It’s more an attempt to attack Amnesty Int again isn’t it – in the same way that allegation of AI working with CagePrisoners were spread around everywhere despite them not working together.

I’m amused though that the Jewish Chronicle is trying to take the high moral ground after publishing that despicable article last week by Alderman.

Double standards? None of them believe in free speech anyway

@Sunny: The claims can’t be dismissed quite so easily imo – a lot of valid criticism of the organisation here: http://www.human-rights-for-all.org/

One of the more bizarre accusations regarding Israel-Palestine is the claim that pro-Israel supporters are constantly trying to “shut down debate”. If there’s one topic in international politics that is the most discussed it is this issue. If indeed there is a concerted effort to stop debates on this issue it has got to be the most inept ever.

But then, if Sarah’s correct, we can understand why. After all if these people are trying to pressurise AI into cancelling event that AI haven’t organised then of course they won’t be very successful.

This is simply one case study.

Louise Ellman MP – cheer-leader-in-chief – recently described the BDS (Boycott, Disinvestment & Sanctions) campaign as ‘vicious’. I wonder if she would refer to the boycott campaign against Apartheid South Africa in the same way?

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has drawn strong parallels between the situations saying that what is happening in the Occupied Palestinian Territories reminds him very much of ‘what happened to us black people in South Africa’ BDS, meetings like these … they are all peaceful tactics to make the world wake-up to the human rights abuses taking place against Palestinians.

well said anthony

This is a quote from Willie Madisha,former President of the Congress of South African Trade Unions:
“As someone who lived in apartheid South Africa and who has visited Palestine I say with confidence that Israel is an apartheid state. In fact, I believe that some of the atrocities committed by the erstwhile apartheid regime in South Africa pale in comparison to those committed against the Palestinians. ”
He also said living under apartheid in South Africa was a “walk in the park compared to what is happening to the Palestinians”.
Take it from someone who knows

I thought the Alderman piece (from the bits I’ve read quoted) sounded disgusting. But I agreed with those who felt Amnesty should not host, however indirectly, this meeting. Some really unpleasant things have been said by those associated with MEMO. And it’s not about being a ‘cheerleader for the Israeli government’,

Oh not that Gita Sahgal crap again. We’re talking about a woman who compared AI to dictatorial countries and said it was acting like them. the amount of hysteria here is unbelievable.
If anyone can point to examples of AI being influenced by Cage Prisoners, I’d love to see it. Otherwise its just guilt by association.

who felt Amnesty should not host, however indirectly,

Its a commercially available space anyone can rent. If I remember correctly, lots of people at Harry’s Place were defending Geet Wilders right to show his film in the UK, in the House of Parliament. that’s ok, but this is not? Oh please.

@ Sunny – Actually I cite your own piece on AI rather approving in my own post on this issue.

http://hurryupharry.org/2011/05/19/tough-love-dropping-amnesty/

approvingly, I mean.

‘Oh not that Gita Sahgal crap again’

You raised CagePrisoners first so a little late to cry whataboutary -and you’ve been called on your repeated dismissal of supporters of Saghal as ‘hysterical’ before.

As to the OP I take the notion that people are ‘silencing debate’ as seriously as I take the BNP’s claim ‘we can’t talk about immigration anymore’. What’s astounding is that despite uprisings throughout the Arab world people are still maintaining Palestine is the the only issue worth talking in the Middle East.

Your ‘narrative’ is out of date.

“Palestinians can count on a new wave of support from the public not only in Britain”

I wonder if Old Holborn is right when he says
“All the Palestinians have to do to win the full backing of the West for an independent Palestine is peacefully protest in their thousands. Just like the Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans, Yemenis, Syrians and Bahrainis”

http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2011/05/gazan-spring.html

A side-note. I can’t be bothered to sort through the accusations against MEMO – which isn’t to say they’re not/they are compelling, and I think you should have detailed them, but as I don’t have the time – but I wholly support Palestinian solidarity types distancing themselves from supporters of Hamas. Not just because they’re anti-semitic but because they’re anti-Gazan.

Off course no actual attempt to look at the reactionary views of Memo by the writer- just silly name-calling.

It;s a safe bet that quite a few people attending this event will hold Julian Assange’s views of who controls the media and that Rupert Murdoch is really Jewish.

I mean, the title of this event is rotten meat to maggots. You mightn’t intend to attract the maggots, but you’re going to get them. Expect approving cover from Israel Shamir.

oh dear. That is all.

When all else fails the UK Zionist Federation call in their thug friends from The English Defence League and its Jewish Division to help them. See you tube at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W_74TKpeW8

It really is a sign of the desperation of the Israel lobby that it feels compelled to try to shut down a debate on media bias and to back this up with the street thugs of the EDL.

I suspect that as a new middle east emerges, Israel will find it impossible to carry on oppressing the Palestinians. In the short term, it might appear that Israel doesn’t lose out from its actions in the West Bank and Gaza, but in the long term, being a pariah state in an emerging region will seem increasingly unattractive. Better to act now and accept Palestinian independence immediately.

So the meeting’s topic is (I number for convenience”):-

“(1) Do newspaper and television reporting favour one narrative over the other? (2) How does this influence public perception and is real damage done to the Palestinians’ hopes for justice? (3) What pressure do journalists come under from their news organisations when trying to report the facts from the Occupied Territories?”

The OP’er says:-

“Those who have attempted to silence the debate don’t appear to have stopped to ask themselves WHY so many more people are now criticising the government of Israel. If they did, they would be forced to confront the reality that the public, internationally, is not willing to tolerate what they see on television – images of white phosphorus raining down on schools and hospitals in Gaza, or Israeli troops shooting unarmed protesters.”

Since the media is reporting events that are making the public critical of Israel, I suppose then the answer that this no doubt highly academic, totally unbiassed meeting will give to its self-imposed questions are:-

(1) The Palestinians narrative is favoured over the Israeli one.
(2) The public perception is influenced in favour of the Palestinians.
(3) The pressure is in favour of the Palestinians.

Don’t get me wrong. You’re entitled to have your meeting and support the Palestinians’ cause. I can’t see why AI is offering its premises as a venue though. I thought it was an organisation that was supposed to champion the interest of political prisoners, at least that was why I signed up to it. It isn’t supposed to support partisan groups.

@OP, Sarah Colborne: “Ironically, just days later the Jewish Chronicle published and defended an article from its columnist Geoffrey Alderman…”

Sarah links to a New Statesman blog piece. From that blog piece, we can hop to the Jewish Chronicle’s editor’s blog. Where Stephen Pollard wrote:

“Pretty arresting, indeed, and not something I would have written. But then the editor of a paper doesn’t agree with everything in the paper.”

“I pointed out that it’s not my view but it’s the view of the writer [Alderman].”

“I pointed out again that I don’t agree with all the columns in the JC.”

So it is clear that Stephen Pollard was not backing the arguments contained in Alderman’s article but was defending the right to publish it.

Sarah advocates the right for free speech for her team. Which is right and fair.

It is not fair to misrepresent the Jewish Chronicle and Stephen Pollard.

And this remark is thoroughly obnoxious: “Now the English Defence League’s ‘Jewish division’ appears to be getting in on the act by issuing a call for the protest.”

That sentence follows the paragraph about the Jewish Chronicle. A link between the Jewish Chronicle and EDL is being presented to the reader. At the top of the piece, Sarah told us that there was a conspiracy between Telegraph journalists and a mainstream newspaper aimed at a Jewish audience. Two thirds through the story, it is presented that Telegraph journalists and the Jewish Chronicle are complicit with the EDL.

So it is clear that Stephen Pollard was not backing the arguments contained in Alderman’s article but was defending the right to publish it.

So that’s OK then. I’ll try and use that argument when someone posts some racist hate speech on here and see how far I get.

y -and you’ve been called on your repeated dismissal of supporters of Saghal as ‘hysterical’ before.

Yes, by people who have an axe to grind and nothing but froth to say on the subject.

Sarah – thank you, and I commend you for trying to stay even-handed on the issue despite all the diatribe that has been written on it (especially on HP).

Wow. The comments here are, in part, weird. So the EDL is all part of a larger Zionist plot is it? How interesting.

But it is interesting to compare this with other popular thread – on Ken Clarke. Ken said some things people did not like. Is it fair to judge what happened next as an attempt to bully him into silence and shut down debate?

Either way, in *both* cases, I tend to think that when people read or hear something that outrages them, they get angry and tend to respond in an angry manner. That is not really an attempt to shut down debate (although that may be a side effect). It is about expressing deeply held feelings.

I don’t think that we ought to be devaluing people’s feelings in either case. Nor should we be belittling their point. We should deal with both arguments on their merits. I think it is a shame that the title for this thread is as it is.

@21. Sunny Hundal: “So that’s OK then. I’ll try and use that argument when someone posts some racist hate speech on here and see how far I get.”

Alderman is/was a frequent commentator at the Jewish Chronicle. His piece was published on the basis that he produced a comment article periodically, per contract. That was his ugly piece for the week. Hopefully, for his career.

You, Sunny, do not commission writers to deliver posts off the top of their heads. Submissions are welcome, but nobody is signed up to write a weekly piece. The original post is authorised by you or another editor, as long as it meets LC editorial criteria.

The Jewish Chronicle have strong stomachs and accepted Alderman’s article. Have you not considered that in different circumstances you may have published something like that?

And returning to the argument, “when someone posts some racist hate speech on here…”, Take a look at post 17, Salim, above.

I think it’s important to remember that the reason this caused concern is that the event is to be held on Amnesty premises – being able to have its valuable brand on publicity sends out quite a powerful message.

Amnesty does have guidelines about who it lets to, insists on a programme of any meeting in advance, and requires that the meeting be compatible with Amnesty’s mission. That’s my problem with it – I’d not have been concerned if it was held in some kind of random room for hire – I still wouldn’t like it but wouldn’t in any way want to close such voices down.

I contacted Amnesty, not because I am part of the well-oiled and well-funded Israel lobby, to quote this lovely piece from MEMO

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/middle-east/2371-israel-has-lost-touch-with-reality

but because, until a couple of days ago, I’d been a long standing member of Amnesty worried about the direction(s) it was heading in.

If Amnesty had drawn the line at MEMO then I’d have had no problem with it also drawing the line at Geoffrey Alderman.

When you are losing the argument, close down the debate. That has always been the motto of every playground bully, but now increasingly it seems to be the strategy pursued by cheerleaders for the Israeli government.

That is the only explanation for the pressure from Telegraph bloggers to the Jewish Chronicle (JC) on Amnesty International – the respected human rights organisation – to cancel a meeting to be held on May 23 about media bias in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

There are other explanations, for instance, that you may be an Amnesty member who thinks that Amnesty should not use its hard won clout to support what is very likely to be an anti-semitic hate fest. Could the writer consider that you can be opposed to this without being a “cheerleader for the Israeli government”?

Also, disagreeing that something should be held on Amnesty’s premises is not the same as “closing down debate”. As others have pointed out, the “debate” rages on. In fact a chunk of her article goes on to show that it is not only carrying on but has even won support for the Palestinian side of it.

Does the writer of this post have any problems with the kind of ideas that appear on MEMO? Or does it not bother her one little jot?

These extremist measures to attack our freedom of speech are taking place because it is impossible to win support for Israel’s denial of human rights and violations of international law via democratic means.

She calls denunciations on blogs and by newspapers “extremist measures”. What does she call bombings then?

This is a badly written and stupidly argued article. As the writer is the Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, it’s made me more disgusted that Amnesty have allowed their premises to be used by her organisation and by MEMO.

The first two paragraphs of my comments were quotes – is there a preview for comments here?

Sarah Colborne

I guess one of the reasons for people objecting to this conference is the general puzzlement they feel about why Israel is singled out for criticism.

I dare say that Israel has perpetrated some human rights violations in the past (as has pretty much every European nation) but any such offences on Israel’s part are comparatively minor.

Compared to what? – perhaps you ask.

Compared to the norms of the countries that surround Israel. Human rights violations are much more prevalent and intense in Syria, so why focus on Israel? Until recently they were much worse in Egypt, so why focus on Israel? By the time you get to Saudi Arabia and Iran, the human rights position worsens considerably.

But one doesn’t need to travel that far. Hamas throws its Fatah political enemies off the roofs of buildings. Now there’s a human rights violation to get stuck into.

No one should be under any illusion that the minor human rights violations visited upon Palestinian Arabs in the disputed territories – checkpoints, occasional curfews, travel restrictions – are as nothing compared to the human rights violations that would be visited upon the Jewish people by Palestinian Arabs if they ever got the upper hand (genocide).

I think all human rights violations are wrong. All should be investigated and where odious practices are carried out, they should be halted. But I am very suspicious of the motives of those outsiders to the conflict who point the finger at Israel while ignoring (excusing?) the very much worse behaviour of those who threaten Israel.

@17

You know the fascist BNP also think the EDL are a Zionist front? Just so you’re aware of what friends you’re making with tinfoil-hat wearing theories like that.

Salim ,there was nothing on the youtube clip, that made me think that The Isreally lobby want to shut down debate and there was nothing to suggest that the EDL are either fascists(according to the clip, twice) or are thugs,

although admittedly a woman does flick a V sign wearing a star of david flag as a skirt.

@ 27 Flowerpower

“Compared to the norms of the countries that surround Israel. Human rights violations are much more prevalent and intense in Syria, so why focus on Israel? Until recently they were much worse in Egypt, so why focus on Israel? By the time you get to Saudi Arabia and Iran, the human rights position worsens considerably.”

Two things:

1) Powerful Western countries, most notably the US, have a habit of backing Israel’s interests regardless, so the attitude in the West possibly needs more adjusting in this direction.

2) Israel, unlike most of the states hostile to it, is a democracy. I think there’s a general feeling that democracies should know better. And this makes a certain amount of sense: if a democratic country does something bad, the country as a whole (though not every individual in it) takes the responsibility. If a dictatorship does something bad, the only person responsible is the bastard in charge (although this can sometimes vary if the populace genuinely supports the dictator’s actions).

‘Israel, unlike most of the states hostile to it, is a democracy. I think there’s a general feeling that democracies should know better.’

That’s nice. Perfecting the one Jewish state from existence; for qualities allegedly apartheid which pretty much every Arab, Islamic state and society in existence has, with regard to Jews, at least, including the Palestinian Arab; which based on its history of the last 100 years or so, can only be described as apartheid for Jews, at the very least; with regard to the P.L.O., expulsionist or eliminationist until 1988; with regard to Hamas, with which Sarah Coleborne is closely associated, until this very day.

Dissolving the one Jewish state in the world, for alleged apartheid; into the surrounding sea/desert of Arab, Islamic states and societies, including the Palestinian, apartheid with regard to Jews.

Alliance with the de facto government of a de facto state, Hamas of Gaza, professing eternal jihad until the end of any kind of Israel.

Prosecuting the one Jewish state above the surrounding Arab states and societies, which effectively ethnically cleansed themselves of all their Jews; which are probably the most antisemitic states and societies in existence.

Such an act of charity. Such a gracious favour. Such an act of love.

Alderman’s comments were outrageous, and Pollard’s publishing them a grave editorial error, wrong, stupid, immoral on so many counts.

However, I must say, Arrigoni seems to have held some pretty objectionable views, which deserve to be aired, his appalling, tragic murder notwithstanding.

@ Flowerpower,

Spot on.

Far more telling than the supposed ‘silence’ that the likes of Sarah are always bleating they are being forced into is Sarah’s own actual silence here on the nature of the:

“selective pickings from MEMO’s wide spectrum of contributors,”

MEMO’s Senior Editor is Interpal’s Ibrahim Hewitt, who over the years has spouted a nice line in hatred of Jews (no, not merely ‘Israel’ and not merely ‘zionists’, but Jews), and who (surprise, surprise) supports the death penalty for apostates and adulterers, and ‘severe punishment’ for homosexuals. He also cites favourably Holocaust Deniers (surprise surprise).

http://hurryupharry.org/2009/03/03/interpals-ibrahim-hewitt/

Only yesterday MEMO published an editorial making the familiar accusations of rich Jews running America and controlling the president who is “faithful to the script approved by his American Jewish funders.”

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/resources/commentary-and-analysis/2381-palestine-in-the-obama-speech

That’s just one of the heads of MEMO. And that is the calibre of ‘peace activist’ that Amnesty is now increasingly hosting and claiming they are dedicated to ‘peace’.

Do the folks on Liberal Conspiracy really want liberalism and human rights organisations like Amnesty to associate with hatemongers, who are so profoundly anti the human rights of numerous other groups and who express views that some years ago you would all have seen for what they clearly are: the views one would associate with plain old Nazis?

I guess some of you do.

“Do the folks on Liberal Conspiracy really want liberalism and human rights organisations like Amnesty to associate with hatemongers”.ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz

Nobody is interested in concerned trolls.

Are you denying that Hewitt is a hatemonger, Sally?

Or is it merely that you are so warped yourself that you consider anti-semitism, Holocaust Denial, homophobia and the advocating of killing adulterers and apostate’s not to be evidence of hatred at all, but of goodness?

When Israel can start to take criticism like a grown up country, and not rely on its army of tame propagandists in the western media who attack and scream “anti Semitism” against anyone who dares to even politely point out their faults, I might take them seriously.

But that is not going to happen, so I don’t take a blind bit of notice of Israel’s lackeys.

“scream “anti Semitism” against anyone who dares to even politely point out their faults,”

You are evading the point: Hewitt is not doing that, he is a hatemonger against all sorts of groups, not merely Israel. no self-respecting human rights organisation should associate with someone who is so hatefully opposed to the human rights of other groups.

Do you think his comments as cited are those of a peace activist or of a hatemongering bigot?

30. Chaise Guevara – “1) Powerful Western countries, most notably the US, have a habit of backing Israel’s interests regardless, so the attitude in the West possibly needs more adjusting in this direction.”

So is this a question of unfairness or a question of hating the friends of our friends? If it is a question of unfairness, why should we be fair between our friends and our enemies? Why should we reward the Islamists or the allies of the Soviet Union that make up Israel’s enemies? When does the pursuit of justice, as you see it, simply become suicidal?

“2) Israel, unlike most of the states hostile to it, is a democracy. I think there’s a general feeling that democracies should know better. And this makes a certain amount of sense: if a democratic country does something bad, the country as a whole (though not every individual in it) takes the responsibility. If a dictatorship does something bad, the only person responsible is the bastard in charge (although this can sometimes vary if the populace genuinely supports the dictator’s actions).”

Then surely that general feeling is wrong. The fact that Israel is a democracy ought to cut them more slack. We should be less harsh on them because they have got so much else right, no? Otherwise you end up with the Pinochet paradox. Before the coup Chile was not perfect. Like Israel. I am sure that policemen beat up the odd drunk homeless person and so on. But it was a democracy and it did respect human rights. Like Israel. After the coup it was a military dictatorship that tortured or murdered thousands. Like pretty much everyone else in the Middle East except it did not torture or murder all that many compared to, say, Syria. But it was no longer a democracy. So you seem to be saying that the coup made Chile *less* open to criticism even though its human rights record became vastly worse. Is that really the position you want to take? Is it a fair summary of your views? If not, why not?

34. sally – “When Israel can start to take criticism like a grown up country, and not rely on its army of tame propagandists in the western media who attack and scream “anti Semitism” against anyone who dares to even politely point out their faults, I might take them seriously.”

I doubt that sally, I doubt that. Because for one thing, where is the evidence that anyone who disagrees with you is a “lackey”? Denormalising the opposition this way is a typical totalitarian mindset. It certainly does not contribute to the debate. It is just an excuse for you to avoid dealing with the real issues.

And as far as taking criticism like a grown-up country, that is kind of the point isn’t it? Israel is not criticised like other countries. It is uniquely criticised. When some people ignore the vastly worse human rights records of pretty much every single non-Developed country to focus solely on Israel, it looks as if there may be something other than a concern for human rights driving their criticism of the Jewish State. What could that be? Take Northern Cyprus for instance. We have an illegal invasion. We have ethnic cleansing. We have the transfer of population to change the demographics. We have murder and rape. Yet we don’t have a sizeable leftist community attacking Turkey. Even though, like Israel, Turkey is a democracy and so should be held to the same standard. Why is that sally? Why is the UN Human Rights Commission under all its names so focused on the Jewish state and not, say, China?

By all means, let’s see Israel treated like any other country. Let’s see the Zionist lobby in America treated the same way as, let’s say, the Irish lobby. Then we can start talking sensibly. Until then we shall have to rack our brains as to why some people single out the Jewish State above all others.

@Sally. Like SMFS says – I think it’s the mindset which assumes anyone who might disagree with them must be ‘Israel’s lackey’ which is really trying to close down debate.

I am against this meeting because I think MEMO is a disreputable organisation which publishes offensive material. I’ve blogged about this because it raises concerns relevant to human rights (Amnesty’s reputation) and antisemitism.

I’ve also blogged about anti-Arab racism, Islamophobia, the wrongful arrest of a Palestinian peace activist by the IDF and the censorship of pro-Palestinian lyrics by the BBC.

Doesn’t that make me a lackey of the Palestinians, by your logic?

Sarah Colborne’s piece on Liberal Conspiracy begins with the line “When you are losing the argument, close down the debate”. I see this as major shift in PSC campaigning strategy. Now PSC is clearly winning the debate there will be no need to heckle speakers it disagrees with, no attempts to disrupt meetings, and it will oppose proposals by libaries to boycott books by authors of a particular state.

Moreover, as she states she wants freedom for the “Palestinians”, she clearly supports freedom for everyone else to go about their lawful business too- including listening to an orchestra of their choice without the concert being spoiled by hecklers, or buying any goods they like without being jostled and abused, or selling any goods they wish without being threatened and harassed.

So, all in all, I see Sarah Colborne’s piece as being very positive for showing how PSC is going to move away from street thuggery to mature debate. Roll it on.

@ 36 SMFS

“So is this a question of unfairness or a question of hating the friends of our friends? If it is a question of unfairness, why should we be fair between our friends and our enemies? Why should we reward the Islamists or the allies of the Soviet Union that make up Israel’s enemies? When does the pursuit of justice, as you see it, simply become suicidal?”

Firstly, it’s not a zero-sum game. Criticising Israel is not the same thing as sending presents to Iran.

Secondly, a hostile dicatorial state is not our enemy: the dictator is. It’s the dictator’s actions that are the problem, and his claim to represent the state is not legitimate.

Obviously there is the practical reality that some people in the state will genuinely support the dictator, and that he may well be able to make people fight us even if they don’t support him, meaning that we may end up killing them in battle. But we should remember that his “subjects” may see him as an enemy every bit as much as we do. We were fighting Saddam in the Iraq War, not the Iraqi people.

“Then surely that general feeling is wrong. The fact that Israel is a democracy ought to cut them more slack. We should be less harsh on them because they have got so much else right, no? Otherwise you end up with the Pinochet paradox [...] So you seem to be saying that the coup made Chile *less* open to criticism even though its human rights record became vastly worse. Is that really the position you want to take? Is it a fair summary of your views? If not, why not?”

Same reason as above. The government of a democratic state represents the people, albeit imperfectly. The government of a dictatorship represents only itself and the people backing it.

Sarah AB writes, ‘I am against this meeting because I think MEMO is a disreputable organisation which publishes offensive material.’

But she has no problem with contributing to the Harry’s Place hate site. What hypocrisy!

Harry’s Place is not a ‘hate site’ and Sarah AB is not a hatemonger.

And, in any case, the topic under discussion is not Sarah AB or Harry’s Place, but whether Amnesty International is deserving of criticism or praise for partnering with MEMO and co.

Are you or any of the other ‘liberals’ here going to address the issue of the bile spouted by ‘peace activist’ Ibrahim Hewitt or not? Or are you just going to keep dodging that?

While you’re at it, try this charming offering from another of the panelists, Tim Lllewyllyn:

“The Israelis appear in studios wearing suits. They’ve learned all sorts of tricks. They are wizards at communication; they speak 10 different sorts of English, from American to South African to Canadian.”

And of US ambassador to Israel Denis Ross:

“What a lovely Anglo-Saxon name! But Denis Ross is not just a Jew, he is a Zionist, a long-time Zionist… and now directs an Israeli-funded think tank in Washington. He is a Zionist propagandist.”

http://website.thejc.com/home.aspx?AId=1773&ATypeId=1&search=true2&srchstr=balen&srchtxt=0&srchhead=1&srchauthor=0&srchsandp=0&scsrch=0

That’s the kind of sneering anti-semitic hatemongering that would have gone down well in fascist newspapers in the 1930s. I’d like to see any of the commenters on Liberal Conspiracy defend that. If you are actual liberals, you will simply condemn it, and deplore that Amnesty is hosting such a racist pig.

“The Israelis appear in studios wearing suits. They’ve learned all sorts of tricks. They are wizards at communication; they speak 10 different sorts of English, from American to South African to Canadian.”

No, can’t see a problem with any of that.

They wear suits in tv studios WOW!!!………Tricks?….. What like all these fake passports they seem to acquire? Why do the Israelis need so many stolen passports?

You are just another raving pro Zionist who wants to shut down or attack any institution that dares to say anything against Israel. Amnesty international is just the latest group to be intimidated to say nothing critical of Israel. No other nation in the world has an army of it’s supporters sitting in the media offices of almost every western country trying to shut down criticism of their country.

“They wear suits in tv studios WOW!!!”

It was Llewellyn who brought up wearing suits in TV studios as if it were evidence of deviousness, Sally. You’re really struggling with this logic thing, aren’t you?

Alderman is/was a frequent commentator at the Jewish Chronicle. His piece was published on the basis that he produced a comment article periodically, per contract. That was his ugly piece for the week. Hopefully, for his career.

Let me get this straight Charlieman.

your argument is that because the JC pays people to write, and they’re supposed to deliver one article per week, Pollard had no choice but to publish that?

That really is a hilarious argument. and I’m intensely amused by bloggers at Harry’s Place getting all het up about this, given that little was said about Alderman’s appalling article or about Israel saying this week they were basically saying no to 1967 borders. I don’t like being preached at by people who are obsessed by Muslims and say little about anyone else.

42. Chaise Guevara – “Firstly, it’s not a zero-sum game. Criticising Israel is not the same thing as sending presents to Iran.”

Actually it *is* a zero sum game. Up to now we have been powerful enough we can make concession after concession and it has not mattered. But as we decline, we are also running out of things we can safely concede. It is likely that a victory by Hamas or Hezbollah would lead to more terrorism in London. We could give up Malaya, Pakistan and Egypt and it did not matter. We cannot withdraw from Bradford. We are rapidly approaching a point where we cannot afford any more defeats.

“Secondly, a hostile dicatorial state is not our enemy: the dictator is. It’s the dictator’s actions that are the problem, and his claim to represent the state is not legitimate.”

I wonder about that. Some times that is true. Some times the dictator simply reflects what most people think. In theory you’re right. But it is also irrelevant. I am not suggesting we bomb Syria’s people. Just that we don’t reward their government. When they have a pro-Western democratic government we can think again.

“But we should remember that his “subjects” may see him as an enemy every bit as much as we do. We were fighting Saddam in the Iraq War, not the Iraqi people.”

There is little evidence that Iraq’s people viewed him as an enemy. The Shia perhaps and maybe the Kurds. To some extent. But Sunnis? No. What is more the Shia proved that hating our enemies does not make someone our friend.

“Same reason as above. The government of a democratic state represents the people, albeit imperfectly. The government of a dictatorship represents only itself and the people backing it.”

So all the more reason to criticise the Syrian government and not turn a blind eye to their crimes. Yet the Left doesn’t. Nor does the Left give a damn about what Turkey has been doing in Cyprus. It is just the Jewish State. Why is that?

Sunny – I don’t think there are many HP people here – and I don’t think what you think of HP should affect your judgement on either the event itself or this article. HP did cover the 67 borders news

http://hurryupharry.org/2011/05/20/what-is-bibi-trying-to-achieve/

I see ‘CIF Watch’ are now having a go at Friends of Sabeel for inviting the Reverend Dr Stephen Sizer and the Israeli historian, Professor Illan Pappe, to their conference. The article asks ‘So why would Friends of Sabeel UK want to invite two such extremist and controversial figures as Pappe and Sizer to speak at their AGM?’. For ‘extremist and contraversial’ read ‘respected and learned’.

This attempt to demonise and delegitimise the loudest, fairest and bravest voices is an absolute disgrace. As I’ve said, the PSC/MEMO is just a case-study – this behaviour is becoming ever more common and divisive. We must face it down by standing together and making it clear we will stand up for human rights and justice – and we will not be bullied out of it.

Nobody on here seems to have taken issue with Sarah AB’s claims about MEMO, they just seem not to think it matters if Amnesty associates itself with racist organisations so long as the racism is antisemitic. Can that really be the case? It seems to be Sunny’s position, for example. Or does someone want to explain how Sarah AB has got the facts wrong?

#50

“making it clear we will stand up for human rights and justice – ”

Whose human rights, Sarah?

If you don’t stand up to Ibrahim Hewitt’s appalling opposition to the human rights of apostates, adulterers, Jews and homosexuals, then you are not really a principled friend of ‘human rights and justice’. Surely critics of Israel can find better people to put on a platform than organisations like MEMO?

Why won’t any of you defending this event address the specific points raised about the abysmal views expressed by members of the groups in question?

#47,

that was a missed opportunity to actually address the subject of whether or not it’s right for Amnesty to host the event with the organisations and individuals concerned. Surely you can do better than that.

@50

I see ‘CIF Watch’ are now having a go at Friends of Sabeel for inviting the Reverend Dr Stephen Sizer and the Israeli historian, Professor Illan Pappe, to their conference.

Is this the same Sizer who got the police around to shut down a blogger that was criticising him? He’s one of the “human rights and justice” advocates now is he? His voice may be “loud” but it certainly isn’t “fair”.

http://www.anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/anglican/anglican-vicar-complains-to-police-to-shut-down-blogger/

Also Sara@50 – as others say, why not answer the criticisms that have been made about MEMO on this thread, instead of flying off into flag waving rhetoric.

@53 Rosie

If you are not acquainted with the Sizer/SeismicShock case, at least take account of this.

If you are, you are part of a group of enthusiastic rumour-spinners and harassers and should be ignored.

Yet another poster passes up the challenge to account for the bigotry of MEMO and others. This is becoming a parade of evasion.

I didn’t defend or attack MEMO because I know little about it and rarely use it.

I was saddened by one a comment which parroted a deeply unfair caricature of Stephen Sizer. While I disagree with certain aspects of his conservative evangelicalism (e.g. his support for Gafcon), I consider the attempts to discredit him either ill-informed or malicious and, in any case, ad hominem.

I think it is legitimate to address these misplaced comments and still remain agnostic on MEMO, no?

“I think it is legitimate to address these misplaced comments and still remain agnostic on MEMO, no?”

Well we will have to agree to disagree about Sizer.

But why do you need to remain ‘agnostic’ on MEMO? What is it about the remarks by MEMO director Ibrahim Hewitt that you can’t make your mind up about as to their rightness or wrongness? MEMO is central to this discussion as one of the organisations the author of the article is defending as worthy of being hosted by Amnesty.

Well seeing as I don’t know anything about his editorial input as director, I can only make an in-principle comment. If Hewitt doesn’t like Jewish people, I wouldn’t take him seriously when he writes or speaks about Jews or Jewishness. Would I ignore a priori all his work? As an occasional listener to Wagner, probably not, and many would view Zionism as being about as relevant to Judaism as is Parsifal. Would I ignore other people who write for the organistaion he directs? No. Would I deny his organisation a platform? No, that would be ludicrous, although I might be tempted to attend and see whether speakers could imagine a binational state in which Jews, Christians, Muslims and everyone else can live together with guaranteed and protected equality of expression.

One of my frustrations with some of the articulations of the academic boycott and the takfiri tendency among conservatives and pro-Zionists is that somehow we should only listen to untainted people. That really narrows the field beyond usefulness.

Peace.

Sizer – that’d be the guy who sends out articles by holocaust deniers and antisemites. Sounds fair to compare Memo to Sizer.

http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/if-i-was-stephen-sizer-christian-antizionist-james-mendelsohn/

“Well seeing as I don’t know anything about his editorial input as director,”

As I have said, he is both Senior Editor and a Director of MEMO. I also linked above to an editorial piece from MEMO form only three days ago,

“making the familiar accusations of rich Jews running America and controlling the president who is “faithful to the script approved by his American Jewish funders.”

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/resources/commentary-and-analysis/2381-palestine-in-the-obama-speech

Using familiar anti-semitic ‘controlling rich Jew’ tropes is an official MEMO line. And that is an organisation that Amnesty is giving a platform to.

“somehow we should only listen to untainted people. That really narrows the field beyond usefulness.”

On the contrary it doesn’t narrow it much. Most of the population and most organisations don’t spout racist bullshit. It’s not accidental when they do. Perhaps Amnesty should be looking farther afield.

Is that not a little oversensitive? ‘Faithful to the script of his Jewish funders’ means he receives politically interested funding from Jews and then enacts policy that conforms to their wishes. Surely that’s not an antisemitic claim, unless it’s maliciously false?

As it happens, I disagree with the article’s implication. I believe Christians bear more responsibility for American pro-Zionism than Jewish supporters of Zionism. But is that lurking anti-Christianity?

What’s more, I disagree with its pessimism, preferring this take of Philip Weiss.

In any case, you may be right, and as I said I haven’t followed MEMO’s output at all whereas you seemingly have. It’s just that the fear of antisemitism may stifle debate a tad.

“In any case, you may be right, and as I said I haven’t followed MEMO’s output at all whereas you seemingly have. It’s just that the fear of antisemitism may stifle debate a tad.”

Or

In any case, you may be right, and as I said I haven’t followed the BNP’s output at all whereas you seemingly have. It’s just that the fear of racism may stifle debate a tad.

@62 ‘fear of racism may stifle debate a tad’

Er, of course it could, and it does. You’ve kinda made my point: fear of being misrepresented as racist on the one hand; excessive (even understandable) fear of racism by minorities who’ve endured it on the other.

Now, if I’d never heard of the BNP and you sent me an article from their website saying, ‘Cameron received oil from Sunni sources and is following their script with regard to Bahrain’, I wouldn’t know just from that that the BNP are racist.

It’s just that I’m reasonably au fait with the output of the BNP and would happily write it off as, in TinTack’s phrase, racist bullshit. Not ready to do that with MEMO on the basis of what he linked.

@b54 boxthejack

I am familiar with the Sizer/Seismic case and blogged on it here:-

http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/plod-and-blogs/

@47. Sunny Hundal: “your argument is that because the JC pays people to write, and they’re supposed to deliver one article per week, Pollard had no choice but to publish that?”

That would be a strange thing to say, which is why I qualified my argument. Stephen Pollard didn’t commission the article or publish a manuscript submitted on spec. He made it clear that he disagreed with Alderman’s article but chose to publish it anyway. I presume that there was some debate behind the scenes about the merit of publishing the article.

Returning to my original point, Stephen Pollard did not defend the article. He defended the JC’s right to publish it.

@boxthejack “If Hewitt doesn’t like Jewish people, I wouldn’t take him seriously when he writes or speaks about Jews or Jewishness.”

That seems to me a quite extraordinary comment. Using the same logic, Amnesty could be justified in hosting the BNP who obviously have policies on things which have nothing to do with race.

Come on – can’t someone who isn’t naturally inclined to defend Israel/Zionists at least agree about this?

@66 Sarah AB

Yes, I take your point. Someone who hates Jewish people is probably not likely to be a fair commentator on anything that involves Jewish people, and Zionism of course involves them more than Parsifal does. Mea culpa.

I would stand by that comment if I could retrospectively replace ‘Judaism’ with ‘Jewish people’. To clarify (putting the BNP to one side for a second) Patrick Sookhdeo’s Barnabas Fund is an organisation that I fear has a dangerously negative view of Islam. But they also disseminate useful social justice information in their communications with churches (I have a relative who receives their stuff). I would read their communications with care, but I wouldn’t ignore them completely.

Thanks boxthejack – just looked him up, and the things that jumped out were that he was concerned about penalties for apostasy (seems absolutely fair enough) but that he/his organisation expresses itself in a very tendentious way. It’s an interesting parallel with tonight’s event because the persecution of Christians is a fair human rights concern, of course, but I think – based on a quick google so I’m willing to be persuaded I’m being unfair – Amnesty should most certainly think carefully about allowing the Barnabas Fund to use its premises.

Thanks for a robust critique of media manipulation; I am frequently appalled by the BBC’s pro-Israel bias – giving an articulate Israeli spokesperson the last word to justify more outrage. Be interested to know the content of this evening’s debate…