Articles

SALMA YAQOOB: TIME TO APOLOGISE
January 29, 2008
United Kingdom
NOVANEWS January 29, 2008 Posted by: anjam Most readers will be familar with Salma Yaqoob: a Birmingham councillor for the ...Read more
TIME TO APOLOGISE
January 29, 2008
United Kingdom
NOVANEWS Most readers will be familar with Salma Yaqoob: a Birmingham councillor for the far right Jamaat/Respect Renewal party. Salma ...Read more
From Gaza City, a Challenge for Peace
January 24, 2008
USA
NOVANEWS Death of the Bush Doctrine Thursday, January 24, 2008 By: Jeff Jacoby Boston Globe The Bush Doctrine -- born ...Read more
MUSLIM TRAITORS
January 3, 2008
Politics
NOVANEWS Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:54 pm     Post subject: Muslim Traitors   A list of Muslim Traitors was ...Read more
MUSLIM TRAITORS
January 3, 2008
Education
NOVANEWS   A list of Muslim Traitors was published today in the Guardian. The list is reproduced below. Can you ...Read more
SALMA YAQOOB ON BHUTTO
December 29, 2007
Politics
NOVANEWS December 29, 2007  at 3:15 am Anyone understand what ‘Respect Renewal’’s only credible figure means by the following (in ...Read more
YAQOOB: BHUTTO ICONIC FIGURE
December 29, 2007
United Kingdom
NOVANEWS Anyone understand what ‘Respect Renewal’’s only credible figure means by the following (in yesterday’s Morning Star)? “In Britain, Birmingham ...Read more
RACE BOSS CASE RAP; Charity chief in 'bias' row.
August 16, 2007
United Kingdom
NOVANEWS   Byline: BY JEANETTE OLDHAM  A MIDLAND charity boss who advises the Government on how to tackle discrimination has ...Read more
ONE APARTHEID STATE
July 24, 2007
Politics
NOVANEWS Three racist, discriminatory decisions undermine Israel's democratic character Yossi Paritzky One of the clearest rules that distinguishes a democratic ...Read more
SALMA SUPPORT ZIONIST HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY
July 1, 2007
Politics
NOVANEWS Here's a curious piece in the European Jewish Press. Apparently Respect was behind the Holocaust Memorial Day. The Muslim ...Read more
Islam Does Not Like Christians
May 10, 2007
Politics
NOVANEWS Posted by: Maisoon By: Elad Benari It is the WEST that GAVE US our Corrupt Leaders who are ruling ...Read more
The backlash against the UK National Union of Journalists’ boycott motion
May 1, 2007
Campaigns | United Kingdom
NOVANEWS The “continued occupation” protested by the UK National Union of Journalists: Israeli soldiers control the movement of Palestinians attempting to cross ...Read more

SALMA YAQOOB: TIME TO APOLOGISE

NOVANEWS

January 29, 2008

Posted by: anjam

Most readers will be familar with Salma Yaqoob: a Birmingham councillor for the far right Jamaat/Respect Renewal party.

Salma Yaqoob has been involved in extreme islamist politics for a number of years. She cut her teeth on a campaign to defend relatives of Abu Hamza, who had been arrested in Yemen where they were engaged in jihadism. She also wrote for Inayat Bunglawala’s “Trends” magazine, and penned a fantasy vision of Great Britain as an Islamic Republic, with Salman Rushdie fleeing for his life.

Salma Yaqoob is the spokeswoman for the lunatic Chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque, Dr “Dancing Cows” Naseem, the conspiracy theorist and advocate of capital punishment for homosexuality, who is the largest single funder of RESPECT. Her own press officer is a RESPECT activist called Adam Yosef, who has been in trouble for his outspoken homophobic abuse of Peter Tatchell.

Notoriously, she described the 7/7 London Bombings as “reprisal attacks” against American aggression.

Salma Yaqoob’s entire political career has been devoted to stirring up sectarian hatred.

A case in point is Yaqoob’s response to the anti-terror raids in Birmingham, one year ago. You’ll remember that, at the time, it was reported that the raids were in connection with a plot to kidnap a British soldier, cut his head off, and then place the video on the internet. A responsible politician would have taken the opportuntity to condemn terrorism, and call for support for the police.

A sectarian troublemaker would say something like this:

Yesterday Councillor Salma Yaqoob (Respect Sparkbrook) said speculation over an Iraq-style kidnap and execution only served to heighten tensions between the police and Muslim community.

Ms Yaqoob said: “The reality is that people are asking why are we being picked on, why are we being persecuted, because that’s what it feels like when all they want to do is get on with their day-to-day lives. The reason people are so fed up and cynical of the whole process is because the raids are so high profile. The area was full of reporters and television crews yesterday, but they will disappear quickly and when charges are dropped they’ll be nowhere to be seen. “That said I think there would be a huge public outcry if these latest raids fail to turn up anything that results in a successful prosecution “Well, the raids have today resulted in a guilty plea and a conviction, for a really appalling crime:

A 37-year-old Birmingham man has pleaded guilty to plotting to kidnap and kill a British soldier.

Parviz Khan, an unemployed charity worker, intended to seize and behead the unnamed Muslim serviceman “like a pig”, Leicester Crown Court was told. Three other men, Basiru Gassama, 30, Mohammed Irfan, 31, and Hamid Elasmar, 44, have admitted other offences connected with Khan’s plot.
…
The jury was told how Khan, of Alum Rock, intended to kidnap the soldier while on a night out, behead him in a lock-up garage and then release footage of the killing on the internet.

Nigel Rumfitt QC, prosecuting Mr Mahmood and Mr Iqbal, who both deny two offences relating to the plot, told the court that Khan had planned to seize the serviceman in Birmingham’s Broad Street entertainment quarter.

“He would be taken to a lock-up garage and there he would be murdered by having his head cut off like a pig,” he said.

“This atrocity would be filmed… and the film released to cause panic and fear within the British armed forces and the wider public.”

Khan, who also admits intending to supply equipment to terrorists on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, pleaded guilty to the plot earlier this month…”

Salma Yaqoob is invited to write op-eds for the Guardian. She is a favourite of the BBC, and is repeatedly invited on programmes like Question Time, where she is presented as a serious politician and a spokewoman for Britain’s muslims. In reality, she is a marginal politician, for a tiny party, whose interventions in local and national politics have been poisonous. Let us hope that we hear a lot less of Salma Yaqoob in the future.

Posted by david t at January 29, 2008 01:04 PM | TrackBack

 

Comments

Remember all that horseshit about spin doctors in the Home Office as well.

Posted by: Mike at January 29, 2008 01:08 PM

Salma Yaqoob is invited to write op-eds for the Guardian. She is a favourite of the BBC, and is repeatedly invited on programmes like Question Time

Now, now, David, jealousy will get you nowhere.

Posted by: Benjamin at January 29, 2008 01:16 PM

That’ll happen.

Yesterday someone brought up the “lyrical terrorist” on a CiF thread. (Funnily enough it was an Israeli trying to demonstrate that Israel is less repressive of Islamists than Britain!) I reminded him exactly why she was prosecuted. Both our comments were deleted, and I was warned to stay on topic… CiF ran a number of articles defending that person before the full facts were released. Now they are it is not permitted to talk about the case on the site!

Posted by: Thermaland at January 29, 2008 01:17 PM

The problem in relation to terrorism raids is that there’s a limit to what the police can say: because they don’t want to do anything which might cause problems later at trial.

Sectarian demagogues, like Tamimi or Yaqoob, take advantage of this handicap by stirring up communalist resentment, and creating a sense of victimisation which they know, full well, is wholly without basis.

Shamefully, their lies are repeated in parts of the liberal press, which should be countering them.

Posted by: David T at January 29, 2008 01:21 PM

Now they are it is not permitted to talk about the case on the site!

What do you expect? This is the paper that only fired its Hizb’Tuhir reporter because the public found out.

Posted by: Greg at January 29, 2008 01:24 PM

We seem to be the only country that has these bizarre laws that means you can’t report anything. I think it’s way over the top.

Even with this story they can’t say too much because there is still a trial of another two men going on.

Posted by: Mike at January 29, 2008 01:27 PM

Once again no respect is being shown for the Contempt of Court Act. This case is ongoing (other defendants deny the charges they face) and this posting is stupid high-risk behaviour in those circumstances

Posted by: a at January 29, 2008 01:29 PM

Not at all.

There is nothing in this post, relevant to the trial, which goes beyond what has been reported on the front page of the BBC News site.

Posted by: David T at January 29, 2008 01:35 PM

Salmas political survival depends on all Muslims being part of one group,rather than violent Jihadists and their Islamist apologists on one side,and the vast majority on the other.
Obvious relly as she is in the apologist group.
Remeber whe thought 7/7 were “Reprisal Attacks”

Posted by: tim at January 29, 2008 01:47 PM

Tim – I’d forgotten that. I’ll add it to the piece.

Posted by: David T at January 29, 2008 01:49 PM

You lot clearly missed her on the BBC breakfast time news talking about how getting muslim women more involved would- somehow- limit and curtail muslim extremism and their ideology.

I tell ya I nearly pissed myself.

She did manage to squeeze-in Iraq and Afghanistan hence making their ideological extremism all our fault though. Thanks BBC.

Posted by: Iain at January 29, 2008 02:10 PM

Greg, I am not au fait with the internal politics of the Guardian. I am aware that there is a faction there that can’t get enough of terror apologies and Israel-demonising and so on. But the way I see it, these people don’t own the Guardian. It’s partly in their stewardship, but just because they are disgracing it doesn’t mean it should be abandoned to them. There are also some really good writers, including on CiF specifically.

Posted by: Thermaland at January 29, 2008 02:16 PM

Now they are it is not permitted to talk about the case on the site!

Kommentar ist Erlaubt on CiF …. but Dissent ist absolutely Verboten!

CiF Heil … CiF Heil … CiF Heil!

Heil Mein Mullah!

(chanted with a glazed look in those pink red eyes …)

Posted by: tojo at January 29, 2008 02:18 PM

I’ve just watched the news with its report about the Birmingham trial. Several things struck me, one how ugly the defendents were (a capital crime in my book as I have pointed out before) and secondly, how they planned to kidnap and behead a WEST AFRICAN soldier. The soldier was never selected due to the Ghanaian plotter who was supposed to identify him deciding it was one religious obligation too far. I can’t help but think there was an underlying racism here, the same racism that leads to Kofi Annan being called ‘America’s slave’ by Islamicists.

The third thing that struck me was that there must be a lot of undiagonsed mental illness in immigrant communities, both psychotic and personality disorders. Easy for people like that to thrive in a culture that welcomes male bullying.

Posted by: Sue R at January 29, 2008 02:20 PM

There are also some really good writers, including on CiF specifically

When the good stuff is so outweighed by the pompous/self-righteous/anti-Zionist material the desire to seek it out is reduced to nil.

Posted by: Greg at January 29, 2008 03:28 PM

Well Sue R, black men are over represented in mental health illness statistics

Posted by: Charles at January 29, 2008 03:45 PM

and the Irish too (in London)

Posted by: Venichka at January 29, 2008 03:49 PM

Did sonic place a bet on this court case collapsing as well?

Posted by: sackcloth and ashes at January 29, 2008 03:55 PM

Not that I’m aware of, but he’ll certainly claim victory if he did.

Posted by: Oliver Kamm at January 29, 2008 05:14 PM

Not to be forgotten is Naseem’s own reaction to the Birmingham arrests. This is from an IHT “they are good lads” (uh huh) report from the neighbourhood:

The chairman of the Birmingham Central Mosque, Mohammed Naseem, said the attention from the arrests was unwelcome because it was based on what he called the un-British notion of arresting people on the basis of suspicion.

?!?!?

A few days later the Telegraph reported these lines from Naseem:

Dr Mohammad Naseem, the chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque, said it was vital that Muslims in the city did not panic or become angry despite growing scepticism about the intelligence which led to the arrests on Wednesday.
Dr Naseem’s call came after Islamic religious leaders nationwide urged Muslims to co-operate with police investigating the alleged plot to kidnap, torture and behead a British Muslim soldier.
Dr Naseem said that although it was “not a time to panic or get angry”, he disagreed with the manner of the arrests and the use of laws on the detention and questioning of suspects.
“This unfortunate country is moving towards a police state – the laws being passed are wrong and against the traditions of this country,” Dr Naseem said.

How about panic and anger about would-be head choppers instead? Strictly for racists, presumably.

Yaqoob’s latest piece in The Muslim News is also barking. Apparently the only banes of (truly unfortunate) Pakistan’s existence are the US and the army. It includes this line –

Musharraf has used the Pakistan army to wage war against its own people in Waziristan

– without any mention of why there is fighting in Waziristan.

This kind of nasty communalism and apologism for terrorists really must come to an end.

Posted by: habibi at January 29, 2008 06:34 PM

The problem in relation to terrorism raids is that there’s a limit to what the police can say: because they don’t want to do anything which might cause problems later at trial.

Then why, and how, does so much information get into the newspapers? Why was it “reported that the raids were in connection with a plot to kidnap a British soldier, cut his head off, and then place the video on the internet.”
Why was the area was full of reporters and television crews?

Posted by: Andrew Adams at January 29, 2008 06:41 PM

Because someone in the Police leaked it I woud guess Andrew.
Your point being?

Posted by: tim at January 29, 2008 07:25 PM

Presumably someone thought leaking out some information about what the suspected terrorist activity was might reassure the community that something genuine was happening. Otherwise it looks like the Police are coming in silently and abducting people without good reason – re-enforcing the impression that there is a “Police state”.

Today the Police in Birmingham raided a house thought to have sex workers in. Would you prefer the Police did not tell the public what they were doing?

Posted by: Anthony at January 29, 2008 07:30 PM

Because someone in the Police leaked it I would guess Andrew. Your point being?

That if “there is a limit to what the police can say” then they would be better off not leaking stuff to the press. If the raid, and especially the reason for it, did not get such huge publicity then the police would not be under pressure to reveal information which could cause problems at trial.

That’s assuming it was the police that leaked it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the hand of the Home Office wasn’t present somewhere.

To take Anthony’s point I’m sure there must be a way of liaising with the local community to reassure them that the raid was neccessary and appropriate without divulging the exact nature of the offences involved. I’m sure most people would prefer that to having TV and the press swarming all over their neighbourhood.

Posted by: Andrew Adams at January 29, 2008 08:34 PM

I like this one from Yaqoob in habibi’s link above

‘Western politicians are quick to criticise the thousands of madrasas in Pakistan. But the reason there are so many is that they are the only place poor families might at least ensure that one child will be clothed, fed and educated.’

which child would that be Salma?

Posted by: Mettaculture at January 29, 2008 08:38 PM

Andrew

I agree.

Posted by: David T at January 29, 2008 08:48 PM

To take Anthony’s point I’m sure there must be a way of liaising with the local community to reassure them that the raid was neccessary and appropriate without divulging the exact nature of the offences involved. I’m sure most people would prefer that to having TV and the press swarming all over their neighbourhood.

I agree.
I don’t think that would stop Salmas raison d’etre though.
I suspect then she’d be complaining about press blackouts and people being whisked away at dawn.

Posted by: tim at January 29, 2008 09:20 PM

I saw Alfred John on SkyTV on Thursday, somplaining about the sus laws, saying that they would be used against ‘subjugated people’. How is this man helping the situation? Isn’t he sworn to uphold the Queen’s Peace? His answer to the stabbings and gun crime on our streets is to get rid of poverty, just like that. The man is a buffoon and if that’s the quality of Black Policemen I despair. Why on earth join the Police if you have that attitude? Or does he have his own interests to advance?

Posted by: Sue R at February 1, 2008 11:48 AM

 

TIME TO APOLOGISE

NOVANEWS

Most readers will be familar with Salma Yaqoob: a Birmingham councillor for the far right Jamaat/Respect Renewal party.

Salma Yaqoob has been involved in extreme islamist politics for a number of years. She cut her teeth on a campaign to defend relatives of Abu Hamza, who had been arrested in Yemen where they were engaged in jihadism. She also wrote for Inayat Bunglawala’s “Trends” magazine, and penned a fantasy vision of Great Britain as an Islamic Republic, with Salman Rushdie fleeing for his life.

Salma Yaqoob is the spokeswoman for the lunatic Chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque, Dr “Dancing Cows” Naseem, the conspiracy theorist, who is the largest single funder of RESPECT. Her own press officer is a RESPECT activist called Adam Yosef, who has been in trouble for his outspoken homophobic abuse of Peter Tatchell.

Notoriously, she described the 7/7 London Bombings as “reprisal attacks” against American aggression.

Salma Yaqoob’s entire political career has been devoted to stirring up sectarian hatred. A case in point is Yaqoob’s response to the anti-terror raids in Birmingham, one year ago. You’ll remember that, at the time, it was reported that the raids were in connection with a plot to kidnap a British soldier, cut his head off, and then place the video on the internet. A responsible politician would have taken the opportuntity to condemn terrorism, and call for support for the police.

A sectarian troublemaker would say something like this:

Yesterday Councillor Salma Yaqoob (Respect Sparkbrook) said speculation over an Iraq-style kidnap and execution only served to heighten tensions between the police and Muslim community.

Ms Yaqoob said: “The reality is that people are asking why are we being picked on, why are we being persecuted, because that’s what it feels like when all they want to do is get on with their day-to-day lives. The reason people are so fed up and cynical of the whole process is because the raids are so high profile.

The area was full of reporters and television crews yesterday, but they will disappear quickly and when charges are dropped they’ll be nowhere to be seen. “That said I think there would be a huge public outcry if these latest raids fail to turn up anything that results in a successful prosecution “Well, the raids have today resulted in a guilty plea and a conviction, for a really appalling crime:

A 37-year-old Birmingham man has pleaded guilty to plotting to kidnap and kill a British soldier.

Parviz Khan, an unemployed charity worker, intended to seize and behead the unnamed Muslim serviceman “like a pig”, Leicester Crown Court was told. Three other men, Basiru Gassama, 30, Mohammed Irfan, 31, and Hamid Elasmar, 44, have admitted other offences connected with Khan’s plot.
…
The jury was told how Khan, of Alum Rock, intended to kidnap the soldier while on a night out, behead him in a lock-up garage and then release footage of the killing on the internet.

Nigel Rumfitt QC, prosecuting Mr Mahmood and Mr Iqbal, who both deny two offences relating to the plot, told the court that Khan had planned to seize the serviceman in Birmingham’s Broad Street entertainment quarter.

“He would be taken to a lock-up garage and there he would be murdered by having his head cut off like a pig,” he said.

“This atrocity would be filmed… and the film released to cause panic and fear within the British armed forces and the wider public.”

Khan, who also admits intending to supply equipment to terrorists on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, pleaded guilty to the plot earlier this month…”

Salma Yaqoob is invited to write op-eds for the Guardian. She is a favourite of the BBC, and is repeatedly invited on programmes like Question Time, where she is presented as a serious politician and a spokewoman for Britain’s muslims.

In reality, she is a marginal politician, for a tiny party, whose interventions in local and national politics have been poisonous. Let us hope that we hear a lot less of Salma Yaqoob in the future.

Posted by david t at January 29, 2008 01:04 PM | TrackBack

From Gaza City, a Challenge for Peace

NOVANEWS

Death of the Bush Doctrine
Thursday, January 24, 2008
By: Jeff Jacoby
Boston Globe
The Bush Doctrine — born on Sept. 20, 2001, when President Bush bluntly warned the sponsors of
violent jihad: “You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists” — is dead. Its demise was
announced by Condoleezza Rice last Friday.
The secretary of state was speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route with the president
to Kuwait from Israel. She was explaining why the administration had abandoned the most
fundamental condition of its support for Palestinian statehood – namely, an end to Palestinian
terror. Rice’s explanation, recounted here by The Washington Times, was as striking for its candor
as for its moral blindness:
“The ‘road map’ for peace, conceived in 2002 by Mr. Bush, had become a hindrance to the peace
process, because the first requirement was that the Palestinians stop terrorist attacks. As a result,
every time there was a terrorist bombing, the peace process fell apart and went back to square one.
Neither side ever began discussing the ‘core issues’: the freezing of Israeli settlements in the West
Bank, the right of Palestinian refugees to return, the outline of Israel ‘s border, and the future of
Jerusalem.
“‘The reason that we haven’t really been able to move forward on the peace process for a number
of years is that we were stuck in the sequentiality of the road map. So you had to do the first phase
of the road map before you moved on to the third phase of the road map, which was the actual
negotiations of final status,’ Rice said. . . . What the US-hosted November peace summit in
Annapolis did was ‘break that tight sequentiality. . . You don’t want people to get hung up on
settlement activity or the fact that the Palestinians haven’t fully been able to deal with the terrorist
infrastructure. . .'”
Thus the president who once insisted that a “Palestinian state will never be created by terror” now
insists that a Palestinian state be created regardless of terror. Once the Bush administration
championed a “road map” whose first and foremost requirement was that the Palestinians “declare
an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism” and shut down “all official . . . incitement against
Israel .” Now the administration says that Palestinian terrorism and incitement are nothing “to get
hung up on.”
Whatever happened to the moral clarity that informed the president’s worldview in the wake of
9/11? Whatever happened to the conviction that was at the core of the Bush Doctrine: that
terrorists must be anathematized and defeated, and the fever-swamps that breed them drained and
detoxified?
Bush’s support for the creation of a Palestinian state was always misguided — rarely has a society
shown itself less suited for sovereignty — but at least he made it clear that American support came
at a stiff price: “The United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state,” Bush
Death of the Bush Doctrine Page 1 of 2
http://www.cephas-library.com/israel_death_of_the_bush_doctrine.html 1/2/2011
BACK
said in his landmark June 2002 speech on the Israeli-Arab conflict, “until its leaders engage in a
sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure.” He reinforced that
condition two years later, confirming in a letter to Ariel Sharon that “the Palestinian leadership
must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop
terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure.”
Now that policy has gone by the boards, replaced by one less focused on achieving peace than on
maintaining a “peace process.” No doubt it *is* difficult, as Rice says, to “move forward on the
peace process” when the Palestinian Authority glorifies suicide bombers and encourages a
murderous yearning to eliminate the Jewish state. If the Bush Doctrine — “with us or with the
terrorists” — were still in force, the peace process would have been shelved once the Palestinians
made clear that they had no intention of rejecting violence or accepting Israel ‘s existence. The
administration would be treating the Palestinians as pariahs, allowing them no assistance of any
kind, much less movement toward statehood, so long as their encouragement of terrorism
persisted.
But it is the Bush Doctrine that has been shelved. In its hunger for Arab support against Iran — and
perhaps in a quest for a historic “legacy” — the administration has dropped “with us or with the
terrorists.” It is hellbent instead on bestowing statehood upon a regime that stands unequivocally
with the terrorists. “Frankly, it’s time for the establishment of a Palestinian state,” Rice says.
When George W. Bush succeeded Bill Clinton, he was determined not to replicate his
predecessor’s blunders in the Middle East, a determination that intensified after 9/11. Yet he too
has succumbed to the messianism that leads US presidents to imagine they can resolve the Arab-
Israeli conflict. Clinton ‘s legacy in this arena was the second intifada, which drenched the region
in blood. To what fresh hell will Bush’s diplomacy lead?
Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author. If you have a problem with the
correctness of the information, please contact the author.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
Tell your friends about us and thank you for visiting Cephas Ministry Inc. (www.cephasministry.com)
 
22/01/2008
The Boston Globe
Letters to the Editor
http://www.boston.com
January 22, 2008
IN BETWEEN the daily power outages of 10 to 12 hours in our lifeless
city, I took an interest in reading online Jeff Jacoby’s Jan. 16 op-ed
“Death of the Bush doctrine.” There never was a “Bush doctrine” for the
Palestinian issue, and there never will be.
Whether President Bush’s administration, or any other, cares to believe it,
the only doctrine that can mitigate Israel’s occupation and provide a path
for Palestinians and Israelis to emerge from this bloody conflict is that of
international humanitarian law. Ignoring this basic global reference point
is costing US taxpayers millions of dollars a day in supporting Israel and
providing humanitarian support for us, the people living (or trying to)
with the boot of Israeli military occupation on our necks.
I was surprised to read such a seasoned and supposedly well-informed
columnist end his piece by asking, “To what fresh hell will Bush’s
diplomacy lead?” I am currently living in the hell Jacoby speaks of – not
the one created only during and after Bush’s recent visit to the region,
but the one that is characterized by more than 40 nonstop years of Israeli
military occupation of the Gaza Strip.
I challenge the United States to wield its influence to get Israel to try the
only thing that it has refused to try to date to end the conflict: to
immediately end the Israeli occupation without any preconditions and
without holding my life and future hostage to some final-status solution
yet to be negotiated.
MAHA MEHANNA
Al-Rimal, Gaza City
PMC © All Rights Reserved

MUSLIM TRAITORS

NOVANEWS

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:54 pm    

Post subject: Muslim Traitors

 

A list of Muslim Traitors was published today in the Guardian. The list is reproduced below. Can you believe that these appeasers are actually telling British Muslims to vote Labour? Talk about uncle Toms or what.

What is more shocking is that some of them such as SALMA YAQOOB actually represent ANTI – Labour parties such as RESPECT. My view is clear. Anyone who votes Labour has the blood of a million dead Muslims on their conscience. No ifs no buts.

Abdi Ismail, East African Society

Ali Alhadithi, Federation of Student Islamic Societies

Ahmed Amir, European Academy for Islamic Studies

Abdurahman Abu Daya, Al Hiwar TV

Abdallah Faliq, Islamic Forum Europe

Abdulmonem Haresha, Muslim Welfare House

Abdul Shaheed, North London Central Mosque

Ahmed Malik, Editor, Muslim Weekly

Ali Khan, Muslim Green Pages

Anas Altikriti, The Cordoba Foundation

Atif Choudry, Zaytoun Trading

Azad Ali, Muslim Community Radio

Belgacem Kahlalech, Algerian League in Britain President

Dilwar Hussain, London Muslim Centre

Dr Abdul Fattah Sa’ad, Al Muntada Al Islami

Dr Abdul Kareem Khaleel, Muslim heritage Centre

Dr Azzam Tamimi, Institute of Islamic Political Thought

Dr Daud Abdullah, An Noor Masjid Acton

Dr Kamal Helbawi, Centre for the Study of Terrorism

Dr Hafiz Al Karmi, Mayfair Mosque

Dr Hashim Charif, Amal Trust

Dr Ismail Jalisi, Muslim Association of Britain London

Dr Jameel Sharif, Salaam.co.uk

Dr Noureddine Miladi, Centre for Arab & Muslim Media Research

Fareed Sabri, Iraqi Communities in London

Fida Alaeddin, IslamExpo

Hashir Farooqi, IMPACT International

Hassan Muinudeen, Dawatul Islam

Imran Hamid, Muslim Health Network

Inayat Bunglawala, Islamic Society of Britain

Ismail Patel, Friends of Al Aqsa

Luqman Ali, Khayaal Theatre Company

M Iqbal Asaria, Afkar Consulting

Majid Azeer, Palestine Return Centre

Mohammad Ali, Islam Channel

Mohamed Basha, Arabic Cultural Community

Mohammad Habib ur Rahman, President Islamic Forum Europe

Mohamad Mounir Rai, Hounslow Jamia & Islamic Centre

Mohammad Kozbar, Lebanese League London

Mohammad Sawlaha, British Muslim Initiative

Mohamed Mumtaz, Crescent Relief

Munier Hagus, The Eritrean Muslim Community Association

Mustafa al Mansur, MOSAIC Foundation

Mohammad Zabadne

Mufti Barkatulla, Islamic Computing Centre in North London

Naja Mohammad, Sri Lank Islamic Forum- UK

Professor Tariq Ramadan, Oxford University / Lokahi Foundation

Ruhul Trafader, 1990 Trust

Riaz Wali, UK Islamic Mission

Riaz Ramzan, the Muslim Directory

Ruqqaya Collector, NUS Black Student

Salma Yaqoob, Vice Chair Respect

Salim Bhorat, Just Peace

Sheikh Haitham Al Haddad, Al Muntada Al Islami

Sheikh Islamil Gangat, Leyton Mosque

Sheikh Sulaiman Ghani, Tooting Mosque

Sir Iqbal Sacranie

Soumaya Ghannoushi, Academic and freelance writer

Tanzeem Wasiti, Muslim Solidarity Committee

Tariq Dhaal, Pakistani Community Centre Brent

Unaiza Malik

Yasmin Qureshi, Prospective Parliamentary Candidate

Zahir Birawi, Palestinian Forum in Britain

MUSLIM TRAITORS

NOVANEWS
 

A list of Muslim Traitors was published today in the Guardian. The list is reproduced below. Can you believe that these appeasers are actually telling British Muslims to vote Labour? Talk about uncle Toms or what.

What is more shocking is that some of them such as Salma Yaqoob actually represent ANTI – Labour parties such as Respect. My view is clear. Anyone who votes Labour has the blood of a million dead Muslims on their conscience. No ifs no buts.

Abdi Ismail, East African Society
Ali Alhadithi, Federation of Student Islamic Societies
Ahmed Amir, European Academy for Islamic Studies
Abdurahman Abu Daya, Al Hiwar TV
Abdallah Faliq, Islamic Forum Europe
Abdulmonem Haresha, Muslim Welfare House
Abdul Shaheed, North London Central Mosque
Ahmed Malik, Editor, Muslim Weekly
Ali Khan, Muslim Green Pages
Anas Altikriti, The Cordoba Foundation
Atif Choudry, Zaytoun Trading
Azad Ali, Muslim Community Radio
Belgacem Kahlalech, Algerian League in Britain President
Dilwar Hussain, London Muslim Centre
Dr Abdul Fattah Sa’ad, Al Muntada Al Islami
Dr Abdul Kareem Khaleel, Muslim heritage Centre
Dr Azzam Tamimi, Institute of Islamic Political Thought
Dr Daud Abdullah, An Noor Masjid Acton
Dr Kamal Helbawi, Centre for the Study of Terrorism
Dr Hafiz Al Karmi, Mayfair Mosque
Dr Hashim Charif, Amal Trust
Dr Ismail Jalisi, Muslim Association of Britain London
Dr Jameel Sharif, Salaam.co.uk
Dr Noureddine Miladi, Centre for Arab & Muslim Media Research
Fareed Sabri, Iraqi Communities in London
Fida Alaeddin, IslamExpo
Hashir Farooqi, IMPACT International
Hassan Muinudeen, Dawatul Islam
Imran Hamid, Muslim Health Network
Inayat Bunglawala, Islamic Society of Britain
Ismail Patel, Friends of Al Aqsa
Luqman Ali, Khayaal Theatre Company
M Iqbal Asaria, Afkar Consulting
Majid Azeer, Palestine Return Centre
Mohammad Ali, Islam Channel
Mohamed Basha, Arabic Cultural Community
Mohammad Habib ur Rahman, President Islamic Forum Europe
Mohamad Mounir Rai, Hounslow Jamia & Islamic Centre
Mohammad Kozbar, Lebanese League London
Mohammad Sawlaha, British Muslim Initiative
Mohamed Mumtaz, Crescent Relief
Munier Hagus, The Eritrean Muslim Community Association
Mustafa al Mansur, MOSAIC Foundation
Mohammad Zabadne
Mufti Barkatulla, Islamic Computing Centre in North London
Naja Mohammad, Sri Lank Islamic Forum- UK
Professor Tariq Ramadan, Oxford University / Lokahi Foundation
Ruhul Trafader, 1990 Trust
Riaz Wali, UK Islamic Mission
Riaz Ramzan, the Muslim Directory
Ruqqaya Collector, NUS Black Student
Salma Yaqoob, Vice Chair Respect
Salim Bhorat, Just Peace
Sheikh Haitham Al Haddad, Al Muntada Al Islami
Sheikh Islamil Gangat, Leyton Mosque
Sheikh Sulaiman Ghani, Tooting Mosque
Sir Iqbal Sacranie
Soumaya Ghannoushi, Academic and freelance writer
Tanzeem Wasiti, Muslim Solidarity Committee
Tariq Dhaal, Pakistani Community Centre Brent
Unaiza Malik
Yasmin Qureshi, Prospective Parliamentary Candidate
Zahir Birawi, Palestinian Forum in Britain

 

SALMA YAQOOB ON BHUTTO

NOVANEWS

December 29, 2007
 at 3:15 am

Anyone understand what ‘Respect Renewal’’s only credible figure means by the following (in yesterday’s Morning Star)?

“In Britain, Birmingham RESPECT councillor SALMA YAQOO told of her shock at Ms Bhutto’s death, noting that she had been ‘an iconic figure ?? in the context of being a woman who returned from exile to stand for election.’

“Ms YAQOOB pointed out that ‘the war on terror has been disatrous for the country,’ saying ‘There is no doubt that it was a contributing factor in what happened today.’”

 

YAQOOB: BHUTTO ICONIC FIGURE

NOVANEWS

Anyone understand what ‘Respect Renewal’’s only credible figure means by the following (in yesterday’s Morning Star)?

“In Britain, Birmingham Respect Councilor Salma Yaqoob told of her shock at Ms Bhutto’s death, noting that she had been ‘an iconic figure in the context of being a woman who returned from exile to stand for election.’

“Ms Yaqoob pointed out that ‘the war on terror has been disatrous for the country,’ saying ‘There is no doubt that it was a contributing factor in what happened today.’”

RACE BOSS CASE RAP; Charity chief in 'bias' row.

NOVANEWS

 

Byline: BY JEANETTE OLDHAM 
A MIDLAND charity boss who advises the Government on how to tackle discrimination has been criticised by a court for failing in his duty of impartiality. Dr Dick Atkinson was slammed by employment tribunal chiefs after he refused to stand down from a disciplinary panel when his neutrality was challenged.
He is founder and chief executive of the Balsall Heath Forum, a Birmingham community group which has tackled crime in the area with CCTV.

The charity was described as a ‘shining example’ to the nation by David Blunkett, who last week resigned as Work and Pensions Secretary. 
Mr Blunkett was impressed by the Forum’s work when he visited Birmingham in December 2001 and is understood to have become good friends with Dr Atkinson.
But Dr Atkinson’s professional fairness was called into question after he chaired a disciplinary hearing which led to the sacking of a Forum employee – despite previously investigating an unsubstantiated allegation against him.
Former CCTV controller Sammi Ibrahem, of Balsall Heath, worked for the Forum until he was dismissed in September, 2003. Last week, he won a claim for unfair dismissal. The Birmingham tribunal heard how Mr Ibrahem made an accusation about a work colleague, claiming hehad assaulted a child and made racial comments about an employee.
Soon afterwards, he was cautioned with disciplinary action over allegations that he had offered to disregard CCTV footage showing motoring offences of some community members for a pounds 50 payment. Mr Ibrahem, 43, denied the claims and the matter was dropped by the police.
Unison backed Mr Ibrahem, and pointed out the inappropriateness of Dr Atkinson hearing a subsequent disciplinary case, which led to his sacking.
John Foley, representing Mr Ibrahem, said Dr Atkinson was not the right person to chair the final disciplinary hearing Mr Foley said: “I think it’s incredible that a Government adviser would flout strict procedures like this.
“He advises on issues surrounding discrimination and yet he insisted, against advice, on chairing a disciplinary hearing when he had clearly made up his mind he wanted that employee out of the organisation.”
Tribunal chairman Paul Rose agreed, telling the hearing: “It was the same as a judge interviewing a police witness before a hearing.”
The tribunal found in favour of Mr Ibrahem. Last night he said: “I’m delighted that I won the case and feel vindicated.”
Dr Atkinson was unavailable for comment last night

ONE APARTHEID STATE

NOVANEWS
Three racist, discriminatory decisions undermine Israel’s democratic character
Yossi Paritzky
One of the clearest rules that distinguishes a democratic state from a non-democratic state is the principle of equality when it comes to rights and obligations. In a democratic country, all citizens regardless of race, religious, gender or origin are entitled to equality when it comes to national assets, services and resources, and all citizens regardless of race, religion, gender or origin are equally obligated by national duties.
For example, in a democratic country everyone must pay taxes (although at different rates, of course,) and everyone must obey the law. On the other hand, every citizen in a democratic state is entitled to enjoy individual freedoms. One is entitled to purchase assets in the country, marry anyone he or she wish, work wherever one wants, study whatever one wishes, and express himself or herself as they wish..
In short, equality is the basic tenet of a liberal western democracy and without it a country is not democratic in practice although possibly democratic by law.
Last week, in a series of three decisions that are separate but connected through a stench of racism and discrimination, Israel entered the dismal pantheon of non-democratic states. This past Wednesday, Israel decided to be like apartheid-era South Africa, and some will say even worse countries that no longer exist.
Let’s start with obligations. In a democratic country that has mandatory military service, all citizens must serve with no exception (aside
from those who are unable to for health reasons or similar grounds.) A person should not be getting an exemption from service based on one’s religion or race. And there, with a slight hand gesture, the Knesset decided to “extend” the legislation known as the Tal Law – which initially was meant to be valid for five transitory years only, in order to examine the possibility of integrating the strictly Orthodox into the IDF.
This was a blatantly anti-democratic arrangement and even those who drafted it reemphasized that it was merely a temporary agreement for five years only, yet around here the temporary becomes permanent, particularly when we’re talking about discrimination and racism.
‘Tainted sect’
The second apartheid decision has to do with the apparent “good news” that those who are unable to wed as a result of religious limitations would be able to marry each other now. What a disgusting expression that is. In a democratic country, a couple is allowed to marry however it wishes and the State is not at all allowed to interfere in this choice. It must allow any man to marry the woman he chooses (and in some countries same-sex marriages are also allowed,) because the State has no interest, and must not have one, in an individual’s happiness and in the person one chooses to spend their life with.
But around here the situation is different. The division is based on religions and sects, and a member of one religion is not allowed to marry someone of a different religion. This has led to the emergence of a situation whereby an Israeli whose mother isn’t Jewish, therefore making him non-Jewish according to Jewish law, was unable to marry in Israel at all.
Yet instead of allowing such person or any other person to marry as they wish, the government decided to establish a new sect. Now, a tainted sect has been created of people who can only marry among themselves. And so, an IDF officer whose last name is Rabinovich or even Cohen, who was born to a Jewish father but not a Jewish mother, would not be able to marry the woman who served in the army with him because she, lo and behold, is a kosher Jew while he is “tainted.”
The culmination of this chutzpa is the fact that the current justice minister makes pretenses to call this racist arrangement a “breakthrough.”
Anti-Zionist forces come together
The third racist decision was the one that banned Arab citizens of Israel from purchasing national land. Well, not all land, but only a part of it – Jewish National Fund land.
Imagine the French government banning Jews from purchasing land in Paris and its vicinity. Imagine that the United States would ban Jews from purchasing land in New England, because that’s the cradle of American culture. What would we say then?
Yet when it comes to Arabs we keep silent, because we have been accustomed to think that in Israel there are citizens of various ranks and not everyone is entitled to the same rights.
The highlight of this absurd situation is that racist discourse takes place in the Israeli Knesset, yet nobody sees their own racism. Arab Knesset members, who justifiably protested the terrible discrimination against them, voted in favor of the Tal Law, which allows discrimination among Jews.
Instead of Arab Knesset members backing the enlistment of Arab Israelis to the army and playing an appropriate role when it comes to duties and rights, they preserve the racism. And so, all the anti-Zionist forces joined together – the Arabs, strictly Orthodox and settlers – to bring Israel to a place of chaos and darkness, blatant racism and screaming discrimination. All of them joined forces in order to bring us to a state of apartheid.
History has amused us by bringing these decisions at the beginning of the month of Av. Anyone who will be studying the destruction of the Third Temple, that is, the collapse of the Zionist enterprise and of the State of Israel, would certainly emphasize the above-mentioned disastrous decisions.
History played another trick by bringing these decisions a day after Jabotinsky Day was marked. Ze’ev Jabotinsky was a full-fledged atheist, secular, and Zionist who wrote that Arabs and Jews will be playing in this country together. Had he been resurrected and seen those who pretend to be his successors pass these despicable and contemptible decisions, he would certainly wish to die.
The writer is a former Shinui cabinet minister

SALMA SUPPORT ZIONIST HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

NOVANEWS

Here’s a curious piece in the European Jewish Press. Apparently Respect was behind the Holocaust Memorial Day. The Muslim Council of Britain has been castigated by various Zionists in the media for boycotting HMD. Well now Respect’s support for the event has caused great disgruntlement to Zionists. Check this:

We believe that Respect may have organised this Holocaust Memorial Day event as a political ploy to inoculate them against what so called future charges of anti-Semitism.

When they attack the Zionists in future, they will point to their embrace of Holocaust Memorial Day to demonstrate that their criticism is purely about the Zionist state of ‘Israel’ and that they care very much about Jews.

The question is what does Salma yakov Respect councillor and Respect have to do to appease this particular Zionist group? Should it make like the MCB and boycott HMD? Personally, I’m not comfortable with HMD as the Zionist has clearly used the holocaust to justify its own actions but I suppose there are lessons that can be drawn from it in terms of why we should oppose all manifestations of racist rule.

 

Islam Does Not Like Christians

NOVANEWS

Posted by: Maisoon

By: Elad Benari

It is the WEST that GAVE US our Corrupt Leaders who are ruling OUR Nations FOR THE  KABBALA ZIONIST WEST.
It is the WEST that CREATED ISRAEL in 1948!!
It is the WEST and its ignorant people that Finance and give moral ‘religious’ biblical support to the PHONEY JEWISH State of Israel

It is ISRAEL, not the USA, that owns and CONTROLS THE USA as was so vividly and brazenly stated by the Butcher of Beirut, Sharon.

It is ISRAEL that gives the mind controlled West its orders and propaganda Tools and its marching orders!!

It is ISRAEL that is a NUCLEAR STATE

It is ISRAEL that possesses and has used WMDS and MINI NUKES and other diabolical Chemical and Biological Weapons on Arabs – Palestine, Iraq,Lebanon, Syria, Egypt!!

It is ISRAEL that has its NUCLEAR WARHEADS TARGETED at every single European Capital City, according to a Military Strategy Israeli professor

It is ISRAEL, not Palestine that has an ARMY both funded and armed thanks to American/European Zionist Jewry

It is ISRAEL , NOT Palestinians carrying out a MASS HOLOCAUST of Palestinians it is ISRAEL that violates International Law, the Geneva Convention and.

It is ISRAEL that has NEVER complied with ANY UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS, which total well over 70 to date!!
It is ISRAEL that committed the first TERRORIST attack an assassinates European officials.

It is ISRAEL that carried out 9/11, 7/7 London Bombing, Madrid Bombing,, USS Liberty, the 1967 Arab Israeli war and all the other Arab Israeli Conflicts.

It is ISRAEL COVERTLY involved in Iraq, training and Funding the troublesome Kurds, the Rebels in Darfur and Somalia which Israel incites. It is ISRAEL tha is the Apartheid Racist State, an Apartheid and Racism far worse than anything Black africa endured, according to Desmond Tutu!!

It is ISRAEL carrying out secret Eugenics projects, creating biological weapons that they hope will target “Arab genes’

It is Palestine that is suffering Palestinians have no army, no military etc…. their country/infrastructure severely  divided, many of their democratically Elected officials imprisoned and regularly humiliated and tortured

It is Palestinian Christians and Muslims being ethnically cleansed, slowly holocausted, not the Israelis!! It is Palestine that is dying every minute. It is Palestinian children being used as target practice by bored and drug induced and indoctrinated mind  controlled racist IDF soldiersand yet here you are attacking Palestinians for their RIGHTto seek armed struggle, as pathetic as it is, against the Devil’s Demons and Hamas are the only group we have left who are unwilling to SELL their Peoples’ SOULS to Satan and his Disciples!

It is Palestinians who are living in one huge GULAG Concentration Camp, surrounded by a formidable American funded IDF Military, unable to move freely from street to street, village to village, country to country, with  no access totheir schools, their universities, hospitals, civic centres, their roads, their water, their land, their employment, their livelihoods, evenf rom their own relatives, divided by a monstrous 18m STONE WALL to SEGREGATE the INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

I for one as a Palestinian already know that we do not HAVE any Arab Allies within our corrupt and bought Government Leaders and our struggle is going to be tragically difficult and heart breaking. I for one will support Hamas as long as it continues to honour the principles and RIGHTS of the Palestinian People.

I will continue to support these people who fight to rid our nation of Traitors within, shameful to our people, and rid our nation of our Oppressors and Colonial racist Occupiers, be they American, British, French German, Russian, Dutch, Italian, Spanish European Zionist ‘Jewish’ Judeo Converts!

The backlash against the UK National Union of Journalists’ boycott motion

NOVANEWS

The “continued occupation” protested by the UK National Union of Journalists: Israeli soldiers control the movement of Palestinians attempting to cross Huwara checkpoint near the West Bank city of Nablus, 29 April 2007. (Rami Swidan/MaanImages)

There’s nothing quite like a boycott to test the limits of the mainstream ‘liberal’ critique of Israel. This has been demonstrated once again by the reaction to a motion at the recent UKNational Union of Journalists (NUJ) conference that gave the union’s support to the campaign to boycott Israeli goods. 
An official statement described the successful vote as a “decision of NUJ members as trade unionists and as citizens to try to help put pressure on the Israeli government” to stop the “continued occupation”, as well as referencing the specific issues of Israel’s withholding of PA money, and the refusal to recognise internationally-accredited Palestinian journalists.
A modest but important show of solidarity for a beleaguered people occupied by a state supported by powerful Western governments? Or an irrelevant and infantile gesture, that compromises journalistic neutrality and smells of anti-Semitism? From the conservativeThe Daily Telegraph, to the liberal Guardian, there was only one interpretation in town.
Pundits and editorials have been employing different arguments, though most of them can be grouped into three main accusations: irrelevancy, bias unbecoming of a journalists’ trade union, and exceptionalism (or anti-Semitism). The first, irrelevancy, was seized upon by many critics as the perfect opportunity to smear the motion on a point of order — what was a journalists’ union doing supporting a politicised boycott? However, the idea that a trade union should ignore international issues and stick with issues directly affecting the workforce it represents surely flies in the face of decades of international union solidarity for those struggling against injustice.
The fact that BBC journalist Alan Johnston was still missing, presumed held by a Palestinian group, at the time of the conference, increased the anti-boycotters’ sense of incredulity. Witness Jonathan Freedland’s Guardian column: “ ‘So, besides holding a special session on Johnston, what is the NUJ’s response? To spring into action and boycott, er, Israel. Does someone need to give those 66 NUJ activists who voted for a boycott (as opposed to the 54 who voted against) a quick refresher course in the Middle East conflict, so they can tell which side is which?’”
It was an odd argument, since it presumes the impossibility of condemning the kidnapping of journalists at the same time as also identifying Israel as a colonial occupier requiring global civil society action. Curiously, Freedland was not alone in alleging an apparent lack of concern for Johnston’s fate. The Foreign Press Association weighed in with its own condemnation of the resolution, noting the omission of Johnston’s disappearance from the text — despite Johnston’s kidnapping being specifically condemned by the NUJ in a separate motion. Even The Independent’s Donald Macintyre, speaking to The Jerusalem Post, seemed to suggest that the NUJ’s boycott motion was instead of, rather than as well as a commitment to working for Johnston’s release.
Enter the Guardian’s editorial, which beside from bearing a striking similarity to Freedland’s anti-boycott column in the same paper, drew together the cry of irrelevancy and the concern of ‘bias’. The motion, which the Guardian claimed strayed “beyond the reasonable and traditional concerns of a journalists’ union”, also apparently ran counter to the journalistic norm of “a spirit of fairness and disinterested inquiry”.
Thus even the Guardian, a newspaper berated by UK Zionists as being a bastion of anti-Israeli propaganda, claims that media ‘fairness’ and objectivity is compromised by first, identifying Israel as an illegal occupier (which is true) and two, commit oneself to challenging this status quo (an entirely acceptable response to the former). But this argument was, of course, disingenuous on an even more fundamental level, as it presupposes a non-existent standard of journalistic accuracy in Middle East reporting.
The hypocrisy of the ‘bias’ critique was unwittingly exposed by The Daily Telegraph’s USAeditor, Toby Harnden, who, towards the conclusion of his blog excoriating the NUJ vote, provided an insight into the perspective of mainstream British journalists assigned to Israel/Palestine:

But most British journalists based in Jerusalem — and I was one of them — have a mix of sympathy for the terrible plight of ordinary Palestinians, a belief that there will be a two-state solution and even sneaking admiration for what Israel has achieved in terms of nation-building in its short history.

First of all, note that the vast majority of reporters are based in West Jerusalem — despite the occupation’s centrality to the conflict, no one actually chooses to live under it. But secondly, observe the general viewpoint: humanitarian hand-wringing for the Palestinians, without any causal link between their “plight” and dispossession, as well as “admiration” for just how well Israel has managed to colonise Palestine.The most common attack on the NUJ motion though, and an accusation wheeled out for every single boycott, is the denunciation of ‘exceptionalism’ or even, of anti-Semitism
By far the most common attack on the NUJ motion though, and an accusation wheeled out for every single boycott, is the denunciation of ‘exceptionalism’ or even, of anti-Semitism. For a sample of the ‘Why Israel?’ mantra, see Freedland in the Guardian — “But why no boycotts of Chinese, Russian, Pakistani and Zimbabwean goods?” — as well as theGuardian’s editorial, which helpfully reminded readers that “there is no shortage of unsavoury regimes around the world which might merit some form of consumer boycott”.
It is worth pausing to consider the problems with this approach. Firstly, it is no defence to point at other human rights abusers as if that somehow exonerates Israel of its own war crimes. It be would like a convicted thief pleading with the judge as he’s hauled off to prison, ‘But your honour, there are other thieves, and even better ones, than me!’ Such an attitude would invalidate numerous single issue campaigns. But secondly, even this relatively obvious rebuttal rests on a flawed premise: that Israel is a democracy ‘like us’, which of course makes errors of judgment and proportionality, but is basically a ‘good guy’ compared to the real regional or global villains.
Conservative politician and columnist for The Times, Michael Gove, was most explicit on this point. The boycott, he wrote, “is not of a repressive state that outlaws free expression (of which, sadly, there are still too many) but of one of the few states in the Middle East with a proper free press”. He continued, “[Freedom of speech] is better defended in Israel than in any other nation of the Middle East and it comes under assault daily from forces driven by fanaticism”. Stephen Glover, writing in The Independent, also chipped in, describing Israel as “a functioning democracy with a free Press and a robust tradition of free speech”.
Of course, whether you are like Freedland, and think an imperfect Israel’s mistakes are unfairly obsessed over, or like Gove, and believe Israel to be virtuous and noble, the result is that one is left searching for a reason behind all this anti-Israeli activity (you know what’s coming). Back to Glover in The Independent:

Why is Israel singled out? I hesitate to raise the charge of anti-Semitism since it is used too often and too carelessly by defenders of Israel in order to try to quash criticism of the country. But though laying aside that explanation, I confess that I am unable to find another one.

Over at The Washington Post, Richard Cohen wrote an ABC in boycott smear tactics. Begin with a confession of Israel’s mistakes, for example, “the wrongful and counterproductive occupation”. In contrast to Israel’s “incompetence”, however, move swiftly on to examples of sheer brutality: “Sudan kills by the score”, Mugabe “beats his opponents to a pulp”. With this disparity between Israel’s ‘mistakes’ and other nations’ crimes established, move on to the real motivation of the pro-boycott movement: “But some of it, surely, is anti-Semitism itself, a rage at the impudent, pushy Jew”.The rest of the backlash often simply resorted to cheap snickering — ‘Oh, well, you’d better stop using all your computers and mobile phones because their components are made in Israel’. The British government also joined in the chorus of critics, Gordon Brown unofficially, reported as describing the boycott as “unacceptable”, while Foreign Minister Kim Howells declared himself “disappointed” by the motion.
There are ongoing campaigns to overturn or counteract the NUJ resolution, including a petition of BBC journalists that had gathered 270 signatures at the time of writing
There are ongoing campaigns to overturn or counteract the NUJ resolution, including a petition of BBC journalists that had gathered 270 signatures at the time of writing. The text includes ‘dismay’ at the motion, since “as members of a corporation which prides itself on providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in any conflict”. The group will apparently meet on May 8 with the NUJGeneral Secretary Jeremy Dear to discuss the dispute.
Once again, moves to actually hold Israel to account for its dispossession of the Palestinians, and continued occupation of lands conquered in 1967, have been feverishly attacked, right across the political spectrum. It goes to show just how far Palestinian solidarity groups still have to go in effecting a paradigm shift in how the conflict is seen. On the other hand, the NUJ motion has become part of a bigger picture of a more confident Palestinian solidarity movement, and the ensuing backlash, further evidence of an increasingly panicky Zionist lobby.