Jacques Rogge's Guildhall speech for Monday night has leaked!


By Jonathan Hoffman
August 6, 2012
Share

On Monday evening there is to be a commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Munich massacre, organised by the UK Jewish Community, the Israeli Embassy and the Israel Olympics Committee. The Israel Olympics Committee invited Jacques Rogge. A draft of his speech has found its way into my hands:

Good evening

I am keenly aware that some of you feel that the IOC should have included a one-minute silence in the Opening Ceremony for the Israelis who were murdered at Munich 40 years ago. Tonight I can reveal why I did not give in to this pressure.

The reality is that my hands were tied. 56 of the 205 nations competing in the Games are members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and they all would have walked out of the Games if we had had the one-minute silence. Other sympathetic nations would have followed. Then our corporate sponsorship would have been severely threatened. Politics can never be allowed to intrude on the Olympics. Just look at those Je.... I mean Israeli - judo players who mischievously tried to provoke the Lebanese judo team by training in the same gym. Fortunately we were able to solve the problem by fixing a separation curtain between the two teams making the ...Israelis.... - invisible.

As Jibril Rajoub , President of the Palestinian Olympic Committee, said to me in a letter: “Sports are meant for peace, not for racism... Sports are a bridge to love, interconnection, and spreading of peace among nations; it must not be a cause of division and spreading of racism between them [nations]."

Some of you will say that the Opening Ceremony included remembrances of the Londoners murdered on 7th July 2005 by fanatical Islamists and it also included photos of recently departed loved ones of audience members. Yes but that was different – none of those who died were .... Israelis... - and we knew that commemorating them would not cause a walkout or threaten corporate sponsorship. These poor victims did not die as a result of a political act, neither did they provoke one. Politics can never be allowed to intrude on the Olympics.

The same held true for the Georgian athlete, Nodar Kumaritashvili, who died in a luge training accident before 2010 Winter Olympics. Yes, I officiated at a commemoration for him at the Opening Ceremony. But that was different. He wasn’t a J ... I mean Israeli - and I knew that commemorating his death would neither cause a walkout not threaten corporate sponsorship. He didn’t die as a result of a political act. Politics must never be allowed to intrude on the Olympics.

My friends, the moment that we let politics intrude on the Olympics is the moment that the Olympic movement dies. That’s what I told Jibril Rajoub who heads the Palestinian Olympic Committee and used to advise Khalil al Wazir – aka Abu Jihad – the commander of Black September in the early 1970s (including when they committed the Munich Masacre). And that's what I told the Saudis - I am proud to say that any Saudi woman who is good enough to make their Olympic team can now do so. Some people say that sportswomen in Saudi Arabia do not have the same opportunities as sportsmen. But that's internal politics and politics must never be allowed to intrude on the Olympics.

My friends: enjoy the rest of the politics-free Games!

Postscript:

Not surprisingly Jacques Rogge (who has no democratic legitimacy) did not give this speech. Instead he reportedly gave one full of meaningless hypocritical platitudes.

"Reportedly" ....... because together with one other, I walked out.....

Unbelievably there were those who applauded him ...

The two Munich widows present, Ankie Spitzer and Ilana Romano, rightly and movingly did not hold back in their criticism of the IOC. Neither did Israeli Minister Limor Livnat.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/shame-on-you-ankie-spitzer-tells-olympic-pr...

http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/summer-olympics/2012/18111-qshame...

Postscript 2 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpkwhh6P6g

BBC mentions our shouts of 'Shame!' (on the IOC) during Ankie Spitzer's powerful and moving speech and has part of her speech.

Postscript 3:

Montréal. Thursday, August 9, 2012.

Count Dr. Jacques Rogge
President
International Olympic Committee
Château de Vidy
C.P. 356 – CH-1007
Lausanne, Switzerland

Dear Doctor Rogge:

I am writing you as a Member of the Canadian Parliament and mover of a parliamentary motion which was unanimously passed by the Canadian House of Commons on June 13, 2012. The motion, which called for a moment of silence at the 2012 London Olympics in memory of those Israeli Olympians killed 40 years ago – where you yourself were an Olympic athlete - read as follows:

That the House offers its support for a moment of silence to be held at the 2012 London Olympics in memory of those killed 40 years ago in the tragic terrorist events of the 1972 Munich Olympics wherein 11 Israeli athletes were murdered.

Indeed, civil society groups, Parliaments and political leaders around the world have been calling on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to hold a moment of silence at the London Games, with the Canadian Parliament the first to unanimously support this call – an expression of our responsibility to remember – le devoir de mémoire.

Nor is such a memorial, as you best know, without precedent. Two years ago during the Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver, the IOC, observed a moment of silence – over which you presided, appropriately enough – in memory of the Georgian athlete, Nodar Kumaritashvili, who died tragically in a training accident. Ten years ago, in 2002, the IOC memorialized the victims of 9/11, though that terrorist atrocity neither occurred during the Olympic Games nor had any connection to them. The duty of remembrance was justification enough.

In particular, after eschewing a memorial for the murdered Israeli athletes and coaches at this year’s opening ceremony, the IOC then – and again, rightly – memorialized the victims of the 2005 London Bombings (as it happens, I was in London at the time visiting as Minister of Justice), though this terrorist atrocity, as well, had no nexus to the Olympic Games.

The refusal of the IOC, therefore, to observe a moment of silence on the 40th anniversary of the Munich massacre – the slaughter of 11 Israeli athletes and coaches for no other reason than that they were Israelis and Jews – is as offensive as it is incomprehensible. These eleven (11) Israeli Olympians were part of the Olympic family, they were murdered as members of the Olympic family, they should be remembered by the Olympic family at these Olympic Games themselves.

This steadfast reluctance not only ignores – but mocks – the calls for a moment of silence by Government leaders, including US President Barack Obama, Australian PM Julia Gillard, Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, and most recently by his Excellency the Canadian Governor General David Johnston; the calls by various Parliaments including resolutions by the US Congress as well as by Canadian, Australian, German, Italian and UK Parliamentarians; and the sustained international public campaign and anguished civil society appeals.

As well, the IOC decision ignores that the Munich massacre occurred at the Olympic games not par hasard, but precisely because the Olympic games provided a venue of international resonance for such an attack; the decision ignores that, as Der Spiegel put it, the killings were facilitated by the criminal negligence and indifference of Olympic security officials themselves; and finally, and most disturbingly, it ignores and mocks the plaintive pleas – and pain and suffering – of the families and loved ones, for whom the remembrance of these last forty years is an over-riding personal and moral imperative, as expressed to you yet again in London this week.

Accordingly, it is not hard to infer – as many have done - that not only were the athletes killed because they were Israeli and Jewish, but that the moment of silence is being denied them also because they are Israeli and Jewish. Professor Deborah Lipstadt – a distinguished historian of antisemitism and one normally understated in her attribution of anti-Jewish or anti-Israel motifs - makes the connection. In her words:

The IOC’s explanation is nothing more than a pathetic excuse. The athletes who were murdered were from Israel and were Jews—that is why they aren’t being remembered. … This was the greatest tragedy to ever occur during the Olympic Games. Yet the IOC has made it quite clear that these victims are not worth 60 seconds. Imagine for a moment that these athletes had been from the United States, Canada, Australia, or even Germany No one would think twice about commemorating them. But these athletes came from a country and a people who somehow deserve to be victims. Their lost lives are apparently not worth a minute.”
As Ankie Spitzer, widow of the murdered Andre Spitzer put it, regretfully, “I can only come to one conclusion or explanation: This is discrimination. I have never used that word in 40 years, but the victims had the wrong religions, they came from the wrong country.

Dr. Rogge, you, as a bearer of memory as a Belgian Olympian yourself in the 1972 Munich Games, have poignantly remarked just days ago, “the Munich attack cast terrorism's dark shadow on the Olympic Games. It was a direct assault on the core values of the Olympic movement.”

This Sunday, when the London 2012 Olympic Games conclude, let us pause to remember and recall each of the murdered athletes. Each had a name, an identity, a family – each person was a universe:
Moshe Weinberg
Yossef Romano
Ze’ev Friedman
David Berger
Yakov Springer
Eliezer Halfin
Yossef Gutfreund
Kehat Shorr
Mark Slavin
Andre Spitzer
Amitzur Shapira

Dr. Rogge, it is not too late for the IOC to remember these murdered Olympians as Olympians at the London Olympic Games this Sunday – it is not too late to be on the right side of history.

Sincerely,
Irwin Cotler, P.C., O.C., M.P.
Former Minister of Justice & Attorney General of Canada
Professor of Law (Emeritus), McGill University

COMMENTS

Jon.

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 11:59

Rate this:

0 points

You just repost this AGAIN?


J.Clifford

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 12:13

Rate this:

1 point

Surrendering to the blackmailing tactics of 56 nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference was the most intrusive political decision that Rogge could have made. Far better to lose them than lose the honour and integrity of the Olympic movement and I doubt very much that they would have carried out the threat.

"Sports are a bridge to love, interconnection, and spreading of peace among nations; it must not be a cause of division and spreading of racism between them [nations]." But not if they are Israelis or Jews it seems - kill them with impunity they are expendable and unimportant. Politics must never be allowed to intrude.


Mary in Brighton

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 12:44

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan you are 57 years old, a deputy, and vice chair of the ZF. Do you really want to be seen behaving so childishly ?


Real Real Zionist

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 13:02

Rate this:

0 points

Jon.
6 August, 2012 - 11:59
Rate this:
-2 points
You just repost this AGAIN?
reply Flag as offensive

Real Real Zionist
6 August, 2012 - 12:30
Rate this:
-1 points
COMMENTS
J.Clifford
3 August, 2012 - 15:25
Rate this:
0 points
Politics not allowed to intrude on the Olympics so 56 nations dictating policy is not political. Other sympathetic nations would have followed and corporate sponsorship would have been threatened but that is not political either. Only photos of murdered Israelis can't be shown but all other nations can that is not political.
Jacques Rogge is a sickening hypocrite and the Olympic movement is diminished.
reply Flag as offensive

Real Real Zionist
3 August, 2012 - 16:20
Rate this:
0 points
Interesting comments by the UK Ambassador to Israel in Haaretz today. Pretty much what Mick Davis and others have been saying. Similarly interesting analysis by Haaretz on what it means for UK Jews. Do we know anyone who is part of a very vocal numerically insignificent minority ?
I should of course have said on Channel 10, as reported by Haaretz.
Edit reply

zaheerayin
3 August, 2012 - 16:30
Rate this:
1 point
Umm, J. Clifford, poor Jonathan has been spoofed again.
On the other subject, it was an amazing interview that Matthew Gould gave. Who can doubt the wisdom of it? Unfortunately, the Haaretz analysis is behind a pay wall, but I just got a tax rebate and the exchange rate is good, so $1 for the first month is not too bad a hit!
reply Flag as offensive

Mary in Brighton
3 August, 2012 - 16:43
Rate this:
0 points
This reminds me of the time Jonathan told us the Syrians were paying people to die on the Israeli border.
reply Flag as offensive

Real Real Zionist
3 August, 2012 - 16:51
Rate this:
0 points
That was one of the very many blogs he saw fit to delete in his frantic Spring clean.
Edit reply

Mary in Brighton
6 August, 2012 - 12:44
Rate this:
-1 points
Jonathan you are 57 years old, a deputy, and vice chair of the ZF. Do you really want to be seen behaving so childishly ?


Jon.

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 13:49

Rate this:

-2 points

People paid to die on the Israeli border?

Sorry, what?


Advis3r

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 13:51

Rate this:

0 points

The trolls obviously have very little to occupy their minds.

Matthew Gould trotted out the contents of the Foreign Office memorandum he was instructed to do. Whether he believed what he said in the Channel 10 interview is neither here nor there - fact is if he had not Mr Flynn would have been the first to accuse him of divided loyalties - the downside of having a Jew as an Ambassador to Israel. As such his views on the subject of settlements are taken with a pinch of salt.


Advis3r

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 13:54

Rate this:

0 points

Yes Jon

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4078698,00.html

I would be very wary before you believe anything Mary tells you.


Real Real Zionist

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 14:00

Rate this:

-1 points

That is hardly being " paid to die on the border " as Hoff's headline to his blog would have it. I remember thinking that I hope they don't spend it all at once. This blog was deleted along with many others in the course of his panic stricken clean up.


Advis3r

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 14:09

Rate this:

1 point

What did they expect tea and cakes? Israel had in accordance with International Law warned that any breach of the border with Syria would be met with lethal force.


Real Real Zionist

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 14:18

Rate this:

0 points

I knew I would regret that.


zaheerayin

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 14:31

Rate this:

0 points

Maybe it's a new BOD or ZF policy?


Hannah

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:12

Rate this:

-1 points

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/70971/munich-massacre-widows-attack-ro...

We all knew it was going to happen but that doesn't make it any less embarrassing. Mr. Rogge was an invited guest. To treat an invited guest this way is appalling and one can only wonder what became of Jewish values in the midst of all this self indulgence? What exactly is the worth of beating what you want out of someone? I am surprised that Mr. Rogge, knowing what was going to happen, consented to put himself in that position.


Mary in Brighton

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:17

Rate this:

-1 points

Amen


zaheerayin

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:26

Rate this:

-1 points

Yes, all very ugly.


zaheerayin

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:28

Rate this:

0 points

.


Harvey

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:31

Rate this:

1 point

Well done Jonathan and others who turned their backs on Rogge and walked out as he began to speak .Such an action is worth a 1000 words .
How proving it is that for all the conspiracy theory of so called Jewish control and power , it is the 57 Islamic states and their petro dollars that hold sway over the IOC .


Harvey

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:38

Rate this:

1 point

Yes Hannah , let's concern ourselves over a momentary embarrassment for Rogge , rather than the heartache and anguish suffered by the families of Israeli athletes murdered by Palestinian terrorists . Perhaps you are unaware of what the butchers did to some of the bodies
I'm sure Rogge has forgotten the momentary discomfort he may of endured last night . What happened 40 years ago cannot be forgotten so easily .


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:04

Rate this:

-1 points

Ah yes the families......Does anyone involved have any genuine concern for the families ? If so I have not seem any evidence of it.

And of course turning ones back and walking out is an ideal way to get some attention for oneself. How constructive !!!!!! And how comforting for the families. But then we are used to this juvenile stuff from the self promoting,extremist lunatic fringe.


Mary in Brighton

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:25

Rate this:

-1 points

Harvey I can't speak for Hannah but I am well aware of what was done to the bodies. I am equally aware that Jacques Rogge didn't do it.

I think Hannah's point is that this was a memorial ceremony. To INVITE someone and then to treat them that way is way outside the norms of civilised behaviour and an insult to the memory of those for whom it was held. Jacques Rogge should have been told he wasn't welcome or been treated civilly as befits the dignity of the occasion.

I repeat, back turning and walking out is an undignified insult to the Israeli athletes.

Harvey when my memorial meeting is held I will have made advance arrangements to make sure you have been invited. I would be very upset to think you would disrupt the occasion that way.


Advis3r

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:26

Rate this:

1 point

Showing there ain't nothing new under the sun and presumably the precedent for Mr Rogge's capitulation!

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19480724&id=cBoaAAAAIBAJ&...

Inverted morality from the good Hannah - yes let's be the good Jew and have people walk all over us and worse like they have for two thousand years just because we are Jewish. What wonderful values spare the abysmal Rogge his embarrassment especially as he did not deny that the minute's silence was being refused simply because the murdered sportsmen were Israelis - who asked him to turn up and rub salt in the wound? So let's blame the victims and their families for having the audacity to be Israeli and want to compete in the Olympics.


Harvey

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:35

Rate this:

1 point

It's the families themselves who are demanding some form of proper acknowledgment of the murder of their loved ones in Munich 40 years ago . It is their concerns which prompted our response . They have led the way on this since the atrocity .
As for the walk out . Why should anyone respect Rogge or listen to his hypocritical attempt to cover himself behind closed doors .
The time to acknowledge this heinous crime was at the opening ceremony .
Kol Hakovod Jonathan and to everyone who took part .
If the As a brigade choose to kiss his tuchus , that's their business


Harvey

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:50

Rate this:

-2 points

Mary
Do let me know in advance .


Mary in Brighton

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:51

Rate this:

-1 points

Harvey no one should be required to respect or listen to Jaques Rogge. But where I come from if those organising a memorial ceremony didn't want to hear someone they wouldn't invite them to be there or to speak. They certainly wouldn't invite them for the purpose of turning what should be a solemn and respectful occasion into a circus.


Harvey

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 14:37

Rate this:

1 point

I don't think you quite understand the depth of anger and sadness of the community which as much as anything takes its lead from the widows of the murdered athletes .
There was a protocol which required that Rogge be invited . The fact is he was about as welcome as the ghost of Banquo to the event .
Watch the video of Mrs Spitzer speech and the subsequent ovation she receives as she berates Rogge for his failure to provide a fitting tribute to the murdered Olympians , members of the Olympic family but jettisoned in the interest of appeasing Arab ire .


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 11:49

Rate this:

-1 points

There is a protocol ? Where is this protocol located ? Is there a a precedent ? Did you just make this up ?

We are taken closest to reality by Ankie Spitzer saying " sometimes I think I am the only one left that believes in the Olympic ideal " ( or something close ). She probably is, which makes it all so much sadder and so much more futile.

So there it lies. The families go home even more hurt and bitter, which we all knew they would.

But no matter the lunatic fringe had their moment. They got in their "look at us" moment of back turning, walk outing self promoting exposure.

So now what ? Try again in 4 years time ? Well in four years time the chances will be even slimmer. It won't even be able to be said that the government of the host nation supports it. No matter there is always 8 years time. But what if the games are in Istanbul ? No matter there is always 12 years time........

The reality is that it isn't going to happen. One games at least would have to be sacrificed. Maybe two or more. The suits won't allow it. Meanwhile time goes on and the families get more tired, more hurt, and more bitter.

The best hope is to have a minutes silence at each ceremony for all the victims of war and terrorism. This would be in keeping with the much over rated classical Olympic truce. Yes I know, that isn't going to happen either.

Straying slightly off topic..... Jonny do you have an update on your melodramatic taking The Independent to the PCC ?


Advis3r

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:43

Rate this:

2 points

RRZ being disingenuous - knowing perfectly well that the PCC turned him down.
However on the brighter side ably assisted by an excellent Law Firm Honest Reporting got the Guardian to retract its outrageous claim that Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel by threatening the PCC with judicial review. http://honestreporting.com/breaking-news-honestreporting-forces-guardian...
I am quite sure said excellent Law Firm would be only too pleased to assist Mr Hoffman in mounting a similar action in this case.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:02

Rate this:

-1 points

Oh goodie! Go for it, Jonny! Jose, Jonny is perfectly adept at being an abject failure all on his own. He does not need any encouragement from you.


Mary in Brighton

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:09

Rate this:

-1 points

Lol. I think with friends like Advis3r, Jonathan doesn't need any enemies.


zaheerayin

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:12

Rate this:

-1 points

Yes, Jonathan looks around for the most broken down nag he can find and puts his house on it.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:18

Rate this:

-1 points

"...I and one other walked out"

Well, Hoffie, it looks as though things have gone downhill fast. Come back the halcyon days of the hordes outside of Hendon Town Hall.


Mary in Brighton

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:30

Rate this:

-1 points

Would it be impertinent of me to ask who the one other is?


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:38

Rate this:

-1 points

It would be highly impertinent. He/she has disguised himself/herself and bought a one way ticket to Cuba.


zaheerayin

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:45

Rate this:

-1 points

Well I suppose when there is an eagerly anticipated speech in the offing, we will always be able to come to the JC for an advance copy.


Mary in Brighton

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:50

Rate this:

-2 points

Or whenever we want to know the going rate for dying on the Israeli/Syrian border. Or about Mrs. Assad's latest business venture.


Goldie G. Tobin

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 09:15

Rate this:

-2 points

Let me get this straight. Jonathan Hoffman disrupts a memorial meeting for murdered Israeli athletes and he's BRAGGING about it?


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 09:40

Rate this:

-2 points

Good point. About sums it up.


happygoldfish

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 10:23

Rate this:

0 points

Goldie G. Tobin: Jonathan Hoffman disrupts a memorial meeting for murdered Israeli athletes and he's BRAGGING about it?

what are you talking about? whoever told you that was lying …

jonathan did not disrupt the meeting!


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 11:52

Rate this:

-2 points

BBC mentions our shouts of 'Shame!' (on the IOC) during Ankie Spitzer's powerful and moving speech and has part of her speech.

"Reportedly" ....... because together with one other, I walked out.....

I don't know how things are down your way but where I grew up shouting out during a speech at a memorial ceremony and turning ones back on a speaker and pointedly walking out would be regarded as exceedingly rude and disruptive. Not to mention disrespectful to the memory of those for whom the meeting was being held.

Maybe standards are higher in East Yorkshire than they are down your way.


Goldie G. Tobin

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 12:21

Rate this:

-2 points

Disgraceful conduct.


happygoldfish

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 14:21

Rate this:

2 points

Real Real Zionist: … shouts of 'Shame!' (on the IOC) during Ankie Spitzer's powerful and moving speech … walked out.…

you know perfectly well that neither of those acts are disruptive (let alone "exceedingly" so)

the shouts of 'Shame' were in support of the bereaved speaker (and were perceived as such)

moreover, they seem to have been in echo of ankie spitzer's remark "Shame on you, IOC …", exactly like saying "Amen" … if a speaker says "shame", (s)he is usually inviting the audience to repeat the word
and the walking out, silently, does not seem to have worried rogge at all, and is the minimum one can do to protest at an inappropriate speech or presence
and certainly a lot less than "Widows of murdered Israeli athletes excoriate IOC president Jacques Rogge" …

if you think jonathan was rude and disruptive and disgraceful, then what do you think of the widows?

this is yet another in a series of lies, that jonathan disrupts meetings, designed to get him banned from future meetings

why does thejc.com allow such libellous cyber-bullying?


Ben F

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 14:29

Rate this:

-1 points

Cyber-bullying of the cyber-bully par excellence? Give me a break.


Mary in Brighton

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 14:59

Rate this:

-2 points

What a slippery disingenuous attempt at justification. Why is it always Jonathan who behaves in such a boorish attention seeking way? If we had been told in advance that out of the great number of people who were there, 2 were going to behave in such a way, and we were asked to guess the name of one of them, would we not all have guessed right?

We are told that Ankie Spitzer was inviting those present to echo her. How many did so? The evidence on the video is that there was applause from the main body. We do not hear any shouting, yet we are told that there was. So who WAS shouting? The 2 that subsequently turned their backs on a speaker and walked out? Did any of the sane responsible leadership walk out? I would guess not.


Goldie G. Tobin

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 15:22

Rate this:

-2 points

...moreover, they seem to have been in echo of ankie spitzer's remark "Shame on you, IOC …"

What nonsense. It was a memorial ceremony, not a Nuremburg rally. Only a very tiny minority seems not to have known the difference.


happygoldfish

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 15:38

Rate this:

2 points

Mary in Brighton: What a slippery disingenuous attempt at justification.

i've not attempted to justify what he did (i probably wouldn't have walked out if i'd been there)

i've simply pointed out that to describe it as disruptive is lying

Goldie G. Tobin: It was a memorial ceremony, not a Nuremburg rally. Only a very tiny minority seems not to have known the difference.

oh great! a comparison with the Nazis!

Real Real Zionist

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 16:38

Rate this:

-2 points

"this is yet another in a series of lies, that jonathan disrupts meetings, designed to get him banned from future meetings"

I don't know anyone that gives a flying whatsit which meeting Hoff gets banned from and which meeting he doesn't get banned from.

I personally, couldn't care less whether head-to-heads between the London parochial sand pit cult squabblers take place at all and if they do, what the outcomes are.

However, you might remind us who it was that got thrown out of the Royal Albert Hall for disruption.

You might also remind us who said this....

"So what kind of UJS do I want? I want a UJS that is proud, not cowed. I want to see Jewish students going in to hostile meetings and making their presence felt, heckling if necessary..."

You might also remind us who said this....

"We could argue about the best way to advocate for Israel at these meetings. Should you stay silent and hope to be called on in the Q+A, or should you heckle and interrupt....(My strong preference is to heckle and interrupt...."

Whether Hoff's behaviour on Monday was disruptive is a question of fact. If those present didn't feel that it had been disruptive, then obviously it wasn't. But what we can say for sure is, it was meant to be disruptive. Otherwise, what was the point? I am afraid that Hoff's form is such that it is impossible to give him the benefit of any doubt.


happygoldfish

Fri, 08/10/2012 - 08:14

Rate this:

2 points

Real Real Zionist: However, you might remind us who it was that got thrown out of the Royal Albert Hall for disruption.

the royal albert hall operates a racist rule that one may wave a german flag in support of the berlin philharmonic, an austrian flag in support of the vienna philharmonic, but not an israeli flag in support of the israel philharmonic

as you well know, jonathan was asked to leave for waving an israeli flag, not for disruption

ok, now let's return to that lie about jonathan disrupting the memorial meeting: even you concede that there's no evidence whatever to support that lie …

Real Real Zionist: Whether Hoff's behaviour on Monday was disruptive is a question of fact. If those present didn't feel that it had been disruptive, then obviously it wasn't.

… yet somehow you use the fact that it obviously wasn't disruptive to prove that it was intended to be!

Real Real Zionist: But what we can say for sure is, it was meant to be disruptive. Otherwise, what was the point?

the point was to protest against rogge's behaviour in a non-disruptive way …

and, as you concede, it succeeded!

Real Real Zionist: I am afraid that Hoff's form is such that it is impossible to give him the benefit of any doubt.

that's not only prejudiced, on the facts it's ludicrous

the only "form" you've been able to produce is
i] waving a israeli flag in support of an israeli orchestra (not disruptive), and
i] his behaviour towards rogge … which you concede was not disruptive

Real Real Zionist: You might also remind us who said this....
"We could argue about the best way to advocate for Israel at these meetings. Should you stay silent and hope to be called on in the Q+A, or should you heckle and interrupt....(My strong preference is to heckle and interrupt...."

yes, wellll, you've tried this before (implying that jonathan was encouraging students to be disruptive), and failed : i'll just reproduce the reply i gave then …

happygoldfish: for example, the page linked to above accuses jonathan of calling on pro-israelis to "disrupt meetings"

their own quotation (much lower down, if you bother to read that far) shows that jonathan (presumably realising that the ujs speaker and audience were slightly hostile) was very conciliatory, only calling on them to hand out fliers outside and before meetings, and to "make themselves available when the meetings are over, to talk"

he specifically did not call on them to heckle or disrupt (he did not use the word "disrupt" at all ), or even to go inside such meetings

(see http://cifwatch.com/2011/11/23/how-to-most-effectively-advocate-for-isra... for another copy of the same text)

(heckling is of course completely normal at meetings, and is often the only recourse, "in the knowledge that only people hostile to Israel will be called upon to ask a question"

heckling should not be disruptive, jonathan's isn't, and i'm sure jonathan would discourage disruptive heckling, on both moral and practical grounds)

jonathan's conciliatory approach was ignored by the ujs speaker

the website falsely and carefully presents jonathan as an advocate of disruption, and presents many other false allegations against jontathan, with the intention that its supporters will link to it from, and quote from it on, respectable websites

to summarise: goldie told a lie about jonathan disrupting a memorial meeting, you concede that it was a lie, and yet you try to throw up a smoke-screen around it by making other unsupportable allegations

Real Real Zionist

Fri, 08/10/2012 - 09:27

Rate this:

-1 points

Well so far as the RAH is concerned, as a concession, I will substitute hooliganism for disruption, on the grounds that the RAH authorities seem to have acted swiftly and prevented any actual disruption.Hooliganism and attempted disruption.

The RAH had make it clear that it would not allow flags on that evening.Ever the narcissist Hoffie decided that that applied to everyone but him.It was a full size flag so he must have smuggled it into the Hall.( do try to remember we are talking about a grown man here, although that is difficult ).

The motives seem to be the usual ones of attention seeking and self promoting. The immediate object seems to have been to provoke others in the hall, probably on the " other side " in the London parochial sand pit cults squabble.

When this was last presented to you you lied and said it didn't happen, that it was a PSC/BDS invention.Only when presented with it in Hoffie's own words did you abandon the lie.

"So what kind of UJS do I want? I want a UJS that is proud, not cowed. I want to see Jewish students going in to hostile meetings and making their presence felt, heckling if necessary..."

"We could argue about the best way to advocate for Israel at these meetings. Should you stay silent and hope to be called on in the Q+A, or should you heckle and interrupt....(My strong preference is to heckle and interrupt...."

If you don't think that is advocating the disruption of meetings then I can only conclude that you have quit speaking English and have adopted a private language. That being the case there is little point in trying to talk with you. I don't have the time to learn another language and if I did I would probably go for Mandarin.


happygoldfish

Fri, 08/10/2012 - 10:05

Rate this:

1 point

Real Real Zionist: When this was last presented to you you lied and said it didn't happen, that it was a PSC/BDS invention.Only when presented with it in Hoffie's own words did you abandon the lie.

actually, i didn't lie, i pointed out that the allegation (as usual ) was not supported by any link or reference (and i had found nothing on a google search, except …), and appeared to be a mistake for jonathan rosenhead

happygoldfish: this allegation … regularly repeated on the bds website … is about the ipo performance on 1/9/2011, and appears to be deliberately based on the ejection of professor jonathan rosenhead of the lse (see eg abu dhabi's "the national" of 3/9/11, http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/free-palestine-protest-... )

untruths such as this are repeated so often that they become believable

that was correct … on the evidence available, it did appear to be about the wrong jonathan

obviously, when, for the first time, you provided a link, i immediately accepted that on that occasion the appearance was deceptive and you had actually told the truth

Real Real Zionist: If you don't think that is advocating the disruption of meetings …

i repeat: heckling is of course completely normal at meetings, and is often the only recourse, "in the knowledge that only people hostile to Israel will be called upon to ask a question"

heckling should not be disruptive, jonathan's isn't, and i'm sure jonathan would discourage disruptive heckling, on both moral and practical grounds

there are no recorded instances of jonathan's heckling or interrupting being disruptive, on the contrary he seems to have been careful not to be disruptive


Mary in Brighton

Fri, 08/10/2012 - 10:12

Rate this:

-1 points

Amazing


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 08/10/2012 - 10:31

Rate this:

-1 points

koff

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.