Fake antisemitism claim, shock!

 Oh look, yet another false claim of antisemitism. I see Lee Harpin is now writing for the Jewish News maybe as a result of some merger of it and the Jewish Chronicle. Anyway, Lee Harpin is reporting on the fakery which is unusual because reports on fakery in Jewish media are more often about Harpin than by him. But this involves a false allegation that a nurse made a cutthroat gesture at a Jewish patient following the patient's refusal to be treated by a nurse wearing a badge indicating support for the Palestinian cause.

The Harpin report headed, Royal Free staff member’s ‘cut-throat gesture’ claim found to be fictitious, was the first I heard of the case. Let's see some of that report: 

The director of communications at the north London NHS hospital confirmed on Wednesday that following a “thorough” probe into last week’s allegation the claim was found to be “fictitious and has subsequently been withdrawn.

It had been alleged that a patient attended the hospital for a blood test last month when she allegedly noticed the health professional wearing a Palestine flag on their jacket and a badge which said: ‘Stop killing our children.'

So I did a bit of googling and found among the original reports of the alleged incident, the Campaign Against Antisemitism was claiming to be "in contact with a witness and officials from the hospital". But in the Jewish News it said that "the claim was found to be 'fictitious'." So who was CAA's witness?

Zionists admit to redefining antisemitism to suit themselves

Look at this in the Jewish News, which claims to be Britain's biggest Jewish Newspaper:

The Board of Deputies has said anti-Israel sentiment should be classed as anti-Semitism and called for a new European Union definition of Jew hatred to reflect it.

So opposition to an essentially racist state should now be considered antisemitic.  And yet zionists always denied this with regard to the discredited and ditched EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism.

But what's this further down the article:

The current Working Definition of Anti-Semitism was created by the EU’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) to guide law enforcement agencies, but has no legal basis.

 I've posted a comment pointing out their error:

The so-called EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism was not created by the EUMC but foisted on it by the American Jewish Committee. It was hosted on the EUMC website without comment for some time before being removed as part of a "clear out of "non-official" documents. The BBC made this clear to me in an email back in 2013. Here's a fuller quote: 

the so-called “working definition of anti-semitism” referred to in the finding and cited by the complainant was published on the website of the EU Monitoring Committee for Racism and Xenophobia in 2005. This body was replaced by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (the FRA) in 2007. 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.

Of course you should run a correction.

Let's see if they run a correction.  I'm guessing they won't because zionists seem to set great store on the idea that the bogus document came from the EU itself.  Zionist university professor, Robert Fine made the false claim in his own European Sociological Association journal and another zionist academic, Ben Gidley (Bob from Brockley blog) knowingly made the same false claim in a report to the ludicrous bunch of chancers known as the All-Party Parliamentary Committee (or was it sub-committee) on "Antisemitism".

Anyway, at least the zios are now admitting to wanting to change the definition of what was anti-Jewish racism to protect Israel and its official racist ideology of Zionism and their supporters.

UPDATE: I checked at 19:20 to see if Jewish News had corrected their error and unfortunately my comment has disappeared.  I've reposted it. I thought they weren't supposed to work on the sabbath but maybe they deleted the comment before sundown.

Was UK Parliament Palestine vote justified or will the moon fall out of the sky?

I just found this poll on the Jewish News site:

Is the vote on recognition of a Palestinian State justified, or rewarding terrorism?

Yes - It's about time
No - It justifies terrorism

 Now look at the results so far:

Is the vote on recognition of a Palestinian State justified, or rewarding terrorism?

No - It justifies terrorism  58.55%   

 

Yes - It's about time  41.45%   

I've been quite indifferent to the whole thing but the various Zionist responses I've seen have made it worthwhile.

The Jewish Chronicle is also worth a look at.

Racism at Jewish News Contradicts "Editor's Opinion"

I just picked up a copy of Jewish News at the local beigel bakery.   I saw read an article about how a Romanian guy had admitted to murdering an Israeli woman in London.  I looked for the article on line and here it is:

Romanian admits murdering Israeli woman in her London home

A Romanian who murdered a popular Israeli woman in her home is facing life behind bars.

I don't know the relevance of the fact that the perpetrator is Romanian.  It seems like too much information.  It seems racist, particularly in the current climate.

I went to leave a comment and noticed below the comment box a cluster of other Jewish News articles including this:

OPINION: Arabs need to grow up and look after their own refugees

I left the comment asking what the relevance of a murderer's nationality was and of course I was implicitly criticising the obvious racism in providing such irrelevant information.  But when I noticed the second article I realised that racism at the Jewish News appears to be so casual they might not even understand what I was saying.

And yet they do appear to recognise racism in some instances though they appear to be reluctant to call it what it is.  In the same cluster of headlines below the first article there was another, an "editor's opinion" explaining "why we must champion multiculturism".   Its the editor (apparently) criticising the racism of a Jewish UKIP member, Jeremy Zeid, who said that whites from Ilford in Essex were victims of "ethnic cleansing". Here's a taste of the editor's opinion:

does Mr Zeid represent today’s clash of civilisations? Has he and his party, which has an unfortunate habit of strafing whole races and religions with its stray sound-bites, barged its way to the front in this cultural showdown? 

If so, are we now being led by these yesteryear generals asking “why the bloody hell should they apologise”?
 
If so, where are we being led? And if we don’t speak out against their hate-filled bile, are we collectively only as good as them?

I'm more than happy for this editor chap, I think his name's Richard Ferrer, to condemn UKIP and its racism but if he is that concerned he might want to put his own house in order.