British Journalist Union calls for boycott of Israeli goods

As a protest against the "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon by Israel" last year, the British 'National Union of Journalists' (NUJ) voted 66-54 in favour of boycotting Israeli goods, "similar to those boycotts in the struggles against apartheid South Africa led by trade unions," and called for the Brit Trade Union Congress to demand "sanctions be imposed on Israel by the British government and the United Nations." And although many of the 40,000 members were not in agreement:

"former Guardian reporter and Yahoo Europe news director Lloyd Shepherd quipped that he now looked "forward to similar boycotts of Saudi oil (abuse of women and human rights), Turkish desserts (limits to freedom of speech) and, of course, the immediate replacement of all stationery in the NUJ's offices which has been made or assembled in China",

the fact that it passed, at all, is a disgrace, considering there are countries far worthier of boycotting than Israel. And why are journalists calling for a boycott of goods in the first place? They're journalists, right? Wouldn't they be better served to call for a boycott of countries that censor their press? Like Russia, that has just demanded, of the Russian News Service, that at least 50% of all news about Russia be "positive" and that "opposition leaders could not be mentioned on the air and the United States was to be portrayed as an enemy." What about China? And most, if not all, countries in the Middle-East? In that region, Israel stands out as an oasis of democracy in a wasteland of intolerance; bereft of both personal and press freedom. Why are they singling out Israel?! The NUJ also condemned the "slaughter of civilians in Gaza" in recent years," and "the motion condemning Israel's "savage" behavior toward Palestinian civilians in the wake of "the defeat of its army" by Hizbullah passed by a wide margin." What about all the carnage that the Palestinians, Hizbullah etc. have been perpetrating on the Israeli people, for decades? Does that not count, too? And what about the fact that those terrorist groups use civilians as shields, so if there are civilian casualties it is often a direct result of those vile and cowardly tactics?!

In response to the NUJ vote, Chas Newkey-Burden writes a blistering critique of British Journalism and its blatant hatred of Israel saying:

"The BBC refuses to describe suicide bombers who blow up buses full of schoolchildren as "terrorists" and one of its correspondents told a Hamas rally that he and his colleagues were “waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder with the Palestinian people”

Criticized by fellow journalists for a trip to Israel, he relates how, upon his return, he

"met up with some journalists for some drinks in the West End of London. I was again abused for my trip. Their hatred of Israel was matched only by their adoration of the Palestinians. One of them gushed: “Boy, those suicide bombers have got guts. I wish more people in the world had their courage.” Another of them erupted when I told him that most people in Israel wanted a peaceful settlement to the conflict. “So why,” he asked, “did they murder their most peaceful Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?" Well, I guess if you’re going to get your facts wrong you might as well get them spectacularly wrong – I wonder if anyone else has ever got Netanyahu confused with Yitzhak Rabin?"

It looks like Britain is going to slip, very easily, into the hands of radical Islam (and without as much as a fight), when their own 'western' journalists glorify suicide bombers as "courageous." Whether any of this has to do with the fact that BBC correspondent Alan Johnston was kidnapped 5 weeks ago, by Palestinian gunmen, is up for debate.

And, once again, the asinine comparison to Israel as an apartheid state is brought to the fore, with the call for a boycott. The following video sets the record straight in terms of what truly constitutes "Apartheid":





For more on press censorship go to Reporters Without Borders.