What do you do when a number of organisations have as an express purpose the destruction of your country’s economy in an effort to support those who wish to fundamentally change the country, and not in a good way?

Most sensible people would see this as a form of economic terrorism and think that restricting those organisations’ actions within your country would be an appropriate response. But then most sensible people don’t read the Guardian.

Israel plans, starting in March, to ban a group of 20 charities and human rights groups from entering the country because they support BDS (Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions). BDS targets Israeli goods, foreign companies and individuals involved in Israel, academic and cultural contacts. The government of Israel says the campaign actively denies Israel’s basic right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state and promotes the country’s demise.

The restriction is part of Israel’s larger effort to fight what it sees as an increasing threat. Two years ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu budgeted more than £20million annually to that fight.

Writing in the Guardian, Asad Rehman, executive director of War on Want, one of the banned organisations, attacked the ban. On behalf of those banned, he alleged Israel’s response is ‘borrowed straight from the play-book of South Africa’s apartheid regime’.

Rehman called upon the British government ‘not only to condemn this crackdown, but to stop arming Israel – and to hold its government to account for the apartheid policies [my italics] that made BDS a necessity in the first place’.

Appropriately enough Rehman, like many Leftists when it comes to Israel, takes lessons in tactics from Nazi propaganda minister Dr Joseph Goebbels: ‘If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.’

At the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism in Durban, the PLO delegation led by Yasser Arafat and his nephew, Nasser al-Qudwa, with member countries of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation and many Western NGOs, formulated the final NGO declaration isolating Israel as an ‘apartheid state’.

Labelling the sole Middle East state in which parliament, the military and police, universities and voting rights are open to all citizens regardless of race or religion an ‘apartheid state’ is worthy of the description ‘big lie’.

Israelis, including many who disagree with their government’s policies, find the term deeply offensive. It is seen as an inflammatory analogy aimed at isolating and delegitimising their country.

Media support for BDS is widespread. In the Irish Times BDS is described as ‘a grassroots movement . . . which criticises Israel over its policies towards the Palestinians’. If only that were all.

Many, including Israelis, severely criticise Israeli policies, a legitimate and necessary activity in any functioning democracy. Simply to claim that legitimate political criticism is the underlying purpose of BDS is to downplay the movement’s real aims, which are to outlaw Israel and bring an end to the country as a democratic Jewish state.

BDS leader and activist Omar Barghouti has openly said: ‘Definitely, most definitely, we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.’ Ahmed Moor, another activist leader, concurs: ‘OK fine. So BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state . . . BDS is not another step on the way to the final showdown; BDS is the final showdown’.

It is no surprise that Israel sees BDS and its Arab and Western supporters as posing a threat to the nation’s existence.

The New York Times, whilst attempting to give context to the ban, served only to make matters worse by perpetuating the apartheid slur. ‘Supporters of the pressure strategy favor the boycott of Israel until it ends the occupation of the West Bank, provides full equality under the law to Palestinian citizens of Israel and grants a right of return to Palestinian refugees. But refugees number in the millions, and their return would probably spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state.’

On one point the New York Times is correct. The BDS aim of bringing about an influx of millions of aggrieved Arab Muslims, backed by the terrorist organisations Hezbollah and Hamas, into a democratic Jewish country of 8.5million would not end well.

Where the NY Times errs is in the implication that Israel’s Arab citizens are disadvantaged under Israeli law, which if true would indeed be a form of apartheid. However, ‘Palestinian citizens of Israel’, or Israeli Arabs as they are more accurately known, have equality under the law, the same as all other Israeli citizens.

British BDS supporters include the Green Party and the National Union of Teachers, Kate Osamor, shadow International Development Secretary, and others in the Labour Party. Among international supporters are Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other academics and activists.

Encouragement for BDS is widespread. Virginia Tilley, a politics professor, and Richard Falk, one-time United Nations Special Rapporteur, co-authored a report on Israel for the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA).

The report, submitted in March 2017, concluded: ‘Israel has established an apartheid regime that systematically institutionalises racial oppression and domination of the Palestinian people as a whole’. Rima Khalaf, Executive Secretary of ESCWA, strongly supported the report, arguing Israel has succeeded in ‘imposing and maintaining an apartheid regime’.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres requested the removal of the report from the ESCWA website, stating that it had been released without authorisation. Khalaf, a long-time supporter of BDS, resigned in protest.

The NY Times argued that Mr Guterres dissociated himself from the report not because it was wrong but because it ‘seemed bound to aggravate the already tense relationship between the world body and the Trump administration’.

BDS activists and their NGO, media and governmental supporters claim they are not anti-Semitic but anti-Zionist. BDS activists, however, violate a number of precepts outlined in the US State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism:

  • ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination’;
  • ‘Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis’;
  • ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy with that of the Nazis’.

BDS, despite the protestations of some of its more naïve supporters, is not a well-meaning humanitarian movement. When Israel puts restrictions on organisations motivated by a desire to see its destruction it is merely taking sensible precautions.


  1. “refugees number in the millions, and their return would probably spell the end of Israel…”
    Those sentiments apply to Britain, France, Sweden, Germany etc. Sadly, Britain is being changed and not for the better. Never mind, we always have May to rely on……….

  2. Well done Israel for banning these groups. Charities and human rights groups are totally infected by the liberal left.
    There are very few Charities that I would give any money to nowadays. Certainly no Charity that does work outside the UK would get my money.
    The public need to wake up to what the Charity sector has become. Staffed by the well paid sons and daughters of the Metropolitan Liberal elite. Believe me you wont find many ex-comprehensive kids in their management ranks. Your kids wont get one of those jobs. Nor will you find any diversity of opinion.
    Save your money or give it to a UK serviceman charity or give it locally where you can actually see the benefits.

    • Pity those groups are not banned here too. Far too many of them with far too much say about how this country is run.

    • Long ago, I came to the conclusion that the only worthy US national charity is the Salvation Army, based on results. I suspect the UK is similar, likely worse. Due diligence, people, and it would be good if we could get control of our governments.

        • I think the “quietly” bit is very important.
          There is a difference between quiet acceptance of human fallibility
          and the celebration of reckless behaviour.

      • As a devout atheist I regularly support the Sally Ally.
        It assists persons & families that the Social Services miss, and pays its
        senior staff peanuts, rightly so, because it is a charity & not a vast money making machine for its top staff.
        Check out the relationship between the massively overpaid boss of Save The Children & the lying Labour MP for one of the poorest constituencies in the UK.

        • Yep. I’m a pretty strong Christian now, but my support for the Army goes back over 30 years to when I wasn’t. I happened to notice how corrupt the Red Cross (ours, yours I know nothing about) and many of the others that my employers wanted me to give to. Nope, not me, I pick who I support.

    • Alas, the lefty “charitocracy” also appears to be taking over previously perfectly sensible professional bodies as well. The rot spreads.

    • I have not given to charity since the government decided to nationalise it and take away my choice of who my money should go to. Stop the scandalous international aid shake down and I will reconsider.

  3. Oh dear Doctor Jack, time to wake up and smell the coffee !

    You remember back to all those wars started by the Arabs to remove Israel from the map? Remember the oil crisis of the 70’s because Saudi objected to American support for Israel?

    You think those motivations have just gone away? Today we have a new Saudi king openly admitting his country has sponsored terrorism in the West, and Oman Isolated because of accusation of doing the same.

    We have Western politicians massively enriching themselves from Middle Eastern Oil money to the tune of hundreds of millions, and its all done after they leave office and no one following wants to rock the boat because they want their share of it too.

    And all for the promotion of Islam, not just any Islam though, the backwards intolerant and violent Salafi sect. We hear politicians moan about so called hate preachers, and then allow them free access into the UK – why?
    We saw May suppress a report into Saudi sponsored terror in the UK why?
    May has commissioned a report from the Prince Alwaleed centre at Edinburgh university on how she can incorporate Sharia law into UK law why?

    The answer is money, and Blue Labour have only one objective in their minds, the acquisition of wealth and holding onto it. They are more susceptible to bribery than any other group because of their naked untrammelled greed.

    The biggest external funder of UK Universities is yes you guessed it Saudi Arabia and that money comes with strings attached, such as the promotion of Islam and its values, which include the hatred of Israel. These people are leaving university indoctrinated and then are going on to occupy senior positions in government & the public sector.

    The latest figures I am hearing on the extent of Saudi spending for this is running into the trillions of dollars! Massively more than the old Soviet Union spent on promoting Communism This is why the Kingdom is close to bankruptcy and the new King arrested and tortured so many rich princlings.

    Until you can countenance the fact that corruption is rife at the top of Western politics and that universities need root & branch reform and many toxic professors removed from position, then it will carry on and establish itself as the norm.

    I don’t expect this road to Damascus enlightenment anytime soon though, far too many are far too trusting of the honesty and integrity of political leaders to even think such a thing exists. I will leave you with one name, who drove the whole thing underground after being caught, – Jonathon Aitken.

    • Yes, well said. It’s the symbiotic relationship between the petro dollar and Saudi Arabia which has resulted in political corruption stretching across the entire Western Hemisphere. To much pay for pay influence based on the Anglo/American/Saudi cash cow which fills the wallets of the elite.

      Israel has always been the Wests stick used to threaten the Middle East and balance Saudi power. The Western elite only care about Israel as a tool. Israel knows that only too well.

      • The Petro Dollar keeps the USA standard of living artificially high, and has done since inception by Kissinger.

        Oil trading in dollars led to most international trade in dollars,. Since everyone needed dollars to trade, the value was kept up even when the USA simply printed them.

        The printing has gone on so much and for so long though that the value of the dollar has declined sharply.

        This, and the stranglehold these arrangements have given the USA over international finance has led China, Russia and others to ditch the dollar in favour of trade in their own currencies.

        The future for the USA does not look good in the long term.

  4. Israel remains today what it has always been throughout its precarious existence: a tiny state surrounded by implacable enemies steeped in a visceral and ancient hatred based on the deepest racial, religious and political divisions, and who have sworn never to rest until they have destroyed the state and pushed every last Jew into the sea.

    In the face of that level of hostility and abuse, I would not blame Israel for its pugnacity and almost any decision it may take to defend itself.

  5. Anti-zionism vs anti-semitism is another pseudo-intellectual pedantry of language perpetrated by lefties in an attempt to disguise their bigotry as something respectable.

    Zionism was born from anti-semitism, so by the left’s own rules to denounce it is to endorse anti-semitism and to endorse a denial of the right of the Jewish people to their own homeland.

    Of note too, that lefties who are appalled by any notion of the English having a right to their own homeland, or even expressing that, are so eager to endorse Palestinian nationalism, Scottish nationalism, Irish nationalism, Welsh nationalism and even EU nationalism. They are seldom challenged to explain that curiously selective bigotry.

    • The fact that the left consistently refer to ‘white people’ in the sense of a slur, reveals them as the awful racists and tribalists that they really are. It’s amazing that the label ‘White privilige’ has been utilised as a means of preventing free speech. It’s apparently fine to call people ‘pale, male and stale’ on the BBC, but dare make any kind of remark about women, BAMEs or Muslims and an incredible amount of violent pressure will be brought to bear on the ‘offender’. The least will be a grovelling apology and the forever tag of sexist/mysogenist/racist/homophobe/Islamaphobe – a badge which will exclude the offender from any kind of discussion in the future. At worst it will be regarded as ‘hate speech’ and will mean a fine, prison, or the loss of ones job-or all three together.

      • It’s even apparently fine to call people “pale. male and stale” in the House of Commons too where they also bleat about racism, sexism and ageism with no self awareness or sense of irony.

  6. Israel is not just the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East.
    It is a courageous, tolerant & democratic state, which makes it, sadly, superior to the UK.
    The Israelis are tolerant, but do not tolerate the intolerable, which we do, with the result that
    our taxpayer funded national broadcaster regularly denies the existence of British values
    and champions mass, destructive, immigration to a country that cannot house its indigenous citizens.

    • Mrs May thinks that Islam is compatible with British values.

      However, as she defines what these values are, this might well be the case so far as she is concerned.

      May really is a very silly, a very ignorant or a very badly advised woman.

      Or some combination of the above.

      • Anyone who thinks islam is compatible with Western, let alone British, values
        does not know what those values are.
        As the BBC constantly reminds us – nobody knows what British values are.
        Imagine the national broadcaster of any other nation from New Zealand to
        China claiming that nobody knows what its values are.
        Only persons who think we should remain a region of the United States of Europe
        hold such views.
        i.e. Traitors.

        • British values are or were those of an extended family, reinforced by our geography as an island and the fact we had not been invaded for the best part of a millennium.

          Mrs May would denigrate this conception, or rather, feeling, as ‘racist’.

          She has been trying to redefine Britain as a ‘credal’ or ‘creedal’ / propositional entity. This is ‘progressive’, you see and us designed to accommodate recent arrivals,bNaturally, this conception appeals to the sneering commentariat who like to think of themselves as intellectuals and superior.

          Unfortunately, it doesn’t mean a lot to most people. Especially the native British.

  7. I find it incredible that it’s even necessary to mount a defence of Israel with respect to the Muslims Arabs intentions to wipe Israel off the face of the planet.

  8. Britain is no longer Britain but a sad ignorant collection of emotionalized pressure groups averse to any fact that disturbs their dribbling hatred. They enjoy it. The guardian, the news media, the labour party are soaked in antisemitism. Why this is, is a perplexity indeed.

    • Leftism has been anti Semitic at least since Marx. Himself Jewish, Marx made remarks about Jews which were viciously anti Semitic.

  9. Amazing how it’s a “two-state solution” in one breath, but “an apartheid régime” in the next …

  10. You want an advert for Britain’s irrelevance, it’s this. What the Right say and what the Left say are utterly irrelevant to the country’s destiny. The one vaguely diverting part of this is the extent to which Momentum have shown themselves up to be quite profoundly anti-Semitic and thus wholly unacceptable, but that’s it. The world as a whole and Israel in particular are utterly indifferent to what Britain thinks.

    • Agreed but the sheer arrogance of the BDS movement has to be experienced to be believed .
      In many ways they are very typical of the progressive mindset in that they do not accept that a contrary view to theirs is permissible. This mindset can only end in one way and that is in an authoritarian state .

    • But Israel does take steps to monitor the output of the BBC, through meticulous tracking on the BBC Watch website: https://bbcwatch.org/, so perhaps they do care, or are certainly aware that the relentless hostility to Israel evident in BBC coverage has some traction.

      • because of ‘the unique way’ the BBC is funded it is more far reaching that it should be. £4 Billion of money extracted by threat of criminal sanction sees to that.

        If it wasn’t for Camerons dirty deal with them over Brexit we might have seen a more scaled back BBC.

        • I haven’t paid the TV tax for many years.
          bbctvlicence.com will show you their threats are a paper tiger.
          Stop paying and feel better.

    • ‘The world as a whole and Israel in particular are utterly indifferent to what Britain thinks.’
      As gutless client state of the de facto Fourth Reich, only the opinions of Germany & France matter.

  11. Pray tell, how many Jews and Christians there are in the surrounding Islamic countries and what state do they live under!
    We are all just acting as Dhimmis to the OIC in the UN until such time as they decide to treat us to one of the other two ways!

Comments are closed.