Not All Comment is Free (but we knew that)

It is about actively working to prevent not only a spread of racism but a spread of hate more generally including tackling problems such as cyberbullying. (A. Oboler. @Harry’s Place)

Andre Oboler rightly condemns cyber bullying. How would he described this site?

I think it’s quite difficult to examine Holocaust denial in Britain since David Irving’s lost libel suit and bankruptcy. Everyone knows it’s tripe and not many people think there should be a law against it. In Harry’s Place people seem to think free speech is better and they are tending to nit-pick the article. But David Appletree of JIDF has made an issue of it in Facebook where he does great work against hate sites.

The Lerman 24 July article is a shocker.

“One of these – “using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism… to characterise Israel or Israelis” – is fully justified. The other four are contentious: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination”; “Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”; “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”; “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel”. None of these four are self-evidently antisemitic. But all could be used to justify labelling legitimate criticism of Israel as antisemitic.”

I think the last example is contentious since the underlying idea of it seems to be “Israel actions – bad”. All the rest seem antisemitic to me. As does the final sentence I quote above. Where is the legitimate criticism of Israel?

John Brown

I have just read the Rifka Carmi thread and it seems to me that she was accusing Neve Gordan of using his postion to spread his political ideas. Why can’t an Israeli citizen express disgreement with those policies of his gvt. with which he disagees? Disagreement and discussion lie at the core of democracy. Gordon is obviously concerned, not just about the plight of the Palestinians but also with the future of Israel. To call him a Court Jew is nasty, to call for his dismissal and exile is worse.

CiF is not antisemitic. There are a lot of articles about Israel and they generally attract a lot of comments. Many of these which are later deleted are very anti Palestinian , anti Arab and often quite vicious in tone.

Holocaust denial is a futile activity. The Holocaust is a well documented evil kept in the public eye. It is part of European history , the lessons we learn from it are many. The greatest lesson, one we forget at our peril, is that the demonisation of any group is dangerous for both the victims and the moral integrity of the haters.

Genuine antisemitism should be challenged as should any form of racism. To widen the boundaries to include criticism of Israeli gvt. policies is dishonest and can be seen only as a device to silence critics. Were I to be silenced for criticising British involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan I would think that I was suddenly living under a repressive dictatorship.

As to cyber bullying, any proxy site which tries to hide the identity of the people running it, which persistently critices posters on another site leads me to question their true motives.

CW can become a valuable site if we are able to discuss contentious issues openly and honestly, it will harm Israel if it seeks to shout down any one who questions some of the more destructive policies of her gvt. A gvt. and the people of a nation are not the same thing.

Irish

You are missing the point, which is about cyber-bullying directed at those supporting Israel. I am not restarting the question of academic freedom etc.

Carmi was mobbed by a horde of CIF regulars, many posting comments that would not be tolerated if directed against those the Guardian approves of. At least one comment included the usual fake quote about ethnic cleansing attributed to Ben Gurion – which was reluctantly removed much later after AKUS complained directly to Seaton. Almost all comments supporting Carmi were removed in order to magnify the appearance of total disagreement with what she said, and leave her defenseless against the verbal lynching to which she was subjected.

This is not unusual – the same has happened to every one of the few pro-Israel contributors who have been permitted to post on the site that I can recall, including Uri Dromi, Ron Prosor, the Israel ambassador to the UK, and particularly PetraMB. Interestingly, it seems to me that the level of invective is higher when directed against women, such as Petra and Rivka.

On another level, there are numerous accusations hurled at those commenting in support of Israel that they are paid by Israel to comment (and Brian Whitaker, a Guardian staffer, gave credence to this ridiculous assertion on one of the threads), that those commenting belong to some group such as GIYUS, etc. These are constant attempts which can only be described as cyber-bullying to discredit those supporting Israel, who, generally, in the end are banned from commenting if the Guardian can find no other way to deal with them. Of course, the only one’s paid are the regulars such as Freedman, who openly states that he is under contract to the Guardian.

Moreover, it is becoming plainer and plainer that the anti-Israeli mob are using consistent “talking points” picked of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic web-sites, including the frequent use of made-up quotations from former Israeli and Zionist leaders, going back to Herzl, to try to ingrain their hatred of Israel on the site.

Al if this resembles exactly what in the real or physical world would be considered bullying, and is clearly an attempt at cyber-bullying, assisted by the Guardian maintaining a heavy thumb on the scale.

John Brown – Of course, the only one’s paid are the regulars such as Freedman, who openly states that he is under contract to the Guardian.

His book isn’t doing well. I think that toilet paper is more expensive.

I would wonder why the Guardian needs to keep him ‘under contract’. I doubt that any others are lining up to purchase his services.

JerusalemMite I would wonder why the Guardian needs to keep him ‘under contract’. I doubt that any others are lining up to purchase his services.
——————————————-
I suppose it is because they have a right to call on him to fill gaps when everyone else is on holiday or busy with other commissions. We have been seeing his name quite a lot recently.

Irish

“As to cyber bullying, any proxy site which tries to hide the identity of the people running it, which persistently critices posters on another site leads me to question their true motives.”

Frankly, I don’t appreciate your implication in your comment above. As we make clear in our About Us section, we are exposing antisemitic discourse on CiF and want to hold the Guardian accountable for facilitating a platform that encourages such discourse and provides such posters with a refuge. Perhaps the better question maybe why is Akus banned (and I appreciate your sympathy of this) when the likes of the commenters in our Commenters section are not – especially after we have provided ample documentation of that on our site.

“Genuine antisemitism should be challenged as should any form of racism. To widen the boundaries to include criticism of Israeli gvt. policies is dishonest and can be seen only as a device to silence critics.”

I refer you to the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism. It says among other things “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

Do you for example believe that denying the Jewish people their right to self determination is not antisemitic? And if so, please explain why.

There are plenty of comments seeking to delegitimize Israel – saying that its creation was a big mistake, and suggesting that the Middle East and the world at large would be better off without a Jewish State in Palestine.
There are hardly any articles about the legitimacy of the Kingdom of Jordan, of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Croatia etc etc.

Those posters who persistently question the right of Israel to exist are in my opinion clearly antisemitic. There are plenty on CiF. And then there are those who spitefully ask the Israelis to go back to the armistice lines of 1967 or 1949, as if that would guarantee a permanent peace – knowing full well that many Israeli lives would be lost in the ensuing Arab-Israeli wars.

Keep up the good work, CiF Watch.

Irish – thanks for your comments re my “banning” and your appreciation for my contributions. The ways of the Guardian are mysterious indeed – e.g., the endless banning of “Dotty”, even though, while annoying, he is not really as offensive as, say, moeron and various others..

But perhaps more congenial sites, and more open to meaningful discussion, are this one and Harry’s Place.

Try starting a “bring back AKUS” counter-cyber-bullying campaign and see what happens! But beware – it might get YOU banned, though I think you are posting here under a different moniker, n’est ce pas?

AKUS

As I posted on the other CiFW thread: after all these years — welcome to the Club of The Inglorious Banned.

You and I have had some pretty interesting, if occasionally rather fraught interactions on CiF I/P, but I’m not sure if I will miss it! No suggestions for the good people here as to why you were banned then?

“Try starting a “bring back AKUS” counter-cyber-bullying campaign and see what happens! But beware – it might get YOU banned, though I think you are posting here under a different moniker, n’est ce pas?”

You shouldn’t encourage ‘Irish’ — we don’t want her and her well known dogge to miss out on the CiF action too.

Hawkeye
Thankyou

Hawkeye – Irish is correct – someone posted as “Akus” and it was not me. Nor, apparently were some of his/her comments his or hers.

Leon, old sport – which thread? – I haven’t tracked everything here – the club of the CIF-banned may be an honorable institution.

If they want to bring AKUS back, they have an e-mail address to contact me – if not, they can continue to hunt talknic and you through your multiple monikers. Keep it up – it ties up resources, and shows how bizarre their moderation/banning policies are, while talknic turns any thread into something that resembles the noise my “Insinkerator” makes when I’m flushing unused vegetables down the drain.

I think I have tired of the incessant roundabout and waste of time of CIF – the I/P conflict may be moving along the lines of a discussion I have long tried to promote which is exemplified by the article about Fayyad’s efforts at building institutions so that talk of a Palestinian state would have some basis in reality – or, at some point, the UN may wake up and say something like -”golly gosh – shouldn’t Jordan be in charge of the WB, or the Palestinians be in charge of Jordan?” and then it’s game over for CIF.

In the meantime, the shrill voices of the uncommitted supporters of poverty and death for Palestinians will continue to be heard on CIF, and their thinly veiled anti-Semitism and attempts to mob any opposition will find their cover there. I noticed that several of the “unbanned” noted on the Fayyad thread how shrill and upset the “Palestinian supporters” became at the thought that their toys would be taken away from them when/if an agreement is reached.

Irish – That CiF provides a platform for those critical of some Israeli policies is true, that there are many, many articles is also true. I do not equate this with antisemitism. CiF responds to the number of comments which various subjects generate. If commenters are driven from CiF they will go elsewhere. Better to try to build bridges; you are in danger of burning your own. I am not Israel’s enemy.

Guardian/CIF management is obsessed with the I/P conflict and obsessed negatively with Israel. It shines through in the type of articles that it commissions and its laughingly referred to ‘moderating policy.’

You can try to spin it any which way you want but that is more than just my opinion.

It willingly provides a platform for rank antisemites to sublimate their hate for Jews into hate for Israel.

The Guardian/CIF management have little or no interest in the conflicts in Africa, Darfus and Central Africa, where killing and slaughter are an every day occurrence. The Darfur killings are Muslim killing Muslim and this somehow slips their radar. Have you any idea of the deprivation that refugees in Darfus suffer. They live under pieces of plastic and running water is a joke for them.

BUT CIF has no real interest.

Thousands of people were killed in Sri Lanka by the armed forces when they overran the Tamil controlled territory. Thousands are still held in detention centers.

BUT CIF has no real interest.

CIF is obsessed with the I/P conflict and tries to use any information available to denigrate Israel. Very seldom is there any criticism of Palestinians and it gives support to the most extreme of them. Many of the anti Israel posters give support to the most extreme of the Palestinians.

The Guardian is not looking for peace.

It is looking for the destruction of the one liberal western democracy in the whole of the Middle East.

Sadly for The Guardian, Israel seems to thrive on adversity so in some respects, Israel can be thankful to its management. (I shudder to think what would have happened to the new Israeli state in the Arabs had accepted the UN partition plan of 1947). That however, does not absolve the newspaper that was once a respected mouthpiece of the liberal left, from being cast now as a heavily biased mouthpiece of the loony left of the UK political scene.

It is just great that someone has had the brainchild to build and maintain CIFWatch.

Georgina must be tossing in her sleep.

The stable of house-Jews ‘kept’ by the Guardian are hopefully considering their positions carefully. It will not look good on their CVs in the future if it discloses that they used to publish articles on The Guardian/CIF.

Hi AKUS,

I didn’t know that you had been banned.

Disagree as we regularly do, I cannot think of a single reason why you should be banned – CIF will be a poorer place without you – and I shall personally raise the issue with the powers that be (with whom, contrary to what some think, I don’t have any particular influence).

Just one point about cyber-bullying of Rivka Carmi – I believe she wrote the piece for the LA Times, and I doubt she even read the comments on the syndicated Guardian webpage.

I hope people don’t mind another quote from Robert Wistrich. He expresses himself so succinctly.

“What is interesting is that in Britain, as in much of Europe, the proclaimed antiracism of the left-wing variety often feeds the new antisemitism-which is primarily directed against Israel. Of course, if one suggests that such leftists are antisemites in disguise, they are likely to become enraged and retort that one is ‘playing the antisemitic card.’ This has become a codeword for saying, as it were, ‘You are a dishonest, deceitful, manipulative Jew’ or a ‘lover of Jews.’ Zionists supposedly use the ‘accusation of antisemitism’ to distort and silence the fully justified criticism of Israel and its human rights abuses. The word ‘criticism’ in this context is misplaced. It is a euphemism or license for the demonization of Israel. And that in turn is a major form of antisemitism in our time.”

Friday, September 4, 2009
How Much Antisemitism is there in Britain? . . . If Any

Antisemitism Embedded in British Culture

Prof. Robert S. Wistrich

http://www.blogger.com/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&TMID=111&LNGID=1&FID=381&PID=0&IID=2214
—

How recognisable it all is in CiF.

exiledlondoner – thanks for your comment.

I think there were a few of us who managed a spirited discussion on CIF that made the whole thing worthwhile for me, often disagreeing, sometimes agreeing, without totally descending into the abyss of endless name-calling and attempts to assign opinions or positions to others that they did not and do not hold.

I enjoyed our conversations, and although CW’s raison d’etre is to attempt to flush out the hidden anti-Semitism on CIF, I think it is interesting to note that the meaningful discussion is gradually moving to this site. Perhaps the mysterious founder(s) should broaden their mandate. Let the Guardian pay its hacks for their pieces, and let the free discussion rage elsewhere!!

I may be stretching a point, but I regard the Guardian as an attempt to maintain a sort of last gasp of Stalinistic media totalitarianism in a world where there is no way to stop criticism by the free public at other sites. The increasing appearance of some of the more reasonable commentators critical of CIF on this site (and Harry’s Place, Petra’s blog on the JP, Lozowick’s blog) as well as continuing their efforts on CIF, pro and con, reflects the sort of freedom of speech that flourishes in the USA where this blog is based – and, of course, in Israel, the demon state, source of all that is wrong in the world – not!.

Ariadne – if you are still tuned in – your link didn’t work – maybe this will:
Antisemitism Embedded in British Culture

There was another article I saw that really analyzed the convergence of left-wing anti-semitism with Islamic fundamentalism and Aryan-Brotherhood racism, driven by a common anti-Semitic and anti-Israel agenda.

The sad thing is that there are many of us, perhaps among the older crowd, who define being “left wing” as a commitment to decency, equal opportunity and peaceful coexistence, arising out of the Woodstock/Vietnam period rather than as knee-jerk adherents to some “ism”, while refusing to bend the knee to terrorism and anti-Semitic racism.

That rather noble left-wing weltanschauung has been hijacked back to a bizarre anti-Semitic melange of early Bolshevik/Marxist etc. attitudes coupled with the most repressive and anti-Semitic aspects of the fundamentalist Islamic religion aided and abetted by some fellow travelers from the ultra-right-wing European and US parties and organizations with its “natural target” as Israel as the Jewish state.

Exile: Just one point about cyber-bullying of Rivka Carmi – I believe she wrote the piece for the LA Times, and I doubt she even read the comments on the syndicated Guardian webpage.
—————————————-
The Guardian pays for the use of articles so Dr Carmi knows hers appeared in the Guardian. She works in an environment where people are accustomed to read. She is the head of an institution with a large number of supporters and sponsors. I can not imagine that somebody around her did not draw her attention to the comments, particularly considering the malicious nature of some them.

modernityblog

I see Wistrich rather differently, as identifying the what which is very important.

I read some of your blog and see what you mean, I think.

People who are interested and actually live here may have encountered, as I have, the total disbelief of the innocent/ignorant who don’t know that they are being antisemitic when they use stereotypes or repeat lies. There are those who believe British people can’t be antisemitic because Britain fought Hitler.

There is also a rather strong anti-Zionist current among certain Jews here. The late Harold Pinter and his communism, etc.

I once read about a group who named themselves something with “Jewish gentlemen” in it in the 1940s. They were anti-Zionist out of fear that declaring support for Zionism would perhaps lead to their expulsion from this country.

I don’t know if you’ve read “Cruel Britannia”. My heart sinks when I just think about it.

Hi AKUS,

“I enjoyed our conversations, and although CW’s raison d’etre is to attempt to flush out the hidden anti-Semitism on CIF, I think it is interesting to note that the meaningful discussion is gradually moving to this site.”

Me too, and I hope you’re back soon, but I’m afraid that it’s wishful thinking to think that debate will move here. In the end CIFWatch is a one trick pony (whatever you think that trick might be), and while it might become a meeting place for committed Zionists to engage in some mutual backslapping, and attacks on CIF contributors, it is never going to attract much contrary comment.

I’m afraid that as soon as the novelty value subsides – I’ve said pretty much everything I want to say about CIFWatch’s methods, and even the trolls seem to be getting tired of it all – I think you’re going to find it rather boring…

A load of likeminded people talking to themselves does not make a debate.

Hope to see you back on CIF, and if it’s under another name, I doubt if it will take many posts to pick you out. See you soon.

modernityblog – I do agree that British antisemitism is not of the type that led to pogroms.

I will obviously have to read Blustein but in the meantime offer some observations of my own.

Muslims did extremely well in the end in the Balkans because they employed an American PR firm to disseminate their propaganda. I believe the Arabs learned very well from that.

According to a young British Muslim, in the late eighties the Koran began to be taught in English for the first time. That attracted a lot of disaffected young men who had not been keen on study in Arabic.

It has also been claimed that the actual ignorance of people who work for the BBC and in the press leaves them susceptible to all kinds of lying propaganda. Their antisemitism is not “a priori” as Wistrich notes. That claim did not of course encompass such as The Guardian giving a platform to those who suffer from more than one of these deficits.