Sadaka and the sowing of prejudice in the Irish education system

Roger Waters (former member of Pink Floyd) with Sadaka Board Members
 launching the Sadaka Education Resource on Palestine-Israel. (Source: Sadaka)

Former Pink-Floyd member, Roger Waters, endorsed and promoted an “education resource” for Irish second-level transition students on the 17th of September, before presenting a much-discussed Amnesty International Ambassador of Conscience award to Malala Yousafzai, later that same day.

Some objected to Waters presenting the honour due to the use of anti-Semitic motifs at his concerts in recent years. However, Amnesty has long been a politically partisan organisation. Amnesty’s bias was aptly illustrated on the night in question: Malala Yousafzai’s much-deserved award was shared with Harry Belafonte! While Belafonte contributed to the 1960’s Civil Rights movement, in more recent years he stirred controversy with demented and very often hateful commentaries.

Surprise may be tempered by foreknowledge of the characters involved, and if Waters’ forceful record on politics is an indicator, his endorsement was likely to be sought by a prejudicial party. Indeed, the modular course deals with the Israel-Palestine conflict, one of Mr. Waters’ pet subjects. Another piece of the jigsaw fell into place when it was revealed that the programme was developed by a group called Sadaka — The Ireland Palestine Alliance.

It is reputedly the first curriculum approved teaching module on the topic, and will be used in both the Republic and North of Ireland. The chairwoman of Sadaka pointed out that Waters’ endorsement of the pack would be “immeasurable in its importance and will be hugely influential with young people around the country”. Its launch was held at the Royal Irish Academy, a rather prestigious venue for furthering academic endeavour.

The educational programme bears all the hallmarks of propaganda, featuring an extremely slanted account of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Base propaganda

Sadaka is an organisation that closely monitors the activities of the Irish Parliamentary houses, to influence outlooks and policy decisions, for example, with the hosting of anti-Israel delegations that at times indicate the organisation works quite closely with the parliamentary members comprising Oireachtas Friends of Palestine.

Sadaka supports the boycott of all Israel, an absolute ban on all Jewish produce originating in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), Israel’s cessation as a Jewish majority state by advocating for a right of return for the descendents of all Arab refugees, and the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from all contested areas. Some of those hostile to the Jewish State erroneously claim that Israel discriminates at an institutional level against Arab non-citizens in the contested territory of Judea and Samaria (or West Bank), when in fact alternative legislature for the Arab-Palestinian populace was enshrined in the Oslo Accords, where the Palestinian Authority obtained jurisdiction over almost all Arab-Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Yet Sadaka goes even further by claiming that Israel is an apartheid state in its entirety, discriminating against its Palestinian citizens at an institutional level.

Sadaka is an Islamic term for a type of religiously motivated voluntary charity, albeit one with a layered and sometimes less benign meaning. Sadaka comes across as a well-moneyed group, although their patronage webpage has remained empty for a number of years.

Despite the fact that the Irish media is comprehensively pro-Palestinian, it remains a key aim of Sadaka to shout down what it calls ‘Israeli propaganda’:

To challenge and defeat Israeli propaganda through the development of a high profile media presence.

Extract of “How to argue the case”, by Danny Morrison

To illustrate Sadaka’s approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict, it should be noted that the group coaches anti-Israel neophytes with extremely inaccurate information. It unashamedly coaches the naive in sophistic techniques to defeat the arguments of those possessing other political views. For example, a lengthy article by founding Sadaka member David Morrison, entitled “How to argue the case”, states:

All that is necessary is to state basic facts, calmly and precisely, over and over and over again… tirades against Israel and/or its supporters are counterproductive for changing doubters into supporters. Tirades will be dismissed as coming from partisan opponents of Israel. There is a much better chance of convincing sceptics if you state basic facts about Israel’s behaviour, calmly and precisely.

Israeli sources are especially good, because it is difficult to challenge their validity. Failing that, quote highly regarded public figures (eg Jimmy Carter or Mary Robinson or Richard Goldstone) or institutions…

When responding to a protagonist, select the point or points that can be easily refuted and ignore the rest… Stick to making the case against Israel and for Palestinians: don’t be distracted on to any other issue.

Morrison’s “Israeli sources” that are “difficult to challenge” is obviously a reference to Haaretz, a mainstream news outlet that has built up a considerable notoriety in Israel for defaming the Jewish nation. Haaretz has generated a remarkable number of falsehoods over the last decade.

Morrison cites a 2009 interview with Khaled Mashaal, claiming that Hamas would accept Israel’s right to exist. Such fanciful claims have been peddled about for years.

Sadaka does not content itself with bashing Israel. They also advance pro-Iranian stances, claiming Iran acts transparently vis-à-vis its attempt to obtain nuclear weapons, whilst ignoring its genocidal threats:

Unlike Iran’s nuclear facilities, which are open to international inspection, Israel’s are cloaked in secrecy…

Hardly a day passes by without Israel threatening to use force against some state or group in the Middle East. These days, Iran is the main target for its threats but Lebanon and Syria are also mentioned from time to time.

David Morrison has defended Iran in other venues. He admires its record on the treatment of its Jewish citizens, claiming they freely choose to remain in Iran, despite the overt reality that Iranian Jews have little freedom.

Sadaka is associated with many anti-Israel groups, including the EAPPI and indeed Sadaka seems to focus on bolstering Christian support for Arab-Palestinian perspectives.

If Sadaka supports one side, then it spits on the other. For example, two years ago, the group lobbied politicians in Britain and Ireland, with the presentation of a film depicting Christian Zionism as a fanatical and dangerous ideology, with the intent of defaming Christian supporters of Israel as well as reducing the natural solidarity many feel toward the Jewish State. Anti-Semitic replacement theologian Stephen Sizer was involved with the project.

Sadaka has voiced support for Israel Apartheid week, which contributes a divisive message to students the world over. Such a damaging group should not be involved with the education of the young.

Also published at Crethi Plethi.

Rising anti-Semitism at the Sunday Times?

Cartoon by Gerald Scarfe, depicting Israeli PM
Benjamin Netanyahu building a brick wall over
the bodies of bloodied Palestinian-Arabs

On January 27^th, the Sunday Times published a cartoon by Gerald Scarfe, which is widely thought to have libelled both Israel and the Jewish people, due to apparent anti-Semitic imagery. Scarfe is a well-known English cartoonist who illustrated The Wall, the self-pitying magnum opus by ex-Pink Floyd member Roger Waters. Water’s live performances of the album also stirred controversy by linking the Star of David with greed.

Rupert Murdock, owner of News International which owns the Sunday Times, has apologised for the cartoon. Whilst the Sunday Times denies that the cartoon is anti-Semitic, claiming that it merely attacks Netanyahu and Israeli policies, the illustration nonetheless displays classic anti-Semitic motifs to the extent that it has been compared with an infamous cartoon featured on the cover of a 1934 edition of the Nazi tabloid newspaper, Der Sturmer, in terms of both its depiction of Jews and thematic content.

Anti-Semitic cartoon featured on a 1934 cover of Der Sturmer.

Furthermore, the offensive cartoon was published by the Sunday Times on Holocaust Memorial Day, which if intentional would display a rather warped mindset. Scarfe has since said he regrets the date of publication, claiming that he had not been aware it was Holocaust Memorial Day!

Yet an intent for Mr. Scarfe, and/or the Sunday Times, to incite hate and/or cause distress to the paper’s Jewish readers, is a distinct probability since pro-Palestinians have made sustained attempts to hijack the Memorial Day and the Holocaust more broadly, to push propagandistic messages, e.g. comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, Gaza with the Warsaw Ghetto etc.

And yet any decline at the Sunday Times didn’t start with a cartoon. For example, a large 4^th of March 2012 article (taking up two pages), concerning the use of private information in relation to phone apps, carried the headline “In a flash, your details are sent to Israel”, despite the fact that Israel played a very minor part in the story!

Andrew Sullivan’s Apologia

During the same month (March 25^th), the paper featured a prominent op-ed by well-known Israeli-basher Andrew Sullivan, opposite the editorial page, entitled: “The gag of loyalty destroying Israel”. The piece defended a book by another arch Israeli-basher called Peter Beinart, with such an intensity that one came away with the feeling that Sullivan felt no one was or is entitled to criticise his cherished Beinart!

Extract of "The gag of loyalty destroying Israel" by Andrew Sullivan,
Sunday Times, 25 of March 2012

The piece condensed such a remarkable miasma of primitive pro-Palestinian propaganda aimed at defaming Israel, and the pro-Israel American lobby, that one came away with the distinct feeling this American blogger, well-known for his controversial views, was wheeled in due to an agenda.

The piece stands out for intensively regurgitating quite an astonishing number of lies about settlements, the inability to criticise Israel in the US, and the situation of Arab-Palestinians in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), that it would be more suited for a propaganda site like Electronic Intifada. Sullivan refers to the growth of Jewish settler numbers in the West Bank but then fails to mention the dramatic jump in the Arab-Palestinian populace.

Sullivan starts and ends the article by predicting dire consequences for Beinart as if the dark shadowy lobby will destroy this poor truth teller. He also crosses a line by referring to the dangers of “Jewish power” in relation to the Jewish lobby, and even raised the old anti-Semitic Jewish-dual-loyalty charge:

What Beinart has done is not just illustrated (sic) this crisis and challenged a blinkered view of how it came to pass; he has blamed its relentless deepening on a complacent, out-of-touch and defensive American-Jewish establishment. He believes it remains so trapped in the post-Holocaust paradigm of Jewish victimhood that it cannot see, as earlier Zionists did, the danger of Jewish power.

While Sullivan relates these ideas to Peter Beinart’s rather unoriginal thesis, Sullivan still advances and adopts the same notions himself, in a stout uncritical defence of Beinart, an individual who has defamed Israel by recycling many pro-Palestinian falsehoods, whilst simultaneously pretending to be its friend!

And what of Jewish victimhood? Is it not legitimate to be concerned about anti-Semitism when Holocaust denial is such a popular sport today, and appears to be increasingly derived from the Middle East conflict itself?

Is it not legitimate to be concerned when Jews in the US suffer the greatest level of faith based violence of any group, which is especially worrying since religion is the greatest motivating factor for hate crime? In 2010, some 65.4% of hate crimes were against Jews, standing in stark contrast to 13.2% against Muslims, an oddity considering the oft-covered media nightmares concerning Islamophobia, which of course in the US ought to be taken in the context of 9/11 and its protracted terrorist concerns.

He [Beinart] has exposed how the Israel lobby in America, far from trying to support its president in restraining new settlements in the West Bank, and found every excuse to let the Israeli’s off the hook, engaged in character assassinations of people who tried to argue back, all but sided with a foreign minister over its own government in the clash between Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli premier, and is now beating the drum for war against Iran.

Need it be added that Israel has not established any official settlements since the mid to late 1990’s, during the Oslo II process, and they can be found not infrequently pulling down illegal Jewish outposts? In a prior passage, Sullivan misrepresents the areas where settlement construction typically take place, claiming they are places Israel will have to give up in a two-state solution. Rather, settlement construction in fact focuses on areas marked for retention in all prior peace talks on a two-state solution.

Does Andrew Sullivan also need to be reminded that the Israel Lobby is entitled to criticise the policy of a given US administration, if it thinks it is wrong, without actually being disloyal or treasonous to the United States? Sullivan has made very similar assertions concerning Jewish disloyalty in the past to the extent that he thought Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby would dispose of Obama in a “lethal” fashion!

Contrary to what Sullivan asserts, there is in fact prolific criticism of the Jewish State in America, and his "character assassination" claim is actually the standard response by critics of Israel whenever there is any objection to a political appointment, regardless of how well founded those criticisms are.

Perhaps the thematic relationship between Scarfe’s cartoon, which invokes classical anti-Semitism, and Sullivan’s article dismissing it, echoes a certain stance contained within the Sunday Times editorship.

Conclusion

It should be pointed out that the examples above were found by a very occasional reader of the Sunday Times. There are likely to be other examples that have escaped any substantive notice, assuming such material would not have paralleled the intensity of Scarfe’s cartoon. Last year the paper published a photograph that had been known to be an Iranian propaganda fake for years, and its weekday sister publication has also published problematic pieces. However, other than infrequent reports, there’s insufficient material to judge the paper’s output.

Worryingly, the Sunday Times, has shown signs of indulging the most virulent pro-Palestinianism, à la its UK competitor the Guardian. The Guardian, and its cousin the Independent, have long displayed an animosity toward Israel that frequently crossed a line by displaying a rather naked anti-Semitism. In 2003 the Independent featured an infamous cartoon by Dan Brown of ex-PM Ariel Sharon eating an Arab-Palestinian child’s head.

Both the Guardian and the Independent have a somewhat more modest circulation in comparison to the London Times and its Sunday equivalent. They are distinctly left-leaning broadsheet papers, which have a by now traditional leftist animus toward Israel.

By contrast, the Times is a more mainstream centre-right British publication. The portents are indeed worrying when it shows signs of acting with such prejudice. It can be deemed another indicator of the declining situation for British Jews, in what was once something of a haven during times of persecution elsewhere. More is the shame since the Times is the same paper that exposed the Protocols of Ziyon as fraudulent.




Also published at Crethi Plethi.