War heroes

Above, the hero of the massacre of Gaza shake hands with the hero of the killing of protesters in Tahrir square.

Iconic pig

Joni Spigler collects Sgt. Pepper's icons.

Pig herding for beginners

After police officer Lieutenant John Pike (Phone number +1.530.752.3989, email japikeiii@ucdavis.edu, please let him hear from you) attacks sitting, peaceful students with pepper spray, the students of UC Davis, in a display of effective popular discipline, herded the pigs and led them out peacefully.

American Leftist has great coverage of the daily developments in the West Coast.

The Nation published Norm Stamper, chief of the Seattle Police Department during the WTO protests in 1999. Stamper describes the police decision that started the Seattle events as a mistake, and laments the growing militarization of US police forces around the US. His most important paragraph however is one about the link between the brutality of the police and the hierarchical organization itself.

The paramilitary bureaucracy and the culture it engenders—a black-and-white world in which police unions serve above all to protect the brotherhood—is worse today than it was in the 1990s. Such agencies inevitably view protesters as the enemy. And young people, poor people and people of color will forever experience the institution as an abusive, militaristic force—not just during demonstrations but every day, in neighborhoods across the country.

Much of the problem is rooted in a rigid command-and-control hierarchy based on the military model. American police forces are beholden to archaic internal systems of authority whose rules emphasize bureaucratic regulations over conduct on the streets. An officer’s hair length, the shine on his shoes and the condition of his car are more important than whether he treats a burglary victim or a sex worker with dignity and respect. In the interest of “discipline,” too many police bosses treat their frontline officers as dependent children, which helps explain why many of them behave more like juvenile delinquents than mature, competent professionals. It also helps to explain why persistent, patterned misconduct, including racism, sexism, homophobia, brutality, perjury and corruption, do not go away, no matter how many blue-ribbon panels are commissioned or how much training is provided. (The Nation)

Perhaps introducing Occupy Wall Street consensus based General Assembly model to the police would be a good thing, though I am afraid that this will probably have to wait for after the revolution. As it were, I'd disagree with Stamper here, as the problem of police brutality is has much to do with the "professional" corporate mindset that the police both embodies and serves as it is to "juvenile delinquency" of police officers. Professional culture only provides a simulacrum of personal liberty while hiding the hierarchies beneath motivational speaking jargon. As long as the police work for the 1%, it will be brutal when the 1% feel threatened. But one could agree with Stamper that the brutality of certain police officers is inculcated through the dehumanizing process to which which the lower ranks of the police are themselves subjected.

Some UC Davis academics have risen to the occasion, and not in the typical way of trying to contain and tame student anger, but in genuine solidarity. Bob Ostertag describes the concrete changes in police strategy that we are witnessing. Nathan Brown, Assistant professor in the English department, wrote a sharp open letter calling for a resignation of the UC Davis Chancellor, Linda P.B. Katehi.

Of course, the militarization of the police is equal parts a reflection of the ruling class preparing for over a decade to exactly what is happening today, and a business, indeed one of the few sectors of capital that is not just doing fine but booming today. In Egypt, the Tahrir Intifada entered a new phase:

The tear gas used against the Egyptian people, as reported by the Hossam el-Hamalawy, and Patrick Connors, is manufactured by CSI, which bills itself as "a leading manufacturer and marketer of tactical munitions, pyrotechnics, less-lethal crowd control and launching systems sold under the CTS and Penn Arms brands." CSI is a venture capital project owned partly by Point Lookout Capital, whose two partners are no doubt making a killing, quite literally, in the death business, including the "less lethal" franchise of CSI. It is perhaps worth pondering the uncommon honesty of CSI, whose products for "law enforcement" are marketed as "less-lethal" rather than non-lethal. As usual with violence, there is an Israeli connection. CSI sells the gas canisters that Israeli soldiers use, not only to attack protesters, but also to kill them. The pepper spray used in UC Davis is manufactured by another company, whose name will be revealed in due course. But the differences between companies is not as important as the unity of the class of people who own all of them.

Update from Nedster: Egyptian thugs show the world how it's done:

Remi Kanazi - 'This poem will not end apartheid', London, 12.11.11

You can catch Remi's performance in the UK:


Nov 13 London
Nov 14: Cambridge
Nov 15: Brighton
Nov 16: Portsmouth
Nov 17: Southampton
Nov 18: Dorset
Nov 19: Bristol
Nov 20: Bristol
Nov 21: Oxford
Nov 22: Birmingham
Nov 23: Liverpool
Nov 24: Nottingham
Nov 25: Leicester
Nov 26: Leeds
Nov 27: Newcastle
Nov 28: Manchester
Nov 29: London


Click here for more info on each city, when it becomes available.



UPDATE:

The routine murder of Houda Hawajah

The routine murder of Houda Hawajah by bored Israeli soldiers was captured live by the Israeli TV cameras. In a rather unusual move, the TV station ignored the rules of self-censorship that reign in the Israeli media, and aired the footage.

---

UPDATE
As it was pointed out to me, this is an old video. Not that there is anything wrong in principle is remembering old events, but that was not my intention. I was just careless.

Bibi beggars belief

This has always been the case of course but I didn't get round to doing a post, when it was news, about Sarkozy and Obama pouring their hearts out to each other about what an indignity it is having to deal with Netanyahu, in Obama's case, every day.  An article in today's Ha'aretz has given me the excuse to dust off the old news and to run an alliterative headline which I always enjoy:

If the law enabled putting leaders on trial for serial defrauding of the public and obtaining support through deception, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be keeping company with Moshe Katsav in prison. The former president has been convicted of raping women who were his subordinates and misuse of his authority. Netanyahu is having his nefarious way with Israeli democracy and using his status in order to lead Israeli society astray, all the way to diplomatic and economic isolation. From there it is but a short way to regional war and apartheid - the only question is which will come first. Yet nevertheless, a whole country is continuing to give in willingly to a liar who does not cease to harass and endanger it.

Silly article really but that's my excuse for revisiting the Sarkozy, Obama, Netanyahu business out of the way.

There's another article in today's Ha'aretz describing Obama's side of the conversation with Sarkozy as a "gaffe" which I suppose leaving the microphone on was.  Apparently Obama has acknowledged the "gaffe" but

“With respect to the ‘hot mic’ in France, I'm not going to comment on conversations that I have with individual leaders,” Obama said in Hawaii.

But the thing about the affair which troubled me most was this:

Several journalists, including a few from large media organizations, heard the initial exchange between Obama and Sarkozy but did not initially report it, agreeing among themselves that to do so would be a violation of journalistic ethics.

Now how on earth does it violate journalistic ethics to report that two presidents who support Netanyahu in everything he does don't actually believe a word he says? Surely it is more of a violation of their calling that journalists agree among themselves to cover up such a newsworthy report.

Rafeef Ziadah - 'We teach life, sir', London, 12.11.11

An amazing performance that you will watch again and again and again.

Atzmon and Alderman – preaching from the same hymn book

By David Landy

There have been a few reviews of my book, Jewish Identity and Palestinian Rights - generally positive, but also pointing out that it has too much sociological jargon, which is fair enough, I guess (sigh). There have also been a couple of bad reviews from exactly the type of people you’d dread getting good reviews from. In my case, from the right-wing Zionist Gilad Atzmon, and right-wing anti-Zionist Geoffrey Alderman. Or maybe the other way around.

Sometimes it’s difficult to tell.

Alderman’s brief review argues that the book proves that Jews who criticise Israel as Jews are trying out some bizarre form of perverse ethnic identification. Connoisseurs of Atzmon will be more than familiar with this particular thesis. In his review, Atzmon mixes this farrago with the conspiracy theories we’ve come to know and love. Thus, one failing of my book is that I don’t realize how these Jews are engaged in a conspiracy to expel the good folks out of Palestine solidarity. How could I have missed that? (maybe I’m part of the cover-up!) Another problem is my failure to understand that Jews in Jewish groups are somehow categorically different from Jews in general pro-Palestine groups (despite membership overlap). And so on.

But worst is when they agree with the book – for what they agree with is emphatically what the book does not say – Alderman on the tortured identities of participants, Atzmon dishonestly using a partial quote from page 26 to depict participants as selfish Zionists. This is even more irritating (just) than being called a postmodernist.

There’s loads in the book to criticize and/or praise, and I’ve received some genuinely fruitful criticism from movement activists. So why do these reviewers attack and support what isn’t actually there? No point in being naïve; the reason is clear. Both authors are using their reviews as an opportunity to once again launch their well-rehearsed attacks on Jews who criticize Israel. In this, the book itself is incidental, so small wonder that there is some similarity between their reviews.

Alderman at least doesn’t advise me to read Alderman, in the way Atzmon advises that the best I can do is read Atzmon. Ironic that. Alderman, for all the disagreements I have with him, can write well and does have interesting things to say about British Jews. Whereas Atzmon – well, I think I’ll treasure this line for the rest of my life: ‘Philosophical thinking also seems alien to Landy so he is unable to grasp the metaphysical depth of questions connected to identity, identification and authenticity in the context of Jewish culture and ideology.’

That’s me told.

So how was Finkelstein?

Not so great, I'm hearing.  Here's a feedback from Naomi Foyle on the British Writers for Palestine website:

On Friday Nov 11 2011, at UCL, world-renowned scholar and activist for Palestinian rights Prof Norman Finkelstein appeared in conversation with Prof Jonathan Rosenhead of BRICUP (British Committee for the Universities of Palestine), discussing the proposition:

The Palestinians having being denied justice for 63 years, those who support their rights must endorse their call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), including academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

Prof Finkelstein also gave a public lecture in the evening, which unfortunately I could not attend.  Following is my report on the afternoon conversation, which turned into a debate.  I won’t give a blow-by-blow account of the discussion, which was videoed and presumably will soon be available online.   Rather I will just summarise here the main disagreement between the speakers, and give my reaction to it.

Jonathan Rosenhead opened with a clear historical overview of boycott as a strategy, and ended by saying that in the case of Palestine, it should continue until the Palestinians ask us to stop supporting it – that is, until the system of oppression they suffer under has ended.  Norman Finkelstein responded by arguing forcefully that the Boycott Divestment Sanctions campaign should work toward goals based in International Law, not some vague, impossible to define, outcome; and that we shouldn’t feel obliged to follow the Palestinians’ lead, as previously this would have obliged us to support suicide bombing.  He said much else, including giving a review of the state of International Law on Palestine, and the helpful advice to cite this more in our literature, but I want to focus on this essential point of discord.

Frankly I was very surprised to hear Prof Finkelstein’s criticism of BDS.   I, and others, spoke from the floor, reminding both speakers that the demands of the BDS movement, as stated by PACBI, are clearly based on International Law:

[that] Israel withdraws from all the lands occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem; removes all its colonies in those lands; agrees to United Nations resolutions relevant to the restitution of Palestinian refugees rights; and dismantles its system of apartheid.

Prof Finkelstein responded by saying that while the first three demands are sound in law, the last, the demand for Israel to dismantle its system of apartheid, is not, because Israeli apartheid hasn’t been recognised by the UN or other bodies of International Law.  He claimed that without this legal underpinning, the goal of ending apartheid in Israel is counter-productive – that it ‘turns people off’; that BDS will never become a mass movement if we try to get people to sign up to tampering with the state of Israel itself.

I also tried to discuss this with him afterwards.  I asked him why,  if the situation in Israel fits the UN definition of apartheid,  we shouldn’t work toward getting iron-clad legal recognition of this fact.  But Prof Finkelstein rejected this approach, saying ‘ that would take 100 years’.

Underlying Prof Finkelstein’s hostility to this key plank of the BDS movement appears to be the fear that the demand to end Israeli apartheid is a disguised call to ‘end the state of Israel’, rather than ending the way the state is currently organised, which is how all the people I know interpret the demand.  After all, South Africa still exists as a state.   Personally, I think Prof Finkelstein is sadly out of touch with the robust health and rapid growth of the BDS movement.

Far from being a threat to building a mass movement, the demand to end Israeli apartheid is one that everyone can understand – every ordinary person on the streets of the UK knows what South Africa was like; all they need is some basic education about Palestine to see that apartheid is operating there as well.  Especially considering that the South Africans themselves are taking such leadership in BDS, and separate campaigns to End Israeli Apartheid are evident all over the internet, it’s a nonsense to say that the demand is unrealistic.  On the legal front,  the very recent Russell Tribunal on Palestine Capetown Session has recommended (among other pertinent goals):

The UN General Assembly to reconstitute the UN Special Committee against Apartheid, and to convene a special session to consider the question of apartheid against the Palestinian people.  In this connection the Committee should compile a list of individuals, organisations, banks, companies, corporations, charities, and any other private or public bodies which assist Israel’s apartheid regime with a view to taking appropriate measures.

In my view, the current BDS strategy is right on target, and I wish Prof Finkelstein would put his considerable legal chops in the service of the goals of the Russell Tribunal.

I also wish to respond to his second criticism of the BDS movement – that it takes its leadership from the Palestinians.  To deal first with his counter-example – in my view, the BDS movement is not at all comparable to the suicide bombing campaigns, which made no formal call for international support, and were never, to my knowledge, endorsed by any UK solidarity group.   Rather, solidarity works to provide and support democratic alternatives to such desperate, tragic, violent and, indeed, as Prof Rosenhead stated, politically counter-productive measures.  The Palestinians themselves have turned en masse away from suicide bombing as a strategy – as comedian and ‘extreme rambler’ Mark Thomas recently recounted in his recent Walking the Wall tour, countless Palestinians get through holes in the wall daily, not to bomb civilians, but in order to work illegally in Israel.   Instead, Palestinian civil society has overwhelmingly endorsed BDS, and taking our leadership from them is an essential part of the moral legitimacy of the campaign.

First, if BDS was just a matter of personal conscience, then indeed I would be a hypocrite for spending so much time promoting the boycott of Israel and not other countries with terrible human rights records.  Second, as I have stated before, it is not up to us in the West to dictate to the Palestinians how they should run their campaigns.   Instead, we can choose which campaigns we want to support, and then do so wholeheartedly, and in a spirit of solidarity, dialogue and willingness to learn.   I don’t believe in capital punishment for any crime, and would never endorse any kind of violence that was not clearly in self-defense, in the strictest sense of the term.  But as I have argued before on this blog, Palestinian violence must be seen in the context of 62 years of oppression, and ending that systematic injustice, in a way that is 100% consistent with the principle of Palestinian self-determination, is the only way to end that violence.

By criticizing this key demand of the BDS movement, and dismissing the paramount importance of the need to work in solidarity with the Palestinians, Prof Finkelstein is playing Jenga with the Palestinian struggle – poking and pulling away the foundational planks of its existence.   We don’t need that at this time.  We need an atmosphere of mutual support and co-operation between the legal, civil disobedience, and BDS strategies. I thank Prof Finkelstein for his very useful summary of the legal position of the Palestinian cause and Prof Rosenhead for his profound commitment to the principle of solidarity, and I place these thoughts on record in hope that they may contribute to a spirit of unity in the popular movement for Palestinian human rights.

Note: Jenga is a game played with wooden blocks, which players take turns to remove from a tower and balance on top, creating a taller and increasingly unstable structure that eventually collapses.  The word is derived from the Swahili term for ‘to build’. 

Finkelstein has been stating the same case for some time now but I don't think it is simply grounded in international law. Rather, I think it is grounded in what Finkelstein sees as international consensus. Consensus is a far more subjective notion and it may well be that Finkelstein's position accords with the consensus of the circles in which he moves or in which he wants to be accepted.

Tony Greenstein did attend the Friday night session of the Finkelstein talk and his comments are to be found on his blog and in the comments below this post.

The Norman Finkelstein Matinée at the UCL

An addition to the previous post on Norman Finkelstein's speaking engagements in London this week.

Norman Finkelstein in conversation with BRICUP chair Jonathan Rosenhead

2 pm Friday November 11

Christopher Ingold Lecture Theatre

UCL Chemistry Building

20 Gordon Street, London WC1 6BT

This is opposite the Bloomsbury Theatre.

To reserve your place please email Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi at jews4big@gmail.com

They will discuss the proposition:

The Palestinians having being denied justice for 63 years, those who support their rights must endorse their call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), including academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

This is in addition to Finkelstein's lecture at 7 pm in the Logan Hall, Institute of Education
for which booking is required.
http://www.eventsbot.com/events/eb253345787

Norman Finkelstein in the UK

Norman Finkelstein speaking engagements in the UK but check out additional info below the list for what is happening in Manchester:

DATE 7/11/2011
PLACE: University of Leeds
TIME:  7:00 PM

SPONSORS Palestinian Return Centre

CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER irial@hotmail.co.uk, +447976637686

 ——————————————— 

DATE 8/11/2011
PLACE: University of Manchester Friends Meeting House, 6 Mount Street, M2 5NS
TIME 7:00 PM
SPONSORS Palestinian Return Centre

CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER sana.aburawa@student.manchester.ac.uk, +447871663857

 ————————————————————

DATE 9/11/2011
PLACE University of Nottingham
TIME 6:00PM
SPONSORS Palestinian Return Centre

CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER miss.raja@live.co.uk, +447411430873

 —————————–——————————————————–

DATE 10/11/2011
PLACE University of Birmingham
TIME 6:00 PM
SPONSORS Palestinian Return Centre

CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER cxc087@bham.ac.uk, +447792284352

 —————————–————————————————————————-

DATE 11/11/2011
PLACE Logan Hall, London
TIME 7 PM
SPONSORS Palestinian Return Centre and Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods

CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER laythhanbali@hotmail.com, +447935819927 

—————————–————————————————————————-

Manchester venue changed after lobbying from the, er, lobby, in this instance the Jewish Society, an affiliate of the Union of Jewish Students which in turn is an affiliate of the World Zionist Organisation.  Here's Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods on what happened to change the venue:

Manchester University has caved in to Zionist pressure and forced students organising a speaking tour by Professor Norman Finkelstein to move his planned lecture off campus.

Students from Manchester Action Palestine said the university management and Union “capitulated to pressure from JSOC [Jewish Society] to limit attendees of the event to students only, depriving the public of seeing one of the world’s foremost commentators on the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

JSOC members alleged that the safety of Jewish students would be endangered if the public were allowed in, even though they had made clear their own intention to attend and hold a picket.

Instead of standing up to this blatant attempt to interfere with freedom of expression, administrators issued an ultimatum saying that the lecture would have to be closed to non-students or be cancelled.

Action Palestine has been obliged to find a new location in the city. They are asking supporters to send protest letters to Martin Conway (martin.conway@manchester.ac.uk) Head of Governance Office and Deputy Secretary, and Pat Sponder (pat.sponder@manchester.ac.uk) Head of the Office of Student Support and Services.

According to the UJS website they "want to be open and honest about what we do" and yet the only indication that are a affiliates of the World Zionist Organisation is in a blog post from last year. I don't think the Manchester University Jewish Society even pretends to be, what was it? oh yes, "open and honest about what we do".

In your eyes a sandstorm?

Another day another question mark. In Your Eyes a Sandstorm is journalist and author (and friend of mine) Arthur Neslen's latest book on Palestine and is subtitled "ways of being Palestinian".  It's a wonderful book and it reminds me of the autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley.  Arthur has Palestinians from different generations of struggle and from the various Palestinian communities: West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, Israel and the diaspora, detail their autobiographies to him with the author providing historical, geographical or political background, together with his own questions and thoughts as appropriate.

Here's the description from the publishers, University of California Press:

Who are the Palestinians? In this compelling book of interviews, Arthur Neslen reaches beyond journalistic clichés to let a wide variety of Palestinians answer the question for themselves. Beginning in the present with Bisan and Abud, two traumatized children from Jenin’s refugee camp, the book’s narrative arcs backwards through the generations to come full circle with two elderly refugees from villages that the children were named after. Along the way, Neslen recounts a history of land, resistance, exile, and trauma that begins to explain Abud’s wish to become a martyr and Bisan’s dream of a Palestine empty of Jews. Senior Fatah and Hamas figures relate key events of the Palestinian experience—the Second Intifada, Oslo Process, First Intifada, Thawra, 1967 War, the Naqba, and the Great Arab Revolt of 1936—in their own words. The extraordinary voices of women, children, farmers, fighters, drug dealers, policeman, doctors, and others, spanning the political divide from Salafi Jihadists to Israeli soldiers, bring the Palestinian story to life even as their words sow seeds of hope in the scorched Palestinian earth.

The book takes its title from a poem by Tawfiq Ziad.

Oakland to the ruling class

War on Iran?

The question mark there means that this quick post is a guess regarding the current round of sabre-rattling against Iran.  I didn't think too much of Netanyahu's yabbering about a possible strike against Iran because he's always doing that. If he stubs his toe it's Iran's fault and the PA/PLO's recent successful UNESCO bid together with the US's failure to prevent it even by pulling the plug on UNESCO funding has given Netanyahu an urgent need for a distraction.  This has been all over Ha'aretz for a little while now.  But The Guardian is usually a tad more cautious and nuanced over middle east issues and it is reporting mostly a pro-US line on its front page and some inside pages today; including its editorial. In fairness the editorial is urging caution but it is not negating what it is promoting as legitimate Israeli and American concerns. It doesn't mention a UK interest in all this but it does say, uncritically, that the UK is making contingency plans to do whatever America decides.

Now what else has been happening apart from the Palestinian diplomatic efforts? Well, the Arab spring has been happening since, er, the spring.  The west has been mostly opposed to the Arab spring because it has challenged some of its favourite dictators. Even Gaddafi had come into business friendly favour in recent years and Assad has been a handy chap for those nasty "extraordinary" renditions.  But they lost that Tunisian chap and Israel's fave Mubarak had to go, though his mainstay, er, stays, er, mainly.

So what to do? Trump up an issue with Iran.  Distract attention from the Palestinians and try to halt the Arab spring, though smartly, by attacking or just winding everyone up over Iran, a non-Arab middle eastern state.

That's just my guess, that's all.  I've rushed this and I ought to have included more links and comments. If I have time later I'll do just that.

Advertising Standards Authority orders Israel Land and Acquisition Network to tell the truth, shock!

Here's an adjudication by the Advertising Standards Authority taking ILAN Real Estate to task for flogging West Bank land as "Israel".

The adjudication is quite a useful document. Look:

Ad

An ad in The Jewish Chronicle for a property development, in June 2011, was headlined "Vineyard View EFRAT New Neighbourhood in Dekel UNIQUE DEVLEOPMENT OF 26 NEW HOUSES". The ad featured aerial photos of the development and bullet pointed text listed the features of the development, including "Independent Group Purchase ... Israeli finance subject to status".

Text in the bottom half of the ad, underneath the heading "Why use I.L.A.N?" stated "With our network of experienced agents across Israel, covering major locations such as Bet Shemesh / Ramat Bet Shemesh, Efrat, Hashmonaim, Herzliya, Jerusalem, Netanya, Modiin, Ra’anana, Rechovot, Tel Aviv, Yad Binyamin, Zichron Yaakov & more ... We strive to adhere to the highest standards you would like to receive from an experienced real estate consultant to help you cope with the hurdles of the Israeli property market and business environment ... We put you in contact with English speaking professionals, to help you make your home in Israel experience a little bit less stressful incl Mortgages, Insurance, Legal, Interior Design, Architects & a Building Surveyor ... With our negotiating skills, creativity & ‘holding your hand’ we will navigate you through the process of buying in Israel. If you have a property in Israel that you would like to sell, we provide a unique blend of local, national & international marketing ... Visit the I.L.A.N. stand at the Israel Property Expo on Sunday 26th June". The ad included the logo for Israel Business Brokers (IBB).

So that's the ad which appeared, as the blurb says, in the Jewish Chronicle. So what was the issue?

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that the development in Efrat in Dekel was in Israel, whereas he understood it was a settlement in the occupied West Bank.

And here are the response and the assessment:

Response

ILAN Real Estate (ILAN) did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA was concerned by ILAN’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.

We considered that the references in the ad to ILAN’s experienced agents across Israel, the help they offered in negotiating the Israeli property market and making house buying in Israel less stressful, and the list of major locations in Israel ILAN covered, as well as to the Israel Property Expo, Israeli finance and buying a property in Israel, strongly implied that the development in Efrat in Dekel was in Israel. We noted that we had not seen evidence that that was the case, and understood that Efrat and Dekel were located in the occupied West Bank. We considered that the fact that the development in Efrat in Dekel was in the West Bank, in territory not internationally recognised as part of Israel, was likely to be highly material to consumers and that the omission of the information rendered the ad misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition12) rules 1.7 (Unreasonable delay) and 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).

So what about any action being taken?

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told ILAN to avoid in future similar ads misleading as to the location of property developments. We asked CAP to inform its members of the problem with ILAN Real Estate.

No action regarding the Jewish Chronicle then. Well in fairness how can the JC be expected to vet every real estate dealer in land in Palestine? I'm sure they wouldn't want any of their readers inadvertently settling in occupied territory.

#Occupy is on the right path

Last night Occupy Oakland's General Assembly did something that is likely to catch on with occupations across the country.

They voted to encourage the occupation of foreclosed properties across their city. After all, the bursting of the property bubble is part of why they're on the streets right now.

There is a movement similar to this under the overall Occupy umbrella, It's called Occupy Vacant Properties, and it has been most visible in San Francisco, where families are even reclaiming their old homes post-foreclosures. (Business Insider)

World laughs at Israel

Listen up for when Israel's casts its vote at the UNESCO conference:





UK abstains, Austria yes, Germany no, France yes, China yes, Russia yes.... voting 173 members , abstentions 52 , majority needed 81, votes in favor 107, votes opposed 14!

Palestine is member of UNESCO, and speaking truth to the lackeys

What an enjoyable video! I have a question. What kind of personality it takes to stand there and repeat that horse manure? Who applies for these jobs and who accepts them? Is there a test you have to pass to get this job? Something like finding a kid with a puppy in the park and strangling the puppy?

The right of return

Here's an interesting article on Der Spiegel website about how increasing numbers of Jews are exercising their right of return to the land of their parents and grandparents, Germany:

An increased number of American children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors have applied in recent years for the German citizenship stripped from their family members by the Nazis....

Under Article 116 of Germany's constitution, known as the Basic Law, anyone who had their citizenship revoked during the Nazi regime for "political, racist, or religious reasons" is eligible to reapply for German citizenship. The provision also makes allowances for the descendants of Nazi victims, and does not require them to give up the citizenship of their new home countries......

It's been an option for American Jews with German roots for years, but the number of applicants nearly doubled from 2007 to 2008 and has remained high, according to statistics from the German Federal Office of Administration in Cologne. In 2010, there were 815 such applications from the US. There were more applicants from Israel, but the number has steadily declined -- from 3,505 in 2003 to 1,459 last year.

The stats raise more questions then they answer and the answers aren't in the article. I'd be interested to know why there were so many more applications from Israelis of German descent than Americans. Is it because life is better in America than Israel? Is it because more holocaust survivors went to Israel? I doubt if it's that latter.

I suppose I should just be pleased that Germany supports the right of return.

People of Oakland under attack by thugs in uniform

One protester after being hit by a chemical weapons canister. (The use of chemical weapons during a war is a crime, but it is perfectly legal for attacking civilians)




I don't want to jump to conclusions before we hear all the lies from the police department and the mayor of Oakland. After all, this protester from Occupy Oakland could have ties to al-quaeda, and maybe he tried to bite an officer. We need to hear all the lies first. If you want to get the lies in person, which is highly recommended and may be even entertaining, if not downright educational, the allegedly "progressive" mayor of Oakland, Jean Quan, will take your call at (510) 238-3141. Remember that she's really on your side. 



On the brighter side, explaining how it works in Palestine might get a tad easier.