Sunday, April 7, 2013

Irish teachers union launches academic boycott of Israel

Mike L. 
Teachers' Union of Ireland becomes first professional union in Europe to ban all academic collaboration with Israel • Boycott to include student and staff exchange programs, joint research ventures • Council for Higher Education in Israel denounces move.

The Teachers' Union of Ireland voted on Thursday to launch a boycott on all academic collaboration with Israel. The Dublin-based organization has 14,500 members, and according to its website, the motion was carried unanimously.

The Jewish Chronicle reported Saturday that the motion, which was presented during the union's annual conference, referred to Israel as "an apartheid state" and urged all union members "to cease all cultural and academic collaboration with Israel, including the exchange of scientists, students and academic personnel, as well as all cooperation in research programs."

According to the report, the motion also urged the Irish Congress of Trade Unions "to step up its campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] against the apartheid state of Israel until it lifts its illegal siege of Gaza and its illegal occupation of the West Bank, and agrees to abide by international law and all U.N. resolutions against it."
The Jewish State of Israel is a country under siege.  It faces concentric rings of hatred that emanate outward from the hard and violent Palestinian-Arab core.  The Teachers Union of Ireland is adding its economic and moral weight to the ongoing persecution of the Jews in the Middle East.

Thirteen hundred years of slavery under the Muslim system of dhimmitude followed by one hundred years of ongoing war against the Jews of the Middle East is apparently not enough anti-Jewish punishment for these progressive-left racists.   Despite the fact that throughout the Arab world imams scream to the heavens about their Allah-given right to murder Jews and despite the fact that the Hamas charter calls directly for the genocide of the Jewish people they still think that the real problem is that some Jews choose to live in Judea or the security measures that Jews take to protect themselves, such as the fence.

The Teachers Union of Ireland is a deeply immoral organization that, through endorsing BDS, justifies violence against Jewish people everywhere.  After all, if Israel is a racist, colonialist, imperialist, militarist, apartheid, racist state then the supporters of that state - including you - deserve whatever beating they get.

Furthermore, if Jews dare to defend themselves this is regarded as further evidence of Jewish malice and oppression of the peace-loving, bunny-like "indigenous" population who want nothing more than to tend their Sacred Palestinian Olive Groves ™.

From my perspective western liberalism, particularly in Europe, is being hallowed out at the center and soon all they will be left with is hatred toward Jews, via hatred toward the Jewish State, and a chronic, knee-jerk malice toward the United States.

And, yet, the progressive-left honestly believes that American Jews have a moral imperative to support them.

Ho.  Ho.  Ho.

21 comments:

  1. This should come as no surprise considering the anti-Israel stuff that has come out of Ireland over the years. And, the Irish supporting TERRORISTS? Well look at their own history.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fair enough. Expel every single Irish national who is there now, from Israel for life. Bar 100% of all personnel and staff for all Irish academic, university and public and private primary and secondary school for eternity.

    Review every piece of paper that shares any intellectual property developed In Israel, by an Israeli academic facility, any Israeli individual working on behalf of them, every patent, every license, every royalty agreement and simply tear them all up. All of them. Including every single medical, scientific, technological product, service, or benefit of any kind. Ban the publication or distribution of all intellectual property, research papers and the like to or in Ireland for eternity. Close the Israeli diplomatic mission that deals with technology transfer and sharing and academic outreach in Ireland and expel all Irish diplomatic personnel in Israel who are their analogs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't want to get too deep into the psychological thing a la our friend Daniel, but my own theory on Irish anti-Israel-ism has to do with a lazy, false historical view of the situation as they see it through the eyes of their own experiences.

    This isn't an Olive Famine, and as our friend ziontruth makes sure to point out, the question of just who are the 'occupiers' in this situation isn't quite so cut-and-dried.

    Fortunately, there are plenty of Irish (including half of me!) who strongly support Israel, even in Eire.

    I had planned, a few days ago, to try to write something on this latter group after I got back home tonight (my weekend finally starts! right as it's ending, or is done, for most folks, heh), but now I think I'll probably hold off for a bit to see how they react to this. Should maybe be interesting...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Jay.

      It's nice to know that at least some Irish people support Israel.

      By the way, I like Irish music a lot.

      Delete
    2. If you ever find yourself around my way here in Philadelphia, Daniel, give me a holler, and I'll take you for a tour through Kensington and Fishtown (and parts of Port Richmond and Bridesburg), some of the most Irish (Catholic) neighborhoods in the world outside of Ireland.

      You'll find we love arguing endlessly about politics (sound familiar?), and we're open to all views from all angles.

      Please don't let certain groups of haters back in the motherland color your view of the Irish worldwide. That would be like letting a few fanatics in Oakland tint the views of American 'liberals' on the subject...

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Jay.

      And, yeah -- I was talking mainly about Irish people from Ireland.

      I know that American people of European non-Jewish ethnic backgrounds are not like their fellow members of their own ethnicities from their "motherlands" (their ancestral homelands) in Europe in regards to their attitudes toward Jewish people -- towards the Jewish people as a cultural and ethnic social group, and, involved with that, towards individual Jewish people -- individual people who are Jewish. And I appreciate that a lot.

      However, there is anti-Jewish bigotry in the U.S. and in all culturally Christian-European non-European societies. Anti-Jewish bigotry is a deeply engrained part of culturally Christian-European -- Christian and post-Christian -- culture. But the anti-Jewish bigotry in the U.S., and, I think, the anti-Jewish bigotry in other culturally Christian-European non-European societies, is nothing like the anti-Jewish bigotry in Europe; that is to say: is much more mild than the anti-Jewish bigotry in Europe. And I appreciate that. I appreciate that a lot. I like America a lot. I like Americans, in general, a lot.

      Delete
    4. And, the thing is, I think that much of the anti-Jewish bigotry in, at least the U.S., is because Jewish people don't frickin' speak up for themselves; that is to say: speak up for their own people; that is to say: speak up for the cultural and ethnic group of which they are members. They don't tell the facts of the situation that they're in -- the history of the situation that they're in, and the current situation that they're in, in all contexts. They don't tell it like it is. They're too afraid of being hated for doing so. But I think that that should change. American people are very open-minded. I think that American non-Jewish people would understand the situation that Jewish people are in and how Jewish people feel if Jewish people would tell them the facts of the situation that they're in -- the history of the situation that they're in, and the current situation that they're in, in all contexts -- and how they feel. I think that Jewish people underestimate the ability of non-Jewish people to understand them if they were to tell the facts of the situation that they're in and how they feel.

      Delete
    5. I agree with this, Dan. If you'll excuse my language, I think it's long past time we went balls-out.

      This is why, though I surely understand the necessity of nuance, I don't have much use for it myself these days. Or at least not when it comes to discussing the situation Israel currently faces.

      I don't think there's anything 'progressive' (I hate that term - I'm a liberal, and in my experience, the only folks who call themselves 'progressive' are those who who are afraid to call themselves liberal, since then conservatives might say bad things about them) about shamelessly adding to the chorus of anti-Israel voices out there.

      Very few J Street emails I've received lately, for instance, don't make me want to vomit.

      Tell ya what. When the enemies of the Jewish people discover nuance, in their BDS bund camps and whatnot, then I'll reciprocate.

      Until then, I'm with you, Daniel...

      Delete
    6. Thanks, Jay.

      It was a relief to me to see that you were not put-off by what I wrote and that you agreed with what I wrote and that you supported what I wrote.

      I still have the fear of being hated for writing these things. And, as part of that, I have the fear of not being supported by other Jewish people in writing these things.

      Thank you for supporting me.

      Thank you for supporting what I wrote.

      And you wrote:

      "'progressive' (I hate that term - I'm a liberal, and in my experience, the only folks who call themselves 'progressive' are those who who are afraid to call themselves liberal, since then conservatives might say bad things about them)"

      That's exactly what I thought, and how I felt, when I considered myself to be "liberal" -- when I took for granted that I was "liberal" (and when, as part of that, I though of "Conservatives" as being stupid, "Right-Wing", greedy corporatists who controlled the media, and who controlled the government, and who were destroying the natural environment, and who were destroying the world, and who were libeling "liberals").

      I don't consider myself to be "liberal" anymore. I find myself agreeing with Thomas Sowell about things in general these days. Because I now know what the "Left" is doing, and because I now know the ignorance of, and bigotry of, the "Left" about things. That's why I've become open to listening to people such as Thomas Sowell.

      And I used to "be" as "liberal" as anyone could be. I still am liberal though. That's the thing. That's why I no longer consider myself to be "liberal". But I don't consider myself to be "Conservative" either. Well, there are some (or, I think, maybe many) people who identify themselves as being "conservative" with whom I completely agree about everything that I've heard them say. People such as Douglas Murray and Thomas Sowell. So maybe I could be considered to be "Conservative". But these things -- "liberal", "conservative" -- are just labels. One realizes this when one knows the facts of the situation. One realizes that it's just semantics. The thing is just to listen to what people are saying (people who oneself may think of as holding views which oneself thinks are wrong), and to look at the facts of situations, and to research the facts of the situation, and to discern what, in fact, is the case.

      I'm sorry if I'm preaching. I just wanted to try to tell things as I understand them to be.

      And, most of all, thank you, again, for supporting me.

      Thank you for supporting what I wrote.

      P.S.

      And, as far as "being" "liberal", I still disapprove of the pollution of the natural environment (as do, I think, some, or many, "Conservatives"), and I still hold other of those kind of views -- so-called "liberal" views -- I'm Buddhist, for goodness' sake. But I realize that there are more important issues right now. Such as protecting the world from being destroyed.

      Delete
    7. Nuance?

      There is nothing terribly nuanced about it.

      What we want is freedom for the Jewish people in the Middle East.

      Period. End of story.

      What we want is for the Arabs to cease teaching their children to despise Jews. What we want is for the Arabs to cease calling for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel. What we want is for the world community to stop encouraging Palestinian-Arab violence toward Jews.

      There is nothing nuanced about it.

      We want freedom for our people.

      The Palestinian-Arabs could have had a state for themselves ten times over by now but they have consistently refused going all the way back to 1937. Instead they would rather whip up hatred toward Jews and throw rocks at us while whining to the international community about how oppressed they are.

      Until such a time as the vast Arab majority in the Middle East accepts Jewish autonomy on historically Jewish land the Jews of the Middle East cannot be free. They will constantly be fighting rear-guard actions and they will constantly find themselves smeared and defamed before the world community.

      The Palestinian-Arabs will never be free until the vast Arab majority frees the Jews from their hostility and hatred.

      The Jews have been the victim of Arab contempt and oppression since the time of Muhammed. Until such a time as they let go of that contempt and oppression the Palestinian-Arabs can never be free either.

      It's up to the majority population to stop abusing the Jews whose back they have up against the Mediterranean Sea.

      Delete
    8. JayinPhiladelphia,

      "...the question of just who are the 'occupiers' in this situation isn't quite so cut-and-dried."

      It goes beyond that. Even if the question were cut-and-dried, and even if the answer were not in Israel's favor, there's the other question of outsiders' right to intervention.

      Since this is about Ireland, I'd like to bring the question of Northern Ireland as a personal example. I'm sure that, if we put a Northern Ireland Catholic and a Protestant from the same place to make the case for each side, the arguments would be equally passionate, and I'd get out of the hearing pretty confused. But that's beside the point. The point is: Why is an Israeli Jew like me entitled to a say in the matter, and why should either of the two sides be obliged to defend their case before me? What's the conflict in Northern Ireland to somebody so far away like me?

      The answer is, the conflict in Northern Ireland is really none of my business, and both Catholics and Protestants would do well to tell me so if I butted into their conflict. In fact, most conflicts outside the Middle East that have no Muslims involved—Sri Lanka, Russia vs. Georgia and a lot more—are no business of an Israeli Jew like me. (Why is it my business when Muslims are involved? Because jihadists from one part of the world are often later found in another; when Russia slaughters a hundred Chechen jihadis, that's one hundred jihadis who won't endanger the Jews of Israel, and vice versa for Russia when Israel butchers her local mujahideen.)

      I could make the case for Israel's righteousness and her enemies' unjust belligerence before those Irish academics if I wished. But, when I think about it, I don't see why I should. I don't think Israel needs outside supporters (though it's nice of people abroad to support Israel, of course); the point I make so often is that neutrality is perfectly fine. My complaint is about the "global village" mindset that makes it like everybody has a right to a say about everything everywhere. No, they don't. What I say to those boycotters is this: You don't have to support Israel if you don't feel like it; just take care not to poke your noses into affairs that are no concern of yours. With the European countries especially, since there is no excuse of "foreign aid to Israel" to "justify" internationalist busybodyism, BDS deserves execration on grounds of sheer impertinence.

      Delete
    9. A great point, ziontruth, and well made. Fully agreed.

      Delete
  4. Some documentation of what has been happening in Europe throughout the past thirteen years:

    English-language:

    http://philosemitism.blogspot.com

    French-language (and, I think, more content):

    http://philosemitismeblog.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'll let Dr. Catherine Chatterley do the talking for me:

    The Antisemitic Imagination, by Dr. Catherine Chatterley

    "Dr. Chatterley's new book argues that antisemitism is one of humanity’s most enduring and destructive inventions due to its core-location at the center of the Western religious imagination. The book is composed of six chronological chapters, which explain the nature of the Antisemitic Imagination by examining its historical and cultural evolution over the last two millennia.

    "Antisemitism is the product of the rancorous separation between Judaism and the Jesus Movement, which evolves during the first century into a gentile church and later into the imperial religion of Christianity. The four gospels, and other books of the New Testament, inform the intellectual, emotional, and legal foundations of European civilization in all its diverse manifestations. It is these texts that are implicitly anti-Judaic, and pregnant with the basic components of antisemitism, which evolves into a popular mass phenomenon during the High Middle Ages.

    "During these centuries (1000-1300 CE) a fictitious character comes to life out of the stories and liturgies of the Church. That character is 'the Jew,' a figment of the Christian imagination, who is both the product and generator of antisemitism. The character is defined by its anti-ethical essence and criminal behavior, which is contrasted to that of the Christian in a bilateral exercise of demonization and edification. 'The Jew' becomes utterly indispensable to the Church, its people, and its message. At once, the character is used to define Jewish vice and to demonstrate Christian virtue, illustrating both the forsaken nature of Judaism and its people and the truth of the Christian message. Chatterley argues that this dialectical relationship between Christians and Jews, rooted in theology and characterized by a Manichean splitting between good and evil, is one of the pivots of Western history.

    "'The Jew' becomes an idée fixe in the theology of the Church for his rejection, torture, and killing of Christ. This conception of 'the Jew' as traitor and Christ-killer defines his essential nature and criminal motivation in the European imagination. Remarkably consistent across time and space, regardless of European region, religious denomination, language, or nationality, the negative value and behavioral characteristics attached to 'the Jew' are static and monotonous. As Steven Katz and Sander Gilman have observed, 'we see shifts in the articulation of perception over time in different contexts, but not in the basic perception itself.'

    "Through an analysis of words and images the book demonstrates that despite the dramatic changes in European societies from the Middle Ages through the Enlightenment into the twenty-first century, the antisemite fixates upon the same negative qualities and motivations he sees in 'the Jew' and continues to make the same basic accusations about his character and behavior. Even the annihilation of over six million Jews in the European heartland during the middle of the last century did not destroy the ideological fixation on 'the Jew.'

    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (from continued)

      "The radically immoral characteristics of this fabrication created by Christianity remain consistent despite their secularization and racialization during the 18th and 19th centuries, their Islamization from the middle of the 20th century, and their globalization via the Internet and satellite television since 2001. For the antisemite, 'the Jew' remains inherently unethical, enormously powerful, conspiratorial by nature, intent on world domination, corrosive in effect, and an existential threat to humanity however that shifting concept is defined (be it Christian, proletarian, 'Aryan', or Islamic). The book demonstrates that this has been the case historically regardless of whether or not the context was religious or secular, Western or Islamic, left or right.

      "The Antisemitic Imagination seeks to clarify our understanding of the nature of antisemitism by assessing how the phenomenon operates inside Western culture and its religious imagination. It will also explain how and why antisemitism is flourishing today--for the first time in history outside a Christian cultural context. The book concludes by arguing that 'the Jew', a libelous fictitious abstraction first generated and then propagated by Christian Europe, must be uprooted from our imagination in the interests of truth, morality, and justice."

      http://can-isa.netfirms.com/publishing.html

      Delete
    2. And, by the way, on the founder of the 'Palestinian movement' - Haj Amin al-Husseini:

      Jihad and Jew-Hatred: An Interview with Matthias Küntzel

      "...The main achievement of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was to combine the Jew-hatred of ancient Islam with modern anti-Semitism into a new and persuasive rhetoric. I discovered a speech he gave in 1937 with the title, ‘Jewry and Islam.’ Here, he intermingled modern anti-Semitism [with] the stories of very early Islam, going back and forth from the 7th and the 20th centuries, and connecting both kinds of Jew-hatred. This was something new. ..."

      http://207.97.238.133/democratiya/article.php?article=249

      Delete
    3. More explanation by Dr. Catherine Chatterley:

      Western Culture, the Holocaust, and the Persistence Of Antisemitism, by Catherine Chatterley

      "...In Western culture, the beliefs many people still hold about 'the Jews' are not seen to be antisemitic (read genocidal) but are simply felt to be reflective of day-to-day reality. In other words, what some of us identify as antisemitic ways of thinking most people see as simply reflective of a reality in which Jews are in fact wealthy, in fact powerful, in fact connected to one another, and in fact work together (or conspire) to protect their own communal and individual interests, which today include the fate of the State of Israel. Again, this is not new but fully consistent with classical forms of European antisemitism, in which antisemites point to 'reality' to illustrate Jewish power, conspiracy, materialism, criminality, or whatever negative association they want to affix to 'the Jews.' And the 'reality' they find then reconfirms their pre-existing antisemitism, as it does today. After almost 2000 years of indoctrination, which has worked very hard to fix the Western imagination—and our individual attention—upon this abstract collective called 'the Jews,' we should not be surprised to discover that Western culture is riddled with antisemitic perceptions and habits of thought about the Jewish people. And this complex invisible reality has not been exorcised by the Holocaust. Negative beliefs and attitudes about Jews are so normal and so ingrained in Western perceptions and attitudes that people—both gentiles and Jews—are simply unable to recognize them for what they are...."

      "...In the Western world, 'the Jews' have for millennia been demonized collectively and conceptualized as nihilistic operatives working against the goals of humanity, whether defined as Christian, Enlightened, Proletarian, or even Aryan. 'The Jews' have been associated in the most concrete and abstract ways with every conceivable form of evil known to Western culture: killing God in the form of Jesus; kidnapping, torturing, and killing children; poisoning, cheating, and conspiring against their neighbours; cannibalism, blood-drinking, devil-worship, human sacrifice; every form of disloyalty to the state; extortion, blackmail, and all types of financial crime one can only imagine. This is precisely the context that invented and maintained the lie of the 'Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy,' which in turn produced the Hitlerian solution, and both have been exported around the world. What is so extremely disturbing about Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric, and many others who echo him, is its classic antisemitic depiction of 'the Jews,' here in the contemporary form of 'Zionists,' as operating outside the values and interests of common humanity and all that is good. Worse still is the fact that this seems to go unnoticed by the vast majority of people in Western nations, including otherwise progressive academics and members of government. Few seem to notice that the West is being courted by Ahmadinejad to be recruited into his global antisemitic strategy under the banner of humanistic inclusion and spiritual redemption..."

      Text: http://web.archive.org/web/20090422150719/http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/chatterleypaper3509.pdf

      Video (RealMedia format): http://streaming.yale.edu:8080/ramgen/cmibroadcast/yiisa/chatterley_030509.rm

      RealPlayer - RealMedia player
      http://www.real.com/

      Delete
    4. Also, Mudar Zahran explains:

      Anti-Semitism 2.0, by Mudar Zahran

      "The concept of the 'evil Jew' has made a well-disguised comeback: Criticizing Israel and Zionists is now deemed a legitimate option to cursing Jews and Judaism. Not only is it open, socially acceptable and legal, but it can actually bring prosperity and popularity. This new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 is well-covered-up, harder to trace and poses a much deeper danger to the modern way of life of the civilized world than the earlier crude form of it, as it slowly and gradually works on delegitimizing Jews to the point where it eventually becomes acceptable to target Jews, first verbally, then physically -- all done in a cosmopolitan style where the anti-Semites are well-groomed speakers and headline writers in jackets and ties; and not just Arab, but American and European, from 'sanitized' news coverage of the most bloodthirsty radicals, to charges against Israel in which facts are distorted, selectively omitted or simply untrue, as in former President Jimmy Carter's book on Israel.

      "Why would a Palestinian* be writing this? The answer is simple: The Palestinians have been used as fuel for the new form of anti-Semitism; this has hurt the Palestinians and exposed them to unprecedented and purposely media-ignored abuse by Arab governments, including some of those who claim love for the Palestinians, yet in fact only bear hatred to Jews. This has resulted in Palestinian cries for justice, equality, freedom and even basic human rights being ignored while the world getting consumed with delegitimizing Israel from either ignorance or malice.

      "Worse, just as the old form of anti-Semitism has proven itself a threat as poisonous to its supporters, as it was to the Jews, the new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 could prove itself the same -- all the more likely as we see the world tolerating Iran's nuclear ambitions not necessarily out of love for the Mullah's regime, but instead because of mental fixation against Israel.

      "Such bias against Israel cannot be 'accidental' or merely 'unfortunate.' No other nation has received the amount of scrutinizing, criticism, coverage, demonization and delegitimization. In fact the question to be asked is not whether there is bias against Israel; but rather why there is bias against Israel..."

      http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1979/anti-semitism-20

      Note: * "Palestinian": 'Palestinian' Arab; What is now called "Palestinian" means 'Palestinian' Arab. Not before 1948 did the term "Palestinian" mean 'Palestinian' Arab. Before 1948, the term "Palestinian" was mainly a term that was used by culturally Christian-European people to refer to Jewish people who lived in the area of land that, at that time, culturally Christian-European people called "Palestine". The word "Palestine" is the English spelling and pronunciation of the word "Palaestina". The word "Palaestina" is part of the name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" which is the name to which the European people the Romans renamed the country of the Jewish people -- Yehouda (Judea) -- and land neighboring Yehouda -- after they -- the Romans -- committed genocidal mass-murder against the Jewish people and destroyed the country of the Jewish people, Yehouda. The Romans renamed Yehouda, and land neighboring Yehouda, to the name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" in reference to the then-extinct sea-faring Greco people the Philistines, who, several hundred years earlier, had attacked and invaded the country of the Jewish people, Israel, which subsequently diminished into only Yehouda. For several hundred years, until 1917, the area of land that the Romans renamed to the name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" was part of Islamic Ottoman Turkey.

      (continued)

      Delete
    5. (from continued)

      The British Mandate of Palestine was constituted by what is now Jordan, and by what is now Israel, and by what is now called "The West Bank" (Judea (Yehouda) and Sameria (Shomron) -- the "west bank" of the Jordan river), and by what is now called "The Gaza Strip". From 1949 to 1967, what is now called "The West Bank" (Judea and Sameria) was occupied by Jordan. From 1949 to 1967, what is now called "The Gaza Strip" was occupied by Egypt. Fatah was founded in 1958. The PLO was founded in 1964. Between 1969 and 1970, Yasser Arafat, the head of Fatah, took the position of head of the PLO.

      Delete
  6. Sounds like the Irish guys have way too much time on their hands. Can you imagine what the poor students are being taught?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Irish Free State was technically neutral in WW2 but did offer temporary mooring to Nazi subs.

      Delete