Lush: "They try to say we're anti-Semites, but we say No No No"


By richmillett
August 4, 2011
Share

Here we go again. Yet another claim that “We aren’t anti-Semitic” by someone attacking Israel in the most crudest terms.

Lush’s website is still promoting a song that claims that there are “more than six million (Palestinian) refugees”, that Palestinians were forced from their homes and history, that Gaza is a prison camp, that the wall that keeps Israelis safe from suicide bombers is an “apartheid wall”, and that blames only Israel for violence and accuses it of racial segregation.

They have just released another statement, part of which reads:

“Standing for the human rights of one does not undermine calls for the human rights of others. Likewise, criticising Israeli government policies is not akin to being anti-Semitic or anti the Israeli state. We do not tolerate racism or any other form of discrimination.“

So Lush might not like it that Iranian gays are hanged for wishing to express their sexuality, or that women are not allowed to drive or work in Saudi Arabia or that Syrian civilians are being massacred en masse, it’s just that singling out the Jewish state is more important.

Lush even has shops in Saudi Arabia, so they are actually contributing to a government with a totally deplorable human rights record!

The statement continues:

“We believe that the occupation exacerbates violence in the region and therefore bringing it to an end is a vital step in the peace process.”

So it’s all about “the occupation”, stupid.

It has nothing at all to do with Hamas’ desire to kill Jews as stated in their Charter (Article 7), or that Hamas believes Israel is an “Islamic waqf” (Article 11), or that Hamas has no plans for any “peaceful solutions and international conferences” (Article 13), or that every Muslim’s duty is one of Jihad to fight the “Jews’ usurpation of Palestine” (Article 15).

The Charter also claims that Jews proclaimed “Mohammad is dead” and that “Israel, Judaism, Jews, challenge Islam and the Muslim people”.

Despite all this Lush claim they are just criticising “the occupation” and Israel’s alleged breaches of international law.

And when the leader of the EDL, Tommy Robinson, said last week that what happened recently in Norway could happen in the UK, he was accused of making threats and condoning violence.

Well, by stating “the occupation exacerbates violence” hasn’t Lush now done a similar thing?

Robinson argues that increased Muslim immigration will bring more violence to our streets from those opposed to it, but Lush are allowed to get away with “understanding” why the Palestinians are so violent against Israelis.

I have tried speaking to Lush for the last week and a half, but they refuse to return calls.

In exhasperation I called Norman Black, the head of marketing at Brent Cross, who said that there was nothing Brent Cross could do about Lush’s campaign. He said it was a Lush issue, not a Brent Cross issue.

He also said that Brent Cross would not allow any sort of peaceful protest against Lush as “this would mean introducing politics into Brent Cross”, nevermind that Lush introduced the politics. This also explains Lush’s “bold” statement, reported in the Jewish Chronicle, that “we would not ask Brent Cross to move people on if they came to protest”.

They know that Brent Cross security will do it for them!

When I spoke to Lush last week I suggested they could be more objective and instead promote the the Parents Circle – Families Forum, an organisation where bereaved Israeli and Palestinian relatives meet and also speak in schools and universities about their tragic experiences due to the conflict. These are people who really have suffered. But Lush refuses to take anything on board, except the anti-Israel propaganda they are constantly fed by War on Want.

Another of Lush’s “ethical campaigns” was to help free Binyam Mohamed from Guantanamo Bay. But what about Gilad Schalit, kidnapped by Hamas nearly five years ago and kept in solitary confinement in Gaza with no access to doctors or his family?

Singling out the Jewish state only for criticism while staying silent about Muslim countries executing gays and slaughtering their own people, as in Syria, is not, according to Lush, anti-Semitic.

Sticking up for Binyam Mohamed, while staying silent about Gilad Schalit is ok. They will get around to Gilad eventually, I’m sure.

When I spoke to Norman Black he said he totally understood our position but that he also admired Lush’s single-mindedness of purpose.

More pertinently, he said he was relieved that the section of society that was outraged by Lush’s campaign was not one that was prone to anything more than peaceful protest.

So, there you have it in a nutshell: British Jews are a benign lot, whereas some members of certain other minority groups might not be so forgiving.

Some organisations get this which is why they single out Israel, while allowing other countries to get away with, quite literally, murder. They might also have done the maths. There are approximately 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and only about 14 million Jews. It could be great for business to be so anti-Israel these days.

Lush says there is no anti-Semitism at play, but that should be left up to people to decide for themselves.

http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/lush-we-arent-anti-semiti...

COMMENTS

Joe Millis

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 10:12

Rate this:

-1 points

Where in all of Lush's statements is the assertion that Israel does what it does because it is a Jewish state? If it doesn't say that, then it is certainly being anti-Israel, and given its dealings with the Arab world, hypocritical, but it ain't being anti-Semitic.


amber

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 10:58

Rate this:

0 points

millis, let me explain. The application of double standards is indeed antisemitic. Lush accuses Israel, falsely, of not having a "mixed" workforce. AQs you well know, this is a lie. Yet Lush is happy to operate in Saudi Arabia, a country where it is not only forbiddedn, by law, for a Jew to set foot, but a country where women are denied, again by law, the right to work in a shop. Lush's own shops will operate this gender apartheid.

That, my friend, is a double standard. And you know it - as do they.


amber

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 11:00

Rate this:

0 points

In addition, the exclusive blame that Lush reserves for the Jews, whilst completely whitewashing all Palestinian violence and the endemic racism of Palestinian society speaks for itself.

And all under the name of a grotesque and inverted "ethical position".

You should be condemning it, millis.


JC Webmaster

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 11:18

Rate this:

0 points

This comment by Joe Millis has been moderated


Joe Millis

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 11:23

Rate this:

-1 points

If the words Jew or Jewish do not appear in a derogatory fashion, it ain't anti-semitism. And if the numpty formerly known as several barred entities, had read what I wrote, it might have noticed that I said that given lush's dealings in the Arab world it was anti-Israel and hypocritical. But that don't make it anti-Semitic despite febrile and feeble attempts to tie two concepts.


amber

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 11:48

Rate this:

0 points

Richard, could protests be organized outside Brent Cross? Otherwise, is there another Lush store we could pick?


amber

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 11:56

Rate this:

0 points

Nonsense, millis. Antisemitism is not merely expressed by explicitly making a derogatory comment about Jews. If one implements double standards regarding the behaviour of Jews, it is indeed antisemitism. If one uses classical tropes about Jews, and then merely applies it to Israel, it is antisemitism (for example, the medieval blood libels which are now put at the door of "Zionists" instead of Jews).

I can't believe you haven't thought this through.

And are you claiming that I have posted under other names?


amber

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 11:57

Rate this:

0 points

Richard, the answe is simple. We pick another Lush store.


Joe Millis

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 11:58

Rate this:

-1 points

Thanks, JC moderator, for confirming that the numpty is indeed a reincarnation of several formerly barred enities. Sorry for breaching the privacy issue - but your implicit confirmation is welcomed.


amber

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:07

Rate this:

0 points

JC, millis has claimed I am someone else. I would like him to name who else he thinks I am.

Is that a breach of policy?


Joe Millis

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:10

Rate this:

-1 points

The EUMC working definition says:


Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

No mention of Israel or Zionism but there is an addendum that does mention Israel - but that is not part of the WD and it says specifically that regarding Israel it only could represent anti-Semitism, not definitely does. That was added by those who want to lump everything together in a pathetic attempt to make it seem as if Israel represents all Jews. Hell, it barely represents all its own citizens.


Joe Millis

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:12

Rate this:

-1 points

Of course you are, and the JC has implicitly acknowledged it by moderating my comment referring to your former, barred, entities.


amber

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 13:56

Rate this:

0 points

millis, this is a truly amazing display, even by your standards. Firstly, you are wrong about the EUMC's definition. The EUMC ALSO states that singling out Israel is indeed antisemitic. It is astonishing that someone can be so convinced they are right, when they emphatically are not.

Secondly, don't be a coward. Name who you think I am.

Go on...please.


amber

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 13:57

Rate this:

0 points

JC, I have been accused of being someone else by millis.


richmillett

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 13:58

Rate this:

0 points

Joe, you also think i post under "robertsnodgrass" because i support Leeds. Or were u joking?

Yes, Amber. This is a good idea. I think that if Lush practices gender apartheid in Saudi then people should be told about this at all their shops (albeit there are 200 of them). How "ethical" can Lush really be if it really practices gender apartheid?

I'm glad the JC picked the Saudi point up.

People go mad in this country when shops like Primark get accused of abusing human rights, and surely Lush must now come into the same category.


amber

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 14:01

Rate this:

0 points

Precisely Richard. Lush is itself implementing gender apartheid in its stores in Saudi, as it is required to do so by Saudi law.

We need to get word out - and focus on a particular Lush store, with the intentionj of either closing it down, or getting Lush to change its hypocrisy - whichever comes first.


Joe Millis

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 15:43

Rate this:

-1 points

Richard, the person who posts under Snoddy is going to have a problem when he moves to Weeeegaan. But to the point Where's the mention of Jews or Jewish? And in what way does what Lush say conflict with the WD?


amber

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 15:52

Rate this:

0 points

millis, is it reaaly your contention that antisemitism can only manifest itself when someone uses the word "Jew" or "Jewish" and associates it with something negative? It has no other way of manifesting itself?

That's NOT what the EUMC definition states.


amber

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 15:52

Rate this:

0 points

millis, didn't you used to be telegramsam?


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 16:17

Rate this:

-1 points

The EU working " definition " is among the most ludicrous documents in the whole of history


amber

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 16:20

Rate this:

0 points

And there we have it, Lorely Burt. You garner support from someone who doesn't believe in the EUMC working definition of antisemitism. The only body I know of which shares this view is the UCU, a Union which has descended into the pit of antisemitic discourse, the redefines antisemitism in its Stalinist mindset so that no cognitive dissonance is achieved. After all, respectable leftists could never be racist, could they?


Kate83

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 17:17

Rate this:

1 point

Whether or not Lush's stance is anti semitic or not (I would say that it is) it is plainly wrong. How can they decide not to open stores in Israel on the grounds cited in the JC article and above but still quite happily operate stores in Saudi Arabia? If this was truly about ethics and/or human rights they would not be operating in many countries across the world. This article made me very cross when I read it. I have always been a fan of Lush both for it's products and ethical stance, however I can only assume that their politics come down more to economics. They clearly think it would be less damaging to their bottom line to take this attitude to Israel. Maybe they even suppose that if they did open a store in Israel they would lose money due to the creeping success of the campaign to deligitimise Israel. Anyway, I will no longer be purchasing any Lush products.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

RICHMILLETT ON TWITTER

    LATEST COMMENTS