Amnesty International defeats resolution to condemn and combat anti-Semitism

April 21, 2015 • 12:00 pm

This is unbelievable: Amnesty International is demonizing not only Israel, but Jews in general. I’m distressed to hear that Amnesty International has defeated a resolution to condemn and respond to the rise of antisemitic sentiment and violence in the UK (see below for the resolution):

Amnesty International has rejected a motion to tackle the rise in antisemitic attacks in Britain at its annual conference.

The motion was table by Amnesty member Andrew Thorpe-Apps in March who said it was defeated at the International AGM on Sunday by 468 votes to 461.

Mr Trope Apps said: “It was the only resolution to be defeated during the whole conference.”

In March the charity confirmed the resolution calling for the group to “campaign against antisemitism in the UK and lobby the government to tackle the rise in attacks” had been accepted for discussion at the conference.

A spokesperson for Amnesty said: “We can confirm this resolution has been tabled and will be debated at the AGM.” [JAC: “AGM” is the Annual General Meeting of Amnesty International]

Mr Thorpe-Apps said he put forward the motion because “I recently joined and I believe passionately about human rights.

“I was aware that the organisation has been outwardly pro-Palestine in the past but it hasn’t stood up for the Jewish population and I think it would be good if they did that.

Seriously, do you think that AI would have defeated a similar resolution that called for action against anti-Muslim sentiment in the UK, and more effort to combat the rise of anti-Muslim violence—something I’d support? Don’t make me laugh. Antisemitism is, apparently, no longer such a sin.

Here’s the resolution:

This AGM CALLS On AIUK to:
• Campaign against anti-Semitism in the UK.
• Lobby the UK Government to do more to tackle the rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Britain, whether physical or verbal, online or in person. The UK Government should monitor anti-semitism closely and periodically review the security of Britain’s Jewish population.

Proposer background notes:
It has been 70 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. Yet, even in 2015, European Jews are facing intolerance and abuse from anti-Semites.

There are now Jewish schools in the UK where the children are prepared for a potential terrorist attack, and there are Downing Street-style car bomb barriers to shield school buildings.

This year witnessed the murder of four Jews following the appalling Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. In February a Jewish man was shot outside Copenhagen’s main synagogue following an attack at a free speech debate.

On 9th February, the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into AntiSemitism report was launched at Lambeth Palace. The report found that there was a 221% increase in hate crimes directed at Jews during the 2014 conflict between Israel and Gaza, when compared with the same period in 2013.

The Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-Semitic abuse and attacks, recorded 314 incidents in July 2014, the highest ever monthly total and more than the preceding six months combined. A quarter of these incidents took place on social media, and one third used Holocaust-related language or imagery.

The All-Party Parliamentary report recommends that:
• An independent council of non-Jewish figures is established to highlight trends in anti-Semitism, and make suggestions to the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
• The UK Government fund more research into antiSemitism, report the findings to Parliament at least once per session about its work combating hate crime, and work with the CPS, police, and social-media companies to make online anti-Semitic abuse easier to report and stop.

Is there anything objectionable in that resolution beyond the obvious fact that it deals with hatred of Jews? If so, I don’t see it. Amnesty International—join the lineup of those who, by refusing to recognize or deal with the increase in anti-Semitism, tacitly sanction it.

107 thoughts on “Amnesty International defeats resolution to condemn and combat anti-Semitism

  1. I am sorry to say that any organization with international in it’s name, or united nations for that matter is pretty useless in doing anything. If AGM has been captured by the Islamic countries, anything close to the UN, you can forget it.

    The people of the UK will need to take action themselves if they have it in them.

  2. It’s another example of SJW madness. As far as they’re concerned, Jews are all rich, powerful, privileged neo-cons who eat Palestinian babies for breakfast. Anti-Semitic hatred and violence is just “punching-up”, and therefore nothing to be concerned about.

            1. well, there’s already Farmer’s Only, and Christian Mingle, why isn’t there an atheist dating site? which had nothing to do with the post but still, it’s a thought.

    1. SJW’s appear yo think that prejudice is perfectly acceptable as long as you can rationalize those whom you are prejudging as unsympathetic. It works in reverse as well.

      1. What does the disparaging term “SJW” have to do with the original post?

        It’s a circuitous one, but I can explain it to you if that’s a serious question, which I’m sure it isn’t.

        1. Mike Paps wrote:

          “I can explain it to you if that’s a serious question, which I’m sure it isn’t.”

          Ah, a mind reader.

          “Just admitting for example that anti-semitism is on the rise could imply it’s cause is in part a result of Muslim immigration, and supports, in their minds, islamaphobic rhetoric.”

          More mind reading. Amazing!

              1. So your point is that some vague, nebulous group that you label pejoratively as SJWs, would approve of the action of AI. So what? The KKK would approve of it also, as would some others. None of them have anything to do with Amnesty International, or the resolution, or any of it. Which caused me to wonder why you felt it necessary to bring up such an irrelevant argument.

          1. Which caused me to wonder why you felt it necessary to bring up such an irrelevant argument.

            Had to respond here as there was no reply link below.
            I didn’t bring up the argument I responded to you saying you saw no connection. I don’t think it’s a particularly relevant argument, though I do think the attitude that supporting Jews, even against bigotry, is counter to the Muslims as victims narrative.

            1. OOps click reply too soon. I wanted to add, and hope I’m not posting to much, that (Muslim as victim) is a popular SJW narrative. Additionally bringing attention to anti-semitism in a sense gives tacit support to the idea that Jews need a “safe space”, and is counter to the anti-Israel/pro-palestinian position.

              1. Mike Paps wrote:
                (Muslim as victim) is a popular SJW narrative

                You certainly are fixated on SJW, whatever you imagine that to be. Muslims as victims of discrimination is not some “narrative” that someone dreamed up, it’s quite real, both in the US and in the UK. This does not lessen the fact that anti-Semitism is rising in the UK and that Amnesty International refused to condemn it. Both are true, though unrelated, and neither is related to your obsession with SJWs.

              2. First SJW since you don’t know, or are pretending not to know what I mean when I use the term.
                Yes discrimination against Muslims does exist, I’d be a fool to argue otherwise, and it’s a problem that should be fixed.
                I already explained how this SJW attitude, which is pervasive in the west, particularly among the types who would support an organization like AI, is related to their unwillingness to condemn anti-Semitism. You apparently disagree which you’re free to do.

    2. I do not think this is a SJW thing. There are individuals & groups other than SJWs who believe that Israel needs to move out of the occupied territories, etc. One such group would be the Hamas — definitely not SJWs!

      1. I do not think this is a SJW thing

        I don’t think it’s exclusively a SJW thing, but I see the connection. There’s this single minded, anything that supports the oppressor, or could be perceived as allying yourself with them. should be avoided.
        Just admitting for example that anti-semitism is on the rise could imply it’s cause is in part a result of Muslim immigration, and supports, in their minds, islamaphobic rhetoric.

          1. On my website there are currently a couple of guys (one British, one USian) arguing with me. They say they’re proudly SJWs and justify anti-Semitism (esp the USian) on the grounds of Israel’s actions in Gaza. They’re also majorly opposed to any criticism of Islam, and conflate it with criticism of Muslims. They can’t see the cognitive dissonance of supporting women’s and LGBT rights and not criticizing Islam.

  3. AI spokesman says it’s because they didn’t want to support “a campaign with a single focus”. What nonsense!

  4. I remember going to an AI ‘invitational’ meeting in college. After they socially pressured everyone at the meeting to right a letter (can’t remember the cause) right there in the meeting, I decided this was not a group for me.

  5. One consequence of passing the resolution would be to pull time and other resources away from other issues. Not passing this resolution is not the same thing as saying that the issue isn’t real or important. At most, not passing this resolution says that this issue is not important enough, compared to other issues.

    You can disagree with this assessment; you can do the needed homework to learn what the other issues are and then argue that this issue *is* as important as at least one of those. But what you can’t do – honestly – is argue that not passing this resolution is the same as saying that anti-semitism in the UK is not a problem or a bad thing.

      1. I would too. Even if they don’t put any resources into it after the resolution is passed, at least they have acknowledged that the issue is real and important.

    1. I was trying to find what other resolutions passed. It is quite difficult but I found one: resolution in support for Inuits of Clyde River in their struggle against offshore seismic surveys for oil and gas industry.
      I’m definitely not saying that Inuit do not deserve support but I would think that a resolution against anti-Semitism is at least of equal importance.

    2. In science, I can propose a method to recycle lost heat to produce more efficient coolers. It’s basic research. NSF/DOE/BES/DARPA – they can all ignore it. It’s obviously, potentially very important, as energy conservation is important, but that does not mean they should fund it. There is mandate for it.

      That’s different than Amnesty International. They purport to support the rights of individuals or groups who are being unjustifiably attacked. Amnesty International is publicly pronouncing this issue as unimportant (or not as important). This is selective support which perjures the organizations basic goals.

    3. I agree that without context I can’t fully judge this. It’s not an empty statement condemning anti-Semitism. It puts resources into it. Here is the “Resource Implication” section of the proposal:

      “The resource requirements for this resolution are dependent on the scale of work envisaged and ultimately agreed. For example,group-based campaigning against anti-Semitism would belikely to require only a fairly limited investment of staff time. If,however, work is required in order to establish the adequacy of state responses to anti-Semitism and use this as a basis for national campaigning, then the cost could be significant(probably in the region of £10,000 to £20,000) for scoping and research work. At the time of writing, the implications for other campaign and human rights priorities are not known.”

      There is nothing, in principle, wrong with an organization deciding that fighting anti-Semitism in the UK is a lower priority than other things on their agenda, but it takes more context to know if that’s what’s going on or if it’s a reasonable stance.

      I would also be interested in knowing more about the people who voted. There are claims that it was voted down because of anti-Israeli sentiment or because of Muslim influence. I haven’t see any evidence for these claims.

      Here is the full list of resolutions (google cached html version. I’m not able to download the PDF original right now). I haven’t had a chance to look through them much. Most seem to be about more organizational issues, but there are some other “issue” oriented proposals (that I gather all passed).

      http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mxxyMavlCMEJ:https://www.amnesty.org.uk/sites/default/files/2015_agm_resolutions.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

      It would be nice if someone more familiar with AI and AI UK could provide some context.

    4. I would be easier to accept your explanation if that wasn’t the only proposal which was rejected.
      As it stands, AI (like many other human rights organizations) are, at best, turning a blind eye towards antisemitism. This sheds light on their disproportional condemnation of the Jewish state.

  6. I don’t understand AI’s failure to adopt the resolution either, but I think you are really stretching it when call this “demonizing… Jews in general”.

    Failing to condemn & respond to rising antisemitism is very, very different from demonizing Jews

    1. At the very least, it would appear that Amnesty International is placing the concern for anti-Semitism, and therefor the concern for the safety of Jews in Britain lower than their concerns for other threatened groups. The appearance is that they are punishing British Jews for the acts of the government of Israel.

      1. I think we can go stronger: given the context I think its perfectly fair of Jerry to make a ‘silence equals consent’ argument. Consider this simple analogy: you’re in an organizational meeting. There are six votes on the docket (I’m making all but two up). They go like this:

        “Vote to show support for the Inuit against oil riggers?”
        AYE!!!

        “Vote to show support for oppressed ranchers in Chile?
        AYE!!!

        “Vote to show support for Buddhist female teachers in Myanmar against harassment?”
        AYE!!!

        “Vote to show support for Greek socialists against locally ruinous IMF policies?”
        AYE!!!

        “Vote to show support for Jews against anti-Semitism?”
        …[crickets]…

        “Vote to show support for Namibians opposed to South African corporate exploitation of their resources?
        AYE!!!!

        The context of such a series is, I think, indicative of more than just neutrality or low prioritization. That sort of silence says you think its okay.

        1. It seems to me that your list provides evidence against your point. What do the items you list (save one) have in common? They are all actions taken against governments, large corporations, or other powerful organizations. How does one item differ? It asks for a government – that already is opposed to antisemitism – to intercede in some fashion against individuals who commit antisemitic acts that are already against the law. See the difference? Or look at this list of AI campaigns http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/campaigns – again, all directed against governments or other large organizations (one campaign under “Individuals at Risk” asks for European governments to help rescue migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea; this isn’t opposition to government policy but asks for a clear and specific action by those governments; again a very different sort of thing than the proposed resolution.)
          You and most of the others commenting on this resolution simply are asking AI to venture into an area that is quite different from its mission, and where other organizations are already involved. And yet you are enormously angry that they decline to do so.

          1. Well, four of them were made up for illustrative purposes and probably reflect my opinion of AI rather than any actual characteristic of AI. If I filled the list with things like “Vote to show support for Pakistani buddhists against Muslim violence?” would you see the pattern then?

            1. I think you’re imputing a pattern based on insufficient and/or imagined evidence.

              We know that hate crimes are rising in the UK across all categories (homophobia, anti-semitism, anti-Muslim, etc.). We would probably have heard if AI had adopted resolutions condemning all other categories except anti-semitism. That would indeed be deeply problematic.

              However, we have not heard such a thing. Hence, their not accepting the resolution under discussion here only shows that a narrow majority of AI apparently did not want to single out anti-semitism over other hate crimes.

    2. I might be persuaded that calling AI’s failure here demonizing might be a modest exaggeration, but no. I don’t agree that it is very, very different.

      They are an organization that sells themselves as a righteous protector of persecuted peoples wherever they may be. Statistics show clearly a large increase in hate crimes against Jews in a short period of time. Given those two things, and adding the history of Jews, given this context AI is unambiguously making a statement that even they think it is not a problem if Jews are persecuted.

      That is pretty damn vile. So fucked up, in fact, that my opinion of AI has gone from “don’t really have one” to “until they do some serious house cleaning among their council members they can piss off.”

  7. what? this just confuses me. Am I to understand that you can’t be for preventing violence and hatred for BOTH Palestinians/Muslims AND Israelis/Jews? Sorry, I didn’t know we had to pick one or the other. I assumed that human rights were to be extended to all, well, humans.

    to borrow a quote from comedian Sara Pascoe (which was in reference to gender equality) “Equality is not a zero-sum game”, and in this case, neither is human rights.

    so I guess AI means Amnesty International as well as Artificial Intelligence, which is to say,they’re faking it.

  8. Amnesty International always had a pro-Palestine bias. They deny that Hamas uses human shields even though Hamas themselves don’t make it a secret that they use human shields. Same goes for Human Rights Watch. Both of those organizations ignore video and photographic evidence of Hamas using human shields and instead base their statements on sketchy Palestinian eyewitness testimony. Their lack of objectiveness regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict is appalling.

    1. Is anti-semitism more common with liberals than conservatives these days? My answer is, yes obviously.

      1. I wouldn’t agree that liberals are anti-semitic or that conservatives are not. I don’t think you can necessarily equate the current liberal tendency towards supporting palestinians as therefor anti-semitic. it is more the case that liberals tend to view palestinians as the underdog in the fight and thus feel that israel is the aggressor. that does not imply that liberals hate jews, only that they are typically for “the little guy”. this isn’t a simplistic or “obvious” argument, and last I checked, it isn’t the liberals who join neo-nazi groups, or perpetrate violence against jews. The guys who murders three people in Kansas at the jewish community center and the village shalom was not in any way a liberal, but was well to the far-right.

          1. Unfortunately, just the fact that Jews support the Democrats doesn’t mean the opposite is true.

            (Ironically it’s Republicans who’re most pro-Israel.)

        1. The resolution was not about the Israeli government, it was a resolution opposing anti-Semitism in the UK.

          Want to know who ‘the little guy’ is in the UK, muslims or jews? Muslims outnumber jews ten to one.

          1. and you think that the resolution had nothing to do with the perceived aggression of the israeli government towards palestine? perception and reality don’t always walk hand-in-hand.

            1. let me add, and this will be my last comment on this post, that I can only speak from an american political view point. liberal-conservative labels from the US cannot be easily pasted on to UK politics or the other way around. Most UK tories would be soundly defeated in any US republican primary because they would be far too liberal. the only similarities could be found in UKIP and the Tea Party, which don’t find much jewish or muslim support, for obvious reasons. once again, this is not a simple or obvious situation, but one full of nuance, complexity, and can’t be labeled so easily.

              1. I would say all One-Nation Tories ( the left wing of the party) would vote Democrat lock, stock and barrel if they were enfranchised in the States. As for the rest, as you said, would be on the left-wing of the Republicans.

            2. Correct, I think the people who authored a resolution opposing anti-Semitism in the UK were not thinking of Israeli government aggression when they did it.

              I think you got your actors mixed up and meant to say that the people opposing the resolution did so because of their feelings towards Israel. Which also makes no sense because a kid on the street in London is not the IDF; the former can need support even while the latter does not. Not distinguishing between the two is a pretty good indication of bias and bigotry; its the “all y’all look alike to me” sentiment.

        2. And evangelical conservatives only care about Israel insofar as they are waiting for The Second Coming of Christ.

    2. dunno. I was under the impression that most conservatives, american at least, are very pro-israel. They are constantly attacking the left and attempting to label all dems as anti-israel (recall Biden v. Ryan, 2012 VP debate). Not that that in and of itself means the right are actually on the side of the jewish population, after all, their primary interest seems to be that the jews have to be around to fulfill christian evangelical biblical prophesy, right?

  9. Amnesty has really gone off the rails. When I was the secretary of a local group in the early 70s, AI stressed its even-handedness. It was focused on people imprisoned or persecuted because of their opinions and non-violent action. It branched out into anti-torture and some members even thought that AI was losing its specific focus. It certainly didn’t presume to take sides in such a blatant way. The members of 40 years ago would be horrified at what it has become.

    1. “It was focused on people imprisoned or persecuted because of their opinions and non-violent action.”

      I think you’ve highlighted why that motion wasn’t passed. Because the motion was trying to steer AI away from its focus on victims of government oppression and into social engineering.

      If AI had passed similar motions on combating islamophobia or racial discrimination but not the antisemitism one, you might have a point. But apparently they didn’t.

      1. AI did pass similar motions, for example, 2010 resolution on Sinti and Roma Communities: “Within the last year widespread discrimination and violence against Sinti and Roma communities has intensified in a number of European countries, which Amnesty International has published within respective country reports.”
        Also a similar motion in support of LGBT communities.
        The idea of working exclusively with “prisoners of conscience” is long forgotten. AI expanded its scope very, very significantly, they even adopt “prisoners without conscience”.

      2. AI lost that initial focus long ago, certainly for the last 15 or 20 years. I wonder if the supporters of AI even know what the original ideals were.

  10. There’s an excellent interview between Maryam Namazie and Gita Sahgal, director of the Centre for Secular Space, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6J6rc0WyeI (from about 8 minutes to 20+). Sahgal, who used to head up Amnesty’s gender unit, describes what she calls the “institutional Islamization” of the major, “establishment” human rights organizations like Amnesty, and I think makes a compelling case. As with institutional racism, it isn’t about the illiberal views of individuals within those organizations: it’s that in high-level policy terms the organizations are locked into sets of positions and alliances that have the effect of making them support Islamism — and support (or actively avoid condemning) actions by Islamists that in no other set of circumstances would they even consider condoning.

    I used to be a member of Amnesty in the 1980s, and the organization seems to have forgotten an essential element of its remit: in order for a prisoner to be regarded as a “prisoner of conscience”, eligible to be campaigned for by Amnesty, it was essential that they had never taken part in or condoned violence — without that proviso, Amensty’s campaigning on their behalf would have had no credibility. Yet now they seem to be allying themselves with Guantanamo prisoners — who are certainly imprisoned unjustly (in the sense of not having had due legal process) but who equally certainly condone violence.

  11. Not good. Feeling very uneasy, between this and the student senate vote re BDS at UC Santa Barbara (4/19).

    1. HEH It’s good to know 😉
      And seriously, the problem, as I see it, is that it’s now perfectly acceptable for “liberals” to either be openly antisemitic or turn a blind eye towards it.
      Bigotry is OK, if it’s against Jews.

  12. “Seriously, do you think that AI would have defeated a similar resolution that called for action against anti-Muslim sentiment in the UK, and more effort to combat the rise of anti-Muslim violence—something I’d support?”

    But they DIDN’T have such a resolution put. Prisoners of conscience are their focus. Social engineering or even social equality is not their focus. There are plenty of organisations (including Jewish and Muslim ones) to deal with antisemitism or islamophobia without Amnesty International getting sidetracked into it. The motion didn’t just require AI to deplore it, it required AI to put resources and effort into it, which must have diverted resources from their core aims. I assume that’s what the majority of the ‘no’ voters felt, anyway.

  13. I am not pro-palestine, and I am not pro-israel.

    Both sides express such a vitriolic hatred for eachother, which makes it hard to sympathize with either of them.

    Does that make me an anti-semite?

    1. I am surprised that you say “Both sides express such a vitriolic hatred for each other, which makes it hard to sympathize with either of them.” There is really no comparison. Only the Palestinian Authority inculcates its population, especially the children, with hatred for the neighbors. Arab terrorists are glorified and their families rewarded; streets and football clubs are named after them. Jews are routinely denigrated as “apes and pigs”. Small children are taught songs about wishing to kill Jews. There is nothing remotely approaching this hatred on the Israeli side.

        1. Setting up deck chairs by individuals to watch a battle hardly compares to the constant official message of hatred on the Palestinian side. There is no such indoctrination of hatred by the Israeli government.
          As the last paragraph of your own reference says: “To compare how each side presents the other is absurd, because we teach peace, and they teach hatred of Israel and perpetuating the conflict,” he said. “It’s a difference of night and day.”

          1. Have to comment again. I totally agree with Sarah and also with her earlier posts. Antisemitism is the ugliest and most disgusting form of bigotry.
            Richard Sherrington

            1. I am not sure what you mean by this. How exactly do you grade bigotry?
              We need to fight all forms of bigotry. If anything, what justifies giving more attention to antisemitism is it being the reason for actual attacks on people.

              1. For me, antisemitism is particularly repugnant just because it has been around for so long and has caused such horror. Other forms of racism seem to come and go or are more localized. They are terrible and sickening, but it seems to me that antisemitism is in a separate, horrible, class of its own.

          2. Cherry pick much?

            You’re making it sound like the last paragraph was the conclusion of the article, while its actually a quote from the Director General of the Israeli Strategic Affairs Ministry.

            The Director General of ISAM doesn’t agree with the study? That’s a huge suprise.

            And you conveniently seem to ignore that the people with the lawnchairs weren’t just “watching the battle”, they were _cheering_.

            Hey, I get it, the palestinians are full of hatred for israel. Nobody is denying that.

            But why are you trying to deny that israelis hate palestinians? Are your views really that one-sided?

            Is it so hard to fathom that when two factions have been at war for so long, the populations of the two factions start hating eachother?

            1. What is hard to fathom, but true, is that there is so relatively little hatred on the Israeli side. No doubt individuals display the whole gamut, but the point is that hatred is not officially promulgated by Israel but is enthusiastically encouraged by the PA.

              1. “Relatively little hatred on the israeli side”

                Well, you say that, but there are just so many, many examples that show that israelis hate palestinians. I find it hard to believe that such hatred is limited to a few “individuals”, as you put it.

                Have it ever occured to you at all that you might not be completely unbiased?

                Discussing this with you makes me feel like I’m almost “defending palestine”, which I have no interest in doing.

                Regardless, arguing that israel display of hatred is less explicit than palestines is hardly a good enough reason to support either faction in this conflict.

            2. If you think that there’s symmetry, you have no idea what you are talking about.
              Of course Israel has its own share of bigots and extremists, but this is nowhere similar to to the nurturing of hate in the media, education system and culture institutes controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

              1. I’m getting a very “you’re either with us or against us” vibe from you guys.

              2. But look at your arguments. You want to equate things that are unlike, and anyone who disagrees must be prejudiced in some way. Government positions are not the same as individual bigotry. Explicit actions are not the same as implied or suspected or anecdotal opinions. The fact is that the PA teaches hatred and Israel does not.

              3. Educating me on ways to be condescending perhaps? By demonstration?

                So according to you, israelis are innocent and the palestinians are the hateful ones. The only exceptions are a few bigots and extremists, and in no way does the larger populace foster a hatred for the people they have been at war with since israel was founded.

                A perfectly black and white, good versus evil scenario.

                Does that really sound like something that exist in reality?

              4. So, in order to be “balanced”, I need to distort reality?
                Israelis are not angels. They are not better than many other nations. However, unlike the Palestinians, they are not indoctrinated from kindergarten to hate other people.

              5. According to the study of israeli and palestina textbooks, thats not actually true.

                But regardless, even if it is true (textbooks are no guarantee for what they actually teach the children, afterall), in what way does that exonerate israeli hatred of palestinians?

                Is it perfectly fine to hate someone, and cheer when they suffer, as long as they hate you more, and cheer louder when you suffer?

                That’s some twisted reasoning.

              6. Your refusal to deal with inconvenient facts is irritating.
                There is no “Israeli hatred of Palestinians”, but a few Israelis who hate Palestinians, just as there are a few Americans who hate blacks and Catholics.

              7. What “inconvenient facts”? Facts are backed by evidence, maybe you could paste a link to back up your claim that there is no israeli hatred of palestinians?

                Cause there are plenty of examples to the contrary, I mentioned one, tiny example before.

                In fact, why wouldn’t israelis hate palestinians? They are at war. In every war that has ever been, the people grow hateful and resentful towards their enemies. Are israelis excempt from human emotions and responses in regards to war?

              8. I can show you examples of Americans who hate Blacks. Does this mean that THE Americans hate blacks? Examples are anecdotal. I am the first to admit that some Israelis, not in insignificant numbers, are bloody racist bigots. This doesn’t mean that the Israelis are full of hate towards the Palestinians. I don’t need to prove that I don’t have a sister. It’s you who make this ridiculous claim. Back it with actual proof, not worthless examples.
                You argued that “both sides express such a vitriolic hatred for eachother”. This may be true in an alternative universe. In ours, only one side, the Palestinians, “express such a vitriolic hatred” for Israelis and Jews.

              9. “This may be true in an alternative universe. In ours, only one side, the Palestinians, “express such a vitriolic hatred” for Israelis and Jews.”

                Since you put it that way, I assume you have proof that all palestinians express a vitriolic hatred towards israelis.

                And remember, examples are anecdotal, and doesn’t count (apparently regardless of how many examples there are)

                You must have some pretty solid proof right?

                After all, you dismiss my claim that israelis hate palestinians as “ridiculous”, and then, a few sentences later, you make the exact same claim about palestinian hatred of israelis.

              10. I impressed by your efforts to deny reality.
                I didn’t say anything about All Palestinians. Don’t put words in my mouth. I am talking about a common sentiment.
                The Palestinian media and education system incite hatred and promote violence against Jews. There is nothing comparable to that in Israel.

  14. Unfortunately there is nothing new here.
    A leftist and AI supporter myself have long get disillusioned with the loss of moral compass in the Left.

    Nowadays (the majority of) the liberal Left is the strongest and loudest bastion of anti-semitism.

    Nick Cohen’s great book “what’s left” clearly describes the ethical downfall of the liberal left.

  15. Words fail me. Wow.

    http://tab.co.uk/2014/10/15/now-vile-su-refuse-to-commemorate-holocaust-because-its-eurocentric-and-colonialist/
    “”A motion was proposed at the Goldsmiths Students’ Assembly yesterday to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day and victims of genocide.

    Education officer Sarah El-alfy urged students to vote against the proposal, rejecting it as “eurocentric”.
    This comes a day after it emerged the NUS voted against a motion to condemn ISIS and support the Kurdish resistance on the grounds of “Islamophobia””

  16. Jerry. I’ve done a lot of searching to try and get documents that add context to this. I can’t find any more information. In the absence of more information we can only speculate on the significance of decision or the motivations behind it. Anti-Semitism in the UK is a problem. Is it a bigger problem than the women rights including the near refusal of our criminal justice system to convict men of rape, or the probably imminent repeal of the Human Rights Act which would leave all citizens, Jews included, without any rights against the state at all?-that depends on one’s priorities, What is clear is that:

    1) The money involved for a campaign was not trivial. Without more information we don’t know if this informed the decision.

    2) There are no obvious resolutions (that I can find) or documents indicating that AI UK has previously adopted policies that single out any religious/racial group for special protection in the UK.

    3) The AI UK website indicates that it is very active in promoting human rights in majority Muslim countries. They do run a campaign on Israel’s occupation of Palestine/treatment of Israeli Arabs, but also criticise Hamas for rocket attacks on Israel. At face value they appear to be highly active in criticising human rights abuses by Islamic State, Iran, Saudi Arabia and are active in North Africa too.

    Jerry: in the context of the power of fundamentalist Christianity in the US you have made brave, reasoned contributions that have inspired many people, including me question our biases and to speak out as Atheists. At face value your output in this post (and on this issue on the otherwise recent Sam Harris podcast) falls short of your usual standards. I would genuinely like to understand the grounds for your very specific claim that this was decision motivated by anti-Semitism within AI-UK.

    Kind regards,

    Kris

Leave a Reply