Netanyahu accuses Palestinians of intransigence as Abbas raises demands

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met yesterday for three hours with US President Barack Obama at the White House. Prior to the meeting, Netanyahu placed the onus on the Palestinian Authority (PA) to bring about a lasting peace deal.

Speaking to the press alongside Obama, Netanyahu said, “What we want is peace – not a piece of paper” and called for “real peace … based on mutual recognition.” This he said meant that, “It’s about time the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state – we have only been there for 4,000 years.” Netanyahu added, “Israel has been doing its part, and I regret to say that the Palestinians haven’t … 20 years of peace process were marked by many Israeli steps for peace, but we got suicide bombers and rockets in return.”

Obama commended Netanyahu’s participation in “tough negotiations” with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and said, “It is still possible to create two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a state of Palestine, with people living side by side in peace and security.” However, he noted “it’s difficult. It requires compromise on all sides.”

Netanyahu also met yesterday with other senior American leaders including US Secretary of State John Kerry, who has spearheaded negotiations between Israel and the PA. Kerry later told the AIPAC policy conference that Israel’s security is paramount and “we will never let the West Bank turn into another Gaza,” from where rockets regularly threaten Israeli citizens.

Meanwhile, PA President Mahmoud Abbas told Meretz leader Zahava Gal-On that for peace talks to continue, Israel must institute a freeze on construction in the West Bank or free additional Palestinian prisoners beyond those already slated for release as part of a deal to re-start peace talks in July. Abbas met Gal-On yesterday in Ramallah and also told her that he expects Israel to absorb a limited quota of refugees and that he will turn to the United Nations and international organisations if Kerry’s plan doesn’t satisfactorily address core issues.

Bottom of Form No charity for Israel from Amnesty International

Amnesty International's bias against Israel is so blatant it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. Prof. Michael Curtis deals the killing blow against this organisation and its litany of misdeeds

Amnesty International not a neutral body

Michael Curtis

On 3 March 2014 11:24

2

 

We all thought Oxfam was the most bigoted international charity organization but along has come Amnesty International to displace it from the pinnacle of shame. What is it about these supposedly good will international organizations that makes them so disproportionately obsessed with and so biased against the State of Israel and its citizens?

What makes them so little aware, in any consistent way, of issues in the other 192 countries in the world?

Amnesty International (AI) describes its mission as undertaking research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of human rights. Indeed, it has drawn attention to some abuses in a number of countries.

It also claims to be independent of “any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion.” But this claim is spurious because AI’s main focus has been on one government and its alleged deficiencies, Israel and its behavior towards Palestinians.

Over the last twenty years, activities of AI have shown a persistent attitude of criticism and even hostility towards Israel. Its official statements have referred to the “ethnic cleansing” in Israeli society, to the racial supremacy of Israel, to the expulsion and dispossession of Palestinians, and to the “current structure” of Israel as an apartheid state. It has no genuine title to neutrality.

AI has supported the movement to boycott Israel. In a manner familiar from the diatribes of antisemites, it has criticized Israel for exploiting the memory of the Holocaust in order to oppress the Palestinian people. It defended the anti-Israeli, and implicitly antisemitic, remarks of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he was President of Iran.

It hosted, in January 2012, a book party to launch a book, Palestinians in Israel: segregation, discrimination, and democracy, written by Ben White, a relentless critic of Israel. AI also hosted In November 2010 a meeting of the Russell Tribunal which then discussed “Israel’s violations of international law.”

It published in October 2009 an inaccurate report on water resources in the Gaza Strip: it held that Israel’s “control of water is a tool of apartheid.”

Some of the pronouncements of AI have been over the top. It declared that the Israeli blockade of Gaza prevented “thousands of Palestinian students” in Gaza from pursuing higher education in the West Bank. AI seemed totally unaware of the considerable number of Palestinians who attend universities in Israel as well as in Palestinian areas.

It demanded that the Israeli government stop limiting access to education for Palestinian students in the Gaza Strip, as well as for Israel to lift completely the blockade of the Strip. It also charged Israel with “war crimes” during Operation Cast Lead in July 2009 in Gaza. AI disregarded the fact that the blockade was started to prevent the smuggling of weapons and rockets used against Israeli citizens.

In June 2012 AI issued a report , Starved of Justice: Palestinians detained without trial by Israel, which was in fact a strong attack on the Israeli legal system. Curiously, the report was issued without the names of any authors, though two people, Deborah Hyams and Saleh Hijazi, were listed as researchers or “media contacts.” Both are ideologically motivated.

Hyams, who grew up in Oxford, is a constant critic of Israel. She agreed to be a “human shield” for Palestinians in Beit Jala in the West Bank to stop Israeli response to attacks of gunfire and mortars. She understood, without precisely approving of them, that suicide bombings against Israelis are “in response to the occupation.”

She approved in 2008 of a letter stating that Israel was founded on terrorism and massacres. Hijazi, born in Jerusalem and raised in Ramallah, in a statement on December 8, 2007 called for a general boycott of Israeli products to begin on December 9. He had worked for a number of years for the Palestinian public relations office in Ramallah.

Other prominent members of AI staff have expressed similar critical statements of Israel. Kate Allen, the director of AI in the UK wrote on December 7, 2010 in Foreign Policy of “the harsh reality on the ground (in Gaza) for civilians trapped in this tiny enclave.”

A more outspoken individual, Kristya Benedict, listed as the crisis response manager for AIUK, has constantly referred to Israel as an apartheid state, called for a boycott, and declared, “the blockade of Israel has turned it into an outdoor prison.”

Benedict has organized a number of events for anti-Israeli activists. He displayed both his wisdom of international politics as well as his character when he listed Israel, together with North Korea, Burma, Sudan, and Iran, as a “stupid dictatorial regime,” and threatened to assault physically a pro-Israeli individual.

In equally bad taste he thought it a joke to remark on November 20, 2012 that three Jewish members of the British Parliament in a bar ordered a round of B52s to deal with Gaza. Was AI ever conscious of or did it ever mention the antisemitism evidenced by its staff?

Now, on February 20, 2014,  AI  published an 87 page report, again without named authors, entitledTrigger Happy: Israel’s use of excessive force in the West Bank. It gave attention to specific deaths. The report accuses Israel of “war crimes and other serious violations of international law.”

It is itself excessive, and trigger-happy, in stating, “Israeli soldiers have repeatedly committed serious human rights and humanitarian law violations.” It details carefully selected accounts of the killing and wounding of Palestinians who “do not appear to be posing a direct and immediate threat to life.” It finds Israel guilty of “a callous disregard for human life.” It therefore calls on the international community to “suspend all transfers of munitions, weapons and other equipment to Israel.”

What is extraordinary is not only that this AI report minimizes or ignores the large number of attacks by Palestinians on Israeli forces and civilians in the West Bank. It also pontificates on the improper use of force by Israel in an area where the issue of security is paramount.

The Secretary-General of AI, Salil Shetty, an Indian national formerly at the United Nations, himself admitted in an interview on February 10, 2014, “we are not experts on military matters. We do not want to pontificate on issues we really understand.” He might have criticized the AI statement that “petrol bombs pose little or no threat” to the lives of Israeli soldiers.

Certainly some abuses have occurred as Israel soldiers have tried to prevent or restrain violent or even terrorist attacks. However, Shetty and other AI spokespeople should have been aware of the substantial increase in Palestinian violence.

These included 5,000 incidents when rocks were thrown and other incidents that caused harm to more than 130 civilians and soldiers, shootings, the planting of improvised explosive devices, and the murder of a soldier. AI neglected the view of Colonel Richard Kemp that the IDF operates at the highest military standards.

Certainly AI’s Middle East director Philip Luther is unaware of this. He is prone to excessive rhetoric about Israeli behavior. He speaks of a “harrowing pattern of unlawful killings and unwarranted injuries of Palestinian civilians.” Israeli forces he stated, “appear to have recklessly fired bullets at the slightest appearance of a threat.”

Even more he believes that “the arbitrary and abusive force (by Israelis) against peaceful protestors… suggests that it is carried out as a matter of policy.”

Despite their proclaimed objectives of international assistance, AI, like Oxfam, is a bigoted group, more interested, for reasons of its own, in criticizing Israel than in providing any real help for Palestinians or Arabs in general.

At a moment when 120,000 have been killed in the brutal civil war in Syria and millions of its residents have been rendered homeless, and when 500 demonstrators were killed in a single day in August 2013 in Egypt, it appears incongruous for AI to issue a long, anonymous report on supposed Israeli arbitrary and excessive force.

It is time to proclaim the truth. These so–called international charity organizations have an agenda of their own that has little to do with charity or justice in the Middle East or with accepted standards of morality.

By its new report Amnesty International is pulling the trigger against a resumption of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Michael Curtis, author of "Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East", is Distinguished Professor Emeritus in political science at Rutgers University. Curtis, the author of 30 books, is widely respected as an authority on the Middle East. This article has also been submitted to The American Thinker, an American outlet we highly recommend

Read more on: israel, Demonising Israel, Amnesty International , and Oxfam

Is The Economist concerned that Israel may be judaizing the Jewish state?

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Votes

by Adam Levick

To provide some sense of how Jewish holy sites that are currently secured by Israel would likely fare under Palestinian rule, you could recall the period between 1949 and 1967, when Jews were ethnically cleansed from ‘east’ Jerusalem by the Jordanians and prevented from even visiting their holy places.  The Jewish Quarter of the Old City was all but destroyed, dozens of synagogues were demolished and some Jewish religious sites were turned into animal stalls. The Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was ransacked; graves were desecrated; thousands of tombstones were smashed and used as building material or even toilets. The Western Wall became a slum.

Or, you could fast forward to a more recent time, and see how Joseph’s tomb – the resting spot of the patriarch Joseph and his two sons, Ephraim and Menashe – was razed soon after Nablus was transferred to Palestinian Authority control in 2000. Though renovations to the site were completed by 2009, vandalism by Palestinians continues, and as recently as two months ago Jewish pilgrims visiting the building discovered vandalism and attempted arson.

In contrast, in 1967, when Israel unified Jerusalem and took control of the holy sites in the Old City, Israel passed the Protection of Holy Places Law, granting legal protections the holy sites and making it a crime to desecrate or impede freedom of access to them. Though the Al Aqsa Mosque (part of the Temple Mount complex) is administered by Jordan’s Islamic Waqf, Israel retains sovereignty and secures the area.  As such, thousands of Muslims (including Palestinian Arabs) are granted entry to the Mosque each day.  (In contrast, in 2011, only 8,247 Jews visited the Temple Mount the entire year.)

Additionally, the Israeli government supports religious services for communities of all faiths – which includes spending millions of Shekels each year for the operating costs of more than 100 mosques, the salaries of Muslim religious leaders and the upkeep of holy sites for allreligions.

As Freedom House reported, while Israel’s founding documents define it as a “Jewish and democratic state,” freedom of religion for all faiths is respected.

Such facts about Israel’s continuing commitment to safeguarding the rights of religious minorities would not come as a surprise to those of us who live here, or those journalists interested in dispassionately examining contrasting religious freedom in the region.  However, as we’ve demonstrated continually, ‘dispassionate’ and ‘objective’ are not words typically associated with British reports from Israel or the Palestinian territories – as a story in The Economist (and accompanying video) clearly demonstrates.  

Though the article in the print magazine has some balance, much of the video report by their Middle East correspondent Nicolas Pelham has little relation to the reality on the ground in the Holy Land.

As you can see in the video, Pelham imputes international significance to the vandalism of King David’s Tomb, the burial-place of biblical King David located at Mt. Zion at the ground floor of a Byzantine church.  Further, he not only suggests (at 1:10 of the video) that the site has only NOW become a Jewish religious shrine, but contextualizes the destruction of some Ottoman ceramic tiles in the interior of the tomb’s main room as part of a broader pattern of Israeli negligence of ‘Muslim’ holy sites.  

In fact (as you can see at 1:23 of the video), he also tells of the threat posed to the Temple Mount by Jewish extremists – who, we are told, occasionally incite Muslims by flying the Israeli flag – while never mentioning the frequent rioting by Palestinian extremists, or violence coordinated by Hamas, Fatah and Israel’s Islamist Movement.  And, no mention is made by the Economist journalist of Palestinian political and religious leaders‘ campaign to deny the Jewish connection to Jerusalem, and routine libels that Israel is attempting to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Finally (at about 4:00 of the video) Pelham, when asked how the threat to Muslim holy places may affect the overall peace process, explains that the big fear of Palestinians (and ‘Muslims around the world‘) is that the Israeli government’s demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish state” will “erode what has been a historically Muslim country..”.

Of course, Jerusalem is the birthplace of Judaism, and Jews are an indigenous people to the land of Israel.

As one commentator explained on Facebook in response to Pelham, Roman conquests in the first century of the common era may have disintegrated Jewish political and military power, but there was – during Byzantine, Persian, Muslim, Crusader, Mameluke, Ottoman and British rule until 1948 - a constant and uninterrupted Jewish presence in the land.  Further, Jews represented a plurality of Jerusalem’s population by the mid-19th century.

The League of Nations, in 1922, determined in a decision of international law that “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”.  

History is on the side of the Jewish connection to Israel, yet you’d almost be forgiven for concluding that Pelham is deeply troubled by the possibility that Israel is surreptitiously Judaizing the Jewish state. 

A few seconds later in the video, when asked about the future of Israel, Pelham expressed doubts over the future of Israel’s Muslims, who, he claims, “have a second class status“.

This is simply a lie - one which evokes the oft-repeated Apartheid smear.  Though there are economic and educational disparities between Jews and Muslim in Israel (as there such disparities between minority and majority groups in many democracies), Muslims are represented in all spheres of Israeli public life, and are afforded equal rights under the law. Indeed, they enjoy political rights which far exceed those in any Arab country in the region.  (According to a recent poll published by the Israel Democracy Institute, most Arab Israelis are patriotic and proud to be called Israeli.)

As BICOM so accurately stated, specifically relating to the idea of Israel as a ‘Jewish State’:

Being a ‘Jewish state’ means being a state in which Jewish traditions, language and customs are given full expression. Thus, Jewish holidays are observed by the organs of the  state, Hebrew is the national language, traditional Jewish law is integrated into jurisprudence, and so on. There is nothing discriminatory in this, as long as minority rights to express their traditions, language and customs are protected too. And they are. For example, Israel’s civil service allows non-Jewish civil servants to celebrate their own religious holidays without having those days docked off their annual leave. (The same cannot be said to apply to Jews in Britain.)

To sum up:

• Muslim holy sites in Israel are NOT in danger.

• Israel is not a “historically Muslim country”.

• Arab Israelis don’t have “second class status”.

Though The Economist of course fancies itself an erudite media institution, Nicolas Pelham’s report again shows us that what often passes for ‘sophisticated’ analysis of the Middle East conflict in the UK media is merely just the mindless parroting of agitprop, half-truths and lies more befitting the ‘Palestinian hasbara’blogosphere. 

Related articles

• CiF Watch prompts Guardian correction #2: Evidently, Jewish ‘extremists’ didn’t enter the mosque (cifwatch.com)
• Richard Millett reports from London on the latest ‘hate Israel’ event, starring Ben White(cifwatch.com)
• CAMERA Snapshots: The Economist Publishes — Then Pulls — Anti-Semitic Cartoon (camera.org)
• The Economist squeezes out the truth(camera.org)

Share this:

• Email
• Print
• More

Google+

 Adam Levick

Related

Dejudaising Jerusalem: Guardian Helps Promote Palestinian LiesIn "Al-Aqsa Mosque"

Denis MacEoin's letter to William Hague concerning JerusalemIn "Adam Levick"

Did the Guardian just implicitly recognize "East" Jerusalem as part of Israel?In "Adam Levick"

Israel paying large sums to Syrian rebels for info on 'extremists'

Report:

Abu Dhabi's The National reports that Israel is paying large sums of money to Syrian rebel groups for information about the Islamists among them.

At least three rebel factions in southern Syria have been in regular contact with Israeli intelligence officials, and have each received more than one tranche of funding worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a well-connected rebel commander who is familiar with operations in the zone bordering Jordan and Israel.

“When they run out of cash, they contact the Israelis,” he said of fellow commanders in the area, a practice he said did not bother him.

Syria and Israel have been in a state of war since the late 1940s but traditional enmities and alliances are being reshaped by an unfolding chaos.

While many rebel factions remain vehemently anti-Israel, some are taking a pragmatic stance and are willing to cooperate with their historic enemy if it helps defeat the president, Bashar Al Assad.

Meanwhile, Tel Aviv is facing the prospect of Islamist militants taking control of border areas, incongruously once secured by the authoritarian regime in Damascus with which it was technically at war. 

...

While claims of large Israeli payments in exchange for information could not be independently confirmed, a senior rebel heading a unit in the southern area said one of his fighters had abandoned a different battalion over Israeli financing.

By that account, a young fighter developed contacts with Israeli intelligence after being wounded and sent to a hospital in Israel for treatment, where he was questioned about Islamist factions.

After recovering and returning to his unit late last year, the rebel fighter told of the intelligence contact to his commander, who decided to tap the Israelis for funding.

Using a pre-arranged channel of communication to Israeli intelligence, the rebel officer asked for US$100,000 (Dh367,000), and was told he could have that and more in exchange for precise details about extremist groups.

The young fighter had misgivings about taking money from Israel, which occupies the Syrian Golan Heights in defiance of UN rulings, and abandoned the group to join another brigade before any money changed hands.

Rebels who have helped transport the wounded across the border for medical treatment say the Israelis are most interested in Jabhat Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda-affiliated group, and other powerful Islamist groups including Harakat Al Muthanna, Ahrar Al Sham and a number of less well known units.

It would not be surprising if at least parts of this report were true (although I do resent the implication that Israel is providing humanitarian relief to the rebel forces out of impure motives). In fact, I hope they are. At least it would show that our government is being proactive. And no, I don't expect any comment from the Israeli government on this report. The rebels have positions close to the Israel - Syria border.

Oxfam and UK Foreign Office official displayed ingrained antisemitism

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/20/Oxfam-Exec

CLAIM: OXFAM EXEC DELIGHTED: “NOW THE JEWS ARE GOING TO GET IT!” ON EVE OF ’67 WAR

 

By Douglas Davis - 2/19/14

After all the gossip and speculation it’s time to come clean: Scarlett Johansson and I are more than just good friends. Much, much more. Yes, we have shared moments of intimacy – not, alas, together, or even at the same time. 

But we are both alumni of Oxfam, that billion-dollar arbiter of humanitarian aid, political profundity and universal morality. It doesn’t matter that we graduated almost half a century apart. It doesn’t even matter that we’ve never actually met. Or that she doesn’t know I exist. We have both shared the Oxfam Moment.

Last month, Oxfam announced that Scarlett Johansson’s support for an Israeli company operating in a Jewish settlement was incompatible with her continued role as an Oxfam Ambassador. She was faced with a stark choice: continue her association with Oxfam or support SodaStream, the Israeli fizzy drink manufacturer in Mishor Adumim, just across the Green Line. Ms Johansson chose SodaStream.

In a statement, the Hollywood actress declared that she and Oxfam have “a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement”. She was, she added, “very proud of her accomplishments and fund-raising efforts during her tenure with Oxfam”.

SodaStream employs about 500 Palestinians alongside a similar number of Jewish employees. The Palestinians, who support an estimated 10 family members each, are employed on the basis of equal pay, social benefits, opportunities and rights with their Jewish colleagues.

In a debate on Newsnight, the BBC’s flagship current affairs programme, SodaStream CEO Daniel Birnbaum insisted that his company was not in the business of financing settlements. On the contrary, he said, “we are part of the Palestinian economy”, where unemployment is running at about 40 per cent. Moreover, the company had been operating in the territories for 17 years. “And the inconvenient truth,” he added, “is that we are operating with the agreement of the Palestinian Authority.”

But Ben Phillips, the policy director of Oxfam, was unmoved: ‘This is not about SodaStream or celebrities. It’s about settlements, which impoverish the Palestinian people.” SodaStream must go, he said, even if that means plunging 500 Palestinians into unemployment and 5,000 into poverty. Stalin would have been proud. As far as Oxfam is concerned, it seems, Palestine can only be Palestine when it isjudenrein. Now haven’t we heard that before?

When I arrived in London, a deracinated refugee from apartheid South Africa, poor in cash but rich in far-left ideology, I was ripe for a job at Oxfam. I moved to Oxford and settled into Oxfam’s one-person press office, effectively the spokesman of the organisation. Religious primitivism was not on the agenda of radical progressives like me. It helped that I did not think of myself as a Jew, and no one else did either.

My South African credentials offered instant access to far-left circles in Oxford, but it bothered me that my new-found comrades, mostly at the university, liberally peppered our conversations with casual, gratuitous anti-Semitism. The Jews, it seemed, were at the root of the world’s ills.

But my Oxfam Moment came one summer’s evening when a senior Oxfam executive invited me to dinner at his sumptuous home in the rolling Oxfordshire countryside. He was cultured, brilliant and cool. Every inch the top Foreign Office diplomat, which had indeed been his previous calling. Before dinner, he suggested we take drinks on the lawn. As an afterthought, he asked the butler to bring out his portable radio so that we could listen to the news. It was, after all, the first day of the Six Day War.

The BBC faithfully reported claims by the Israelis that they had destroyed the air forces of Egypt and Syria on the ground. Then, the newsreader intoned the Arab claims that they had inflicted extensive damage on the Israeli army; that Egyptian tanks were advancing; that they were now 25 kilometres from Tel Aviv.

My urbane host lost his cultivated cool. His elderly body shot into the air, fists pumping at the skies: ‘Now the Jews are going to get it... Now they’re going to get it.’ Remember, Israel occupied no territories, nor had it constructed a single settlement. There could be only one explanation for his jubilation: the prospect of Israel’s imminent destruction. When he recovered his composure, he raised his glass and beamed at me: ‘Wonderful news. Simply wonderful.’ I stared back, shocked, not knowing how to respond. To my shame, I said nothing.

His reaction was more or less typical of the culture I encountered among the loony left, which perceived Jews as arrogant and pushy, while it regarded determined Palestinian displacement as principled and heroic. My own displacement – from the far-left and Oxfam – was now more or less complete.

But the madness of the Sixties never went away. On the contrary, it triumphed. The past half-century has witnessed Europe’s traditional sources of authority – political and church leaders – in full retreat, ceding the moral high ground to bunch of unelected, unaccountable NGOs, like Oxfam, which place themselves on the side of the angels. They set the agenda now.

I doubt whether Oxfam would have been much exercised if SodaStream was owned by, say, Jordanians, Egyptians or Saudis. Rather, I believe, they have chosen to invest a large chunk of their resources in advocating a boycott of the company because it is Jewish.  Haven’t we heard that before, too?

Douglas Davis is a former senior editor of the Jerusalem Post

 

 

Westminster Briefing on Jewish Refugees from Arab countries

Dear Renaud, I wanted to draw your attention to a number of upcoming events: Westminster Briefing on Jewish Refugees from Arab countries We Believe in Israel is joining up with Harif, the UK association representing Jews from North Africa and the Middle East, and think tank the Henry Jackson Society to host a special briefing at the House of Commons about the role of the Jewish refugee issue in the Middle East peace process.   The event will feature speakers Dr Stan Urman (http://www.justiceforjews.com/stan_urman.html), Chief Executive of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries; and Edwin Shuker from the International Division of the Board of Deputies; along with firsthand testimony from Jewish refugees from Arab countries.   It will be held at 6pm (finishing at 7.30pm) on Wednesday 19 March in Committee Room 10 at the House of Commons.   Capacity is limited to 100 attendees so please register to attend using this online form:https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JKFCZT2 President Peres Facebook Q&A Israel’s President, Shimon Peres, is doing a live Q&A session on Facebook on Wednesday 5th March.   The link to register to participate is here:https://www.facebook.com/events/664807146913749/ Kay Wilson speaking events Kay Wilson is a multitalented Jewish British Israeli, a musician and composer, cartoonist and writer, with a remarkable story to tell of endurance and recovery. In 2010, Kay miraculously survived a brutal terror attack and in spite of her suffering, Kay’s survival has enabled her to acquire a unique perspective on life, where she lives life to the fullest and appreciates every moment.   StandWithUs UK have organised a speaking event with Kinloss Learning Centre where Kay will speak at Kinloss Synagogue in Finchley on Tuesday 11 March at 8pm.   Further details are in this flyer: http://gallery.mailchimp.com/4f205ffabc02c1048c024eebe/files/2014_02_Kinloss_kaywilson4.pdf   For more information, or if you wish to pre-book, please call Shoshi or Adina on 020 8346 8551/020 8349 5267 or email ket@kinloss.org.uk.   Outside London, Kay Wilson is also speaking in Leeds on Sunday 9 March - details here:http://gallery.mailchimp.com/4f205ffabc02c1048c024eebe/files/Leeds_Kay_Wilson_An_extraordinary_story_oflife_music_and_hope1_2_.pdf; in North Wales on Monday 10 March – details here:http://gallery.mailchimp.com/4f205ffabc02c1048c024eebe/files/Mike_Fryer_event_March_10.pdf;  and she will be joining Sussex Friends of Israel for their counterdemonstration against the boycott of SodaStream on Saturday 15 March, 1pm-3pm, Western Road, Brighton. Panel discussion on Building a Global Coalition for Israel Don’t forget we are holding a special panel discussion, “Building a Global Coalition for Israel”, which we are holding in partnership with the World Jewish Congress.   This event is being held in North London on the evening of Sunday 6 April 2014 from 7pm to 9pm.   We are bringing together four speakers from around the world who can share experiences of advocating for Israel and combating BDS and delegitimisation.   We are delighted that Robert Singer, CEO of the World Jewish Congress, has already agreed to be one of the panel of speakers.   There are only a few places left in the audience so please register here if you would like to attend: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GWCKGVK   Best wishes, Luke Akehurst Director, We Believe in Israel