Saving Sierra Leone

I can’t help but notice that the United Nations and its apologists have been desperately trying to improve the organisation’s awful reputation by portraying themselves as the saviors of Sierra Leone, in the wake of the recent conviction of Charles Taylor.

Few heroes emerge from a war such as the one waged by Foday Sankoh’s Revolutionary United Front and their friend Charles Taylor against innocent men, women and children in this corner of West Africa. But there are some, and they are most certainly not Kofi Annan and the men in the blue berets.

In March of 1995, when Sankoh’s rebellion was at its height, 200 South Africans with the fortitude typical of Boer warriors secured the diamond fields of Sierra Leone, which bought Charles Taylor’s support for RUF. The RUF scattered with remarkable speed in the face of real soldiers. Relative peace came upon Freetown for the first time in years; peace which enabled a civilian government to be elected in 1996. The South Africans were from the private military company Executive Outcomes.

Kofi Annan, every inch the post-colonial, bringer-of-light UN shyster, with a loathing for white South Africans and free enterprise, didn’t like this one bit. UN forces were dispatched quickly to replace the South African PMC.

The episode makes Kofi’s silence in the face of the Rwandan Genocide shortly before all the more astonishing. It seems that if the genocide was to stop in this part of Africa, the credit had to go to some enlightened racially diverse UN bureaucrats, certainly not Boer mercenaries.

The UN forces, placed in Sierra Leone as part of Kofi Annan’s PR exercise, completely lost control of the situation. Tens of thousands died in the resumed RUF/Taylor rebellion.

And it was Kofi Annan’s fault.

The Perpetual Bonfire

Weep for George Zimmerman, the world’s first white Hispanic. For he has been trapped in the perpetual Bonfire, the one you’ll probably figure is a reference to the famous work on racism, corruption, politics and the law by the great Tom Wolfe.

As in Bonfire of the Vanities, certain professionals constantly on call to be offended rushed to the front lines at the first opportunity in the drama, in order to make sure facts never get in the way of a good narrative. These shameful hucksters include such ‘anti-racist’ icons as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Both of whom happen to be anti-Semites, like all good humanitarians these days, or so it seems. Sharpton even helped incite a black mob to riot, loot and murder across an observant Jewish neighborhood in 1991.

Al Sharpton! The adviser to the liar Tawana Brawley, who tried to ruin the lives of six innocent men by falsely accusing them of rape.

Jesse Jackson! Who pledged to cover the tuition costs of the liar Crystal Magnum, the stripper/ho who similarly tried to ruin the lives of three innocent university athletes with false accusations of rape. That lovely victim is currently being held on a murder charge.

When these belligerent black activists get excited about a victim, I get suspicious, because they’re ready to hi-jack any case and make it all about themselves.

One equally odious figure stepped in early on to inject a little racial politics. “If I had  a son, he’d look like Trayvon”, says Barack Obama. Though I doubt Oh Bummer would permit his son to get suspended from school three times and have a Twitter account under the name of ‘No Limit Nigga’, where he could express such gems as: ”2 glock 40’s…. bitch u got 80 problems”.

Whatever happened that night, George Zimmerman/Sherman McCoy is probably doomed to be found guilty in a show trial and stabbed or strangled to death in a racial hothouse of a prison. All because the media and the President needed him to be an evil racist.

Of course, one feels equally sorry for the boy who has died. Yet at least there may be a silver lining for Trayvon Martin’s family, if their attempts to trademark the phrases “I am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon” are successful. In this, they follow in the noble tradition of the King family, who managed to squeeze $800,000 out of the folks who built a memorial to their father in Washington D.C.

Out and About on the Boris Bus

It was great to be on the Boris Battle Bus today with Conservative Friends of Israel and other Conservative activists. The reception from the public was very warm, from Harrow to Hendon. I think its safe to say Boris Johnson has the Jewish vote tied up for him. It probably helps that the other guy is an anti-Semitic, Islamist Trotskyite who threatens to turn London into a “beacon of Islam” and has more negative to Zionism in his autobiography than to transport.

I also got some lovely pictures!

Boris releases his inner Jew

The Derbyshire Debacle

I was deeply saddened to hear that the fantastic writer John Derbyshire has been booted out of National Review for this article he wrote over at Taki’s Magazine (a piece I certainly enjoyed). According to the man himself, after the Trayvon Martin incident: “News and opinion outlets were bursting forth with whiny articles by black writers about “The Talk” that black parents must give to their children, to help them avoid sudden death at the hands of white authority figures. Since rates of black-on-white murder are far higher than those for white-on-black, this seemed to me a hypocrisy that needed puncturing. That was the occasion of my column”.

To be honest, I don’t know how Derbyshire lasted so long at NR considering the articles he was churning out at Taki’s and elsewhere. Its probably a testament to his great talents. I’m sure most will agree with National Review’s decision. Yet I for one am quite worried. Yesterday it was Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran and Sam Francis. Today it is John Derbyshire. Tomorrow it could be Mark Steyn.

Our enemies, the Cultural Marxists and those on their side have wielded the dreaded label of ‘racist’ to silence and scare decent conservatives. It can lead to the unjustified ruin of a career for a journalist, a Duke University athlete, and a neutered right-wing that ends up doing the left’s work for them. I have not taken an allegation of racism at face value since the whole Duke Lacrosse fiasco. I have also found much to disagree with in the writings of John Derbyshire and Pat Buchanan. Yet I still regard them as great men that deserve a wide audience.

Some day, National Review, in its urge to distance itself from the truly controversial, may end up destroying what makes it a conservative magazine.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

UPDATE: Well, Rich Lowry has called Derbyshire’s words ‘indefensible’. This seems comparatively gentle compared to the other mandatory denunciations from the mainstream media.  Far rarer than shouts of ‘racist!’ have been actual critiques of what Derbyshire said, and the statistics and factual evidence he provided. Now isn’t that strange?

Caroline Glick: “The Eternal Liberation Movement”

I sincerely hope all my readers have enjoyed and been stimulated at this most special time of year, whether you have gathered together with friends and family for the Pesach Seder or an Easter Service.

Whatever your nationality or religion, if you are a friend of Israel (or, perhaps even better, an enemy), the indefatigable Caroline Glick has penned an article which I feel is mandatory reading. It is very much in line with the themes of the Passover festival. I have posted it below. It’s tough to say what points are the most shocking: a Hamas leader declaring Palestinians are not a distinct people, Judith Butler claiming Hamas and Hezbollah are progressive leftists, or the shameful support of Arab terror against Jews by the West.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Jewish liberation is far from complete

Hamas terror boss Fathi Hamad is a notable figure. Hamad is both the director of Hamas’s al-Aksa television station and the terror group’s “minister” of the interior and national security. His double portfolio is a clear expression of the much ignored fact that for terrorists, propaganda is inseparable from violence.

Hamad’s key posts make him a man worth listening to. His statements necessarily indicate Hamas’s general direction.

On March 23, Hamad was interviewed by Egypt’s Al Hekma television station. The interview was translated by MEMRI.

Hamad made two central points. First, he claimed that the Palestinian war against Israel is the keystone of the global jihad. Second, he said the Palestinians are not a distinct people, but transplanted Egyptians and Saudis.

In his words, “At al-Aksa and on the land of Palestine, all the conspiracies, throughout history, have been shattered – the conspiracies of the Crusaders, and the conspiracies of the Tatars. At al- Aksa and on the land of Palestine, the Battle of Hattin was waged. The [West] does not want this noble history to repeat itself, because the Jews and their allies would be annihilated – the Zionists, the Americans and the imperialists.

“Thus, the conspiracy is very clear. Al-Aksa and the land of Palestine represent the spearhead for Islam and for the Muslims. Therefore, when we seek the help of our Arab brothers, we are not seeking their help in order to eat, to live, to drink, to dress, or to live a life of luxury. No. When we seek their help, it is in order to continue to wage Jihad.”

Hamad next explained, “Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis. Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri, [Egyptians] whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians.”

What Hamad’s interview tells us is that today Hamas – the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – is more interested in unity with Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Egypt than with Fatah. Whereas in the past it joined Fatah in obscuring the direct link between the jihad against the Jews and the jihad against the non-Muslim world, today it seeks to emphasize the connection. To this end, Hamas is willing to abandon the myth of Palestinian nativism and acknowledge that the Palestinians are an artificial people, invented for the purpose of advancing the global jihad in the key battlefield of Israel.

Hamad’s statements underscore a widespread sentiment among Israelis about the revolutions now tearing apart the Arab world. That sentiment is that while the results of these revolutions will be catastrophic in the medium and long term, in the short term they bring respite to Israel. With Arab regimes – new and old – struggling to consolidate power, they have little time or energy to devote to their war against Israel.

In this situation, the thinking goes, Israel should be able to devote its attention to attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Unfortunately for Israel, while the Arab world is increasingly uninterested in the Palestinian war against Israel, Europe and the American Left are more than happy to pick up the slack.

Consider two recent events. First, two weeks ago the UN Human Rights Council voted to launch a commission whose goal is to criminalize Israel for the existence of Israeli communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines.

The council’s decision to form a new kangaroo court to criminalize Israel was not the result of the Arab diplomatic war against Israel. It is the consequence of the European diplomatic war against Israel. It is Europe, not the Arabs that has barred Israel from caucusing with its UN regional group – the Western European and Others Group. By barring Israel from the caucus, the Europeans have denied Israel the ability to make its case to other UN member nations.

For its part, the Obama administration pays lip service to the need to end the Human Rights Council’s obsessive war against Israel. But at the same time, it has effectively joined that war by legitimizing the anti-Israel council both by joining it, and by refusing to use its membership as leverage to coerce the council into abandoning its campaign against Israel.

Following the council’s vote to form a new Goldstone-style commission to attack Israel, the State Department issued a statement in which it claimed that due in part to US membership in the council, the council had been spurred to “action on a series of important human rights situations around the world.”

Then there was last Friday’s Global March to Jerusalem, in which a consortium of protesters organized by Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and the international Left intended to storm Israel’s borders and fill the state with hostile foreigners.

As Ribhi Halloum, the coordinator of the march said last year, the goal of the GMJ was “to move the right of return possessed by Palestinian refugees from theory to practice.”

In a press conference in Amman days ahead of the operation, Halloum said that organizers expected for two million people to mass at Israel’s borders and attempt to breach them.

In the end, the GMJ failed to mount its planned invasion. The sum total of the day’s events amounted to several violent local demonstrations by Palestinians in Judea and Samaria joined by foreign and Israeli leftists. Israel’s borders were not breached.

The GMJ’s failure to achieve its aims owed to the same pan-Arab distraction that Hamad tried to address in his interview with Egyptian television.

But while the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians and Lebanese have more urgent business to attend to, the international Left has intensified its own campaign against Israel.

Leading anti-Israel, (and anti-Jewish) leftists including George Galloway, Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire, Noam Chomsky, Jeremiah Wright, Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin served as members of the GMJ’s various organizing committees. These self-proclaimed human rights activists had no problem with the fact that the Iranian regime took a central role in organizing the operation or that the clear goal of the campaign’s Muslim organizers is the destruction of Israel.

To the contrary, this goal is now openly shared by growing numbers of Western leftists. In an op-ed on the Guardian’s online opinion forum, Sarah Colborne, a member of the GMJ’s organizing committees and its national coordinator for the UK as well as the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in the UK wrote, “The struggle for Palestinian rights is at the core of the global movement for social and economic justice.”

Judith Butler, one of Colborne’s American counterparts, has opined that “understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important.”

So just as Hamas’s Hamad claims that the jihad on Israel is the key campaign of the global jihad, Hamad’s Western partners claim that destroying Israel is the key to the Left’s campaign for socialism.

Disturbingly, the international Left is receiving indirect support for its goal of destroying Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem, (and through it, destroying Israel), from the US government. Just days before the GMJ failed to unravel Israel’s physical control over Jerusalem, in a jaw-dropping exchange between State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland and AP reporter Matthew Lee, Nuland refused to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

The US has always been deeply hostile to Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem. Beginning in 1950 the State Department directed US diplomats to discourage other governments from establishing their embassies in Jerusalem. But while the US has always undermined its own alliance with Israel by aligning its policy on Jerusalem with Israel’s worst enemies, under President Barack Obama, the US’s willingness to express this hostility has been unprecedented.

This hostility has been demonstrated most famously by Obama’s demand that the government stop respecting Jewish property rights in the city.

It has also been given graphic expression by the administration’s decision to move the Consular Section of the US Consulate in Jerusalem from an Arab neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem to the site that Israel allocated for a new US embassy.

The site is located in the Jewish Arnona neighborhood in western Jerusalem.

Israel allocated the land to a future US Embassy after Congress passed the US Embassy Act in 1995 which obligated the US government to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The site was chosen, among other reasons, because its location in western Jerusalem put it outside the dispute regarding whether or not Israel will retain sovereignty over eastern, southern and northern Jerusalem in a hypothetical peace treaty with the Palestinians. The US government uses the non-resolution of the Palestinian conflict with Israel as its justification for refusing to accept Jewish property rights in those areas of the city.

The US Consulate in Jerusalem is not subordinate to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. It presents itself as the unofficial US embassy to the non-existent state of Palestine. By utilizing the site in western Jerusalem allocated for a future embassy as an extension office of the consulate, the Obama administration made clear its rejection of Israel’s right to sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. And in light of the US law that recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and orders the government to relocate the embassy to Jerusalem, the Obama administration not only indirectly legitimized the cause of those who seek the destruction of Israel.

It did so in contempt of US law.

****

In truth, there is nothing new about the West’s rejection of Israel’s right to sovereignty or even to its support and sponsorship for the Arab war for the destruction of Israel. Such animosity predates not only the 1967 Six Day War. It predates the establishment of Israel.

British Col. Richard Meinertzhagen, who served as an intelligence officer in wartime and post-World War I Mandatory Palestine, made this point clearly in his memoir Middle East Diary.

Meinertzhagen wrote that the first Arab terror assaults on Jews under the British military government were instigated by the British military. Just before Easter in 1920, British military authorities contacted future Nazi agent Haj Amin el Husseini and encouraged him to attack the Jews of Jerusalem.

They told him, “He had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world that the Arabs of Palestine would not tolerate Jewish domination in Palestine… and if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, [the British High Commanders] would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish home.”

Today, the Jewish people begin their week-long celebration of Passover, the Jewish festival of freedom. This evening we will read in the Haggada that our fight for freedom is an eternal struggle.

When we assess the global nature of the current assault on Jewish freedom and sovereignty in our country, we see the truth of that message.

While our present circumstances give us much to celebrate, the work of Jewish liberation is far from over.

Amnesty International Are A Bunch Of Shysters

Remember when Amnesty International was about helping prisoners of conscience, or something? Most people probably still think it is. And that’s exactly the way the shysters at Amnesty like it.

But this is no longer the truth. Amnesty International is a giant scam. Amnesty Ireland is a propaganda outlet for socialism, producing videos in favour of socialiszed medicine on the absurd belief that it is a human right.  Amnesty Ireland is indisputably biased against Israel, as I’ve already talked about. That isn’t confined to Ireland: Israel subject to more press releases by Amnesty International than any other country apart from the United States. This is shocking considering the difference in size and population of the two countries. Amnesty also have a special place in their hearts for that crazy little Jewish sect that has supported the murder of other Jews by Islamist terrorists in Mumbai, and attacks little girls for dressing immodestly. Sounds like something a sensible human rights group would do.

Do Amnesty tell people about these things when they stop them on the street and ask them for their hard-earned money? No. That’s not the way Amnesty is marketed.

Don’t give money to Amnesty International. If you agree with their stances, giving your support to the Socialist Workers Party or the United Left Alliance is far more honest. If you don’t agree with their stance, just spread the word: support for Amnesty is support for socialist politics. Amnesty should not be supported or praised in classrooms, as it is now. Its not about ‘human rights’. Its a  scam.

Libertarianism: Left, Right or What?

Nine times out of ten, libertarians answer this question the same way: ‘left’ and ‘right’ are meaningless terms, and the fundamental question in governance is what role you give to the state, if any. While I believe the ‘left-right’ distinctions are of limited use, there certainly are positions and values one can easily and usefully identify as ‘left’ or ‘right’, even if they in the end merely amount to preferences in how state power is used.

I had a discussion with a self-described left-libertarian colleague recently, though he will stress this is not to be confused with the ‘libertarian socialism’ advocated by the likes of Noam Chomsky. His argument was that libertarianism must be regarded as a leftist endeavor; in part because classical liberalism started as one, in its opposition to the Ancien Régime, the aristocracy and the close relationship between Church and State. Today, he says, libertarianism is clearly leftist in its materialistic, non-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian worldview, and non-racialist, non-nationalistic outlook.

My response, given merely to create an interesting argument rather than lay out actual personal principles, was to say libertarianism is a discourse of the right. This is because libertarianism tends towards inequality; inequality of outcomes and inequality in opportunity (See Murray Rothbard’s ‘Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature‘). This is an anathema to any leftist and contradicts what may be the essence of their movement. Surely also, in the absence of a state, we will most likely fall back on our communities and religious organisations to make up for the functions it once monopolized or tried to monopolize, giving libertarianism the most conservative of end results?

Its something to think about over the weekend.

They Must Go

It was amazing to witness the macabre media circus after Toulouse. Less than a year ago, many people irresponsibly jumped to label an attack on Norwegian leftists a jihadist atrocity, when in fact the killer was a white nationalist. In Toulouse, the situation was reversed. The left throughout the world hi-jacked the murders of innocent Jews and Muslim soldiers by blaming the killings on a Neo-Nazi in order to attack the politics of Nicholas Sarkozy. A New York Times headlined proclaimed the “Killings Could Stall Election’s Nationalist Turn” and blamed “anti-immigrant political talk” for creating a climate of hate.

Unfortunately for the left, it was a Muslim. A homegrown Salafist (now Egypt’s second largest political movement after the Muslim Brotherhood) who was actually being monitored by the intelligence services. Mohammed Merah murdered a three-year old child named Gavriel, a little boy named for one of the victims of the infamous assault by Islamists on the Chabad House in Mumbai in 2008. Merah’s relatively quick death at the hands of French police was far too kind a fate.

Jews have helped enrich all aspects of French life, from Sarah Bernhardt to the Citroen. They never got much thanks in return, from Dreyfus to Drancy, and to the murders and intimidation of the present day. There is another minority community, however, that contributes far less to France apart from welfare scroungers and violent chauvinists. For mentioning this inconvenient truth, I could be called all sorts of unpleasant things, but now is a time for truth over stupid protocol.

According to the New York Post, Merah was a petty criminal on welfare, and other sources have indicated he has received a plethora of state handouts, including housing. They not only tolerate this kind of Islamist rodent in France, the poor taxpayer has to subsidize them. Fascinatingly, the older brother of the Toulouse gunman has said he is “proud” of Mohammed Merah’s actions, and a teacher in a French school held a moment of silence and appreciation for this murderer. My solution to this is quite simple: all Islamists from or entitled to the citizenship of another country should lose their European passports and be sent promptly to whatever dump they belong in, at their own expense if possible. Mass immigration from Third World, Islamic countries is going to have to be severely curtailed. This is how you drain the subversive Islamist swamp, not by blaming Israel or justified public skepticism of mass immigration.

Why I won’t be supporting #Kony 2012

Forget Invisible Children’s troubling finances for a moment. What do these people actually want? The picture above shows the charity’s founders posing with members of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army. Their now extraordinarily successful video openly advocates support for the Ugandan armed forces, and they have intensely lobbied the US Government to assist the Ugandan regime in crushing Kony and the LRA. They argue these forces are in the best position to stop Kony. I don’t doubt for a moment their sincerity and good intentions.

Just one problem, folks: the Ugandan army and the SPLA stand accused of atrocities such as the use of rape to control local populations, murder, torture and looting. Ironically, the SPLA has systematically utilized child soldiers.

According to Foreign Affairs, ”the Ugandan government’s aggressive counterinsurgency measures” against the LRA has included forcing the population of northern Uganda “to relocate into what were effectively concentration camps… poorly protected from attacks, and faced dreadful living conditions. A study carried out under the auspices of the World Health Organization in 2005 found that there were 1000 excess deaths per week in the Acholi region”.

They have a lot to say about Invisible Children: “In their campaigns, such organizations have manipulated facts for strategic purposes, exaggerating the scale of LRA abductions and murders and emphasizing the LRA’s use of innocent children as soldiers, and portraying Kony — a brutal man, to be sure — as uniquely awful, a Kurtz-like embodiment of evil. They rarely refer to the Ugandan government atrocities or those of Sudan’s People’s Liberation Army, such as attacks against civilians or looting of civilian homes and businesses, or the complicated regional politics fueling the conflict”.

Scathing stuff, but this clueless activism that puts heart before head is all too familiar.

Recently Invisible Children deleted a telling statement on their blog on the subject of military intervention:

“…when speaking of pure pacifism, we disagree. Invisible Children believes in the usefulness of strategic intervention in humanitarian crises. To ignore this is to allow another Rwanda. “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”.

Yet Kony isn’t even in Uganda, and Invisible Children admits this. The LRA operates in an area larger than France, stretching from southern Darfur to parts of South Sudan and the northern Congo. Taking Kony and the LRA down would require military intervention in no less than four African countries. To this I say: no thanks.

The Amnesty Agenda

For a long time now I have believed that one of the most evil developments of our time has been the hi-jacking of the term ‘human rights’ by some of the most unsavory people walking the globe, from Islamists to Trotskyites. Amnesty International, because its iconic status at the forefront of the Human Rights Industry, has proven to be one of the most important targets in the sights of certain agitators, who have no business near it or any serious ‘human rights’ organisation.

When Amnesty International’s Human Rights Action Centre in London hosted the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and another Palestinian/Arabist/Islamist advocacy group called Middle East Monitor (MEMO) for a ‘discussion’ on Zionist control of the media, I tried to raise alarm. So did others. It was to no avail.

That was England. It is now time to look at Ireland, as I know there are Irish men and women who read this blog who share my concerns. An announcement or report from Amnesty is commonly regarded as unquestionable, due to the supposedly nice intentions of those altruistic souls in the Human Rights Industry. Should this be the case? Lets take a special look at one particularly heavy-hitter at Amnesty International in Ireland.

The Communications Co-ordinator  at Amnesty International in Ireland is Justin Moran, a journalism graduate from DCU. Moran’s Facebook page reveals himself to be a fan of or in contact with:

John Pilger

Noam Chomsky

Ilan Pappe

Robert Fisk

Freda Mullin-Hughes, of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Martin McGuinness

Eoin O’Broin, of Sinn Féin

An Phoblacht

Dr. Fintan Lane, a Socialist Workers Party communist and prominent Israel-basher

Dr. Sean Marlow, an advocate for boycotting Israel

Robbie Smyth, of Griffith College Dublin, said to be a communications guru for certain Irish Republican groups

Yousef al-Helou, Iran’s PRESS TV man in Gaza, almost certain to be a HAMAS affiliate

Felim Hammell (or Feilim O’ Hadhmaill), a sociology lecturer and convicted Provoisional IRA bomber, who signed the 2006 letter endorsing a boycott of Israel and a  founding member of Palestinian Solidarity in Ireland.

Justin Moran is also a  supporter of the ‘Ship2Gaza’ crowd,  and the ‘No to English Queen in Ireland’ campaign.

I am not sure how long Moran has been with the Amnesty Press Office. However, it is a sure sign that too many of those who pontificate against Israel on a daily basis at Amnesty, and who have enormous trust from the media and the wider public, may never have read a book on Israeli history that wasn’t written by the former Israeli Communist politician and pundit Ilan Pappe.

Still, its good to know what kind of people have infiltrated Amnesty in a way that would bring tears of pride to Antonio Gramsci and the Cultural Marxists. Amnesty International will no doubt have its stellar reputation for many more years, but I for one will be treating any future message from Amnesty as a party-political broadcast.