Antisemitic meeting at SOAS

Horrendous, positively horrendous. Why do they not want to answer a simple question? What are they afraid of? Do they not have an answer other than one which would implicate them as having anti-Semitic intent?

Conversely, if the allegations against Masuku are false or misleading, then why couldn't someone speak up and respond by saying so and perhaps clarifying any misunderstanding or misinformation that might have been circulating around the conduct of Masuku?

Or is their reason that what they do doesn't matter, only what Israel does?

At the very least, it would have been decent for them to address such matters, if for no other reason than to clarify their position and to show some respect for the sincere and genuine intentions of the person asking the question.

Masuku's suggestion that South African apartheid was not a Jewish issue is a calumny. I was growing up in the USA and had already heard forty years ago about the tireless and heroic efforts by Helen Suzman to stop apartheid. The entire anti-apartheid movement in SA was generated by JEWS: Joe Slovo, Ruth First, Ike Horvich.. the list goes on and on. 'The Other Side of the Mountain' is a huge book about the Jews who helped bring an end to apartheid. Had I been at the SOAS meeting I would have demanded a retraction by the lying Masuku, even if it had meant I was evicted from the room. Jonathan, you are so brave.

It is inaccurate to suggest that Israel is an apartheid state -- although with settler-only roads and military rules similar to pass laws -- that certainly is the situation in the Occupied Territories. It's anti-Israel, not antisemitism. Don't conflate the two. Pro-Zion, LFI, Noam and RSY-Netzer leave the ZF now!!!

Jonathan, very brave of you to enter that den of iniquity - I won't call it a lions' den because the king of the jungle is a noble animal and I saw very little evidence of nobility there.
Their baying reaction to your presence was quite frightening.
Who was the grey-haired man who spoke (at length, courtesy of the repellent Hickey) shortly before you did (immediately preceding the woman who proudly announced she's a Jew for boycotting Israel)?

Brave, Yvetta? He's the anti-Zionists' favourite Zionist. They love it when he turns up coz it gives them some publicity. And Lions, by the way, are not noble -- they are lazy sods, sleeping most of the time. Now elephants, they are noble.

Yvetta - I don't know

Too bad, Jonathan - he certainly was allowed to go on for an inordinate length.
I thought Hickey's conduct to you was outrageous. So much for academic freedom.

Tsk, tsk, Moshe. The Lion of Judah not noble?

Interesting viewing Jonathan, amazing to see you hold your own against such a hostile response.

Good work, very much appreciated!

Well done Jonathan, really very brave of you to stand your ground.

I wonder if the same audience were at SOAS when Khaled Abu Toameh gave his talk and how they they reacted to him?

The BBC published the following report on Friday:

"Footage has emerged of a man being told he is “not welcome” after revealing his Jewish name at a School of Oriental and African Studies debate on Palestine. The film shows Jonathan Hoffman ask why Soas university allowed a man condemned as an anti-Semite by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHR) to talk. Upon revealing his name there are boos and shouts of “Jewish!” Anti-racism campaigners called it “chilling”. A spokesman for the London university said nobody broke hate speech rules. The event, entitled The Case for Sanctions and Boycott [of the nation of Israel] was organised by the School of Oriental and African Studies’ [Soas] Palestinian Society. They invited South African trade unionist Bongani Masuku to speak. The SAHR has condemned Mr Masuku for “hate speech”, saying his comments “are of an extreme nature that imply the Jewish community are to be despised, scorned and ridiculed”. The film, posted on YouTube, shows Mr Hoffman ask: “Why does the University and College Union (UCU) invite somebody who practises hate speech?” Once boos have subsided the chairman of the debate, Tom Hickey, of the UCU, directs the speakers to “ignore” the question. Mr Hoffman has described himself as “cross” after the “anti-Semitic” meeting. The name Hoffman is of German-Jewish origin. Raheem Kassam, of student anti-racism campaigners Student Rights, said: “The overpowering racist jeering as displayed by some audience members at the event is a stark and chilling revelation of what can happen when extremism is allowed to take root in universities. “This man was first shouted down, then ignored by the event chair and panellists. “Why? From what we hear shouted when he is speaking, because he is, ‘Jewish’, and ‘not welcome here’.”

After intensive lobbying the BBC changed the story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8419532.stm

They dropped the reference to '"..shouts of "Jewish" "

I have now listened again (from 4.50). I say "I didn't interrupt you, why do you interrupt me?" Then immediately there is indeed an audible jeer of "Jew---ish!".

I will be taking this further. Zero Tolerance to Antisemitism.

Thanks to Raheem Kassam of Student Rights for noticing the jeer of "Jew...ish!"

This has just been published:

http://www.bricup.org.uk/news/BBC_SOAS.html

Mike Cushman: "In particular a careful listening to the video of the event discloses that the word 'jewish' was never used but in fact the heckler said 'now you know'. "

I think Mike Cushman was watching a different video.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/12/19/jew-ish/

Harrys Place - great piece by 'Alan A'

The anti-Zionists love it when Hoffman turns up -- it makes them relevant. And let's be honest, you are conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. But others have insisted the meeting was fair and there were no anti-Semitic undertones. Other Jewish audience members spoke without being heckled.
Mike Cushman, who was at the meeting, said: "It was an extremely serious and positive meeting.
"The jeering was directed at Jonathan Hoffman because of his individual beliefs, not because of his religion.
"It is worth noting many of the audience were of Jewish origin."
Also in the audience was Naomi Wimborne Idressi. She said: "I am a Jew and I am very sensitive about anti-Semitism. There was no anti-Semitism at the meeting."
"It was a meeting which was fervent about human rights. There was a lot of learned discussion."

Why do the progressive Zionists of Pro-Zion, RSY-Nezer and LFI allow such nonsense in their name?

Jonathan on behalf of all Jews who recognize Antisemitism dressed up as Anti Zionism for what it is thank you.

For having the courage to face that ranting baying mob under the direction of Hickey thank you.

Standing up to the twisted, ingenuous 'human rightists' and pseudo Jews at the meeting and who have posted here thank you.

For being a lone voice amongst the sha shtillers thank you.

Mr Clifford, Mr Bennett is right. The anti-Zionists love Mr Hoffman because he gets them publicity they do not deserve. And when it comes to sha, shtilling... the ZF does good job at that too.

Don't feed the trolls!

Same old, same old cut-and-paste bullying tactics, Mr Hoffman. No wonder you were jeered. Pro-Zion dissociate from ZF goonery now

Definition of troll: someone who makes a point against which JH (aka HB) is unable to come up with a counter-argument

Don't feed the troll who has only a cracked record and plays it incessantly.

Actually, Ben, I think the bullying cut-and-paste master and a favourite of the anti-Zionists is not HB, who is probably a member of "Honest"Reporting, if not the founder himself.

The only person playing a cracked record here is the one person who cuts and pastes his messages in this thread. PZ, it's time to dissociate from the ZF.

I don't know what it means by South African apartheid being a 'Jewish issue'. Yes there were many Jews opposed to Apartheid such as Joe Slovo and Ruth First. But they were not a part of the Jewish community which disowned them as effectively as the leaders of the Jewish community try to disown Jewish anti-Zionists today.

There was no community more loyal to Apartheid than the South African Jewish community. Of course when Apartheid was toppled, then those who had been marginalised and ostracised were suddenly welcome and Jews once again!! Yet name anything that the Jewish community did whilst Apartheid was alive and kicking to demonstrate its opposition to Apartheid?

Even Helen Suzman, who was a conservative opponent of some aspects of Apartheid, and no radical figure, was hardly trumpeted until the end of Apartheid.

Indeed I can remember the Chief Rabbi of the South African Jewish Community supporting the use of the death penalty against guerillas of the ANC and what are now termed 'terrorists' just as I remember that the best friend of the apartheid government was the Israeli state, which supplied it with weaponry.

So memories are indeed selective and it is an absolute disgrace to attack as racist a Black representative of an anti-apartheid organisation, COSATU, because of an unfounded allegation by an organisation we know nothing about concerning 'hate speech'.

If you want to know about 'hate speech' then there is plenty in Israel coming from the parties of government, not least Foreign Minister Liebermann, who still dreams of drowning thousands of Palestinians in the Dead Sea.

"an absolute disgrace to attack as racist a Black representative of an anti-apartheid organisation, COSATU, because of an unfounded allegation by an organisation we know nothing about."

How typical of a Jewish anti-Zionist to belittle the finding of the HRC of hate speech directed by Masuku against Jews!

"An organisation we know nothing about"! Just google it, "tonyg". You will find the website very easily.

http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/12/03/bricup-and-bongani/

Here is what it said: "The comments and statements made are of an extreme nature that advocate and imply that the Jewish and Israeli community are to be despised, scorned, ridiculed and thus subjecting them to ill-treatment on the basis of their religious affiliation. A prima facie case of hate speech is clearly established as the statements and comments by Mr. Masuku are offensive and unpalatable to society.

Finding: In light of the above, the Commission hereby finds that the statements made by Mr. Bongani Masuku amounts to hate speech."

http://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2009/12/masuku-hate-speech-case-likely-cour...

Shame on you, TonyG. As always, the anti-racism of the Jewish anti-Zionists is selective.

How typical of the Jewish anti-Zionists to try to scorn a finding of hate speech when it doesn't suit them. As always, their anti-racism is selective. When it suits them to deny antisemitism in the interests of Israel vilification, deny it they do.

COSATU is not an anti-apartheid organisation, "tonyg". It is a trade union.

The HRC finding is not "unfounded". It is thoroughly documented.

The HRC is not "an organisation we know nothing about". Full details are on its website.

Actually, Hoffman, COSATU is an anti-apartheid trade union. But I see there is no attempt to show that anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism. Just the same old ad hominems and bullying.

I think you're missing the point here & definately J Hoffman is trying to detract from the main point (by becoming a victim)..

Isreal, has a second class citizen that are deprived basic needs - and are oppressed in much the same way the blacks were in South Africa.

Apparently the South African Human Rights Commission said of Bongani Masuku that:

"The comments and statements made are of an extreme nature that advocate and imply that the Jewish and Israeli community are to be despised, scorned, ridiculed and thus subjecting them to ill-treatment on the basis of their religious affiliation. A prima facie case of hate speech is clearly established as the statements and comments by Mr. Masuku are offensive and unpalatable to society."

This is a clearly political and subjective decision. This statements 'imply' and it then goes on to conflate the Jewish and Israeli community - which Jewish community? Which Israeli community? Israeli Jews or are Israelis all Jews? Clearly a very problematic decision that proves nothing.

I am at the moment writing a blog (www.azvsas.blogspot.com) on where the Community Security Trust's Mark Gardener distinguishes between 'hate speech' and 'anti-semiic speech' in the context of denying that Hoffman suffered any anti-semitism at said meeting at SOAS! I suspect that this is merely a case of a puffed up body (SAHRC) trying to get in someone's good books.

What I do know is that Jonathan Hoffman is not interested in real as opposed to invented anti-Semitism. When the English Defence League was organising to meet in Harrow to protest about the building of a mosque, Jewish anti-fascist activists began mobilising. Hoffman's response? Will the Moslems condemn anti-Zionists and support Israel was the gist as if that has anything to do with fascists in the here and now.

As good an example as you will get is the statement in the post above that 'There were many antisemitic statements about Israel as an apartheid state.'

Now it may be that someone who says Israel is an apartheid state is wrong or right, or partly wrong or right. But to say anti-Semitic is to reduce the term 'anti-Semitism' to merely one of vulgar abuse. Why is it anti-Semitic (i.e. one hates Jews) to say Israel is apartheid?

Does not the practice of the JNF/Israel Lands Administration of reserving 93% of state land for the use of Jews only not consitute a form of apartheid? Or the system whereby schools are segregated (I think there are 4 mixed secondary schools in the whole country) or where Arabs are barred from certain jobs (because job applicants must have army service - in this country it's called indirect discrimination where a provision, criterion or practice, ostensibly neutral, is used to bar someone from a facility).

And if one were to mention the 'debate' about the 'demographic problem' and the policies used to meet those fears, including repeated evictions of Bedouin in the Negev then the term apartheid certainly doesn't see so off beam. Indeed some people like Moshe Machover who object to the term do so because they say that Israel, which is based on exclusion rather than exploitation of the native labour, is actually WORSE than apartheid.

What has this to do with anti-semitism? Nothing of course.