I am pleased that the Charity Commission is investigating War On Want. You might already have seen the video of the group’s outrageous recent protest at a Waitrose store in London. They trashed Israeli produce and harassed the store’s staff, lying as they did so. ‘Anywhere that says from Israel is basically, is probably from illegal settlements in the West Bank,’ claimed one of the protestors.
Not true – all of the produce they destroyed that day was from inside Israel proper. ‘Probably’ indeed! When it comes to bashing Israel, the notoriously narcissistic John Hilary and his misguided stooges care nothing about the facts. War On Want is an organisation which has made itself unworthy of the title ‘charity’ – you can read more about its record here and here. Remember the above next time they wave a standing order form under your nose.
Meanwhile, much as I try and remain upbeat about the future of Israel and the battle against antisemitism I must admit I feel strangely pessimistic this week. It increasingly feels like the world is turning on the Jewish state and the Jewish people more than it has for decades. When I read that the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has banned Israel from showing an image of the Kotel (Western Wall) in tourism adverts I feel sickened.
Let’s be clear: initiatives such as the War On Want one above and the one that lead to the ASA decision are dishonest, selective and racist. But remember we have power. In response to War On Want, remember to Buycott. In response to the ASA farce, please join this Facebook group.
FB group joined and challenge posted into ASA web form:
I wish to challenge your recent adjudications against Israeli tourism adverts that are based on your understanding that certain places are not Israel proper, but are in occupied territories. These matters are to be decide in final status talks and, therefore, the ASA is not a competent authority to make such decisions. There are myriad photographs of Jerusalem which show both the Kotel and Dome of the Rock, usually in news or tourism contexts. To reject such a common photograph from a poster promoting a tour of Israel is a particularly bad example of this.
Once more, please reconsider these adjudications, as they are based on an ASA opinion for which it is not a competent authority.
Last time War on Want asked me for a donation I told them I don’t donate to racist charities…
“I am pleased that the Charity Commission is investigating War On Want”
Link? I missed this. Thanks
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=173088
Here it is.
Thanks Chassy.Let’s hope they do a proper investigation this time.
That ASA thing is so shocking it almost made me laugh. Sometimes you see something and your mouth falls open and you laugh, because you just don’t know how else to react to it.
don’t get disheartened Chas, G-d is in charge.
“I must admit I feel strangely pessimistic this week.” Don’t feel pessimistic Chas. Israel can take care of itself and always has.
War on Want has been a known no-no charity for at least a decade. The ASA is a paper tiger in the process of establishing itself as a laughing stock.
There are plenty of places for pessimists, however; teddy-bear loving English teachers in Khartoum, Western investors in Dubai, adulterers in Jeddah, Non-Syrians in Beirut, gay men in Iran, proselitising Christians in Damascus, women in Helmand province, cartoonists in Copenhagen, film makers in Amsterdam etc. Duvidl keeps counting his blessings.
Thank you Aparatchik and Duvid for cheering me up.
Or, to put it Duvid stylee: Chas thanks Aparatchik and Duvid.
(DS al coda)
Chas, I note from one of your links that John Hilary banned Jonathan Hoffman from a meeting.
Said Mr Hilary: “When he applied to attend the meeting, we informed him he would not be permitted, as we want to ensure the event is not hijacked by people who cannot act respectfully.”
Is this the same John Hilary from the Waitrose protest? He’s one to talk about being respectful! John Hypocrite more like…
This’ll cheer you up in 4 minutes – I promise!
http://antithesismc.com/uncategorized/2010/07/12/proud-to-be-a-zionist-the-video/
A positive message of pride in Zionism and what it really stands for.
War on Want has been a disgrace for more than 20 years. Need I remind you who their General Secretary was in the early 80s?
GEORGE GALLOWAY!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1428223/Leadership-of-War-on-Want-marked-by-turbulence-and-tension.html
That rap is truly dreadful, though it did make me laugh.
Good point about Hilary and acting ‘respectfully’.
I have received a bland response from the ASA, which claimed, “I would like to reassure you that the ASA ruling does not prevent the Israeli Government Tourist Office from depicting the Western Wall or other parts of Jerusalem in future advertisements. The ruling seeks to ensure that future ads do not imply that places in the Occupied Territories are part of the State of Israel.” and “we considered the ad implied that the part of East Jerusalem featured in the image was part of the state of Israel, and was therefore likely to mislead.”
My next comment will give my response…
My response to the ASA bland reply:
Thank you for your reply, but I am afraid you have not answered the points I made.
1 Any tour of Israel is bound to include the old city and the Kotel therein. Considering that the only way to get a distant view of the Old City is to take a photograph from the East, across the Kidron Valley, it is hardly surprising that parts of Eastern Jerusalem should appear in the vast majority of photographs of Jerusalem. For example, whenever Jerusalem appears in the press or tourist material, it is usually accompanied by just such a photograph. This challenge has not arisen over the many years this has been done. In this context, it is entirely unreasonable to invent a new interpretation of a traditional view.
2 The correct term is not Occupied, despite propaganda. The correct term is Disputed. It may be that some people claim Eastern Jerusalem as capital of a future state and it may be that some bodies support that claim. Neither of these establish facts. The facts are yet to be determined in so called Final Status talks. You say that, “we considered the ad implied that the part of East Jerusalem featured in the image was part of the state of Israel”. Final status talks may determine that the image is, or is not wholly part of Israel. However, at this point that is undetermined. In this context, the ASA cannot make an adjudication based on facts, because there are no such facts, only claims and disputes. It is entirely unreasonable for the ASA to make an adjudication on that basis.
Please reconsider. I look forward to your response.
The ASA has behaved truly appallingly and it is even worse than what has been reported so far. Their website is gloating about it, posting headlines that I believe breach their own (i.e. ASA) standards. They truly are hypocrites. Have a look at my report (including my complaint) on it here:
http://edgar1981.blogspot.com/2010/04/asa-and-its-ban-on-israel-advertising.html
Edgar
Hi Chas, I have just discovered your site. As you can imagine, I’m not used to reading anything pro-Israel coming out of England. So this is definitely a much needed tonic. I just wanted to say please don’t feel pessimistic, despite the current reality. Israel and the Jewish people have a much longer history than almost any of the countries and peoples that bash it, and so too its future. Please just keep your message coming. Thanks and G-d bless you.
Hi I read your blog post and just wanted to share this wonderful experience I had to the Holy Land. It was truly an experience of a life time, and feel once you visit there you’ll never be the same. It feels that you are walking in the footsteps of history in the land of Israel. It’s a great travel destination choice. Don’t miss out and go as soon as you can.