Boycott Israel

Entertainment industry veteran and author Lana Melman fights antisemitism in Hollywood out of her love for Judaism and Israel.


In 2011, Melman found herself in the center of a storm when the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement began picking up speed in Hollywood. BDS activists were boycotting, threatening and harassing artists with any Israel-related associations.


Melman became premier director of Creative Community for Peace (CCFP), a pro-Israel nonprofit organization that works to combat antisemitism in the entertainment industry. She counseled artists who were unprepared for this type of harassment and helped them to understand that these attacks were not going to have long-term effects on their careers.

In Artists Under Fire, Melman details how she helped singer-songwriter Alicia Keys and her team navigate through a coercive BDS campaign against her when she announced she would be performing in Israel on July 4, 2013.

Artists Under Fire describes how some BDS proponents take harassment and intimidation a step further, to the point of threatening artists’ lives. When former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney announced he would be performing in Tel Aviv to celebrate Israel’s 60th anniversary, he was warned by Islamic activist Omar Bakri Muhammad that if he went through with it, “sacrifice operatives will be waiting for him.” McCartney said he does what he thinks and performed in Israel anyway.


Irish singer-songwriter Sarah McTernan received “sinister threats” after she sang in the Eurovision song contest in Israel. Melman describes the campaign against her as “genuine intimidation.” Some of the foreboding messages said, “You have to be careful”; “Watch where you go”; “You never know where I’ll be”; “Be careful who you’re with.”

MELMAN IMPLORES people to question whether the tactics employed by BDS supporters are reflective of a movement that claims to be about justice and human rights. “Do you want to support an organization that fosters these kinds of threats? Do you find this movement or BDS’s messaging to be moral and ethical? Look at what happens to these artists!”

Melman explains how antisemitic tropes that go as far back as medieval times, like accusing Jews of blood libel, are at the core of BDS campaigns, and that their own messaging proves they are antisemitic. “Repeating antisemitic tropes is part of BDS propaganda. When you say ‘stolen land,’ you are accusing Jews of being greedy thieves, and that’s a classic antisemitic trope that stirs up worldwide Jew-hatred.”

The BDS movement claims to fight against Israel’s “oppression” of Palestinians,” but Melman notes that their own activists “will frequently sabotage attempts to help the Palestinian people.”

She suggests people “write letters to the editors, op-eds, there’s social media – I provide access for people who get my newsletter. We need to be active; a momentum happens.”


Melman recalls that when she was writing her book, she “built a case and put BDS on trial.” It’s clear that BDS supporters don’t want artists under any circumstances to visit Israel because, Melman points out, “then they would see that it’s vibrant and diverse. That’s evidence of the fact that they’re lying because Zionists aren’t afraid of what you’ll see when you go there.”

“I have never seen any call from BDS for peace or prosperity or any way forward,” she adds.




(full article online)

 
The president of Amnesty International - France will share the stage with the European coordinator of the BDS National Committee (BNC) at a BDS France event called "How to End the Israeli Apartheid System" on September 10.


Jean Claude Samoullier of Amnesty and the BNC's Fiona Ben Chekroun will speak at the event on "Israeli apartheid," which will happen at the Fete de l'Humanite Festival, an annual political and multicultural gathering organized by the communist party-affiliated newspaper l'Humanité. It is one of the biggest cultural events in France, with approximately 500,000 participants each year.


Criticism of BDS and Amnesty working together​

American Jewish Committee Europe general manager Simone Rodan-Benzaquen criticized the cooperation between Amnesty and BDS on Sunday.

"By partnering with the antisemitic BDS movement, the FĂȘte de l'HumanitĂ© and Amnesty International France demonstrate - once again - that they are no longer for the defense of human rights but more than dubious ideological undertakings," wrote Rodan-Benzaquen.

(full article online)

 
Bruce Pearl, the head coach of the Auburn University Tigers men’s basketball team, has the perfect response to counter the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign: “Take your players to Israel!”

The Jewish coach, who has been to Israel four times, took the Alabama team on the inaugural “Birthright for College Basketball Tour,” from July 31 to August 10. Once every four years, the NCAA allows a team to have a foreign tour, and Pearl hopes to make Israel a frequent destination.

(full article online)

 
1.1 Billion dollars is a lot of money. The Islamic terrorist franchises in Gaza and the West Bank may steal almost as much from various charities combined with welfare checks donated by the international community..




 
Last edited:



Hey. Isn't he... you know... that guy who received an education at a Joooo university and lives in Joooo Israel?
 
Someone quit their job at Google.

It’s not the kind of news that normally makes the front page of the New York Times‘ Business section. But then, New York Times handling of news related to Israel isn’t normally
 normal.

This news, this particular resignation, is meant to tell us a larger story. The headline gives the basics: “Google Employee Who Played Key Role in Protest of Contract With Israel Quits.”

But it’s just below the headline that we learn the story is really about, and why the paper bothered running a piece titled, more or less, Person Quits. The subhead explains: “The worker said the company had tried to retaliate against her activism opposing a deal with the Israeli military, while co-workers argued the company had an anti-Palestinian bias.”

There it is. The piece is meant to promote a staple of anti-Israel activism: the charge that dark forces silence “pro-Palestinian” advocacy. The story is a parable about those forces and their victims.

It is also, apparently, a fable. The decision to move the position was made prior to Koren’s activism, a third-party investigation found. Incredibly, the New York Times concealed this finding from readers, though it undermines the central premise of the employee’s — and the newspaper’s — story.

That story goes as follows: Google employee and anti-Israel activist Ariel Koren organized opposition to Project Nimbus, Google’s sale of a cloud computing services to Israel. In retaliation for her activism, Google moved her position, which had been based in Mexico City and after the pandemic in San Francisco, to São Paulo, Brazil. Koren took her case to the National Labor Relations Board, the federal body that protects the right of employees to organize and combats unfair labor practices. The NLRB ruled against Koren. The New York Timescomes to the rescue.

Times reporter Nico Grant devoted most of his 1800-word piece to relaying, in detail and at length, Koren’s case. About the NLRB ruling, though, hardly 20 words were written: “Google and the National Labor Relations Board investigated her complaint and found no wrongdoing,” wrote Grant. And later again: “the N.L.R.B. 
 dismissed the case for insufficient evidence.”

But beyond finding that there was no evidence of retaliation, the NLRB investigation also uncovered specific, affirmative evidence that Koren’s belief is unfounded. The Board’s dismissal letter notes “the evidence established that the Employer’s decision to relocate the 
 role predated the asserted protected concerted activities.”



It goes without saying that this finding by the NLRB is relevant to the story, and necessary for anyone hoping to assess the charge that Google’s move was retaliation for Koren’s activism.

But the Times hid it from readers. The reporter worked hard to made Koren’s case, but hid Google’s case — even though the latter was supported by the findings of third-party investigation by an employee-rights body.

And when contacted by CAMERA, editors insisted there was no need to include even a sentence about the specific, and fundamental, finding.

So why does the newspaper find relevant, for example, Koren’s claim that “a supervisor in Brazil told her that employees in São Paulo were working from home because of the pandemic,” but not the NLRB’s finding that Google’s decision predated her activism?

And why, in other stories about the NLRB, does the Times go into great detail about what underpinned the body’s findings — see, e.g., here and here — but in this story only only share the conclusion in the tersest possible terms?

Readers would be forgiven for concluding that the reason for the omission is that the newspaper is engaged in advocacy journalism — advocacy for both the employee’s dubious claims, and for the anti-Israel talking point that it’s meant to promote.



 
Someone quit their job at Google.

It’s not the kind of news that normally makes the front page of the New York Times‘ Business section. But then, New York Times handling of news related to Israel isn’t normally
 normal.

This news, this particular resignation, is meant to tell us a larger story. The headline gives the basics: “Google Employee Who Played Key Role in Protest of Contract With Israel Quits.”

But it’s just below the headline that we learn the story is really about, and why the paper bothered running a piece titled, more or less, Person Quits. The subhead explains: “The worker said the company had tried to retaliate against her activism opposing a deal with the Israeli military, while co-workers argued the company had an anti-Palestinian bias.”

There it is. The piece is meant to promote a staple of anti-Israel activism: the charge that dark forces silence “pro-Palestinian” advocacy. The story is a parable about those forces and their victims.

It is also, apparently, a fable. The decision to move the position was made prior to Koren’s activism, a third-party investigation found. Incredibly, the New York Times concealed this finding from readers, though it undermines the central premise of the employee’s — and the newspaper’s — story.

That story goes as follows: Google employee and anti-Israel activist Ariel Koren organized opposition to Project Nimbus, Google’s sale of a cloud computing services to Israel. In retaliation for her activism, Google moved her position, which had been based in Mexico City and after the pandemic in San Francisco, to São Paulo, Brazil. Koren took her case to the National Labor Relations Board, the federal body that protects the right of employees to organize and combats unfair labor practices. The NLRB ruled against Koren. The New York Timescomes to the rescue.

Times reporter Nico Grant devoted most of his 1800-word piece to relaying, in detail and at length, Koren’s case. About the NLRB ruling, though, hardly 20 words were written: “Google and the National Labor Relations Board investigated her complaint and found no wrongdoing,” wrote Grant. And later again: “the N.L.R.B. 
 dismissed the case for insufficient evidence.”

But beyond finding that there was no evidence of retaliation, the NLRB investigation also uncovered specific, affirmative evidence that Koren’s belief is unfounded. The Board’s dismissal letter notes “the evidence established that the Employer’s decision to relocate the 
 role predated the asserted protected concerted activities.”



It goes without saying that this finding by the NLRB is relevant to the story, and necessary for anyone hoping to assess the charge that Google’s move was retaliation for Koren’s activism.

But the Times hid it from readers. The reporter worked hard to made Koren’s case, but hid Google’s case — even though the latter was supported by the findings of third-party investigation by an employee-rights body.

And when contacted by CAMERA, editors insisted there was no need to include even a sentence about the specific, and fundamental, finding.

So why does the newspaper find relevant, for example, Koren’s claim that “a supervisor in Brazil told her that employees in São Paulo were working from home because of the pandemic,” but not the NLRB’s finding that Google’s decision predated her activism?

And why, in other stories about the NLRB, does the Times go into great detail about what underpinned the body’s findings — see, e.g., here and here — but in this story only only share the conclusion in the tersest possible terms?

Readers would be forgiven for concluding that the reason for the omission is that the newspaper is engaged in advocacy journalism — advocacy for both the employee’s dubious claims, and for the anti-Israel talking point that it’s meant to promote.



Tl;dr
 
I buy Israeli products at every opportunity.

IStandWithIsrael 2.jpg
 

Israeli Start-ups Raised $1.1 Billion in August


WhereAmI-MTP-696x464.jpg


Israel start-ups raised $1.1 billion in August alone, the Globes business daily reported on
Sunday.

Citing research by the Israeli Venture Capital research center, the report stated that since some corporations choose to keep their investments out of the public domain, the actual figure might be even higher.


According to IVC, Israeli privately-owned digital companies raised a record $25.6 billion in 2021, more than double the previous record of $10 billion reached in 2020, the report continued.

Israeli entrepreneurs raised $10.9 billion in the first half of 2022. This means that despite falling short of last year’s record, companies have already raised more than all the funds raised in 2020, the report noted. In the first eight months of 2022, Israeli startups raised $12.7 billion in investments.

The report noted that in August, Israeli cloud-based networking software business DriveNets raised $262 million in the largest fundraising round of that month. Guesty, a short-term rental firm, raised $170 million last month, while HiBob, a human resources platform, $150 million.

 

Forum List

Back
Top