Open Letter to Attorney General Jeremy Wright August 2018

The Right Hon. Jeremy Wright QC MP Attorney General Attorney General’s Office 20 Victoria Street London SW1H 0NF Jeremy.wright.mp@parliament.uk …

Open Letter to Attorney General Jeremy Wright

A de-facto Palestine is being created outside of any official negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority

“It would be a planned community …… contain enough housing for up to 40,000 Palestinians and Israeli Arabs.”

A de-facto Palestine is being created outside of any official negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority

The non-existent Jew

The Cogwar 8 Years On: BLM, BDS & the wokeocracy

On 27 July 2020 Campaign4Truth hosted Prof Richard Landes. Eight years ago he said:

“It’s not every generation that gets to defend a civilisation,” and advised that silence wasn’t an option. 

So here are we these 8 years later and we ask, “How have we done?” 

When Richard was last in London in January 2020, he spoke at our event: “The Corruption of the Language: Palestinian Cognitive Warfare Targets Western School Curricula”  

Now six months later we find that language has indeed played a large role in the extraordinary events that have taken place in this short space of time. We have all become  familiar with the following words and acronyms:

Covid19, Corona virus, Pandemic, Wuhan, Ventilators, Face masks, Wash your hands, Social distancing, BLM, BDS, Cancel Culture, Fake News, Trump Derangement Syndrome, and of course the latest buzz word WOKE.

Many might be asking what this means and what has it to do with this thing called a Cogwar. Thats where Richard Landes came in.

SDK Question 1
Richard, let’s start with the media and journalists and their journalism. What role has the media played this year in all of the extraordinary events that are still rolling out and can we look back to find a trail from the past that brings us to where we are today? Fake news – an expression now inseparable from President Trump? Discuss. 

RL Reply
Covid has revealed a worrying series of gaps, between data and policy, between safety and economic life, and most terrifying, at least in my mind, a gap between what our journalists and their editors tell us, and what’s happening. 

So much of the information seems so politicised, a tendency increased by twitter mobs and the canceling of so much discourse as “racist.” And not surprisingly, in a world where Linda Sarsour is a “progressive” star, real feminists like Phyllis Chesler get canceled.

And this is true all around. Fox and CNN, BBC and France2. We are dealing with a huge challenge to our civilisation, and the information by which we navigate that challenge is strongly tainted. We’re fighting a night fight and we’re moon-blind.

Now what made it possible for our major legacy media to get so politicised that they resemble the early days of the US “partisan press.” Modern conditions demand a much higher level of accuracy in reporting than we’re currently getting.

In my reading of the last 20 years, during which this has happened on a large scale, this begins with the legacy media’s reporting of the 2^nd intifada. At that time, on an unprecedented scale, they systematically reported Palestinian war propaganda as news (what I call “lethal journalism”) and under-reported the genocidal hatreds that lay behind the “suicide martyr” terror campaign. To this day, people think of the conflict in terms of the Palestinian freedom fighters and the Israeli overlords.

Both the al Durah story and the “Jenin Massacre” (both chapters in my book) represent exceptional hoaxes in the history of modern journalism, both for the spread of the memes within the legacy media (not just one paper duped), and their reluctance to correct either their past or future behaviour. They felt they were doing “right” by distorting the situation to favour the Palestinians (who really don’t like criticism) and the Israelis (who you can insult to their face and they’ll take it). 

Gradually this made progress. Dan Rather got caught with a fake letter criticising the young George Bush, which he released just before, and therefore hopefully to tip the election in favour of Kerry in 2004. When he got caught, the NYT defended him on the grounds that it was “fake but accurate” – the same argument used to reject the claims that Muhammad al Durah footage of the IDF killing a Palestinian boy aged 12 in the arms of his father was faked. And Rather and the NYT were part of a larger group turning out anti-Bush political propaganda. The Lancet rushed into publication (on the web first!) in order to publish deeply problematic statistics that accused Bush of killing over 100,000 in Iraq.

Similarly with Muslims. The media bent over backwards not to criticise Muslims, not to associate Muslim terror with Islam. For Obama administration officials, the words “radical Islam” were taboo. The victims of the Fort Hood massacre carried out by a Palestinian-American jihadi yelling “Allahu Akhbar,” were injured and killed in a “work-place accident.” Any criticism of Islam was considered Islamophobic, and that accusation was so powerful, that for over a decade no one in authority dared protect British girls from sexual slavery at the hands of Pakistani Muslims for fear of being called an Islamophobe. What a tremendous victory for the Caliphater cogwar.

By the end of the new century’s first decade (what I call the “aughts” the 00s), the “us-them” attitude that has spread throughout the news media, enforced by cancel-culture bullying, that has deeply damaged the information we get. Trump’s election has had a huge impact, aggravating the problem. The NYT apologised for having assured their readers that Trump couldn’t win (because that narrative overrode their reporting accuracy), only to dive ever-more completely into partisan politics in the aftermath. The recent firing of James Bennet and resignation of Bari Weiss  shows how far the “mob” has penetrated the legacy media: it was a massive shift toward cancel culture’s grip.

Now, with Covid, the situation is no longer even a bad joke. The rapidity with which various narratives (no big deal, be free vs. big deal, stay at home and wear a mask) fell victim to a journalistic agenda was stunning.

If you haven’t you’ve got to see the humour of Canadian comic Ryan Long on the insane symmetries between right and left, watch this:  

Canadian Comic Ryan Long

And of course, in such a world, conspiracy theories multiply at the speed of light, with the internet providing petrie dish conditions. Everywhere people see plots, malevolent intentions, hidden forces working their ruin, often Jews or Israel. And given the pathetically skewed information we get from an activist journalism that cares more about manipulating people into the right-thinking than accuracy, it’s hard to counter such concerns.

SDK Question 2
Our title reads “Wokeocracy as an apocalyptic millenarian movement”
Woke is the 2020 buzz word, some say its PC on steroids.
The urban dictionary describes it as simply being aware of whats going on in society in relation to racism and social injustice. 

Please expand on his concept of Wokeocracy as an apocalyptic millenarian movement, an ideology that postulates the traumatic end to an era promising relief from sufferings and giving rise to salvation in a new golden age. 

RL Replies
First some definitions:

• Millennialism: belief in a coming period of “heaven on earth”, in the flesh.
• Eschatology: end of the world, saved go to heaven, damned to hell.
• Apocalyptic: imminence. whether millennium or eschaton, it’s about to happen.
• Varieties of apocalyptic activism: 
  • Cataclysmic/violent (destroying the world to save it) 
  • Transformative/peaceful (voluntary change of heart)

Woke are a reincarnation of ’60s New Age millennialism, passed through a Frankfurt-School academia of tenured (failed) radicals, weaponised by the internet, and now storming out from their study halls to impose the truth on a sinful and recalcitrant social world of suffocating, systemic oppression. In the late 4^th century in the Mediterranean, monks emerged from their cells and cloisters to attack pagan blasphemies, kill their teachers and burn their libraries. Today it’s done bloodlessly through cancel culture.

The woke leaders are all convinced they’ve seen the light and know the truth. Racism is systemic in America (where, by those standards, is it not?). Privileged need to step down and make room for the oppressed. Modern capitalism is bad – look at global warming. The Israelis and the Americans are the enemy; our Islamist and Palestinian brothers are in the same trench against colonial settler genocide and unbearable racism at home. If only we can dismantle this “evil empire” the world will be filled with good, simple men like Luke Skywalker and his merry men.

It’s seems absurd, and it’s easy to make fun of (Tatiana McGrath’s Woke). But it’s also tragically true. We live in a world shaped by sci-fi movies.

Two key movie memes of the millennial generations are Star Trek’s evil empire (us) and ET’s lovable other (them). Today we privileged whiteys must oppose evil us and bend the knee to just them.

Part of the change from the 60s is how much “revolutionary” behaviour is programmed rather than spontaneous, how much is expended manifesting, signaling, virtue. 

It’s precisely this virtue signaling that cripples an opposition. As many commentators have noted, the big guys like Stephen Pinker who get social justice mobbed, will survive. 

The message is to the lesser, up and coming thinkers. Refuse the virtue signals at your own risk.

The millennial ideology behind this is what its proponents in academia call Peace and Conflict Resolution Studies, an openly partisan academic field that insists that man is inherently peaceful, that anyone who disagrees is a war monger, that if their techniques would be followed, we would enter an era free of War. (Alongside Gays and Feminists for Palestine, there are few more self-parodying names than that of “Historians against War.”) 

It’s a secular version of Isaiah’s promise, a favourite of early Christian preaching, a source of inspiration to those who created the UN, a favourite of the sixties. “Ain’t a gonna study war no more, I ain’t a gonna study war no more.” 

And although it may not get fully explicit about its religious inspiration, it’s definitely more active than its earlier religious manifestations. When there’s no God, people have to build the millennium by themselves.

Many people have noted the “religious” dimension of the wokeocracy. Certainly BDS has rituals of recruitment and initiation. Most of these religious traits are also apocalyptic traits – 

• the division of the world into good and evil, 
• the legitimation of violence for the sake of collective salvation, 
• the enforcement of a dogma from which there is no dissent.

Eric Hoffer noted in his classic study of modern millennial movements, True Believer, mass movements of true believers don’t need a god, but they do need a devil. And that’s the modern privileged whites. Anything to undermine them, including falsifying evidence, is legitimate.

The irony here is that the ally this messianic endeavor is the other major apocalyptic movement of our day, the Caliphaters, namely Muslims who believe that in this generation, there will be a global Caliphate ruling the entire world.

This is an active cataclysmic movement (i.e. we are god’s instrument in carrying out the necessary violence to destroy evil (kuffār) and introduce the perfect society: a global Caliphate dispensing sharia law. And it’s goal is a hierarchical millennium: Muslims rule over dhimmi. 

One would think a peaceful movement would steer clear of such apocalyptic testosterone, but no, we have the marriage of post-modern masochism and pre-modern sadism. 

As anyone fleeing Islamic theocracies will tell you, they start and accede to power through an alliance with the Left. And then they eat them up.

SDK Question 3
BLM – the movement has exploded into our lives and is embraced in the mainstream as a force for change, acknowledging past injustices served to the black communities including slavery, police violence and discriminatory racism. This movement has been around for some time, so what is the significance of it right now in this year of pandemic and what’s the connection with BDS? How does this tie in with Cancel Culture? What’s actually going on?

RL Replies
Black Lives Matter, the formal organisation, needs to be distinguished from BLM, the sentiment and movement for social justice that sentiment informs. 

Unquestionably, no matter how heinous the personality, no one, not even George Floyd deserves to die the way he did. And any attitude that somehow black lives matter less than white ones (or whatever one’s race), reflects a level of racial prejudice that most Americans find reprehensible. 

Of course, that’s already a huge step away from the kind of systemic racism one finds in countries like Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. But in the current atmosphere, one can’t even say that.

A University of Syracuse Law Professor had the nerve to point out that the meme that launched the Ferguson Riots and #BlackLivesMatter’s prominence in 2015 – hands up don’t shoot! – was actually not true. His colleagues and the students tried to get him fired.

A U Penn professor had the nerve to want to point out that much of the current anti-racist sentiment comes from the open-mindedness of white editors

Romano took issue with the idea that the publishing business operated with “the full benefits of white supremacy and institutional racism” and that “white gatekeeping had been working to stifle black voices at every level of our industry,” as the statement contended. These assertions, he argued, amounted to “calumnies on multiple generations of white publishers and editors” who had fought to publish authors of colour. “I resent the idea that whites in the book publishing and literary world are an oppositional force that needs to be assigned to reeducation camps,” he wrote.

The response: a petition calling on the administration to Fire Carlin Romano from UPenn

Dear Faculty & Deans of the Annenberg School for Communication,

I write to express my outrage and disappointment over the recent behaviour of Carlin Romano, specifically in relation to racist remarks he made and a sustained campaign of targeting black people and women on the board of the National Book Critics Circle.

Outrage at him targeting black people and women, by disagreeing with their dogmatic assertions of white supremacist evil.

But from there to the BLM movement as founded by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi with its combination of Frankfurt school critical theory, neo-Marxian ideology, with its intersectional alliance with the Palestinian movement, there’s an enormous leap.

Instead of black lives matter, we have black lives taken by cops and whites are what matter, and even if reducing police presence and intervention means more blacks – children and women – are killed by black gangs. That’s not a problem.

Similarly, the link with the Palestinians is based on the same twisted logic: Palestinians and their supporters are only interested in Palestinian or Arab lives when Israelis can be blamed. A hundred times as many Arabs killed in Syria? Palestinians victims of Lebanese apartheid? Not an issue. 

Thus BLM had a plank in their manifesto platform accusing Israel of genocide. And in those woke circles, just as it is not permissible for someone to say that whites aren’t racist, it’s not permissible to say Israel isn’t genocidal. And, ironically, just as you can’t defend Israel (or whites) you can’t criticise Palestinians or blacks: to say Palestinians teach their children and their people genocidal hatred is not admissible, even as to say Blacks have their own forms of racism is unacceptable.

Right now, BLM, the political movement, is using the sentiment “Black Lives Matter” – which is true – to dominate the discussion, to dox and cancel and expel anyone who does not toe the line. There’s a formal alliance between wokesters, BLM activists and Caliphaters to attack any one who might stray from the party line. Obviously one of their prime targets is Jews and Zionists.

And so an allegedly progressive movement welcomes some of the most patriarchal belligerent folks in the world (Caliphaters) and blocks participation from one of the most progressive populations. “Gays and Feminists for Palestine.” As the joke goes, “How many wokesters does it take to change a light bulb?” That’s not funny.

SDK Question 4
Virtue signaling and honour-shame.

RL Replies
Definition:
shame-honour: what others think of you is most important 
Megalothymia: lust for glory
Onēidophobia: horror of being publicly humiliated.
Shame-honour culture: one in which it is expected, permitted, even required to shed blood for the sake of one’s honour/avoiding shame.

Today, we’re less violent, but still limbic captives to the need to save face.

Chinese proverb.
Basic difference in situations where the individual must chose telling the truth and suffering humiliation or lying and saving face.
When Judah says about Tamar: “She was more righteous than I” he chooses public humiliation and personal integrity over public honour and private guilt (having her burned alive for shaming his family).

In cultures where honour is prized over integrity, you get systemic dishonesty, dogmatic gaslighting of reality, in other words, memes like “America is the most racist society; Israel is genocidal; Palestinians are freedom fighters; BLM cares about all black lives.”

Shaming through internet: accusations of islamophobia, racism, white supremacist and your career is over.

Cancel culture
Part of what’s interesting here is a radical inversion. In primitive shame-honour cultures, alpha males make sure no one can insult them by threatening and deploying force. Today, people make sure you can’t criticise them by claiming victim status and seeking allies in shaming others for “hurting them,” for “endangering their lives.”

If you will, instead of leading with their right fist, they lead with their glass jaw. And we recoil in horror at the thought we might hurt them.

Comparison with Chinese cultural revolution.
And there is of course the blatant denial of reality, the constant gaslighting which almost seems designed to ferret out people with any sanity left. In the midst of a global pandemic, thousands of epidemiologists and health scientists signed an open letter claiming that protesting took precedence over disease control. Even there lies a parallel: during the Cultural Revolution, marauding Red Guards created a cerebrospinal meningitis pandemic which killed 160,000 people. Then as now, making revolution trumped public health. 

So people virtue-signal: Look at me, I’m good.

In the Jewish world this produces what some people call “as-a-Jew” – people like a well-known Jewish/British playwright, who never said anything about being Jewish, but suddenly found themselves compelled to harshly criticise Israel after the “Jenin massacre.” They didn’t check to see if the accusations were true. Since their friends bought into it, they stepped in line. In some shame-honour cultures, you kill a relative (most often a daughter) for shaming the family, in some cases, even if she’s innocent. The rumour is enough. These as-a-Jews don’t have the chops to kill their relative Israel, but they will side with people who want to kill her, and they don’t care whether the accusations against her are true. The shame is enough. Proxy honour killings.

The massive capitulation to BLM/woke/caliphater ideology is driven by fear of shame.

It’s very similar to the dynamics of the Emperor’s new clothes. Instead of fear of being called a fool for saying the emperor is naked, today’s courtiers are afraid of being called racist. So they nod eagerly to affirm the ridiculous counter-truths of the woke dogma. Only this time, instead of foolish courtiers playing into the narrative of a vain emperor, it’s frightened “thought leaders” fuelling a destructive millennial movement driven by hate.

SDK Question 5 
Please sum up these momentous occurrences in this extraordinary year of 2020, 8 years on from when you said it’s not every generation that gets to defend a civilisation. Have we been silent?

RL Replies
We’ve been way too silent. And that’s led to a catastrophic situation where a deeply sketchy character who won the presidency in part because of the systemic dishonesty of the “liberal” media, upholds basic Western principles, while highly educated and accomplished intellectuals fuel regressive political forces.

Courage

If Roosevelt could reassure the US by claiming that the only thing we need fear is fear itself, then I’d say the only thing we need fear is shame itself. Choose integrity over shame, honesty over virtue-signaling.Challenge the dogmas. Don’t let people get away with cheap shots like “racism” and “islamophobia,” and “white supremacy.”

One of the big differences between today’s “peace-loving” millennial wokesters and the 60s is that in the 60s people were genuinely committed to life and love and honesty. Today the people being empowered by the cognitive war on the West are drawn disturbingly to death. Why else would progressives in the early aughts make the Palestinian cause the litmus test of leftist credentials, at the very moment that Palestinians taught their children to seek death, killing as many civilian enemies as possible?

As Moses tells the children of Israel. You have a choice between death and life. Choose life. And do it visibly. Stick your head above the parapet and start shooting back. It’s only words… so far.

Prof Richard Landes is an American-Israeli historian and author, specializing in Millennialism, the belief advanced by some religious denominations that a Golden Age or Paradise will occur on Earth prior to the final judgment and future eternal state of the “World to Come”. Richard coined the term “Pallywood”, the practice of staged filming to create evidence against Israel for the benefit of a Palestinian people. He has published many books and articles.

Here is a link to his blog  
CV: http://www.theaugeanstables.com/richard-landes-cv/  
Blog: The Augeans Stables
Twitter: @richard_landes 
Academic Articles: https://bu.academia.edu/RLandes

Campaign4Truth @campaign4T

Why is Sir Mick Davis of the Conservative Party Calling Jews ‘Far Right’?

Sir Mick Davis  suggests that by showing the documentary film ‘Homelands’ we have joined “a small number of fringe groups and individuals within the Jewish community who could, by any definition, be described as far right“.  This is absurd. Whilst Katie Hopkins may not be everyone’s cup of tea, we suspect that many journalists and JC readers will identify with some aspect of the documentary ‘Homelands’:

• Mehdi Hassan (New Statesman, 2013) writes that “The sorry truth is that the virus of anti- Semitism has infected the British Muslim community …. It’s our dirty little secret”

• A recent survey undertaken by the EU found that almost 90 percent of European Jews have suffered some violence (including offensive online messages). Nearly one third of these are dispensed by “someone with an extremist Muslim view”.
  
  
• Journalist Hardeep Singh says that We need to talk about Muslim anti-Semitism‘. Nobody accuses him of hijack when he broaches the subject of Mireille Knoll, the 85-year-old wheelchair-bound Holocaust survivor, who was stabbed 11 times and set alight by a Muslim neighbour.

• Ayaan Hirsi Ali says that “Islamic anti-Semitism is of a “scale and scope” that most people in the West do not understand and is therefore all the more insidious”

Organising events with speakers is one aspect of what we do. In fact we have platformed some of the social media bullies now attacking us. We believe in free speech and democracy,  and have hosted speakers from across the political divide, encouraging debate and dialogue. An example can be found here. 

In his race to find Kahanists under the bed, Mick Davis thoroughly misrepresents us:

We do not perceive the threat from extremism as coming from “all Muslims and only Muslims”, but we will not serve the issue of interfaith relations by ignoring what is a very real problem.

We screened ‘Homelands’ because it highlights the issue of Islamic antisemitism and extremism which is underreported, including in the Jewish Press. It includes for example the overlooked account of  Nadia Remadna, a Muslim woman in Paris who is trying to curb extremism in Muslim youth and who was thrown out of a café for being – yes – a woman. 

None of the establishment leadership – Sir Mick included – has ever attended any of our events. We don’t recall seeing Sir Mick at demonstrations either. He would therefore not know of the changing demographic of what are antisemitic, anti Israel demonstrations and events across the UK that pose a real and present danger to UK Jews as well as the wider population.

As the son of Revisionist Jews, Sir Mick must surely be aware of the attempts through the ages to eradicate the Jewish people. He would know that it is not we who adhere to the “Great Replacement Theory”, but rather this demographic that uses Palestinianism, a belief in ‘replacement theology’ that makes obsolete the Jewish faith, to spread its hatred for everything Jewish, under the guise of anti Zionism. It is comprised increasingly from across the Islamic/Left spectrum including Islamists like FOA (Friends of Al Aqsa), IHRC (Islamic Human Rights Committee), Palestine Return Centre etc and diehard western antisemites of Jeremy Corbyn’s PSC (he remains a Patron of the PSC/BDS) and Stop the War Coalition, amongst others.

Jeremy Corbyn with his ‘friend’ Ishmail Patel of FOA

If Sir Mick followed our work, he’d find amongst other material, a log of almost every antisemitic, anti Israel meetings organised by the collective force of these groups.

Sir Mick is the CEO and Treasurer of the Conservative Party. He is ideally placed to bring such racist anti Jewish events to the attention of Government. Of course he could also have helped with our petition to have notorious antisemite Linda Sarsour excluded from her MEND speaking tour of major UK cities.

Had Sir Mick instead paid attention to the Palestine Expo at Olympia in London just 4 days after our screening of ‘Homelands’, he’d have found on sale children’s books that brainwash British children, airbrushing Judaism out of our bible stories. Instead of turning his fire on Zionist activists, Sir Mick ought have been focussing on the antisemites gathered in London where speaker after speaker called for the demise of the world’s only Jewish State, Israel.

All of this information is readily available to those who care to Google. It is therefore disingenuous for anyone to label those who speak about Islamic antisemitism as “racist against Muslims“.  And no it is not a matter of “when they’re done with the Muslims they’ll come for the Jews“. It’s a matter of Jews – right here and right now – being the target of the alliance between Islamic/Left antisemitism.

What does Sir Mick think the entire issue of Labour antisemitism is all about? What flag was waived at the Labour Party Conference last year? Who does Jeremy Corbyn refer to as his ‘friends’? These matters have hogged the headlines for some years now and the very least we could expect from the CEO of the Conservative party is to have carried out in depth research. For who is best placed to brief the Government on these issues?

Does the Israeli Government owe this CEO aforethought over and above its own security? Isi Leibler wrote of Mick Davis in 2010 “for a person holding senior public office in a major Diaspora community to indulge in crude public attacks on Israeli leaders and relate to Israel’s security requirements in relation to their impact on his image in non-Jewish circles is surely bizarre and utterly unconscionable.” Now those “crude public attacks” are focused on us in much the same manner. 

We have not claimed that we are “the only people challenging the threat of Islamic extremism” or “the only people fighting antisemitism.” Indeed plenty of people fight antisemitism. But those who do not attend the many antisemitic demonstrations, nor the Iran backed annual antisemitic Al Quds day marches through London, nor any of the hundreds of antisemitic meetings throughout our country in church halls and on university campuses, ought not to rely on third party reports by a JC journalist who comes with an agenda.

It could be said that Sir Mick has used the language of our enemies in suggesting there is a risk of Israel becoming an “apartheid state”. Should the government of Israel make its policy decisions with as much attention to the impact on him as on the Israeli population – “And the impact on me is as significant as it is on Jews living in Israel… I want them to recognise that”?  And he seemingly fails to accept that sometimes live fire has to be used by the IDF defending the Gaza border. 

Sir Mick says in the Jewish Chronicle that support for Katie Hopkins is an “outrageous betrayal of Jewish values and history” when it is those who ignore the real and present dangers we outline who betray those values and history. One wonders therefore why the Jewish Chronicle feels the need to give space to his sanctimonious outpourings.

Being attacked by such a man is in truth a badge of honour.

Homelands – the reply

Today is 7/7/2019. It is 14 years since the London tube bombing, the biggest terrorist attack on the UK mainland since World War Two. We all stand in memory of the 52 who were mercilessly killed by terrorists.

The Jewish Chronicle sent their journalist, Ben Weich, to cover our screening of the documentary ‘Homelands’ on Tuesday night. We do not recognise much of Ben Weich’s JC piece, a great deal of which amounts to no more than vacuous, unctuous virtue signalling. 

Naturally we requested a right of reply. JC editor Stephen Pollard declined.

Clearly Weich was so imbued with emotional enthusiasm having at last caught us ‘at it’, that he failed to speak with the producers of the film, failed to raise his concerns during the free and open discussion and failed to interview the organisers.

After we provided this journalist with all the means to investigate and write a true and honest report, he distorted and selectively reported with the sole objective of suggesting that we are extremists. This is completely untrue.

Weich fails to tell his readers that this event had to be cancelled four times in Israel and twice in London, because of input from members of the Jewish establishment, determined to suppress free speech and dialogue. At great expense in London we provided sufficient trained security personnel – including a guard dog – because we take seriously our responsibility for safety. Weich’s report mendaciously juxtaposes the guard dog with a mention of “the BNP in Barking”. He describes Katie Hopkins as a “right wing agitator” but he made no attempt to pose a question to her at the event. No – in Weich’s universe it seems that truth becomes the victim while antisemites get a free ride. Then in his final paragraph he invokes the Holocaust to attempt to add weight to his absurd and offensive conclusion that our event was “Jewish flirtation with the far right and extreme nationalism”. 

You’d have thought that Weich might have commented on the revolting antisemitism which the film exposes. Instead he shoots the messengers.   

‘Homelands‘ is about the demographic changes in Europe – particularly the UK and France – that have left many who are not from a minority (eg white people in the UK) feeling alienated.  Weich mocks those who are interviewed in the film as “Vox pops of white British residents” but that fails to address the kind of alienation issues that led for instance to the Brexit vote in 2016. 

Weich says the film relies heavily “on exaggerations, slippery-slope arguments and cherry-picked statistics”. Like what? We saw Savile Town in Yorkshire where whites are less than 1% of the population and which was the home of 3 of the 4 suicide bombers who carried out the 7/7/2005 London bombings. Does Weich challenge any of those statistics?   

And we saw Bhai Mohan Singh of the Sikh Awareness Party describing how the Sikhs were the first to identify the Muslim grooming gangs. And we saw French Jews who are desperately worried about whether they and their children have a future in France. And we saw Nadia Remadna, a Muslim woman in Paris who is working to curb the growth of extremism amongst Muslim youth and who was thrown out of a café for being a woman. 

And why does he suggest that the film’s description of the murder of 85 year old Holocaust survivor Mirielle Knoll is a ‘hijacking’? Maybe if he had actually watched the film he would be a bit less offensive. Knoll was reportedly murdered by Yacine Mihoub, the 28-year old son of Knoll’s neighbour. Why in the context of discussing Islamic antisemitism in France is it ‘hijacking’ to say that? 

The Paris prosecutor’s office declined to characterize the origins of the two people; Mr. Kalifat said the principal suspect was of North African origin.

“These are not just thugs,” Mr. Kalifat said. “She was attacked because she was Jewish. This is what characterizes anti-Semitism in our country.”

The suspect “said that Jews have money, and that was the reason he attacked her,” Mr. Kalifat said, whose group is often consulted by the government. “She was absolutely massacred. Eleven knife wounds. That is hatred of the Jews, we see it in the fury of the murderer. This is how we recognize anti-Semitism.”

She survived the Holocaust, to die on a 2018 Hate Crime

One of the most poignant moments of ‘Homelands’ concerned the French couple who made Aliya, Monique and Daniel Kritowsky (apologies if spelling wrong).

But that must have occurred while Weich was asleep at our event ……… as did the description of the couple of the July 2014 anti-Israel demonstrations in Paris, where the Islamists screamed “Kill the Jews” and when 18 Jewish families had threats to move out of their homes. 

Weich must have slept through the film. No doubt he wrote his closing sentence “But Jewish flirtation with the far right and extreme nationalism – less than a century removed from the Holocaust – is sickening and tragically ironic in equal measure” before he even left home.

A more fitting closing sentence would be: 

“Islamic antisemitism is of a “scale and scope” that most people in the West do not understand and is therefore all the more insidious..”  Ayaan Hirsi Ali May 2019 

The repercussions of the JC publishing this hatchet job have been intense social media and online harassment, threats and bullying, too numerous to outline here. Suffice it to say that simply on the basis of Weich’s distortions, the full force of the entire Jewish establishment has attacked us, without any of them even having been at the screening! The BoD President immediately issued a statement (something she failed to do when we were attacked and beaten to unconsciousness outside a Corbyn supporters’ meeting) and the CST, the JLC, Quilliam, and individuals – including ardent antisemites and anti-Israel activists like George Galloway – all followed, discretion and due diligence discarded. 

Whatever you think about the messengers, the evidence in the film is undeniable, but it is ignored by Weich, whose sole concern seems to be to denigrate pro-Israel activists – after all, it’s not the first time he has done a hatchet job on Zionist activists………….

Waltham Forest adopts IHRA

Ann Frank memorial in Waltham Forest

 

Campaign4Truth / Eye on Antisemitism

delivered a speech to Waltham Forest Council on 13 December 2018.

On 13 December 1945 five  Nazi concentration camp guards are hanged for crimes against humanity. 

 

 

Political antisemitism is at its peak since Europe 1930/45.  Across the UK, councils are being badgered by  antisemitic political activists to boycott Israel on the basis that its okay to boycott the Jewish state as that is not anti Jewish. 

But thats wrong. Its wrong because that excuse is used as a smokescreen to camouflage their antisemitism. For example:

The supporters of the boycott Israel movements constantly use anti Jewish tropes as did over 50 Labour party MPs, councillors and members like Naz Shah MP who posted racist tropes about Israel that included antisemitism when she suggested Israel’s population should be “transported” to America and “Problem solved and save you bank charges for the £3bn you transfer yearly.”

The definition of antisemitism was agreed by the IHRA to be used as a safeguard to prevent a recurrence of the Holocaust in which one third of world Jewry was exterminated, the evidence burned in the ovens of Europe, their ashes fertilising the forests that are a smokescreen for that vileness.

A recent survey of over 16,000 people across Europe reflecting the highest Jew hatred in modern times, shows that antisemitism has become so normalised that Jews are leaving in droves.

It underscores the fears of Jews across the UK who feel threatened each time a council agrees to abide by the propaganda fed by the BDS /PSC activists who are largely associated with organisations like Workers Revolutionary Party and Socialist Worker amongst other organisations, found at demonstrations across the UK where protesting against the existence of the Jewish state is commonplace. One commonly accepted definition of anti-semitism includes precisely the holding of Israel, the Jewish State, to standards that are not applied to any other countries. 

Local councils represent all citizens, Jews included and it is essential that they in general, and Waltham Forest in particular, heed their duty of care to all citizens by accepting this safeguard definition to regulate any possible situation in which Jews again face extermination as a result of unchecked antisemitism.

Its time to weed out political Jew hatred from our governance so that we never again need to say “Never Again”, showing that Jews too matter. 

The findings of the EU survey make for a sobering read. They underscore that antisemitism remains pervasive across the EU, the UK included and has, in many ways, become disturbingly normalised. This important information provided can support policymakers in stepping up their efforts to ensure the safety and dignity of all Jewish people living in the UK. Taking that first step is to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism in its entirety. 

Talk of contemplating the navel as fasciitis sets in

 

 

 

Dear Rayla Javaid

Thank you for your email cancelling my pre-booked free ticket for the event you have organised to discuss Labour, Britain’s Jews and Antisemitism – A Different Perspective.

Please can you explain why my ticket was cancelled for this event? Given the brouhaha these last couple of years about the institutional Jew hatred prevalent in the Labour Party, it seems rather brazen that certain Jews have had their tickets withdrawn for a meeting to discuss that very topic. Of course these cancellations are further statement about the embedded Jew hate still prevalent in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour/Momentum project.

Before you jump to defend this position pointing out Momentum is created/run by a Jew and this particular meeting is called by Jews, you’d need to understand that Jews are a very diverse community, with a small section of autocannibalists practicing placentophagy in an attempt to disown their being born into the Jewish nation.

Clearly, in view of these cancellations, there will be an incestuous dialogue between the chosen many, but not for certain Jews. Talk of contemplating the navel as fasciitis sets in.  This is Labour killing itself from within riddled as it is with a sectarian vision. For a non-socialist like myself that is great news. For those who thought socialism had all the hallmarks of a fair egalitarian enterprise, it is an extreme bereaving experience as they are left orphaned in this hijack of their political home.

I have tried to access your website http://www.redbridgemomentum.org/contact.php but alas it is “Under Construction”, a state it seems its been in since its inception in 2016. This adds meaning to the idea of a “closed shop”, so closed it exists only as a cell reminiscent of its communist state apparatchiks, now copycatted by terrorist endeavours of the Red/Green Alliance Labour partners. If this is an indication of the kind of governance this Labour project will bring to our Great British nation, I’d suggest that sane voters look elsewhere to place their X.

I think I speak for all those whose tickets you have cancelled in saying we would have liked to explore this topic with you and your audience, but clearly your closed shop has its doors shut tight on anything you’d prefer not to deliver to your foot-soldiers, lest they begin to slither away from the Momentum thought-speak. Its a great pity you are denying them the right to free speech.

Please rest assured that we will continue to resist your resolve to bring to this great country of ours a form of government that scorns on our forefathers’ sacrifices that contributed to our surviving the second World War. To you and your endeavours we say Never Again.

Enjoy your navel gazing tonight.

Yours

Sharon Klaff

Campaign4Truth

campaign4t@gmail.com

A de-facto Palestine is being created outside of any official negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority

Rawabi, a state of the art new town being developed north of Jerusalem, is only one of several Arab settlements planned that will increase the Arab population in the northern aspects of Judea and Samaria. Creating these “affordable homes” for tens of thousands of would be residents will bring an increased Arab population into these areas, altering the existing demographics. According to The Globe and Mail, “It [Rawabi] would be a planned community ……[that will] contain enough housing for up to 40,000 Palestinians and Isr
aeli Arabs.”

west-bank:  New Arab Settlements in red

Whilst the Arab Palestinian population will be growing, the Jewish Israeli population will remain static as a result of UNSC (United Nations Security Council) Resolution 2334 that prohibits the building of Jewish settlements.Whilst UNSC 2334 prohibits any further Israeli settlement building, it fails to identify this ongoi
ng Arab settlement programme. Israel has been admonished for building on land the internatnal community claims is occupied, yet this Arab settlement programme is being funded ioy foreign entities like Qatar. Although funding is largely Qatari, 15% is owned by what is termed “other shareholders”. Furthermore, the UK ‘Action Tank’, The Portland Trust that has offices in London, Tel Aviv and Ramallah, is instrumental in designing and coordinating the programme together with other local and international organisations.

The project is fronted by the entrepreneur Bashir Masri, an American Palestinian who has built similar projects in Morocco. Some locals are also involved like Samir Hulileh of the PA cabinet office who used to be CEO of Portland Ramallah and who is or has been ubiquitously involved in everything “Pal” like PEX, PALTEL and PADICO, but foreign involvement in Arab settlement building is clearly evident. According to the Globe and Mail, Bashir Masri s building to make money, but at the same time he sees this as the next stage in the battle with Israel, shifting from ‘bullets to bricks’ as the ‘battle of the hilltops’ expands.

In effect what is transpiring is the next stage of this battle for the holy land, the battle of bricks as a weapon of delegitimisation of Israel. Arab hilltop settlement building, aided by foreign entities, is designed to bring an increased Arab population into the region thus establishing as fact the Arab demand of a right of return, whilst at the same time the international community is suppressing expansion of the Jewish presence in the region.

Transparency in the Jewish Community

The advent of Social Media has replaced our reliance on traditional media (TV, Printed News) for information. With this change comes the ability to access an unverified and unedited stream of information, and to instantly exchange that information with any number of contacts and groups. Social Media does not always bring clarity and transparency.  What it has done is to transfer information gathering from what we are told in the traditional media to each individual who can do independent research, find links and disseminate that information directly, in effect bypassing the traditional media. There are no better examples than the recent UK referendum on Europe and the US elections in which social media played the role of messaging the electorate directly.  The result was that in both cases the pundits and pollsters were totally out of sync with the electorate and failed to predict accurate results.

Previously, traditional media released an edited and sometimes biased flow of political messages. Social Media releases a virtual deluge of conflicting and unverified political messages that target us and our families directly onto our screens. Sometimes these postings are written in a way to lend them greater authority than they deserve. The era of “Fake News” and “Social Spin” is here.

Jewish Community organisations are not exempt. We are continually bombarded with messages from such organisations asking for support, either political and/or for funding, without the requesting organisation making clear their political ideology/alignment. Often there is no reference as to who runs the organisation, who the major donors are and how funding might be spent.

Organisations and individuals from across the political divide present themselves as authoritative sources of information, but there is very little awareness of the ideologies driving those individuals or groups. Often there is little or no information about trustees/board members and their political alignment. Those who care to research can find trustees and/or board members on regulatory sites (Charities Commission). Numerous board members and trustees criss-cross organisations often carrying their political allegiances with them.

Social Media removes the need for organisational or personal transparency.

There are three Transparency issues:

1. Transparency of Funding
2. Transparency of Association
3. Transparency of Representation.

Transparency of Funding

It must be clear who is funding a group and what (if any) conditions/caveats are attached to that funding. An example of this is made in the funding guidelines for the New Israel Fund. Their funding guidelines stipulate that “Organizations that engage in the following activities will not be eligible for NIF grants or support – Support the 1967 occupation and subsequent settlement activity”

Therefore, it is implied that funded organisations will have a political leaning on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. However, it is very rare for organisations to declare who provides their funding so that the consumer can make up their own minds if this political bias is acceptable.

Youth groups can be associated with left or right funding organisations that accompany their grants with political ideology conditions. Sometime groups will already have a political leaning and will approach funding organisation with similar ideology for funds.

Transparency of Association

Groups form either formal or informal associations or alliances with other organisations that have similar or perceived political/functional aims as their own.

These associations facilitate those groups to work together in order to reach a common goal. That goal may be functional: working together to be more effective or political: working together to achieve a perceived common political objective. It is not always obvious what communal groups are linked and a complex web of political and functional connections exists without the knowledge of community members whose support/donations are being solicited..

An example of such an association is the London Jewish Forum (LJF) group of which many Trustees have links to the Labour party.

Whilst no attempt is made by the LJF to hide this political association, as is made clear on their website, it is not always clear to community members that this self-appointed and unelected group that claims to represent them in London, has a strong political leaning to the Labour Party.

Associations are sometimes made with diverse and controversial individuals and groups in the name of community cohesion. This can dilute the core objectives of the original cause. For example, some Holocaust charities associate with a wide range of human atrocities instead of focusing on The Jewish Holocaust. This dilutes the memory of the Holocaust.

Transparency of Representation

Many groups claim to represent the voice of the UK Jewish Community to government and the media.

Some groups are elected by a subset of the community like the BoD (Board of Deputies). Some are self-appointed and unelected like the JLC (Jewish Leadership Council) and the LJF (London Jewish Forum)..

Every group has a functional and political agenda on communal affairs and will often offer a strategy for resolution of the Israel/Disputed Territories conflict. One controversial area is the promotion of the “two state solution” (TSS). There are many differing opinions on the efficacy of this proposed solution. However, representative groups will emphasise a version of the solution that is aligned to their political “grouping”.

Therefore when the government or the media seeks a statement from “the Jewish Community” they will receive the political views of one of the many groups that claims to represent the entire Jewish Community.

For example, the Yachad organisation made a statement to the UK government regarding UNSC Resolution 2334. As Yachad have an association with The Board of Deputies, they may have been seen as an authoritative voice for the community. Yet, Yachad only represents a small subsection of the community, even though it sits on the Board of Deputies.

Summary

Transparency is required within the Jewish Community representative bodies, charities, NGOs and political organisations. Where links exist between our communal organisations, in particular, self-appointed organisations that claim to represent the Jewish community to government and the media, alliances and collaborations should be clearly delineated and documented.  

It is also vital that Jewish Community organisations, either elected or self-appointed, that claim to be the representatives of the Jewish Community, are institutionally “politic neutral”.  Why is this essential? The Jewish Community is not homogenous. It is multifarious and diverse, ranging from the politically aligned, the political non-aligned, religiously aligned and simply the disinterested.  All representative organisations need to ensure that they are cognisant of this fact if they are to speak for all of the community.  If they choose to be politically aligned then they cannot be THE representative of the community, but simply one of the representative bodies.  As such, when official meetings are required, there must be a cross-section of representation.

As a diverse community, we need to know if there are any hidden agendas held by those that claim to speak on our behalf.