Israeli ambassador: Britain has become a hotbed of radical anti-Israeli views

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Britain has become a hotbed of radical anti-Israeli views, Israel's ambassador to the country said in an article for a British newspaper.

Ron Prosor said in an opinion piece in Tuesday's Daily Telegraph newspaper that his country has been demonized.

"Israel faces an intensified campaign of delegitimization, demonization and double standards," he said.

"Britain has become a hotbed for radical anti-Israeli views and a haven for disingenuous calls for a one-state solution, a euphemistic name for a movement advocating Israel's destruction."

Prosor, who took up his post in November, said Britain was once admired for fairness and decency but the debate on Israel has now been hijacked by extremists."

more

[C_U_L8R]

1. it appears Britain is against attacking Iran

[notfullofit]

4. Citizens unaware of Hamas rocket attacks against Israel

snip...

'Prosor said: "Academics, supposedly society's guardians of knowledge, objectivity and informed debate, have seen their union held hostage by radical factions, armed with political agendas and personal interests."

He said the British public's perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was affected by biased coverage.

"Israel's military reaction to the attacks it faces is given in depth, microscopic coverage. Yet the attacks to which Israel is responding are often ignored. The average British citizen is painfully unaware that since Hamas seized control of Gaza last year, 1,400 rockets and 1,500 mortar bombs have landed on Israeli soil," he said'

More like the MSM is anti Israel.

The BBC ran it's own internal investigation last year on this same subject (my sister in LA took part in the on-air discussions)

[bemildred]

5. That's a very clever sentence:

"Academics, supposedly society's guardians of knowledge, objectivity and informed debate, have seen their union held hostage by radical factions, armed with political agendas and personal interests."

You could be misled and think it was "armed radical factions holding hostages" if you were not attentive.

On another point, why the heck should people not have political agendas and personal interests? Does not this fellow himself have political agendas and personal interests?

[LeftishBrit]

16. Humph!

As a British academic, and anti-boycott member of UCU, I would suggest a few amendments to THAT one:

Change it to "Academics, generally regarded in Britain as a bunch of harmless eccentrics at best, and certainly not guardians of anything, have a union that is as useless and powerless as you could imagine. It can't look after its own members' interests properly, and has been held hostage all right, by successive governments and their radical anti-university agendas. One of their few successes was easily defeating a couple of idiotic motions to boycott Israel."

Could some people PLEASE get it through their skulls that the British academics' union, UCU, IS NOT BOYCOTTING ISRAEL!!! - and never did. One motion was defeated. Another was about to be defeated, but was withdrawn on legal grounds first. Such motions were formally opposed by the National Union of Students; the Russell Group of research-intensive universities; many individual university branches including my own. It was idiotic even that a few union members proposed it; but 'held us hostage'? - ridiculous!

[bemildred]

18. There is a certain irony in this fellow abusing other people for misuse of languange. nt

[notfullofit]

26. Could this be what the ambassador was talking about?

Hagit Klaiman 05.29.08, 13:17 / Israel News

LONDON - The University and College Union (UCU), the largest trade union and professional for academics and lecturers working throughout the UK, called on its members Wednesday to "consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions, and to discuss the occupation with individuals and institutions concerned, including Israeli colleagues with whom they are collaborating."

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) denounced the vote, calling it a “cynical and perverse violation of academic freedom and anti-discrimination principles."

ADL National Director Abraham Foxman issued a statement saying: "Four years after the first such academic boycott resolution, it is clear the UCU’s anti-Israel activists remain as determined as ever to demonize everything and everyone Israeli, while shunning constructive measures to promote Israeli-Palestinian academic partnerships."

The motion, which was passed at the UCU's annual congress in Manchester, noted the "continuation of the illegal settlement eneterprise, killing of civilians and the humanitarian catastrophe imposed on Gaza by Israel and the EU'.


If UCU were to implement the motion, it would encourage its 160,000 members to consider cutting off links with Israeli academic institutions - most of these links are with individual Israeli academics such as research partnerships, peer review of papers, or academic conferences.

Philosophy Professor Tom Hickey, who headed the initiative, said Wednesday that the call was not to boycott Israeli academies altogether, but rather for the lecturers to reevaluate their ties with Israeli institutions, given the situation in Gaza.

The matter, he said, was in the early stages of discussion. The UCU still has to conduct serious discussion prior to any decision on an overall academic embargo.

[LeftishBrit]

27. Probably...

there have been small groups of activists bringing up this issue several times. On no occasion did it get anywhere. This is presumably why they're putting it in such vague terms this time - they know they won't get a boycott!

I don't mind 'considering the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions' - I will come to the same conclusions as ever: namely that the only academic boycotts that are justifiable are of objectionable *individuals* or morally objectionable *research* and academic boycotts on the basis of nationality are counterproductive. On the contrary, academic collaborations can help to transcend boundaries and serve the cause of peace. (My current international collaborations include people from three countries, of whose governments and political systems I disapprove in the strongest terms.)


'The UCU still has to conduct serious discussion prior to any decision on an overall academic embargo.'

You bet - and if it ever even gets to the point of such discussion, it will get the same results as it did on the other two occasions.

[azurnoir]

9. So are you claiming that the British are unaware of

the rocket attacks or unaware of the exact number of rockets fired on Israel of which the same could be said of the American public. I am betting on the latter, because that the BBC did not report attacks is patently false.

May 21, 2007

An Israeli woman has died of her wounds shortly after a rocket fired from the Gaza Strip hit her car in the border town of Sderot, medics say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6678295.stm

February 3, 2006

A Palestinian homemade rocket has hit a house on a kibbutz in southern Israel injuring at least three people, among them a child, Israeli sources say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4678258.stm


http://news.google.com/news?q=bbc+rocket+attacks+on+israel&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=com.google:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=4&ct=title

[notfullofit]

12. The Ambassador stated that the British are unaware...

In 2007, there were almost 1,500 rocket and mortar attacks targeting Israeli civilian populations, resulting in on average, one strike every ten hours. The BBC chose to publish only six articles focused on the attacks during the entire year. During the same period, fifty-six articles…

In 63% of the stories about Israeli operations, Israel or the IDF were named directly. Typical headlines were: ‘Israelis kill militants in Gaza’ (The "militants" had been firing rockets into Israel), ‘Children killed in Israeli strike’ (the children were playing next to a rocket launcher), and ‘Israeli strike kills four in Gaza.’ On the other hand, of the seven stories concerning Palestinian attacks, none were written in the same style. The headlines took the responsibility for the attacks away from those who instigated them. Rockets, explosions, and clashes became the culprits in typical headlines such as: ‘Rocket injures dozens in Israel,’ ‘Gaza explosion kills two children’ (compare with headline above), ‘Two killed in clash in Gaza Strip,’ and ‘West Bank clash leaves three dead.’ (This one was extremely egregious since it was describing the ambush and murder of Israeli hikers by Palestinian terrorists. Since terrorist groups took responsibility for the attacks, why weren't they named in the headline?)

BBC bigwigs dismiss such critiques as special pleading; they usually genuinely cannot recognise this prejudice, selective reporting and double standards for what it is -- because they too share the prejudice.

more at honestreporting.com

[azurnoir]

17. How many Israelis were killed in 2007

by rocket attacks from Gaza? How many Gazan's were killed as a result of Israeli military operations?

Oh yes I know that is immaterial right? Doesn't matter at all, the BBC doesn't report every rocket, and that is of course what needs to be focused on.

Does the BBC under report Israeli deaths? Does it under report Palestinian deaths?

To the public those are the things that matter

If the Britiah public is "uninformed" it is because much like their American counterparts they choose to be, not because the BBC under reports after all they are hardly the sole news source.

[oberliner]

32. Palestinians killed at least 80 civilians who were not taking part in any hostilities

Seven of them were Israeli and at least seventy-three of them were Palestinian according to B'Tselem.

131 Palestinians who were not taking part in any hostilities were killed by Israelis during that same time frame according to B'Tselem.

http://www.btselem.org/english/press_releases/20071231.asp

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Okay, that was hilarious....

honestreporting accusing others of not recognising prejudice, selective reporting and double standards. Seriously, they should put their mirror down for a second...


Did you think to question anything you posted from that site? It's kind of jumping out from the bit you pasted here that the BBC's crime in their eyes is that they actually dare to report the deaths of Palestinians and like any media outlet outside Israel don't report every Qassam fired at Israel, regardless of whether it hits anything or not. International media can go for days on end without reporting anything on the I/P conflict. This doesn't make them any more 'anti-Israel' than not reporting every single little detail of the not too recent unrest in East Timor (it was reported here, but East Timor's on our doorstep) made them 'anti-East-Timor'.

Let's take just one of those articles that 'honest' reporting whined about:

Children killed in Israeli strike

Two Palestinian children have been killed and three others wounded by Israeli forces in northern Gaza, Palestinian health officials have said.

The dead boys, aged 13 and 14, were close to an area from which militants had been firing rockets at Israel, the officials said.

Israel said its ground forces had fired upon two people who were seen near a rocket launcher near Beit Hanoun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6956615.stm

The headline was factual and the article states early on that officials said that the children were close to an area from which militants had been firing rockets. I guess 'honest' reporting would only be happy if the headline had read: 'Children cause own deaths.' Coz it's not like a mob like 'honest' reporting would be extremely biased zealoted types, would they? ;)

[notfullofit]

25. There are

many, many websites devoted solely to the fact that the BBC is biased against Israel in fact if I remember right some of the top folks there had to resign after the British government received complaints from the Israeli government.

Just Google BBC Bias Israel and see what you get.

[azurnoir]

30. Yes I am sure there are n/t

[bemildred]

2. Time to attack Britain, I guess.

I hear they've got nuclear weapons too, and oil. Better bomb their nuclear installations.

If we wait,
it's too late.

[liam_laddie]

3. Uhhh, much of the world

thinks the current Israeli Likud-coalition regime (NOT the country itself) is a bunch of warmongers, just as the world thinks of the Bush regime. These Israeli ambassadors parrot the Likud line, the radical Zionist line, which in NOT what the majority of Israelis believe. Ehud Olmert is on his way out...

[oberliner]

7. Likud is NOT part of the current Israeli governing coalition

The current governing coalition includes:

Kadima, Labor, Shas, and Gil (The Pensioners)

Likud is not a part of the current government; they are part of the opposition.

[Sezu]

20. Why do you think so many people are so ignorant of this

fact? It gets repeated so often it makes the broader point made in this article that the majority of Israel's detractors are clueless about the facts on the ground and demonstate their ignorance with almost every utterance.

[oberliner]

28. I really don't know

It doesn't take a lot of effort to find out which political parties are part of the governing coalition in Israel.

Likud did very poorly in the 2006 election, getting less than 10 percent of the seats in the Knesset.

They haven't had such a small number of seats since the party came into being in 1973.

[azurnoir]

31. Sir could it for the very simple reason(s)

Most people (American and British) do not give a rats hairless heine who the political parties are in Israel or just about any country other then their own for that matter, having more pressing domestic concerns and the recent press given to politics in Israel concerns Olmerts "fundraising" scandal which took place why he was still a member of Likud and in fact running for its leadership, which could for some lead to confusion.

[oberliner]

33. The post I initially responded to cited the "current Israeli Likud-coalition regime"

The post went on to suggest that the majority of Israelis do not support that group of "warmongers" and cited as evidence the fact that Olmert is "on his way out".

In reality, the current coalition actually includes the Labor party and does not include the Likud party.

Furthermore, Olmert will more than likely be replaced by a PM who is actually from Likud (Netanyahu, unfortunately).

The reason for Olmert's low popularity in Israel is certainly not due to the fact that he is a "warmonger".

Have a look at who the top candidates for PM are in recent polls. They are all either part of the current government or to the right of the current government.

[azurnoir]

35. A question

Isn't Shas even more RW than Likud?

[oberliner]

36. It's hard to think of the Israeli political parties along the same continuum

Shas is very socially conservative, but also very pro-welfare. Part of the reason why they came into being in the 80s was in an attempt to address what they saw as social and economic discrimination against the Sephardic community in Israel. Currently, they are pushing for a significant increase in child welfare payments.

With regard to the Palestinians, I do not think there is a lot of difference between the ideology of Likud and Shas. Interestingly, though, the leader of Shas supposedly asked President Carter to set up a meeting between him and Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in order to negotiate Shalit's release. Meanwhile Likud leadership has tried to persuade Shas to leave the governing coalition due to Olmert's discussions with Abbas about Jerusalem and his overtures towards Syria.

Shas has been in governing coalitions that were led by Likud, Labor, and now, Kadima. It's difficult to say exactly what their ideology is exactly these days.

[azurnoir]

39. Thank you

It makes some aspects of Israeli government much clearer.

[Sezu]

34. And yet the Likud meme gets played all the time. Even Obama

used it. I suspect it comes from the section of our left which needs to smear ALL Israeli leadership with the mad dog right wing appelation...Likud. For me this does not generate much confidence in their reasoning since it is either ignorance or propaganda. There is more than enough to find fault with the various government players comments and actions without trying to falsify the reality on the ground.

[LeftishBrit]

37. I actually suspect that a lot of it comes...

from an inappropriate, America-centric translation of the American two-party system into other countries which have multi-party systems. (The most marked example of this may have been McCain's announcement on a visit to the UK that he wished to 'spread Republicanism around the globe'). In America you're either Democrat or Republican; therefore in Israel you must be either Labour or Likud. So anyone who appears right of centre must be Likud!

I've seen equivalent confusions about our system - which admittedly IS confusing! Americans are aware that Blair supported Bush, so sometimes assume that the main opposition is to his left. In fact, though there are smaller parties to his left, the main opposition is the Conservative Party which is to his Right.

Of course, the British can also get such things confused. One of my favourites was a report in the Daily Telegraph on the 2006 elections, where Cynthia McKinney's defeat was mentioned. The reporter was aware that she'd been defeated by a Democrat. In the UK, we usually use different terms for losing your seat to a member of your own party ('deselection') or to a member of an opposition party ('defeat'). The reporter drew his own conclusions and referred to her as 'Republican Cynthia McKinney'!

[Sezu]

38. Hey, GOOD thought. Certainly Americans in general have little

idea what constitutes the left in Europe.

[azurnoir]

8. Olmert was Likud at one time

but as the political winds blow, apparently so does Olmert

Israeli prosecutors asked a Jerusalem court on Tuesday for permission to take testimony from a foreign man, widely understood to be Mr. Talansky, even though prosecutors have yet to file any charges in the matter. Their inquiry appears to center on suspicion of bribery or campaign finance irregularities involving Mr. Olmert in or around 1999. At that time, Mr. Olmert was mayor of Jerusalem and was running against Ariel Sharon for the leadership of the Likud Party.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/world/middleeast/07olmert.html?ref=world

Once an outspoken hawk who preached a Greater Israel and worked to solidify Jewish control over Arab neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, Olmert underwent a startling conversion and decided Israel had to pull out of most areas captured in the 1967 Mideast War, just as many Israelis were reaching the same conclusion.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/8066.htm

[oberliner]

10. He is a real dud

However, that does not change the fact that Likud is not part of the government right now.

Unfortunately, they probably will win the most seats in the next election.

[Sezu]

21. Indeed, and I suspect they aren't going to care about

Israel's "image," abroad. And who is to thank? Hamas, their supporters and those around the world who also want Israel to disappear by sitting on its ass and taking what happens without responding or protecting itself.

[azurnoir]

23. Do you blame

Al Qaeda or UBL for Bushes second term?

[LeftishBrit]

24. Partially. The terra threat certainly helped ..

Though there were many other factors, from Religious Right propaganda to the 'swiftboating' episode to electoral corruption in Ohio.

I also partially blame right-wing Israeli leaders and the continued settlement construction for Hamas' persistence in power; as well as Hamas and its rockets for Likud's resurgence.

To this day, I give General Galtieri a good share of the blame for Maggie Thatcher's re-election in '83!

Nothing like a good enemy to rally people round a RW leader. RW leaders are, of course, good at inventing an enemy where there is none; but *real* enemies certainly tend to help the RW stay in or get in power.

[azurnoir]

29. You are so much more

cordial than I am about that. My own take is that RWers for the most most part talk in soundbytes, there by eliminating having to think about things too much, making it simple for some folks

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Those pesky Anglicans . . .

[oberliner]

11. From his remarks

"Israel faces an intensified campaign of delegitimisation, demonisation and double standards. Britain has become a hotbed for radical anti-Israeli views and a haven for disingenuous calls for a 'One state solution', a euphemistic name for a movement advocating Israel's destruction.

"Those who propagate this notion distort Israel's past while categorically denying Israel's right to exist as a liberal Jewish-Democratic state. No other country in the world is constantly forced to justify its own existence."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2100428/Israel's-ambassador-says-Britian-has-become-a-hotbed-of-radical-anti-Israeli-feeling.html

[notfullofit]

13. "No other country in the world

is constantly forced to justify its own existence."

He's got that right.

[LeftishBrit]

15. There is truth in this...

but it is not a specifically British phenomenon.

There is plenty of virulent British bigotry around all right, and a lot of it is directed at a word beginning with 'I'; but it's not 'Israel' - it's 'immigrants'.

[LeftishBrit]

14. Frankly, some Israeli and non-British pro-Israel people have about as accurate a perception

of Britain, as many anti-Zionists do of Israel.

This is not helped by a noisy minority of pro-boycott people in Britain. However, it needs to be remembered that Britain and its trade unions are NOT boycotting Israel. There have been attempts, which have been ignored or simply sunk without trace.

I would say that Israel is simply not as important, for or against, to most (especially non-Jewish) British people, as it seems to be to Americans. British people are more preoccupied - positively or negatively- with France, America and the EU as an organization. In all of these cases, this is a reflection of Britain's and America's own strategic interests.

It's my impression that there are more people in Britain who genuinely do distinguish between Israel and its current government, and support the former while opposing the latter, than is the case in some other countries. However, that may just reflect some of the circles that I move in.

There is certainly some blind anti-Israel sentiment in Britain: on the left, among those who are influenced by people and groups at very few degrees of separation from old Soviet propaganda; on the right (and occasionally the left) by traditional anti-semites. However, I will say that, in all my years of living in Britain, I NEVER came across as much 'Israel is controlling the world and responsible for all the world's evils' sentiment, as I have since I started posting and lurking on mostly-American polititcal boards.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. I'd say most of them have never been to the UK...

I recall one former DUer announcing that they'd never go to the UK because it's a seething mass of anti-semites blah blah blah. No great loss to British tourism there, I suspect...

I'm going to attempt (successfully, I hope) to explain why you'd encounter extremely out there perceptions of places like Israel and the UK on mostly American political forums without making generalisations about the American population. When I was in Europe I travelled with some really intelligent Americans who didn't have bizarre perceptions about countries other than their own (coz it was when the mid-terms were happening in the US I found most of them were Democrats), and I've encountered many intelligent Americans at DU who don't hold any extreme and incorrect views of other countries. But there are those (and there seems to be a lot more amongst Americans than non-Americans) who have really bizarre perceptions of other countries. Maybe it's because they've never been outside their own country and aren't all that interested in learning about other countries, or maybe it's because they're just not all that bright and simplistic things that look to them like easy explanations are easily digested and don't lead to having to think too hard....

When it comes to Israeli ambassadors who are residing in the countries in question when they make stupid comments like this one did (we had a short-lived Israeli ambassador recalled back to Israel and replaced with someone normal after coming out with racist rubbish about how Australia and Israel were like sisters in Asia among the 'yellow race'), there's really no excuse for their ignorance. I think it's not very diplomatic for a high level diplomat to slag off the country he's envoy to. Mind you, the US has foot-in-mouth ambassadors too. We had one here who didn't seem to grasp that his very vocal attempts to take sides during our federal election wasn't acceptable at all...

[notfullofit]

40. I just read this comment

from a Jerusalem Post reader in the U.K

37. Anti-Israel views in UK
Most certainly not a majority view here. It appears that the Human Rights Act prevents people from expressing their opinions under threat of prosecution. Our government have leaned heavily towards pandering to muslim opinion in an effort to prevent terrorism - a strategy that has not worked here or elsewhere.
Eric - England (06/10/2008 15:00)

Is that true, freedom of speech is no longer allowed in the U.K.?



http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPTalkback%2FCommonFrame&tbId=1210069215656&tbNum=37&type=Show

[LeftishBrit]

41. No. This is typical British-rightie comment...

'Everything's the fault of the immigrants and the Human Rights Act protecting them!' We have our own equivalents of the 'Freepers'. This comment is in fact rather similar to the American Freeper view, "We're losing our freedom of speech if we can't threaten the gays/ Muslims'.

The Human Rights Act does not inhibit anyone's freedom of speech. It *has* in the past made it more difficult to deport Muslim hate-preachers and those suspected of supporting terrorism, because it states that people should not be deported to countries where they could risk being tortured and inhumanly treated. The attitude has hardened, and I am quite sure the HRA is often violated.

Our civil liberties ARE at risk (like yours in America) from the government's response to the terrorist threat - today the period for which suspects can be detained without charge was extended from 28 to 42 days. Not from any 'pandering to Muslims'.

Muslims in Britain constitute at most 3% of the population, and, though some Muslims are antisemitic and a few have attacked Jews as individuals, they have very little to do with antisemitic or even anti-Israel sentiment in the country as a whole. There has always been a certain amount of anti-Israel sentiment. Ernest Bevin was quite anti-Israel at its inception and was certainly not 'pandering to Muslims' - at any rate, not British ones. Most frank antisemitism comes from, or is influenced, by the Right. On the left, antisemitism and the more extreme sort of anti-Israel sentiment are far more influenced IMO by Israel's role as ally of the US, and by indirect links to old Soviet propaganda, than by anything to do with Muslims. So far as I know, none of the main advocates of boycotting Israel are Muslims.

There are not nearly as many real changes in attitudes as the fings-aint-wot-they-used-to-be crowds make out. However, there is undoubtedly *some* increase in antisemitism in Britain as in Europe and America, on two main grounds: (1) the war hardens attitudes to the American right and its perceived ally Israel, and increases sympathy for Israel's Muslim enemies abroad, and encourages the 'Israel is responsible for all wars!' brigade; (2) after over 60 years, the horrors of Nazism and the Holocaust, and their demonstration of what antisemitism can lead to, are less fresh in people's minds.

And most of the British righties who make the accusations of 'pandering to Muslims' are not IMO even all that Islamophobic as such. They are anti-*immigrants*, and are suspicious of Islam because some immigrants practice it.

According to recent polls:

Only 6% of British people directly admit to a negative attitude to Jews.

14% directly admit to a negative attitude to Muslims.

50% would support 'voluntary' repatriation of immigrants.


It's always important, when looking at religious and racial prejudices in Britain, to see them in the context of our biggest form of bigotry: that against immigrants.

[pelsar]

42. just for general knowledge...

israel doesnt have a professional diplomatic corp......the "ambassadors" get their jobs for being good "political hacks"...... intelligence and experience are not part of the job requirements.

but did i really have to mention that?