Amnesty hosts yet another anti-Israel Headbanger ...


By Jonathan Hoffman
October 16, 2012
Share

http://www.thejc.com/blogs/jonathan-hoffman/how-does-shamnestys-kate-all...

Readers will be well aware of how Amnesty in London - under the inspiration of its Campaigns Director Kristyan Benedict - offers a platform to every anti-Israel headbanger in the universe. The latest - tonight - was Itay Epshtein of ICAHD (Israel Committee Against House Demolitions).

Prior to the meeting NGO Monitor issued a Press Release entitled "ICAHD and Amnesty-UK Team Up To Abuse Human Rights":

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/icahd_and_amnesty_uk_team_up_to_abuse...

From Epshtein we got the utter fiction that in 1949 Israel pursued an "Evict and Judaise" policy. Another fiction was that Canada supports Israel "because it has problems with its own indigenous minority" (the aboriginal Canadians). What laughable nonsense. Canada - under its principled PM Stephen Harper - supports Israel because it is right to do so:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/26/israels-staunchest-ally-stephen-har...

But the meeting really went downhill in the Q+A. Epshtein seemed to think it was acceptable to duck out of answering difficult questions. Thus when a questioner quoted CIA Factbook data on life expectancy in Gaza and the disputed territories, Epshtein questioned the data because it came from the 'CIA'. And he ducked out of answering a question about the Camp David offer to the Palestinians (91% of the West Bank plus 1% in land swaps)by saying that he was not at Camp David! (the source of the detail is Dennis Ross - who was there).

Incredibly ICAHD UK will be holding its 2013 Annual Meeting at Amnesty no doubt free of charge.

Would they host the ZF's Annual Meeting I ask myself ....

The meeting attracted people such as Chris who expressed his disappointment that the UK Jewish Community supports Israel purely because of ethnic reasons and who refuses to accept that Ahmadinejad had expressed the desire to wipe israel off the map. And a lady who said that at the end of the 19th century, Zionists pursued their aim through violence. Utter rubbish. Herzl for example was a journalist who worked tirelessly writing letters to European leaders and meeting them.

Postscript:

Richard Millett's Account:

When you go to an anti-Israel event chances are you’re not more than a few feet from an antisemite

http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/accused-of-racism-at-amne...

COMMENTS

Real Real Zionist

Wed, 10/17/2012 - 09:16

Rate this:

0 points

Well since Hoff's chosen topic is " headbangers".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBH6XONDpes


joemillis1959

Wed, 10/17/2012 - 13:47

Rate this:

0 points


Harvey

Wed, 10/17/2012 - 15:25

Rate this:

0 points

Talking of head banging .

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/ujia/

8 billion pounds of UK - Israel cross trade last year .


joemillis1959

Wed, 10/17/2012 - 15:40

Rate this:

0 points

Excellent speech by Cameron. Shows the importance and prominence of UJIA. But would he waste his time going to a JNF dinner?


Harvey

Wed, 10/17/2012 - 15:45

Rate this:

0 points

Or a NIF dinner .


joemillis1959

Wed, 10/17/2012 - 15:51

Rate this:

0 points

He wouldn't turn up to a Britain-Israel Coalition full members' lunch in Golders Green Road phone box either


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 10/17/2012 - 16:14

Rate this:

-2 points

Or a Ahava counter demo minus the EDL veterans dinner on the back seat of Harv's cab.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 10/17/2012 - 16:32

Rate this:

0 points

" Britains position will not change. Settlements beyond the green line are illegal."

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/ujia/


happygoldfish

Wed, 10/17/2012 - 16:42

Rate this:

1 point

joemillis1959: Excellent speech by Cameron.

yes: makes very clear the uk position on palestinian statehood …

So let me tell President Abbas something very clearly there is no path to statehood except through talks with Israel.

So if the Palestinian plan is simply posturing with the UN rather than negotiating with Israel, Britain will never support it.

And let me say this to the Palestinians too. Britain will never support anyone who sponsors a football tournament named after a suicide bomber who killed 20 Israelis in a restaurant. We will not tolerate incitement to terrorism.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 10/17/2012 - 17:06

Rate this:

0 points

Seems very little in it that any reasonable person could violently disagree with.

Particularly the bit about time running out for a two state solution. Since things are about as bad as it could get for the Palestinians and they have nothing to lose, that can only mean time is running out for a Jewish and democratic Israel. Unless you are one of those dreamers that think the status quo can be managed forever and a day.

I am sure if he had had more time he would have mentioned Gaza and lentils too.


happygoldfish

Wed, 10/17/2012 - 17:16

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: I am sure if he had had more time he would have mentioned Gaza and lentils too.

he did have time to mention gaza …

And that is why we will not waver from our insistence that Hamas gives up violence and that the rockets from Gaza must stop.

… but since the uk position is that the israeli-egyptian blockade is legal, no of course he didn't mention lentils!


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 10/17/2012 - 17:43

Rate this:

1 point

The British government have declared that collective punishment, contrary to the Geneva Conventions to which it is a signatory, is legal?

Clearly, Israel has a right to protect itself against attacks on civilians from Gaza and to prevent the entry of arms and munitions that facilitate this, into Gaza.

But the restriction of food stuffs, school books, etc., etc., etc. is obviously extraneous to this right.

You surely wouldn't deny that this is illegal collective punishment, would you?

The British government declared this to be legal when? Where?

A link to where they made this declaration, please?


happygoldfish

Wed, 10/17/2012 - 18:27

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: But the restriction of food stuffs, school books, etc., etc., etc. is obviously extraneous to this right.
You surely wouldn't deny that this is illegal collective punishment, would you?

as you know, it's collective penalties that are illegal (under the fourth geneva convention), not collective punishment

those are not collective penalties (nor illegal under any other grounds)

with any other country, you would call them economic sanctions, and yes economic sanctions do almost always amount to collective punishment!

israel is in the habit of responding to unlawful lethal force with lawful non-lethal force

in this case, responding to the war crimes you refer to with non-lethal economic sanctions

Real Real Zionist: The British government declared this to be legal when? Where?

the best i can find quickly is this foreign office release from william hague on 27/1/2011…

Q. @sirandytaylor: @WilliamJHague What is the Brit Gvt's position on Israel's blockade of Gaza? If against, will any action against Israel be taken? #fsinsyria 

A. @sirandytaylor Israel has a right to security. But blockade of Gaza is counterproductive & should be lifted #fsinsyria

… the uk government describes the blockade as counterproductive but not illegal


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 09:38

Rate this:

-1 points

Are you sure you are happygoldfish and not unhappywrigglyworm ?

"But blockade of Gaza is counterproductive & should be lifted #fsinsyria"

You are going to have to do an awful lot better than that if we are not to conclude that " the uk position is that the israeli-egyptian blockade is legal" is not a simple lie.

( Thought I would throw that in since you casually accuse me of lying but cowardly refuse to give any examples )


Mary in Brighton

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 09:57

Rate this:

0 points

BLINK

Imagine going to court and the judge saying " I wouldn't want you to misunderstand. What is about to follow is not a PUNISHMENT it is a PENALTY!


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 10:07

Rate this:

-1 points

Hilarious isn't it ? Hasbarah at its finest.

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.


Advis3r

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 10:19

Rate this:

2 points

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Knucklehead that would mean US/EU sanctions on Iran are a war crime because the innocent Iranian civilians are suffering as a consequence.

What happens when a fake Zionist thinks he is a lawyer.


Advis3r

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 10:26

Rate this:

2 points

A long-awaited United Nations review of Israel’s 2010 raid on a Turkish-based flotilla in which nine passengers were killed has found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is both legal and appropriate. But it said that the way Israeli forces boarded the vessels trying to break that blockade 15 months ago was excessive and unreasonable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html?pagew...

"excessive and unreasonable" as boarding with a paintball gun and be beaten to within an inch of one's life - I was forgetting they were Jewish lives so they didn't matter.


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 10:40

Rate this:

-2 points

Will no one rid us of this turbulent eternally whining incoherent fly ?


Advis3r

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 10:43

Rate this:

2 points

The fake Zionist has no answer ... obviously. Banned for racist comments on another website how long before the moderator of this site actually does his/her job and bans him/her/it from here too?


Advis3r

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 10:55

Rate this:

2 points

By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to “intimidatory measures to terrorize the population” in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices “strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice.” The blockade of Gaza by Israel is not collective punishment as was meant by Article 33 because the residents of Gaza are not protected persons "those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." The people of Gaza are in the hands of Hamas not Israel.


happygoldfish

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 11:31

Rate this:

1 point

Real Real Zionist: "But blockade of Gaza is counterproductive & should be lifted …"
You are going to have to do an awful lot better than that if we are not to conclude that " the uk position is that the israeli-egyptian blockade is legal" is not a simple lie.

in the same speech, even to an entirely jewish pro-israel audience, cameron had no hesitation in describing the settlements as illegal …

"it means meeting Israel’s obligations… under international law to halt settlement building.
Britain’s position will not change. Settlements beyond the green line are illegal."

… and would equally have no hesitation in describing the blockade as illegal if that were the uk government position

it isn't … the uk government position is simply that the blockade is counterproductive (and should be lifted)

Real Real Zionist: ( Thought I would throw that in since you casually accuse me of lying but cowardly refuse to give any examples )

i'm confused … i haven't accused you of lying on this page … if i did so on another page, i certainly didn't do so casually, and would have quoted the lie

Real Real Zionist: Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

exactlyas i said … it's collective penalties that are illegal, not collective punishment

(why are you trying to claim otherwise?)

"collective punishment" is not even mentioned in the geneva conventions …

unfortunately that doesn't stop racists and others from condemning israel for committing a war crime that doesn't exist


zaheerayin

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 11:33

Rate this:

-2 points

Well, there seems to have been some progress. Happy goldfish and Advis3r have abandoned the fiction that the blockade is all about Hamas and security. Accepting that the Gazan people are being targeted, they merely take refuge in nauseating justification and ludicrous legalisms.


zaheerayin

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 11:39

Rate this:

-1 points

But we're getting way off track here. This is about Jonathan and his ZF election, right?


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 11:53

Rate this:

-1 points

@happygoldfish eyeroll


Mary in Brighton

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 12:07

Rate this:

-2 points

Even if we accept the non existent distinction ( in this context )between punishment and penalty we are merely have to substitute penalty for punishment and ....abracadabra....we have the war crime.


happygoldfish

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 12:09

Rate this:

2 points

zaheerayin: Happy goldfish … abandoned the fiction that the blockade is all about Hamas and security.

the blockade is about security … it is economic sanctions designed to pressure hamas into stopping the war crimes against sderot
(just as the economic sanctions against iran are designed to pressure the iranian government into stopping development of nuclear weapons)

zaheerayin: Accepting that the Gazan people are being targeted …

no, the people of sderot are being targeted

the israelis are responding to the lethal war crimes against sderot with non-lethal humanitarian economic sanctions

i suppose you say the israelis should not respond to those war crimes at all?


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 12:20

Rate this:

-2 points

I suppose you say Hamas are going to say, " oh dear the people don't have any lentils, we better behave."


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 12:28

Rate this:

-1 points

Anyway this isn't going anywhere. But this is the first time I have ever encountered people that have broadly similar attitudes to you and Jose acknowledge that what you call economic sanctions and others call collective penalties/ punishments are in place.


happygoldfish

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 12:42

Rate this:

2 points

Real Real Zionist: I suppose you say Hamas are going to say, " oh dear the people don't have any lentils, we better behave."

no, i say that the people are going to say, " oh dear we don't have any lentils, we better demonstrate against the war crimes being committed in our name, and if that doesn't work we better vote for fatah, and the peace process."

Advis3r

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 12:46

Rate this:

2 points

No Fake Zionist the only people who call perfectly lawful economic sanctions collective punishment are Jew haters like you and the other six dwarfs who unfortunately infest this website i.e. what you are really saying by disingenuously and incorrectly applying Article 33 to Israel's LEGAL blockade of Gaza is that only Jews are prohibited from trying by universally accepted means adopted by many other nations in the world to stop attacks on them by terrorists etc.


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 12:58

Rate this:

-1 points

"we better demonstrate against the war crimes being committed in our name"

When are these demonstrations scheduled to start ?

" and if that doesn't work we better vote for fatah, and the peace process."

Which peace process might that be? And anyways isn't it the case that Fatah are not serious ? Is it not the case that any seeming interest in a deal is a ruse, a first stage toward driving the Jews into the sea ? Ask Jose he will tell you.


Advis3r

Thu, 10/18/2012 - 13:13

Rate this:

1 point

At a ceremony marking the 24th anniversary of the founding of Hamas, Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip Ismail Haniyeh said that Hamas may work for the "interim objective of liberation of Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem," but that this "interim objective" and "reconciliation" with Fatah will not change Hamas' long-term "strategic" goal of eliminating all of Israel:

"The armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the invaders and usurpers [Israel]... We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine."

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=472&fld_id=474&doc_id=6020

In his speech, Haniyeh also promised that Hamas will "lead Intifada after Intifada until we liberate Palestine - all of Palestine, Allah willing. Allah Akbar and praise Allah."

That wasn't hard was it Fake Zionist?


Advis3r

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 16:42

Rate this:

0 points

First any poll quoted by Ha'aretz and no ther news outlet in Israel is questionable. The article is behind a paywall so who knows who the people who were polled were and indeed what the question was - Sherwood has plenty of form.
Yisroel Medad in response to a previous Sherwood excuse for serious journalism:

Can someone explain to me why the presence of Jews and their communities ipso facto and a priori negates a two-state solution? There are Arabs living in Israel, so why cannot Jews live in a future "Palestine" (or "Hammastan" or whatever gets elected or established)?

If the charge is that the Jews would not allow/permit or would interfere in such a political development, would not the expectation be that Arabs would do (and perhaps already are) the same and attempt to subvert the state of Israel? If true, than can I understand Ms. Sherwood's story to imply that if Jews are not to be allowed in Palestine, then Arabs cannot similarly be in Israel?

Is this logic ethical and moral? If not, why is it applied to only one side in the conflict?

Maybe suzanna will explain if as she claims Jews wanting no voting rights for Arabs in Judea and Samaria is apartheid why Arabs wanting no Jews - let alone Jews having voting rights is also not apartheid?


joemillis1959

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 17:38

Rate this:

1 point

Seems pretty conclusive, but confused on issues of annexation. And Happy, could you please reduce size, it's very big.


happygoldfish

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 18:11

Rate this:

0 points
as a goldfish, everything looks big to me!
but i see what you mean, joe
i suspect there's a way to reduce the size, but i don't know what it is (it reduces to fit the page on my browser if i go straight to the original image at http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.471827.1350989040!/image/1004082658.jpg)

if anyone knows, can they please log-in and send me a private message (http://www.thejc.com/privatemsg/new)?


happygoldfish

Wed, 10/24/2012 - 09:16

Rate this:

2 points
ah, i think this may work, joe …

Advis3r: The article is behind a paywall so who knows who the people who were polled were …

no, it is not behind a paywall, and …

The survey was commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum Fund and is based on a sample of 503 interviewees.
The questions were written by a group of academia-based peace and civil rights activists. Dialog is headed by Tel Aviv University Prof. Camil Fuchs.


Advis3r

Wed, 10/24/2012 - 10:20

Rate this:

0 points

Goldfish the link given by suzanna to the Guardian story gives a link to a Ha'aretz story which is behind a paywall - try it!http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/survey-most-israeli-jews-would-support-apartheid-regime-in-israel.premium-1.471644

In any event this load of old codswallop has been debunked by Alan Johnson on Harry's Place and The New Israel Fund which it was claimed had funded the poll has distanced itself from its findings - so Millis it is far from conclusive but trust you to jump on the Gideon Levy bandwagon.


zaheerayin

Wed, 10/24/2012 - 12:43

Rate this:

0 points

"The article is behind a paywall so who knows who the people who were polled were and indeed what the question was - "

Well, pay up and subscribe, you skin flint. It's only $4 a month. If you can't afford it, get a job at Sodastream.


Advis3r

Wed, 10/24/2012 - 12:46

Rate this:

0 points

Why waste hard earned money paying for lies and half truths leave that up to Jew haters like you.


happygoldfish

Wed, 10/24/2012 - 12:48

Rate this:

0 points
yes, haaretz itself admits …

The survey conductors say perhaps the term "apartheid" was not clear enough to some interviewees.

… and the times of israel comments …

times of israel… the nature of the questions, and discrepancies in the way the findings were presented, rendered some of the claims in the report hard to gauge.

btw, contrary to gideon levy's second haaretz article, this survey had no connection to the new israel fund (nif) …
times of israelThe poll released today by the Goldblum Fund/Dialog was not commissioned or sponsored or in any way related to the New Israel Fund,” Naomi Paiss, NIF Vice President, Public Affairs, wrote in an email.

the survey's funders were the yisraela goldblum fund (also israela goldblum fund) (which has left no mark on the internet other than support for a human rights prize), and the dialog institute (http://www.dialog.org.il/page.asp?page=153)

this was a throughly unreliable survey, since it made no attempt to check what the interviewees understood by "apartheid"

a good survey is objective, but this one was clearly written with the intention of producing headlines about apartheid

and, btw, it should be noted that the question asked only about apartheid in israel (not apartheid on the west bank)


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 10/24/2012 - 13:03

Rate this:

1 point

" this one was clearly written with the intention of producing headlines about apartheid " .

That is not clear at all. Certainly it provoked some headlines that are not helpful. But headline writers will be headline writers.


joemillis1959

Wed, 10/31/2012 - 14:14

Rate this:

2 points

And speaking of headbangers… Hip, Hip, Hooray to the Tory Party for suspending Brian Coleman

Celebratory lunch break over. Triples all round


suzanna

Wed, 10/31/2012 - 15:16

Rate this:

1 point

On the subject of Brian Coleman does anyone have any pictures of J. Hoffman standing shoulder to shoulder with the woman beater Coleman? (similar to those pictures we have seen of J. Hoffman standing shoulder to shoulder with the EDF)


zaheerayin

Wed, 10/31/2012 - 17:34

Rate this:

1 point

Not sure but there is a photo of him demonstrating outside Hendon Town Hall in support of Coleman.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 10/31/2012 - 17:41

Rate this:

1 point

Heres a better link to the suspension story

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 10/31/2012 - 17:49

Rate this:

1 point

" Apologies from Coleman to Ron Cohen and Charlotte Jago, the victims of Coleman's abusive emails, arrived only yesterday, hours before the Tory group meeting which was going to debate their colleague's suspension."

"And this is his tragedy, ultimately: his life's story is not a tale of power, political intrigue, and statesman like acheivements, the sort of life he imagines that he has led: it is a story of rampant egotism, boundless vanity, relentless confrontation with perceived enemies - and petty point scoring."

" perhaps Brian Coleman will take the time to reflect on the sequence of events which have brought him to this end. It seems unlikely, however: he appears to have no capacity for reflection, or self knowledge."

Remind you of anyone we know ?


Ben F

Wed, 10/31/2012 - 18:09

Rate this:

1 point

I think even Ivan look at the bright side Denisovich would rate this a bad week.


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 11/01/2012 - 11:13

Rate this:

0 points

Brian Coleman's idea of an apology...

In line with the recent standards board rulling. I hereby apologies for any offence caused by the emails in question.

Yours sincerly.

(squiggle)

Councillor Brian Coleman

He maybe should get some apologising coaching from his buddy who REALLY knows how to do it.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.