Anti-Ahava activists cleared of all charges

Four anti-Israel activists were today cleared at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court of all charges after they locked themselves onto concrete-filled oil drums inside the Israeli-owned Ahava shop on Monmouth Street in London’s Covent Garden forcing it to close down for one day in September 2009 and another day in December 2009.

Taherali Gulamhussein, Bruce Levy, Tom Ellis and Ms Crouch, all from London, were found not guilty of failing to comply with a police officer’s orders to leave the shop (Ss.68&69 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994).

The activists insisted that they were legally justified in their actions as they claim the shop’s activities are illegal because the products on sale in the shop originate from Mitzpe Shalem, an Israeli settlement on the West Bank, and are deliberately mislabeled as “Made in Israel”.

Ms Crouch commented on the acquittal: “This is only a small victory in the wider campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. We’ll continue to challenge corporate complicity in the occupation and Israel’s impunity on the international stage.”

The website of the International Solidarity Movement states that on the first day of trial, prosecutors dropped aggravated trespass charges. This would have required the prosecution to demonstrate Ahava was engaged in lawful activity but, apparently, the CPS decided that this was not something they would attempt to prove.

And, according to the website, the Ahava store’s manager’s failure to testify contributed to the acquittals on all remaining charges.

The case also apparently hinged on a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) guidance to retailers:

“The Government considers that traders would be misleading consumers and would therefore almost be certainly committing an offence, if they were to declare produce from the OPT (including from the West Bank) as ‘Produce of Israel’. This would apply irrespective of whether the produce was from a Palestinian producer or from an Israeli settlement in the OPT. This is because the area does not fall within the internationally recognised borders of the state of Israel” (11 December 2009).

The activists were therefore found to have acted lawfully.

Another activist, Mr Matthews, said: “The message is clear. If your company is involved in apartheid and war crimes and occupying Palestinian land, people will occupy your shop.”

Sarah Colborne, of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said ‘it is the owners of Ahava who should be in court, not just for their role in helping to cement an unlawful occupation, but for violating the Fourth Geneva Convention by exploiting the natural resources of an occupied territory for profit.’

This case comes after last month’s case at Hove Crown Court when seven anti-war activists were cleared of all charges after breaking into the EDO arms equipment factory in Brighton and causing £200,000 worth of damage.

In that case the defendants claimed they were trying to prevent the factory from making arms for Israel during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. But in his directions before dismissing them to consider a verdict Judge George Bathurst-Norman told the jury: “”You may think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered at that time” and said of group leader Christopher Osmond: “The jury may feel his efforts investigating the company merit the George Cross.” The Crown Prosecution Service may still investigate these directions.

Numbers for next Saturday’s anti-Israel protest outside Ahava on Monmouth Street in Covent Garden from midday until 2pm are certain to be swelled after yet another triumph for anti-Israel activists in the UK.

(Another recent anti-Israel protest outside Ahava).

120 responses to “Anti-Ahava activists cleared of all charges

  1. Jonathan Hoffman

    RIP British Justice

    • Proud Zionist

      Sums it up nicely.

      Seems people can escape punishment for anything now as long as they were acting against Israel’s interests.

  2. I don’t get it
    I just don’t get it
    it doesn’t synch with anything I ever learned about law and legal procedings

  3. richardmillett

    I agree, Silke. I am amazed. All i can say is it must be the CPS. Who are their lawyers???

  4. Richard
    I have always assumed that the state has the monopoly on “violence” (Gewaltmonopol), so if every citizen can decide by him/herself when forcing something/trespassing i.e. violence is asked for, then the town of High Noon before Gary Cooper took it on seems to be the ideal they are striving for – there must have been some terrible law writing go on in the UK to make that possible.

    How are things in the UK? Will the factory stunt and this one go on to higher courts or is this the final verdict i.e. can such a game changer come out of an, I assume, low level court?

    You don’t need to answer typing just helps calming me down a bit, it’s so frightening

  5. richardmillett

    How are things in the UK? I think the thing speaks for itself or, as they say in legal jargon, res ipsa loquitor.

    I believe that once acquitted you stay acquitted unless new damning evidence comes to light, which is not applicable here. You think you are frightened. I’m now waiting for a “Zionist” to be beaten up and for the assailants to have acted “lawfully”!

    • “I believe that once acquitted you stay acquitted”

      The Crown can appeal an acquittal if they believe the judgment is wrong in law, while those convicted can appeal on the facts or the law.

  6. “All i can say is it must be the CPS. Who are their lawyers???”

    The Crown Prosecution Service are themselves lawyers or rather to be more precise solicitors. They act on behalf of the Crown in criminal prosecutions.
    They also failed to convince the key prosecution witness Ms Rita Trindade to attend on multiple occasions despite threatening her with an arrest warrant for contempt of court. She then went AWOL today and thus the warrant could not be executed upon her person. No doubt Ms Trindade and her employers feared cross-examination and preferred the possibility of arrest for contempt of court more than arrest for aiding and abetting grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, pursuant to International Criminal Court Act 2001.

    I don’t think you can argue the Crown went without adequate Representation .Barrister for Prosecution was Eleanor Sanderson from 2 Bedford Row, one of the best Criminal Law Barristers in the country with a specialism in FRAUD!

    Why would she be called upon unless the Prosecution feared that this case was turning into a trial of Ahava for fraud?

    FYI Solicitor for Defence was Simon Natas of Irvine Thanvi & Natas Solicitors. Barristers for Defence were Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh and Jude Bunting of Matrix Chambers and Tooks Chambers respectively.

    I would recommend applying for the Magistrates Court transcript like was done in the Hove Crown Court case. I think it would be good to look at it – just to see whether there was any abuse by the Judge and whether anti-semitism was at play

    • *The fact that a witness the Prosecution claimed to rely on went AWOL meant legally speaking the Prosecution was forced in the interests of justice to offer no evidence – despite police evidence already being heard. Following the offer of no evidence, the Judge found all the defendants (necessarily) NOT guilty.

      • richardmillett

        Cheers, Mizrahi. Makes some sort of sense if true. But trespass is trespass isn’t it and wasn’t it admitted anyway? So what difference would her presence have made in court?

  7. Silke, it synchs with the lack of spine of our police, our legal system and our successive governments who did not grasp the nettle when they should have and root this nonsense out.

    It also seems that Judge Bathurst Norman’s crackpot verdict has set a precedent.

    Once people are found not guilty in a UK court the case cannot go to appeal. However a formal complaint can be lodged against the judge or magistrate who made the decision which may or may not result in a mistrial being declared, but I cannot be certain. I am not a lawyer.

    • Re richardmillett:

      “But trespass is trespass isn’t it and wasn’t it admitted anyway? So what difference would her presence have made in court?”

      Trespass is a civil offence not criminal.

      They were charged with two criminal offences under sections 68 and 69 of Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Section 68 is the offence of AGGRAVATED trespass

      (1)A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land in the open air and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land in the open air, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—
      (a)of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
      (b)of obstructing that activity, or
      (c)of disrupting that activity.
      (2)Activity on any occasion on the part of a person or persons on land is “lawful” for the purposes of this section if he or they may engage in the activity on the land on that occasion without committing an offence or trespassing on the land.

      The activists did not admit aggravated trespass because they claim that their activity did not prevent any lawful activity because no lawful activity was taking place at the premises.

      Section 69 is failure to obey the order of a Police Officer to leave land. It is conditional on the senior police officer reasonably believing that lawful activity was going on and that the activists were preventing it. If the Senior Police Officer on the scene (and the arresting officer if different) cannot show themselves to have a reasonable belief that the activity is unlawful than they cannot prosecute.

      The Prosecution said her presence in Court was essential as the key witness.

      • richardmillett

        Thanks. “cannot show themselves to have a reasonable belief that the activity is unlawful than they cannot prosecute.”

        Sorry, do you mean “lawful”?

  8. It’s true that ‘Made in Israel’ is misleading. But ‘Made in West Bank Occupied Territory’ doesn’t have quite the same ring, does it?

  9. richardmillett

    Very true, Gert! Although as we all know the West Bank isn’t “occupied” and UNSCR 242 gives Israel a right to be there. Maybe Eleanor Sanderson overlooked that salient point.

    • Richard:

      Simply be honest and stop claiming you’re in favour of a 2 state solution. In favour of a Palestinian state on Mars, maybe. But not in Palestine.

      Anyway, for all your bleating: good ruling.

  10. Michael Plosker

    Just arrived in Israel, maybe I’ll stay. Reading this makes me want to cry with frustration.

  11. thanks Serendipity
    that’s different with us, both the prosecution and the accused can appeal a verdict, how many steps upwards in the system depends on a lot of criteria.

    These BDS-sers why didn’t they just accuse Ahava of fraud and let the state prosecutor take care of it? Sorry, but this drives me nuts. “It” and the courts have a long history.

    is there a post on here describing the original concrete barrel trespassing?

  12. richardmillett

    No, Silke. I think it is as described though. Nothing else needs be added except that i was told that the staff inside the Ahava shop were totally petrified while it was all taking place, as you can imagine.

  13. Mizrahi
    thank you very much
    I am slowly slowly beginning to get a picture how it could have happened
    sounds like a perfect Catch 22
    There should be lots of shops around where one could pull that off also though
    – how about shops doing it to eachother and swamping the courts?

  14. Elder of Ziyon has a post about it and a link to you
    he proposes Land of Israel

  15. richardmillett

    I am now getting a grip on this; the British courts are basically turning political and deciding international law for us.

  16. Richard:

    Just because i quote 242?

    Of course: you cannot be serious about a 2 state solution and claim the Occupation is hunky dory.

    Unless at some point you propose the land be used as a ‘generous gift by the People of Israel’ to the Palestinians. Considering the invert-O-speak coming out of Israel, I wouldn’t put it past them.

    Elder of Ziyon should be honest too: he should propose ‘Made in Eretz Yisrael’

  17. The nutjob from Elder of Ziyon further suggests:

    Instead, replace it with “Made in the Land of Israel.”

    The phrase “Land of Israel” is not political at all. It comprises most of the State of Israel, all of Judea and Samaria and even parts of Jordan and Lebanon. Instead, replace it with “Made in the Land of Israel.”

    I suggest that products made in India are henceforth labeled ‘Made in a former part of the British Empire’.

    It’s a bit like that old joke about the two blue lines on Israel’s flag: do they signify the land between the river and the sea or between the river, the sea and another river?

    As always when things Israeli are discussed, the wannabe legal eagles come out of the woodwork thick and fast. Listen children, this one is a lost cause for your side, ok?

  18. richardmillett

    I don’t claim the “occupation” is hunky dory as you well know. Just that it isn’t illegal due to 242. If there was a guarantee of peace Israel would be out of there like a shot but, sadly, we all know what Hamas, yes Hamas, would do next.

  19. – how about shops doing it to eachother and swamping the courts?

    I think the poor thing’s got a point: to protest this gross injustice, British shops should basically put the economy to a standstill by dragging each other through the courts. Israel’s popularity would indeed soar!

  20. Richard, you and Hamas will grow old together and the settlers will continue settling, I meant *leasing*.

    Have you ever considered the difference between ‘legal’ and ‘moral’?

  21. Far away in other, insignificant news, Israel raises a Negev village (again)

  22. Up to 1967 homosexuality was an imprisonable offense in Briton (up to 10 years for ‘buggery’ whatever the f*ck that is, IIRW). Totally legal. And totally immoral. A source of tremendous suffering. Like the… erm… ‘disputation’. Which far, far precedes Hamas.

  23. Oops, ‘BriTAIN’ of course…

  24. Legal can be objectively immoral. What the Nazis did to Jews and other undesirables was legal in Nazi Germany.

  25. richardmillett

    What the Nazis did to the Jews and others was only legal in their own sick minds. Israel’s presence in the West Bank has the full sanction of the United Nations.

  26. If there was a guarantee of peace Israel would be out of there like a shot but, […]

    Israel could be out there like a shot without compromising its ‘security’: move the settlers out, maintain the military occupation disputation. It’d be a grand step in the right direction. Hamas couldn’t argue with that. No one could.

    But giving up all that juicy territory? Resettle 10 % of its population? Going against the settler movement? Losing all these votes? Forget it…

    There are no guarantees in life BTW, at least not absolute ones. The only guarantee never to get killed in a car crash is never to drive a car.

  27. Richard,

    The only x State Solution you’re interested in is one where x = 1 and where the Palestinians don’t even exist. Same with your cronies here.

  28. Gert
    “raises” congratulations really really nice typo
    but now it’s time for you to calm down a bit, this thread is for ADULTS.
    To make you feel less neglected, I promise to let you know if Donny something should show up at the Elder, I think you two will really hit it off together. I think he is Dutch, so maybe you could chat him up in Flemish.

    ah and here is a really interesting piece about a chat with A’jad, he sure has something in common with you, he seems to think of himself as a sort of moral philosopher and there is so much hate for Israel in it that it might help you to finally finish your “manual” – left or right or both like Fake Ibrahim?
    Boy, will you be surprised if those guys take over your life …

  29. Richard
    I am now getting a grip on this; the British courts are basically turning political and deciding international law for us.
    I think you got a point there, I think there is a trend a kind of competition going on as to who will become Overlord of International Law

    BTW for those interested in Int’l Law here is a very good Lecturer telling fascinating stuff about it

  30. richardmillett

    Gert, there are no guarantees in life but with Hamas around then withdrawal is tantamount to suicide. It is like our troops withdrawing from Afghanistan too early. I wouldn’t like to be a woman then. Would you?

  31. Gert should go get it over with and join Hamas already.

    Him and his disgusting “demonize Israel” scumbag buddies have no business in the mainstream universe

  32. Richard
    here is another link to your post

    I guess as of tomorrow it will have spread to lots of other sites and increase your readership

    and never mind Gert, all these immature ignorant kids forever stuck in their arrested adolescence are salivating at the idea of witnessing real world history preferably with lots of massacres and them all moaning “oh that’s not what we wanted” “how should we have known that that was in the offing” and other similar nonsense, first advocating for it and then me? me nix wissen! me innocent! me only for peace

  33. Gert, from whom is Judea and Samaria occupied?

  34. Gert, I see you’re back to using a capital”O” for “Occupied”. Why?

  35. Gert – Palestinians exist in Israel – in fact, they make up a fifth of the country. No Jews exist in the Palestinian run areas?

    Why’s that, Gert? Or did the Jews bring it on themselves?

  36. Nice that you label Jews “undesirables” Gert. You did mean to use quotation marks – didn’t you?

  37. Gert wrote:
    “What the Nazis did to Jews and other undesirables was legal in Nazi Germany.”

    Well picked up Adam. My antennae honed right in on that one. He forgot the quotation marks around “undesirables.”

    True colors or an innocuous mistake? Hmm. I will put my money on the former.

    Let me see. When Adolf Hitler spoke of the annihilation of the Jewish race throughout Europe, he was just quoting someone else. He didn’t mean it himself.

  38. Howdy Adam and Nick,

    our dear little Gert is in for a heavy disappointment. Further up the thread I promised him a cozy one on one with Donny, a regular at the Elder. Well today Donny has surprised everybody, making short shrift of this boycotterie nonsense.

    As to “undesirables” how can you dare to assume that Gert would not include each and everybody else we went after during the 3rd Reich. Even though each of their numbers are horrifying enough they pale next to what we inflicted on Jews but as has been shown here again and again Gert is incapable of recognizing how a donkey is different from a horse. Both have 4 legs, they can mate, so they are the same.

  39. If the store manager wouldn’t even turn up to testify then I doubt the prosecution saw any point in continuing. Bit of a non-event really, I don’t see a conspiracy here – it’s just a shame those noisy idiots feel like they’ve accomplished something.

  40. richardmillett

    I agree Matt, but maybe she was scared. But i don’t know why she wasn’t there. It is worth trying to find out.

  41. This quote: “The jury may feel his efforts investigating the company merit the George Cross.” doesn’t appear in the transcript, which instead says “Indeed, people like Mr. Osmond, who put themselves in harm’s way to protect others may, in fact — there may be much to be admired about people like that. Perhaps if he had done it in this country in the last war he would probably have received a George Medal.”

    Quite a difference.

  42. The only solution is for the shop owners to sue for damages in a civil case.

  43. Looking at this from a different perspective requires one to know where the goods were actually made. Ahava uses several Kibbutz on both sides of the green line to process their products (Ein Gedi (within Israel), Kalya (In the disputed territories), and Mtzpe Shalom (in the disputed territories) – if you accept that the disputed territories are not part of the State of Israel, then good made in the disputed territories cannot be described as made in Israel.

    Legal guidance I have read says that

    Section 36 of the Trade Descriptions Act states that goods are deemed to have been manufactured or produced in the country in which they last underwent a treatment or process resulting in a substantial change. The Act does not define “substantial change” although one Order´ has been made under this section which explicitly states that the process of silver-plating stainless-steel cutlery does not constitute a ´substantial change”. (Trade Descriptions (Country of Origin) (Cutlery) Order 1981, SI 1981/122)

    For guidance it is suggested that placing a finished product into a container or outer box or carrying out a simple finishing process on a product would probably not be considered to be substantially changing its nature. On the other hand, creating a garment from cloth, albeit imported, would be likely to be considered to result in such a change.

    It should be emphasised that it is not just country of origin statements which may mislead. Statements about a town, county, or region etc., are also covered by the Act, as are any other statements about origin.

    If the representative from Ahava had attended court they would have possible been asked in which country (Israel or the ‘OPT’) they good were made (i.e underwent substantial change). If they were made in the OPT then not only would the defence of ‘we did it to stop a crime being committed (selling goods which were mislabelled) be more credible but Ahava would be open to prosecution under the Trade Description Act.

    Not attending court, at least protects Ahava from this outcome, although I suspect the local (Camden) trading standards will now be under intense pressure to open their own investigation into the labelling of goods.

  44. Jonathan Hoffman

    Ahava is saying they never knew about the trial which was why the store manager did not turn up to testify.
    CPS cockup?
    Surely not…

  45. I like David Guy’s idea – a civil case could be he way forward. Any legal experts wish to comment on this?

  46. Jonathan Hoffman

    A civil case relies on the willingness of Ahava to pursue it and to finance it.

  47. Jonathan Hoffman

    If it is true that Ahava was never informed about this trial (hence their manageress did not testify) there needs to be a retrial.

    • There’s no basis in law for there to be a retrial, it was for the prosecution to prove their case at this trial.

      The claim that Ahava knew nothing of the trial doesn’t stand-up, even if the CPS had made no attempt to contact Ahava before the trial, that wouldn’t have stopped from doing so once it became clear no-one from Ahava had come to court.


      “The store manager, Rita Trindade who was required to give evidence did not attend court and had been informed in advance of the trial date. This was by letter sent to her by the police witness care department. When she did not attend court, a witness summons was applied for and granted by the court requiring her to attend on 10 August. This was personally served on her on 9 August by the officer in the case and it was explained to her she needed to attend court. On 10 August Trindade did not attend court in answer to the summons and all efforts by the police to contact her failed. As the store manager of Ahava, she was the key prosecution witness. Without her we were unable to continue with the case and so offered no evidence against each defendant,” CPS said in a statement.

  48. richardmillett

    In a civil case Ahava would also need to prove loss, which was minimal. I am surprised there was nothing mentioned about assault because as i understand it the staff were petrified while this was all taking place. One does not need to be physically assualted for there to be an “assault”.

    • There needs to be an apprehension of immediate physical contact though.

      • Really???
        having induced a nice little nervous break-down, crying fit whatever will not count as injury before British courts?
        if so, what about all those grievances experienced by the grievance-mongering crowd I read about? None of them ever been before a court?

      • Silke, it appears that you are confusing civil claims for personal injury with the criminal offence of Common Assault.

  49. as to assault – in hindsight they should have gone to a doctor and their “damage” noticed asap afterwards

    could it be that British law has some tricky provisions that might endanger the brand? Assuming that Ahava is a registered brand (name, writing, image, colour) any possible danger to that would be really expensive and its damage possibly incalculable

  50. richardmillett

    Yes, silke, the last thing that Ahava would want is a lengthy court case especially as the whole brand is to do with relaxation. Is that what you mean? Most companies avoid court cases which is why the likes of Waitrose and Sainsbury’s allow them selves to be regularly invaded by anti-Israel protesters and never take any further action.

  51. No, Richard, I meant that if for example they have filed their brand name Ahava as located in Israel, could the claim of misleading the consumer lead in a maybe long and convoluted way to the reservation/exclusivity of the name becoming damaged.
    A brand name just like a URL maybe worth quite a bit, think of all the money that has gone into advertising to make it recognizable. I haven’t worked in the brand department itself but I overheard my colleague there quite often chanting names of other brands to hear if they sounded similar and if they did, of would go the letter, we were there first and mind you that was for only the sound and the same applied to every other aspect of it that was protectable under the law. And it isn’t just the name, with such an obviously carefully designed packing there may be a lot at stake and defense of the brand is for any company which has consumer products on the market foremost in their mind not least because it is so expensive to establish.

  52. Jonathan Hoffman said: A civil case relies on the willingness of Ahava to pursue it and to finance it.

    Ahava may have to pursue it because a plaintiff must demonstrate damage but anyone can finance it. That means the Israeli Government, the British Jewish Community, a charity formed for that purpose, Legal Aid, a friendly billionaire …

    Richard Millett said: In a civil case Ahava would also need to prove loss, which was minimal. I am surprised there was nothing mentioned about assault because as i understand it the staff were petrified while this was all taking place. One does not need to be physically assualted for there to be an “assault”.

    Damages include loss of earnings from closing the store, expenses such as staff wages and the cost of removing concrete-filled oil drums (somehow I don’t think the cleaning lady could handle that). There are also punitive damages i.e. a penalty above the actual damages, at the discretion of the judge.

    Assault is also a civil offence. Damage can be ‘pain and suffering’ and it can be quantified.

    Clearly taking any case to court can be a gamble. The MacDonalds ‘MacLibel’ case has shown that. OTOH not taking it up guarantees that Ahava, other Israeli companies and in the broader sense any company not considered politically correct will suffer this ‘death by a thousand cuts’.

  53. Further to the above comment. Lower damages may lead to a small claims action in the County Courts. The cost is minimal and the action typically takes one day, which limits bad publicity of the ‘big bully attacking the defenceless little man’ variety. If the protesters walk out, each with a ₤5,000 judgement against them that would be quite a deterrent.

    • Franne Frank

      No matter how many brave protestors go to court, there will always be moral people who will ensure a presence is kept every fortnight. Ahava will be history soon, just like the state of Israel.

  54. Bye, Bye Ahava, your days are numbered. Well done to the protestors!
    This is only the beginning…

  55. Jonathan Hoffman

    @David Guy
    Thanks. Maybe contact me offline, Richard will give you my email address.

  56. Franne Frank

    Yes Schulteiss, you are right. This is the beginning of the end for Ahava. I will be outside cheering when they close down their shop.

    • thanks for the link Jonathan
      I think you are right to protest against AHAVA

      they are great at beautifying just about everybody but I’m afraid even a surgeon would despair when looking at your face

  57. Your conscience

    How can I get the opportunity to close down their shop for the day? It looks like fun.

    bYE AhAVA


  58. Max Goldstein

    Happy Birthday Gilad. We should dig up you up and kill you again.

  59. richardmillett

    “FranneFrank”, “Your conscience” , “Schulteiss” and particularly “Max Goldstein”, you are a vile bunch who will eventually overstep the mark and receive your commeuppance.

  60. Richard
    they aren’t only a vile bunch, the poem is more than lousy
    I’d be ashamed to come up with such a limping rhyme
    is that why they have to resort to force because they have only mush between the ears?

    No Matter How You Boo and Bray
    ISRAEL Is Here To Stay

    and for more mundane purposes this one

    You’ll never need an Avatar
    if you root for AHAVA





      • Franne Sweetheart
        in Germany even the smallest towns offer creative writing courses evening classes, look around they may be available in London also and they tend to be inexpensive.
        you are such a lousy poet I doubt it’ll help you much but maybe the scathing critique by your co-students will make you realize that you’d better stay away from it
        BTW I like your description of Zionist women, looking into a mirror must have inspired you to it

        you evil vile heinous untalented ignorant blasphemer of a name which is dear and holy to me …

  61. richardmillett

    “Franne Frank”, with enemies like you Israel has no worries.

  62. Deborah Fink

    British justice is alive and well! We can now occupy Ahava with impunity, just as Israel occupies the West Bank (and the seas!) with impunity!

    The shop owner was probably instructed not to turn up as she’d have to show that the business is unlawful (hence why the activists are not guilty of trespass). The same has happened with Carmel Agrexco. Every time the place is blockaded by activists, the charges get dropped as the owners are scared of testifying in court. One of the reason for these occupations and blockades is to expose the illegality of these companies. The other is of course to stop them going about their (illegal) business.

  63. Deborah
    I’m worried about you, it must feel terribly uncomfortable and even hurt to be locked in a mindset like yours.

    Heaven, you people can’t even come up with a half-way decent word game
    but what can one expect of people whose brain is mush sluggishly sweeping back and fort from one ear to the other

    If you had any brains you’d come up with a scheme about Palestinian World Domination to come and compete honestly on it, but long before you will even have thought up the first sentence the Persian empire will have bombed you to smithereens, look at the map, a bomb on Tel-Aviv will cost you dearly and the nutter in Teheran doesn’t give sh.t about you.

  64. Franne Frank, your comments demonstrate the hypocrisy and hollowness of all the “protestors” (Fink take note) – you aren’t remotely interested about “legality”, you simply want Israel to be annihilated. And the choice of your username shows what a Jew hating scumbag you are.

    • “A jew hating scumbag?” I’m more Jewish than you are! I belive in kindness, compassion and altruism. You and your Zionist/Israeli mates don’t even know the definition of these words.

      Your name backwards is ‘mada’, = MAD A(dam).

      You’ll always be wondering when the next occupation of Ahava will be.

      Put that in your pipe and smoke it!


  65. The best reply to these haters is to buy Ahava. I have just bought some goodies for my wife and my Mum – simply to spite these disgusting people. i urge others to do the same – it drives them crazy!

  66. What these haters have managed to achieve is closing down a lingerie business across the way from Ahava. meanwhile, Ahava’s business is doing well.

  67. As to buying AHAVA

    note for all country bumpkins

    amazon. de has it and so does and so does com and I suppose all others

    no more need to photoshop
    if into AHAVA you pop

  68. Adam
    how right you are and any shop closed means work places lost

    once upon a time British unions were the most agile and watchful ones when it came to workplace protection and now they tolerate this demented boycotting crowd?

  69. Deborah Fink
    Some of your activist friends support a 2 state solution. The vast majority including Conscience posting above show their true intent when reciting their mantra Palestine from the River to the Sea will be free which of course begs the question by what means will this occur. Surely you do not expect Israelis to hold a national referendum in order to assist your cause by voting for the dissolution of their state. That being the case are you and your acolytes advocating other means of attaining your goal .Purely rhetorical as we all know the answer.
    I am not sure as to your stance on this point. Unfortunately your views are not helped by your narcisstistic tendency to screech unintelligible PSC soundbites through a megaphone .
    However let us for the purpose of my comment suppose that you support the premise of a 2 state solution.
    The one killer rejoiner is that if that was indeed the case ,what prevented the Palestinians from declaring statehood on the West Bank and Gaza at any time between 1947 and 1967 when there was no occupation and no settlements.

    Again purely rhetorical as we all know the answer that then as now the objective was,as your friend Conscience so succinctly puts it ” From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Free .- But not in any foreseeable future[my words]
    Am Chai Israel

  70. “The best reply to these haters is to buy Ahava.”

    This reminds me of what Wood Allen said about the KKK:
    “I think you should defend to the death their right to march, and then go down and meet them with baseball bats.”

  71. Silke, I’m a country bumpkin and bought my Ahava products online – easy, just from the Ahava UK site. If I lived in London I’d turn up to counter the haters.

  72. Jonathan Hoffman

    I urge everyone to come to Ahava London on Saturday between 12 and 2pm, buy something, come out and wave the bag in the faces of the haters. Nothing causes them more knicker-twist – it is worth every penny – as is the product itself.

  73. thanks Adam for the hint

    I checked it they have a German site also which provides a link to the UK as well as to Austria.

    Wow do I look forward to guys swooning even more than I’m used to – 😉 – when next I stroll through our inner city !!!

  74. Judah
    I concur “then go down and meet them with baseball bats.”

    I would just like to add that:
    first those capable of doing the swinging should go and take a trainings course at exactly the same outfit that trained those IHH-thugs on the Marmara
    – believe an old Feldenkrais-student, they had quite a swing, not one likely to be acquired without expert help – highly recommendable if applied in favour of the good ones.

  75. FRanne sweetheart

    why oh why was there never a moment’s doubt in my head and my heart that you must be of the “I as a Jew” crowd

    and darling stop your attempts at sloganeering or the men in white may take pity at you and conclude that they need another cubicle to be populated in their home for the terminally insane.

    Is there a money pot where I can donate a bit so that those who show up on Saturday to shop at Ahava again and again can recuperate from the insanity imbibed while passing those idiots in the next decent coffeeshop?

  76. I think I’ve finally found out how it all fits together:

    The Anti-Ahava-istas are part of the ISM, the International Solidarity Movement, right? (what does Solidarnosz say about this maligning of its name?)

    ISM’s training program for volunteers includes a sexual assault and harassment section stating “we have heard about a lot of sexual harassment and assault specifically towards women in the West Bank.” – stop ululating idiots, Palestinians are the assaulters, not what you were hoping for.
    stop hooting idiots – it’s the piece with most links in it.

    Now as AHAVA undoubtedly results in making attractive females look even more alluring and is thus responsible for lets say Tel-Aviv-women having become famous the world over (don’t start hoping Franne, even AHAVA can’t iron smirks out of faces) it is clear that AHAVA is complicit in inducing the helpless Palestinians into attempting assaults and doing some harassing. Seeing something ravishing and adorable has this effect on men in arrested adolescence. (remember all those novels where catching a glimps of an ankle could get guys into a state – if yes that’s about the mindset I imagine for those Westbank guys and the male yellers you have to cope with)

    Therefore Frannie and her buddies by attempting to ruin AHAVA hope to make sure that Palestinian boys will stay on the path of virtue and keep their virginity intact. BTW where and with whom do these boys practice? Don’t blush, all rural boys in need I have ever known had funny stories to tell how they solved that problem.

    Perfectly clear isn’t it? AHAVA causes Palestinian males to attempt rape of unwitting peace activists.

    How deluded must you be to spend your precious Saturday time on such nonsense when it is well known that Palestinian boys are so hard up they would even try “it” with “I-as-a-Jew”-Franne.

  77. I thought about “Franne Frank”‘s comments about Zionist women. Do you think she had this in mind?

    Perhaps they all use Ahava products.

    See it and weep Franne.

  78. oh Adam how can you be so cruel

    other than that, of course they all use AHAVA, after all they aren’t dumb and thick like our own dear Frannie very obviously is.

  79. This is a good jewish answer to all our critics

  80. Jason
    Silke, it appears that you are confusing civil claims for personal injury with the criminal offence of Common Assault.
    I am German and I feel pretty certain that if somebody had threatened/cajoled/maneuvered me into a nervous breakdown the state’s prosecutor (Staatsanwalt) would be interested.

    • There are other offences which would cover that situation, but assault it is not. And of course, as you well know, nobody has made a complaint of any such thing.

      • Jason
        yes I know, nobody has made such a complaint but hopefully they have learnt and will not neglect to do it, if another assault should be tried.

        Even now I’d advise them to go and see an ear specialist to try to establish damages to their hearing
        – you can beat the sly ones only by going sly yourself

        (btw all the advice I am doling out here I got from the boss of our local crime squad herself i.e. unless you have the damage certified the police has a tough time helping you)

  81. I thank Franne Frank for his/her comment about “Zionist” women. I thank him/her (oh sod it lets just call him/her It, which seems more appropriate anyway) because It drops its mask of “anti Zionism” in the clearest possible way to expose within Itself a cesspool of naked raw antisemitism. The denigration of an entire group by indiscriminately attributing to the entire group repellent physical characteristics is the archetypal tactic of the Racist in general, and of the antisemite in particular. (Of course as Adam’s above link graphically illustrates it is laughably and woefully inaccurate).

    The fact that It asserts its Jewishness in no way negates this internalised racism, the hatred which turns on itself, and twists into a double helix, with self hatred and self regard entwined.
    Take Its statement:
    “A jew hating scumbag?” I’m more Jewish than you are! I belive in kindness, compassion and altruism.”

    This is the text book manifestation so ably set out in Adam’s superb essay here:
    He quotes Julius who refers to such tragic folk as Franne as “moralisers who continually desire affirmation from the non-Jewish world as to their righteousness.
    The moraliser makes judgments on others, and profits by so doing; he puts himself on the right side of the fence. Moralising provides the moraliser with recognition of his own existence and confirmation of his own value. A moraliser has a good conscience and is satisfied by his own self-righteousness . He is not a self-hater; he is enfolded in self-admiration. He is in step with the best opinion.”
    The nature of the jeering also places Franne firmly in the frame of arrested adolescent petulance so sharply delineated in Adam’s essay.

    Whereas Franne manifests the twisted rope of self hatred/self regard, Debra Fink presents as a more simple soul: just blissful self regard caught in the Petronella Pan joy of being able to chant things like:
    Ahahahahava! and revelling in her inner child by disinhibited trilling to the public over her megaphone.

  82. Mosche Dee “Internet killed Israeli PR?” catchy beat but makes no sense. The whole mash up is just that: a mishmash with no cogent point.

    • Perhaps this would suit you Amie. This is an old family film and they dont make them like this anymore. A classic, set in ages past . Like most family films, it has a happy ending.


  83. Troubling outcome in court. Still, reading elsewhere today, the BDS movement is having so little effect, it’s website is almost unfindable on Google, its so far down the list of websites being looked for.

    Judging by the type of people that regularly turn up opposing Ahava/Israel and by the contributions above, it would seem that amie’s post above is pretty accurate, a ragtag bunch of rather sad individuals, the Jews among whom are self satisfied moralisers desperate for approbation from their non Jewish acquaintances.

    One only has to hear Fink if nothing else.

    Franne Frank, you may claim to be Jewish but you would need to be a bizarre individual to take that name and then call yourself kind, compassionate and altruistic.

  84. Cityca – my thoughts exactly.

    Do the males who take part in these ‘protests’ consider themselves ‘men’? Shouting at and intimidating women who work in a shop thousands of miles away from the source of the protestors’ so-called ‘concerns’, and harrassing more women who buy from the shop.

    I really feel very strongly about ‘men’ who behave in this fashion towards women. I’d like to see them balance their ‘protest’ out by hopping on a plane to Israel and confronting men in uniform. Women are easy pickings.

    As for their ‘pro-Pal’ stance – well, it makes for a good laugh. They’re no more pro-Pal than Arafat was. A genuine supporter of Palestinian people would be concerned for their real and everyday welfare and therefore rally against the Hamas et al who keep them locked into a situation whereby they are mere pawns in a long-term and bloody aim.

    This Ahava lot are mere uninformed exhibitionists who love their pathetic self-rightousness far more than they ‘love’ the Palestinian people.

  85. Stop the bullshit Hasbara HOFFMAN:

    “The store manager, Rita Trindade who was required to give evidence did not attend court and had been informed in advance of the trial date. This was by letter sent to her by the police witness care department. When she did not attend court, a witness summons was applied for and granted by the court requiring her to attend on 10 August. This was personally served on her on 9 August by the officer in the case and it was explained to her she needed to attend court. On 10 August Trindade did not attend court in answer to the summons and all efforts by the police to contact her failed. As the store manager of Ahava, she was the key prosecution witness. Without her we were unable to continue with the case and so offered no evidence against each defendant,” CPS said in a statement.

  86. Mizrahi
    be careful, jerking off in public maybe harmful to keyboards

    as to Ahava – thanks for the quote, by now I am guessing that it is the US-branch that calls the shots and I think EoZ mentioned that they changed their website immediately upon publication of the verdict.

    so my guess is getting substance that the US thinks that there is a quirk in the law that may be capable of harming the brand

    If you want an example of what I mean when I refer to quirk in the law, here is one:
    but I’m sure Mizrahi supermind will explain that one in no time whatsoever that is if she can free her hands for a moment from whatever she is doing right now.

    • Why the sexually graphic reply?

      It is deeply ironic that you of all online characters are claiming that I am the one wasting my time masturbating. I only quoted the Jerusalem Post…

  87. Richard,

    On teh Indymedia page below they show you at approx. 4:40 mins plus a demonstrating with the English Defence League -Mr. Jonathan Hoffman, the Vice-Chairman of the Zionist Fedtration of Great Britain and Ireland was also very prominent.

    I honestly do not think that this is doing any good whatsoever-may I make a suggestion.

    Ask teh Met.Police to have a separate “Pen” for teh EDL. The publicity is doing no good whatsoever.

  88. the most I got from the video was that their yelling “boycott Ahava” implanted the brand name even deeper in my memory which can according to psycho 101 only lead to better sales for them

  89. here is the list of Irish Boycott Idiots – it is a bit hard to find on their website so to make it easier for all who have hitherto spent money on products of the idiots who have signed, here’s the link

  90. Just out of interest, anyone know anything about Bruce Levy (one of the “Covent Garden Four”)? Is he a Solicitor, perchance?

    I was at law school, many moons ago, with someone by that name (as incongruous as “Gert Goldstein”). Bruce was from Jamaica. Used to read The Racing Post at the back of lectures!

    Anyway, hard to believe that someone with such pedigree would be standing outside Ahava with losers like me old mate:

  91. richardmillett

    Mike, I think he’s 54!

  92. wow
    54 and between jobs – that’s a dreary prospect

  93. Okay. Put that one to bed. He did seem too cool to be one of that sad lot!