JC Leads With Crude JNF Smear Story


By Jonathan Hoffman
October 13, 2012
Share

The page 1 lead in the JC this week was a squalid smear story about the JNF which would not even have passed muster for the Morning Star.

It was a story by Simon Rocker about the JNF’s newly published accounts, headed “JNF loses half its revenue”. A completely misleading headline - for one, because the ‘income’ definition referred to excluded KKL voucher income of £7.5 million.

Then in the article we got:

The dramatic fall in its revenues has been blamed on a perceived politicisation of the charity by Mr Hayek

Precisely WHO is 'blaming Mr Hayek', we are not told. Or how many people. Or the basis for the statement. Did Simon Rocker conduct an opinion poll? Or (more likely) is the statement simply a smear of the crudest kind...

Then we get:

A senior communal figure said: ‘This collapse in philanthropic support is the clearest possible signal that the community no longer sees the JNF, under its current leadership, as a credible receptacle for its charitable support for Israel. On the basis of these accounts it is questionable whether the JNF can any longer be described as a major communal organisation. Its long-term sustainability looks uncertain’

So who is this anonymous "senior communal official" pronouncing on what "the community" thinks and why is he scared of commenting on an attributable basis? Is he by any chance the same person who is badmouthing Sam Hayek to Simon Rocker - who then of course reported it as if it is accepted wisdom? And what about the people in Israel whom the JNF is helping - does this "senior communal official" give one jot about them?

Could the "senior communal figure's" insistence on anonymity be because his statement is (a) a lie, (b) mendacious (c) economical with the truth and (d) a squalid smear?

Of course it couldn't possibly be pure spite because the JNF dared to leave the JLC ... how could you possibly imagine that the unfavourable comparison to the UJIA in the article might be a clue as to its provenance?

COMMENTS

Real Real Zionist

Mon, 10/15/2012 - 09:18

Rate this:

1 point

And Jonny knows a crude smear when he sees one.


joemillis1959

Mon, 10/15/2012 - 09:27

Rate this:

0 points

The words feed, bites and hand come to mind


J.Clifford

Mon, 10/15/2012 - 11:18

Rate this:

-1 points

The rot had set in to JNF long before Hayek was ever appointed. The court case started by his predecessor was a travesty and did more to deter donors than anything else. Hayek resigned from the JLC as a matter of principle and he should be respected for that decision. As an Israeli and true Zionist he really had no alternative following the pronouncements made by Mick Davis.

For Joe Millis to insinuate that Jonathan is paid for his opinion just illustrates the depth of Millis's spite having failed to get him dismissed from his job. This is yet another smear that the would-be PR man for UJIA makes - another clue as to its provenance from a man who is neither an Israeli or a true Zionist.


zaheerayin

Mon, 10/15/2012 - 12:45

Rate this:

1 point

I see Clifford has her Zionista tunnel vision glasses on again. Millis never said nor insinuated Jonathan was getting paid for his opinion. Further, who would pay for the opinion of the leader of the ZF lunatic fringe anyway?

No, it's quite obvious to those who still possess their faculties that he was referring to Jonathan's position as an invited JC blogger. Give up, Clifford. You're too rabid to adequately analyze the written word.


zaheerayin

Mon, 10/15/2012 - 12:51

Rate this:

1 point

BTW When did Jonathan do his IDF service?


joemillis1959

Mon, 10/15/2012 - 13:19

Rate this:

2 points

Janet
An English lesson.
1. It's neither…nor
2. Bite the hands that feeds implies - no, says - that the person in question gets this space to blog by the JC, but has attacked the JC.

Now, to the JNF. Hayek took over years ago. His influence has been for years, after the silly court case. The accounts refer to this year, not to when Hayek took over.
Mr Hoffman no longer blogs or responds during office hours. That is all.
And if you are what passes for a Zionist nowadays, boy is the Jewish national liberation movement in trouble.


Advis3r

Mon, 10/15/2012 - 13:21

Rate this:

0 points

I see Z if you are invited to blog that precludes you from criticizing the invitor?

Anyway i suggest you look at the meaning of the saying to which Millis was alluding

bite the hand that feeds you
to severely criticize the person or organization that helps you or pays you as in It is unwise to bite the hand that feeds you, but TV journalists need to tell the truth about the news business.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/bite+the+hand+that+feeds

So Ms Clifford was perfectly correct in her assessment. The only lunatic fringe being the seven dwarfs and the nasty wicked witch who unfortunately frequent this website continually spewing their Jew hatred and spite.


joemillis1959

Mon, 10/15/2012 - 13:32

Rate this:

1 point

Err…
to severely criticize the person or organization that helps you
Anyhoo, that's my lunch break over.


zaheerayin

Mon, 10/15/2012 - 13:50

Rate this:

1 point

Don't you mean that PAYS you Joe? Regardless of what the rest of the world can see, they NEED to make their point and that is, you are insinuating Jonathan gets PAID by the JC (even though we all know he's not employed by the JC and that he blogs from....well, we won't go there.


J.Clifford

Mon, 10/15/2012 - 16:33

Rate this:

-1 points

Porkies again Joe! Samuel Hayek was appointed to clear up the mess left after the "silly" court case. So silly in fact it cost millions of pounds and donations dried up. Bit like the effect on UJIA when Mick came out with all that narishkeit.

And if you are what passes for a Zionist anyday, boy is Israel in trouble.

Zaheerayin from my twilight home possum I still have the 'faculties' to recognise a spiteful troll with nothing to contribute to the subject under discussion.


joemillis1959

Mon, 10/15/2012 - 16:44

Rate this:

1 point

Well, apparently, he hasn't "cleared up the mess". By all accounts, it's got worse. On his watch. So being a right-wing ideologue hasn't exactly helped, has it? UJIA, on the other hand, has seen its donations hold up, even in this economic climate - and the width and breadth of the projects it supports in Israel and the UK (all the Jewish youth movements, all Jsocs, Israel Tours and Experience, as well as Birthright) put the JNF to shame.
The Mick Davis effect hasn't harmed UJIA, much as you would wish it so. And let's face it, he was only echoing what Israeli leaders were saying - and the reason why Binyamin Netanyahu wants to leave most of the occupied territories. Are they anti-Zionists, too?


Real Real Zionist

Mon, 10/15/2012 - 17:20

Rate this:

0 points

" Binyamin Netanyahu wants to leave most of the occupied territories."

koff

" Jerusalem will never be shared or divided"

" Israel will never cede the Jordan Valley ( leaving aside for the moment that it isn't Israel's to " cede " )

Janet, Zaheer is on the right track. You don't know what day it is.

When did donations to the UJIA dry up up Janet ? It seems to be doing pretty good under Mick Davis's chairmanship


Advis3r

Tue, 10/16/2012 - 11:13

Rate this:

0 points

" Israel will never cede the Jordan Valley ( leaving aside for the moment that it isn't Israel's to " cede " )

Thankfully one does not have to rely on the fake Zionist:
From the San Remo Resolution - April 25, 1920

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

So who does the Jordan valley belong to? - certainly not any entity which now calls itself "Palestinian" since it had not been invented in 1920. It obviously belongs to the Jewish people as it has since time immemorial.


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 10/16/2012 - 12:22

Rate this:

1 point

The State of Israel is not " the Jewish people. " The State of Israel has internationally recognised frontiers. Civilised states are, nowadays, expected to stay within such frontiers.

" The Jewish people " are not the kind of logical sort that is capable of owning anything. " The Jewish people " are not a legal entity.


Advis3r

Tue, 10/16/2012 - 13:34

Rate this:

0 points

I do not recall saying the State of Israel was the Jewish people. Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people in the same way that for example Poland is the nation state of the Polish people. And as in

in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

. The fake Zionist denies the legal entity known as the Jewish people - as they say if walks like one and quacks like one ...
There are no legal borders to the State of Israel despite what the fake Zionist will have you believe. There are the 1949 armistice lines which operated pre-1967 as Israel's recognised de facto but not de jure borders with her neighbours.
In any event that was superseded by resolution 242 which recognised, as explained by the framers of the resolution, that the 1949 armistice lines were indefensible since basically they were drawn when hostilities ceased after the War of Independence and that there had to be territorial amendments to create a permanant and legal border.
The resolution did not mention Palestine or the Palestinians because the Jordanians were at the time the illegal occupiers and had no sovereignty over such territory. The PLO had explicitly excluded, in their founding covenant, any land occupied by the Jordanians as being part of “Palestine”. Which if proof were needed shows how tenuous their present claims are.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS