Mo Farah celebrated his [Christmas] by getting taken for a possible terrorist.Ah it's a roots thing or possibly a his name's Mohamed thing.
The two-time gold medal winner for Great Britain at this past summer's games was traveling in Oregon and was questioned by U.S. Customs officials after they noticed his Somali ancestry.
Read on at Jadaliyya.com, the ezine of the Arab Studies Institute.A recent interview conducted by UC Berkeley’s Public Relations office and timed with the appointment of the new university Chancellor, Nicholas Dirks, begins, “Floating around the Internet is a claim that at some point in your past... you signed a petition for Columbia to divest in all things Israel.” The interviewer asks the Chancellor-designate to clarify his role. But let us be clear: this is not a question. It is a demand. We live in political climate in which robust and critical speech about the policies of the Israeli state is becoming ever more difficult. Its proponents are subjected to myriad forms of harassment in an effort to shut down such speech. If one wants to be a powerful public figure, the interviewer is effectively saying to Dirks, distance yourself from that petition.Unfortunately, Dirks responds by doing precisely what is demanded of him. He does not clarify that the Columbia University petition did not call for divestment from “all things Israel,” but instead from companies that manufacture or sell arms or other military hardware utilized by Israel, in violation of US law, against the civilian populations of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. He does not say that he did sign the petition, but, as he might have argued, that once he became an administrator he recognized he had to play a different role, one that protects all political speech on campus, regardless of his own personal convictions, and thus that he chose to withdraw his signature. Instead, he declares that somehow his name appeared on the petition and that he asked for it to be removed.That is not all: Dirks goes much further. He offers a description of Columbia in 2002 as a time in which broader “controversies” over the question of Israel and Palestine developed. He narrates those controversies in the voice of the off-campus Jewish neo-conservative groups (Campus Watch, the David Project, to name the main provocateurs) who spearheaded a sustained attack against his own colleagues, who were faculty members in the Middle East field. The David Project produced a film, Columbia Unbecoming, that instigated Columbia’s supposedly “internal” investigation. Parroting their perspective in his interview, Dirks notes that it was a climate in which “it seemed very difficult for some [Jewish] students to find safe spaces in which to talk about Israel where they didn’t feel that the basic context in which they found themselves wasn’t hugely not just anti-Israel, but by implication, anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic.” His is a brilliant rhetorical move, an account of how some Jewish students supposedly “felt.” In providing no other perspective on the “controversy,” however, Dirks allows the contention that criticism of Israel’s policies is, “by implication, anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic” to stand as a simple matter of fact.In purveying this false account, Dirks rewrites the history of the conflict at Columbia. The reality, in contrast, was one in which most members of the faculty and many students argued that baseless accusations of anti-Semitism were being wielded in an effort to curtail academic freedom and free speech. Moreover, Dirks rewrites the “conclusion” to that so-called controversy.
@no2vag @no2veolia are suspended - is this to protect #Veolia #NLWA? Please follow us #No2VAG #No2Veolia till reinstate hackneygazette.co.uk/news/best_chri…Try clicking the @no2vag and you get this:
— Yael Kahn (@YaelKahn) December 28, 2012
The new South Africa has signed a trade agreement with the last (hopefully) of the apartheid states. According to Reuters, Israel's Ehud Olmert hailed a "new" era of South Africa ties. All very strange when you consider that Israel had ties with South Africa through the whole of the apartheid era. What is new here is that the ANC seems to have lost its political memory.I had to do a bit of a search for the old info and I came up with this from Fin24.com, a South African mostly business and financial news site:
South Africa's improved relationship with Israel took a concrete dimension this week with the conclusion of a trade agreement and the first official visit by a leading politician from the Jewish state in over a decade.The then South African deputy foreign minister even jumped through a few hoops to defend the then government's position:
In Pretoria, deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad stressed in a meeting with pro-Palestinian groups on the eve of Olmert's arrival, was trying to be impartial by engaging both Tel Aviv and Palestinian groups.So I don't know what's become of the agreement but here's the JC on the situation now:
Let's hope it's not just lip service but you never know.....South Africa’s ruling party announced that the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement will now form part of its official policy.The African National Congress (ANC) endorsed the campaign in response to a call from pro-Palestinian activists, including BDS South Africa.The resolution read: “The ANC is unequivocal in its support for the Palestinian people in their struggle for self-determination, and unapologetic in its view that the Palestinians are the victims and the oppressed in the conflict with Israel.”Mbuyiseni Ndlozi, from BDS South Africa, said the move was “the most authoritative endorsement of the BDS against Israel campaign.”
Israel and Israeli companies, a separate Foreign Office briefing warned, "… have made offers or are involved in negotiations on the supply of weapons [to Argentina] … despite assurances" that they would not make any new deals.It is well documented that Jews were over-represented among Argentina's Desaparecidos at about 10% when Jews were less than 1% of the population as a whole. Tony Greenstein has the details here.
News on #Veolia gets better and better #bds #boycottisrael @no2vag jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/news-o…When I checked that @no2vag was an existing address I got the following message:
— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) December 28, 2012
Sorry, that user is suspended.Has the lobby had more success with Twitter than it had with Hackney Council or the North London Waste Authority?
Campaigners who spent two years vociferously campaigning to block Veolia’s for a multi-million pound deal are celebrating their best Christmas present ever, after the waste company dropped out of the tender.
Veolia was down to the last two bidders for the North London Waste Authority’s £4.7bn waste services and fuel use contract – but the No 2 Veolia Action Group (No2VAG) said the company should be blacklisted because it provides transport, waste, sewage and water services to Jewish settlements in Palestine, which are considered illegal under international law.As you can see, the full story had some remarkable ingredients including the boasting of Israel lobbyists, at least one whom is a Hackney councillor.
The shock news Veolia had withdrawn from the tender process came last Friday, and it is unclear why the decision was made.The deal, involving seven London boroughs which will cost Hackney £600 million, hit the headlines this month after No2VAG spokeswoman and Hackney resident Caroline Day was blocked from making a five-minute speech at a Hackney Council meeting.David Lewis, secretary and treasurer of pro-Israeli group Lawyers for Israel, went on to claim silencing her as a ‘victory’, after the Labour party supported Tory Cllr Linda Kelly’s motion to block the speech in a whipped vote.Veolia declined to comment to the Gazette about why it had dropped out from the tender, and refused to categorically deny it had anything to do with the Israeli settlements controversy.Ms Day said her group is “absolutely delighted” and lauded the move as a “huge victory for local democracy”.“Powerful lobbies representing unethical interests in the illegal settlements may have won a short-term victory in silencing me, but in standing up for their right to see their money invested ethically, local people have achieved a victory for justice for the Palestinian people,” she said.“This really has been the result of very determined collective campaigning across the seven boroughs and huge credit goes to our chair Yael Kahn who has dedicated her life to this for two years,” she added.
Follow the link and you find this:It goes without saying that Hamas has lyingly claimed that their rockets lack the necessary precision to hit military targets. Previously, they’ve boasted of their success in terrorising Jews:The Qassam Brigades committed itself to turn the life of Zionists into hell, and make them regret their heinous crimes against the innocent and crush their pride and to soak their noses in the dirt.Hamas does this, because 87% of the Palestinian population supports their tactics, and believe that they constitute ‘victory’.
But follow the links within the links and you find this:Highlights:
- 85 percent strongly believe that the UN vote was a victory for the Palestinian cause. In contrast, only 14 percent disagree.
- 79 percent are hopeful that the UN vote will be followed by tangible progress towards Palestinian independence.
- Overall, 68 percent believe that the UN vote will advance the Palestinian cause. In contrast, 17 percent believe that nothing will change and 13 percent believe that the cause will be set back by the vote.
- 90 percent of respondents believe that the confrontations and the resulting truce represent a victory for the Palestinians. Only 10 percent disagree.
- 84 percent are hopeful that the Gaza confrontation will be followed by tangible progress towards Palestinian independence.
- The majority of respondents (51 percent) believe that party that gained the most from the Gaza conflict are the Palestinians in general.
- 76 percent believe that Israel lost the most in this war.
- 89 percent say that their views of Hamas improved or improved to some extent, while only 8 percent say that their views diminished.
- 81 percent say that their views of Fatah improved or improved to some extent, while 15 percent say that their views diminished.
|
|
West Bank
|
Gaza
|
Total
|
|
|
The results of the recent Gaza
conflict prove that armed struggle, as adopted by Hamas, is the best means of achieving Palestinian
independence
|
Strongly
agree
|
50.4%
|
64.2%
|
55.6%
|
|
Agree
|
36.0%
|
25.6%
|
32.1%
|
|
|
Disagree
|
8.8%
|
9.6%
|
9.1%
|
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
1.5%
|
0.7%
|
1.2%
|
|
|
I don’t know
|
3.3%
|
|
2.1%
|
|
they’ve boasted of their success in terrorising Jews:The Qassam Brigades committed itself to turn the life of Zionists into hell, and make them regret their heinous crimes against the innocent and crush their pride and to soak their noses in the dirt.Hamas does this, because 87% of the Palestinian population supports their tactics, and believe that they constitute ‘victory’.
87% of the Palestinian population supports their tacticsNow follow the link and see the summary of the poll results that have David Toube saying that, "87% of the Palestinian population supports their tactics" and we see this list:
I've left the following comment at Harry's Place to try to establish if Toube was lying or if he simply can't, as they say, do the Math:Highlights:
- 85 percent strongly believe that the UN vote was a victory for the Palestinian cause. In contrast, only 14 percent disagree.
- 79 percent are hopeful that the UN vote will be followed by tangible progress towards Palestinian independence.
- Overall, 68 percent believe that the UN vote will advance the Palestinian cause. In contrast, 17 percent believe that nothing will change and 13 percent believe that the cause will be set back by the vote.
- 90 percent of respondents believe that the confrontations and the resulting truce represent a victory for the Palestinians. Only 10 percent disagree.
- 84 percent are hopeful that the Gaza confrontation will be followed by tangible progress towards Palestinian independence.
- The majority of respondents (51 percent) believe that party that gained the most from the Gaza conflict are the Palestinians in general.
- 76 percent believe that Israel lost the most in this war.
- 89 percent say that their views of Hamas improved or improved to some extent, while only 8 percent say that their views diminished.
- 81 percent say that their views of Fatah improved or improved to some extent, while 15 percent say that their views diminished.
Ok apologies for the repetition but at least he can't claim not to have understood the question. Now, past experience suggests to me that David Toube is simply lying but it could be that he really can't "do the Math". So which one is it? I've said before that he's a liar and a buffoon but I could narrow it down to either or...
Mark Elf 21 minutes ago
Israel had a whole lot of school shootings, until they did one thing. They said we’re going to stop it and they put armed security in every school and they have not had a problem since then.So said LaPierre.
Yigal Palmor, spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, told the New York Daily News that the situation in Israel was “fundamentally different” from that in the United States.He then set out what he felt was "fundamentally different" but this is the bit that stood out to me:
It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion,Perish the thought that Israel might feature in "an internal American discussion". Has Yigal Palmor ever heard of Mitt Romney or any other American presidential hopeful, successful or not?
