Complaints about the resolution (introduced by Lebanon, Kuwait, and Tunisia) focused in part on the claim that Tomb of the Patriarchs is “in danger”, but mostly on characterisations of the site (the burial place of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah) as “Palestinian”, thus denying the Jewish (and Christian) heritage of the Biblical city.
Israel-bashers like Sunny Hundal don’t like anyone getting on with Israel and will trash anyone who tries. No matter the benefits collaboration with Israel will bring to India – hi-tech interchange, leading edge water-management and other farming techniques, counter-terrorism intelligence sharing. The Israel-hater is willing to pay any price in other people’s misery.
These errors and omissions represent a pattern by Beaumont, in which he fails to distinguish between homes built within existing Jerusalem neighborhoods and West Bank settlements (which would almost certainly become part of Israel in a peace deal) and those built on land Palestinians claim as part of their future state.
We contacted The Economist over a claim that a controversial book (featuring a Jewish-Palestinian romance) by an Israeli writer was “removed” from the school curriculum, and editors ultimately upheld our complaint.
Palestine Solidarity Campaign: A case study in the correlation between anti-Zionism and antisemitism
Rather than asking whether opposing a Jewish state or supporting BDS is inherently anti-Semitic, London based blogger David Collier asks a more practical question: are the people who espouse these views also espousing ideas representing classic anti-Semitism?
As we’ve demonstrated each month in our ongoing series of posts documenting Israeli successes, the economic impact of the campaign to boycott Israel is nearly non-existent. Moreover, in nearly every arena (political, cultural and economic), BDS is failing miserably at its stated aim of internationally isolating the Jewish state.
Shlaim claimed that the “intrusion of a foreign entity in the shape of the Zionist movement showed a total disregard (by the British) for the indigenous population”.
Guardian columnist Zoe Williams actually compares Israel’s defenders – whom she characterises as defenders of “killing children” – and climate change deniers. This bizarre analogy is indicative of a view of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, held by many in the media, which sees it as a binary tale of ignorance vs truth, good vs evil.
By citing just three seemingly damning words within a longer, more nuanced interview with the head of Israeli Electric about the power shortage in Gaza, the Indy journalist did what the Indy does best: taking the comments and actions of Israelis and Israeli leaders out of context to impute maximum malevolence.
BDS is not, as Ben Jamal suggests in his Guardian op-ed, a progressive movement that champions free speech. It’s a regressive political campaign which silences Jews and consigns millions to pariah status, promoting their social exclusion from the international community.
The Guardian’s failure to challenge Ismail Patel’s claim that the government was “acting on hearsay from a pro-Israeli lobby group” is classic Guardian: failing to reveal the well-documented evidence demonstrating that individuals and groups they cover – who claim to be merely ‘pro-Palestinian’ – are compromised by extremism, support for terror and antisemitism.
A Jerusalem court recently ruled in favor of a female passenger who sued El Al when she was asked by a flight attendant to move seats at the behest of an ultra-Orthodox man. She was not forced to move seats, but was merely asked – a request the court still found to be illegal. Nonetheless, reports by Times of London and the Guardian botched this crucial detail.
The fact that the article completely omitted any mention of the extreme anti-Jewish rhetoric during al-Quds Day represents yet another example of the Guardian’s broader failure to acknowledge the antisemitism that is endemic within much of the pro-Palestinian movement.
This attacker had just watched a film with multiple scenes of Israeli soldiers committing acts of violence against Palestinian children and wanted someone (preferably a Jew) to take it out on.
The Sky News Arabia report omitted any mention of the Muslim rioting at the Temple Mount which necessitated the police response and falsely claimed that “Israeli extremists stormed the mosque”.
Hezbollah humiliated on streets of London as their Al Quds Day protest is blocked by pro-Israel activists.
We came we saw we conquered! While the Hezbollah Al Quds Day terror parade was allowed to take place on Sunday 18th June in the heart of London’s West End a group of 20 to 30 pro-Israel activists stepped out into the road to block the march no sooner than after it had just started.
Around the world, there are many countries who are building walls to protect their citizens. Saudi Arabia is building a 600 mile wall to keep out ISIS. India is building massive walls on its borders with Bangladesh and Pakistan. One can agree with these decisions, or disagree with them. But in the end, there is only one country who built a wall to defend its citizens from murderous attacks on its civilians that is called apartheid for doing so – and surprise, surprise the one country singled out for unfair criticism is Israel.
The London-based Jewish blogger Richard Millett was banned, by the putative free speech advocates at Amnesty International, from attending an event last night in London called “Accountability and Human Rights at 50 years of Occupation”. Organisers justified the banning of Millett by accusing him of being a “disrupter”.
As we explained in a subsequent complaint to Times editors, the Gush Etzion main communities were founded before 1948, in the 1920s and 1930s, on land legally purchased by Jews. Jews living at the original Kibbutzim were killed during the 1929 Arab riots, then re-established and destroyed again during Arab revolt of 1936-1939. Though the communities were re-established in the 1940s, they were again destroyed by Arabs fighters during the 1948 war.
The Indy journalist not only effectively ignored Judaism’s holiest site, but also managed to parrot Palestinian talking points, thus leading many readers to falsely believe that the location of the Israeli government meeting represented some sort of provocation against Palestinian Muslims.