General Antisemitism

University of Southampton Conference: How to be openly antisemitic in England


UK Media Watch has obtained the “official”*, never-before-seen original program for a three-day conference in mid-April at the University of Southampton examining whether Israel has the right to exist. Though it’s currently titled “International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism“, the “original” version of the program (below) was evidently titled “How to be openly antisemitic in England: International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism”.

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

*Satire

 

Categories: General Antisemitism

Tagged as:

72 replies »

  1. Now what are our communal leaders and pro-Israel groups going to do? What’s their plan for countering this propaganda? Answers on a postage stamp, please.

    • Very true. Our communal leaders (don’t blame me, I had no say in their appointment) prefer the head in the sand approach, forgetting that their communal and individual backsides will be exposed for the kicking they deserve and worse.

      Pro-Israel groups are very good at writing stuff.

      What would be best, IMO is if those of us who do feel strongly rather than just want to look nice, could tell our MPs that they won’t get our vote in May unless they do something about it.

      Not that that will help. They’d promise us the sun, moon and stars to get into power and then forget that they had.

  2. Is it time to demand full disclosure of the amount of Arab funding/money from Islamic bodies is accepted by Southampton?

    • Israel as MORE right than anyone else to exist since it has got not only internationa Law approval by the treaty of San Remo and Sevres and on top of that article 80 of the uN Chart and on top of that 4000 years existence as witnessed by the Bible which everyone knows. Who can boast of as much legitimacy?

  3. Did anyone really take a look at the programme?! I mean just 45 minutes for lunch. Hardly enough time to talk over the crap they will have had to hear in the morning! Not worth going is it.

    What will the very “objective” audience make of Dr Jacque Gauthier’s erudite analysis of International Law over the sovereign rights to the whole of Israel? My guess is that he’ll be boycotted as he appears to be there to spoil the fun. or face ridicule.

    Sickening. The whole lot of em.

  4. There is no chance of racial hatred. No one even acts when Hizbullah flags are being waved in London with the AK-47 emblazoned across it. Free speech reigns in London to the nth degree!

    • Free speech does not cover recial incitement.
      Of course, our politicians are too stupid or too cowardly to apply the law, and some of them are in on the incitement.

  5. What country in the World other than us after 66 years is still being called illigitimate and must be deconstructed? #israel #standwithIsrael

    • 3D Test of Anti-Semitism:
      Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization

      Natan Sharansky

      Nevertheless, we must be clear and outspoken in exposing the new anti-Semitism. I believe that we can apply a simple test – I call it the “3D” test – to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.

      The first “D” is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel’s actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz – this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

      The second “D” is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel’s Magen David Adom, alone among the world’s ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross – this is anti-Semitism.

      The third “D” is the test of delegitimization: when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied – alone among all peoples in the world – this too is anti-Semitism.

      • mods

        please delete the above

        its that arse James/Lady T/Peter the Nazi /whatever etc pretending to be LC . But there can only be one [ as in Highlander ]

        • Don’t be surprised. When a Jew-hater who is a collection of social, professional, marital and sexual failures can’t do anything in order to satisfy his rage because he is too weak intellectually and physically, too coward and impotent to further his case – what else remains?

          • peterthehungarian –

            Blimey – you’ve obviously been conducting some intensive psychoanalysis of the people involved in that conference! Maybe you’d care to share your research findings – from that vastly superior intellectual position you occupy * – in a bit more detail…?

            * A CV listing your academic/medical/legal/case-furthering/courageous achievements to date, plus outline of the methodology you employed in arriving at your diagnostic conclusions, would be most useful. Ta.

            • Miranda dear you missed the train again… My post was an answer to a mentally disturbed troll – his post has been deleted already.
              Regarding the organizers of this conference – I’m not interested in their psychological profile at all, they are my deadly enemies and I deal with them accordingly. But I understand your sympathy and love of them – they are from the same Gruppe like you.

              • peterthehungarian –

                Apologies for misunderstanding. As for my “sympathy and love” for those at the conference….I didn’t attend, so really can’t say what I thought of speakers one way or another.

                • Dani –

                  By calling me “Gruppenfuehrer”, you seem to be suggesting I’m behaving like a Nazi. If that was your intention, please desist, because being Jewish I regard the insult as grossly antisemitic. (Same goes for peterthehungarian’s comment, btw.)

                • Miranda I don’t give a broken bedpan about your thoughts or about these wannabe SS cam pguards at the Southampton branch of the Hitlerjugend masquerading as an university.

                  • peterthehungarian –

                    I’m sure your description of the speakers as “wannabe SS camp guards” will come as a bit of a surprise to at least one of them. Dr. Jacques Gauthier (whose billed Southampton talk is entitled ‘The Legitimacy of the Israeli/Jewish Claim to Jerusalem and the Disputed Territories under International Law’) has been cast in a rather more admiring light by the Jerusalem Post:

                    “Is there a simple answer to the question of who owns or has the legal right to Jerusalem? Dr. Jacques Gauthier, a Canadian lawyer who specializes in international law, answered that question on Wednesday with a resounding yes and suggested that if a theoretical court that was 100-percent objective were to study the legally relevant facts, ignoring politics, it would find unequivocally that only Israel possesses the exclusive title to Jerusalem.” (see http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Forget-politics-Who-has-legal-right-to-Jerusalem ).

                    Ah, well, no doubt you’d find SOMETHING worth not giving a bedpan about in that “Hitlerjugend” view of his…

                    • This ‘Professor’ sounds like a racist bigot , if we’re honest…..

                      And anyone who claims that ‘100% objective’ even exists as a concept in social science is a fucking retard…..this isn’t a maths problem!

                      Sounds like 1200 pages of shit and offal to me, and everyone else out there who lives in the ‘real’ world.

                      “100% objective”….what a premise! the douche….

                    • Steve –

                      You’re 100% right about that 100% claim! And Gauthier will almost certainly get a very rough ride from other legal eagles taking part.

                      The only point I wanted to make was that certain posters here are quite happy to sling shit at those contributing to the conference without having the faintest idea of what the speakers ACTUALLY have to say. Making a virtue of pig-ignorance seems sadly par for the course on this forum.

                    • But of course, I’ve been here ‘watching’ for years – they just rant and Adam, cowardly IMHO, lets them post with impunity – even when they’re overtly racist. Very disappointing tbh.

                      And then this (friendly?) amusing, if slightly puerile, troll Tamara/James or whatever ‘it’s’ called shows up – what a hoot!

                      But yeah, 100% – what a load of cock-n-bull.

                    • You don’t really understand the first thing about law, do you, Steve (and Miranda)?
                      If I have a deed to my house and nobody else has, then the law says that it belongs to me, 100%.

                    • Leah –

                      I don’t know what scope there is for challenging deeds under international law; but if there’s as much room for legal squabbling as UK law provides (which is HIGHLY likely), I think you could be in for a very nasty shock if ever you get into a neighbour-dispute!

                      One useful website addressing the subject is at http://www.boundary-problems.co.uk/boundary-problems/bdysummary.html

                      Suggest you look, in particular, at the sections labelled ‘Inaccuracies in boundary definitions’ and ‘A Deed of Variation’ just for a kick-off…

                    • Precise boundaries are often a matter of a few inches or feet. Israel has been (proportionately, and of course absolutely) far more accomodating than that.
                      Deeds of variation are totally irrelevenat.
                      Next!

                    • Oh, and I was talking about the house, not about the position of the garden fence. I’d love to see you try it on in court, trying to claim that I don’t own my house under my registered deed. I hope you have deep pockets.

                    • Leah –

                      I’m quite sure the deed to your house is absolutely uncontentious – certainly a LOT less subject to legal wrangling than the highly contentious “deed” to Jerusalem. Lucky ol’ you, then …but not-so-lucky those banking on “100% certainty” Gauthier for a judicial victory.

                      PS: Please try to control that paranoid streak. I have no intention whatsoever of challenging the ownership of your happy home!.

                    • Not very clued up on rhetorical irony, are you, Miranda?
                      You are the one who brought up so-called international law, so your scare quotes around the word ‘deed’ are out of place. Nobody has even 1% of such legal claim to Jerusalem as the Jews have, in the form of the polity called Israel. Call it a deed or a basket of seasonal fruit, I couldn’t care less.

                    • Israel’s legitimacy under UK domestic law is OK too. In the Anglo-American Convention of 1924, a treaty of the UK and the US adopted the terms of the Palestine Mandate (that adopted the British Policy of the Balfour Declaration). Under Article 7 of the 1933 Montivideo Convention on Statehood the recognition of a state need not be express. The adoption of the language of the Palestine Mandate is enough to effect a recognition of the Jewish People’s State that was contemplated when the collective political rights to self-determination of the territory of Palestine from the River to the Sea was placed in trust on July 4th, 1922. The Jews got an immediate right to settle in this area, but their right to rule was placed in a trust called The Palestine Mandate, and deferred until 1. The Jews had a population majority in the area in which they were to rule, and 2. The were capable of exercising sovereignty. These requirements are codified in the 1933 Montivideo Convention. In 1948 the UN Partition Resolution died at birth because of Arab rejection. UN Resolutions are only recommendations until the parties to a dispute agree on the recommendation. In 1948 the Jewish People attained a population majority inside the Green Line. In 1967 when it gained unified control over the remaining territory in the Mandate, those collective political rights vested too. It is interesting to note that a trust is a legal instrument that is self executing. If the Jewish People met the terms of the trust, they got legal dominion over what formerly they had only a beneficial interest. The terms on population are not express in the Mandate. The lodestar of the interpretation of a trust is the intention of the settlers if it is judicially admissible. Here that evidence was a Memorandum of the British Foreign Office dated December 19,1917 and the briefing papers the American diplomats took with them to the Paris Peace Talks where the competing applications of the Jewish and Arab People were first submitted. It was written by Arnold Toynbee and Lewis Namier and said although from appearances it looked as if the state to be formed as anti-democratic, that charge was “imaginary” because the legal dominion affording the right to

                      rule would be placed in trust of the US or the UK until theJews attained a pop[ulation majority. and was capable of exercising sovereignty When the opportunities opened up,first within the Green Line, in1948 and then within the remainder of the mandate, these territories vested too..
                      A

                • Miranda didn’t attend the conference so she ‘can’t say what she thought of the speakers’. A typical liberal bullshit answer. You weren’t at Nuremberg for the rallies either (I presume), so again, I’m sure you wouldn’t like to make a judgement. I wonder though, if you’ve been to Israel? And whether you apply the same standard there, or perhaps, like your fellow travellers, a completely different one is applied to issues of Jewish sovereignty?

            • Miranda – obsessed with ‘research findings’ to give scientific credence to your hatred and malice against ‘Zionists’? A bit like a Nazi who needs their head measuring apparatus to justify their insane and murderous world view.

      • Alexa thank you for the blueprint you’ve provided to help identify and reduce today’s Anti-Semitism in manageable and approachable way for discussion.

    • A country of 6.7 million Jews and other non-Muslims in the mid of Islamist genocidal Middle-East.

      It is the same centuries old European deep and incurable Antisemitism my grandparents told me about.

  6. “..right to exist had no legal standing..”

    Your ‘right to exist’ has no legal, or moral standing.
    Indeed other than being a clear demonstration of the depths of depravity to which you and your ilk will sink, your existence on this planet has no practical purpose.

    So, for once in your feeble and miserable existence why don’t you do humanity a favour by slithering back into the swamp you and your ilk fester in and choke on your own excrement.

  7. I’m ready to do it with the dick of Galloway nailed to a ten feet long pole, just tell your address….

  8. I think the goblin is upset cos he is worried that public pressure might result in Southampton University reconsidering this event .
    naughty Nazi goblin . Bradford West needs your vote .

  9. What about the planned session on ‘Why Killing a Jew isn’t a Crime’? I was looking forward to the speech from UNWRA.

  10. Douglas Murray has sussed these people out.

    ….”So why do figures like those heading to Southampton next month so commonly compare Israeli security policies to those of the Nazis? The answer is simple.

    They compare the security policies of the State of Israel to the crimes of Nazism because they wish to taunt the first victims of Nazism. They wish to hurt Jews. This is what passes for academic debate in Southampton in 2015: vile and routine Jew baiting.

    You do have to put some effort into putting together such a one-sided hate-fest. The number of people in Britain so utterly and weirdly obsessed by Israel is really quite small. Most ordinary, fair-minded people looking at the Middle East can see that Israel is the only liberal and free society like ours in the region…..”

    http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/563569/Cambridge-University-s-debates-over-Israel-State

    • Fritz Wunderlich –

      Re. “Israeli passports of your parents? Are you serious?”

      Um…yes…If you had the faintest idea of how the system works…

      My parents, having been born outside Israel, had to satisfy the Israeli authorities that they were Jews in order to get Israeli passports. I, being the (provable) diaspora offspring of those parents (thanks to possession of a birth certificate) would thus be acknowledged as much to be a “legitimate Jew” as they were.

      What standard of proof did you have in mind, Fritz? A DNA test? (Hmm… could be a bit of a problem for anyone with rape-victim ancestors, owing to pogroms …) Or maybe only a personal “Endorsement of Correct Zionist Thinking” from Adam Levick would suffice for you..?

      • No, anti zionist offspring, I´m not interested in self haters, but Israeli passports are no proof for being Jewish. Something you should know if you had the faintest knowledge.

  11. Miranda

    why are all your posts centered around being patronising to the posters and not once dealing with the theme or topic ?

    If anyone insults you , you get all uppity . But you don’t mind dishing it out

    • Lemon Curd –

      Your claim that I’ve “not once” in “all” my posts dealt with the theme or topic is somewhat belied by a – lengthy – conversation I had with you personally (and a couple of others) spanning March 10-11 on the thread headlined ‘More evidence that George Galloway Is Antisemitic’. (The article addressed GG’s accusations of defamation – and that’s precisely what we talked about.)

      A quick review of my posts additionally reveals that I contributed at least one directly on-topic comment to every thread I joined – with a single exception. That was an article headlined ”Jeremy Bowen accuses Bibi of playing “the Holocaust card”,’ in which I must admit that I was infuriated enough by a certain poster’s racist remarks about Arabs to get wholly sidetracked into a slanging-match.

      …Which brings me to your second criticism: That I “get all uppity” when insulted but “don’t mind dishing it out”.
      I can find only one occasion out of a total of around twenty posts when I initiated – rather than riposted to – an insulting remark (and for that one, I instantly apologised for misunderstanding the author). I also found that I didn’t respond at all to a whole plethora of ad homs of the puerile “You are an imbecile! Fuck off!” kind, confining myself almost entirely to those which engaged in racist and/or antisemitic invective. (One exception – my huffy reply to a poster who corresponded … relatively … politely with me on the subject of land law, but who’d liberally hurled insults of a distinctly nasty sort in my direction previously)

      Seems to me, LC, that on a website which is – ostensibly – devoted to combating hate-speech and demonising stereotypes, NOT to challenge posters who sling bigoted mud around is just as deficient and defeatist as being a Jew who “tolerates” or “pretends not to hear” antisemitic remarks in a playground, pub, or political rally.

      So – if I carry on posting “uppity” comments to hate-preachers here, I’m afraid you’ll either just have to forgive or put up with them. Because carry on I most certainly will.

      • Your views and prejudices are your own affair . If you want to share them n this site , that’s also up to you

        When James was slinging bigoted mud around . You had a chuckle with your mate Steve . I didn’t see you come out objecting . That was morally very dubious of you .

        You said your views of the event at Southampton University are neither here nor there as you didn’t attend . That’s like saying I haven’t met Hitler so I hold no views on Nazis . Seemed to be a bit of denial there . Also morally dubious.

        You made pronouncements on the law . But you were talking nonsense . You referred to UK law . No such thing . A wiki search on libel law seemed to suffice for your essay on that topic . Talking nonsense .

        Frankly I also do not believe your parents are, or were Israeli . Why even bring your parents into it ? Do you see anyone else talking about their deceased parents on this site as flippantly or at all , like you ? Most peeps honour their parents , not trade them in at a free for all web posting score point.

        Anti Semitism is evil and wrong . This is what the site is about . Lets see you address that before you start going off topic or directing comments at peeps

        • Lemon Curd –

          1. Who’s “James”?! I don’t recall seeing his posts at the time I came on site (presumably they’d been deleted), so it’s totally unreasonable of you to berate me for failing to “object” to them.

          2. The parallel you draw between the Southampton event and a Hitler-led gathering is absurd. All I could make out from looking at the list of speakers was that some of them were clearly anti-Zionist; at least one was strongly pro-Israel; and quite a few others were addressing the topic from rather baffling academic angles (eg, “gender studies” and “engineering”), which might have meant they were anything from SS stormtroopers to peacenik pussycats. You might think it’s “morally dubious” to reserve judgement on people despite having only such sparse information at hand – I don’t.

          3. You now dismiss my “pronouncements on the law” as “nonsense”. At the time of discussing them with me, however, you said I’d given you a “good reply”. Which is it? (I do know full well, by the way, that there’s no such thing as “UK law” and was using the term loosely – as a way of not getting bogged down in mapping the peculiar regional vagaries of so-called “English” law. My knowledge of libel also happens to be quite a lot deeper than Wiki, having worked both as a journalist and journalism law lecturer before retiring, although I do acknowledge gaps as there have since been legislative changes. How about your credentials as a judge of my abilities, LC?)

          4. I don’t give a toss whether or not you “believe” that my parents were Israelis – though I am sorry for allowing myself to be repeatedly baited by Fritz into expanding on it after I initially tried to signal a halt to this particular conversation. The only thing which DOES bother me about the responses I got – including yours – is that the slinging of antisemitic insults specifically proscribed by the ADL at someone who declares themselves to be Jewish (perfectly truthfully in my case, as it happens) is so shamefully considered acceptable/not worth bothering about on this site.

          How the hell do you think antisemitism can be effectively countered among non-Jews when Jews themselves and Judophiles are so noisily blaring out the exact same foul tunes they are supposed to be fighting to silence?

          • “I do know full well, by the way, that there’s no such thing as “UK law” – not strictly true, in the sense that the UK transposes EU directive into domestic law. “UK law” is close enough here ro describe the latter, for all intents and purposes.

            “How the hell do you think antisemitism can be effectively countered among non-Jews when Jews themselves and Judophiles are so noisily blaring out the exact same foul tunes they are supposed to be fighting to silence?” – makes no sense at all. “Exact same foul tunes”? Which Jews here blare out ‘noisily’ the ‘exact same’ antisemitism? Not in this exchange, or in any exchange that this one refers to. (Yes, there have been antisemitism-excusing comments on this site, made by people who may well be Jews; but this does not seem to be what you are talking about). In sum, a fantasy.

          • Miranda

            Your recent replies despite being voluminous conclude about how you don’t give a toss and how you will carry on.
            If you were a journalist and you lectured in Journo Law then I assume words and sentences and images are your craft and it surprises me that you seem so poor at it . You are verbose .

            For thousands of years Jews remained silent . Last 60 years , Jews now have a voice . You think you can persuade an anti Semite to be a good lad by silencing a few posting Jews ? You should go onto the internet and do your own survey of Jew hate sites and yet you come on here telling us to shut up . How you are countering anti Semitism is a bloody joke ! you troll a site dedicated to fighting anti Semitism ?

            I am sorry . I don’t know you personally . I can only comment on what you have posted here . In Real life you might be a very sweet person but you have been speaking nonsense here .

  12. Anyone who brings up the term ‘international law’ is either knowingly misleading or a complete idiot.

    • There is the alternative, “naive idealist.” And others. When they still let me post my subversive facts and logic on al-Guardian I also doubted that “International Law” has anything remotely close to the common sense, positivist
      reality of our national and even religious laws. There was the usual howling from several Guardianistas as I recall that I must be some kind of enemy of humanity and all progress — hah!
      Et `hah’ encore!
      It will take thousands of years at this rate (Hamas rules Islamist enclave, hurls bombs at neighbors who have put up with every possibly provocation before finally shaking their heads and responding proportionally — see Shoshana Breyer on `proportionality in warfare’) to make any real progress. Shoah. Yet after less than a century, the persecuted victims, who have already managed to put together a vibrant democratic state in the face of repeated invasions, are expected to trust “international law,” when the UN General Assembly is populated by… somehow I am reminded of Boris Pasternak’s summary of Lenin and Stalin: “Vengence incarnate…a pockmarked Caligula”…And these will judge the State of Israel fairly?

  13. On questions of legitimacy of a country under International Law, it is best to investigate the relevant facts and law. Here are two opinions of acclaimed international lawyers, an easily understandable opinion of a former Deputy Director of the US Department of Defense, and my own modest effort before I learned of these other opinions.

    Julius Stone, “Israel and Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations” Johns Hopkins University Press (1981)

    Eugene Rostow, “Palestinian Self-Determination, Possible Futures for the Unallocated Territories of the Palestine Mandate” 5 Yale Studies in World Public Order 147 1978-1979

    Wallace Brand, “Claims of the Jewish and Arab Peoples under International Law to the Collective Political Rights to Self-Determination in Palestine”
    http://SSRN.com/abstract=2385304

    Douglas Feith, “A Mandate for Israel, http://www.zionismontheweb.org/middle_east/Israel/Israel_and_palestine_mandate_for_israel.htm”

    Neither these opinions nor their supporting references will be discussed at the Southhampton Conference. For the answer under Canon Law, read the Old Testament.