"Excellent meetings" between far-right Greek minister and American Jewish Committee

I find this kind of thing both disappointing and disturbing.  See this report from the website of the Greek broadsheet, I Kathimerini:

Defense Minister and junior coalition partner leader Panos Kammenos declared Thursday that Greece’s ties with Israel remain strong following talks with a visiting delegation from the American Jewish Committee.

When Syriza came to power there was open panic among zionists about how bad they might be for Israel.  Here's the Jerusalem Post under the headline, The victory of Syriza in Greece is bad news for Israel.:

The party has constantly identified itself with the Palestinian cause and its program includes a demand for abolition of Greece’s military cooperation with Israel and the support for the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

Oh no, support for the so-called two state solution!    More astute Israel advocates made an issue of the explicit antisemitism of the leader of Syriza's junior coalition partner, Panos Kammenos, with Brendan O'Neill at Jewish News wringing his hands and asking, Why’s the left silent on Greek coalition with anti-Semitic party?

Well now everything in the garden is rosy because the antisemitic party that O'Neill was so concerned about is on Israel's side. No doubt the antisemitism will be forgiven and conveniently forgotten.  I Kathimerini again:

In a statement issued after the talks with Kammenos and other Greek government officials Thursday, the AJC said the main topics discussed included “efforts to achieve progress in Greece’s dramatic economic situation” and “attempts to combat anti-Semitism, including the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn political movement.”

The statement referred to “excellent meetings” with Greek officials who expressed an understanding “of the importance of the strategic partnership between Greece and Israel.”

Now naturally I'm disappointed that the Syriza government in Greece is to continue business as usual with the illegitimate entity, Israel, but the disturbing thing is that the announcement was made to an American Israel lobby group, the American Jewish Committee.  Why are they conducting foreign policy business between Greece and Israel?

Wiesenthal Centre hunts for the dodgy definition

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre (SWC) has just discovered that the bogus definition of antisemitism produced by its kindred spirits at the American Jewish Committee has gone missing from the European Union's Fundamental Rights Agency's website.

In a letter to European Union Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Catherine Ashton of Upholland (pictured), the Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s Director for International Relations, Dr. Shimon Samuels, expressed shock, “To read on ‘Electronic Intifada’ website that the European Union’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) – now renamed the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) – 2004 ‘Working Definition of Anti-Semitism’ has been removed from the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) website.”

Zionists are right to be concerned about the ditching of their misdefinition of antisemitism because it is clearly aimed at insulating the State of Israel from criticism, in particular anti-zionist criticism.  Here's a reminder of its examples of how antisemitism manifests itself with regard to The State of Israel after taking "overall context" into account:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, for example by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (for example claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

The EUMC Definition goes on to state that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

Now, I don't know when the bogus definition was removed from the FRA's website but I discovered by way of a complaint I made to the BBC Trust which had misrepresented the working definition as being the EU's.  The BBC Trust wrote to me saying that they had amended a decision they had published so as to not be saying that the working definition was the EU's but that a complainant had said that it was.  The SWC has morphed the amendment into a reversal of the decision:

The letter noted, “The BBC Trust, in addressing a complaint, had upheld the definition, in characterizing as anti-Semitic, a broadcaster’s critique of comments on Israel made by a Member of the UK Parliament. The Trust has now, apparently, reversed its ruling following the Definition’s removal

Now that is plain wrong.  The complaint the BBC Trust dealt with was upheld.  The report was simply amended, that's all.

They do manage to get a quote from the BBC Trust's letter to me right:

A press officer at the FRA has explained that this was a discussion paper and was never adopted by the EU as a working definition, although it has been on the FRA website until recently when it was removed during a clear-out of non-official documents. The link to the FRA site provided by the complainant in his appeal no longer works.

Then it starts getting a bit weird:

 Samuels argued that:

—  the EUMC carried the name 'European Union' in its title and all its published decisions are therefore official documents of the EU
— the FRA, as the successor to the EUMC, carries responsibility for the documents of its predecessor as part of its DNA”

The bogus definition of antisemitism was said by the press officer to be a discussion paper.  The SWC even reports this correctly.  So how did it morph in the same report from a "discussion paper" to a "decision"?

And weirder still:

The Centre therefore called on EU Baroness Ashton to:
— launch an investigation into the disappearance of the Working Definition and the coincidental change in the FRA website address
— return this important document to the current FRA website
— ensure that the appropriate EU bodies endorse the Working Definition in its entirety

Now it might well be of interest to know who was responsible for the removal of the dodgy definition but surely it would be of more interest to know how and why it got onto the website in the first place since it was described as a "discussion document" but with no facility for discussion nor report of any discussions.

But then we see a clue as to its provenance:

Samuels recalled the “… hard work in negotiating the document and the delay in its publication. Nevertheless, its acceptance and dissemination represented an achievement for the EU in the struggle against anti-Semitism. Indeed, its removal is even more disconcerting just as the FRA is about to issue a further study of the worrying rise in anti-Jewish attacks across Europe.”

So who conducted these negotiations?  What were their negotiating positions? I was going to link to a web page that showed clearly the genealogy of the bogus definition, in particular the insertion of the "overall context" proviso which may well have been the result of negotiations to make sure the bogus definition wasn't too obviously aimed at protecting Israel but access is now "forbidden".  No surprise there...

I first saw the SWC complaint on Tony Greenstein's blog.

Authority upholds complaint against AJC

I posted some time ago about how the so-called American Jewish Committee was inciting war against Iran by way of full page ads in newspapers around the world. Well according to the Guardian the Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a complaint from the Iranian embassy against the advert. Here's the article:

The advertising watchdog has upheld a complaint from the Iranian embassy about a campaign by the American Jewish Committee that showed the projected range of possible missile attacks on neighbouring countries.

The US pressure group's campaign, which ran in the Financial Times, prompted 62 complaints from members of the public as well as the Iranian embassy.

The advert, which asked the question, "Can anyone within range of Iran's missiles feel safe?", featured a political map of Eurasia and Africa, centred on Iran, which was in the middle of two concentric circles that indicated the current and projected range of Iran's missile capability.

Below the map text stated: "Suppose Iran one day gives nuclear devices to terrorists. Could anyone anywhere feel safe?"

The complainants said the ad was "scaremongering" and appealed to people's fears of terrorist attacks; that it was "irresponsible" and likely to incite violence and hatred against Muslims and Iranians in particular; and was misleading because it implied that Iran would use nuclear weapons to launch attacks on any countries in the range of the circles.

The AJC did not respond to the Advertising Standards Authority's inquiries.

The FT said the ad was clearly labelled and represented the views of a well-known advocacy group, and pointed out that they had taken legal advice before publishing the ad.

The edition of the FT in which the ad appeared had a prominent article about Iran's nuclear programme.

And the newspaper pointed out that the text of the ad posed a question, not a statement of fact. It also defended the content as acceptable because of the "calibre" of the FT's readership.

The ASA dismissed all the complaints except those relating to the claims on the estimated and projected missile ranges.

The AJC, which is a New York-based pressure group whose aim is "combating anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry", was told not to repeat the claims.

In other words, the AJC was exaggerating about the existence, range and efficacy of Iranian weapons. Now where has that happened before?

Thanks to Lordb.