Algeria’s soccer team have pulled out of a friendly match with Ghana only because the latter has an Israeli head coach.
The Algerian team dropped out of the match to ensure that Avram Grant did not enter the country.
“The Algerian national team cancelled the friendly match with Ghana because it refused to host Ghana’s Israeli coach, Avraham (sic) Grant,” Algerian journalist Ayman Gada confirmed on Facebook.
Grant, the former Chelsea manager, has been in Ghana for the past two years. He had been the coach of the Israeli national team from 2002 to 2006.
Algeria last played Ghana in 2015’s Africa Cup of Nations, when Grant’s team won 1-0.
Algeria has long been a supporter of the Palestinian cause. The country used to have more than 100,000 Jews, but the vast majority of them left after the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and during the country’s bloody war of independence against France.
Algeria has a mixed attitude toward Jews. In 2014 the country announced it would reopen synagogues that had been closed since the 1990s. However in 2015 Algerian Islamists called for attacks on Jews and later that year a video surfaced of Algerian troops marching to chants about murdering Jews.
Algeria came fourth on a list of the world’s most anti-Semitic countries.
South African archbishop and prominent anti-Israel campaigner Desmond Tutu has joined politicians in Belgium in nominating imprisoned Palestinian arch-terrorist Marwan Barghouti for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Tutu tabled the nomination in a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee on Monday in which he hailed the convicted murderer a symbol of the “struggle for freedom, [which] constitutes a clear signal of support for the realization of the Palestinian people’s inalienable rights, including to self-determination.”
Tutu is a longtime anti-Israel activist, and is a member of the “International High Level Committee of the Campaign for the freedom of Barghouti and all Palestinian prisoners.”
Barghouti is the former leader of the Tanzim armed wing of Fatah and was convicted in Israel of being the founder of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, another Fatah terror group.
He was convicted in 2004 on five counts of murder and one attempted murder, and was implicated in and held responsible for four other terror attacks.
In his letter, Tutu characterized Barghouti’s actions as fighting “for freedom and peace,” and – even more ironically – hailed the mass-murderer as “an active advocate and defender of democracy and human rights, include women’s rights, and of pluralism, both religious and political, in a region and a world that desperately needs such advocates.”
Barghouti received his support in Belgium from both the Senate and House of Representatives who penned a letter to the Nobel nominating committee praising him as a peace activist and key to future talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
While Tutu and others attempt to manipulate and distort the true character of Barghouti, the victims and countless grieving relatives of his attacks are the only ones with the legitimacy to be heard.
The United Nations has demonstrated yet again just how unfit it is to hold that name title. Also worrying is how it has been supported in its last farce by the UK, France, Germany.
These nations, together with other EU states have voted for a UN resolution, co-sponsored by the Arab group of states and the Palestinian delegation, that uniquely singled out Israel at the annual assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO) as the only violator of “mental, physical and environmental health.”
They further commissioned a WHO delegation to investigate and report on “the health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory” and in “the occupied Syrian Golan,” and to place it on the agenda again at next year’s meeting.
By contrast, the UN assembly did not address Syrian hospitals being bombed by Syrian and Russian warplanes, or millions of Yemenis denied access to food and water by the Saudi-led bombings and blockade, nor did it pass a resolution on China, North Korea, Libya or any other world nation.
“The UN reached new heights of absurdity today,” said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, “by enacting a resolution which accuses Israel of violating the health rights of Syrians in the Golan, even as in reality Israeli hospitals continue their life-saving treatment for Syrians fleeing to the Golan from the Assad regime’s barbaric attacks.”
“Shame on Britain, France and Germany for encouraging this hijacking of the annual world health assembly, Neuer added.
In contrast to the shocking collaboration of the UK, France and Germany, there is much to commend the principled stand taken by the U.S., Canada, Australia, Paraguay, Guatemala, Micronesia and Papua New Guinea in joining Israel to oppose perpetuating a politicized agenda item.
The U.S. and Canada both took the floor today to strongly object to the anti-Israel exercise.
The vote was 107 to 8 for the resolution, with 8 abstentions and 58 absent. The resolution calls for reports on a series of alleged Israeli violations, including on “the impact of prolonged occupation and human rights violations on mental,
physical and environmental health” in “the occupied Palestinian territory.”
By backing the measure, EU states effectively adopted an inflammatory report which, amongst other things, blamed the increase in Palestinian traffic accidents on the fear of “being pursued by settlers”; as well as a Syrian submission laced with anti-Semitic conspiracy tropes, yet circulated as an official UN document on the conference agenda, which alleges that “the Israeli occupation authorities” continue “to experiment on Syrian and Arab prisoners with medicines and drugs and to inject them with pathogenic viruses.”
Unable to deny Israel’s medical treatment of thousands of wounded Syrians, the regime accuses Israel of a plot: healing “armed terrorists from Jabhah al-Nusrah” so that they can “resume their subversive terrorist activities directed against the country’s peaceful citizens and its infrastructure.”
The EU states could have introduced their own resolution about how Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of its own people, destroying the health rights of the Syrian people.
Last month, France and Spain voted for an Arab-sponsored UNESCO resolution that contained the wild conspiracy accusation that Israel was “planting fake Jewish graves” in Jerusalem.
With today’s vote, which robs the world health assembly of limited time and resources in order to portray Israel as the world’s only violator of health rights, the entire EU now descends into irrationalism.
By scapegoating the Jewish state for all the world’s health problems, just as medieval Europe once accused the Jews of poisoning the wells, the EU aids and abets the UN and its World Health Organization to betray the cause of humanity and the very principles upon which they were founded.
This article is adapted from one published by UN Watch. Follow the link to it here.
How is this for a social experiment? Last week, some students at University of Chicago proposed a resolution to the College Council to divest from Chinese weapons manufacturers, in protest of China’s severe human rights abuses and its long-standing occupation of Tibet.
Members of the council were quick to condemn the resolution, and for good reason. The members noted it was political, and disrespectful to Chinese students. Other members noted that Chinese students should be given time to respond to the presenters with a counter-presentation. One representative even suggested that the College Council issue an apology to Chinese students for even considering the resolution. The resolution was tabled indefinitely.
Curiously, when a few weeks earlier the same College Council passed a nearly identical resolution condemning Israel, no one suggested an apology. These same representatives argued why it was their moral imperative to condemn Israel. They were determined to push this through at all costs, and despite requests, they didn’t even offer the other side an opportunity to present.
As one Jewish Chicago student explained, “Over the past few weeks I have been told that Jews “don’t count” as a minority. I have been accused of using anti-Semitism to justify oppression. All I want to know is why my campus doesn’t treat anti-Semitism with the same rigor with which it treats any other forms of bias.”
When Jewish students stood before the council as part of the debate and asked that it recognize the Jewish right to self-determination, a basic right for all people, people in the room laughed. One representative noted that “If we were to affirm the right to Jewish self-determination … it takes away from the intent of the resolution”.
Another Jewish student was chided “You are racist and you are against me and my family’s existence”. It was uncivil, and unproductive, but the council-members did not once that day condemn the personal nature of these attacks, or defend the rights of the opposition to make their case.
At one point, a student questioned the presenters, members of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), about their organization allegedly holding a moment of silence for Palestinians who were killed while trying to murder Jewish civilians. One of the presenters confirmed the moment, then responded without missing a beat “Palestinians have a right to honour their martyrs”.
If the killing of any other ethnic group had been celebrated, the University would make grief counsellors available. It would send out mass emails of condemnation. They would suspend the organisation responsible, and possibly the students involved in it. The organisation would certainly not have any credibility to present to the student government. Since the victims were Jews though, their celebration of murder went unchallenged. The representatives never even brought the issue up.
On the third slide of the presentation in favour of the resolution, presenters claimed that voting against the resolution would mean “maintaining a system of domination by Jews”.
Moments like these make it clear that the BDS movement and its acolytes like Israel Apartheid Week together with their supporters are not about human rights. It is about using universities as a forum for tribal hatreds, in this case legitimising the expression of anti-Semitism.
UPDATE: Following yesterday’s comprehensive coverage of the fallout over Labour’s Naz Shah and her Facebook posts, the party’s leader Jeremy Corbyn has finally bowed to pressure and suspended her from the party.
Yet the decision came just hours after he appeared to have accepted an apology without imposing a punishment.
Ms Shah had a second meeting with Mr Corbyn this afternoon after which Labour said she would be suspended with ‘mutual agreement’.
A Labour spokesman said: ‘Jeremy Corbyn and Naz Shah have mutually agreed that she is administratively suspended from the Labour Party by the General Secretary.
‘Pending investigation, she is unable to take part in any party activity and the whip is removed.’
Speaking in the Commons, Ms Shah today made her fourth apology saying: ‘I fully acknowledge I have made mistakes and I wholeheartedly apologise to this House for the words I used before I became a member.
‘I accept and understand the words I used caused upset and hurt to the Jewish community and I deeply regret that.
‘Anti-Semitism is racism, full stop.’
ORIGINAL POST: Labour MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah, today resigned from the shadow cabinet over her now well publicised Facebook post that called for relocation of Israel to the US to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Shah stepped down as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Labour’s shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, over the remarks she made two years ago.
Shah has since apologised, saying: “I deeply regret the hurt I have caused.
“This post from two years ago was made before I was an MP, does not reflect my views and I apologise for any offence it has caused.”
In a second statement, she added: “I made these posts at the height of the Gaza conflict in 2014, when emotions were running high around the Middle East conflict.
“But that is no excuse for the offence I have given, for which I unreservedly apologise.”
Shah won her parliamentary seat in 2015 from George Galloway following an acrimonious election campaign that at times became very personal. Indeed, Shah referred to it as, “One of the most vile and personalised election campaigns ever seen in Great Britain”.
One particular spat centred on Shah’s claims about being forced into a violent and sexually abusive marriage aged 15.
This was disputed by Galloway telling her she had “only a passing acquaintance with the truth”. Galloway said: “You claimed – and gullible journalists believed you – that you were subject to a forced marriage at the age of 15. But you were not 15, you were 16 and a half. I have your nikah [marriage certificate] in my pocket.”
Shah at one point suggested she would sue Galloway over the issue.
However, it has been the series of messages on social media for which she has paid today’s price. She had said that the “solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict – Relocate Israel into United States”, with the additional comment “problem solved”.
Alongside the post, Shah added a smiley-face emoji and suggested she would lobby the prime minister to adopt the plan.
More recently Shah threw her opinion into the ring over the controversial election of Malia Bouattia as the new president of the National Union of Students. Shah shared a tweet warmly congratulating Bouattia on her victory.
Bouattia’s election, amid allegations by some of anti-Semitism, has taken some university student unions to the brink of disafilliation.
The Labour party confirmed that Shah had stepped down as Parliamentary Private Secretary, an unpaid backbench assistant.
The original post was publicised by the Guido Fawkes political website.
Naz Shah conclude her apology with a suggestion she would be,”Seeking to expand my existing engagement and dialogue with Jewish community organisations, and will be stepping up my efforts to combat all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism.”
However, her troubles are almost certain to continue with other MPs questioning whether Shah should continue as a parliamentarian.
Her Labour colleague John Mann told Guido Fawkes that, “The last person to propose a forced repatriation of this kind was Adolf Eichmann on August 15 in 1940 (the Madagascar plan).”
Shah, is also a member of the House of Commons home affairs select committee which is conducting an inquiry into the rise of anti-Semitism in the UK. In the circumstances it is inconceivable that she will be able to continue in that role.
If ever proof were needed of just how meaningless the BDS movement is, Leicester City Council’s controversial decision to boycott goods from Israeli settlements in the West Bank has had “no impact” on the things it has bought, officials have revealed.
Yet the council has already had to pay out £7,355 plus VAT on legal counsel connected to the boycott – and could face paying £200,000 costs if it loses a judicial review case on the ban at the High Court next month.
The Labour-led authority approved the motion in 2014 to “show solidarity” with the Palestinian people.
However, critics described the move as anti-Semitic – a charge denied by the council – and gesture politics to appeal to Muslim voters ahead of last year’s election.
Tory city councillor Ross Grant said: “It’s disgraceful. This just shows the Labour group are guilty of dog whistle politics of the worst kind. This motion has had no effect at all and was just to win votes from a certain section of the community.
“Now £200,000 of taxpayers’ money has been put at risk because of the actions of a bunch of people who are always telling us how little cash they have.
“The city mayor ought to show some leadership and rescind this motion to protect public money.
“At the last council meeting I asked the lord mayor to allow a motion to vote on rescinding this. We could have already had a vote but he would not allow it.”
The issue is set to be settled in the High Court after an application by campaign group Jewish Human Rights Watch (JHRW) for a judicial review of the boycott.
Council barrister Kamal Adatia has warned councillors losing the case could cost the authority £200,000.
A Freedom of Information request has revealed the legal costs associated with the motion. The response said the council had paid £7,355 plus VAT on counsel but that the cost of in-house legal work had not been calculated.
The request also asked if the policy had led to a change in any supplier of goods to the council.
The response said: “The council’s procurement activity has not been impacted by the motion.”
Last month, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Canadian professor Michael Lynk as “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.”
Ensuing debate has focused on Lynk’s suitability for the role. Critics of the appointment cite Lynk’s record of significant involvement in advocacy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including with organizations that are clearly biased against Israel.
Lynk’s may have an impressive career background in academia and law, therefore, there is nothing to suggest he lacks the knowledge or experience for such a position. But this is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether Lynk is a suitable choice for Special Rapporteur.
First and foremost, the UNHRC itself has declared (in resolutions 5/1 and 16/21) that “impartiality” and “objectivity” are of “paramount importance” when selecting mandate-holders. The choice of any activist is a clear violation of this core requirement.
Lynk has served as an advisory board member to Palestinian advocacy organisations like CEPAL and Friends of Sabeel North America. These organisations have slandered Israel as an “apartheid state.”
Lynk has also accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing.” He has addressed “one-state” conferences, which — despite academic niceties — are premised on the notion that the world’s only Jewish state should be abolished.
He is on record as saying that Israel and Hamas should both be tried for “war crimes,” an allegation that attempts to equivocate the actions of the only liberal democracy in the region to the same moral level as jihadists who in their Covenant publicly call for the destruction of Israel.
Lynk has urged the president of Western University to reject an award from the Jewish National Fund, one of the oldest environmental organizations on earth. As long ago as 1996, Lynk testified before a parliamentary committee considering legislation to establish Canada-Israel free trade, arguing that the bill was “detrimental to the peace process.”
For decades, he has been actively and formally involved in advocacy initiatives that he would characterize as pro-Palestinian but others, with reason, would characterise as anti-Israel.
Lynk is, of course, entitled to hold strong opinions and advocate for them. But in so doing, he disqualifies himself from meeting the “paramount” test of impartiality and objectivity required — that seems to exist only on paper in the halls of the UNHRC.
All of which is to say that Lynk’s appointment is but one manifestation of the corroded nature of the UNHRC. In its most recent session, the UNHRC passed five resolutions against Israel compared to none against Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, Burundi, and China. The Council’s Special Rapporteur for the Palestinians refuses to investigate violations of Palestinian rights by the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. It’s no surprise that 9/11 conspiracy theorist Richard Falk felt at home in the role. Nor can we be shocked the next time a brutal dictatorship like Iran or North Korea is appointed to chair a UN initiative focused on women’s rights or disarmament.
In November, the Trudeau government took a widely noted stand at the UN by maintaining Canada’s opposition to the annual series of General Assembly resolutions singling out Israel. In the same vein, its Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion has commendably raised legitimate concerns with the Lynk appointment and called for a review of the decision. Such a clear positive stance is all too often lacking from other democratic nations.
Indeed, just as hatred of Jews foreshadows the decay of an entire society, anti-Israel bias at the UNHRC reflects broader, systemic dysfunction at the UN — which affects the entire international community.
Lionel Messi, arguably the world’s most famous current playing soccer star, has been blasted as “Jewish” and a “Zionist” by Egyptian officials after donating his soccer shoes to a charity in Egypt. Strange but true!
Messi, who plays for the Barcelona Football Club, was interviewed last week on the Egyptian television program “Yes, I Am Famous” on the private network MBC Masr.
“One of the things he does is give charity all over the world, and these will be among the donations he gives,” Egyptian host Mona El-Sharkawy said as the soccer star held a pair of red, black and white cleats up to the camera. “And he gave these to our program because we will have an auction for them. Messi, thank you very very much.”
Shoes are considered an insult in Arab and Egyptian culture, in part because they are lowly and dirty and literally touch the ground.
Said Hasasein, a member of the Egyptian parliament and also a talk-show host, ripped Messi on the air.
“Whose shoes do you want to sell, Messi? How much do you think it will get? You don’t know that the nail of a baby Egyptian is worth more than your shoes? Keep your shoes to yourself or sell them to Israel,” he said.
Hasasein then took off his shoes and said: “This is my shoe. I donate it to Argentina. This is an insult to Egyptian people.”
Egyptian Football Federation spokesman Azmi Mogahed phoned in to the show to also criticize Messi.
“Even in our religion …,” he began to say when Hasasein reportedly interrupted to say “His religion is Jewish!”
Mogahed agreed, saying: “I know he’s Jewish, he donates to Israel and visited the Wailing Wall and whatever … we don’t need his shoe and Egypt’s poor don’t need help from someone with Jewish or Zionist citizenship.”
Messi is a Catholic and has made the sign of the cross on his chest after scoring goals. In August 2013, he visited the Western Wall on a peace tour with the Barcelona club. One year later Messi supported a soccer match organized by Pope Francis to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but he did not play in the match due to an injury.
An Egyptian soccer player, Ahmed “Mido” Hossam, posted on Twitter: “The most precious thing the writer owns is his pen and the most precious thing the footballer owns is his shoes. I hope we stop these false accusations.”
AntiSemitismWatch has extensively covered Labour’s ever-deepening anti-Semitism crisis as well as, crucially, offering an explanation as to the main driver behind it, simply and plainly rooted in and derived from hatred of all matters Israel.
The club’s co-chairman, Alex Chalmers, resigned, saying that a “large proportion of Oxford University Labour Club and the student Left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews.”
He condemned Israeli Apartheid Week as “a movement with a history of targeting and harassing Jewish students and inviting anti-Semitic speakers to campuses”.
It can now also be revealed that a previous Israeli Apartheid Week event, in Leicester last year, was attended by Mohammed Dawood, a serving Labour councillor in the east Midlands city.
Cllr Dawood, a former assistant mayor of Leicester with responsibility for housing and social care, recently tweeted a film showing the burning of the “Zionist entity flag”, the Israeli flag.
On social media, Cllr Dawood has described Israelis as “colonisers”, said that artists who go to Israel are “like [those] performing in Sun City [the resort in the South African bantustan] under Apartheid” and retweeted a statement that Israeli troops are “Zionist terrorists”.
A spokesman for the organisation Jewish Human Rights Watch called on Labour to expel Cllr Dawood.
Additionally, Labour MP Louise Ellman, who is herself Jewish, has said that while Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn had spoken out about the issue, not enough was being done to actually tackle the problem.
She said that party members were being allowed to “get away” with posting anti-Semitic comments online.
“I am very concerned about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Most members of the Labour Party are not anti-Semitic but some are,” she told Sky News’s Murnaghan programme.
Shadow chancellor John McDonnell, a close ally of Mr Corbyn, insisted they were committed to dealing with the issue.
“You can be a critic of the Israeli state and its role, but you mustn’t allow that to in any way be used by anti-Semites. We’ve got to root that out and we will do,” he told BBC1’s The Andrew Marr Show.
That statement is perhaps considered by some as a little ironic considering The Daily Mail recently published details of articles from The Labour Herald newspaper, required reading for the Left in the 80s. This included a 1985 piece, published during John McDonnell’s co-editorship spell at the newspaper, which compared the Israeli government to the Nazis by claiming it confined Palestinians to ‘concentration camps’.
A few weeks later, the paper went on to endorse terrorist attacks against the country’s authorities, to counter what it called ‘the racism at the heart of the Israeli state’.
When the Board of Deputies of British Jews met the Labour leader in February, although he told the delegation he opposed anti-Semitism “from any part of the political spectrum”, when highlighted that his past engagements with dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites, including representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah needed to be acknowledged and a line drawn under them he only committed himself to “reflect further” on such connections. This does not go nearly far enough especially since we are talking about Holocaust deniers and terrorists. Moreover, since that February meeting Corbyn has not issued any formal response to his period of reflection!
AntiSemitismWatch says that it is clear there is no end in sight to this Labour anti-Semitism crisis and there will not be until they grapple with their inconvenient truth. As the ‘natural home’ of modern anti-Israeli movements, like BDS and its acolytes including Israeli Apartheid Week; movements now widely regarded as systemically anti-Semitic, the political left is in danger of becoming similarly systemically anti-Semitic, and so is the Labour Party.
The government has ceased funding a British charity which sponsored events accused of promoting hatred and violence against Jews.
The Department for International Development (Dfid) said that it no longer supported War on Want, which helped pay for “Israeli Apartheid Week” in February this year.
The statement comes as The Daily Telegraph obtained undercover recordings of events where anti-Semitism, demands for the destruction of Israel or naked support for terror were expressed by academics and others at meetings in some of Britain’s most prestigious universities.
One speaker, Max Blumenthal, the son of a close adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton, praised a massacre by Hamas as sending an “incredible message” and said that taking up arms should be “normal” for Palestinians. He compared Israel to the terrorist group Isil, describing it as “the Jewish State of Israel and the Levant, Jsil”.
At another rally – sponsored by War on Want – a speaker said that British government policy was created by “Zionist and neo-con lobbies”.
A second speaker at the same event spoke of a “rumour” that Israelis were harvesting dead Palestinians’ organs.
The meeting, at London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), was the London launch of Israeli Apartheid Week, held across UK university campuses to “raise awareness about Israel’s ongoing settler-colonial project” and demand boycotts of Israel. They were secretly recorded and passed to the Telegraph.
War on Want, whose logo appears on publicity materials for Israeli Apartheid Week and the meeting, has received £260,000 in funding from Dfid over the last two years.
The subsidy is doubly embarrassing because the Government has recently banned local authorities and other public bodies from implementing boycotts of Israel.
A Dfid spokesman said last night that it has ceased funding of War on Want, apart from a small project with a distinct branch of the charity in Northern Ireland.
Dfid sources said the UK “deplored incitement on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.
War on Want spent more than £1,000 to bring Sahar Francis, a Palestinian lawyer, to the UK for the London event.
Ms Francis, the head of the Addameer prisoners’ rights group, spoke of a “rumour” that Israelis were stealing organs from Palestinian victims of the violence.
“The eyes were looking in a very strange way and this is why the families suspected [Israel] are stealing their [organs],” she said.
“But we cannot confirm, because [in] most cases it was not ending up with [an] autopsy.”
War on Want also paid for the accommodation of another speaker, Steven Salaita, an academic who used the event to attack Israel’s “tenuous colonial existence” and defend violence, saying: “If we are going to reduce a project of ethnic cleansing, illegal settlement and military occupation to the minuscule chance that a soldier or a settler will be harmed by an act of resistance by the natives, then we forfeit all right to be taken seriously.”