Ahava Verdict Yesterday: ZF Press Statement


By Jonathan Hoffman
August 11, 2010
Share

For immediate release

Zionist Federation statement

DISRUPTIVE ANTI ISRAEL PROTESTORS CLEARED OF CHARGES

The Zionist Federation is appalled by the Highbury Corner Magistrates Court decision to clear of all charges the four anti-Israel campaigners who locked themselves to fixtures inside the Israeli-owned Ahava shop on Monmouth Street in London’s Covent Garden, once in September 2009 and again in December 2009. We note that owing to an apparent failure of communication, a key witness for the prosecution was not present in court. We particularly regret this fact, as it is of vital importance that the strongest legal case possible is made against those who seek to attack and disrupt Israeli and Jewish shops.

Boycotting and disrupting Jewish and Israeli shops is always wrong. The movement to encourage such boycotts is misguided at best, and deliberately unhelpful and discriminatory at worst. Such boycotts damage the well-being of Israeli and Palestinians, who depend on the support of British and other consumers for their livelihood.

This case comes after last month's case at Hove Crown Court when seven anti-war activists were cleared of all charges after breaking into the EDO arms equipment factory in Brighton and causing £200,000 worth of damage. The British courts and government should resist in the strongest ways possible the attempts of small, fringe groups like these to politicise and highjack our legal system. A worrying trend can be observed where the courts are allowing disruptive and damaging behaviour to go unpunished.

We strongly disagree with both the actions and the motivations of the anti-Ahava protestors. Their attempt to discredit this entirely legitimate business is wrong. It does nothing to promote the dialogue, negotiation or spirit of cooperation which are essential ingredients for a positive future for all in the Middle East.

Different legal interpretations regarding the current status of the West Bank and its potential future status should not be used as a reason to attack individuals and businesses operating legally and legitimately in the UK. Nobody has a right to attempt to intimidate innocent shopkeepers and customers who are doing nothing wrong. Such bullying is at one pathetic and counterproductive, and reveals the true motivations of the perpetrators. We call to everyone to stand strong in the face of this bullying.

The ZF encourages shoppers to show support for Ahava and other Israeli businesses by shopping freely in their stores and buying their high quality products, as they would in any other store.

Jonathan Sacerdoti, Director of Public Affairs of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain which supports a regular counter-protest supporting Ahava, said: "the British legal system is being highjacked by a small and malicious group of anti-Israel campaigners. They appear to be far more interested in attempting to damage the Jewish state than in building a peaceful future for the Middle East."

"This UK government, like the last, does not support boycotting Israeli goods, no matter from which part of Israel they originate. Those who seek to intimidate shops selling Israeli products should be ashamed of themselves. Their actions run contrary to the traditional British values of decency, fairness and freedom. Other local businesses are also damaged by the presence of these disruptive crowds, who show no concern for the damage they do to those around them."

ENDS

Contact:

Jonathan Sacerdoti

Director of Public Affairs

Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland

jonathan@zfuk.org

t: 020 8202 0202

COMMENTS

telegramsam

11 August, 2010 - 19:30

Rate this:

0 points

Slightly incorrect to describe these products as Israeli since they're manufactured outside Israel. Also we Zionists should be trying to help Israel disengage from its suicidal occupation of the West Bank, not helping it believe that the status quo can continue. Hopefully the next ZF leadership will understand that.


ibrows

11 August, 2010 - 21:04

Rate this:

-1 points

telegramsam

you hit the nail on the head, they are products from the occupied territories, which is precisely why people are boycotting them and protesting. Although for Jonathan this simply makes them 'anti-Israel' as usual.

And yes it is essential that Israel disengages from the West Bank and also ends the occupation and blockade of Gaza


ibrows

11 August, 2010 - 21:07

Rate this:

-1 points

Jonathan

Are you advocating war? As you disapprove so much of 'anti-war' protesters?


richmillett

11 August, 2010 - 21:41

Rate this:

2 points

ibrows - The protests have nothing to do with Israel's presence in the West Bank but are all to do with Israel's existence per se judging by the songs that are sung and the placards that are paraded. Additionally, if the protesters were so integrous why do they single out Israel for boycotts and not Turkey and China, for example? It is the boycott that historically deeply resonates against Jews. Boycotts are, therefore, not only discriminatory but deeply offensive and hurtful to Jews.


Jonathan Hoffman

11 August, 2010 - 21:43

Rate this:

0 points

"we Zionists ...."

Yet another Israel-basher who does not have the guts to post in his/her own name.

So "we zionists" think it is perfectly OK to intimidate people who are perfectly legally buying from a perfectly legal shop, do we?

If so, 'we zionists' are mere imposters who disgrace the name.

Reminder: UN Resolution 242 recognises the presence of Israel in Judea and Samaria as perfectly legal and sets out a withdrawal process that is subject always to a peace commitment from the other side, a commitment which has not been forthcoming.

"We Zionists" maybe need to do our homework before hitting the 'post comment' button.


Jonathan Hoffman

11 August, 2010 - 21:46

Rate this:

0 points

Well said RichMillett

Why is it that we pro-Israel bloggers have the guts to post in our own names while the Israel-bashers hide behind false names?

Are they that insecure in their arguments?


Jon_i_Cohen

12 August, 2010 - 07:37

Rate this:

0 points

Exactly so JH
The trendy-lefty Israel bashers think it "trendy" and "lefty" to post with pseudonyms, it is just symptomatic of their 2-digit IQ's.
As for"telegramsam"
1.Ahava is an Israeli Company
and
2.As JH pointed out :- UN Resolution 242 recognises the presence of Israel in Judea and Samaria as perfectly legal and sets out a withdrawal process that is subject always to a peace commitment from the other side, a commitment which has not been forthcoming.
The fact that the Arabs/Palestinians show NO interest in any peaceful negotiation does not mean that Israel will give up even more territory unilaterally - that would be suicide.
Site - Israel pulled out of Gaza, terrorists took over and Israel was bombarded with over 8,000 rockets, until Operation Cast Lead.
Do you really think Israel will allow that in Judea & Samaria - get real.


telegramsam

12 August, 2010 - 08:09

Rate this:

-1 points

I suppose jonathan's anonymity rant is also directed at yvetta bagel, joshua18 and all his mates at Cifwatch.
Unscr 242 calls for a withdrawal of Israeli Armed forces from territories occupied in the conflict. It says nothing about the alleged legality of the occupation. That is mere herutnik spin.
And working at Balfour House you hear all the goss and the expressions of hope that the next ZF leadership will be much more sensible and clever and will not alienate those who make up the majority of Zf affiliates.


happygoldfish

12 August, 2010 - 08:32

Rate this:

0 points

jon, what imaginary virtual world are you living in?

in the real virtual world that the rest of us live in, most people adopt "user-names" different from their birth-certificate names

this is not "trendy" or "lefty" … it's normal!!

i can see why "somebodies" like jonathan hoffman (ok, maybe he's only a vice-somebody ) and deborah maccoby, with official positions to promote, use their own names

and also why non-jews on this site use their own names so as to make it clear that they are non-jewish

but i've never understood why "nobodies" (like jon i cohen ) use their own names … do they think that their very nobodiness somehow enhances their opinions, or that people will start recognising them in the street??

it's a mystery!

(btw, if i may be forgiven for being on-topic , we don't yet know what the charges were on which the prosecution proceeded … we need to wait for a proper report of this case before we can realistically comment)


telegramsam

12 August, 2010 - 09:47

Rate this:

-1 points

Look before you leap, current ZF leadership. The prosecutions witness didn't show up. And the shop owner had a fantastic excuse that she wasn't told. In Hebrew this is called the achlu li, shatu li defence.


Jon_i_Cohen

12 August, 2010 - 11:26

Rate this:

1 point

happygoldfish makes the point very well.
By using such stupid pseuodonyms as "happy goldfish" it allows such juvenile individuals to pass inane, purile and slanderous comments at will without fear of being held to account.
If that is the "virtual" world you want to inhabit,so be it, carry on with your juvenile, childish fantasies.
The rest of us, who are normal, and who are prepared to stand up and be identified for what we believe in, are involved in serious political comment.


happygoldfish

12 August, 2010 - 12:11

Rate this:

0 points

jon, as a goldfish i can recognise a duck when i see one

jon, there's no point in knowing who people are if they show no responsibility for what they write, and if criticism when they're caught out flows like water off a duck's back!

happygoldfish: jon, you have a track-record of behaving badly, being caught, but refusing to admit it

your track-record of making claims that are not supported by your own sources (and refusing to make any admission or correction)

eg in just the last two weeks, you have published two blog headlines, IHH, Turkish Terror Group to be banned in the USA and Gaza residents want the full blockade re-instated, each of which is contradicted by your own source

and yet you refuse to acknowledge any error …

happygoldfish 21 July, 2010: jon, this is your second headline in 24 hours to be simply wrong

you have still refused to apologise for or correct the other one (Gaza residents want the full blockade re-instated)

is there any chance of your apologising for or correcting this one. or are you reserving your right to put out untruthful headlines in future blogs?

happygoldfish 18 July, 2010: jon, do you work as a sub-editor on the guardian?

sub-editors are skilled at writing headlines that misrepresent or even contradict the article

though i think even the guardian admits mistakes and publishes small-print corrections

ibrows 19 July, 2010: haha Jon will never admit he is wrong …

jon, your record shows that you seem to think that there is nothing wrong in being wrong

your record particularly shows that you are unreliable: your facts need checking when you do provide a source, and so should be viewed with grave suspicion when you don't

happygoldfish: jon, i'd rather read a comment of DLeigh-Ellis in which a link is false than a blog of yours in which the headline is false, and which you refuse even to comment on

once again, you're showing that you seem to think that, for you

happygoldfish: there is nothing wrong in being wrong


try to quack less about the stones in other people's (non-existent) sandals, and to pay some attention to the water flowing down your own back

(and of course, you're still completely in denial of the fact that in the real virtual world, incognito user-names are normal! )


Jonathan Hoffman

12 August, 2010 - 13:49

Rate this:

0 points

"And working at Balfour House ...."

Gotcha!

Balfour House closed months ago

=> You are a complete fraud


mattpryor

12 August, 2010 - 13:57

Rate this:

2 points

Well spotted Jonathan.

You'd think people would have better things to do than play their sad little mind games wouldn't you?

I'm trying to think up an amusing acronym for these anonymous, rude anti-Zionist entities.


telegramsam

12 August, 2010 - 14:32

Rate this:

-1 points

So nOw will the current ZF leaders retract their statement given that the prosecution witness was a no show.


ibrows

12 August, 2010 - 15:53

Rate this:

-2 points

richmillett

your feeble defence of Israel is like an individual accused of stealing protesting its unfair he has been apprehended as worse crimes are committed by others that go unpunished, and that therefore the judge should ignore his crime.

Whatever China and others have done, this does not detract or deflect criticism of Israel and its inhumane treatment of the Palestinians, the continuing Israeli occupation and the real reasons behind the boycott such as exporting products from the illegal settlements as 'Israeli products'


happygoldfish

12 August, 2010 - 17:28

Rate this:

1 point

it is still not clear why the second charge (s.69) was dismissed … the jc reports (Charges dropped on Ahava anti-Israel activists) that the first charge was dropped by the prosecution, but that the second charge was dismissed by the magistrates after a hearing

On Monday, the aggravated trespass charge was dropped and the second charge dismissed during a hearing in Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court.

nor is it clear why there were ever two charges … s.68(1) creates the offence of aggravated trespass (btw, the words "in the open air" have been repealed), but without any power of arrest (the power originally in s.68(4) has been repealed) … s.69(3) creates an offence of failing to leave as soon as practicable (or re-entering within 3 months) after a direction by the police under s.69(1)

s.68 requires doing something with the intention to "disrupt" or "obstruct" a "lawful activity", or to "intimidate" a person so as to "deter them" from "engaging in that activity" … s.69 only requires an intention or purpose of doing something with such an intention

since the prosecution dropped the s.68 charge, but not the s.69 charge, i assume they felt unable to prove that the defendants had actually done anything to cause disruption obstruction or intimidation, but that the police reasonably believed that they intended (or had the purpose) to do so later

(the need for the owner's attendance in court is not clear … perhaps it was needed to prove this intention by giving evidence of previous conduct? … but if it was intended to prove a "lawful activity", it was needed for both charges )

we need more (or better) information

amber

12 August, 2010 - 18:14

Rate this:

3 points

ibrows, do you think anyone is taken in by you? Just have a look at Rich Milets blog, where some of these "protestors" have posted - one makes fun of Anne Frank, one jokes about Gilda Shalit dying, and the others call for Israel to be annihilated.

Yeah sure, it's just about "legality". Don't be a fool.


ibrows

12 August, 2010 - 18:22

Rate this:

-2 points

amber

I was responding to Rich's claim that protesters had 'singled out Israel for boycotts and not Turkey and China'

like i said, whatever human rights crimes or whatever that China has committed, this does not excuse, or detract from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, it can be no defence, for the indefensible, the continued brutal occupation.


Jonathan Hoffman

12 August, 2010 - 19:05

Rate this:

0 points

"So nOw will the current ZF leaders retract their statement given that the prosecution witness was a no show."

Errr... No. Because we knew the witness had not been present when we wrote the statement. As the statement says (did you take those remedial reading classes?)

'Painstaking attention to detail' is not one of your strong points is it? I guess I am not the first to have told you this - you read it on your school reports all the time.

Did you find out yet what happened to Balfour House? if not, that is tonight's homework. Write neatly please. No help from Mummy.


telegramsam

12 August, 2010 - 19:39

Rate this:

-1 points

YOu continue leaping before you look, Jonathan. That way lies the zf's salvation.


amber

12 August, 2010 - 21:26

Rate this:

-1 points

ibrows, it isn't "Palestinian" territory - never was.


Jonathan Hoffman

13 August, 2010 - 12:02

Rate this:

0 points

I urge all JC Blog readers who can do so to come to Ahava, Monmouth street, Covent Garden, London tomorrow (Saturday) between 12 and 2pm, buy something, come out and wave the bag in the faces of the haters.

Nothing causes them more knicker-twist – it is worth every penny – as is the product itself.


Jonathan Hoffman

13 August, 2010 - 12:04

Rate this:

-1 points

Telegrim Dim

You seem to care a lot about the ZF. I assume therefore you have paid your £60 and are a member. Good boy.


telegramsam

13 August, 2010 - 12:35

Rate this:

2 points

Hilarious Jonathan it's amazing that with an ego that big you can get into central London let alone Monmouth street. And of course I care about the Zf, that is why we are recruiting to get rid of the herutniks and kahanists from positions of power.


Jonathan Hoffman

13 August, 2010 - 12:43

Rate this:

-3 points

You are Tsarfati aren't you - we got the same ad hominem drivel from him --- until he was banned


telegramsam

13 August, 2010 - 12:51

Rate this:

3 points

Told you I can't even pronounce that name let alone be it. And when it comes to abuse and ad hominems I think you should look at your own tendencies. It's a great way of showing the paucity of your position. Grow up Jonathan.


telegramsam

13 August, 2010 - 13:50

Rate this:

0 points

In the words of the late great eddie waring: "he's a poor lad."


Jon.

13 August, 2010 - 16:09

Rate this:

1 point

Jonathan

so your organisation moved from Balfour House six months ago? So Sam's information is a little out of dat. Is that really the important issue in this debate? By focusing on childish diversions like this then you are distracting from what could be a potentially very interesting debate. Maybe you should try and engage on an intellectual level instead of just coming across like a petulant child.


Jon.

13 August, 2010 - 16:11

Rate this:

-1 points

Ahem, out of date...
Forgive my excitable typing.


Jonathan Hoffman

13 August, 2010 - 17:49

Rate this:

-1 points

Who's debating? I posted a ZF Press Notice on which there is nothing to debate.

The only other thing I have done is rebut gargage from Sham Sam.

You call it childish diversions, I call it a betrayal of his basic ignorance. Again there is no ground for debate there.

I don't debate with anti-Zionists. I rebut them.


telegramsam

13 August, 2010 - 18:35

Rate this:

1 point

You don't actually debate with anyone. Zionist or anti-Zionist. If I were an anti I'd want you to stay in the forefront because... Well it's pretty obvious reading the rants here and the defence of the most intolerant people in israel.
It puts people off.
I'd come to Monmouth street tomorrow but it's Shabbat and spurs are at home and it's an inconvenient lunchtime kick off. But while you are there, could you ask them why their excellent shower gel is so expensive.


amber

13 August, 2010 - 22:18

Rate this:

-1 points

telegramsam, whilst you're watching a pointless football match, Jonathan will be doing something worthwhile - supporting Israel , which apparently is rather inconvenient for you.

Says what we need to know.


DLeigh-Ellis

14 August, 2010 - 00:23

Rate this:

-1 points

Jonathan, may I ask what on Earth a T Grim Dim is? I have never heard such an expression.


zair

14 August, 2010 - 11:36

Rate this:

0 points

Just heard your mates at the EDL have joined forces with you outside Ahava.

My enemey's enemy.....?

Shame


jose (not verified)

14 August, 2010 - 14:03

Rate this:

0 points

The problem is that the anti-Zionists bloggers are not able to tell from what "illegal settlements" these Ahava products come from.

The "anti-Zionists" who protest are thus antisemites in tuxedo.


jose (not verified)

14 August, 2010 - 14:12

Rate this:

3 points

Richard is pointing to the right direction. The boycotters are applying a double moral standards: one for Israel and Jews, and another at China, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen...

Double standards, one for Jews and one for the rest of the world mean only one thing.


Inky_Flag

14 August, 2010 - 16:43

Rate this:

0 points

Hi Jonathan,
Saw you and Richard at Ahava today- I am concerned at EDL presence- this is simply counterproductive. Did you notice how the Press was lapping it all up.

I would guess that you will see more and more EDL in coming weeks- You should not allow this event to be hi-jacked!


Jonathan Hoffman

14 August, 2010 - 17:34

Rate this:

1 point

Oh right then - I will dictate who demonstrates on the streets like they do in Riyadh, Teheran, Hanoi and Gaza.

Get real, fool


telegramsam

14 August, 2010 - 17:43

Rate this:

0 points

But Jonathan just as no self-respecting Jewish group should march with Hamas or hizbollah supporters, no self-respecting Jewish or Zionist group should allow neo-Nazis or holocaust-deniers of the EDL or BNP to join our protests.


Jonathan Hoffman

14 August, 2010 - 18:38

Rate this:

0 points

And right on cue comes Sanctimonious Grim Dim Sam in his great hobnail boots ... He's not interested enough to come to support Ahava, he'd rather watch 22 grown men kicking a pig's bladder around.....But if there's a chance to put the boot in to the ZF, this as-a-Jew suddenly becomes interested again and puts both his clumsy Size Ten's in.

Fraudulent Clown .....


telegramsam

14 August, 2010 - 20:40

Rate this:

0 points

Try and understand; just as Jews should not march with Hamas and hizbollah supporters, they should not stand with EDL and BNP nazis and holocaust deniers. Where's the as-a-Jew in that?


amber

14 August, 2010 - 21:29

Rate this:

1 point

telegramsam, could you explain why you think the EDL are neo-Nazis?


telegramsam

14 August, 2010 - 22:03

Rate this:

1 point

The straight right-armed salute is a bit of a giveaway.


DLeigh-Ellis

14 August, 2010 - 23:33

Rate this:

0 points

Standing alongside fanatics such as the BNP and EDL is absolutely not an option for any self-respecting Jew, irregardless of the context.

As a member of the Board of Deputies has apparently already said, according to the JC http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/36790/bnp-want-jewish-comrades-fight-m...

'Jon Benjamin, Board of Deputies chief executive, warned: "No one in their right mind should have any truck with the BNP or their ilk."'

If criticising Jews who accept support from such extremists is seen as 'putting the boot in,' then quite frankly, the world has gone mad.


Jonathan Hoffman

14 August, 2010 - 23:34

Rate this:

0 points

Don't lecture me about what Jews "should" do you pathetic hypocrite.

Jews "should" believe in the Jewish State

The last person I take advice from is an anti-Israel "as-a-Jew" fraud who is scared to use his real name and who prefers football to supporting a beleagured Israeli business.


DLeigh-Ellis

14 August, 2010 - 23:34

Rate this:

-1 points

btw Jonathan, for some reason I totally imagined you saying 'Get real Fool,' in a Mr T accent.


Jonathan Hoffman

15 August, 2010 - 00:10

Rate this:

1 point

Leigh-Ellis = Another sanctimonious armchair activist who thinks he can carp from the sidelines without ever turning up to the Ahava counter-demo.

Leigh-Ellis + Dim Sam = Stadtler + Waldorf (from "The Muppets")


DLeigh-Ellis

15 August, 2010 - 01:06

Rate this:

0 points

So the Ahava counterdemo is now the front-line in the war against anti-semitism is it, or is it just the cause that you happen to be supporting at this particular moment in time. Oh, and it's quite clear that you Stole that muppets comparison from the pathetic JCwatch site, so no points for originality there either.

You're clearly overtired tonight, if you have to outsource your insults, get some sleep and you can throw your weight around again tomorrow.

If the JC blog site is, as you claim, part of the sidelines, perhaps you could leave and return to the 'mainline....' Or at least mind your manners a bit more, if you wonder why you provoke so many negative reactions, perhaps its not so much your opinions but your attitude. I can understand your stance on many issues, what I cannot understand is your sheer bloody-minded defensiveness and abject lack of courtesy towards other users..


Jonathan Hoffman

15 August, 2010 - 01:36

Rate this:

1 point

Mon ami, if you don't like the heat you don't have to be in this particular kitchen