Big Deal

July 20, 2016

big deal

Israel trademark Application Number 131862 to H.A.B. Trading LTD is for the words “BIG DEAL” for Shop services for toys, kitchenware, disposable articles, houseware, clothing for children, and drawing books in class 25.

Yidiot Internet filed a request to have the mark canceled.

For those of you wondering what’s the big deal, the following images may help clarify:

H.A.B. Trading have stores of discounted goods and Yediot Internet (YNet) has an internet special offer website.

H.A.B. Trading LTD has now requested that Yidiot Internet’s counter-evidence be deleted from the file. Yidiot countered the request, but H.A.B. Trading did not respond before 15 June 2016 when Ms Yaara Shoshani-Caspi, Adjudicator at the Israel Patent Office gave the following decision.

The mark owner (H.A.B. Trading LTD) claimed that Yediot Internet were tardy and missed the deadline for filing their counter-evidence with the court and with the mark owner.Furthermore, the counter-evidence was unacceptable in that it was not provided as an affidavit, did not include a warning from the attorneys to tell the truth or suffer the consequences, and did not include the title “expert opinion”.

Yediot Internet responded H.A.B. Trading LTD’s request for cancellation was niggardly and superfluous. They consider that the counter-evidence was timely filed, were in the appropriate form, and if the court rules otherwise, they should have an opportunity to repackage the response in an appropriate manner.

RULING

The correct way to present evidence in a trademark proceeding are given in regulations 38 and 40 of the trademark regulations 1940.

Regulation 38 states:

The opposer has to submit all his evidence within two months of receiving the applicant’s response.

Regulation 40 relates to the response to the opposer’s response to the applicant’s evidence and states:

In response, the opposer may submit counter evidence within two months and deposit a copy with the applicant.

Ms Shoshani-Caspi concluded that the last date for the applicant for cancellation to file counter-evidence was 6 April 2016,. The evidence was filed on 7 April 2016 – i.e. a day late. The mark owner only received a copy by registered mail on the 17 April 2016 .

The language of Regulation 40 should be understood as instructions for one party to provide evidence to the other party simultaneously with submitting the evidence to the patent office and not afterwards. However, as a matter of principle, disputes should not be decided based on procedural issues only where there is no irreversible damage to the opposing party. See 189/66 Asiz Sasson vs. Kedma LTD  – Car and Equipment Factory P.D. 20(3) 466, 479. In this instance, the procedural irregularities do not cause irreversible harm to the mark owner since the next stage of the proceedings is to fix a date for a hearing. The tardiness does not justify cancelling the proceedings.

That said, the document titled “Response to Dr Sarid’s Opinion has a signed blank sheet attached that casts aspersions regarding whether the signature belongs with the response, as there is no reason for the last page not to be signed. The document does not include the name of the expert who wrote it and is undated. It is also not endorsed by a lawyer. So whilst cancelling the evidence and closing the case on procedural grounds is a drastic step, this does not mean that anything is acceptable.

Consequently, the applicant for cancellation has 14 days to resubmit the expert opinion as a proper signed and dated affidavit with appropriate lawyer’s warning within 14 days, and to ensure that the trademark owner’s counsel receives a copy in this period as well. Interim costs of 800 Shekels + VAT are awarded to the mark owner, to be paid within 14 days.

 


Shabbat Lifts Not for the Public Good

July 18, 2016

 

shabbat liftG.L. Glatt Lift Company LTD filed a patent application for a Shabbat Lift; an elevator that may be used on the Jewish Sabbath without transgression of the holy day. (The term Glatt relates to a standard for Kosher beef that the generally accepted Ashkenazi authorities consider a stringency. By transference, the term implies super-Kosher, or something similar. Many Jewish authorities allow usage of a lift that stops automatically, or riding in a lift in a hospital or similar if someone assumed to be non-Jewish operates it for their benefit. Other authorities are stricter. More discussion on this is given at the end of this article).

Maalit ShabbatIn this instance, the Applicants have filed a patent for a technological Hallachic solution that is allegedly novel and inventive and that is claimed to overcome the reservations of those Hallachic authorities that do not allow usage of the type of ‘Shabbat Lifts’ that are common in apartment blocks with religious residents.

Israel Patent Application No. IL 221842 titled “Shabbat Lift” was submitted on 9 September 2012 The application claims priority from a US provisional application number 61/533,244 that was filed on 11 September 2011, and a corresponding PCT applicaition, No PCT/IB2012/054604 was also filed.

On 13 October 2015, the Applicants received a Notice Prior to Examination to which they responded on 1 February 2016 with a list of prior art. The submission of a response to the Notice Prior to Examination creates a state of affairs by which the application is ready for examination (see 5.3 of the Examination Procedure for Examiners).

On 1 February 2016 the Applicant also submitted a request for accelerated examination, which is a petition to make special. The justification for the request was that awarding the patent was in the public interest.

The Applicant claimed that the lack of appropriate Shabbat lifts prevented high-rise accommodation for the Ultra-Orthodox and the proposed solution would overcome this barrier. The Applicant considered that his invention would facilitate high-rise Ultra-Orthodox accommodation and thereby minimize land usage (by increasing the population density) and would thereby lower building costs.The solution would also make life easier for the ill, the elderly and children who could not use elevators on Shabbat. Various articles regarding the lack of accommodation for the Ultra-Orthodox were appended.

The statement was not specific, but it appears that the legal support was claimed from Section 19a (v) and (vi) that state that:

An applicant for accelerated examination with reasonable arguments may submit a reasoned request, together with a statement supporting the facts; all of the following, inter alia, may be considered reasonable justification:

(5) common good;

(6) special justifiying circumstances.

Generally patents are examined in turn so ‘first come, first served’ as per Section 9 of the Patent Law:

If more than one applicant request a patent for the same invention, he that first applied will prevail. 

The order of examination is generally on a ‘first come, first served’ basis as per Section 34a of the regulations:

34a the applications will be allocated to each internal classification group and within each classification group, will be examined in turn. 

Examination in turn both facilitates Section 9 and also ensures that relevant prior art is available to the Examiner. The first come, first served regime is itself in the public interest – See ruling re Petition to make special Israel Patent Application no. IL 216870 to Cimas Limited, 24 March 2014.

The possibility for making an application special is an exception to the general rule. It undermines the principle of first come first served, makes the examination more difficult and arguably damages the quality of the examination.  For example, a queue jumping application may be examined and allowed without realizing that an earlier filed application that was not examined challenges the novelty or inventiveness of the claims. Any fast-tracking results in other applications being delayed and is thus against the public interest.

Fast tracking risks unfairness, but the legislators allow it under circumstantes detailed in Section 19a of the Law where there is an over-riding public intereest or special circumstances. Secton 19a was legislated in the 10th amendment to the patent law that came into effect on 12 July 2012. From examination of the discussion at the committee state it is clear that the Commissioner has the discretion to explain the law. It is clear that the type of justification that is acceptable is extreme circumstances. For example: : there could be circumstances that a dramatic discovery is like an earthquake and is positive for the State of Israel. (Isaak Herzog, Knesset legislative committee discussion of 13 March 2012).

The justifications listed in Section 19a were actually those for third parties to request an application be fast-tracked but there is no reason to suppose that they are not applicable to requests by the Applicant himself. Nevertheless it appears that what the legislators intended was something of interest to the entire population as of national interest for the whole population and not for micro-economic interests of one sector or another. There is an underlying assumption of public interest in all patents. The only justification for ever granting a patent (i.e. a monopoly, albeit limited in time and geographical application) is that there is a national interest in micro-economic profits and technological progress.

No-one challenges the fact that each patent provides a different public interest depending on the type of invention and its application. There is no clear economic or social scale that can be used to rank different patents. However the same term is generally understood in the same manner in different legislation to provide coherency (see Aharon Barak, Volume 2, Legislative Interpretation, Nevo 1993 pages 313 and 321. Thus the term “common good” in Section 19a of the patent law is a priori similar to the term in Section 122 which discusses forced licenses. Section 122 states:

The Commissioner, where he comes to consider the request for a compulsory license under Section 117 should consider, inter alia:….

….

(2) the common good generally obliges that all inventions should provide the protected goods by manufacturing or import, so enable widest possible supply in the circumstances, without delay.. 

The DIstrict Court ruled in 881/94 Eli Lilly and Company vs. TEVA Pharmaceuticals LTD 25 November 1998:

In the field of patents, the common interest is the main and dominant cause for determining balances and rights. There may be a specific basis for worrying for private interest of the specific owners, and a patent an be considered as a reward that the legislators bestows on the entrepreneur. But the main justification of the patent system is the public considerations of utility and profit that affect the community taken as a whole. Whilst it is true that a patent provides protection to an individual, the existence of the right and its extent are determined by how much they fulfill the public interest. In this regard a patent is like a compulsory license. In both cases a personal right is provided to an individual but the underlying rationale for granting the rights is the common good. Just as the compulsory license is not granted for the benefit of the applicant, similarly a patent is only granted to the owners because it is in the public interest. It is not a balance between private rights and the public interest, but rather a balance between different public interests that together define the common good.

Thus the common good in this instance, as with compulsory licenses, is the result of balancing different public interests. Where the Applicant desires to depart from the general balance of interests including the principle of ‘first come first served’, the justification for jumping the queue has to be something weighty of significance to the wider public or a positive macro economic effect.

Furthermore, from when the application is filed until it eventually issues as a patent, there is nothing preventing the applicant from implementing the invention described in the patent application, enabling the public to benefit immediately. The enforcement of a patent is of economic interest to the patentee only. First tracking is not in the public interest at all. It only serves the applicant.

Without addressing the issue of patentability at all at this stage, the Commissioner does not thing that the present invention is more ‘public good’ than other inventions and, as the applicant himself testified, it serves a specific population segment only. The petition to make special did not include any economic calculation to show why it was justified.

Although the above arguments relate to the ‘public good’ they are equally applicable to the ‘special reasons justifying advancing the examination’. Consequently the application for fast-tracking is rejected and the application will be examined in turn.

Ruling by Commissioner Asa Kling Concerning Making Special Israel Patent Application Number IL 221842 to Glatt Lifts LTD., 14 June 2016 

COMMENTS

Very few inventions positively affect everyone. If something could help 10% of the population, it seems to me that it should be considered of significance, whether the population is women, AIDs sufferers, people living near the Gazan border, parents of small children or the Ultra-Orthodox. I don’t see any reason why common good should be interpreted as of value to people across the population without regard to race, age, religion, religiosity or sexual orientation.

The underlying presumption of the Applicant is that conventional elevators do more electrical work for each passenger riding in the elevator and that this is against the laws of Shabbat to rely on Shabbat settings on lists. If this assumption is true, it affects all Jews and most of Israel’s population is Jewish. Even if many Jews are not Observant, and many more are not persuaded that using currently available Shabbat lifts are not acceptable I suspect that from the Applicant’s perspective, Shabbat observance is of value and desecration is problematically regardless of the religious philosophy of the Jew in question. It may be what’s preventing the Messiah from coming. Furthermore, the State of Israel accepts the principle of Shabbat observance as being of national interest by not allowing trading on Shabbat and by not having Shabbat desecration by the Head of State, ambassadors, etc. and by requiring Shabbat observance on army bases apart from where security considerations take precedence.

For more details of the ruling (wrongly???) attributed to Rav Elyashiv, see here. See also a report in the Yeshiva World (sic) and one from the UK’s Daily Telegraph. Rabbi Yisrael Rozen’s ruling allowing both ascending and descending in Shabbat Elevators and listing what modifications are required to enable an elevator to be used on Shabbat may be found here (Tchumin 5, 75; see also article by Professor Lev in same volume, page 58).

I took the liberty of reviewing IL 221842 to Glatt Lifts LTD and its claims. If I was examining it for patentability, I would disallow it as not being enabled. It may be enabled from the perspective of the Hallachic problem it is trying to solve, but in my opinion, it does not provide a solution that enables a person of the art to go away and build a working lift without undue experimentation which is the standard for which patent applications are judged.


Swiss Military

July 15, 2016

278777

Israel Trademark Application Number 278777 is the national phase entry of International Trademark No. 1232972 filed under the Madrid Protocol. The mark is shown above.

The Application covers Watches of Swiss origin in class 14 and was submitted by Chron AG.

The Israel Trademark Department considered the mark non-registerable for two reasons. There is a registered Israel Trademark, No 88839 for “Swiss Army” for the same goods, and the mark is confusingly similar to pending Israel Trademark Application Numbers 260989 and 273129 “Swiss Military”to Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft v.d. Armasuisse Eidg. Departement für Verteidigung, Bevölkerungsschutz und Sport, for perfumes and other toiletries in class 3, but also for watches in class 14, and so the correct way to proceed is via a competing marks proceeding under Section 29. Chrono AG transferred the Application to Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft (the Swiss Army) and the section 29 objection was rendered moot, however the similarity to 88839 remained and the Applicants failed to ovecome the objection under Section 11(9) that there was a likelihood of confusion.

During the Examination, the Applicant submitted evidence to support their claims, including a letter by Mr Peter Emch, the Chief Legal Counsel to the effect that the applicant is part of the Swiss Defense Department of the Swiss Government and is the body entitled to protect military trademarks, including Swiss Army, Swiss Military and Swiss Air Force.

 

Deputy Commissioner Ms Jacqueline Bracha noted that Applicant claimed that there is a difference between Swiss Army and Swiss Military, since the term military is broader than army. The two marks look and sound different and the only commonality is the word Swiss which is a geographical adjective.

During the hearing it transpired that the word ‘military’ means ‘of or relating to the army’ and both the owner of the mark and the applicant use their terms together with the cross that is the emblem of the Swiss Federation and which further increases the likelihood of confusion.

Martin Shneider, Legal Counsel to the swiss Army submitted an affidavit stating that it is the Swiss Army who are authorized by the Swiss Government to both the pending application and the issued mark to the third-party. The third party received a license from the Swiss government to register the term SWISS ARMY for watches and knives that are made in Switzerland and conform to quality standards.

In the circumstances, Ms Bracha did not think that the consumers would be confused regarding the source of goods carrying the requested mark or the issued mark as both are essentially owned and managed by the Swiss Army. Consequently the mark is registerable.

Ruling by Ms J Bracha concerning registerability of Israel Trademark Application Number 278777 “Swiss Military by Chrono”.

COMMENT

swiss-army-knife-funny

I think that in this case, the registered owner of the Swiss Army mark 88839 (Swiss Army Brand LTD, a Delaware Corporation), should have been contacted to confirm Mr Emch’s story, and that mark should be recorded as owned by Swiss Army and exclusively licensed to Swiss Army Brand LTD.

 

 


Ful – the Broad-bean Ruling

July 15, 2016

It is generally known that the Lilliput wars were fought over which side one should crack to access the contents of soft-boiled eggs.

Zeno Eitam owns registered Israel trademarks 262406 and 258737 reproduced above.  The words mean “House of Ful (broad-beans), Tasty and Healthful Since 1952.

Apart from Iraqi Jews who have G6PD, i.e. a recessive hereditary disease, causing a lack of the glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase enzyme, Ful is a common food amongst oriental Jews. Ful has been tasty and healthful (at least for those not allergic) far longer than since 1952, but the legendary Ful outlet in Beer Sheva was apparently established back then.

The Ashkenazi clan (that’s their surname, not origin, and one assumes they are actually Mizrachi, probably Moroccan or Tunisian) filed to have the marks cancelled due to lack of use.

Yitzhak, Shalom, Yaakov, Moshe and Yoseph Ashkenazi were represented by Adv. Einat Noy Peri. On 10 May 2016 she submitted a hand-written note to the Trademark Office withdrawing her representation, however no explanation or justification was given. On 15 May 2016, the Trademark Office ruled that she could not simply withdraw, and remained the attorney-of-record until someone else is appointed, and gave her until the following day, 16 May 2016, to state whether her evidence was provided to the other side or not, but, to date, she has not complied.

On 22 May 2015, Yitzhak Ashkenazi filed to have the cancellation proceedings abandoned. As of 24 May 2016, Yitzhak Ashkenazi has been represented by Adv. Yoram Dadia.

On behalf of Mr Eitam, Adv. David Walberg (pronounced Deivid and not Dah-vid, so presumably both Ashkenazi by extraction if not in name, and probably an import from an English-speaking country) accepted the abandonment of the cancellation proceedings. He considers that Adv. Yoram Dadia should be considered as acting on behalf of all plaintiffs, and anyway, the cancellation proceedings should be thrown out since the plaintiffs requesting cancellation did not submit any evidence supporting their claims.

The Adjudicator of IP, Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi ruled that she could not ignore the protocol of a discussion between Yitchak Ashkenazi and Ms Osnot Askenazi and Ms Bar Ashkenazi that took place on 17 April 2016 before the Been Sheva District Court Judge Ms Rachel Barkai (12737-10-15) that endorsed a compromise agreement between the parties under which the Ahkenazis would withdraw the cancellation requests in the current case.

The problem is that there is that the parties in the present case are not identical to those that were party to the case before  the District Court, and, apart from YItzhak Ashkenazi, the other parties to the trademark cancellation proceedings remains Adv. Einat Noy Peri until she manages to extricate herself from her obligations. The other plaintiffs have not agreed to have the cancellation proceedings closed, nor have they accepted Adv. Dadia as their representative. Therefore, the Court Protocol cannot be relied upon in this instance.

The question remains whether there are additional grounds for cancelling the proceedings? From reviewing the cancellation application it appears that the evidence for cancellation was submitted on a portable disk that cannot be reviewed. It is also not clear that these were provided to the mark holder. The Applicants for cancellation should be given an opportunity to provide the evidence to the court and to the mark owner in readable form.  That said, it seems pointless to order the submission of evidence in an acceptable form from plaintiffs that want to withdraw their case.

Ms Shoshani Caspi separately ordered all three lawyers, Ms Noy-Peri, Mr Dadia and Mr Walberg to inform all plaintiffs within seven days that they have 45 days to submit their evidence for cancellation in an acceptable, accessible form to the Trademark Office and to Mr Zeno Eitam or the case will be closed.

Interim ruling by Ms Yaara Shoshani-Caspi concerning cancellation proceedings against Israel trademarks 262406 and 25873 to Eitham, 6 June 2016.

 

 


Amending the Specification of an Opposed Patent Application

July 7, 2016

abbvie.png

Under Israel Law, allowed patent applications publish for opposition purposes for three months prior to issuing. If an opposition is filed, the issuance may be delayed for rather longer, if the patent issues at all.

As a general rule, the Applicant may amend ‘scribal errors’ i.e., typos in the specification and may narrow the scope of coverage of the claims, but cannot add material or widen the claims to cover something not previously within their ambit. In practice, applicants often request amendments that are allegedly permissible but which the opposer considers as somehow adding material or widening the monopoly sought. Sometimes amendments are opposed as a delaying tactic as until a patent issues, it cannot be enforced.

In the present instance, the application in question is IL 122546 to Abbvie Inc. titled “COMBINATION OF RITONAVIR AND A DRUG METABOLIZED BY CYTOCHROME P450 MONOXYGENASE AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION COMPRISING THE SAME”, which was filed two decades ago on 28 June 1996 by Abbot Laboratories as the national phase of PCT/US1996/0011015 which itself claims priority from a US provisional application (no 60/000654) filed on 29 June 1995. The case was transferred to Abbvie in June 2013.

The case was allowed and published for opposition purposes on 31 January 2012, and on 29 April 2012 oppositions were filed by Vertex Pharmaceuticals and by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries LTD.

Abbvie petitioned to amend the claims and this interim ruling relates to the proposed amendment and examines whether it is supported and whether it is indeed a narrowing of the scope of the claims.

last minuteIn his ruling of 2 May 2016, the Commissioner Asa Kling allowed the amendments to the claims but this is an interim ruling anyway and the patent, if eventually granted, will lapse anyway 20 years from filing on 29th June 2016. This begs the question as to the point of continuing with the opposition?!

The ruling has been carefully translated and is reproduced below but I have added a break as it may not be of interest to everyone…

Read the rest of this entry »


There would be one long staircase just going up…

June 25, 2016

stairway to heaven

I think Stairway to Heaven is far to long a song, and consider it over-rated. It lasts for over ten minutes, and Bohemian Rhapsody is only six minutes, and has rather more going for it. Besides, being ex-Imperial and having a PhD in physics, I feel a certain kinship with lead guitarist Dr Brian May, however I am not sure it is reciprocated.

That as may be, after an eight-day jury trial, it was ruled that the guitar riff did not infringe copyright of Spirit’s song Taurus.

I think that the media should differentiate more carefully between copyright infringement which is a crime, and plagiarism which is not.

Men at Work’s Greg Ham were accused of plagiarizing Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree in  Down Under. He committed suicide, leaving a note that said “I’m terribly disappointed that that’s the way I’m going to be remembered – for copying something…”. This was a tragedy.

Now it can happen that a song is based, possibly unintentionally on the work of another. George Harrison’s My Sweet Lord was found to have the same melody as Ronnie Mack’s He’s So Fine. The melody of Naomi Shemer’s Lu Hehi (literally let it be), bears more than a casual similarity to Paul McCartney’s Let it Be.

Of course, sometimes an unmistakable similarity does not imply that one piece is a copy of the other. A good example of this is HaTikveh (The Hope) – Israel’s national Anthem, the melody of which may be found here. there is a clear similarity to the melody of  Vltava by the Czech composer Bedřich Smetana. However, although Samuel Cohen, the composer, admitted that he was influended by a Moldovian song, it is far from clear where the melody originated and it may well have Jewish origins. That as may be, sometimes a composer will reference a line from the work of another, and this should be considered fair use. A good of example of this is the Swan-song from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake which has a four-stroke drum beat that echos Beethoven’s fifth symphonyfifth symphonyfifth symphony (Death at the Door).  I don’t see this as copyright infringement, but rather as a cultural reference. Copyright now lasts a ridiculously long 70 or 95 years. Do we really want to prevent any discernible similarities to the work of anyone in living memory in new works? The jury got it right, even if it took them over a week.

POST SCRIPT I showed this article to a client who is part of the Israeli music world. The Client studied at Netiv Meir and is not now Hallachically Observant. He told me that in the Nineties a noise-rock outfit called Plastic Venus played at the club where he worked. After the show, he asked the lead singer, Ronit Bergman, who wrote the music, and she pointed to the drummer Ilan Diamond. He went over to him and asked if he could ask him a personal question, and when Diamond agreed, asked him what Hassidic Court he grew up in. The answer was Vishnitz. If one listens to Plastic Venus’s music under the psychedelic overtones and all the distortion, one can discern Hassidic melodies. People listen to, absorb and rework the melodies of their childhood and other music they once heard. There are interesting historical reasons why Chabad Hassidim sing Napoleon’s March to this day. The reasons are linked to why the early Rebbes were incarcerated by the Tzar.

 


Mein Kampf Distributed in Italy

June 24, 2016

worthington_meinkampf

Now that it is no longer under copyright protection, Mein Kampf is being distributed freely in Italy as a supplement to the Saturday edition of the Italian newspaper Il Giornale distributed copies of the book in a decision that drew heavy criticism from Italian Jewish groups.

The president of the Union of Italian Jewish Communities, Renzo Gattegna has been quoted as saying: “The free distribution … is a squalid fact that is light years away from all logic of studying the Shoah and the different factors that led the whole of humanity to sink into an abyss of unending hatred, death and violence.”

“It must be stated clearly: The Giornale’s operation is indecent,” Gattegna said on the announcement of the paper’s decision.

Il Giornale is a center-right daily owned by the family of former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. The paper says that its version of the text was annotated by an Italian historian and was distributed with the goal of preventing the mistakes of the past from being repeated.

n an editorial, Alessandro Sallusti, the paper’s director, said that most of the discussions related to the publication were “legitimate and understandable”and that “The worries of our friends within the Italian Jewish community, who have always seen us as unconditional allies, deserve all our respect.” However, he also said that he strongly disagreed with those saying the paper published the autobiography with an“apologetic intention.” Critics had previously argued that the newspaper might have distributed the book in an attempt to underplay Hitler’s crimes.

For more on this, see here.

COMMENT

I believe that copyright protection is too long. That as may be, I think that all works should enter the public domain after they come off copyright. I am generally against banning books. I don’t think that Mein Kampf should be banned. Nor do I think that Torat HaMelekh, Baruch HaGever or other extreme right Israeli books should be banned. If anything, banning them gives them publicity that they would not otherwise have. I think that banning books and political opinions that one disagrees with is unhealthy. However, I am NOT Charlie. I don’t believe in being offensive of other’s religious beliefs.

I do however agree with Israel Minister of Culture, Miri Regev, that the government does not have to use tax payers’ money to fund anything and everything posing as culture. Tax funding can be used to subsidize cultural expressions that are mainstream or that the government sees as educational or positive. Not everything should be paid from by the public purse.

As to Mein Kampf, whilst reference libraries should have copies, I do not think that this particular work is the appropriate weekend supplement or gift for widespread distribution and if I subscribed to Il Giornale, would cancel my subscription.

The British Red Cross edition shown above goes a long way to explain why  I refuse to donate to the British Red Cross. I think that even in the 1930s it was less anti-Semitic than the Red Cross of other European countries. This explains a lot about why the International Red Cross wouldn’t recognize Israel’s Magen David Adom badge, and why I opposed Olmert from agreeing to replace it with a red diamond. I note that the Palestine Red Crescent Society was founded in 1968, by Fathi Arafat, Yasser Arafat‘s brother.[1]  This goes a long way to explain the use of ambulances to smuggle weapons.

I fully support the proposed Israel Law for transparency regarding sources of income of humanitarian organizations financed mostly by foreign governments. Whilst the organizations in question are indeed, mostly left-wing affiliated, that does not make the need for transparency any less. The government did not propose this out of narrow political interests but because it is imperative for people to realize that not ever humanitarian organization is a neutral observer on what happens in Israel. Not every left wing organization is a fifth column, but some are, and people should be aware of this.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 792 other followers