The Cold War on British Muslims: Questions of Accuracy
 | By Davidmiller
October 17, 2011 | Share |
By Tom Mills, Tom Griffin and David Miller
With a provocative title like ‘The War on the Truth’ one might expect Jonathan Hoffman’s blog posting on the launch of our report to detail at least some inaccuracy in the evidence we presented. He not only fails to do so, but, ironically given his polemical title, also fails to report what he heard accurately. Hoffman imagines having heard a ‘forensic dissection’ of the Rubin Foundation and the Stanley Kalms Foundation. Neither was mentioned in our presentation.
He complains that there was only ‘cursory reference to the Peter Cruddas Foundation,’ because ‘the only funders Mills seemed to be interested in were those with an Israel connection.’ It was made very clear in our presentation that the reason the Peter Cruddas Foundation would not be discussed in any detail was because we did not believe it has funded Policy Exchange’s work on Islam and multiculturalism. As we note in the report, the Peter Cruddas Foundation states in its accounts that its funding was for, ‘Mending Britain’s Broken Families’ ‘Supply Side Reform and Competitiveness’ and ‘Child Poverty’.
Again implying that our presentation was motivated simply by ideological antipathy to Israel, Hoffman complains that the John Templeton Foundation and the Nigel Vinson Charitable Trust were not mentioned as donors of the Centre for Social Cohesion. The simple explanation for this apparent oversight is that neither were in fact identified as donors (both funded Civitas before the Centre for Social Cohesion became independent from it in 2008).
Hoffman further complains that the New Heritage Foundation was not mentioned. In this case he is correct at least to identify this Foundation as a donor, but in doing so he inadvertently undermines his own argument. If we were only interested in donors with an Israel connection, the New Heritage Foundation would have been top of our list. It was headed by the late Cyril Stein, a hardline Zionist who funded illegal settlements in the West Bank and attacked the former Chief Rabbi Lord Jakobovits for speaking out in favour of Palestinian refugees. It was not mentioned because it is a relatively minor donor.
Jonathan Hoffman’s posting may be full of inaccuracies and contradictions, but the article he points readers to on the website Harry’s Place is much worse. Hoffman at least restricts his misplaced criticisms to the political question of Israel.
Writing on Harry’s Place, Tom Wilson seeks to portray us as racists, describing the launch as ‘some kind of crackpot event about global Jewish conspiracies’. He degrades himself by indulging in such mendacious smears. Wilson disingenuously suggests that the Centre for Social Cohesion’s major donor, Stanley Kalms, was criticised in our presentation on the basis that he worked with the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. As Wilson is well aware, the point actually made about Kalms in the presentation was not that he worked with Jonathan Sacks, but that he called for Sacks’ resignation as Chief Rabbi, claiming that he not supportive enough of Israel. Kalms also attacked William Hague (the current Foreign Secretary) for describing Israel’s 2006 assault on Lebanon as ‘disproportionate’.
Our point on the donors behind the Centre for Social Cohesion and Policy Exchange is not that some of them are Jewish, since, as is well known, many British Jews are involved in campaigns for justice in the Middle East. No, our point is that they are an extremist political faction even within conservative circles. It is this fact, not their religion or cultural background, that raises questions about the output and activities of these two think-tanks.
We welcome discussion and criticism of our findings and we do not expect writers like Jonathan Hoffmann to like all of the facts we reveal, or to agree with all our conclusions. But he demeans himself and discredits his own arguments by resorting to false and defamatory smears.
COMMENTS
17 October, 2011 - 13:12 Rate this: 0 points | 'Our point on the donors behind the Centre for Social Cohesion and Policy Exchange is not that some of them are Jewish, since, as is well known, many British Jews are involved in campaigns for justice in the Middle East. No, our point is that they are an extremist political faction even within conservative circles.' Not really true either. Your point is that they are Jews +and they are pro-Israel+. Your goal is to ensure British Jews are ultimately stigmatised for the pro-Israel sympathy that actually characterises most of them. |
17 October, 2011 - 16:09 Rate this: 0 points | "Your point is that they are Jews +and they are pro-Israel+." The whole point about having a point is to make the point. Having a point and denying it is your point is , well.... POINTLESS So it is nonsense to try to tell someone what their point is. You can say your point is not made or I dispute your point. What you sensibly can't do is to say " that is not your point, this is your point. " |
18 October, 2011 - 12:00 Rate this: 0 points | Rejoinder to Professor Miller and colleagues http://www.thejc.com/blogs/davidmiller/the-cold-war-british-muslims-ques... Professor David Miller’s criticism of my critique of his MEMO Presentation cannot go without response. I think that the Rubin Foundation was mentioned in the slides, if not by name in the Presentation. Maybe he could post the slides here so we can see. The name “Stanley Kalms’ was mentioned several times in his/his colleagues’ presentations. The “Traditional Alternatives Foundation” was certainly mentioned, plus the assertion that this is run by Lord and Lady Kalms. Miller explains the failure to mention the John Templeton Foundation and the Nigel Vinson Charitable Trust as donors to the Centre for Social Cohesion as follows: ” …. neither were in fact identified as donors (both funded Civitas before the Centre for Social Cohesion became independent from it in 2008).” But his paper explicitly raises the likelihood of these foundations being founding donors to the CSC! A number of charities and foundations are known to have provided funding to Civitas between 2006 and 2008 and may therefore have provided funds for the CSC Project Fund…. One US Foundation which is known to have funded Civitas during this time is the John Templeton Foundation …” (page 32) Another major donor to Civitas at the time the CSC was set up was the Nigel Vinson Charitable Trust (page 32) In fact I could have gone further in criticising the Presentation. Both in the Presentation and the Report, the UJIA is said to be “linked” to the Zionist Federation. The truth is that they are entirely separate organisations. The suggestion that the Presentation did not focus disproportionately on the funding of the CSC and Policy Exchange by pro-Israel Jewish businessmen is thoroughly disingenuous. I ask Professor Miller again: When will you examine the funding sources of the PSC and MEMO in the same way as you have examined PE and the CSC? |
18 October, 2011 - 12:37 Rate this: 0 points | " Cyril Stein, a hardline Zionist who funded illegal settlements in the West Bank " Another error. The settlements are not "illegal" - the US for one does not consider them so |
18 October, 2011 - 14:00 Rate this: 0 points | Why waste time on bunch of jew haters - just look into MEMO this was another attempt to libel Jews - their report is funded by the Cordoba Foundation. Earlier this year an early day motion tabled in the House of Commons claimed that a research centre at Exeter University was funded by the Cordoba Foundation and Islam Expo, which were said to have links to an Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood. "The European Muslim Research Centre at the University of Exeter was launched after funding provided by Islam Expo and the Cordoba Foundation (founded by Anas Al-Tikriti, a leader in the British Muslim Initiative and a former leader of the Muslim Association of Britain, both organisations being part of the UK Muslim Brotherhood)," the motion says. So there you have it an attempt byu the Muslim Brotherhood to sully the names of Jewish Charities acting within their respective remits. |
LATEST COMMENTS
- Jonathan Hoffman RE: Adieu Ken Livingstone
- happygoldfish RE: Andrew Dismore and Ken Livingstone
- Advis3r RE: Prisoners voting: time to ask who governs Britain (Express)
- happygoldfish RE: Prisoners voting: time to ask who governs Britain (Express)
- Advis3r RE: Prisoners voting: time to ask who governs Britain (Express)
Real Real Zionist
17 October, 2011 - 12:52
Rate this:
Hoffman is a hysteric with no self control and an embarrassment to the ZF
Hysteria and accuracy are rarely bedfellows