One of the nastiest CIF posters is La Ritournelle, usually abbreviated to LaRit (‘La Ritournelle’ means ‘the old story’). She was recently ‘outed’, reportedly on CIF though Harrys Place picked it up. (She sings anti-Israel songs alongside Deborah Fink). It seems that at least some of what she writes is fantasy. When it comes to Israel, she is self-righteousness personified and an expert in hypocrisy – one moment she is questioning the sanity of pro-Israel posters, the next she is sanctimoniously telling others not to do precisely what she has done:
24 April 2008: “For one, I object to the continuous attempts to insert bigoted terminology about mental health here, as if it is somehow ‘OK’. It’s NOT.”
4 April 2008: “The anti-semitism is all in your head JeremySauce, you really, really need to see a doctor and soon.”
She constantly belittles the problem of antisemitism.
Her vitriol against Jews was shown by this exchange with Linda Grant, the author, on a thread about an article by Mark Gardner (of the Community Security Trust) about antisemitism on campus.
LindaGrant
04 Apr 07, 6:16pm
A few weeks ago, a member of my family who works in a fashionable bar in East London, was asked to take off his star of David by the management because ‘some of our customers don’t like Jews.’
I told this story to a visiting Canadian on Monday night. He was speechless. When he eventually found his voice, he said that he was unable to contemplate such an incident taking place in Canada and that perhaps the scare stories about anti-semitism in Britain were not as exaggerated as he had previously believed.
LaRitournelle
04 Apr 07, 6:50pm
Bils -
all I can say is, trust Linda Grant to dig out a nice handy anecdote like that, oooh….and in a ‘trendy’ bar in East London too!
What she doesn’t mention of course is the legions of black african women, often women with children at home, languishing in the toilets of said trendy bars and clubs, the length & breadth of London, handing out toiletries and tissues to rich clubbers off their heads on coke. I think having to remove your Star of David is small fry compared to being consigned to perpetual toilet duty like a latter day servant/slave.
To Linda, and to David, writer of this cruddy, boring and predicatable article…yawn, yawn, yawn… I prescribe enforced watching of Curb Your Enthusiasm – you need to learn to lighten up. After all, yours are the voices I hear over and over again in the media ad infinitum. Change the record, please, for all our sakes and sanity!
LaRit x
LaRitournelle
04 Apr 07, 11:52pm
Mark
(apologies, I mistakenly called you David before – too f***king pissed off with that bloody Linda ‘miss priss’ Grant and her usual, parsimonious, inflammatory self-righteous anecdotal evidence, now including her bloody family members)
BTW Linda if you’re so proud of being Jewish, why don’t you call yourself by your real name? Also, I presume you’ve now gone back to your nice intellectual non-anti-semitic dinner party in Hampstead by now? You are just a rather annoying coward letting your mates do the talking.
Anyway, Mark, thanks (but no thanks)… and thanks once again to the Grauniad for giving valuable media space to yet another bored ex-public school, Oxbridge-educated jewish person in order to spark yet another boring, boring debate about the perceived onslaught of anti-semitism in the UK, just in case we all missed it about a thousand, million times before. Shouldn’t you have been writing in the Persecution Complex blog instead? because I think this is what this is all about.
I note yet again, that there there is much bullshite being bandied around here…
Yawn, yawn and yawning YET AGAIN…
LaRitournelle
05 Apr 07, 10:03am
Shachtman: here we go, I’m now having to defend myself and prove my non-anti-semitic or ‘reactionary tosser’ credentials,
Well for a start I don’t buy the SWP rag, and no darling, I’m not a ‘failed’ writer, or a ‘failed’ anything – perhaps you’re talking about yourself? Some of my dearest friends are Jewish, including one who is an Israeli. The problem is here that these line between race, religion and racism are blurred and muddled endlessly to promote a debate which avoids the real truths of the matter – Israel being the crux usually.
A true story just for a bit of balance :
I rented a flat for about two years from (as it transpired) a very wealthy Israeli property magnate here in London. He was as nice as pie to me the whole time I was a paying tenant, until the time came when I decided to move and wanted my deposit back.
As with most private landlords, they never want to give you your deposit back, ‘cos they’re nearly ALL greedy so-and-sos, whatever their race, colour or creed. Anyway, this man came and ‘inspected’ the flat to make sure I’d ‘left it as I’d found it’. Anyway, we came to the kitchen (gleaming from all my hard cleaning work) He wasn’t happy….. he was finding it very hard to find any justification for not returning my deposit. Then he found it!! – he pulled the fridge away from the wall to look underneath and there… he finally had his excuse to steal my deposit of ?500.
Suddenly, and without any provocation, he started screaming like a banshee at me : “You haven’t cleaned under here, YOU people (I presume he meant either Gentile or Irish – not sure which) YOU people are all filthy and disgusting pigs!!!” and with that, he stormed out saying he was keeping my deposit. I was absolutely astounded.
The point is that it was OK for him to racially abuse me, however, had the boot been on the other foot, and I’d called him a ‘greedy, Jewish w****ker’ what the hell do you think the outcome would have been?
You see underneath, this man had all along thought of me (gentile/irish) as a ‘filty, disgusting pig’….an inferior and not his equal, so if an Israeli guy can think of people like me as that – i.e. an animal, in London, when I’ve been paying rent to him for 2 years, what the hell do you think the facists in Israel attitude is toward the Palestinian’s?????
Incidentally, this man’s wife was a gentile who had converted… so had he thought of her in that way too, prior to her conversion to Judaism??
Just something for you to mull over…..
LaRit x
The landlord story has never been documented but is still there.
And she is still allowed to post!
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
58 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 31, 2009 at 3:10 am
exiledlondoner
“The landlord story has never been documented but is still there. And she is still allowed to post!”
Linda Grant’s star of David story has never been documented but is still there. And she is still allowed to blog.
I’m no fan of La Rit’s emotional style, and I think she regularly goes too far, but I haven’t seen anything to convince me that she’s anti-semitic – only that she’s very angry.
So for all those who’ve been demanding that I pin my colours to the mast..
1) The above doesn’t meet my criteria of what’s demonstrably anti-semitic.
2) I believe, with context taken into account, it could be considered anti-semitic under the EUMC working definition.
3) Under the CIF Watch criteria, it is undoubtedly anti-semitic according to the re-written text, it is undoubtedly anti-semitic under the catch-all “viewed in their aggregate” clause, and it is undoubtedly anti-semitic under the “MacPherson test”, but only if Louise says so.
August 31, 2009 at 3:25 am
BlindExiled
Exiled
LaRit recounts her own side (and thus suspect) of a story about an unfair landlord, and finds it relevant that he was Israeli/Jewish – yet Exiled insists:
“I’m no fan of La Rit’s emotional style, and I think she regularly goes too far, but I haven’t seen anything to convince me that she’s anti-semitic – only that she’s very angry.”
Exiled woudn’t know anti-Semitism if s/he tripped over it.
August 31, 2009 at 3:42 am
Louise
Exiled
The story oozes antisemitism from every pore. Whether or not it meets your criteria is irrelevant.
Linda Grant is a public figure writing under her own name and for you to suggest that her post is untrue says everything about you and nothing about Linda Grant.
For the blog of a major newspaper to still be carrying this material is nothing less than a complete disgrace.
August 31, 2009 at 3:58 am
Jubilation
Blind Exiled
“Exiled woudn’t know anti-Semitism if s/he tripped over it.”>
That is true and I will attempt to explain why. One thing you are going to find very hard to prove and that is the intention of expressing anti-semitism. It is an argument you are going to have unceasingly on this website and nobody is going to win.
The point perhaps is that anti-semitism generally lies in the intention and not in the execution. Most anti-semites don’t use classic examples like: all Jews love money or I hate Jews or anything as blatant or easily identifiiable on CIF or anywhere else. Most Jews recognise that someone who begins a story or includes the phrase “some of my best friends are Jewish” or “its not you, its those other Jews” is going to tell you something that you will interpret as anti-semitic though others who have not been sensitised would not accept it as such: just as those who are allergic to a substance are aware of its presence long before others are.
For instance with La Rit’s story, would she have included such specifics about her landlord’s origin had he been of another ethnic group? One doubts it, because she probably would have felt that it showed prejudice to say her Irish Catholic landlord behaved badly. However it is not absolute proof of anti-semitism.
August 31, 2009 at 4:03 am
CIFDisgustsMe
This presentation of historic posts like that just beggars belief.
La Ritournelle is still allowed to post her bile on CI(F).
One wonders what are the substance of her connections with Berchmans and Georgina Henry.
August 31, 2009 at 4:26 am
exiledlondoner
Louise,
“The story oozes antisemitism from every pore. Whether or not it meets your criteria is irrelevant.”
That’s hardly objective, is it? One could say the same about your criteria, or the EUMC definition.
The question as far as I’m concerned is whether La Rit is motivated by hatred of Jews, and having seen hundreds of her posts, I (and this is a personal opinion) don’t believe she is.
Now if I was someone who failed to see anti-semitism anywhere, you might have a point, but that’s not the case. I have seen posts (and no doubt will see them again) that do in my opinion “ooze antisemitism from every pore”, but this isn’t one of them
“Linda Grant is a public figure writing under her own name and for you to suggest that her post is untrue says everything about you and nothing about Linda Grant.”
I didn’t say that it was untrue – it (regrettably) almost certainly is true – I said that La Rit’s story was no less well documented. I had a Greek landlord who tried exactly the same (though unlike La Rit, I got my deposit back).
“For the blog of a major newspaper to still be carrying this material is nothing less than a complete disgrace.”
So you keep saying. My guess is that if you cleaned up your own act, and honestly worked to the EUMC definition, without alteration, and without add ons, then you might have an effect on the Guardian – though I doubt La Rit would be one of those effected.
August 31, 2009 at 4:36 am
exiledlondoner
Hi Jubilation,
Yes, I’d go along with most of that – anti-semitic intent can no more be disproved than proved.
I’m not belly-aching about people being labelled anti-semites – I’ve done it myself. My problem is that the site claims that it does so using the EUMC working definition.
It doesn’t – the alterations, and additional criteria make the EUMC working definition completely irrelevent to the accusations.
The most worrying extension is the conflation of the MacPherson definition with the EUMC definition – as Louise has already said, this makes a comment anti-semitic, purely because the victim (Louise, or any Jew?) says it is.
Neither the EUMC or MacPherson actually said that, but by conflating the two, that’s the result.
“For instance with La Rit’s story, would she have included such specifics about her landlord’s origin had he been of another ethnic group? One doubts it, because she probably would have felt that it showed prejudice to say her Irish Catholic landlord behaved badly.”
The subject of the thread was anti-semitism – so she clearly wouldn’t have done in this instance. The question is whether she would have done so on a thread about anti-Irish racism? I don’t know, but I’m not going to damn her because of that.
August 31, 2009 at 4:52 am
John
“BTW Linda if you’re so proud of being Jewish, why don’t you call yourself by your real name? ”
La Ritournelle tells us much with this sentence. Let us unpack this.
She is angry but why? Because she believes Ms Grant is ‘proud of being Jewish’ and yet conceals her ‘real’ name. Jews should have ‘obviously’ Jewish names so that everyone else knows they are Jewish and are therefore not to be tricked into believing that they may be (heavens forfend) English/Irish/Scottish etc. Further, to be proud of one’s heritage is a priviledge which Jews have not earned. These accusations – Jews concealing their identity, Jews being ‘proud’ (as opposed to the meekness which characterises non-Jews) – have history and resonance.
This carries echoes of Richard Ingrams – see Howard Jacobson here: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jacobson-if-richard-ingrams-wants-us-to-declare-our-ethnic-identity-im-very-happy-to-oblige-411530.html
August 31, 2009 at 5:12 am
CIFDisgustsMe
Exiled – ‘That’s hardly objective, is it? One could say the same about your criteria, or the EUMC definition.’
The story oozes antisemitism from every pore.
Full stop
I had always read the first part of your rather long comments on CI(F). I won’t bother any more. You have shown yourself to be an insensitive ass polluting this thread with your constant nit pickings.
If you don’t see it. Then Bye bye.
We will agree to differ.
CI(F) deserves you.
August 31, 2009 at 5:16 am
John
La Ritournelle has drunk from these wells:
“Cosmopolitans” was a derogatory term applied to Jewish intellectuals in the Soviet Union from November 1948, at the peak of Russian chauvinism and its struggle against Western influence. It was initiated with articles in Pravda and other central organs, which denounced those “who have no homeland” (in the country of internationalism!). The anti-cosmopolitans “unmasked” Jewish names in arts and literature, inflated their real importance in their respective fields out of all proportion, and revealed the real names of Jews using pen names, showing how Jews hid their identity behind Russian names and spread hatred of Russia (this “hatred” was exemplified by the fact that some of them dared contend that great Russian writers were influenced by such “cosmopolitans” as Heine or Bialik). The campaign subsided in May 1949, but it comprised the first public attack on Soviet Jews as Jews, and is considered to have initiated the so-called “Black Years,” which lasted until Stalin’s death. The main rabbis were arrested (Lubanov, Epstein, Lev) and many died in labor camps.”
http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/judeophobia10.htm
Jewish ‘concealment’ – see here from Yad Vashem’s archives:
http://yad-vashem.org.il/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%203276.pdf
And here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OMepNRndhN4C&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=jewish+concealment+jewish+names&source=bl&ots=_rRKaIGodV&sig=sGpMxezOHfJrU2ES6Zp_5oLvbbU&hl=en&ei=ZJGbSqLqOuOrjAf5yY2nBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=jewish%20concealment%20jewish%20names&f=false
August 31, 2009 at 5:23 am
John
Exiledlondoner should be forgiven for not knowing how coded Jew hatred can be. In my opinion, La Ritournelle’s comments re Ms Grant are indeed coded Jew hatred. Not a very disguised code for those who have knowledge, of course, but coded enough to ‘pass’.
August 31, 2009 at 5:44 am
exiledlondoner
CIFDisgustsMe,
“I had always read the first part of your rather long comments on CI(F). I won’t bother any more. You have shown yourself to be an insensitive ass polluting this thread with your constant nit pickings.”
I would have thought identifying anti-semites was an important enough issue to care about getting right?
“If you don’t see it. Then Bye bye.”
Are you going anywhere nice?
“We will agree to differ.”
You will agree to differ – I don’t let others speak for me.
“CI(F) deserves you.”
I doubt if they would agree, but cheers anyway.
John,
“Exiledlondoner should be forgiven for not knowing how coded Jew hatred can be.”
Yes, it can be – but there’s a world of difference between “can be” and “is”.
“In my opinion, La Ritournelle’s comments re Ms Grant are indeed coded Jew hatred. Not a very disguised code for those who have knowledge, of course, but coded enough to ‘pass’.”
Fair enough – in your opinion these comments are anti-semitic. That’s a perfectly reasonable position – one that I’ve taken myself.
If someone were to say that “according to the EUMC definition these comments are anti-semitic”, then that’s not a reasonable position. All the EUMC definition would support is “these comments could be anti-semitic, taking into account the context”, which is somewhat different.
August 31, 2009 at 5:53 am
blue
exiled: “2) I believe, with context taken into account, it could be considered anti-semitic under the EUMC working definition.”
We’re getting somewhere. In your opinion, do you believe this sample of LaRitournell’s posts contain elements of, baiting ?
If you agree they do, and that this baiting is extended to a specific ethnic group and that there are other samples which suggest this baiting is over a prolonged period. What are cif’s responsibilities in terms of their Talk policy, in your opinion ?
August 31, 2009 at 6:01 am
CIFDisgustsMe
blue.
You are wasting your time.
Exiled performs best when speaking to a mirror.
Now this thread is a hoot.
http://cifwatch.com/2009/08/31/the-book-of-old-guardian-chronicles/#comment-566
August 31, 2009 at 6:14 am
exiledlondoner
Blue,
I thought you weren’t going to waste any more time?
“In your opinion, do you believe this sample of LaRitournell’s posts contain elements of, baiting ?”
Not in the sense I assume you mean – jew baiting.
I would agree that the intention was probably to cause offence to other posters, but having a look at the thread, she was hardly alone in that.
“If you agree they do, and that this baiting is extended to a specific ethnic group and that there are other samples which suggest this baiting is over a prolonged period.”
I don’t think I do, if I’m right in thinking that you mean Jew-baiting. All of her comments seem to relate to either her perception that anti-semitism is being overplayed, and that she believes accusations of anti-semitism are being used to attack critics of Israel.
“What are cif’s responsibilities in terms of their Talk policy, in your opinion ?”
That’s for them to decide, but I would be happy with the bare minimum – that they remove anything that puts them at legal risk. I have never considered the ‘right’ not to be offended as a right.
August 31, 2009 at 6:41 am
John
exiled
Thanks for your response.
So you don’t believe La Ritournelle writing “BTW Linda if you’re so proud of being Jewish, why don’t you call yourself by your real name? ” was Jew baiting of Ms Grant? Those links I provided showing the provenance – hence the context – of such comments were to no avail? So what do you think La Ritournelle meant by bringing up the subject?
August 31, 2009 at 7:01 am
peterthehungarian
exiledlondoner
There is a heated argument between a British born dark skinned British citizen called E. Londoner and a WASP. Their name is absolutely indifferent regarding the subject of the discussion.
During the melee the WASP asks him/her: Why are you using a European sounding name instead the real one?
Would you say that this WASP is a racist?
Please answer with yes or no if it is possible…
August 31, 2009 at 7:21 am
blue
Blue,
“I thought you weren’t going to waste any more time?”
It probably would have been a more sensible option – either that or it’s your sheer animal magnetism which drew me back…..I adore chiwawa’s…
“Not in the sense I assume you mean – jew baiting.”
So you agree she was baiting but discount the ethnicity of those most likely to be offended ? Interesting.
“I would agree that the intention was probably to cause offence to other posters, but having a look at the thread, she was hardly alone in that.”
Other posters? Are you trying to tell me, you believe LaRit was “probably trying to cause offence” but to other posters who were most certainly NOT Jewish ? That’s really quite an imazing conclusion which you’ve come to.
“I don’t think I do, if I’m right in thinking that you mean Jew-baiting. All of her comments seem to relate to either her perception that anti-semitism is being overplayed, and that she believes accusations of anti-semitism are being used to attack critics of Israel.”
Alright, can we agree that at the crux of this discussion is where legitimate criticism of Israel strays into, or is motivated by, Jew hatred. Criticism of the IG and Jew baiting are two very different things, or at least, in an ideal world, they should be.
Let us suppose you are right in your analysis that LaRitournell’s perception is that antisemitism is being used as a cover for Israel. Having read the samples, and carefully considered your defence of LaRitournelle, I would have to say, it is my conclusion that LaRitournell cannot tell the difference between criticising the IG and, in my opinion, baiting (trying to cause deliberate offence to) British subjects who happen to be Jews – there for, it seems to follow, that those who complain anti Zionism is sometimes (though not always) a cover for antisemitism, are correct.
“That’s for them to decide, but I would be happy with the bare minimum – that they remove anything that puts them at legal risk. I have never considered the ‘right’ not to be offended as a right.”
There is a clear line between a joke which some may be offended by – between an outspoken comment about religion/any religion and a pattern of baiting (deliberately trying to cause offence to) members of a specific ethnic group. If it is an ethnic group rather than the person, under attack…well, frankly, exiled, I thought there are laws which are supposed to protect ethnic minorities from just that ?
Work to do, since my employer is not quite so generous with my time as yours, seems to be.
Have a good day.
August 31, 2009 at 7:28 am
CiFCritic
exiled the horse is dead so stop flogging it. LaRit is an out and out antisemite and your yelling the equivalent of “prove it!” as regards Linda Grant’s account is evidence either that you would not know antisemitism if it poked you in the eye, or that you would and you are deliberately trying to deflect attention away from it and from LaRit’s ignominious examples of it.
I have a suggestion: You should go onto CiF (they certainly wouldn’t ban you, would they, seeing that you are a “friend of Georgina’s”) and ask LaRit what her landlord’s Jewishness had to do with the matter in hand. The post may be removed but I’d be willing to bet that you wouldn’t be premoderated because you’re one of CiF’s sheeple. (And if you’re tempted come back with any “It’d be off-topic” bleating, remember that LaRit’s highly offensive post about the allegedly Rachman-like Jewish landlord was off-topic too but it was allowed to remain to poison the air).
So, off you go. Direct us to that post please when you have done it or, better still, post a copy to this blog. I’ll bet you don’t have the nerve.
August 31, 2009 at 7:50 am
Demeter
I looked at CiF a few times but it made me feel sick. Surely the overemphasis on Israel (or rather Israel’s alleged evilness) is evidence of some sort of sickness, but it’s plain they think they are onto a winner. Given the number of idiotic posts which continue to reinvent the wheel – ie “Israel is the only evil in the world” or variations on that theme which seem to be taken from the same propaganda manual which these fools simply regurgitate without thinking – reasoning with its powers that be is useless.
CiF offends every value of decency I possess and, on this thread and others, exiledlondoner squawking that he champions free speech and yet not speaking out online about allowing “equal rights” to the posters to want to refute the rubbish printed on CiF by writers and posters is the giddy limit.
I am not Jewish but have grown up with Jewish families around us and have close Jewish friends, some of whom support Israel, some of whom don’t give Israel more than a passing thought.
I am lucky that I am able to have discussions with all of them about how it feels to be Jewish now in such an environment. A couple of my friends read and post to CiF. They, (and I, it must be said, having read some of the filth printed there) believe that CiF feeds the antisemitic sickness that is already around, particularly when it puts up the “I speak as a Jew” apologists for the deligimisation of the state of Israel, and they minimise the antisemitism which is all around them, or, worse, blame the existence of Israel for it, thereby giving antisemites a free pass.
For fdeliberately feeding this hatefilled beast CiF is irresponsible to say the least, evil to say the most.
I am glad that CiFWatch has arrived. I hope you will make a difference.
August 31, 2009 at 8:45 am
exiledlondoner
Blue,
“I adore chiwawa’s…”
So much so, you’ve your own pet spelling for them…
“So you agree she was baiting but discount the ethnicity of those most likely to be offended ? Interesting.”
No, I have no reason to believe that their ethnicity was the motivation – I would have thought their nationalist leanings were more likely.
“Other posters? Are you trying to tell me, you believe LaRit was “probably trying to cause offence” but to other posters who were most certainly NOT Jewish ? That’s really quite an imazing conclusion which you’ve come to.”
No, to other posters who may or may not have been Jewish, and who probably both were and were not Jewish.
“Alright, can we agree that at the crux of this discussion is where legitimate criticism of Israel strays into, or is motivated by, Jew hatred. Criticism of the IG and Jew baiting are two very different things, or at least, in an ideal world, they should be.”
I think that was the motivation for many in the thread, yes.
Let us suppose you are right in your analysis that LaRitournell’s perception is that antisemitism is being used as a cover for Israel. Having read the samples, and carefully considered your defence of LaRitournelle, I would have to say, it is my conclusion that LaRitournell cannot tell the difference between criticising the IG and, in my opinion, baiting (trying to cause deliberate offence to) British subjects who happen to be Jews – there for, it seems to follow, that those who complain anti Zionism is sometimes (though not always) a cover for antisemitism, are correct.”
If you’re saying that La Rit puts herself in a position in which people are entitled to question her motives, and even say that they think she’s anti-semitic, then that’s clearly the case.
I don’t believe that La Rit is an anti-semite, but she is none to careful about how her comments come across, and as I’ve said, people might well take a different view.
“There is a clear line between a joke which some may be offended by – between an outspoken comment about religion/any religion and a pattern of baiting (deliberately trying to cause offence to) members of a specific ethnic group. If it is an ethnic group rather than the person, under attack…well, frankly, exiled, I thought there are laws which are supposed to protect ethnic minorities from just that ?”
There are, although I’m not sure they do any good. Personally I think that legislating against hatred is often counter-productive, while not enough is done about the manifestation of hatred.
But yes, I agree that the Guardian has a legal and moral duty to remove racist posts from their site and it wouldn’t have surprised me if CIF had taken these posts down for that reason.
“Work to do, since my employer is not quite so generous with my time as yours, seems to be.”
My employer is very understanding about my internet habits, and very poor because of them. Self-employment is a double edged sword.
August 31, 2009 at 8:59 am
exiledlondoner
John,
“So you don’t believe La Ritournelle writing “BTW Linda if you’re so proud of being Jewish, why don’t you call yourself by your real name? ” was Jew baiting of Ms Grant?”
What do call Jew Baiting?
Was she baiting Linda Grant because she was Jewish? I don’t think so – she posts alongside many Jews and doesn’t do the same.
Was she baiting Linda Grant with an anti-Jewish diatribe? No, changing your name is neither wrong, nor characteristic of Jews.
Was she baiting Linda Grant and included Linda’s race in the jibe? Yes, she clearly did.
Foolhardy for sure, but when compared to the bile piled on anti-Zionist Jewish commentators (did I see “40 pieces of silver” on this very site?), much of which is centred on their race, then La Rit’s comments were hardly extreme.
“Those links I provided showing the provenance – hence the context – of such comments were to no avail?”
I read the whole thread.
“So what do you think La Ritournelle meant by bringing up the subject?”
She wanted to offend Linda Grant.
Peter,
“Would you say that this WASP is a racist?”
Short answer – no.
Long answer – not necessarily.
August 31, 2009 at 9:13 am
exiledlondoner
CIFCritic,
“So, off you go.”
You keep ‘inviting’ me to leave – are you sure that’s what you want?
Surely without the few contrary views here, the site would be little more than mutual back-slapping, “great post” comments, and universal agreement that X is an anti-semite – most threads wouldn’t get past a few posts.
Don’t believe me? Count the posts on the threads that haven’t got any contrary views. Better still, ask the organisers for the hit counts.
“I’ll bet you don’t have the nerve.”
Is that a dare? I haven’t been dared to do something for 20 years – really takes me back….
August 31, 2009 at 9:24 am
peterthehungarian
exiledlondoner
If this is not racism in according to you then I understand that you don’t consider LaRit an antisemite. The Earth is flat and the Moon is a big cheese.
August 31, 2009 at 9:29 am
CiFCritic
You are doing it again, exiled, with the literal interpretation. Think again, there’s a good fellow, about what I have asked you to do. It’ll soon become clear what I mean. Please go and do as I asked and come back here to tell us all what occurred as a result.
You are absolutely right that, with a few exceptions, there needs to be a little grit in the CiFWatch oyster in order for it to grow into the pearl it should be.
There should be a limit, however. IMO, the editorship here shouldn’t let rank and file antisemites who have earned their stripes slagging off Jews on CiF anywhere near the place.
Demeter, I agree with what you say about CiF seeming at least to be feeding the hatefilled beast. If its articles were invariably measured and well-researched (rather than, as it seems to me, more often than not deliberately calculated to feed into the emotions of the unreconstructed Israel/Jew haters) then I might hesitate, but they seem designed to denigrate Israel as the world’s sole evil and to perpetuate the notion of Palestinians as perennial victims, which is unfair to Palestinians.
No side in any conflict is pure and good but no side is as utterly evil either as CiF would have us believe of Israel.
August 31, 2009 at 9:33 am
CiFCritic
exiled, I have just noticed your reply to John – yet more evidence of getting caught up in literal thinking.
Linda Grant was the object of an anti-Jewish remark. Once you nitpick over the detail you lose the meaning of the whole.
Were you always a nitpicker or do you do that only in regard to this? I am genuinely interested to know.
August 31, 2009 at 9:35 am
CIFDisgustsMe
Exiled – I would agree that the intention was probably to cause offence to other posters, but having a look at the thread, she was hardly alone in that.
Israel has situations where, because of military action against freedom fighters, innocent Palestinian civilians are killed. Israel is hardly alone in that.
Now. How many articles on CI(F) are there to try to denigrate Israel for accidental killing of civilians and how many articles were there on CI(F) when the Sri Lankan fighting was taking place and about the Darfur crisis that is claiming civillian dead every week. (as we speak as a matter of fact)
The total dead from the Hamas action in Gaza to exterminate Palestinians identifying with El Kheida was in the region of 28. Not a peep from CI(F).
Could this obsessive and repeated focus on the denigration of Israel to the virtual exclusion of almost all other killing of innocent civilians possibly be construed as ‘antisemitic’?
August 31, 2009 at 9:36 am
Louise
“these comments could be anti-semitic, taking into account the context”, which is somewhat different”
Exiled
You haven’t understood the EUMC WD, have you? Or more likely you are being deliberately obtuse. The Definition simply gives examples of antisemitism. It cannot give every possible example because there is an infinite number.
I explained to you what ‘context’ means here:
http://cifwatch.com/2009/08/29/defining-antisemitism-exiledlondoners-allegations/
I also explained that the textual matters about which you have been going on and on ad nauseam make no difference whatsoever.
And nobody is “conflating” the MacPherson definition with the EUMC definition. I simply pointed out that the MacPherson Definition says that the victim has the right to say what is or is not racist.
I can’r understand someone who gets their kicks from misguided Socratic parsing and prolonging a dialogue with irrelevant questions. The phrase ‘Get A Life’ comes to mind. Many would call it Jewbaiting.
August 31, 2009 at 9:45 am
exiledlondoner
CIFCritic,
“Please go and do as I asked and come back here to tell us all what occurred as a result.”
Why don’t you think of a new username and do it yourself? I’m not into running errands today.
“There should be a limit, however. IMO, the editorship here shouldn’t let rank and file antisemites who have earned their stripes slagging off Jews on CiF anywhere near the place.”
No right of reply?
“Linda Grant was the object of an anti-Jewish remark. Once you nitpick over the detail you lose the meaning of the whole.”
What was anti-Jewish about it?
“Were you always a nitpicker or do you do that only in regard to this? I am genuinely interested to know.”
What’s this? This isn’t about the I/P conflict, it’s about freedom of speech and the honesty of CIFWatch’s approach to accusing people – the whole debate could be easily transposed to any number of situations.
You ask me what I think, and when I explain my point of view, you say it’s nitpicking – do you think that I shouldn’t raise questions?
August 31, 2009 at 9:49 am
Louise
John 4:52am and 5:16
Great posts
August 31, 2009 at 9:54 am
exiledlondoner
Louise,
“I explained to you what ‘context’ means here:”
And you are wrong. Did you take my advice to speak to a lawyer?
“And nobody is “conflating” the MacPherson definition with the EUMC definition. I simply pointed out that the MacPherson Definition says that the victim has the right to say what is or is not racist.”
I’m afraid you are – it’s on your “how we define anti-semitism page”, and you have combined the two in a post to me.
“I can’r understand someone who gets their kicks from misguided Socratic parsing and prolonging a dialogue with irrelevant questions. The phrase ‘Get A Life’ comes to mind.”
So making accusations of anti-semitism is “a life”, but questioning the basis on which you do so isn’t?
“Many would call it Jewbaiting.”
Care to back up that ludicrous accusation, or do you suffer from a more extreme form of poster’s tourettes than La Rit?
That isn’t the first time you’ve descended to this level, is it? Are you sure you’re cut out for this sort of thing?
August 31, 2009 at 9:56 am
CIFDisgustsMe
Exiled.
You will never be persuaded will you? No matter what is quoted here in support of CIFWatch categorizing LaRit as a rank antisemite, whatever is presented here to convince you, it doesn’t matter.
Does it.
You will never be persuaded.
Go back to CI(F)
August 31, 2009 at 10:04 am
exiledlondoner
CIFDisgustsMe,
The only thing that will persuade me that La Rit (or anyone else) is an anti-semite is their own words – which is how it should be.
Do you really think that I should make up my mind on the basis of what people write about her? Do you think that there’s anything you could write that would make someone else anti-semitic?
Sorry, but that’s just muddled thinking.
“Go back to CI(F)”
Not welcome round here? Is that it?
August 31, 2009 at 10:23 am
Louise
“Did you take my advice to speak to a lawyer?”
- You’re a joke
“I’m afraid you are – it’s on your “how we define anti-semitism page”, and you have combined the two in a post to me.”
- You need to learn the meaning of ‘conflate’ which is ‘fuzing two things together’. It is a frequently abused word – as you have graphically demonstrated. Are you aware of the function of a dictionary?
I did not fuze the two together. I answered your nitpicking by saying that Jews have every right to use the Macpherson Definition. That’s not what we use here – but we could.
“So making accusations of anti-semitism is “a life”, but questioning the basis on which you do so isn’t?”
We started this site because it is sorely necessary. The response within just a week has proved us right.
[Many would call it Jewbaiting] – “Care to back up that ludicrous accusation, or do you suffer from a more extreme form of poster’s tourettes than La Rit?”
I’ll ignore the ad hominem which only shows that your arguments are barren. To question incessantly – when Jews have the right to say what is and is not antisemitic – is Jewbaiting.
August 31, 2009 at 10:32 am
blue
@exiled
“I adore chiwawa’s…” “So much so, you’ve your own pet spelling for them…”
I defer to your superior knowledge of all things “chihuahua”
“No, I have no reason to believe that their ethnicity was the motivation – I would have thought their nationalist leanings were more likely.
So you believe that the people LaRit is referring to and who just happen to be Jews, is about no more than LaRit’s way of protesting their “nationalist ferver ” ? Oh. Well, I’ll let linda Grant speak for herself. Notwithstanding, I’m not sure that those of us who have been earmarked for LaRits various “offensives” are going to be particularly persuaded by this argument despite amazing effort on your part.
“No, to other posters who may or may not have been Jewish, and who probably both were and were not Jewish.”
Well, which way is it – her posts are specific to Jews and Israeli’s on which she seems to infer a racial supremacy. See: 04 Apr 07, 6:50pm and 04 Apr 07, 11:52pm and 05 Apr 07, 10:03am in which if she truly believes:
“As with most private landlords, they never want to give you your deposit back, ‘cos they’re nearly ALL greedy so-and-sos, whatever their race, colour or creed.”
– then why was the nationalility of said landlord (Israeli) and his ethnicity/religion (Jew) relevant to this “True story,” ?? And what was the relevance of any of this “True story” to the thread at hand ??
“If you’re saying that La Rit puts herself in a position in which people are entitled to question her motives, and even say that they think she’s anti-semitic, then that’s clearly the case.”
Oh, I very much agree with you here…
“There are, although I’m not sure they do any good. Personally I think that legislating against hatred is often counter-productive, while not enough is done about the manifestation of hatred.”
To an extent I again, agree with you. Up until we are actually in the realms of incitement to racial hatred.
“But yes, I agree that the Guardian has a legal and moral duty to remove racist posts from their site and it wouldn’t have surprised me if CIF had taken these posts down for that reason.”
Would you also agree that they have a legal and moral duty to remove posting rights from a persistently offensive poster who, you agree “regularly goes too far,” (of interest might be CIF’s own TP)
Whether or not you do agree with that point, the other, perhaps more serious question is with regard to posters who lose their posting rights compared with certain persistent offenders, which you agree LaRit is (“she regularly goes to far” and leaves herself open to charges of motivation/antisemitism) – I do wonder if the sort of heat LaRit generates don’t in themselves generate numerous “hits” and if this perhaps has something to do with the people like LaRit being seemingly immune to having her posting rights, pulled ?? If that were to be the case, this would take “Jew-baiting” to a whole different, and perhaps institutional, certainly, unethical, level, wouldn’t it ??
“My employer is very understanding about my internet habits, and very poor because of them. Self-employment is a double edged sword.”
I see. And is “self -employment” a euphemism for being unemployed ? If so, I’m looking for a, Daily, you would need be proficient in dusting, vacuuming and fetching my coffee – preferably, with a smile.
August 31, 2009 at 10:46 am
exiledlondoner
Louise,
“You’re a joke”
Is that hominem by any chance?
“You need to learn the meaning of ‘conflate’ which is ‘fuzing two things together”
I can do better than learn – I can give you an example!
“Precisely the same comments with regard to the ‘context’ word apply as already explained. Jews do not allege ‘antisemitism’ lightly and that is presumably why the ‘context’ phrase is in the EUMC text. But as Macpherson said in Recommendation 12: It is the right of the victim of racism to judge offence.”
“I’ll ignore the ad hominem which only shows that your arguments are barren.”
You don’t do irony, do you? Jew-baiter, reptile, joke…..
“To question incessantly – when Jews have the right to say what is and is not antisemitic – is Jewbaiting.”
So there we have it – you have the right to decide who’s an anti-semite, and anyone who questions that is a jew-baiter! Very nice….
A toxic cross between witchfinder general and fascism. Confess and we’ll burn you, or if you don’t confess, we’ll burn you anyway….
August 31, 2009 at 11:07 am
Louise
Exiled
As you well know but as you will not admit, that is not ‘conflated’. I do not ‘fuze’ the two definitions together.
“you have the right to decide who’s an anti-semite”
You twist my words. The EUMC Definition is the yardstick.
Do you argue with other definitions too – like the chemical definition of water?
Or do you reserve your nitpicking for Jews?
August 31, 2009 at 11:16 am
blue
PS – @You guys in permanent London/UK residence – Can any of you perhaps manage to identify and contact this “Israeli-Jewish – property magnet” who apparently overseas his own flat inspections ??
To be honest, the description given by LaRit didn’t ring any bells but who knows….anyone ??
I think under the circumstances, we perhaps should learn the veracity of this “True Story” as told by, LaRitournelle.
If this story has no foundation, though naturally, exiled will argue that LaRit was merely using a parable to attack errr ….nationalism, then perhaps LaRit and indeed those who publish her, might want to correct the “True Story” …I mean parable!
Considering LaRit’s “motivation” becoming increasingly questionable, perhaps those who publish her might even consider reviewing her posting rights. Who knows, even exiled might agree it wise to do so.
August 31, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Louise
Blue
Friends in London have tried to verify LaRit’s story with Israelis and no-one knows anything about it.
Draw the obvious conclusion.
August 31, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Anneka
Louise having looked at your responses to ExiledLondoner and at the way you use the EUMC I wouldn’t blame any Gentile who didn’t want to work or socialise with Jews, for fear of allegations being made, because as ExiledLondoner points out, this is the stuff of the Witchfinder General. I don’t want my colleagues and friends to ever feel that way in front of me.
You are going to allow Comment is Free and people who I think really are anti-Semitic, such as LaRitournelle get away with it.
Thankfully there’s another poster who is pointing out the flaws in ExiledLondoner’s posts about LaRitournelle.
I’ve got to agree with Louise that LaRitournelle is an anti-Semite – you only have to look at her posts. I’ve really enjoyed reading Blue’s posts to ExiledLondoner, and the measured and good humoured way in which s/he points out the flaws in ExiledLondoner’s arguments. I don’t know if he’s posting here simply to rattle some cages but the truth about LaRitournelle is there for all to see. You really don’t need to use the EUMC to see what LaRitournelle is, reading, comprehension and plain common sense will do.
August 31, 2009 at 12:33 pm
exiledlondoner
Louise.
“You twist my words. The EUMC Definition is the yardstick.”
Twist your words? Don’t you mean quote your words?
“Precisely the same comments with regard to the ‘context’ word apply as already explained. Jews do not allege ‘antisemitism’ lightly and that is presumably why the ‘context’ phrase is in the EUMC text. But as Macpherson said in Recommendation 12: It is the right of the victim of racism to judge offence.”
“To question incessantly – when Jews have the right to say what is and is not antisemitic – is Jewbaiting.”
Can you point out which words in the two passages above I have twisted?
August 31, 2009 at 12:48 pm
exiledlondoner
Blue,
“Can any of you perhaps manage to identify and contact this “Israeli-Jewish – property magnet” who apparently overseas his own flat inspections ?? To be honest, the description given by LaRit didn’t ring any bells but who knows….anyone ??”
“I think under the circumstances, we perhaps should learn the veracity of this “True Story” as told by, LaRitournelle.”
Louise,
“Friends in London have tried to verify LaRit’s story with Israelis and no-one knows anything about it.”
“Draw the obvious conclusion.”
This is all turning into quite a little hate-fest – now apparently La Rit’s anti-semitism is based on your inability to identify her landlord? One wonders what lengths you wouldn’t go to….
I wonder if you could identify my Greek landlord? If you fail, does that make him a figment of my imagination?
I’d be rather more impressed if the owners of the site weren’t hiding behind psuedonyms (unlike the owners of CIF), for ‘their own security’. The message is clear – any attempt to defend a victim of your smears, or to question the justification for them, will just bring a more vicious attack.
What a nasty little website this is. I think I might take the advice of so many, and head back to CIF – though I will pop in from time to time to see what’s being said about me. I wouldn’t want to miss anything….
August 31, 2009 at 12:59 pm
blue
@exiled – and this is where you fold: “This is all turning into quite a little hate-fest – now apparently La Rit’s anti-semitism is based on your inability to identify her landlord? One wonders what lengths you wouldn’t go to….”
I’m confident we both know this is not the case, and why.
But by all means, if this is ” a nasty little website” I should point out that it is no more the nastier for my taking part than yours. And if this is the best you can come up with after completely ignoring my 10:32 then I suppose it is indeed about that time – when you grab your cricket bat and stomp off….
Bi, exiled.
August 31, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Micha
So LaRitournelle hates Jews – so what? She’s been outed allegedly, her real name publicised and shamed. Is she gonna get Jewish cranks harrassing her and making her life hell? Not on your nelly. It’s an unfair world where racists can say what they like and get away with it, while we Jews have to protect our privacy at all costs. Unless of course we’re anti-Zionist Jews or Jews who hate Judaism.
It doesn’t surprise me that the worst antisemites/anti-Zionists tend to come from the Catholic fold. They swing towards the hard left or else towards the hard right. Both of them hate Jews, though you might have thought the NF would have a sneaking admiration for Tzahal’s military prowess.
A suggestion : maybe we should even the balance and praise the notable philosemites on CiF. Not that we have any certain way of knowing who’s a Jew / who’s a Gentile online.
August 31, 2009 at 1:30 pm
exiledlondoner
Just for you Blue – I wouldn’t do this for everyone….
“So you believe that the people LaRit is referring to and who just happen to be Jews, is about no more than LaRit’s way of protesting their “nationalist ferver ” ?”
La Rit is vehemently anti-Zionist, yes.
“Well, which way is it – her posts are specific to Jews and Israeli’s on which she seems to infer a racial supremacy. See: 04 Apr 07, 6:50pm and 04 Apr 07, 11:52pm and 05 Apr 07, 10:03am in which if she truly believes:”
“As with most private landlords, they never want to give you your deposit back, ‘cos they’re nearly ALL greedy so-and-sos, whatever their race, colour or creed.”
“– then why was the nationalility of said landlord (Israeli) and his ethnicity/religion (Jew) relevant to this “True story,” ?? And what was the relevance of any of this “True story” to the thread at hand ??”
Because her point was about accusations of anti-semitism – she saw fit to suggest that it isn’t a one-way steet. It isn’t something I would have done, or indeed agree with, but that doesn’t make her, in my view, an anti-semite.
“To an extent I again, agree with you. Up until we are actually in the realms of incitement to racial hatred.”
That’s an offence in itself, just as much as threatening behaviour or a physical attack – my point is that you can’t legislate against hatred.
“Would you also agree that they have a legal and moral duty to remove posting rights from a persistently offensive poster who, you agree “regularly goes too far,” (of interest might be CIF’s own TP)”
That depends whether “regularly going too far” is legally or morally problematic for the Guardian – judging by some of the posts here, including those from owners, CIF aren’t the only ones who need to think about it.
“Whether or not you do agree with that point, the other, perhaps more serious question is with regard to posters who lose their posting rights compared with certain persistent offenders, which you agree LaRit is (”she regularly goes to far” and leaves herself open to charges of motivation/antisemitism) – I do wonder if the sort of heat LaRit generates don’t in themselves generate numerous “hits” and if this perhaps has something to do with the people like LaRit being seemingly immune to having her posting rights, pulled ?? If that were to be the case, this would take “Jew-baiting” to a whole different, and perhaps institutional, certainly, unethical, level, wouldn’t it ??”
What makes you think La Rit’s immune? Judging by what has been cobbled together from 3 years of posts, others have done worse in a day, than she’s done in all her time.
Regarding the heat generated – I think that’s a reasonable charge to make against CIF for choice of contributors – a balance of extremists is not, in my book, a balance – and I suspect it does generate more hits.
“I see. And is “self -employment” a euphemism for being unemployed ?”
No, but today has got close.
“But by all means, if this is ” a nasty little website” I should point out that it is no more the nastier for my taking part than yours.”
You seem happy enough to join in, but don’t seem to have too many problems with Louise’s smears or fits of pique (which remind me a little of La Rit’s)? Maybe you’ve found your natural home?
If you find a cricket bat lying around, could you forward it to CIF – C/O my friend Georgina?
August 31, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Nemesis
From LaRitournelle’s posts as quoted above, she is an antisemite and has a very nasty turn of phrase when her dander’s up. And as for her version of “some of my best friends are Jews…” well….
How was the fact that her landlord was (allegedly) Israeli at all germane to her story? Some landlords are complete b*****ds and they come in all religions and from all races. Jubiliation rightly asks whether LaRitournelle would have included her landlord’s nationality had he been other than Israeli. Had he been black African, or Chinese or anything else, I doubt that she would. That this person was, she says, Israel makes the story more believable, particularly on CiF.
And her dig at Linda Grant was indeed anti-Jewish racist – again, note the nastiness which can have come from nowhere but a distinct antipathy to Jews.
Note the paranoia, too. Why could not the “you people” (if he said it, and I personally have my doubts, not least because this woman so readily projected her capability to spin a yarn onto Linda Grant) have meant “tenants” rather than whatever she thought it meant? She “assumed” it referred to her ancestry – a projection again because she is quick to do that to others.
She is well-met and placed on CiF. They are welcome to her.
August 31, 2009 at 1:53 pm
CIFDisgustsMe
Exiled
La Rit is vehemently anti-Zionist, yes.
There is nothing I or others can say.
You have decided.
La Rit is vehemently anti-Zionist
Any other interpretation of her writings is simply not acceptable. (to you of course)
You have decided.
Well. Perhaps you can start a site to explain to the other despicable denizens of CI(F) that LaRit’s writings have been grossly mis-interpreted by CIFWatch.
You have determined that LaRit is not antisemitic. She is just anti Zionist
Go away.
Take you fanatical and unbending interpretations back to Spain with you. You are boring and no fun to be exchanging barbs with. Your arguments are repetitive to the point of tediousness.
It would Be nicer if whoever was running the site stopped your access somehow.
August 31, 2009 at 2:08 pm
exiledlondoner
CIFDisgustsMe,
“Go away.”
Er, I did – but you called me back.
“It would Be nicer if whoever was running the site stopped your access somehow.”
A true champion of free speech – I salue you!
August 31, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Rajah
This site is superb, like a breath of fresh air.
May I, however, make a couple of suggestions?
Certain people who post here are passive aggressive – exiledlondoner knows who he is – and paying any attention to him feeds this. May I respectfully suggest that all you, including Louise, ignore him from now on? I imagine that you don’t want to resort to the madness that reigns on CiF and ban him, but if you don’t interact with him then he won’t get that buzz of reinforcement and after a few more attention-seeking posts he will fade away.
Secondly, I am afraid that I am made uncomfortable by some of Louise’s answers to him, too. Louise, your is a very good article. Why not leave it to others to ignore exiledlondoner – your behaviour only feeds him. I do not mean to cause you offence by saying this, but as I say the blog is superb and I want to be constructive in my criticism.
Good luck to you all. This blog is very much needed. I shall look in here again when time permits
August 31, 2009 at 2:24 pm
blue
@exiled – your last post is simply not worth bothering with – re-read it! it’s so painfully weak as to be pathetic.
So just a few quick points before I leave:
“You seem happy enough to join in,”
As do you, lest we forget !
” but don’t seem to have too many problems with Louise’s smears or fits of pique (which remind me a little of La Rit’s)?”
I don’t have a problem with LaRit being over the top, or a bit too intense, I have a problem with Jew-baiting. The use i.e. (via parable/true story – ho-hum!) of classic antisemitic properganda. She uses antisemitic trope with glee, hardly a cogent argument against Zionism ! But don’t let the facts and the stark bloody obvious get in the way of you wiling away the hours!
” Maybe you’ve found your natural home?”
Boo-hoo !
I don’t throw around accusations of antisemitism and never have. I do not smear by associated and never have – and if these are the best tactics you have in a very small bag of tired old tricks, I suggest you focus the time you waste on this sort of caper and concentrate on whatever career you have left. In short, grow up and sort yourself out.
Have a good evening.