Guardian

Clip of Israeli Amb to UK, Daniel Taub, blasting Deborah Orr at ‘Big Tent for Zionism’ conference


One of the many highlights at the Nov. 27 Big Tent for Israel Conference (on combating delegimization) I attended, and participated in, was listening to the keynote speech delivered by Israel’s Ambassador to the UK, Daniel Taub.  

Taub blasted the Guardian’s Deborah Orr regarding her hideous commentary on the Gilad Shalit prisoner release deal – in the context of his broader critique of delegitimization in the British media.

Speaking to a 700-strong audience in Manchester, the ambassador’s speech represented a call to arms, arguing that anti-Israel campaigns that delegitimize Israel opened a “new front for Israel” in the UK and were “a serious problem for those institutions and organizations which allow it to fester.”

Here’s a clip of the particular segment of his speech where he singles out the Guardian.

And, here’s Taub’s entire presentation.

38 replies »

    • didn’t pay attention to your “comment” in the thread in my speech post thread. What precisely was I lying about? And, please, anti-Zionist sage, tell us where Taub was similarly lying?

      • “What precisely was I lying about?”

        To quote your slide:

        “EU Working Definition of Anti-Semitism includes denying Israel’s right to exist”

        A blatant lie. And, as was discussed in your absence, the right of Jews to self determination is not the same as Israel having a right to exist. Self evidently true, since Jews in the US for example have a right to self determination that isn’t predicated on the existence of the State of Israel.

        As for Mr Taub, I have my sandwich, I’m going to watch now. Maybe I will be surprised…

          • Israelis have a right to self determination, and the right to establish a state, and they have done. The right belongs to the people, not the state. Does the atheist state have a right to exist? The Scientological state?

            And if it constitutes anti-Jewish racism to deny Jews that right, must it not also constitute anti-Palestinian racism to deny Palestinians that right. Think carefully about your answer.

            • “Think carefully about your answer.” debutante

              Ah, that´s the standard condesceding prof debutante.

              Hey, are you still sad with the demise of your hero, “judge” Baltasar Garzón? A big set-back for your international-lawyerist gangsta, eh?

            • . “Does the atheist state have a right to exist? The Scientological state?” debutante

              Well, I dunno. But you shoud use your “talents” in humbuggery to plegde for the creation of your own country, Moronia. Maybe Baltasar Garzón could be your führer.

              “And if it constitutes anti-Jewish racism to deny Jews that right, must it not also constitute anti-Palestinian racism to deny Palestinians that right.”

              Well, your palestinian heroes could have had their state in 1937, if they accepted the Peel Commission suggestion. But, we know, debutante, what your ilk mean about “palestinian” state: it´s you code
              word for no-Israel. Sorry dude, it won´t happen. Lear to deal with it. Throw your pseudo-legalistic tantrum. Hold you breath. Whatever.

            • “Does the atheist state have a right to exist?”

              “Jewish” in “Jewish State” refers to the nation, not the religion. For a scholar of legal interpretation, you’re pretty thick.

              “…must it not also constitute anti-Palestinian racism to deny Palestinians that right.”

              It does. It’s one and the same offense, as the Jewish nation is the Palestinian nation. The one and only true Palestinian nation, as a matter of fact.

              (The ones you refer to as “Palestinians” are not truly Palestinians but Arab settler-colonist land-thieves illegally occupying the lands of the Palestinian nation.)

          • There´s no difference. But prof debutante, our pseudo-intellectual-in-chief, will distort every fact to fit his anti-Israel obsession. That´s his main raison-d’être. The only motivation in an empty life.

      • 3m43s. Reference to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, in spite of the fact that the IAEA, all 16 US intelligence agencies, Israeli intelligence and Obama’s own Defence Secretary all publicly state that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program.

        I’ll ignore the lunacy of the suggestion that Ahmadinejad wishes to inflict a Holocaust as it doesn’t warrant a response.

        4m11s – He correctly states that any negotiations are give an take, but implies that Palestinians only take. Not once since 1948 has Israel offered a single concession. Not once. We know what the Palestinians are legally entitled to. Every “generous” offer the Israelis have made have amounted to no concessions from Israel, whilst demanding large concessions from the Palestinians. Perhaps this is what he means by give and take – the Palestinians give, Israel takes.

        4m30s – He says that a peace process cannot include Hamas, as they call for the destruction of Israel. Doesn’t mention the Likud charter and its call for the destruction of Palestine.

        4m41 – Demands that Palestinians recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people as a precondition. Apparently recognising Israel as a democratic state of its citizens just terrifies him.

        4m50s – Israel has a prime minister that accepts the idea of a Palestinian state?? Even though Israel’s current Prime Minister was elected on a platform which expressly forbids it.

        I’ve finished my sandwich, so I’ll have to leave it there, but you get a flavour.

        • “I’ll ignore the lunacy of the suggestion that Ahmadinejad wishes to inflict a Holocaust as it doesn’t warrant a response”. debutante

          Oh, sure, debutante, your specialty is ignoring the most important points. In fact, ignorance is your trade. So typical of your brand of pseudo-intellectual lawyerist.

          So, we´ll ignore your BS too, as a courtesy,

      • “Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted”

        Another example of CiFWatch’s willingness to criticise what happens below the line at CiF, but failing to put its own house in order.

        Hypocrisy alert?

        • Victimization alert?

          Hey, debutante, I know you feel sad about it, but the era of Goebbels-style monologues is OVER. Get it? It´s O-V-E-R.

          You and your ilk will be systematically and relentlessly unmasked. For each BS and lie you spew, with your varnish of “objectivity”, you´ll be held accountable and your credibility challeged. Welcome to the new world. Take it or leave it.

    • Again, prof debutante, quit your lecturing pose: when will YOU ever apologize for your systematic lies?

      Your hypocrisy is boundless, we know, but won´t pass unchallenged. So sad for you, isn´t it?

  1. Ok, time is short but your claim as follows is simply flat out untrue:

    the fact that the IAEA, all 16 US intelligence agencies, Israeli intelligence and Obama’s own Defence Secretary all publicly state that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program.

    Here’s the IAEA report:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/nov/09/iran-nuclear-programme-iaea-report

    It says, in part:

    “the information indicates that Iran has carried out…a structured program…to develop an explosive nuclear device.”

    • Would everyone note Adam’s use of ellipsis to alter the meaning of a quote. On a spectrum running from childish to clumsy, you’re somewhere in the middle.

      To quote without ellipsis:

      “The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme”

      Much of Iran’s civilian nuclear tech would be “relevant” to a nuclear weapons program. But they don’t say Iran has a nuclear weapons program. So basically, it’s saying that Iran used to have a nuclear weapons program, which it did. And by the IAEA’s own admission, it stopped in 2003:

      “Owing to growing concerns about the international security situation in Iraq [invasion of Iraq by the U.S.] and neighboring countries at that time, work on the AMAD Plan [an allegedly comprehensive program of research on nuclear weapon] was stopped rather abruptly pursuant to a “halt order” instruction issued in late 2003 by senior Iranian officials. According to that information, however, staff remained in place to record and document the achievements of their respective projects. Subsequently, equipment and work places were either cleaned or disposed of so that there would be little to identify the sensitive nature of the work which had been undertaken.”

      • Oh dubi. Talk about selective reading. What about Section G of the report, which I summarise (given issues of space, but which can be read in full by following Adam’s link). It says that the IAEA has, since 2002, been increasingly concerned about the possibility that Iran is using its nuclear program to develop military capability, including nuclear payloads for missiles.

        Despite UN Security Council pressure, Iran has, since August 2008, not cooperated in this area. That’s since 2008, not 2003.

        It goes on to conclude (after the section you have selectedly quoted) that “there are also indications that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing.”

        Para 53: “The Agency has (note the present tense) serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.”

        This is hardly evidence that Ambassador Taub has been caught in a “lie”, now, is it?

        • The IAEA has been saying the same thing for year, concerns about possibilities is as strong as it gets. The IAEA has steadfastly continued to state that it has verified the non-diversion of declared nuclear material into a military program.

          Note that Adam doesn’t deny that all 16 US intelligence agencies have also stated that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program. Nor does he deny that Obama’s own defence secretary publicly stated that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program.

          • That’s your interpretation. Mine is that by saying they have “serious concerns” they are saying they think there probably is a weapons programme, but because that Iran is refusing to cooperate, they can’t be sure, and because they can’t be sure, they have to be cautious and say they don’t know.

            It’s called diplomatic language and it’s certainly very different to a categorical statement that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons programme (which is what you claim their stance is).

            I can’t claim to know what “all 16 US intelligence agencies” have said, but I would wager that they have said something similar to the IAEA – they suspect dodgy business, but because Iran is so secretive, they can’t say for sure it’s happening, but you have read what you want to read and take any non-confirmation as outright denial.

            • “That’s your interpretation.”

              No, that’s precisely what it says. There remains no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Under its current leadership, the IAEA is becoming more and more political, but if you read the report, there remains no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

              “I can’t claim to know what “all 16 US intelligence agencies” have said, but I would wager that they have said something similar to the IAEA”

              In the NIE, they have explicitly stated that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program.

              Obama’s defence secretary has also publicly stated that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program.

          • Dubitante, you rant like a deranged evangelist. But for whose benefit? Zionists are beyond redemption anyway. This must therefore be all about reinforcing your sense of self-worth and superiority.

            After all, who, apart from you is liberated from the Zionist / Jewish web of lies and deceit? Who, apart from you, is brave enough to come into the lion’s den and confront the malign and sinister influence of Jewish power represented so clearly by this bunch brainwashed Zionist stooges?

            Gives you a reason to get up in the morning and congratulate yourself for your heroism and intellectual prowess. For playing your part in the righteous and indefatigable struggle against the Jews, using your medieval libels – Luther’s ‘the Jews and their lies’ springs to mind – to cast the dark shadow of European anti-Semitism into the 21st Century. That, I believe, is what you call progress.

        • “This is hardly evidence that Ambassador Taub has been caught in a “lie”, now, is it?”

          I should say that Mr Taum *might* be better informed than all 16 US intelligence agencies, and the Israeli intelligence community, and the US defence secretary, he *might* be, but I doubt it.

          • Hey, debutante, the Earth *might* not be flat, but still you doubt it, don´t you?

            Oh, my, these lawyerists are really funny.

  2. At 11:16 in the longer clip you can hear him call out the Guardian specifically.

    Great speech – calm reasoned, and smart.

  3. Apparently Deborah Orr was complaining about racism in football on Radio 4 this morning.

    I applaud her stance on that but Deborah, why not tackle racism in Deborah as well?

    • But, see, Deborah Orr only uses racism as support for the rights of the oppressed against those dastardly Joos of the Middle East. She’s polished the turd so shiny, it’s good enough to eat.

  4. Great speech. He nailed it when he said that what really, really bugs Israel and Jew-haters is Israel´s incredible success, against all odds. This is a punch on the losers stomach, which makes their self-hatred even more painful. That´s why they need to whine about Israel, to mask their ridiculous insignificance. That´s exactly what motivates types such as our own prof debutante. They are pathetic losers and will have to swallow it, no matter what.

  5. Debutante,
    I am an atheist. Atheists are not a people. The Jews are a people.
    If, as you say, Jewish self-determination isn’t predicated on Jews having a state, then why is Palestinian self-determination predicated on having a state? Here in America, there are many people of German, Irish, Italian, Spanish, Haitian, Mexican and of course English backgrounds. So, according to your pathetic and unsound logic there’s no need for Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Haiti, Mexico, or England to exist.
    I’m guessing you’re English. Just when will you be leaving? I’ll be at the airport here in America waiting for you so you too can exercise your right to self-determination.

    • “I am an atheist. Atheists are not a people. The Jews are a people.”

      Judaism is a religion. Jews are not a people any more than Mormons are a people. Where is the Mormon state? What about its right to exist?

      “If, as you say, Jewish self-determination isn’t predicated on Jews having a state, then why is Palestinian self-determination predicated on having a state? ”

      It’s the right question to be asking, and the answer is, it isn’t. A state, in my view, is a pretty poor manifestation of collective self determination, and wholly unnecessary. But, for example, if we re-unified Palestine into a single bi-national and democratic state, there would be no Israel (in the current meaning at least), but there would be self determination for the people living on the land.

      The point I’m trying to make, is that the right to self determination belongs to individuals. States don’t have a right to exist, they are merely non-permanent manifestations of people, politics, history etc. Yugoslavia doesn’t have a right to exist for example. States can break apart, join with other states, all in the name of realising the rights of individual people to self determination.

      “So, according to your pathetic and unsound logic there’s no need for Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Haiti, Mexico, or England to exist.”

      There is no need for, say, the state of Ireland to exist in order for people living there to realise their right to self determination.

      • LIsten, doo-doo, *YOU* are a NOBODY to decide who is a Jew or not. You are as incompetent at that as you are in your international-lawyerism.

        Again, I told you before: your Goebbelian-monologues won´t stick. That age is OVER. The closer you can get to that is Iran. So, I suggest you move your lazy ass to Teheran (don´t forget your burqa)

        In any case, you´ll have to put up with Israel´s existence and success. I hope it´ll gives you a painful ulcer to go with your mental hemorrhoids.

      • dubi said”

        “There is no need for, say, the state of Ireland to exist in order for people living there to realise their right to self determination.”

        It follows that there is no need for a “palestine” to exist either.

        Thanks dubi!

        • Hehe. The inconsistenty of doc doo-doo pops up everywhere. But, more important, his arguments are irrelevant in the real world. He wants Israel and Israel only to be the perfect country, never mind the other players, dictators, genocidaires, totalitarian islamofascists and you-name-it; and never mind the context. It´s crazy, it´s stupid, it´s suicidal and it´s blatant double-standards.

          In sum, he belongs to a circus or in stand-up comedy.

      • “Judaism is a religion.” Correct, but the Jews are not. They are a people. Jews have been asserting their peoplehood for thousands of years. For thousands of years other peoples have regarded them as a people (including Arabs). You need to read history instead of the PLO Charter.
        “There is no need for, say, the state of Ireland to exist in order for people living there to realise their right to self determination.”
        Well then, debutante, I’d say you have your work cut out for you in Ireland. Go there and tell that to the Irish over some beers at an Irish pub. When you wake up, bloodied, in the clink please don’t call me as I’m right now due back in the real world.

      • Judaism is a religion. Jews are not a people any more than Mormons are a people.

        File this under ” an international human rights lawyer’s definition of the Jews’ right to self-determination.”

        You are a bad joke dubitante.

  6. Just watched Daniel Taub’s presentation and I must say it was a perfect pitch according to the Hasbara Handbook. Funny that he blames the occupied for all their problems, ‘we treat you the way we do for your own good, trust us you’ll thank us later’. It’s an old trick employed by occupiers since the beginning of time. Not once did he mention occupation and therein lies the problem.

    • You’re so funny with your Hasbara Handbook. Got more of our words you wish to redefine in order to promote yourself as sane, innocent and sweet?

      Poor little hatemonger. No one takes you seriously, and it’s all our fault.

      I’m crying for you right now.