“Defamation” … of Truth, of Victims and of Antiracists


An Open Letter to Yoav Shamir, who made the film ‘Defamation’

This is a guest post by Jonathan Hoffman. It is also published on his blog at thejc.com.

Dear Yoav Shamir

I read that your film ‘Defamation’ won the prize for Best Documentary at the London Film Festival. I see the ‘as-a-Jews’ are in ecstasy over it. I have a suggestion for your prize: an air ticket Tel Aviv/Mumbai/Paris (you won’t need a return to Tel Aviv). The brave freedom fighters who sought out and murdered Rabbi Gavriel and Rivkah Holtzberg Z”L in Mumbai 13 months ago would love to meet you. They adore Jews – especially Israeli Jews. And the killers of Ilan Halimi in Paris would also like to meet you in person to award you a prize.

I also have a suggestion for your next film. Make a documentary about paedophilia, suggesting it’s vastly exaggerated. That it’s a figment of the imagination of over-protective middle class mothers who need arguments to justify their decision to stay at home rather than go to work. You could start with an interview with Goncalo Amaral, the former detective who says three year old Madeleine McCann’s kidnap in May 2007 was ‘invented’ after she died in her hotel room. Then you could mock the UK’s CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checks that all who work with young people now have to go through, even Scout and Guide leaders. And you could mock the person who told retired Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Stevenson that he was not allowed to take photos of his grandson playing football. And maybe you could persuade Sara Payne to let you film her as she campaigns for ‘Sarah’s Law’ to be enacted, on the pretext that you are making a serious film about paedophilia.

London’s soi-disantes will love it, Yoav! And the best thing is that no-one will be able to ‘prove’ you wrong. That’s the essence of conspiracy theories, isn’t it Yoav? You can always tell those who accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist that they are just part of the conspiracy!

I read that ‘Defamation’ is a film about antisemitism. I saw it. It isn’t – perhaps because you haven’t a clue what the word means – no, really means! – and make no attempt to find out. I don’t blame you for not knowing. No Israeli who has never lived anywhere else knows what the word really means. Living in a country where Jews are the majority, how could you? Oh yes, you know what it means in an academic sense but you have never, for example, been told by a non-Jew that “the Nazis should have finished the job” or ‘If you look through history, Jewish people are vindictive and probably evil and probably very unpleasant.’

Indeed the first thing you say in the film is “Being an Israeli Jew I have never experienced antisemitism myself”.  At least you’re honest – sometimes.

So the first thing we see is your conversation with your grandmother. She wonders why Jews who experience antisemitism don’t make Aliya. After thinking about it, she realises. They are making money abroad, without having to work for it: “Jews have money, Jews are crooks.” I agree with David Hirsh: if that was my grandmother I wouldn’t show those scenes to the non-Jewish world, which is clearly your target audience. Does she know about her cameo role in the film Yoav? What do your parents think about it?

And then there are the scenes with Abe Foxman of the ADL in New York. I think he and your grandmother might join forces. He trusted you, didn’t he? He trusted you to make a serious documentary about antisemitism, didn’t he? After all you’re an Israeli. But you kicked him in the teeth didn’t you? You betrayed his trust, you mocked his ADL colleagues for not being able to find you a current antisemitic case to film (there are a stack of incidents on the Website you could have investigated but that would have involved some effort on your part wouldn’t it ….. ) Far better to waste your host’s time when you know full well that much antisemitism (like that on CIF for example) does not make great cinema. And you mocked the American Jews who accompanied Foxman on the ADL Mission to Kiev, though you were delighted to film the naïve ones who were willing to whisper to you that Foxman takes it all too seriously.

It’s hardly surprising that Foxman has denounced the film. He said that it “belittles the issue (of antisemitism) … and cheapens the Holocaust. It is Shamir’s perverse, personal, political perspective and a missed opportunity to document a serious and important issue.” The ADL said it “belittles the issue and portrays the work of ADL and that of his own country as inconsequential. Defamation is neither enlightening, nor edifying, nor compelling.  It distorts the prevalence and impact of anti-Semitism and cheapens the Holocaust.”

You may not know much about antisemitism Yoav but you know enough to give your film a supercilious agenda to mock and belittle those who do take it seriously. Else why would you have featured Norman Finkelstein – who believes that Jews exploit the memory of the Holocaust in order to make money – and Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the so-called academics who penned a “particularly ripe example of the global Zionist conspiracy libel” (Melanie Phillips)? And Uri Avnery (“antisemitism is an Israeli invention”)?

Your protestation about Finkelstein (“I didn’t realise how controversial he was”) was a disingenuous piece of fiction wasn’t it, Yoav – given that you also featured Walt, Mearsheimer and Avneri……

You even exploit children for your nasty sneery ignorant little conspiracy theory that antisemitism is much exaggerated by those who need it as an enemy in order to give them a Jewish identity. You film a group of 15-year old Israeli high school kids on a trip to Auschwitz. Like Foxman, they assume you are making a serious film and they unburden themselves to you (“We feel guilty for not having emotions”). You even film them sobbing after visiting Auschwitz. Such intrusion on private grief would be justifiable if the film was serious but in what amounts to nothing more than a crude pisstake, it’s completely unforgivable. I think they might have something to say to you too, Yoav – along with Foxman and your grandmother. Oh and you even sneer at their security guards for supposedly making them believe that Poles are all antisemites. But unfortunately it’s necessary for a busload of Israeli schoolchildren abroad to be protected. And if some of them as a result get exaggerated ideas about the Poles of today, so what? They’re only kids and many of them have never been away from home before.

Your ending was such insincere cant – given what had gone before – that I threw up all over the keyboard:

Putting so much emphasis on the past is holding us back. Maybe it’s about time to live in the present and look to the future.

No-one has summed up your disingenuous anti-documentary better than Mark Gardner of the CST:

To call this an examination of “what is antisemitism today” is itself a defamation: a defamation of the many Jews throughout the world who have fallen victim to physical antisemitic attack in recent years, and a defamation of those, including CST, who have sought to reverse the current near-global phenomenon of escalating antisemitism.

Yours in contempt
Jonathan

241 comments on ““Defamation” … of Truth, of Victims and of Antiracists

  1. Grauniad = Stürmer,

    “AMEN !!!!!”

    That’s not you Jonathan, is it?

    These multiple usernames are very confusing…..

  2. margie asked “Please, don’t feed the trolls.”

    I’m with you sister. They’re like tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber.

    Reminds me of the financial message boards, idiots out to say anything just to piss off someone else, or otherwise trying to convince others to think like themselves in order to make them feel OK with their own views.

  3. “Unless they’ve taken it down, pending some security fix?”

    The entire website was hacked yesterday. Every page on it had the same result (the ‘Palestinian’ page) yesterday. Not just Jonathan’s blog.

  4. Oy Va Goy,

    “The entire website was hacked yesterday. Every page on it had the same result (the ‘Palestinian’ page) yesterday. Not just Jonathan’s blog.”

    I think you’re right. When I just checked, even the archives weren’t working, and google is showing some heading in pidgin english….

    Numpties, whoever they are.

  5. Exile/Richard/Oy Va Goy, that is why I think it’s a waste of time to pay attention to trolls. They only come to sites such as this to cause dissension and disruption.

  6. I was thinking all day yesterday – why does the name ExiledLondoner sound so familiar. And then I remembered:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/05/israelandthepalestinians-obama-white-house
    In his article Petra MB quotes from reports issued by the Brookings Institute and the Saban Centre. This unleashed a ludicrous barrage of criticism that she did not sya that her sources were “biased” (i.e pro-Israel, as opposed to pro-Palestinian sources which are “objective”.

    Our friend Exiled jumped into the fraywith the following comment:

    exiledlondoner
    5 Dec 2008, 5:57PM
    Petra,
    As for being respected – like all of those who adhere to a faith (and Zionism is a faith), these people may well be enormously well respected when it comes to issues that they have no personal interest in, but when it comes to Israel, they are clearly tainted by their previous history.
    I would echo the comments of those who questioned your decision not to mention the political background of some of the authors – clearly a relevent issue. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t quote such sources – only that it would have been rather more honest for you to have mentioned their clear lack of impartiality.

    To which I replied:

    b752i
    5 Dec 2008, 6:09PM
    ExiledLondoner:
    Are you serious? tainted? how about some of the other articles posted recently? Why isn’t Silverstein ‘tainted’ ? Karen Abuzayd?
    When someone British writes about Ireland, for example, would it be correct to say:
    “these people may well be enormously well respected when it comes to issues that they have no personal interest in, but when it comes to Ireland, they are clearly tainted by their previous history.”
    and then reject everything they say without exception?
    Or does your statement apply only to one group?

  7. @ VacuumCleanersSuck

    This exposé is indeed a threat to propagandists for Zionism and the State of Israel such as Jonathan Hoffman, CST

    No mate, dissmissing the CST as “propagandists for Zionism and the State of Israel” is ridiculous.
    See their extremely reasonable response to the Dispatches/lobby programme, for example.

    Re. the JC hack job. Has it occurred to you that perhaps some Turkish jihadists did the job? There was that diplomatic incident recently, of course. I did find it strange that the Turkish language used was full of capital letters – but that could have something to do with some html issue I’m unfamiliar with.

    When you say it was a “put on” or a “set up” – are you thinking the perpetrators were wacko Muslims of the non-Palestinian variety?

  8. b752i,

    “I was thinking all day yesterday – why does the name ExiledLondoner sound so familiar. And then I remembered”

    Good God! You must have memory problems. I haven’t exactly been hiding – there are thousands of my posts out there.

    So this is what you came up with?

    In response to Petra’s championing of the work of the Saban Centre and the Brookings Institute, but failing to mention that both are fanatically pro-Zionist organisations, I wrote…

    Let me quote my whole post…
    ____________________________

    “Petra, If we’re going to have a “gradual process”, can we at least have one that’s going in the right direction?

    Actually, I agree with you about American’s inate feeling of support for Israel, and no, I don’t think it’s simply a matter of propaganda and ignorence – there are very obvious reasons that Americans support Israelis, some of which are based on shared values and interests, and some of which come from Palestinian actions.

    Having said that, I can’t see how any American who supported the Israeli people would give any time to this report, partially written by Zionist extremists, and designed to prolong the conflict for political reasons? Quite why this think tank should be any more regarded as having Israel’s best interests at heart, than the extremist settlers, rather escapes me.

    As for being respected – like all of those who adhere to a faith (and Zionism is a faith), these people may well be enormously well respected when it comes to issues that they have no personal interest in, but when it comes to Israel, they are clearly tainted by their previous history.

    I would echo the comments of those who questioned your decision not to mention the political background of some of the authors – clearly a relevent issue. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t quote such sources – only that it would have been rather more honest for you to have mentioned their clear lack of impartiality.

    Being partial doesn’t mean they’re wrong, but the fact you chose not to mention that does rather suggest that you thought that if the readers might come to that conclusion, had they known?

    What are you trying to do? Inform or mislead?
    _____________________________________

    So there you go – there’s your smoking gun! I challenged Petra on the sources for her article.

    I would love to do the same text analysis for you b752i, but most of your posts have been deleted (as usual) – yes, I remember you too…

  9. I don’t post on CiF but this probably wouldn’t stay up for long anyway, since it contradicts the Guardian World View:

    At http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm

    At 7.39

    Note the location of the interview

    Note that the Gaza economy, although not at its best, is hardly at rock bottom

    Note that entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Gaza

    They cannot get materials through the embargo because Hamas confiscates them to use for rockets and military equipment.

    I would imagine that Hamas takes its cut (and uses that to buy rockets and military equipment) from whatever comes through the tunnels. This means that the poor in Gaza are immediately disadvantaged.

    And at 8.39

    Ahmed Yousef blames the Americans and Israel and the occupation for tribal in-fighting between Hamas and Fatah.

    Can someone risk a moniker and post this for me?

  10. ExiledLondoner

    Hoffman’s “been enormously successful in achieving his main objective – shutting down criticism of Israel, particularly from public figures.”

    Unless you are being ironic or sarcastic, the only response to that is: Yeah…Right…Whatever.

  11. Exiled:

    You totally miss the point – again and again and again. You “challenged Petra on the sources” (whatever that means), sources that she clearly listed. Do you honestly expect her to say “according to reports issued by the biased Brookings Institute and the tainted Saban Centre …” ? The point is that you would never consider “challenging” any of the other people that I listed in my comment, i.e. would you challenge Silverstein if he quoted Walt & Mearheimer without explicitly mentioning their background? I haven’t seen anything like this in your “thousands of posts”.

  12. Morning campers!

    This site is turning out to quite an interesting window on the world. And all this guessing about who is who, although rather silly, it still quite amusing.

    And as exiled mentioned yesterday, wonder what moniker ‘Hawkeye’ used on CiF..? Intriguing, eh people?

    See if you can suss out Matt Seaton on this thread… Oh, and whatever happened to ClaptheHammer?

  13. Latest bulletin from the JC!

    ‘Palestinian attack on JC website’

    “The JC’s website was the subject of an online attack yesterday. Hackers managed to get on to the site and place a message on the home page in support of Palestinian Mujahaeeds.

    The site was immediately suspended while technicians investigated a possible firewall breach.

    Only thejc.com site was affected. None of our numerous sister servers handling our archives, e-paper, social and personal, debating and MSFL sport were infiltrated.

    Pleasingly, the community was quick to respond. By 4.40pm, a mere 20 minutes after the site was breached, senior executives had received dozens text messages and phone calls alerting them; from synagogues, the CST, Jewish organisations and individuals.”

    http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/26147/palestinian-attack-jc-website

    Of course, it’s all rather presumptious proclaiming this was a “Palestinian attack on JC” — while the breach is still being investigated by IT experts. Didn’t Mummy tell us not to believe everything we read?

    Open minds, people — open minds.

  14. Margie was correct.

    There is little point in engaging with these trolls, cranks and grumblers.

    Their role is not to deliberate on the film, but to disrupt threads.

    They are not concerned with the merits or demerits of the films, but just take some perverse pleasure in curtailing the debate.

    You will notice that none of them, including exiledlondoner, actually talk to the substantive issues of antisemitism in any meaningful way.

    Rather their exchanges seek to personalise issues and bring out invective, it’s fairly clear that they have no productive aspect, either intellectually or personally, as evidenced by their posts.

    Might I suggest that they are ignored, despite their provocations.

    It would be far better if these threads discussed the issue of anti-Jewish racism and how it is minimised in the West, in light of this film, etc.

    Again, just ignore the provocation, nothing that you say to them will get through and they will only have succeeded in disrupting discussions. That is their purpose.

  15. Modernity,

    “You will notice that none of them, including exiledlondoner, actually talk to the substantive issues of antisemitism in any meaningful way. Rather their exchanges seek to personalise issues and bring out invective…”

    Did you ever get around to reading the article?

    You don’t think that maybe it sought “to personalise issues and bring out invective”?

  16. @ modernity

    So these “trolls, cranks and grumblers” do not “talk to the substantive issues of antisemitism in any meaningful way”, you say.

    Well, that includes you for starters …

    So what are you (and margie)? Troll? Crank? Grumbler? Hypocrite?

  17. Pretzelberg, who I am is hardly relevant.

    I am pleased that there is a blog that allows people to express their views and to exchange opinions on the subjects dealt with on cif but without arbitrary and unexplained deletions and bannings. There are those on this thread who go out of their way to be disruptive and unpleasant, apparently encouraging this blog to institute the same practices as the Guardian. These people and those who cooperate with them, are trolls. It would be a pity if the freedom of expression we enjoy here was sullied by their childish behaviour.

  18. @ Margie

    Who are “those on this thread who go out of their way to be disruptive and unpleasant”, and who are “those who cooperate with them”?

    Too many times on this site have I engaged in the debate concerning the issues addressed in the relevant article – only to face baseless accusations and insinuations of anti-Semitism.

    So surely you would include my accusers in the group of people you describe – right?

    Would you not agree it is important that this site allows people to express their views and to exchange opinions without being unfairly harrassed and hounded?

  19. Maggs

    “..for those who care..”

    Yeah, thanks — that’s all of us then. I mean, is there anyone here who doesn’t care?

    “I am pleased that there is a blog that allows people to express their views and to exchange opinions on the subjects dealt with on cif but without arbitrary and unexplained deletions and bannings.”

    Me too, as I’ve said on here umpteen times in the last few days.

    “There are those on this thread who go out of their way to be disruptive and unpleasant, apparently encouraging this blog to institute the same practices as the Guardian. These people and those who cooperate with them, are trolls. It would be a pity if the freedom of expression we enjoy here was sullied by their childish behaviour.”

    Really? And who are these lost souls? You don’t mean the likes of ‘Guardian = Sturmer’ do ya?

    BTW — Doncha think regularly posting “Please, don’t feed the troll” in bold is just a tad childish? And if you’re including me amongst these disruptive individuals, then Hawkeye sure ain’t taking your advice, is he darling?

  20. Hardly pretzelberg.

    “Your accusers???!”

    You,”mate”, are not important enough to have “accusers!”

    You are a pest like exiled.

    Express views by all means but make them sensible and keep them succinct and interesting rather than, like a child, burbling just to hear how your own voice sounds.

    For as it is, as they say in the north,

    “Your voice gives my arse a headache”

    And the same goes for you, exiled. Neither of you contribute much here you merely nitpick and annoy.

    But while you children are posting here CiF is not getting hits from you, and you are boosting the hit rate to this blog.

  21. snigger

    Pretzelburg is not an antisemite, He critises foolish opinions and posters who make idiots of themselves. These idiot posters harm the cause they think they are defending,

    EL likes arguing. He picks up on idiots posting drivel. Read him carefully.

    Your use of the vulgar vernacular does not hide your pervasive stupidity.

  22. TomWonacott

    “Did you hear the one about Saddam being well hung? ”

    In this country we havent hung anyone for 50 years . In the states you still have the death penalty so it doesnt seem so barbarously primative for you folk ..you can crack jokes.

    Funny that my old “kirk” the Catholic Church was the only big organisation that protested . They get it right occasionally.

  23. Snigger

    “You are a pest”/

    Translation: you don’t agree with my views.

    “Express views by all means but make them sensible and keep them succinct and interesting rather than, like a child, burbling just to hear how your own voice sounds.”

    Charming.
    Please see e.g. my opening comments on this thread (8:51 am yesterday) and on “Responding to the Critics” (5:45 am today).

    OK, they’re no Pulitzer Prize winners, but … well, what is your problem exactly?

    Now let’s take a look at your opening post here:

    “People, exiled is Georgina’s friend … He still posts to CiF, as does Pretzelberg … Their boundaries are not to be trusted”

    And above you called me a “pest” and suggested I “express views by all means but make them sensible and keep them succinct and interesting”?

    Furthermore you have the audacity to say “Neither of you contribute much here you merely nitpick and annoy”!!!!

    You also seem more interested in website hits (as if I could care) than in meaningful debate and discussion.

  24. Now be honest, pretzelberg

    I saw at least one of your posts which minimised antisemitism which shows you at least to be lacking in sensitivity.

    Oh I know that you may think you have a lot of sensitivity and you say that you regularly report racist and antisemitic posts at the other place, but given some of your posts about the egregious Bapthorpe I honestly doubt that you know what sensitivity to antisemitism actually is.

    When people took you to task about it you got childish and bad-tempered and, yes, troll-like.

    If you believe that people here think that too much is made of antisemitism then it your right to do so, even to say so, but for your own sake and standing you should take much greater care about how you express yourself.

    And don’t forget that if you yourself fail to perceive antisemitism it really doesn’t matter because this is not about YOUR perceptions! I remember reading one of your posts which said that Bapthorpe’s poison was directed only at the Jews on the West Bank. That post was stupid and insensitive because it implied that the people who objected to it were being oversensitive. Had you tried to identify with the ones who were disgusted with Bapthorpe then you might not have earned some of the epithets hurled at you here subsequently.

    And your reply to Snigger is typical, too, of the thwarted adolescent. Have you thought that Snigger might be simply be sick and tired of the tone of your posts, whether or not he/she agrees with your views?

    It’s evident that something bizarre draws you here and I really don’t know what it is, but it cannot be healthy given the number of your posts and the predominantly argumentative nature of them, rather than their being from someone who wants to engage in reasoned argument.

    I have clocked the passive-aggressive nature of exiledlondoner’s contributions here – are you like him or unlike him?

  25. SilverTrees,

    To Pretzelberg,

    “I saw at least one of your posts which minimised antisemitism which shows you at least to be lacking in sensitivity.”

    The post lacked sensitivity, or the (at least) one post showed him to lack sensitivity in general?

    I hope that nobody searches through my posts searcing for evidence of a lack of sensitivity – sometimes I don’t feel like being sensitive….

    “…I honestly doubt that you know what sensitivity to antisemitism actually is.”

    No matter, as long as he does.

    “When people took you to task about it you got childish and bad-tempered and, yes, troll-like.”

    You mean when people accuse him of anti-semitism and the like? Yes it does tend to upset people…. Thank god it still does.

    “And don’t forget that if you yourself fail to perceive antisemitism it really doesn’t matter because this is not about YOUR perceptions!”

    If he fails to perceive anti-semitism, that’s exactly what it’s about – his perceptions. Anyone who sub-contracts their judgement on such an important issue, really doesn’t deserve to be heard.

    “And your reply to Snigger is typical, too, of the thwarted adolescent. Have you thought that Snigger might be simply be sick and tired of the tone of your posts, whether or not he/she agrees with your views?”

    I doubt if he’s got any idea whether snigger agrees or disagrees with anything – snigger hasn’t actualy got around to telling us. Snigger is far to busy, well, sniggering, to engage in any debate, and as such, isn’t really worth considering.

    “It’s evident that something bizarre draws you here and I really don’t know what it is, but it cannot be healthy given the number of your posts and the predominantly argumentative nature of them, rather than their being from someone who wants to engage in reasoned argument.”

    I can’t speak for Pretzel, but I was originally drawn here by an attack on me – one which I presume I wasn’t supposed to see? Once I got here, I found so many things that needed correcting, I just kind of stayed – well, I pop in and out, depending on other commitments.

    Being around hasn’t stopped the attacks, but at least they don’t get a free ride.

    “I have clocked the passive-aggressive nature of exiledlondoner’s contributions here – are you like him or unlike him?”

    Hmm interesting theory…. but I think you’ll find that the passive-aggressive thing is in pretty direct proportion to what other posters and contributors are writing?

  26. Once I got here, I found so many things that needed correcting, I just kind of stayed
    Oo-er. No wonder they exiled him when he talks such gobbage.

  27. I think that sometimes discussions on the Internet become too personalised and then the bigger issues are lost in a slanging match, which was why I made my comments above.

    I am reminded of Eleanor Roosevelt’s comments:

    “Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.”

  28. modernityblog, what would you like to talk about? I don’t know where you come from but did you hear the BBC Radio 4 Today programme excerpt about Gaza? It was most informative and, unusual for the BBC, open-minded too.

    I almost wrote to congratulate the BBC but decided to delay. I felt that I wanted to see more open-minded coverage of the I/P conflict from them, which gave evenhanded accounts before I did so.

  29. ArabellaMella

    You must be one of the trolls that Margie, Mitnaged and Modernity are on about. Both of your two posts on this thread are classic in that respect. In fact, it’s obvious that you only joined in here to do exactly that.

    I’m surprised that Margie hasn’t waded in with her usual bold warning. Of course though, I should have guessed — you’re trolling with a purpose, right?!

  30. Actually, I have since heard the BBC’s Panorama programme, full of the usual one-sided biased rhetoric and I am glad I didn’t write to the Beeb.

  31. @ SilverTrees

    I saw at least one of your posts which minimised antisemitism which shows you at least to be lacking in sensitivity.

    All that post showed was that me and you have different levels of sensitivity to that issue.

    Nowhere have I ever “minimised” anti-Semitism. If that were true, why would I spend so much time combatting anti-Semitic comments on CiF – something that other CiFW-friendly posters (not you) have acknowledged?

    The rest of your pathetic post seems to be saying: shut up or agree, otherwise you deserve the epithets thrown your way.
    Or have I misunderstood you there?

    I will continue to express my views and disagree with posts as I see fit – and that applies both here and on CiF.

    If you bothered to read a greater variety of my posts both here and on CiF you would see that I a) am not a “thwarted adolescent” and b) do not deserve the ridiculous slurs hurled at me by a tiny group of tiny-minded individuals.

  32. pretzelberg it certainly showed that you are lacking both in tact and sensitivity.

    And I note, yet again, that you spend “so much time” combating antisemitism on CiF.

    May I ask, how you would know if a remark is antisemitic?

    You are also obsessed that others who disagree with you want you to shut up. That may indeed be so, and if it is, then perhaps you should look why and why that bothers you so much.

    I will take a stab at what I think Silvertrees meant and perhaps he/she will correct me if I am wrong:

    You do come across as insensitive pretzelberg, whether you mean to or not. You personalise any criticism of what you SAY into what you think the poster thinks you ARE. It’s getting tedious hearing about how you are against antisemitism and criticise it often on CiF – to which I say good for you and what a pity it isn’t working – but like Silvertrees I construed your post about Bapthorpe wanting only the West Bank religious Jews shot to be insensitive to say the least . The subtext, which I now believe you did not mean although it is easy to understand why you were so readily misunderstood, was “so what’s all the fuss about?” Instead of apologising for the offence you had caused, however unwittingly, you kicked off and THAT was tedious in turn.

    I didn’t construe Silvertrees’ post as telling you either to shut up or agree with everything that came your way – that is YOUR interpretation alone, THAT smacks of adolescent thinking and reaction.

    This is not CiF and people don’t get banned for disagreeing. But you in turn should have a stab at sitting with the discomfort when people disagree with you rather than knee jerk reacting.

  33. @ MITNAGED

    I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. But clearly there are a number of individuals here who have a problem when I disagree with them.

    What I DO have a problem with is people launching viscious and baseless slurs against me.

    You obviously are unware of the systematic harrassment I have been subjected to.
    If you were, then you would apply your final sentence not to me but to the intellectually bankrupt individuals who make these nonsense accusations about me.

    It is THEY who cannot deal with the discomfort of me challenging their views.

    You talk to me about “insensitivity”?

    Do you not have a problem with those people who call me “anti-Semitic pig”, “stupid putz” or “piggish goy”?

  34. I do not beleive pretzelberg or exiled londoner to be an anti semite in any way. i disagree with some of their views, as I hope we can all disagree to a greater or lesser extent with eachothers views, and therefore battle them out. But There isnt much point in a debate forum if we all agree with eachother is there?(that would be like ci(f). If anyone wants to see anti semitic comments in full flow, check out the seth freedman thread, in todays guardian- the majority of posters who put forward alternate viewpoints have been silenced. I do not believe cif watch should employ the same tactics as the guardian, and they havent, and remain the bolder and more truthful for not doing so.

Comments are closed.