Israel’s Scarlett Defender

Scarlett Johansson advertises SodaStream

I was going to keep this for my Good News Friday post later on, but I decided that Scarlett Johansson, with the courage of her convictions and her standing by her principles, deserves a post of her own.

I mentioned in last week’s Good News Friday that Ms. Johansson has taken on the job of being the public persona of SodaStream. This was a step too far for Oxfam, whom Scarlett has represented as an Ambassador, and they made noises about letting her go because of her support for the eeevil settlements.  Well, the bubbles blew back in nearly everyone’s face, Scarlett resigned before she could be fired, and the only winners of this BDS stupidity appear to be SodaStream and Scarlett Johansson herself!

Here’s how it played out. After accepting the SodaStream advertising job, the actress came in for severe criticism from Oxfam  Here is Oxfam’s statement: (emphases are mine).

Oxfam has accepted Scarlett Johansson’s decision to step down after eight years as a Global Ambassador and we are grateful for her many contributions.

While Oxfam respects the independence of our ambassadors, Ms. Johansson’s role promoting the company SodaStream is incompatible with her role as an Oxfam Global Ambassador.

Oxfam believes that businesses, such as SodaStream, that operate in settlements further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights of the Palestinian communities that we work to support.

Oxfam is opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law. Ms. Johansson has worked with Oxfam since 2005 and in 2007 became a Global Ambassador, helping to highlight the impact of natural disasters and raise funds to save lives and fight poverty.

Do you spot the distortion of logic in the first highlighted paragraph? How can a factory that supplies steady jobs, good wages, health and social security benefits “further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights of the Palestinian communities”?  What kind of nonsense is this? Of course it is obvious that Oxfam’s objection is not only to the settlements, but to any Israeli presence over the Green Line at all. In other words, they are willing to fight to the last drop of Palestinian blood – or money in this case – to preserve their pious, smug integrity.

Oxfam make a further error (I might be too polite here) by calling the settlements illegal under international law. As Australian FM asked, which precise international law are they referring to? Again, this is nonsense. If anything, the territory is disputed and must be resolved in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Their statement is prejudicing the outcome of the peace talks by their statement. But since we’re talking about Israelis and Jews, no one is really bothered.

The upshot of this little spat however was that Scarlett Johansson hoist Oxfam with their own petard and resigned before she could be fired, showing her true integrity and showing up Oxfam as the bigots that they really are.

As part of a growing international BDS movement against Israel’s settlement policy, pro-Palestinian groups had called on Oxfam to sever its ties with the actress.

[…]

Johansson responded to pressure from Oxfam in a statement released to The Huffington Post on Sunday.

“While I never intended on being the face of any social or political movement, distinction, separation or stance as part of my affiliation with SodaStream, given the amount of noise surrounding that decision, I’d like to clear the air,” she said.

”I remain a supporter of economic cooperation and social interaction between a democratic Israel and Palestine. SodaStream is a company that is not only committed to the environment but to building a bridge to peace between Israel and Palestine, supporting neighbors working alongside each other, receiving equal pay, equal benefits and equal rights. That is what is happening in their Ma’aleh Adumim factory every working day.”

Scarlett Johansson cut ties with Oxfam over her SodaStream endorsement. In the process, the actress slammed the BDS movement. AP writes:

“Scarlett Johansson has respectfully decided to end her ambassador role with Oxfam after eight years,” the statement said. “She and Oxfam have a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.”

Via Honest Reporting, here’s a great tweet by Alex Ryvchin pointing out Oxfam’s hypocrisy:

Elder of Ziyon reports on how the Palestinian workers in the Maaleh Adumim factory applaud their CEO:

The Forward went to the SodaStream factory in Mishor Adumim and spoke to the CEO, Daniel Birnbaum.

Birnbaum is not at all a right wing fanatic. Far from it. He is as liberal a person as you can find. He does not support Israel’s claim to Judea and Samaria. He would not have set up the factory in Mishor Adumim, but it was there when he took over the company. And he shows that he is far more pro-Palestinian than all of the “pro-Palestinian activists” combined.

[T]hough he wouldn’t have opened the factory at its current site, Birnbaum said that its presence here is now a reality, and he won’t bow to political pressure to close it — even though the company is about to open a huge new plant in the Negev, within Israel’s internationally-recognized boundaries, which will replicate all functions of the West Bank plant, and dwarf it.

The reason for staying is loyalty to approximately 500 Palestinians who are among the plant’s 1,300 employees, Birnbaum claimed. While other employees could relocate on the other side of the Green Line if the plant moved, the West Bank Palestinian workers could not, and would suffer financially, he argued.

[…]

The Arab workers clearly support Birnbaum – showing that claims to the contrary from Israel haters are a lie.

[…]

“We are making history for the Palestinian people and the Israeli people,” he told them in Hebrew, followed by a translator who rendered his comments into Arabic. Birnbaum reassured the workers about their jobs and said he wanted to bring “more and more hands” into the factory as SodaStream grows.

The Palestinians applauded these comments. But then Birnbaum added with a flourish: “Scarlett Johannson would be proud of you!” And at the sound of Johannson’s name — even before the translation — applause among the assembly of mostly male, 30-something Palestinian workers burst out again, palpably louder.

As the Elder so correctly points out:

So who cares more about Palestinian Arabs – SodaStream or the Israel haters?

With each passing day, the answer becomes more and more obvious.

[…]

Expect to see some furious logical obfuscation in the hate sites as they try to pretend that they know better than Palestinians what Palestinians want.

Some good news for SodaStream comes from France, where the company won a lawsuit against a pro-Palestinian group calling for its boycott:

Israeli drink manufacturer SodaStream won a legal battle in France against an organization seeking to impose a boycott on its products. The court’s verdict ruled that the “origin of the product,” in this case an Israeli settlement, does not justify the call to boycott.

The group calling for the boycott, the Association France Palestine Solidarité, was told to cease and desist its activities against SodaStream and take down its digital media equating SodaStream with fraud.

To conclude on another sweet note, watch the great SodaStream video starring Scarlett Johansson which was banned from playing at the Superbowl – not for any BDS reason but because it disses Coke and Pepsi.  I’m sure you’ll all enjoy it – especially the gentlemen 🙂 . And you won’t be surprised to discover that the video has indeed gone viral (i.e. quickly distributed all over the internet).

This entry was posted in Boycotts and BDS and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Israel’s Scarlett Defender

  1. animalizard says:

    So basically, if I understand you correctly, BDS have invented insidious categories of ‘good Jew/bad Jew’, and are extending their policy of alienation to Jews who don’t bow their supremacy? Haven’t they heard we already have a higher authority, and that we have a right to make our own moral decisions?
    It’s this fascist paternalism that is showing BDS up for what it really is; the number one device for bullying non-Israeli Jews into political and emotional submission.

    • anneinpt says:

      I like your definition of “Good Jew/Bad Jew”. That is the absolute essence not only of the BDS brigade, but of the entire anti-Israel industry.

      I’m sure we’ve all noticed how these “activists” absolutely LOVE dead Jews. They cry buckets at Holocaust memorials and are horrified at any old-style Nazi or neo-Nazi antisemitism. but they are unable, or unwilling, to see that their own anti-Israel activism has the same effect: dead Jews. In any event, since those dead Jews are Israelis, it really doesn’t bother them.

      And if those Israeli Jews happen to live in the geographical area of Judea and Samaria, the Golan or Gaza, aka ancient Israel, why, if anything happens to them, they absolutely have it coming to them!

      And no, they do not believe that we have a right to make our own decisions, whether moral, legal or anything else. Moreover they do not believe the Palestinians have that right either. Hence their objection to the SodaStream factory in Maaleh Adumim despite the Palestinians’ satisfaction at working there.

      • animalizard says:

        And of course if this company pulls out of Maaleh there will be riots against unemployment all over Ramallah and the usual antisemitic banners tying Jewish businesses to a conspiracy of neglect.
        So whatever path you take, you can’t win. That’s the point, and was always intended to be the point.

        It reminds me of the anti-Israel propaganda last Eid, when Israel decided to give West Bankers free reign over the Old City, and allow them to cross the border to celebrate Eid at Al-Aqsa despite the riots, following propaganda which stated they were prohibiting worship. What did they get in return? Propaganda from Abunimah claiming that this was a “Jewish capitalist conspiracy” to entice celebrators away from West Bank stores and into Jewish malls in and around Yerushalayim. I kid you not. So prohibiting travel = state racism, whilst allowing it = Jewish conspiracy to divert money from West Bank stores into their own pockets. Sound familiar?

        Hello Lithuania, 1930s. The transhistorical essence of this racist logic is lost to everyone except us and the few who see through these transparent demonising tactics.

        You know, if these people spent less time inventing new ways to demonise ordinary people, they would have a state and a decent economy, but that is not their objective and never has been.

        The point is, BDS is not interested in the welfare or employment of Palestinians. Everyone knows that, even West Bankers. They have one objective only, and that is to memorialise Jews who were victims of the same atmosphere BDS seeks to create, which serves to camouflage the fact they are creating it.
        There is only one reason that members of Stormfront joined BDS, and that is antisemitism. BDS regurgitate the usual conspiracy theorist tropes and expect us not to recognise that their activities on Monday were merely insincere, token acts of shifting blame for anti-semitism. If ever there was an insidious politically-functional approach to Shoah remembrance, that’s it.

  2. Reality says:

    wow.Well done Scarlett! & May Soda stream go from strength to strength. We had one years ago but gave it away when we couldn’t get refills of the soda “bombs”!Maybe I”ll go get a new one.

  3. Brian Goldfarb says:

    US readers of this site will still be able to see the ad while watching the Superbowl final on tv, minus those last four words, thus getting round the Fox ban. Way to go!!

    I posted the article (plus comments) from (probably) The Times of Israel elsewhere, heading it “Scarlett Johansson has brains as well as beauty!”, which is nothing but the truth. She probably even wrote that statement herself. After all, I assume that she went to college.

  4. It will be interesting to see the relative impact this controversy will have on the legitimacy and popularity of the BDS movement. Israel and its supporters seem to remain off balance in dealing with these challenges – responding to rather than affirmatively taking the initiative to attack the movement which would compel the Israeli side of the argument to be published and the BDS movement to respond. It is truly unfortunate that of all the various Jewish organizations out there collecting money, none seem to be interested in taking the offense to further Israel’s interests, e.g., Anti-Defamation league. And given the recent comment suggesting the EU’s likely response to the coming failed peace talks to boycott Israel’s industries, now, more than ever, there should be an aggressive program to shame EU’s rank anti-Semitism graphically illustrated by singling out Israel for a boycott while other nations that actually repress and deprive their citizens of basic human rights – e.g., Hamas, Palestinians, North Koreans, Cubans, Chinese, Turks, Russia, and many others, get a pass. How much longer must we wait before we get serious about attaching and justifying the anti-Semitic label to the BDS movement and its EU supporters? It will be interesting to see how they will try to put lipstick on that pig.

    • anneinpt says:

      I don’t think this will have any effect on the BDS brigade. They will simply claim martyr status since they have been “silenced”, no matter that they enjoy a platform in every media almost anywhere in the world.

      And once again you are 100% correct that Israel, its spokesmen, its defenders and Jewish communities everywhere on on the back foot once again, acting in defence of Israel when the best defence would be offence.

      As for attaching the anti-semite label to BDS and its supporters, watch as they again claim they are being “silenced” if we do it. Whatever happens we lose.

  5. Ken Kelso says:

    Oxfam is one of the biggest donors to the racist terrorist Miftah Pallywood organization.
    This is the Miftah they support.

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2013/03/why-miftah-antisemitism-story-is-so.html
    Ashrawi’s Miftah promotes blood libel of Jews
    March 28, 2013

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2013/03/hanan-ashrawis-miftah-ngo-also-praises.html
    Hanan Ashrawi’s Miftah NGO also praises female terrorist
    March 29, 2013

    Here’s a good article about Oxfam and Miftah.

    http://edgar1981.blogspot.com/2013/04/update-on-oxfammiftah-story.html
    WEDNESDAY, APRIL 03, 2013
    Update on the Oxfam/Miftah story

    I previously posted about Elder of Ziyon’s exposure of the Oxfam funded Palestinian ‘charity’ Miftah and it promotion of antiSemitism. Elder of Ziyon has numerous updates here and here. The latter article contains a response from Oxfam that is almost identical to the one I have just received from Supporter Relations, Oxfam GB following my own letter to them. I have made the following response using some of Elder’s points and some new ones of my own (I have agreed with the person I am communicating with that I would not state their name on this site).

    Dear XXXX

    Thank you for your response but I am afraid it is unsatisfactory for the following reasons:.

    The ‘apology’ was not made in Arabic, the language of the essay, so Arab readers
    of Miftah will assume that Miftah (and Oxfam also) supports that blood libel. Moreover, you must be aware that Miftah did not issue its English apology until it was pressured to do so.
    Miftah have praised suicide bombers under their own name (see http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/miftah-removes-its-essay-praising.html) confirming that direct support for terrorism and anti-Semitism are a major part of Miftah’s activities.
    The section of Miftah’s site where the offensive article was published was not a “blog” as you say but an essay section where they republish articles they think are interesting for their readers. They even index the section so their readers can read other articles from the same author, and Nawaf al-Zaru has been featured five times.
    People who donate to Oxfam would certainly not do so if they were aware it funded organizations like Miftah. Not withstanding its anti-Semitism and terrorist support, when you say
    “We have worked with MIFTAH since 2010… implementing Oxfam’s regional project Supporting Women’s Transformative Leadership in Changing Times. The project targets marginalized women and men to support women’s rights and gender justice with the goal of increased empowerment, self-confidence, and leadership roles for women in public and private spheres”
    you might think this is something good, but you are simply confirming that Oxfam is spending money on things that have nothing to do with what charity donors in the UK think they are contributing to. In short you are defrauding them.

    Unless I hear from you that Oxfam is immediately terminating its support for Miftah I will be reporting Oxfam to the Charities Commission. I will also be contacting my MP about this. It is just not good enough.

    Yours

    Edgar Davidson

    UPDATE 8 April 2013: I have received a response from XXXX saying
    “I forwarded your feedback and comments to our Middle East team who deal with MIFTAH and who are currently in talks with the organisation regarding this matter. We will of course be happy to update you with any further information once we have it.”
    At least Oxfam seem to be taking this seriously and are courteous enough to respond. To date I have not even received an acknowledgement from either Comic Relief or – disgracefully – the Board of Deputies of British Jews (who recently announced a partnership with Oxfam).

  6. Ken Kelso says:

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2013/04/oxfam-covers-for-miftahs-doubletalk.html#.Uuz5tfldXow
    Oxfam covers for Miftah’s doubletalk
    Wednesday, April 03, 2013

    So far, most of the NGOs that fund Miftah have been silent during the blood-libel controversy I discovered.

    Oxfam, however, just responded to a couple of my readers’ inquiries (and then to mine) with a canned response which illustrates a troubling downplaying of the issue:

    Thank you for making us aware that a blog post published on the website of one of our partners, the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH), included reprehensible anti-Semitic statements.

    MIFTAH has removed the offensive blog post and issued a public apology on its website. MIFTAH has assured Oxfam that the individual behind the post has been reprimanded. Oxfam Is clearly on record as opposing the use of language or acting in ways which promote hate or discrimination.

    Oxfam has worked with MIFTAH since 2010. Currently, MIFTAH and three other partners are implementing Oxfam’s regional project Supporting Women’s Transformative Leadership in Changing Times. The project targets marginalized women and men to support women’s rights and gender justice with the goal of increased empowerment, self-confidence, and leadership roles for women in public and private spheres.

    Oxfam is surely aware that the section of Miftah’s site where the offensive article was published was not a “blog” but an essay section where they republish articles they think are interesting for their readers. They even index the section so their readers can read other articles from the same author, and Nawaf al-Zaru has been featured five times.

    Oxfam should also be aware that the “apology” was not issued in Arabic, the language of the hateful essay, meaning that Arabic-language readers of Miftah have no idea what Miftah’s opinion on the medieval blood libel is, and for all they know Miftah supports that heinous lie.

    Moreover, Oxfam must also be aware that Miftah did not issue its English apology until it felt under pressure to do so.

    Finally, this response did not even address one of the writer’s points about Miftah, that they have praised suicide bombers. And not in their “essay” section, either, but under their own name. (NOTE: Since that essay was discovered and publicized, Miftah has also silently removed that essay – but you can still find it archived at the UN!)

    Clearly, Oxfam wants to find excuses for Miftah instead of holding it to a standard that it would hold any Western NGO.

  7. Ken Kelso says:

    Unesco and Oxfam are 2 of the biggest donors to the racist blood libel organization Miftah.
    Click on the link and you’ll see the biggest donors to Miftah which includes Oxfam.

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2013/03/why-miftah-antisemitism-story-is-so.html#.Uuz_sPldXow
    Why the Miftah antisemitism story is so important
    March 28, 2013

    On Thursday, I reported exclusively that Miftah, an NGO that was founded by Palestinian Arab media darling Hanan Ashrawi, had published as pure an anti-semitic screed as is imaginable – resurrecting the reprehensible blood libel that Jews ritually slaughter Christian children and consume their blood on Passover.

    Miftah is an organization that is ostensibly dedicated to promoting Western, liberal idea like democracy and equal rights for women. At least, that’s what they tell their donors, which in 2011 included Oxfam, the Anna Lindh Foundation, Norway, Ireland, UNESCO and the US-based National Endowment for Democracy:

    Miftah presents itself as a transparent NGO dedicated to its ideals and principles.

    Yet, within hours of my publicizing the disgusting article on its website, Miftah simply deleted it – no explanation, no apologies, no excuses. It simply pretended that the hugely offensive piece never existed, hoping that no one would notice their cover-up.

    This is not how a transparent organization should act.

    Here we see what happens when a supposedly liberal Arab organization is faced with the exposure of bigotry and hate in its midst: it sweeps it under the rug. And, so far, the NGOs that fund Miftah have been complicit in this silence, hoping that the controversy will go away.

    And this is the problem.

    While these same liberal organizations would be the first ones to complain when they see an example of anti-blackracism, Arab antisemitism is not regarded as nearly as toxic an issue. They know, as all observers of the Middle East know, that Arab antisemitism is endemic. It is the rule, not the exception.

    Instead of demanding accountability and the eradication of hate among organizations funded by these Western NGOs and governments, Arab antisemitism is tacitly accepted as “one of those things,” or justified as a side effect of Israeli policies.

    However, this example of naked hate has no excuse. The classic blood libel has nothing to do with Zionism, nothing to do with modern Israel. It is a pure throwback to the Christian antisemitism of the Middle Ages. And it exists, today, in the Arab world.

    Just like the scourge of Christian Jew-hatred has been largely marginalized by modernity, by exposure and by shaming the haters, this is what must happen to today’s Muslim anti-semitism. It is not acceptable, it is not something to be hidden away when it gets exposed. It must be confronted and, most importantly, the people who practice it must be shamed. Shame is the West’s biggest weapon to fight Arab hate and it is one that too often is ignored because of a mistaken, cowardly idea that there is nothing to be gained by shaming people who are easily enraged.

    The offensive article was not written by a marginal figure or a loose cannon. Nawaf al-Zaru has written other articles for Miftah, and similarly his blood libel article is still visible on major Arab media, today. Not only that, but al-Zaru is regarded as an Arab expert on Israel and Hebrew. He has written numerous articles and books, and was the editor of at least two Jordanian newspapers. Indeed, he had written a more expansive version of the blood libel article in 2009, in response to an earlier Passover seder at the White House.

    His viewpoints aren’t an aberration. They are mainstream. I see the same kinds of writings nearly every day in the Arab media, although not always as explicit.

    By ignoring the hate, the funders of Miftah are tacitly endorsing it. And people like Hanan Ashrawi will not be called to account for overseeing a publication and website in which such hate can be published, past all the editors and webmasters and other gatekeepers whose salaries are being paid by these NGOs.

    The NGOs themselves should be falling over themselves to distance themselves from Miftah. The Anna Lindh Foundation says “Our purpose is to bring people together from across the Mediterranean to improve mutual respect between cultures.” How exactly can that purpose fit in with Miftah’s encouragement of hate of Jews? Shouldn’t people be tweeting them about this?

    Oxfam says “We strive to do what we say we will do. Read about our core values and operating principles against which we measure ourselves.” One of these is that “Unjust policies and practices, nationally and internationally, must be challenged and people’s rights must be respected.” Should Oxfam be measured by their own words? They are on Twitter as well.

    Part of UNESCO’s mission is “to contribute to the building of a culture of peace.” How can Arab Jew-hatred contribute to peace? Shouldn’t people tweet to them as well?

    The National Endowment for Democracy is a US-based NGO that also supports Miftah. They say that “NED provides hundreds of grants each year to non-governmental groups working abroad in the areas of human rights, independent media, the rule of law, civic education and the development of civil society in general.” How does Miftah’s hate and cover-ups fit in with that vision? You can tweet them and ask.

    Miftah is not the problem – it is a small symptom of the real problem. But to fix things we must start somewhere. And you, right now, can directly ask all of these NGOs and governments that fund Miftah what they are doing to uphold their own standards and distance themselves from the naked hate that Miftah apparently feels is acceptable discourse in the Arab world.

    • Harvey says:

      Unfortunately the British Board of Deputies is still setting proverbial red lines for Oxfam so as to maintain a joint cooperation project with Oxfam while calming those Deputies who pointed out the Oxfam /Miftah association . Fortunately that project is at an end . Perhaps BOD will issue a statement severing ties to Oxfam . We will have to wait a long time for that .

      The fact remains , it takes one smart lady to cut through all the political posturing and hand wringing doubts and recognise Oxfam for what it is .
      Pity the BOD were not as decisive .

      • anneinpt says:

        Unfortunately, it’s not only the UK board of deputies. So many Jewish organizations around the world are scared of their own shadow and prefer to take a position of lying low and not upsetting the antisemites rather than standing up for our rights and calling out the bigots for their bigotry.

  8. Ken Kelso says:

    http://blog.eretzyisrael.org/post/62671499139/bds-is-bs-expose-barghouti-omar-barghouti-the

    BDS is BS. Expose Barghouti.

    Omar Barghouti, the Qatari-born, Egyptian-raised Jordanian citizen and founder of the anti-Israel BDS (“Boycott Divestment Sanctions”) movement, likes to lie and claim that BDS is about fighting “oppression”.

    He likes to lie that slandering Israel, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, is somehow helping “human rights”. He likes to hide the fact that Israeli Arabs and Palestinians under Israel have far more rights than he will ever have in Qatar, Egypt or Jordan — or any Arab state. But sometimes, he exposes his real agenda:

    “We oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine…

    No Palestinian… who is not a sell out… will ever accept a Jewish state in ‘Palestine.’” — BDS Founder, Omar Barghouti

    BDS’ goal is to destroy the indigenous Jewish right to self determination. It is about destroying the democratic rights of all the Arabs, Jews and other ethnicity that today enjoy Israel’s democracy.

    BDS’ goal is to destroy Israel and replace it with another Arab state, and to make Jews as “safe” as the Christians being exterminated in Egypt and Syria and Gaza — the “One State” final solution.

  9. Ken Kelso says:

    http://www.israellycool.com/2014/01/27/bdshole-lets-down-guard/
    BDSHole Lets Down Guard

    Posted by: Aussie Dave in Aussie Dave January 27, 2014

    With BDSholes giving Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson hell over her association with SodaStream because they operate in the so-called “West Bank,” it bears remembering that this argument is disingenuous.

    You see, the BDSholes’ aim is to boycott any Israeli company or institution, and not just those in the disputed territories.

    But don’t take my word for it. Here is Scottish BDShole Mick Napier revealing the truth to an Arab TV station, likely unaware someone like me would get hold of it. Here is the video. Click on the Israelicool link above to see it.

    But he goes further than that. At 24:15 onwards, he rubbishes the two-state solution and speaks of historic Palestine. In other words, he wants the eradication of the entire state of Israel.

    None of this is new. But it bears reminding.
    http://www.israellycool.com/2011/09/11/aussie-bds-holes-show-true-colors/

    Bonus: Enable captions on the video for a good laugh. Trust me.

    Update: Mick Napier’s Twitter account is also revealing. On his Twitter profile, he clearly tries to distance himself from any possible accusations of antisemitism. https://twitter.com/micknapier

    mick napier twitter profile

    And he retweets a tweet from the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign – the organization he chairs – which refers to a terrorist as a “resistance fighter.”

    • This comment is an “eye-opener.” I believe few realize the extent of the organizations that exist that are irrationally anti-Israeli and remain “under the radar.” What may also be helpful is notification of organizations dedicated to exposing these insidious agents and bringing pressure on those ostensibly legitimate organizations to either investigate and/or terminate their support. Moreover, these legitimate organizations should, themselves, be exposed for not sufficiently vetting their associates and their histories of associations with Israel and its supporters and detractors. One person, as well intentioned and sophisticated as he may be, can only do so much in this problem having catastrophic consequences. We owe that person a debt of gratitude.

  10. anneinpt says:

    Ken, thank you for that very thorough roundup.

    Just a note – if you include more than 3 links in a comment it gets held back for moderation. Also, you don’t need to quote an entire article – just post the link and perhaps a snippet and the reader can go directly to the source, which would bring them more traffic and is therefore more fair.

  11. Pingback: Guest Post: A Palestinian explains the refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish state | Anne's Opinions

Comments are closed.