddling when it suits them.

    This is the meaning of hypocricy.
    This is what hijacking a religion means,
    Mrs Booth should be asking the billion of Muslims how do they feel when actions are being taken “in their name”, instead of asking Israelis about that.
    The worst thing about all of this is that these ideologies crept up slowly to maintain control over the minds of many poor in the Muslim world, as is the case in Afghanistan.

    This is done out of sheer grid and nothing more.

    And they dare blame the west for its ills.

  34. It fairly simple for someone to taljed so lightly on a subject they hardly know anything about. There is tons of events from over thirty years ago that led up to all this and even further back than that. I’m not saying what pro-Palestinian activists do is always the right way to go about things, but Israel has done way more wrongs. Regardless, two wrongs don’t make a right. Most of you should read up first BEFORE acting like you know about the matter. This also isn’t an attack on anyone as I’m sure most will feel it is or something.