Boycott coup: British embassy eschews Leviev’s building in Tel Aviv

by on March 4, 2009 7

Something great reported by Haaretz and now JSF: the British Embassy has changed its plans, and will not rent space in a Tel Aviv building partly-owned by Lev Leviev, the diamond merchant who has financed colonies in the West Bank. The embassy took the step after critics of Leviev called upon the Brits not to give him money.
How long before anything approaching this standard comes to the U.S., where a lot of Jews and non-Jews are all mobbed up with the colonial system in Palestine and our media avoid the story?

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in BDS, Israel/Palestine, Settlers/Colonists

{ 7 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. John says:
    March 4, 2009 at 3:01 am

    This is a decision to be applauded.
    Some part of the British bureaucracy is confronting Lev Leviev.
    It indicates that we don't have to languish guiltly in the long shadow of the Gulag and the gas chambers.The world is increasinglyaware of the condition of the occupation.
    John

  2. Jim Haygood says:
    March 4, 2009 at 8:05 am

    Phil,

    As a journalist you'd make a great hysterical, screaming, thirteen year old girl . . .

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3681107,00.html

    Do some fact checking, and stop embarrassing those of us who support you!

  3. Joachim Martillo says:
    March 4, 2009 at 8:09 am

    Some of the articles referenced from my blog entry Chabad Lubavitch' Dangerous Game provide prima facie evidence that Leviev is aiding and abetting Zionist terrorism against the native population of Palestine.

    It is not sufficient for the British bureaucracy to avoid renting his buildings, for British law requires Leviev's arrest, prosecution, conviction, incarceration and seizure of assets for terrorism offenses.

    The same probably applies to the whole Lubavitcher community in the UK as well as to the entire organized Jewish community.

    After reviewing all the Wilders' activities while he was in the USA, I have to conclude that a significant, wealthy, and powerful segment of the organized Jewish community and the Israel Lobby has declared war on the entire Arab and Muslim world while the rest of the organized Jewish community and Israel Lobby passively lets the war mongers make policy.

    Arabs, Muslims and their Jewish allies must start acting upon this reality.

    It is no longer sufficient for J-Street to oppose AIPAC. J-Street must start demanding the arrest of prominent Jews and their organizations for aiding and abetting Zionist terrorism.

  4. chris berel says:
    March 4, 2009 at 8:30 am

    It would seem then that we must demand the arrest of those like Joachim and Philip for aiding and abbeting Islamic inspired Palestinian terrorism.

    Can't wait to see Joachim try to defend his racism in open court.

  5. Citizen says:
    March 4, 2009 at 8:31 am

    The anti-apartheid movement came from England too, although England had a lot of investment there; England and the USA fought against the movement more than any other nation. Hampshire's early student divestment stance against the apartheid regime, which is now a source of the college administration's pride and a great selling point, was originally denied, and in the same way as the current administration has done. Speaking of Hamshire's student divestment group, from a spokes person's mouth to your ear:

    Dina Jacir
    posted 2/27/09 @ 10:24 PM EST

    Dear Liz and editor,

    My name is Dina Jacir and I was the student from Hampshire's Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) interviewed for the Sophian. I wanted to make some clarifications regarding misinformation in the story, made explicit in the title "Controversy surrounds Hampshire's recent divestment from Israel."

    Hampshire never divested from Israel, but more importantly, SJP never ASKED for divestment from Israel. What we asked for, and what we were successful in achieving, was a specific divestment from corporations that profit from the military aspect of Israel's occupation of Palestine. These companies produce machinery or infrastructure that are used by the Israeli military in occupying the West Bank and terrorizing Gaza. The companies we targeted were Caterpillar, Motorola, Terex, United Technologies, General Electric, and ITT Corporation. So it is misleading to say that Hampshire has divested from "Israel," and to suggest that SJP asked for this, as it differs from a targeted divestment of war-profiteering corporations. Unfortunately, this is a mistake echoed in much of the press surrounding the divestment story at Hampshire.

    Also, there is no need to put quotation marks around "occupation." (fourth paragraph in the article.) There is nothing controversial about calling Israel's military occupation of the West Bank an occupation, it is the legal term the U.N. uses to define the situation, and that occupation is illegal under international law. To put quotations around it seems to question the validity of that fact, negating the legitimacy of the Palestinian voice and those who advocate for a just end to the occupation.

    However, I appreciate your attention to the issue, and as a journalism student myself, I understand the pressure of deadlines and the difficulty of covering difficult and confusing topics.

    Thanks for your time,

    Dina Jacir

  6. Joachim Martillo says:
    March 4, 2009 at 9:17 am

    I am more than capable of defending myself against any charge of aiding and abetting terrorism on the basis of my vast knowledge of Jewish and Zionist history, and I would welcome my arrest and chance to defend myself as long as the wealthiest Zionist political economic oligarchs were treated identically.

    The facts are clear. Racist, murderous, genocidal Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazim plotted and carried out the theft and ethnic cleansing of Palestine by means of force violence and terrorism with malice aforethought.

    Zionism constitutes an international criminal conspiracy.

    Under Nuremberg law, Palestinians have absolute and uncontestable right of resistance while any and all Zionist countermeasures are illegal, and no Zionist colonist in stolen or occupied Palestine has the status of protected non-combatant under International Law.

    Since the 1950s members of the Zionist conspiracy like Michael Walzer have been busily using their positions in academia and government to rewrite international law to make Zionist ethnic cleansing and genocide irreversible. All such Zionist manipulated development of international law is illegitimate and therefore inapplicable.

    I expect that my interpretation of the history and law will eventually win out.

    The Levievs, the Bronfmans, the Peretzes, the Sabans, and of course the Berels will eventually be arrested, convicted, will be rendered penniless by asset seizure, and will end their days in forced labor to restore Palestine to its pre-1947 state.

    Relevant Blog Entries

  7. DICKERSON3870 says:
    March 4, 2009 at 8:48 pm

    > Act Now to Support Divestment. Hampshire College Needs You!

    > From: US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (uscampaign@mail.democracyinaction.org)

    "Two weeks ago, Hampshire College announced that it was divesting from a mutual fund which has holdings in six corporations that support Israel's military occupation.  Now Hampshire's administration is caving to pressure from Alan Dershowitz and trying to reinvest in two of these corporations – Motorola and Terex.  Write to Hampshire College's President, Ralph Hexter, and tell him to stand strong for divestment."

    > To send him an email – link to salsa.democracyinaction.org

Leave a Reply