The Guardian ups the “Anti”

I have been wondering for a while how antisemitism flourishes in the Guardian. Is it intentional?

Is it at all pervasive or merely subconscious and circumstantial? Or is it rooted in the false interpretation of Marxism attributed to the great Jean Baptiste Lamarck, that is, if the will can be shaped, so will evolution.

 Of course they read Lamarck backwards as Lamarck’s theory was one based on the individual rather than the collective. The Guardian, like the Marxists before them, does however posses an idea of what a Jew, and also what an American should be like. Though theirs is about shaping and exemplifying rather than a nihilistic hatred of destroy and rebuild later.
What we have seen during the last few weeks on the pages of the Guardian would, if looked upon a hundred years from now in some journalism history class (assuming that Bat Ye’or wasn’t right and such classes will still exist), hand over the perfect snapshot of what questions everybody must have (or should have) asked themselves when reading this publication.
Starting with the Forth Hood terror attack; the first successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Not an insignificant milestone if one asked me. One probably not lost on Obama who is fighting so hard not to have this attack defined as terrorism.
The Guardian went on an offensive against America almost the same day the blood of its sons and daughters was mopped up from the floors of the rooms this creep sprayed with his bullets while crying out “Allah’u Akbar”.
How does that relate to antisemitism? Well directly it doesn’t. But the process in which the story was dealt with on CiF showed the neuron firing sequence all too similar to the sequences dictating the oldest hatred in which it was automatically assumed that the victim is the real perpetrator and the perpetrator is the victim.
Now of course the Guardian is much more crass with Americans than Jews, America hatred is fashionable. In fact, it supposedly displays a sense of sophistication required to enter some high circles of European or British thought.
I made this last distinction on purpose especially since Channel 4 aired their masterpiece of investigative work and since I read an excerpt from Dennis McShane’s brilliant book “The New Antisemitism”. The piece I read was called The Bigots of Westminster. As someone born in what became the EU, I can testify that just as in the UK a Jew’s loyalty is questioned, in the EU, or Europe as a whole, the loyalty of the British is also questioned. Probably even more often than not. And every time Americans are lambasted by British columnists, a disdain much worse is expressed toward the British on the “Continent”.
Fish & Chips score no higher than cheeseburgers friends, especially among wine drinkers.
Just like with Jews, Israel and Zionists, the Guardian has its coterie of American contributors who spared no effort  in attacking the US Army, American society and of course policies right after the deed of Nidal Hasan Malik. And just like the Guardian’s “dissident” Jewish contributors fighting against the so-called “Islamophobia” (as opposed to anti-Muslim racism), these American writers  shamefully demonstrated why the American Left is incapable of ever fighting a war or beating an enemy for it sees more of an enemy in America than among those who really want to destroy it.
First and foremost, we had Michael Tomasky who in American for better or worse argued before the facts were in, that Hasan should not be “hated” for who he is but what he did. Well, he turned out to be an Al Queda recruit and overall hating incompetent hypocritical nut.

Can I hate him now Michael?

Then we had Dan Kennedy who in Finding the truth at Fort Hood wrote the following:

“Nidal Malik Hasan’s dangerous mental state is a legitimate subject for investigation, not an excuse for fear-mongering”

Fear mongering of what? Al Queda attacking the homeland? Of course, notice how terrorism becomes a psychological problem in the mind of the liberal.

“A state of mind”. A breakdown I suppose. And as the case with psychosis, there is a victim here. Like with cancer, the victim is now a patient. So Hasan is no more guilty than a cancer patient. Probably less guilty than a smoking cancer patient but I’ll let that slide for now.

The fact that the “patient” was a psychiatrist himself is negated to the wayside. A practicing psychiatrist MD shoots his patients and colleagues but he is “suffering” from a mental state. Well so was Hitler and probably Stalin and everybody in history commmitting great atrocities. By this reasoning Hitler was probably even sicker than Bin Laden and Bin Laden sicker than Hasan.

All this suffering all around us. I must say, we need to reform health care in America. Some terrorist families may go bankrupt fighting this disease, so what about them?

Not one CiF piece has been published since the revelations demolishing all the silly and dangerous excuses the CiF writers have pored over Nidal Hasan. Not one.

They have moved on since.

The American contributors have now consecrated their efforts at the pursuit of the “real danger”, Sarah Palin.  Probably wishing she would be paralyzed not Hasan who has now awoken from his slumber but remains in his bed, probably never capable to stand up to be shot.  Then again, he never was a soldier for real. Only a parasite and traitor.

The rest of the CiF team was handed the greatest of gifts. A documentary on Channel 4 about the secret Jewish lobbies and conspiracies shaping Britain toward the ugly abyss of Zionism. And just like Tomasky and Kennedy attacked America on the pages of the Guardian, Antony Lerman defended Channel 4 while attacking those who criticized it.

Notice the similarities?

In the mind of the hater there are always some made-up conditions upon which the hater may graciously remove his hatred.

“If all Jews were like you, I would not have these opinions”. If all Americans were like so and so, or will speak A,B or C, there will not be all this scorn.

This is what was illustrated at the Guardian, especially in the last few weeks. They do not hate like radical haters do. They do have an idea what their hated should be like and what they should say in order that the sanction of hatred can be lifted.

There is the chance of some conditional love here. And if you follow the examples, you will be rewarded.

“Follow the examples comrades… These are your heroes…These are your models and if you follow, you will get our smug sophisticated love and respect for we only respect the image of you we made…That image is just and fair to all of us…

We have shown you the path so follow…

…or else.”

Is British antisemitism in danger of getting out of control?

Is British antisemitism in danger of getting out of control? So asks Robin Shepherd in response to Oliver Miles’ vile and moronic outburst against eminent historians Sir Martin Gilbert and Sir Lawrence Freedman. (Hard to imagine that Miles is a former British Ambassador. Yet it is probably too much to hope that he is now persona non grata in polite society).

As Shepherd observes:

This all comes, of course, in the wake of a widely watched Dispatchestelevision documentary earlier in the month (see entries on this site) which alleged that a secretive cabal of wealthy Jews had the British political and media establishment in its pocket. I said at the time that there was a danger the situation might be about to get a whole lot worse in Britain. The signs are that that could already be happening.

In the Independent on Saturday, we had Richard Ingrams rushing to the defense of Vile Miles, which was accompanied by vile antisemitic commentary from the Independent readers.

And in backdrop we have “Comment is Free” with its active promotion of antisemitic discourse through its collection of Israel-bashing contributors and their dedicated following of antisemitic commenters.

What’s more, rather than confront and deal with the problem, management at the Guardian abjectly refuses to do anything about it. In fact, in the Orwellian world of the Guardian, it seems more effort is put into trying to delete any positive mention of CiF Watch in the CiF comment threads than in dealing with the antisemitism that it openly facilitates and encourages.

Why are we so troubled with what takes place at the Guardian? Well it’s the normalization of antisemitic discourse that poisons the public debate. Robin Shepherd characterizes it in these terms:

“For the key point to understand about the makers of [the Oborne] documentary and about the likes of Miles and Ingrams is that they are quintessentially mainstream figures. They are listened to and accorded respect. They are welcome in all the “right circles”. What they say helps legitimise the thinking and the discourse of others.

And as time goes by, with one incremental move down the slippery slope after another, the revivification of an ancient hatred is starting to look “normal”.”

Indeed. Read Shepherd’s entire post here.

A Gala Performance

This is a guest post from Israelinurse

Last Thursday’s excellent piece by Isi Leibler on CiF elicited a tediously predictable barrage of every type of offensive comment in the book – a veritable Gala Performance of Guadianistas in their element.

First, we have the ‘one-liner’ school of philosophy:


26 Nov 2009, 12:47PM

I always knew there was an alrternate universe where black is white and white is black.

Ladies and gentlemen Cif give you that very universe in this article.


26 Nov 2009, 12:48PM

Israel Phosphorus Gaza Need we say anything more?

Then there’s the ‘chosen people’ trope:


26 Nov 2009, 12:52PM

I?m quite happy to engage with moderate Jews with whom a constructive discussion is possible ? but not those from the extreme wing or those who refuse to accept bsimple facts .

Borrowing from Melanie Phillips definition of a moderate Arab:

My own personal litmus test is their attitude to Palestine and the Arabs in general. If they get that one right – that is, if they understand that fundamentally the Palestinians are the victim in the Middle East, that the Palestinians are a benign and unaggressive people and that the Jewish world has been brainwashed into a demented and paranoid hatred of the Arabs – then such people generally also get most other things the right way round too.

Next, the ‘Israel is a racist state’ libel, in all of its various permutations:


26 Nov 2009, 12:57PM

I don’t even know where to begin. What a tissue of blatant lies!

Demonisation of Israel has become the surrogate for traditional Jew-hatred? The left and many liberals have succeeded in hijacking human rights groups to serve as vehicles to undermine the Jewish state? The automatic majority of Islamic and other radical states guarantees the passage of all anti-Israeli resolutions initiated at the UN? Israel has made more and more concessions over the last decade? Arab citzens in Israel have equal rights? Two Israeli prime ministers offered to cede virtually all of the territories gained in wars initiated by Israel’s enemies seeking to destroy it? The Sharon government unilaterally disengaged from Gaza?

The Minitruth propaganda and rewriting of history goes on. How did this almost surrealistic distortion of reality ever get published?

… most European states nevertheless apply double standards against the Jewish state.

That at least is true. Against the wishes of its people, Europe continues to arm the revolting apartheid State of Israel and fund its theft, massacres and repression with preferential trade agreements, while cynically denouncing, punishing and even militarily attacking States guilty of far lesser crimes.

This article is truly horrible.


26 Nov 2009, 1:53PM

It’s a simply a truism that Israel, in it’s current form, is a discrimantory state. A state which denies the legal and moral right of return to their homeland for millions of Palestinian Arabs for no other reason than they are Arabs, rather than Jews. They’re being denied their rights on the basis of their ethnicity. How is that *not* discriminatory?

There are other forms of systematic and overt discrimination, like the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, which again denies Palestinian Arabs their basic rights based on nithing more than them being the wrong ethnicity.

All this without even getting into the discriminatory practices enforced in the Occupied Territories (settler only roads, house demolitions, Israeli law for settlers, military law for Palestinians, distribution of water resources, etc).

If you’re so concerned about people calling Israel a ‘racist’ or ‘apartheid’ state, why not campaign to bring an end to the laws and practices which give people reason to say this?

Followed by a dose of conspiracy theory:


26 Nov 2009, 2:03PM

My mistake. Zionism has no connection with Wall Street. There is no Jewish Mafia. And there were no Palestinians in Palestine.

And where would we be without the ever-popular ‘Giyus’ conspiracies too?


26 Nov 2009, 2:25PM


And, please tell me you don’t honestly believe that the Israeli government is funding my views!

Now if you’d talked about the Israeli government funding you, I would have said I honestly didn’t know.

But as for your views, the answer is yes. Have you never heard of Hasbara? See the Guardian article below, about Israeli government propaganda on the Internet.


26 Nov 2009, 1:34PM


And so why does Israel gather so much ire – and yet humanity-loving Guardianistas don’t give two hoots abou the Congo?

I think you’ll find that “Guardianistas” care deeply about the Congo. One of the differences on CIF is that the Congolese government does not fund and orchestrate the mass presentation of official Congolese propaganda on CIF’s pages.

If you feel there are too many comments on this page, why are you posting? Or is it just you feel that anyone opposed to Israel’s criminal policies should not be posting?

Not to mention the ubiquitous ‘double standards’ method:


26 Nov 2009, 2:53PM

“in which demonisation of Israel has become the surrogate for traditional Jew hatred ? just as Jews in the middle ages were blamed for all the ills of mankind, so today the Jewish state is increasingly held responsible for the principal woes facing humanity.”

Really? OK, you go first – which of the principal woes facing humanity is Israel responsible for?
Hunger? Nope, Drought, nope, AIDS, nope…

Such ridiculous hyperbole does nothing to advance your cause.

The truth of the matter is that Israel is held up to rather more rigid scrutiny because it pretends to be a modern democracy, with a social and political environment similar to a modern European state.

That’s why we don’t get too hung up about say the antics in Yemen, beause we know that Yemen is just a glorified shit-hole full of armed bandits and nothing else, so our exectations aren’t too high.

But Israel pretends to be like us, only better. After all, God told you to kill all those peole, didn’t He, in order to ensure your nation’s racial purity?
So that’s all right, then…

As if all this did not suffice, we were also treated to a bit of celeb glitter in the form of none other than the newly re-vamped moderate himself:


26 Nov 2009, 1:01PM


*Liebler: ‘It is in this context that Israel remains the only country in the world whose very right to exist is challenged.’*

No, that would be Palestine.

No amount of star quality, however, is a match for the ever impressive, infinitely patient and delightfully precise Petra MB :


26 Nov 2009, 3:29PM


Inayat got close to 100 endorsements for asserting that it is not Israel’s right to exist that is being challenged, but Palestine’s.

In 1947, the Palestinians were offered a state. They turned it down, because they thought that by refusing their state, they could also deny Israel’s right to exist. Accordingly, from 1948-1967, nobody talked about establishing a Palestinian state, even though the Westbank and Gaza were not occupied by Israel. The PLO was established in 1964, the territory they intended to “liberate” was Israel, i.e. they denied Israel’s right to exist. Until today, everybody who supports the so-called one-state solution is denying Israel’s right to exist.

The PLO got around to at least declaring that they accepted a Palestinian state alongside Israel in the late 1980s, i.e. 20 years ago. Not long after that, the Oslo process began, and the idea was that the PA would gradually build up the infrastructure for a Palestinian state. Most of the donor money given for that purpose vanished in Swiss bank accounts, and the only thing that was built up was a large number of armed militias, with more than 20 000 armed members. Serious negotiations for a final status agreement in Camp David and Taba 2000-01 failed when Arafat rejected the proposals; though some 2 years later, he said that this was a mistake:

It took until Salaam Fayyad came into office barely 2 years ago before somebody finally got serious about building the institutional infrastructure for a Palestinian state, though it is by no means clear that this effort enjoys widespread popular support among Palestinians. A year ago, Olmert proposed a Palestinian state on the equivalent of 100 percent of the pre-1967 Westbank-Gaza territory, with East Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital, and a connection between the Westbank and Gaza. Abbas turned it down. Now he seems to regret it:

So, Inayat, who exactly is denying Palestine’s right to exist?

And every now and then, we have news reports like this one from earlier this year:


Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan reportedly said that the group will not recognize Israel nor meet the condition set by the Quartet, and noted that Clinton’s request was unacceptable to the Palestinians.


Former Fatah security commander Muhammad Dahlan on Tuesday called on Hamas not to recognize Israel’s right to exist, pointing out that Fatah had never recognized it.


Recognizing Israel is completely unacceptable.


De facto Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on Monday evening reiterated Hamas? refusal to recognize Israel

So when people make statements that have no basis in fact, as Inayat did here, it’s kind of hard to see how this qualifies as “oh but it’s just legitimate criticism of Israel”.

It is, of course, entirely to be expected that a writer of Isi Leibler’s calibre should bring the CiF crowd out in force as he manages to shake their world view to the very core. It is probably also of no surprise to regular CiF watchers that the more eloquent the pro-Israel argument above the line, the more virulent the comments below.

But the last word has to go to ImranZeb, who seems to be pondering  the same questions as I when it comes to the mysterious connection between antisemites and bad spelling:


26 Nov 2009, 2:37PM


Were you on crack when you wroe this…

That israel is an illegal State which practices apartied & has a human rights record only equal to fascist China;that Palestinioan children ae killed as easily I I just drank taht cup of coffee may be a reason why people have a beef with Israel & your still on the ‘woe is me’ tip

Indeed, one does wonder…

Jewish Conspiracy Theory on the Jewish Conspiracy Thread #3 – Day 2

Last week CiF Watch published Jewish Conspiracy on the Jewish Conspiracy Thread #3 – Day 1. In that post I wrote,

“The third article in the series covering the Oborne documentary on “Comment is Free” was an article by Jonathan Boyd that generated an astounding 509 comments before the “clean up crew” reduced the comment count to 472.

Because of the sheer volume of antisemitic commentary, we are splitting this post into two threads by “day 1″ and “day 2″.

This post covers day 2 of the thread.

Before we take a look at the comments, let me highlight this comment that caught my eye. Hope you’re taking note Daddy Rusbridger.


19 Nov 2009, 2:54

where do i begin, i am a very secular Jewish person who is also a zionist. Ido not feel persecuted by reading these comments, i just feel sick to my stomach, Most of the comments on here are borderline anti jew hatred. I would’nt even call it antisemitism, it goes deeper than that. It just makes me happy to think I don’t live in the UK anymore. My daughter who is studying in Manchester told me that she has never told anyone she is Jewish because she was scared to do so. The other day somebody remarked rather nastily when they overheard her saying her surname (which is typically Jewish), they asked her if she was a member of the Jewish Lobby to get rid of the Palestinians, she told them she had no idea what they were talking about. She did not see the programme about the Jewish Lobbyists. The two in question replied that she was a jewish whore and to go and f***** herself. Very nice, she wanted to report this, but was told it was’nt worth it and it would cause more trouble. She was really shocked because this was the first time this has ever happend to her, all she could say to me was she hated being Jewish. All i could do was cry.

And if that wasn’t bad enough. This is how one of the Guardinistas responded.


19 Nov 2009, 3:01


Rubbish. Utter, utter, rubbish. Operation Suzannah-lite.

Of course Matzpen had no basis at all to discount Janny11’s comment in such a manner but such is the level of discourse we have come to expect among the Guardinistas on “Comment is Free”.

Anyway, day number 2 of the Boyd thread kicked off with a comment from Guardian contributor, Ben White (the same Ben White that has flirted with Holocaust denial and claims to understand why some are antisemitic) engaging in some Jenin revisionism.


19 Nov 2009, 9:19AM

Contributor Contributor

In April 2002, at the height of the Palestinian intifada, media reports quickly began circulating that a massacre had been committed by the Israel Defence Forces in Jenin in the West Bank. Rumours circulated that hundreds of Palestinians had been killed. The BBC suggested 150. Saeb Erekat, interviewed on CNN, claimed 500. Yasser Abed Rabbo intimated 900…

In the final analysis, it was established that no such massacre took place in Jenin. The United Nations report into the fighting eventually concluded that, in actual fact, 52 Palestinians were killed, at least half of whom were militants.

During Israel’s invasion of Jenin in 2002 there was genuine confusion about the number of casualties (like in Gaza 2009, Israel restricted media access). On 9 April, the Israeli newspaper Ha?aretz published a story describing how Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was ?very worried? about the international reaction to events in Jenin, ?where more than 100 Palestinians have already been killed in fighting?, according to the newspaper. Peres was apparently referring to the battle ?as a ?massacre??.

The next day, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat appeared on CNN and estimated that the number of Palestinians killed since the start of Operation Defensive Shield across the West Bank ?could reach 500? (not in Jenin specifically). A BBC report the same day noted: ?Israel says 150 Palestinians died in Jenin?. On 12 April, an IDF spokesperson suggested ?hundreds of Palestinians? killed in Jenin, a figure later clarified to mean dead and injured.

Ironically, in citing the UN report on Jenin by way of some kind of vindication, you neglect to mention that the Israeli government obstructed and blocked that very same investigation.

Human Rights Watch published a report in May 2002, concluding that ?many of the civilian deaths? they documented ?amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF?, with some cases amounting ?to summary executions?. HRW said that the IDF used Palestinians as human shields and employed ?indiscriminate and excessive force?, and that from an estimated 52 Palestinian deaths, at least 22 were civilians ?including children, physically disabled, and elderly people?.

Physicians for Human Rights reported on 30 April 2002 that 38 percent of all reported fatalities in Jenin were ?children under 15 years, women and men over the age of 50?.

We have no problem calling half a dozen victims in a high school shooting a ?massacre?, or indeed suicide bombings inside Israel. But Palestinians cannot possibly be victims of a massacre; only ?collateral damage?.

From Ben White Jenin revisionism we go to this from guysheard and climberdave that equates Zionism with racism:


19 Nov 2009, 10:48AM

One of the problems in this article is that you repeatedly refer to Israel. I think you will find it is the zionist administration of occupied Palestine. If you go from a starting point like that then you’re already engaging in anti-arab racism.

Please change the record about anti-semitism. It is a tired old argument and has no bearing on the issue of anti arab racism by a zionist government . Israel defines itself as a racist regime. Let’s go from that starting point before we start talking about racism going the other way in the form of anti-semitism


19 Nov 2009, 3:10


So if you think “removing support” from Israel will create peace, when this is the true reality of the problem (only a fraction of it), then you need to reflect on that my friend.

I never said it would bring peace immediately but I believe it would force Israel in to a situation where it respected it neighbours and respected those Arabs that live on Israeli soil. That or it will be destroyed.

At present we’re moving towards a situation where the outcome is placed on hold due to Western support of Israel and it’s damaging our reputations. Remove the support and lets see how it plays out.

I have reflected on it. The support of Israel is damaging my countries reputation, I no longer wish my country to support a state whose prime goal is to be bascially ethnically pure.

Then we have the Livingstone formulation in action with this:


19 Nov 2009, 11:50AM

Jonathan Boyd is acting director of JPR, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in London. Well he would have an unbias view would’t he.

Same old, same old, defending the indefensible with the anti-semitisim card,
how original,

And here’s an insight into the truly alternate universe of the Guardianista:


19 Nov 2009, 12:02

Whatwasthat: “In the UK they (Jews) are persecuted by the media…”


The media is disproportionately pro-Israel, and I would challenge you to find any mainstream media outlet that is not.

Errr. The Guardian and BBC spring to mind for starters.

Then we have another example of a Guardianista that engages in antisemitic discourse yet is at pains to deny that there is anything antisemitic in what he or she is saying.


19 Nov 2009, 12:28PM

Interesting what you are saying is that we should limit freedom of speech to ensure we do not say anything which in a worst case scenario may inspire some extremists to react violently even if what we say clearly doesn’t directly or indirectly call for this……..So are you advocating the banning of all religions? Particularly as I would say some religious texts directly call for violent action and certainly indirectly call for it. By your measure you are inferring that Judaism should be silenced…I think that is wrong- I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression, unfortunately that means we occasionally get extremists that take this too far, our role in society is to oppose them, this does not mean blindly supporting their opposition!

There are serious concerns about Israeli apartheid-esque foreign policy which make a great many people, myself included, Incredibly angry. There are also serious concerns about the strength of the highly influential Israeli lobby (how else would they get away with annexation, oppression and genocide). Our media is allowed, and I believe has an obligation, to raise these concerns only if it does so in an accurate and objective way which clarifies the line between aggressive Zionism and Judaism (one of which I vehemently oppose the other I have no objection to). I watched this show after reading this article and I was incredibly surprised by the balance and quality of the reporting. It was made abundantly clear that Judaism is incredibly split over this issue and opposing Israeli policies means just that and not opposing Judaism. I hope more programs like this get into the public eye!

And here’s some antisemitic revisionism from raymonddelauney.


19 Nov 2009, 12:33


They condemn Israel for seeking to defend itself but have no problem with other states trying to wipe it off the face of the earth – as they have been doing since the foundation of the state.

Actually Palestine is the only country

wiped from the map
driven into the sea

And any other emotive language you care to regurgitate.

And we have yet more antisemitic revisionism from bebiking and realsocialist:


19 Nov 2009, 12:37

the notion that Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people

that’s a zionist myth, one of the most extreme nationalistic myths there are: the palestinians are probably the real jews

Israel deliberately forgets its history
An Israeli historian suggests the diaspora was the consequence, not of the expulsion of the Hebrews from Palestine, but of proselytising across north Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East


19 Nov 2009, 12:54

Unknown Slodier.

“I didn’t know Palestine was a country? Who was their prime minister or president?”

Straight out of Hasbara quote book.

Israel was not a country in any moderen sense until The Leauge of Nations were
bullied, browbeat, bribed into establishing it. They gave away land that was not theirs to give.

This is then followed up with Nazi analogies from climberdave who again falls into the camp of those that freely expresses antisemitic sentiments while at the same time claiming not to be antisemitic.


19 Nov 2009, 12:40

I do not like the policies of the Israeli state, I find them abhorant and frankly a form of ethnic cleansing and genocide. To base the premise of a state to be composed almost totally of one ethnic group and to effectively imprison another whole ethnic group and surround them by walls is akin to what was attempted by communism in Germany and on a smaller scale by Nazism towards the Jewish people and other groups.

To blockade a whole population into the situation that exists in the Gaza Strip and then to respond with over whelming force when the pressue builds and rockets fly and then to claim provication for that is not on. The provication comes from the Israeli side by building the walls and placing the road blocks to being with.

I do not however link Judism with the actions and policies state of Israel. I am anti-Israel…. so I just don’t see how such critisism and a review of the policies of Israel can be regarded or labelled as such. Its a word used that makes people stop. We have all been taught or remember the horrors of the holocaust and to use anti-semitism envokes that memory, to use it as a gag against legitamate concern of Israeli actions and policies is horrific.

And then we have some good old fashioned Israel demonization:


19 Nov 2009, 12:45

And you wonder why, after the Arabs and Palestinians rejected Partition and said they would drive the Jews into the sea, that the Zionists decided to use force?


No Mr Keo, UN 181 needed ratification by the UN Security council, which the Americans knew it wasn’t going to get as the Russians would veto it and Britain and France would abstain, which is why they tok it back to the General Assembly, to renegotiate the conditions to make them more acceptable because at the end of the day what they were doing was stealing a country.

Which is why the government of Israel is so desperate to get the Palestinian administration/president to ackowledge and legitimise the state of Israel. Becuse until such times as the original people of the land accept that Israel is a de facto state it’s legitmacy will always be in question and it will remain a colony in another people’s land.

No such recognition is ever likely to be forthcoming as any Palestinian leader to do so would not survie the night as his life would be worthless.

Israel can attempt to rewrite history as much as it wants but the documents are there for all to see and in safe keeping, despite the many attempts by various Israeli governments to have them destroyed.

So Israel remains an illegal colony, just as Rhodesia, South Africa and all others in the past and it’s future will not be decide in the chancellories of the west but by the people of the Middle East. It won’t matter how much the politicians in Washington and London bend over and allow their countrties to be shafted for the greater glory of zionism, ultimately it will come down to Israel’s neighbours, whether or not they are prepared to accept and acknowledge the out of control and rogue colonial enterprise in their midst as legitimate.


19 Nov 2009, 1:08PM

Don`t forget the “Blood lible” of ,Mohammed al Durrah.The British media has form on this sort of thing.

This was no blood libel. The film about Al Durrah may not be true, a falsification, or it may be true. We just don’t know with certainty. But this is no blood libel. We also wouldn’t call Israeli propaganda or possible lies “blood libel”. You also have to consider that Israeli soldiers killed many Palestinian children. If you want to have an idea about how the media in Israel and in the ME functions, read the book by the Dutch journalist Joris Luyendijk who was a media correspondent in the region.


19 Nov 2009, 3:10

Jonathon Boyd – can you honestly not tell the difference between Jewish and Israeli and Zionist?
Why does showing the reaility of pro-israeli and pro-zionsit tactis make someone ant-semitic?
people like you are so pathetic…##oh no don’t say anything bad about the terrorist oppresive regime of Israel!!##

How how this? THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO KILLING NON-JEWS, by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira [link disabled]


19 Nov 2009, 1:09PM

“There was no effort throughout the programme to contextualise Operation Cast Lead in Gaza”

‘Operation Cast Lead’? Shouldn’t that be Operation Phosphorus on innocent children?

And when epidermoid pointed out that Spoutwell’s comment was antisemitic, epidermoid’s comment got deleted. Spoutwell’s comment remains undeleted.


19 Nov 2009, 1:21PM


Operation Phosphorus on innocent children?

Vicious ignorant malice. Pure anti semitism.

And take a look at this comment. It seems that the commenter is advocating that the Jews of Israel be wiped out.


19 Nov 2009, 1:14PM

South Africa used to be a ‘Christian national state’ – something non-Christian South Africans found unpalatable, insulting and repressive.

All but one religious denomination proved instrumental in campaigning for change and, in the wake of appalling racial prejudice, recognized the utter lack of tolerance and mutual respect entailed in a political constitution rooted in religion division. Hence a secular constitution, and secular state.

Religious division produced the Holocaust. Religious division produced Israel.
What a brilliant solution to intolerance.

How did Jews in the USA feel when Bush went around insinuating that he was the leader of a Christian state?

Then we have a variation on the theme that the Jews are responsible for 9/11 with this:


19 Nov 2009, 2:15

There is a difference between anti-semitism and anti-zionism.

It was Zionist ‘terrorism’ in Palestine that ultimately radicalised Muslims and provoked the formation of Al Qaeda.

It is Zionism that lies at the root of the terrorist threat not Muslim extremists.

And take a look at this comment. Its sounds a bit like Ben White’s attempt to understand why some are antisemitic!


19 Nov 2009, 2:22PM

the idea of a shady, morally repugnant “cabal” of Jews seeking to control the world may be a myth but the idea that some morally suspect Jewish people who can never see anything wrong with the way the Israeli government behaves is not.
It would appear that there is always an agenda for some people – whether it is about trying to undermine others – case in point, UN, Goldstone, Human Rights Watch or any other organisation once cares to mention – yet as soon as someone even hints at some underhand tactics being employed some idiot jumps and down about antisemitism.
Read the Haaretz today and you will find that even as this clown accuses Channel 4 about antisemiticism, the Israelis are busy bulldozing the homes of others.
Is there any wonder that some people talk about Jewish conspiracy – they deny others the things that they seek for themselves = whether it is access to the EU, funding from the US, access to European Universities etc
why should there be one rule for one group and another for everyone else?

Then we have a rather Stormfrontesque comment.


19 Nov 2009, 2:45PM

There are around 300,000 or so Jews in this country .

So why the song and dance about them.

Just treat them like any other minority.

After all they’re not breeding as fast as some of the others.

And check out the barely concealed racism in this comment:


19 Nov 2009, 3:04

On the contrary, critics of Israel tend to be decent, intelligent, thoughtful people.
People who relentlessly support Israel tend to have brutish sensibilities

Same old tired, dreary rhetoric – criticism of Israel equates to anti-semitism.

Then we return to the theme of antizionism with these two posts:


19 Nov 2009, 3:58PM


18 Nov 2009, 4:41PM

Anti-semitism : opposition to people because of jewish ancestry or religion.
This is a form of racialism and completely unjustifiable.

Anti-zionism : opposition to the belief that people of jewish ancestry or religion are better than everyone else. This is a form of opposition to racialism and acceptable to all those who believe that all men are created equal.

Not only that, but some of Judaism’s most devoted and fundamentalist believers are opposed to the state of Israel on theological grounds, and oppose the miliatry and economic attacks on Gaza and Lebanon.


19 Nov 2009, 5:54PM

The West’s support for everything Israel does to its Palestinian prison population is the black hole in our leaders claims to moral superiority, democratic values, enlightenment, defence of human rights, etc.

But if you fear you might be secretly anti-semitic, take comfort from Philip Weiss, an anti-zionist Jewish American who argues for a one-state solution:
also Muzzlewatch, Jewish Americans “tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy”.

And what would a thread like this be without deleted pro-Israel comments.


19 Nov 2009, 12:19PM

gondwanaland said “The truth is the British media is very biased towards Israel and always has been. “

Really? Wow, then I guess the term war criminal must be a term of endearment.

Then you said “There are more than 60 million people in this country, and 90% couldn’t give a toss about Israel or Palestine. I imagine the Dispatches program was watched by very few people even if it’s a big story on CIF. “

Well considering that a half dozen professional unions across the UK if not more, including major academic unions, hospitals and more are all trying to boycott Israel. You may think that it is only a very small “minority” of people that couldn’t give a toss about Israel or Palestine,” but like it or not it has become a major issue in the UK media and daily life.

Then you said that “Jews are extremely well integrated into this country and shall continue to be so. There will be no Jewish exodus from Britain, and it’s hard to see why those who do wish to leave would go to Israel, which is already the most dangerous place for Jews to live in the world and is likely to get much worse in the future. “

Are you Jewish?


19 Nov 2009, 12:54

Good article – of course backed up by the wave of ‘nasty Joo’ comments that followed it!
One thing that I genuinely fail to understand is why Israel attracts so much ire from the Guardianistas camp. No sane person could really believe that (even if you believe Israel to be in the wrong) Israel is worse than Sudan, N.Korea, China etc in terms of abuse of mankind. (And btw, I’m not using the argument that others are worse so Israel should not be criticised, I’m wondering why, when others are so much worse, that Guardianistas choose to attack Israel rather than others.) My current working hypothesis: Guardianistas just don’t like Jews.


19 Nov 2009, 2:10

@ Paplagi

You state ‘that the Zionists didn’t have hstorically the intention to share a country with the Palestinians’. Were this true, how do you account for the fact that as of 2008, Arab citizens of Israel comprise just over 20% of the country’s total population? The majority of these identify themselves as Palestinian by nationality and Israeli by citizenship.

In fact it is the other way round, the Palestinains won’t share land with the Jews, preferring their lands to be ‘judenrein’, an extremly well known (and notorious)German phrase that even so many readers of the Grauniad might understand and even more approve of, meaning as it does, ‘free of Jews’


19 Nov 2009, 3:08

The anti-semitism as witnessed in the comments here is truly sickening and what makes it worse is that no doubt these anti-semites consider themselves “left wing” and “non-racist”. Genuine non-racists will be appalled that Jew hatred is now a default position amongst the hard left/Islamist alliance in addition to traditional far right Nazi views. If I was a British Jew I would be giving serious thought to moving to Israel or America or any country where anti-semitism isn’t so prevalent. Why can’t the far left see themselves for the bigoted racists they are??


19 Nov 2009, 3:19PM

“On the contrary, critics of Israel tend to be decent, intelligent, thoughtful people.
People who relentlessly support Israel tend to have brutish sensibilities”

Well, here’s a few “decent” and “intelligent thoughtful” comments from those “critical” of Israel who apparently are so distinct from those who ever even think of buying into antisemitic rhetoric………

The Israel lobby in the US is well known. Its far too powerful for our own good. Even mentioning it exists can get you into trouble.

“Anti-semitism” is a gag, not a statement.”

“If all else fails, libel your critics.”

“And yes, there is certainly a Jewish lobby in the Netherlands.”

“that sibling child of the zionists lobby, neo conservativism.”

!Screaming “Anti – Semitic” at the top of your voice every time someone says something you don’t agree with will only work for so long.
Hasn’t anyone ever told you about the boy who cried wolf?”

“Why are British citizens lobbying on behalf of another country? If the lobbyists aren’t British citizens, why are our politicians listening to them? If they are British, shouldn’t they think about emigrating to the country they seem to prefer? “


19 Nov 2009, 6:05PM

leftwingorthodoxjew said “I haven’t had a chance to see the programme as yet but your article doesn’t seem to really address the issues and is danger of pandering to concepts of “new anti-semitism” which I think are pernicious. “

The new anti-semitism is alive and kicking right here in the Guardian.

It is perpetrated against any Jew who dares to voice their support his for Israel, and many that don’t in what is known as guilt by association.

This is further then all to often translated into the “jews are guilty of crimes committed by Israel,” and of course, most severly impacts any Jew that dares to voice their support for Israel.

For british publications, much like the Guardian, any Jew that dares to voice support their support for Israel is demonized, intimidated and accused of being an outside agitator, as we all saw in Channel 4’s Dispatches programme on Monday night.

And to think the comments above only represented a small snapshot of what went on in the thread.

Shameful. Utterly shameful.

Freedman – Derailed by Chutzpah and Ignorance

This is a guest post by AKUS

Freedman is back – after being consigned to the Siberia of CiF Belief, Freedman returned to his favorite topic – the evils of Israelis and their dastardly plans to occupy even more of the West Bank in an article condemning the plan to build a light rail commuter system in Jerusalem.

Freedman takes care, of course, in his usual hyperbolic and turgid prose, to give the naïve reader who knows nothing about Jerusalem or the West Bank, the impression that this is yet another new and vast expansion of settlement activity deep into occupied territory:

“The architects of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank are highly skilled at the art of needlework, deftly stitching up land inside Israel proper and disputed territory over the Green Line as though it was the most natural thing in the world.”

What has caught his eye this time is what he tries to cast as an incredibly evil Zionist plan to build – oh, horrors!! – a “green” urban light rail connection running from Mt. Herzl (more or less south of the Old City) and for about 5 km from the center of Jerusalem to a couple of suburbs, French Hill (HaGivah HaTzarfatit) and Pisgat Ze’ev to relieve the incredible congestion on the roads leading to those popular suburbs. Ultimately, it will have a total length of 22 km, according to the planning document, from Ein Kerem in the south to Neve Ya’akov in the North.

To give an indication of the distances involved in the section from downtown to the two suburbs Freedman is complaining about, I have added the attached map, erasing some of the many roads that densely pack that area for clarity. The more distant suburb, Pisgat Ze’ev, lies all of about 5 or 6 km from the city center and both suburbs are ALREADY CONNECTED by a congested web of roads to the rest of Jerusalem.

pisgat zeev - Google Maps copy.jpg

According to a planning document via a link provided by Freedman in an attempt to demonstrate the full iniquity of the scheme, this evil attempt to occupy even more of the West Bank has the following dreadful purposes:

• To encourage use of mass transportation;

• To promote operational efficiency and economic feasibility;

• Renewal and development of the city center;

• To reduce noise and air pollution;

• To bring pedestrians and businesses back to the city’s center;

• To relieve traffic congestion throughout the city

Never mind that these desirable goals are typical of those driving urban development in major cities around the world –only a sick mind could use this people-friendly initiative as yet another attempt to blacken Israel’s name.

Freedman’s own chutzpah comes to the fore when he does his best to mislead the reader into thinking that this is some new conspiratorial attempt to occupy additional territory on the WB:

“All that is required is a healthy dose of chutzpah, combined with a drip-drip effect in which a steady stream of expropriating activities are undertaken at a slow but relentless pace, in the hope that insufficient feathers are ruffled to put a halt to the overarching campaign of annexation…

Under the guise of a desire to ease traffic congestion on Jerusalem’s streets, the project bears all the hallmarks of previous efforts to stake a permanent and intractable claim to areas that once might have been considered as appropriate territory to concede as part of a permanent settlement with the Palestinians.”

Despite the impression Freedman tries to give, these are not new “settlements”, and there is nothing new about linking them to downtown Jerusalem – all that will be done is to provide alternative transport options to the citizens. The rail system will simply add a more eco- and people friend alternative transport system to relieve the horrendous road congestion between those suburbs and the downtown Jerusalem. This rail link adds nothing to settlement activity on the West Bank, and runs between long settled, existing suburbs connected to Jerusalem by major road arteries that Israel has repeatedly said are not negotiable and which were annexed by Israel in 1980.

There has never been the slightest intention on Israel’s part, whether Freedman or “the world” thinks this is wrong, to “concede” French Hill or Pisgat Zeev as part of a permanent agreement with the Palestinians, and it is foolish (or worse) to try to mislead the Guardian’s readers into thinking otherwise. Construction in French Hill began in 1969. I stayed with friends there in 1972 or 1973 when it was already a densely occupied suburb. It lies about 3 congested kilometers from the Old City and Central Jerusalem, a stone’s throw, so to speak, from Mt Scopus, and about 1 km at most over the Green Line. Pisgat Zeev was built between 1982 – 1985, and a quick search on Wiki gives the population as 50,000.

Of course, there will be those like Freedman who claim that even if these suburbs were built 1 mm over the old Green Line, let alone 1 km, that is 1 mm too much. Realistically, however, it is clear to all that these suburbs will remain part of Israel in the event that an agreement is ever reached with the Palestinians. Moreover, the impression that Freedman tries to give, of remote and geographically large areas, is, of course, totally false, as you can see from the map or by looking at maps of the area on-line.

Freedman calls for massive opposition to this railway, as if, without French Hill and Givat Zeev the Palestinians will never be able to form a state:

“…all interested parties should be doing their utmost to oppose anything that further cements an Israeli presence in the area. To sit back and do nothing is to be complicit with the insidious plans of those who seek never to accommodate Palestinian needs in terms of their statehood.”

As usual, the Guardian’s sub-head editors are only too eager to help take his plea for opposition a step further:

“The Jerusalem light railway is set to link to illegal settlements such as French Hill. Palestinians need help stopping it”

Perhaps the reason for Freedman’s ire is that this light rail system will only serve Jewish residents of the area and the Palestinians will not benefit? Not so, in fact.

Freedman, never shy about tooting his own horn, gives a link to one of his own articles from a year ago in which he wrote that Arabs are moving into French Hill without noticing the irony in the use of his own words:

“The district of French Hill, which is technically over the Green Line but in reality bears little resemblance to the typical “settlement” stereotype, has seen a steep rise in the number of Arabs seeking to move into its neighbourhood in recent years. Not wanting to be caught on the “wrong” side of the security wall, many Arab families have sought homes on the Israeli side of the barrier, in order to ensure their Israeli IDs aren’t revoked, as well as to avoid hours-long delays at checkpoints as they commute to and from work.”

Thus, this rail system will serve Arabs and Jews alike, who live in the mixed community of French Hill (and its sister community of Tzameret Habira, which is also experiencing an influx of Arab families, according to friends who live there) as well as ultra-orthodox trying to escape from the congestion of other suburbs.

The duplicity exhibited by Freedman in his latest attempt to blacken Israel’s name in the English press by taking advantage of the limited knowledge of the area that most CiF readers have was well summed up by this comment on the accompanying thread:


26 Nov 2009, 5:33PM

Will someone please tell me what the point of this article is?

That Israel reunited Jerusalem forty years ago, and Seth Freedman just found out?

That Israel formally annexed the eastern part of the city that had been occupied by Jordan, and that the city has been subject to Israeli law for 30 years and Freedman just found that out?

That most countries do not recognize Israel’s annexation though they do recognize the de facto Israeli jurisdiction of the city, and Freedman has just found that out?

That Jerusalem is the most holy city in Judaism, and under Israeli rule has been open, for the first time in centuries, to worship by Jews, Moslems and Christians. and Freedman probably doesn’t know that?

That Jews have pined for centuries for their return to their holy city, the ancient capital of Israel, and Freedman must have known that for years?

That Jerusalem is the seat of Israel’s parliament, its government, it’s ministries and offices, and is therefore its capital, and Freedman must know that?

And that the Municipality of Jerusalem has been constructing the city for the past 40 years, during which the city’s population has grown by 350 percent, and the proportion of Arabs in the city has grown from 26.5% in 1967 to 30.5% in 2005, and Freedman probably doesn’t know this..

That despite all this, previous Israeli governments (under prime ministers Olmert and Barak) indicated a willingness to share Jerusalem with a future Palestinian state by handing Arab East Jerusalem over to the Palestinians, but the Palestinians have rejected the offer, and Freedman has yet to discover that?

So, considering all of this, what exactly is Freedman’s point?

[emphasis added]

Well, Gary – the point is that this despicable “as-a-Jew” will use any stick, no matter how feeble, to try to whip up  adulation from his one-time supporters, who are getting more and more disenchanted with his bias, pathetic commentary, and irrelevancy. Unfortunately for him and his dreams, his articles are increasingly ignored by those tired of him and his moaning, griping, whining, and hatred for anything and everything to do with Israel.

The Parallel Universe of “Comment is Free” and Stormfront

The latest Benny Morris thread provided a veritable collection of comments that underscore just why “Comment is Free” is a cesspit of antisemitic discourse.

One of the last comments in the thread provides a perfect example of the type of commenter that is attracted to “Comment is Free”:


25 Nov 2009, 7:47PM

These forums are moderated and censored because you do not have true freedom of speech in the UK.

Questioning the Holocaust is a crime in the UK. What happened during the 1940s that the Zionist-dominated UK government is trying so hard to hide?

Orwell’s England exists today and you are living in it.

And when we take a look at a comment posted on Stormfront, ask yourself if Gregory Fegel’s comment above is so different in substance.

10-01-2008, 11:54 AM
Pretty long winded, but you bring up some good points.
One question I’ve always had with the Holocaust and the death camps is; Is it outside the realm of possibility to believe that a Zionist dominated government (the USSR) could have manipulated the facts, camps, etc. to make it appear as though there was a genocide to suit their political ambitions in the future? I’ve never heard any information as to what happened to the “extermination camps” after the Soviets controlled them for over four decades. Surely the Soviets could have toyed with the camps, if they wanted to. Also, Auschwitz was liberated in January ’45, a month before the Yalta Conference. Surely Zionists, like Morgenthau, would have cited the discovered gas chambers, crematoria, etc. as grounds to implement his extreme policy. As far as I know he never did, I’ve been trying to find the minutes of the Yalta Conference to confirm this. Anyone have any thoughts or other information?
Anyway, let’s delve into the Morris thread and see how the comments there compare to other comments posted on Stormfront.

Well for starters, from the school of Holocaust denial, we have denial of a slightly different form – denial that Ahmadinejad threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Here’s a comment on the Benny Morris thread that engages in such discourse:


24 Nov 2009, 1:54PM

From the article

Iran’s nuclear weapons programme

As far as i know, there is no credible evidence that they have one.


Ahmadinejad called for Israel’s annihilation

Did he really? Citation? Translated from the original Parsi by whom?

Now take a look at a similar comment from Stormfront:

dogsplayingcards //

Forum Member

Join Date: May 2009

Location: Uncle Bob’s Self Storage, GA

Posts: 2,392

Re: No peaceful solution to Iran‘s nuclear ambitions

What Dr. Ahmadinejad said was not to wipe Israel off the map, but to erase the current Likud party and it’s insane policies.
The mistranslation has become the money shot for all the Jew mouthpieces.

Then we have this very telling comment from lovemymod that makes a bit of a freudian slip with a reference to Hitler’s plan to deport the Jews to Madagascar:


24 Nov 2009, 7:21AM

wouldn’t it be absolutely wonderful if after the war Jews had set up their homeland in Madagascar.

not only would Madagascar not have been reduced to an ecological wasterland but we wouldn’t be having a mano-a-mano with Armagedon. choosing to settle in Israel might end up being the worst decision in history.

Now compare this with a comment from Stormfront about the Madagascar plan.

Account Disabled

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 13
Legacy1992 is on a distinguished road

Default Hitler wanting to deport jews to madagascar

As we all know Adolf Hitler was a man of peace and he deeply felt for his fellow officer for all of you who have been reading their TRUE history books and not that crap at high school, I was wanting to get some feedback of how Hitler was wanting to deport the jews to madagascar and not murder them.
I have read meny books on WW2 and I am starting to think that most of the murders and so forth was the allies faults not the germans because Hitler did want peace the king of England wanted peace (the king also supported lord hallifax)
So in a nut shell if England didnt interfere and the soviets were not backstabbers would of this whole mess happen??

And here’s an example of a comment from the Morris thread straight out of the Protocols:


24 Nov 2009, 11:21AM

After we contain the nuclear problem (by ensuring that it doesn?t grow) we can get down to discussing how to reduce or even eliminate nuclear weapons in Britain, Russia, the US, France, China, India, and Pakistan, and possibly in Israel


“We” arent on the same side. The Israelis are just war mongerers hell bent on making sure that the West is at war with every middle east country.

Here’s an equivalent comment on Stormfront:

BuffScotsman //
“Friend of Stormfront
Sustaining Member
BuffScotsman's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,070
BuffScotsman is a glorious beacon of lightBuffScotsman is a glorious beacon of lightBuffScotsman is a glorious beacon of lightBuffScotsman is a glorious beacon of lightBuffScotsman is a glorious beacon of light

Default Re: Iran And Israel Exchange Threats Of Destruction

If it wasn’t for Israel and Jews constantly provoking other peoples and taking aggressive actions.. there would be hardly any conflict in the world.Most groups in the world want to be left alone, and dont’ want to rule over other people. Countries like China, Iran, Russia, Korea etc.. seem to all be able to get along with each other. And this is despite being radically different cultures, races and religions.

The next comment from the Morris thread reflects the knee jerk manner in which the guardianistas whitewash Iran’s atrocious record when it comes to “attacking other countries” painting Israel at the same time as some fanatical regime.


24 Nov 2009, 9:30AM

I see the prozionist trolls are out in force this morning.

Fact, Iran has never attacked another country except in self defence against Iraq, the latter being supported by the West with money and arms.

Nuclear weapons are already in the hands of racist zealots i.e. those who run Israel. We should fear those nutters far far more than any Iranian Mullah. This article is scaremongering rubbish and Morris should be ashamed of spreading the propaganda. There are no nuclear weapons in Iran and the IAEA have only queries on historical Iranian research activities [based on Western allegations] that they want answers for. If you have additional evidence, other than the Zionist bull you read, please send it to the IAEA. To attack Iran would be folly.

Israel should be subject to the same oversight as Iran when it comes to nuclear weapons. Why should they be exempted?

And it seems that on Stormfront there is similar sympathy for the Iranian regime.

Pure Noble BloodLine //

“Friend of Stormfront
Sustaining Member

Join Date: Jan 2009

Location: Moving to Valhalla

Posts: 2,716

Re: No peaceful solution to Iran‘s nuclear ambitions


Originally Posted by richyrichard What “nuclear ambitions”? Iran is a peace-loving country.

Well they are developing nuclear technologies for civilian power plants. There is no evidence they are attempting to build nuclear bombs even though our government, the media, and Israel likes to try and paint that picture.

But as the poster said above, as the muslim in the video said, it is ridiculous to allow Israel, the war monger, an arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons and to claim no other nation is allowed them for defensive purposes in case of an Israeli attack.

Then we have this next comment from the Morris thread that provides another useful insight into how the guardianistas whitewash the truth about the Iranian regime.


24 Nov 2009, 3:49PM

Iran is among the world’s great nations, anciently Persia & long civilized. Muslim by religion they are not Arabs.

Israel, remember, is a newcomer among the nations, a tiny country & supposedly a refuge for the persecuted Jews..

True enough that Ahmadinejad talks a war-mongering bluster about destroying Israel entirely — fool that he is. Equally true that Israel treats Palestinians as Nazi Germany treated Jews.

Collectives as such never learn & Netanyahu, a scholar’s son, is not the man to lead Israel into a promised land of peace & prosperity.

Now compare twitty’s comment with this:

Account Disabled

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 427
Zundelful will become famous soon enoughZundelful will become famous soon enough

Default Re: No peaceful solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions

I hope that this doesn’t sound “fruity” but we need to stand arm-in-arm with our brother Ahmadinejad in this crisis, right now! ZOG and ZOG’s flunky nations want to nuke his nation, just because it is standing up to ZOG. Every sane White on the planet would want Ahmadinejad to have nuclear weapons. Iran is literally the only thing keeping ZOG from taking over the whole world right now.

Then we have this comment from Sumwon who wants to “de-zionise” Israel.


24 Nov 2009, 8:41AM

Mr. Morris, you’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The threat to the region is zionist Israel, not Iran. Iran has not invaded any of its neighbours. Israel is the potential aggressor as it has proved by having attacked its neighbours and having stolen Palestinian land through the aggression of the zionist terrorist groups of Irgun and the Haganah. It is is now stealing more land by ethnic cleansing through the illegal settlements and home destruction. If Israel has nuclear weapons (what are they for?) then Iran has every right to take steps to defend itself from Israel, the USA and its Nato army. Ironically, it is Israel, run by a zionist regime, which is the real threat to the region by its aggressive actions and which is endangering innocent jewish lives in Israel. For peace to emerge, Israel has to be de-zionised so that jews and arabs can live peaceably together as the children of Abraham.

And in case you were wondering where Sumwon got the idea of “de-zionisation” from, check this out:

Messiah //
“Friend of Stormfront
Sustaining Member
Messiah's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the land where Zion has begun to flee
Posts: 14,833
Messiah has a reputation beyond reputeMessiah has a reputation beyond reputeMessiah has a reputation beyond reputeMessiah has a reputation beyond reputeMessiah has a reputation beyond reputeMessiah has a reputation beyond reputeMessiah has a reputation beyond reputeMessiah has a reputation beyond reputeMessiah has a reputation beyond reputeMessiah has a reputation beyond reputeMessiah has a reputation beyond repute

Default British Television Airs: Zionist Control of British Government 1940 – 2009

Zionist Control of Britain’s Government: 1940-2009 by William A. Cook
DateFriday, November 20, 2009 at 8:01AM AuthorGilad Atzmon

“After so many years of setting the tone, bribing UK politicians and controlling the BBC they (Zionists) are used to being untouchable.” (Gilad Atzmon, “Britain Must de-Zionist Itself Immediately,” Nov. 17, 2009, MWC News).
This week the British people listened to the Daily Mall’s Peter Oborne present, on Channel 4, his devastating account of the Jewish lobby’s control of their government. Now we know that virtually all the principal politicians in the UK of both parties, like their brothers across the lake in our House and Senate, take “contributions” from the Israeli lobby machine ensuring that the Anglo-American mid-east policies follow the dictates of the Israeli government. Gilad Atzmon responded to this report in his article “Britain must de-Zionise itself immediately,” noting that this control has been in place for so many years the lobby feels “untouchable.”

As an aside, notice how Stormfront has picked up the Oborne documentary with glee. I wonder why that is…

And how about this one.


24 Nov 2009, 4:14PM

If you try that Mr Morris the Eastern Europeans masquerading as Jewish people currently occupying Palestine will not be doing so for very much longer.

Not so very different in substance from this:

The Mountain King//

Account Disabled

Join Date: Apr 2008

Posts: 254

Re: Hourglass for Iran running out in Israel:Iran approaching it’s fate

The Jews are suicidal. Please let it be the end of Israel.

Then we have this viciously antisemitic comment on the Morris thread that sparked a whole series of comments about whether Jews of Eastern European origin are actually Khazars.


24 Nov 2009, 1:50PM

SUMWON wrote:

For peace to emerge, Israel has to be de-zionised so that jews and arabs can live peaceably together as the children of Abraham.

I agree with your post but with the sentence above which is factually incorrect. The Ashkenazem are Khazars from Eastern Europe who converted to Judaism in the 8th century. Genetically they have more in common with the Huns, Uigurs and Magyars than they have with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

This is the same Benny Morris when accepting Zionists ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians in 1948, which many Israeli so called historians do not, brushes it aside as a necessity for the creation of Israel. He has no qualms about the death of millions of people, as long as they are not Zionist Jews,

No surprise that this is a popular topic of discussion on Stormfront.

ravencall //

Forum Member

Join Date: Aug 2008

Posts: 654

Re: IMPORTANT. Ashkenazis are not Jews but Khazars.


Originally Posted by american SS Say what you will, but jews are jews.

Ashkenazis are not infact semitic, semitic Jews are dark skinned and have Arab racial features, they’re called Shepardic and Mizharahi Jews. Ashkenazis are Khazaric-European admixture thus they share more genes with Mygars, Huns, Turks, Armenians and Europeans rather than with Arabs.

If you can’t grasp that concept, good luck shooting those shadows.

That is a mistake Hitler made, he confused a tiny number of religious orthodox jews going about their business with a homeless, religionless rabble race of halfbreeds from the Christian/Muslim borderland in SE Europe, who go around the world causing disruption under the judaism flag. The word should be Khazar, not Jew.

And lest you think that the selection of comments from the Morris thread above were mere aberrations, here are a few more to sink your teeth into:


24 Nov 2009, 6:56AM

I should imagine Iran is as perfectly entitled to nuclear self-defence as is Israel, Pakistan, Britain, France etc..

I should imagine Iran is as perfectly unentitled to nuclear self-defence as is Israel, Pakistan, Britain, France etc…

Iran wants its nukes partly as a diversion from internal conflicts, and Israel wants its nukes because Israel is Israel is Israel.

All nations get away with mass murder – Iran, Israel, the UK, the US – people are always defending this nation against that nation – but all they’re defending is the ruling class of those nations. I’m against Israel’s right to exist, along with Iran’s, etc. Identification with your ‘own’ nation is just as colonising of individual consciousness as the Israeli fascist settlers are of the land of their Arab neighbours. “The working class has no country…” Unfortunately, if the commodity economy continues to destroy the environment and if nuclear weapons continue to be in the hands of the various rulers (‘democratic’ or dictatorial) who most clearly identify with this economy, then it might well be that the working class will also have no world. All analysis that doesn’t recognise this basic banality is a Manichean “either/or” mentality which takes sides with mass murderers.


24 Nov 2009, 9:24AM

If Iran presents such an existential threat to Israel, maybe someone can explain how it is that Iran’s Jewish minority appear to prefer to remain in Iran rather than accept Israel’s offer to migrate there for sanctuary…


24 Nov 2009, 9:39AM


“UK, one of the most aggressive, self-centered and genocidal political entity in human history”

That’s just stupid. Read a histroy book for christ sake.

I must assume you are Israeli since many Israelis like to fantasise that they are anti-colonial heroes who liberated their “country” from the British imperial yoke rather than being racist colonists.


24 Nov 2009, 10:01AM

What a crock of warmongering, misleading, threatening, belligerent, stupid self-destructive rubbish. If anyone doubted Israel’s paranoic messianism, here it is. Another desperate attempt to up the ante and prepare the ground for more Israeli extreme violence and destruction. Dr Strangelove is alive and well and lives in Israel.


24 Nov 2009, 12:51PM

I fear history will just the imposition of a zionist state in Palestine to be the greatest mistake of the 2nd half of the 20th century and beyond

Author unknown [recreated from 1830’s 24 Nov. 2009 1.10pm comment]

An apartheid, land grabbing, terrorist sponsoring bunch of nutjobs who follow just as vicious and violent Abrahamic faith as Islam, Israel is just as bad as the Arab dictatorships is posits itself as an alternative too and were it not for international observation would have committed it’s own holocaust on the Palestinians a long time ago.


25 Nov 2009, 7:26PM

Israel, the USA, the UK are the great enemies of peace, freedom, and justice in the world today.

Israel, the USA, the UK are using radioactive DU munitions to poison the entire planet. Israel, the USA, the UK are a grave threat to all of humanity and to the global environment, and to all species on the entire planet.

The elimination of Israeli, USA, and UK as political and economic entities will bring a great improvement for the entire world.

Global Warming is a hoax, but Israel, the USA, the UK are a very real threat to all life on earth.

Amazing how commenters on “Comment is Free” find such fertile ground to spread their racist filth. Then again this is the Guardian and we already know the rot goes all the way to the top.

Potato and Parsnip Mash

Adding parsnips to mashers is a welcome change.

By Aida Mollenkamp

Potato and Parsnip MashYes, mashed potatoes are one of the ultimate comfort foods, but even they can get a little tired. Here we mix sweet parsnips and earthy potatoes and fold them together with extra-virgin olive oil for a simple change that makes a world of flavor difference.

What to buy: We usually don’t call for extra-virgin olive oil, but with so few ingredients in this recipe, an assertive extra-virgin olive oil will really shine.

This recipe was featured as part of our Hosting Your First Passover menu.

Total Time: 20 mins
Active Time: 20 mins
Makes: 4 to 6 servings

2 pounds Yukon Gold potatoes, peeled and cut into large dice
1 1/2 pounds parsnips, peeled and cut into medium dice
3 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
1 tablespoon kosher salt


  1. Place potatoes and parsnips in a large saucepan, cover with water, and bring to a boil over high heat. Lower heat and simmer until vegetables are fork tender, about 10 to 15 minutes.
  2. Remove from heat, reserve 1/4 cup of the cooking liquid, drain, and return vegetables to the saucepan. Add reserved cooking liquid, olive oil, and salt and coarsely mash ingredients together. Stir until evenly combined and serve.

See more recipes at:

Illustration by Christoph Niemann

Defining Anti-Zionism

This is the third in a series of articles by David Solway. David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, has just been released by Mantua Books. This article was originally published in Frontpage Magazine on January 23, 2009.

When Islamic terrorists incinerated 3000 people in the Twin Towers, we learned it was really a Mossad operation carrying out the orders of the Israeli government and that Jews were warned not to show up at the World Trade Center that morning. The fact that Jews were among the victims did not register.

When Bernard Madoff was recently indicted for perpetrating a $50 billion scam, antisemitic ravings flooded the Internet. The fact that individual Jewish investors and Jewish philanthropic organizations suffered crippling finanical losses in the scandal did not signify. Moreover, an exemplary post in the prestigious website fingered Israel as the beneficiary of the Madoff bonanza, as if Madoff were only an agent of Israeli depravity.

And when Israel belatedly responded to years of Hamas shelling of its civilian communities by sending its army into Gaza, it was immediately denounced by Western governments, media and NGOs, and Nazi comparisons flew about as indiscriminately as Hamas rockets. The fact that Israel is the world’s prime terrorist objective did not matter in the slightest. Very few protested when thousands of Israelis were killed and maimed by Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and the rest of the terrorist consortium.

These are more than merely episodes. They are, of course, to be expected, the kind of old hat that is constantly being reblocked. The Jew has long been the repository of the world’s accusatory furor. But in today’s antisemitic climate a new dimension has clearly been added to the ancient canard: Israel. For Israel has now become the convenient and representative target of an ancestral hostility, allowing for the delegation of a shameful loathing under the serviceable code word of “anti-Zionism.”

The term has become a veritable gratuity for those who often profess to “love Jews” as the innocent victims of Israeli delinquency or to support an “authentic” Judaism which Zionism has supposedly profaned. They assert no brief against the Jewish people, disingenuously claiming to object to Israeli policies on neutral political grounds. But anti-Zionist posturing is not politically motivated, as it pretends to be; it is only the drapery which cloaks a far more insidious agenda. And despite our seemingly principled disclaimers, we know what it is.

The truth is that what goes by the name of “anti-Zionism” today is, by and large, nothing other than crypto-antisemitism, the contemporary mutation of the world’s oldest hatred deploying a new vocabulary. For Israel is the collective incarnation of the Jew qua Jew, enabling the deft and sinuous Jew-hater to escape moral censure under the sign of “impartial” criticism of a national state. The “anti-Zionist” argument is a far more sophisticated ploy than ostensible moral indignation or the apparent possession of secret incriminating knowledge.

The reasons for antisemitism are no doubt multifarious, but the major cause of antisemitism is that Jews happen to draw breath. In a speech given to the Domestic Affairs Committee of the German Bundestag in June 2008, journalist Henryk Broder distinguished between a prejudice and a resentment: “a prejudice concerns a person’s behavior; a resentment concerns that person’s very existence. Anti-semitism is a resentment. The anti-Semite does not begrudge the Jew how he is or what he does, but that he is at all. The anti-Semite takes offense as much at the Jew’s attempts to assimilate as at his self-marginalization. Rich Jews are exploiters; poor Jews are freeloaders….The anti-Semite blames Jews for everything and its opposite.”

No doubt, if the early Zionists with British agreement in principle had settled in a part of Uganda as a substitute homeland, or had improbably found a pied à terre in Angola or Cyrenaica (Libya), or had followed through on the Galveston scheme of 1907-1914, or if the 1928 Soviet proposal to create a Jewish socialist republic in Birobidzhan in eastern Siberia where Jews would function under their own institutions had not turned out to be a fraud, or if Israelis could be teleported to Alaska as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fantasized and novelist Michael Chabon imagined in The Yiddish Policemen’s Union, antisemites would still have found something to resent and execrate and antisemitism would have continued unabated.

Is it not revealing that antisemitism appears even in countries that are virtually empty of Jews? Soeren Kern, a senior analyst for the Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos in Madrid, considers Spain the most antisemitic country in Europe, nearly half of its people harboring negative opinions of Jews. Yet the Jewish community in Spain is infinitesmal, with only 12,000 Jews out of a population of 42 million, less than .05% (PajamasMedia, December 30, 2008). Similarly, there are only 1,300 Jews in Norway, approximately .0003% out of a population of 4,645,000, yet Norway is the major Scandinavian purveyor of anti-Zionist and antisemitic attitudes and beliefs, and indeed challenges Spain for the European honor (Behind the Humanitarian Mask, Manfred Gerstenfeld, ed.)

Then there is Japan, a world-leader in the propagation of antisemitic material though one would have to search far and wide to find a Jew in that country. According to the Stephen Roth Institute, many writers, publishers and organizations in Japan are preoccupied with Yudakaya, “the Jewish peril.” Books like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The International Jew and Mein Kampf are regularly reprinted in new editions.

The Spanish, Norwegian and Japanese examples, bizarre as they may seem, are only illustrations of a universal reality. Antisemitism will undergo its recessions and its flarings in different parts of the world at different times, but all that really changes is the frequency of its rhythms and the locations of its emergence.

The Jewish community is now under prolonged attack from many different quarters and in many different ways, from suicide attacks and missile camisades in Israel to murderous strikes in other parts of the world to the mounting of conspiracy theories in the blogosphere to the numberless tractarian screeds flooding the marketplace to hostile newspaper editorials and op-eds to “learned” volumes condemning the malefic “Jewish lobby” to crusades of boycott and divestment emanating from important Western institutions to United Nations resolutions and NGO reports to Durban-type conferences to howls of “crime against humanity” whenever Israel moves to protect itself against its enemies.

Add to this the spate of Islamic sermons promising the eradication of the Jewish people from the face of the earth and the imminent nuclear threat of the Iranian mullocracy—and then let us try to convince ourselves that what we are witnessing under the euphemism “anti-Zionism” is really a virtuous campaign of nonpartisan solicitude.

But if we do not court a comfortable state of oblivion, we can sense the rising swell of predatory anticipation in a world preparing to cast out its chosen scapegoat from the body of nations. What we may be observing across the entire gamut of significance—from unknown New Zealand priest Gerard Burns smearing red paint mixed with his own blood on the Rabin monument in Wellington to an all-too-well known Iranian tyrant promising the nuclear destruction of Israel—are the preliminary stages of a world readying itself to launch the next Holocaust, or as close to it as it can get. Ever again.

One of Israel’s scarce Muslim friends, who has the interests of Jews and Israelis at heart, has stated this plainly. Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, Director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community, despairs of Israel’s and the Jewish future. “The nations of the world,” he predicts, are “once again preparing bad days for the Jewish people” (, December 21, 2007).

He may well be right.

Mr. Prime Minister: No to Goldstone!!

If you are a British citizen or resident, please take the time to sign up to the petition at the link below to send a message to the Prime Minister that the UK should declare its opposition to the Goldstone Report and ensure its rejection when a vote is taken in the UN Human Rights Council in March 2010.

Children that are British citizens and residents can also sign the petition if they have an email address.

A topsy-turvy world

This is a guest post by Israelinurse

On last week’s Lerman thread, Guardian editor Matt Seaton demonstrates that for a man who has made a career out of working with words, he seems to be having remarkable difficulty understanding those in the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism.

He rather clearly demonstrates his personal beliefs in the following comment:


20 Nov 2009, 9:55AM

Staff Staff

@ heatwave2022:

For David Cesarani & Co all those who criticize Israel are anti-Semites.

I have to defend David Cesarani from that characterisation. Yes, he took strong exception to this documentary, but to categorise him therefore as in the camp of the ‘new antisemitism’ that would make an equivalence between criticism of Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice is entirely wrong.

So there we have it. Apparently there is a “camp of the ‘new antisemitism’ “, (note the scare quotes) about which Mr. Seaton seems pretty sceptical. One wonders if he has bothered to read the 2006 report of the British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism which clearly stated that anti-Zionism may become antisemitic when it embraces a view of Zionism as ‘a global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history’.

The same report states that traditional antisemitic motives of Jewish ‘conspiratorial power, manipulation and subversion’ are often transferred from Jews onto Zionism. The report notes that this is ‘at the core of the New Antisemitism’.

So let’s take a closer look at a few of the comments in a thread in which Matt Seaton was obviously personally active.


20 Nov 2009, 10:54AM

How is it that the Israel lobby manages to ensure that the Minister for State for Israel ( sorry, I mean the Middle East) is always a senior member of Labour Friends of Israel?

The FCO was shocked by the appointment of Ivan Lewis MP after his genuinely appalling and callous comments on the carnage in Gaza.

No other foreign country (even our US bosses) has this sort of power.

Definitely some sort of conspiratorial thinking going on there. In fact that comment seems to fit the clause in the EUMC definition which cites “Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” as one definition of antisemitism, as indeed does the barely-veiled insinuation by edwardrice:


20 Nov 2009, 6:33PM

I’d like it if there were more documentaries on the lobby industry.

It would surprise me if some of them were not interconnected.

Oil, Coal, Pharma, IT, Weapons, Nuclear, GM, Private Security (mercenaries) …

A comment by sqibby77 not only implies conspiracy theories but also falls into the category of “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” as defined by the EUMC definition.


20 Nov 2009, 3:09PM

It is utterly despicable that politicians allow themselves, their principles and their duty to their own country be bought in order to benefit a foreign power. British politicians should have the British public and their interests at the forefront of every decision they make.

As for the labelling of “antisemite” to anyone who opposes israels policies, i find it laughable. If going against the policies of a racist apartheid state makes me an antisemite, then so be it.

But hang on a second, what exactly does that word mean? semite refers to the people of semitic origin, namely the aramaic, arabic and hebrew people (from judea). It is common knowledge that the jews living within israel are not originally hebrew (from Judea), most are of eastern european origin (specifically ashkenazi khazarians) and have simply learnt hebrew. Learning Japanese doesnt make me a japanese person! The only people on this planet that are truly semitic are the arab speaking palestinians and hence the true antisemites are the hypocrites who like to shout it at every possible opportunity.

Unfortunately, these are by no means the only examples of equally dubious comments on that same thread which seem to have completely escaped Mr. Seaton’s attention, but I guess that if he does not accept that there is such a thing as new antisemitism in the first place, that’s hardly surprising.

The cynical employment of the dismissal of any attempts by Jews to counteract racist remarks against them by dismissing them as some sort of ‘cry wolf’ tactic is despicable in any circumstance. When it comes from the editor of a prominent British media outlet in the 21st century, British society has much food for very serious thought. I certainly cannot imagine any other minority group in the UK having its objections to bigotry used against it thrown back at in such a vile and malicious manner.

But such is the topsy-turvy world of Britain 2009.

Jewish Conspiracy Theory on the Jewish Conspiracy Thread #3 – Day 1

The third article in the series covering the Oborne documentary on “Comment is Free” was an article by Jonathan Boyd that generated an astounding 509 comments before the “clean up crew” reduced the comment count to 472.

Because of the sheer volume of antisemitic commentary, we are splitting this post into two threads by “day 1″ and “day 2″.

Let me start off with an observation from anunbiasedobserver:


18 Nov 2009, 5:57PM

Reading through the comments in this article make me want to throw up. These people just don’t realize that they have such a primordial hatred to jews, call it what you want.

If I was a Jew and I lived in the UK, I’d get the hell out.
With opinions like I see in this forum, I totally understand why they need their own state.

Wow. What a startling comment. Lets take a closer look to see what prompted anunbiasedobserver to say such a thing.

Well, first off we have this comment by stevehill that set the tone for the entire thread. This comment garnered a whopping 385 recommendations.


18 Nov 2009, 4:05PM

So in essence you can’t actually contradict a single word of the Dispatches programme, so you resort to the default position (since you don’t like it) that it is therefore by definition anti-semitic?

If all else fails, libel your critics. It’s easier than acknowledging that maybe they have a point.

The underlying message here is particularly pernicious because it completely discounts the antisemitism that pervaded the Oborne documentary and employs the Livingstone Formulation to drive the point home.

Stevehill’s comment then fuels this from martinusher that has undertones of Jewish conspiracy theory. This one received 286 recommendations.


18 Nov 2009, 4:10PM

Its all true. How does pointing it out make one anti-semitic?

The Israel lobby in the US is well known. Its far too powerful for our own good. Even mentioning it exists can get you into trouble.

And this same sentiment resonates throughout the thread, for example, with these two.


18 Nov 2009, 6:49PM


## Who are these people who see antisemitism everywhere?##

Have you read one of Monnie posts ?..or have a peek at CIFwatch..its frightening but a real experience.



18 Nov 2009, 7:05PM

So to sum up: any report about zionists and their operations is anti-semitic and should be prohibited, except if such report is permitted by those zionists because it promotes zionist propaganda.

Then we have a good example of the Livingstone Formulation in action with this.


18 Nov 2009, 4:10PM

“Anti-semitism” is a gag, not a statement.

And it sparked this “joke” later on:


18 Nov 2009, 6:15PM


Anti-semitism” is a gag, not a statement.

And not even a very funny one.

82 year-old Zaida goes to try out for thye Olympic swimming team. When he returns he is glum.

Boba asks, “So. Did they choose you for the swimming?”

Zaida answers, “Of course not! Bloody anti-Semites.”

Ha ha. Very funny.

Then corracamino makes a comment that echoes the Protocols.


18 Nov 2009, 4:23PM


a joke, considering how much influence the tobacco, alcohol and food lobbies exert in    this country.

Not to mention all the invasions, wars, war crimes, apartheit, racism, and state terrorism we’re drawn in to by that lot.

Then we have papalagi rescsusitating the big lie that there was a massacre in Jenin which incidentally the Guardian was at the forefront in spreading at the time.


18 Nov 2009, 4:29PM

Concerning what happened in Jenin, it was Peres who said that it was a massacre. Haaretz reported it. And after the Israeli attack Israel closed the city and didn’t allow any independent observer to see what had been done. It’s a bit rich to speak approvingly of a UN report about Jenin when a lot of people who do this at the same time reject the UN and the Goldstone report

And while we’re on the subject of the Jenin lie, Daddy Rusbridger, your apology for what you characterized as a “misjudgment” six years later at the Jewish Book Week in 2008 doesn’t wash with us, not when your newspaper and its online forum continue to obsessively demonize and deligitimize  the Jewish state.

Anyway turning back to the thread. Here we have the old time honored Zionism is racism trope:


18 Nov 2009, 4:13PM

“Perhaps most important, it failed to mention in any detail why some Jewish leaders may feel compelled to support Israel. Leaving aside the politics of the region, the notion that Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, or that Israel is the only nation state in the world in which Judaism is mainstream, Jewish culture is the norm and the Hebrew language is widely spoken and celebrated, were all ignored.”

Em becuase the idea that you have a right to a racially pure nation isn’t seen as a respectable argument in Europe for some reason.


18 Nov 2009, 4:41PM

Anti-semitism : opposition to people because of jewish ancestry or religion.
This is a form of racialism and completely unjustifiable.

Anti-zionism : opposition to the belief that people of jewish ancestry or religion are better than everyone else. This is a form of opposition to racialism and acceptable to all those who believe that all men are created equal.


18 Nov 2009, 4:31PM

Jonathan Boyd

Following the events of WWII, the world had sympathy for the Israelis. However they have behaved so abominably there is no sympathy left. Shouting anti Semitism is like South Africa claiming anti-white racism.

And here’s an interesting one from a commenter that writes from the Muslim perspective that again echoes the Protocols:


18 Nov 2009, 4:48PM

I know I’m Muslim but I do think a lot of people are hesitant to criticise Israel for fear of being labelled anti-Semitic. And I also think a lot of people are afraid of getting on a ‘watch-list’ somewhere.

Reading this, I thought you might have had a point in your first couple of paragraphs – then you tried to defend the Israeli atrocities in Gaza. I understand your instinct to defend your faith but you can’t deny the Jewish lobby is unusually powerful and Israel’s actions in Gaza were brutal and despicable.

Then we move to some more demonization of Israel, this time by someone that claims to speak as-a-Jew as if to add greater moral weight to his argument.


18 Nov 2009, 5:16PM

It is also the only nation state in the world that deliberately targets women and children on the pretext that the killings – 320 children and over 100 women – were in self-defence.

One of the best-equipped armies in the world defending itself from unarmed women and children!

I am an ex professional soldier and can tell you Mr Boyd that no other regular army targets women and children deliberately. It is a war crime.

No, Mr Boyd, the Israeli state is nothing to shout about, but rather to be deeply ashamed of, if you are, as I am, Jewish.

If you are not Jewish, them what on earth on you thinking about to ally yourself with an army that kills innocent civilians?

And here’s another one along the same lines:


18 Nov 2009, 5:39PM

I cannot remember a Comment is Free contribution that has so annoyed me.

Let me state my starting position. I am Jewish, and like quite a lot of Jews both in UK and in Israel, I find much of what various Israeli governments have done recently quite distasteful. I did not like Ariel Sharon’s Kadiema party and certainly do not like Nettanyahoo and his foreign secretary Liebermann. One of those interveiewed on the Dispatches programme was a Rabbi, and he liked what is going on in Israel no more than I do. Doubless, as the rabbi actually said, the pro-Jewish lobby will attack him as a self hater.

Now to the programme.

What it showed was that the Tory leadership are not even allowed to offer mild criticism of Israel without falling foul of organisations on which they depend for money. Or that was the inference we were invited to draw, and which I certainly did draw, from the fact that as a matter of policy Cameron and Haig avoid talking about the number of neighbours that have been killed by the Israel military adventures.

The programme showed, of all absurdities, the BBC being forced to investigate the output of its correspondent in the region, Jeremy Bowen. Now a more coherent and balanced reporter it would be hard to find. Only an extremist could possibly take issue with his reports, while the vast majority of us, whatever our individual opinions, appreciate just how lucky we are to have such an excellent reporter.

Of course programmes such as Dispatches do not cause anti-Semitism. As would any decent person be, I am appalled that the writer got attacked on his way to pray in Finchley. There are bigots even in Finchley. There are bigots in most places. Did the attacker tell him that he was attacking him because he had just learned how awful Jews are because of the way they distort reporting and comment on Israel? Of course not. Does the writer even think that some newly acquired knowledge such as this might have been the cause? Again, of course not.

I have news for the writer. There was anti-Semitism before the Dispatches programme. Indeed, even before the advent of television. And, I am sorry to say, there will be ant-Semitism so long as there are Jews.

What causes anti-Semitism? Largely it is an irrational attitude, caused more in the mental attitude and home background of the anti-Semite than in anything else. But the mass killings by the Israeli army in various places, Gaza, Lebanon, … surely cannot help. And these killings are undisputed fact, reported in pro-Israel news outlets as much as in the Guardian and the BBC. And these allegedly anti-Israel outlets have always been scrupulously careful to give the pro-Israel writers a chance to comment. Which is why the present miserable article has been published. It certainly does not measure up to the high standards that I have come to expect in most Gardian articles.

Of course anti-Semitism is also encouraged by really poorly argued articles in defence of Israeli killings. If that is the best they can do …. During the recent Gaza adventure there was an Israeli spokesman called Regev whose comments were so ridiculous that it is impossible for anyone who heard them to have believed a word that he said. That does not help prevent the spread of anti-Semitism. But reporting what can clearly be backed up by fact is not a contributor; today’s article was yet another case of blaming the messanger.

Now take a look at this one. The commenter believes that there is an “International Jewish Conspiracy” and so convinced is he of the fact of its existence that believes that he is not antisemitic!


18 Nov 2009, 5:17PM

I’m sorry, I probably have a lot more time for Israel than many people at CIF but I simply won’t be told it’s anti-semitic to point out that Israel (like many other countries) attempts to influence British lawmakers or that their efforts seem to enjoy more success than, say, any Palestinian lobbyists who are currently working. This is nothing peculiar to Israel, I’m sure the Israel lobby would give their hind teeth to have the influence which the pro-EU lobby commands within British politics, but that doesn’t change the fact that such a lobby does exist.

That’s not paranoia about an International Jewish Conspiracy, it is a matter of recorded fact and people who are sympathetic to Israel would do well not to mischievously conflate the two because it seems to confer a brief tactical advantage. The term “anti-semite” by itself is an increasingly debased coinage as this article demonstrates.

In response, Leofwine made a very astute comment in the thread which has equal applicability to a number of the comments above.

“The big difference between today’s anti-Semites, mostly leftists, and those of Nazi Germany is that most of today’s anti-Semites deny being anti-Semitic. Today’s anti-Semites make a great show of moral outrage with regard to the Holocaust, while they go right on perpetuating the same anti-Semitic myths that motivated the Nazis. At least the Nazis were forthright about their anti-Semitism. One can defy overt anti-Semitism. Nowadys one hears the most outrageous pronouncements about Jews and the Jewish State coming from people who would be shocked, SHOCKED, to be labeled anti-Semitic. How does one defy ant-Semism from those in denial?”

In fact, I would go as far as to say that this is the differentiating feature between the antisemitic posters on “Comment is Free” and the posters on forums like Stormfront.

And speaking of Stormfront, here are a couple of comments that employ Nazi analogies:


18 Nov 2009, 4:39PM

The word Semitic refers to the linguistic groups of the middle east and as such
Arabic is a Semitic language. It does not mean Jewish (although Hebrew is a
Semitic language as well). Arabs and Jews are both Semitic peoples, anybody
with a dictionary can look it up…. or better still you can do it online…

Semitic – of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic

Israel blames the Palestinians for everything, it reminds me of the way the
Nazis would blame German Jews for everything that happened to them in pre
war Germany. It was always the victims fault and never the fault of the state. The weak were blamed for the injustices forced on them by the powerful. Typical “blame the victim” mentality really.
If the Israelis are tired of being treated like international pariahs (like South
Africa once was) they know how to change things for the better. Simply start
respecting human rights and international law. It’s time they made peace
instead of always making war.


18 Nov 2009, 5:48PM


What I find so extraordinary about nearly all these remarks is the vituperative hatred towards Israel. The subject comes up time and again, and always the response is much the same: remarks which, were they made about any other minority group, would produce a storm of outrage. There are large parts of, say, Africa where things happen on a daily basis far worse than anything in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whatever its rights and wrongs.,

I challenge you to find an instance in Africa as brutal, lengthy, so massively side-sided, with the heavily-armed side a creature of the west, being not criticised?

If you can find an instance in Africa where one tribe has been given everything from jet fighters to nuclear weapons, and has used everything from remote drones to white phosphorous to death-camps, and daily oppress another tribe, we would all like to hear about it, and campaign against it.


Moving on, next we have a comment from the school of Brian Whitaker claiming that pro-Israel commenters are paid agents of the Israeli government.


18 Nov 2009, 5:54PM


I think you will find, if you stop to consider, that the outcry against the IDF for killing children was not ‘vituperative antisemitism’, but was, and is, an expected response against war crime, against the killing of unarmed civilians.

Ignoring the hasbara-paid comment on this site, these were real children, and real mothers. They were killed by the IDF, in order to terrorise the population of Gaza. They succeeded.

These are substantiated facts. Read the report – that Israel refused to co-operate in compiling.

It is clear from the report that it was the IDF that used civilians as human shields, there is video footage to evidence this. The evidence was taken by a respected team of independent investigators headed by an eminent South African judge with huge experience in this type of investigation.

Of course, Israel has stood on its head to try to discredit this independent report. But that does not fool many people outside of the US.

Then we have some more conspiracy theory:


18 Nov 2009, 4:43PM

Any British citizen giving money to politicians to support a foreign country is committing treason and should go to jail.


18 Nov 2009, 5:44PM

The simple fact is that the Israeli government and its agents are paying British policians to support Israel. It seems that pointing that out gives rise to a vast orchestrated campaign of high pitched hysteria to deride it as anti semitism.

We need a programme like that every week.


18 Nov 2009, 5:51PM


What causes anti-Semitism?

What causes anti-Semitism is the kind of behaviour we saw in the Dispatches programme. Not the Israeli army but the bribery and corruption. It goes back centuries and becomes part of the culture whether you like it or not.


18 Nov 2009, 6:32PM

Israel is addicted to the conflict in the region. It sucks everyone else in with it. As a brit I’m here to tell you that we’ve had enough of your nonsense. You are not doing Israel nor the western world any favour with your policies in the region.


18 Nov 2009, 6:51PM


Quite successful in ensuring that the Minister for Israel (sorry, Middle East) is always a member of Labour Friends of Israel. Come to think of it, high-ranking LFI-ers.

And what would a thread like this be without pro-Israel deletions. Here are a selection:


18 Nov 2009, 4:22PM

18 Nov 2009, 4:10PM
Its all true. How does pointing it out make one anti-semitic?

The Israel lobby in the US is well known. Its far too powerful for our own good. Even mentioning it exists can get you into trouble.

Did you read that in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion?”


18 Nov 2009, 5:16PM

No one is suggestiing the Dispatches team are nazis, that is ridiculous!

No, the Dispatches team are lazy sensationalists. Blissfully unaware of the impact of their evidence free programme on the general public. Which is the “confirmation” that:

the Jews are are stinking rich,
the Jews are disloyal,
the Jews are secretive,
the Jews are powerful…………….


18 Nov 2009, 5:27PM


Nice to some sanity amongs the dross. The standards are always this low on this subject. Hatred of Jews is indeed a creature of the left.

And if you made it through to this point,  take a long hot shower and stay tuned for day 2 of this thread if you’ve got the stomach.

Foot in Mouth Disease at Comment is Free

CiF is obsessively anti-Israel, has hosted Palestinian supporters of suicide terror above the line and gives column inches to their supporters below it, as well as British Islamists, and has accrued its very own coterie of Theobald-Jews, all of whom purvey and perpetrate the image of Israel as the unique “evil” in the world.

From its inception CiF has insisted that discussion is freely allowed and that it is not biased against Israel.  However, quickly it became evident that CiF states one agenda publicly whilst actively pursuing quite another.  In the past month most of its articles have focused negatively on Israel alone and have been magnets for antisemitic comment below the line.

Editors of a blog should, in theory at least, leave the conduct of discussions to the commenters themselves, and should intervene only as a very last resort.  True, it was to be expected, given the idiosyncratic nature of the moderation, that at least one CiF moderator would evidentially cast all semblance of neutrality to the winds, but was Bella Mackie solely to blame?  She must have thought she could get away with it after CiF’s commissioning editor Brian Whitaker set a completely new precedent which drove a coach and horses through any pretence of CiF editor neutrality when he intimated that pro-Israel commenters of CiF were in the pay of the Israeli government.   He must really be prone to believing conspiracy theories. After all, as commissioning editor, he likely commissioned and perhaps even encouraged Peter Oborne’s pre-emptive swipe at the “powerful” Israel lobby before the Dispatches programme made Oborne look foolish.

Whitaker’s inability to do the typing equivalent of buttoning his lip seems to have set rather a bizarre precedent on CiF.  All the editors seem to have contracted CiF-Variant Foot in Mouth disease:

We get Georgina Henry trying valiantly to bail out CiF’s wished-for reputation for good taste with the equivalent of a sieve, by her frankly risible response to readers’ complaints about the “choir of ethical cretins” blooper on the Michael Lerner thread:


21 Oct 2009, 12:34PM


Thanks to those of you who have raised the issue of Michael Lerner’s use of the phrase “choir of ethical cretins”. The intention was clearly not to offend in that he was using it in its colloquial sense, and in a general way. But I have asked the editor of the Guardian’s style guide (where the word is currently not mentioned) whether guidance should be included on its use. Since we’ve taken the point on board, perhaps the thread could now concentrate on debating the merits of his argument.

(Note, once again,  the curious implacable and arrogant belief that, just because she tells us that calling people “ethical cretins” was “clearly” not intended to offend then we will not be offended and this can be brushed under the CiF carpet.  She does not seem to apprehend that to call someone a cretin in a “colloquial” sense is as insulting as to call that person a cretin in any other sense!  She knows that she has offended because she elaborates the excuse with a reference to the Guardian’s style guide, in the vain hope that this will really throw us off the scent).

Matt Seaton seems compelled to interfere on the threads, too!  Here he is on his white charger defending the indefensible in the shape of Tony Lerman:

In his post below, Seaton sets out a rather confusing duality of roles –  as a CiF editor “.. to try to exercise impartial and balanced judgment over our comment coverage…” (emphasis mine) and what he calls a “staffer joining a discussion below the line, where really we comment in a personal capacity…”

mattseaton’s comment 20 Nov 09, 12:59pm

@ pretzelberg:

20 Nov 2009, 12:31PM

Matt Seaton is a bigwig at CiF and appears to be supervising this thread. Nowt wrong with that.

But when he uses terms like “courageous” in reference to the article by Anshel Pfeffer, then I do have my doubts re. his impartiality.
There’s nothing wrong as such with praising the article – but doing so within said supervisory capacity is a bit dodgy IMO.

Bigwig here. Well, I don’t think I am here in a supervisory role, as you put it. This sounds terribly pompous (but then I am a bigwig, so I can’t help it), but I draw a distinction between my responsibility as Cif editor to try to exercise impartial and balanced judgment over our comment coverage and the role of a staffer joining a discussion below the line, where really we comment in a personal capacity. In short, different roles, different standards applied.

You’re welcome, of course, to disagree with my remarks here, but I’d like to be clear: if you do, it’s because you regard my comments as dodgy, not because it’s dodgy for me to have made them.

I called that Pfeffer article ‘courageous’ advisedly, and partly because I think it’s instructive to see that, given the flak Tony Lerman catches here in the UK, that Pfeffer can make comparable arguments in Israel itself. Of course, Pfeffer probably gets some stick too…

Seaton actually admits above to different roles and different standards applied, but I cannot trust any of the CiF editors to keep the boundaries between the roles.   Whitaker has shown that he cannot, and Seaton gives no indication that he realises the difficulties such situations may present. By commenting at all he is pushing those boundaries.

And here Seaton is defending Tony Lerman again, this time in reply to SantaMoniker:

mattseaton’s comment 20 Nov 09, 1:12pm

@ SantaMoniker:

20 Nov 2009, 12:41PM

I’ve been reading up a bit about Mr. Lerman on that other site – you know the one – CW – and its appears that Mr. Lerman is using the Guardian as a way to continue his fight against his dismissal from the Institute of Jewish Policy Research. Hence his attack on Jonathan Boyd’s article in CiF: [… etc]

SantaMoniker, that’s old news… and, in this context, a fairly pathetic smear. I can tell you that Lerman who, as you may not have noticed, contributed an introduction to the pamphlet authored by Oborne and James that accompanied the programme and which was published by OpenDemocracy (here). So his article on this was proposed and accepted long before Jonathan Boyd’s, which we gladly took unsolicited. Lerman, of course, then — at our behest — took in the arguments of Cesarani and Boyd in his article. But you and that ‘other place’ have got it entirely upside and back to front, I’m afraid.

Imputing false motives to Lerman really is the last resort of those would rather avoid discussing the issues and answering his arguments.

(Of course Seaton would hardly tell us if SantaMoniker had been right, would he?)

And here he is again on the Lerman thread in reply to TomWonacott:


20 Nov 2009, 2:22PM

Staff Staff

@ TomWonacott:

20 Nov 2009, 1:35PM

The goal of the “documentary” on the Jewish lobby in Britain was simple.

To be fair, the documentary carefully observed the distinction between, on the one hand, the British Jewish community with its many strands of opinion and, on the other, the British ‘Israel lobby’. We here prefer to qualify the latter phrase by calling it the ‘pro-Israel lobby’ (as it is a lobby for Israel, not of it). But in any case, the programme specifically avoided calling the object of its scrutiny a ‘Jewish lobby’.

It’s not just pernicketiness. To say, as you do, that –

The documentary perpetuates myths about Jewish power and influence

is a reasonable contention, and very much at the heart of the discussion on all these threads. But to claim the programme’s declared subject was a ‘Jewish lobby’ is, in effect, to label it as an antisemitic project from the outset.

The glaringly obvious difficulty with this from Seaton, (and he doesn’t make clear whether he is wearing his CiF Editor’s hat or he is commenting as a staffer below the line) is that he is either very ignorant or is obviously trying to pull a fast one.  That the article did not distinguish sufficiently clearly between the “Jewish” lobby and the “Israel” lobby is crystallised by the ease of the conflation of the two in the the following post, which is still on line.  I would wager that the poster Raskalnikov was not the only one who was easily “confused.”   Note the reference to the “Jewish lobby”:


20 Nov 2009, 9:31AM

I can understand al the fuss and bluster relating to being ‘found out’. No one likes the stones to be turner over because of what might crawl out. But to raise the cry of ‘Anti-semitism’, is ridiculous. I have watched programmes and read about the work of lobbies in the political process and not felt in any way that it was all a matter of distrortion and conspiracy on the part of the people presenting/writing on the subject.

I watched the Channel 4 programme about the work of the Jewish Lobby in British politics and felt ashamed of our politicians in the manner in which they seemed to be btowbeaten and seduced by cash into support for the state of Isreal’s policies. Something like this needed to be exposed, particularly in the present climate of revulsion against the Britsh political process, so that it can be eliminated. Where is the democratic process in all this miasma of expenses, paid advocacy and the ‘public interest’?

I would challenge anyone to accuse me of anti-semitism I am most certainly not. What I would say though is I do not agree with the policies pursued by the state of Israel and I would like our political elite to take into consideration the views of it’s own electorate on this subject and not cave in to threats, bluster and cash in relation to the interests of another country.

Let me repeat, I am not and never will be anti-semitic, but I do object to our political process being used in the interests of another country.

Irrespective of  this last failed attempt by Seaton, what do these few examples of many where CiF Editors interfere below the line, tell us about CiF’s impartiality, or rather the lack of it?   Elsewhere on this blog, I wrote about the ways in which I believe that CiF infringes the Code of Conduct of the NUJ (and that I assumed that all the editors are members).

There is not, as yet, an equivalent Code of Conduct for blog editors but when and if one is written, I hope that included in it is strong emphasis on the necessity for blog editors to retain impartiality and neutrality when they themselves comment on the articles they commission.  Part of this neutrality and impartiality must necessarily comprise leaving thread authors to fend for themselves rather than rushing in to defend them from real or imagined insult.

Lerman’s Hidden Agenda

This is a guest post by AKUS

Lerman has been using the Guardian as his (only?) way of furthering the dispute which caused him to leave the Institute of Jewish Policy Research or IJPR. His support for the Oborne documentary, and the litany of one sided accusations and “discoveries” about “the Jewish lobby” could be hurled at a long list of pro-Palestinian organizations. But, leaving aside his obsessive hatred of Israel, which of course makes him a welcome guest on CiF, that does not really interest him as much as having an avenue, in his fevered anger, with which to attack his former employer in a newspaper that has nothing to do with his departure from IJPR:

Thus, buried in his angry article, we see:

Sadly, acting director of the Institute of Jewish Policy Research Jonathan Boyd’s recounting of the contemptible attack he experienced falls into the category of irresponsible scaremongering. He uses a distorted version of Alan Rusbridger’s comments in the programme on press coverage of Israel as a stick to beat the media for rising levels of anti-Semitism – a classic case of blaming the messenger.

It doesn’t end with the attack on Jonathan Boyd. In an earlier column, he used the Kaminski affair as the basis for his attack on the IJPR. At the time, in a previous article, I wrote:

Lerman’s appointment in early 2006 as Director (for the second time) of a Jewish community think-tank, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (IJPR) precipitated the resignation of four IJPR directors and of one of its honorary patrons, the Conservative peer Lord Kalms. This was because Lerman had questioned the viability of Israel as a Jewish State. In 2008 Lerman “left” the Directorship of the IJPR and he is now futilely trying to strike back at mainstream Jewish leadership, using the Kaminski affair as a crutch to justify himself:

Having played the Kaminski card against Lord Kalms once, Lerman uses the Guardian to further his attack on this person. Lord Kalms is apparently a personal nemesis of Lerman’s who resigned from the IJPR, presumably taking his (considerable?) financial support with him, in protest against Lerman’s virulent bias against Israel. Lerman uses this latest article, ostensibly in support of the Oborne documentary, to take aim at Lord Kalms

These same businessmen and entrepreneurs who support and drive the Israel lobby organisations are sought after to chair major Jewish charitable institutions. They’re not kept hidden in boxes. They’re lionised. We should have the guts and the confidence to allow the robust but fair discussion of their involvement in politics. Peter Oborne investigated Lord Ashcroft. Why shouldn’t he do the same with Lord Kalms?

Not only is Lerman disguising his campaign via these articles in the Guardian against his former employer and a person whose resignation likely precipitated Lerman leaving the organization (since his views and direction were opposed to the aims of the organization and its supporters), he is, it seems being deliberately provided with a platform to do so. I cannot help wonder why the Guardian insists in inserting itself into a spat that should be taking place, if at all, within the Jewish community.

Perhaps Lerman, this broken reed, is the best stick they can find to beat the IJPR for the “crime” of employing people who support Israel.