This is a guest post by Oliver Worth
It takes more than one reading of Antony Lerman’s recent CiF Piece, ‘Refusing to be defined by anti-semitism’ to put your finger on exactly what leaves such a sour taste in the mouth.
Lerman’s proactive attempts to discredit every major organization fighting to reduce anti semitism? His gleefully ignorant claims that a small nation’s only synagogue being burned down twice within the space of a week is unrelated to anti-semitism? His surreal claims that the fact that the crimes may have seen the involvement of non-Greek nationals renders the Greek authorities non-responsible for protecting Jewish inhabitants? Even the fact that the writer has the gall to accuse his contemporaries of using anti-semitism as a political tool whilst ruthlessly employing just this tactic? Try all the above.
Lerman’s supposed premise of the article is that Jews should not be ‘defined by anti-semitism’, no doubt a noble and true aspiration, yet he devotes no space in his article to explain how we should pro-actively define ourselves as Jews, preferring instead to needlessly slam those groups fighting to end anti-semitism and allow Jew’s to do just that – define themselves.
What Lerman does do is heap mountains of praise on the local Greek authorities and points out the local paper “carried a full page on the attacks”. Perhaps most disturbing about Lerman’s close minded view of anti-semitism is his view that Greece, a Western nation and member of the European Union, deserves such praise for carrying out it’s absolute obligation, to protect its minority citizens – and even then only once the synagogue has been burned for the second time.
But without doubt, Lerman’s most outrageous claim is his steadfast denial that the attacks were “intended to intimidate and terrorize Greece’s Jewish community”. And how does Lerman justify his claim? By pointing out that some of the “principle culprits were not locals”, like this somehow renders the fact the choice of attack was the only synagogue in Crete, incidental.
Just why Antony Lerman is so hellbent on burying his head in the sand and denying anti-semitism when it’s there for the world to see is anyone’s guess. But something is for sure. Lerman is doing absolutely nothing to help Jews ‘define themselves’ by purposefully hampering the work of those organizations whose raison d’être is to stamp out anti-semitism. And what’s more, there’s more than a smattering of irony in his claim that his colleagues use anti-semitism as part of a “self-serving political agenda”. Perhaps what Lerman really requires is a look in the mirror.
26 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 8, 2010 at 8:18 am
pretzelberg
Lerman’s “How do they know?” re. the US State Dept.(?)’s apparently outlandish, hysterical and baseless reference to an anti-Semitic background to the attacks was indeed rather astonishing.
I said as much on the thread, but I don’t recall him expanding on that point.
It was a truly lamentable piece.
February 8, 2010 at 8:18 am
Mitnaged
Good article, Oliver
Tony Lerman is a psychologically complex individual who projects all his own struggles with his Jewish identity onto Jews in general.
I have little doubt that he himself has been the object of antisemtism and is trying to minimise that so as not to let it bother him. However he’s a lot like Tinker Bell in “Peter Pan” and believes that unless antisemitism doesn’t bother all Jews (ie all Jews have to believe that it doesn’t exist or is minimal) then his opinion is not important.
Of course his opinion is not important and he is wrong about antisemitism, in whatever fine sociological language he dresses up his opinions, because the evidence is out there regardless of what he argues.
He is one messed up guy.
February 8, 2010 at 9:17 am
Margie
It’s just so uncomfortable being around Tony Lerman and watching him play this game of ‘no antisemitism’.
He takes a stance that is awkward and clumsy looking and such is his eagerness that he almost pulls it off. He tells us that there were two attempts at burning down this synagogue within ten days but hey that’s not because it was a symbol of Judaism. No, it’s because it was err… there.
Because it was burnt down by err…strangers.
Because it was err…
The reason for returning to burn down something that did not succeed the first time was that this building itself was the target and for a reason. “The US State Department commented that the attacks were “clearly intended to intimidate and terrorise Greece’s Jewish community” “ says Lerman. It’s clear enough to them. But he wants to know how they know. Hmm..because it was try, try again, Mr Lerman, otherwise the arsonists would have tried another building.
Lerman try Occam’s Razor for your reasoning next time. . The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. Instead of building an opera around the burning of the synagogue a single dirge is necessary, mourning the hatred in people’s hearts towards the Jews, the eternal survivors.
February 8, 2010 at 10:33 am
TomWonacott
Excellent post by Oliver Worth
Well put Margie and Mitnaged. Truly an amazing article by Lerman. It doesn’t quite top the pronouncement by Silverstein that the murder of the Jews in Mumbai wasn’t antisemitic, but none the less, he is in a state of denial. So much so that he attacks the ADL and the state department for using the attack against the Synagogue for political purposes. Its not like this was an isolated event. My God, the Synagogue was attacked twice in ten days. Additionally, violence against Jews is at record levels all across Europe. An absolutely horrible article.
February 8, 2010 at 11:25 am
Abandon hope
Margie
“He takes a stance that is awkward and clumsy looking ”
I agree it wasnt a great article. I dont see why he thought it wasnt anti Semitism ..maybe he just hoped it wasnt and this overwhelmed his reasoning.
Tom
” violence against Jews is at record levels all across Europe. ”
To be fair some countries started with a base line so low that even one incident would throw years of statistics. My country for example.
As I said above …I believe the attacks were anti Semitic I see no way to argue they were not ..which leaves the larger question. Why is this disgusting phenomenon growing worse ?
February 8, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Yohoho
Berchmans, “…maybe he just hoped it wasnt and this overwhelmed his reasoning…”
Sounds like someone we both know, doesn’t it, mmm?
And, with all the respect it deserves, who cares that you think is or is not antisemitism? You yourself are hardly a dispassionate judge are you ad you are not noted for recognising antisemitism even when you yourself perpetrate it? You still haven’t apologised for your comment to Mitnaged.
However, it’s a real treat to see you evidencing some insight at last. Let’s see if it translates onto other areas and/or endures.
February 8, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Yo
Every Antony Lerman article seems to have the same goal, to try to convince readers to NOT take anti-semitism seriously, to not respect people who fight against it, to pretty much ignore it.
He’s one of the most weird writers out there. He writes entire articles that tend to have no real point out all, yet each one seems to just promote the above.
February 8, 2010 at 12:34 pm
TomWonacott
Abandon dope
“……..To be fair some countries started with a base line so low that even one incident would throw years of statistics. My country for example…..”
I love the way the anti racist left seizes on articles like Lerman and Shamis to diminish antisemitism.
“…….As I said above …I believe the attacks were anti Semitic I see no way to argue they were not ..which leaves the larger question. Why is this disgusting phenomenon growing worse ?…..”
Because the left is instrumental in promoting antisemitism against all Jews for the actions of Israel. For example, according to Soeren Kern,
“…..Zapatero, who makes no secret of his postmodern dislike of Zionism, is well known in Spain for his anti-Israel and anti-Jewish outbursts. At a dinner party the Moncloa Palace (the Spanish White House) in 2005, for example, Zapatero addressed his guests by launching into a tirade of anti Semitic and anti Zionist rhetoric that ended with the phrase: “It is understandable that someone might justify the Holocaust.”…..”
February 8, 2010 at 1:11 pm
HairShirt
TomWonacott, that quote in your last sentence sounds very much as though it could also come from Georgina’s golden-haired blue eyed ex pat who resides in Brazil and writes for electronic intifada.
Now this is for Berchmans.
Berchmans. who in spite of admitting that he can recognise antisemitism, still lacks the intelligence which might stop him from being utterly offensive posting the following ON THE SAME DAY:
“Berchmans
8 Feb 2010, 4:54PM
Keo2008
.
“Hamas wants to destroy Israel. ”
.
Its a negotiating stance.I am sure they would settle for the 67 green line , some water and some reassurances. The point I make as you well know as you always respond to this.. is that what a brutalised, hidden and poverty striken people put on a document is of secondary consideration to the cause of the problem.
What kind of document would you write scurrying about in reinforced basements ..hiding from the astonishingly successful IDF after 60 years of watching your relatives and friends being bumped off? I dream that one day Jewish and Muslim children will walk hand in hand…? He would have been in an Israeli jail before you could say equality. :)
B”
All of this shows, Berchmans, that you are a duplicitous and deliberately mendacious b*****d, whose unreconstructed ideas are not capable of amendment however reasoned and shored up by provable facts might be the opposing arguments. For all you may write here about condemning antisemitism you post something completely other on CiF
Your last sentence is particularly revealing where you give us that the Hamas Charter is just a “negotiating stance” (from which it murdered Israelis and would do so again if it was given the chance)
You really are a either quite insane or a card-holding idiot aren’t you?
Editors certain things are beyond decency. Why is this piece of rubbish allowed to continue masquerading as a decent human being here while he is all the time lying through his teeth?
February 8, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Yohoho
HairShirt, he’s neither insane or idiotic. He’s a lying weasel like his friend khartoumi and his idol Bunglawala.
February 8, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Margie
At this stage, after joking with us and telling us how charming and amusing he actually is, Berchmans in a panic that the Graundian would ban him for fraternising with the enemy, wrote the disgusting piece of political pornography above. I agree with HairShirt that this troll has no place among us any more.
February 8, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Yohoho
In fact, I think we should send him to Gaza. He’d b*gger up Hamas quicker than you could say “Yahud.”
February 8, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Yohoho
Or they could say “Itbakh yahud”
February 8, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Duvid Crockett
The Cockroach Song
(to the tune of “La Cucaracha” Hat tip: Mexican tradition)
Anthony Lerman; he’s such a cockroach.
He’s a Cif house-Jew.
Not strictly kosher, he gives us schpilkes.
In his juice he should slowly stew.
(Maracca and castanette percussion interlude)
He is broiges, so he gets nasty,
He’s been fired from a cushy job
With sheyne maedlach; now chews his kneidlach.
He should firmly shut his gob, (cha-cha-cha.)
February 8, 2010 at 3:23 pm
TomWonacott
HairShirt
“……TomWonacott, that quote in your last sentence sounds very much as though it could also come from Georgina’s golden-haired blue eyed ex pat who resides in Brazil and writes for electronic intifada……”
Absolutely, and if you are a Jew living in Spain you cannot feel very welcome when the President of Spain makes such insensitive and purely antisemitic comments. Almost 50% of Spaniards have a negative opinion of Jews. I wonder why?
Ben White might fall into the category of the fascist left – especially after he worked through face book to have Bennie Morris banned at Oxford from speaking. That was a sad day at Oxford.
February 8, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Jonny Moses
Lerman inhabits a fantasy world that is encouraged by the ideologues on the ‘progressive’ left who run and read the Guardian. By deploying useful idiots like him, they take every opportunity to play down and deny the existence of anti-Semitism in its modern form. For if it were to be acknowledged it would define their own visceral bigotry and expose their self-proclaimed monopoly as the moral arbiters of universal justice for what it really is; sanctimonious hypocrisy.
February 8, 2010 at 11:53 pm
commentscount
Authors like Lerman,are not too fussed about the content or veracity of their articles,as long as Israel is mentioned whether good or bad,the perdurable pool of CiF anti-Israel posters will come along and bump up the amount of comments.And that is all that counts for the Guardian.
February 9, 2010 at 12:01 am
JerusalemMite
commentscount
Authors like Lerman,are not too fussed about the content or veracity of their articles,as long as Israel is mentioned whether good or bad,the perdurable pool of CiF anti-Israel posters will come along and bump up the amount of comments.And that is all that counts for the Guardian.
An astute comment.
I feel that it is important to constantly emphasize that The Guardian has lost itself because of the policies of the present management. (Porgina and crew), The NEWS content has all but disappeared to be replaced by a ‘mind fuck’ aimed at inserting the GWV to replace the readers real perception.
This present Management cabal must be replaced.
February 9, 2010 at 12:21 am
commentscount
Don’t ban Berchmans,we need,and should not be deprived of his sharp-witted posts,seriously the guy isn’t the full quid,and a gate crasher,but he does serve a certain purpose..
We keep harping about being banned on Cif,and here we are advocating
banning Berchmans.
February 9, 2010 at 12:42 am
terry malloy
commentscout-
I agree with you. This website should not only be devoted to monitoring Cif, but it should the anti-Cif in its acceptance of opposing viewpoints. So long as somebody is not abusive or hateful they should be welcome to visit here. I’ve had some bitter arguments with friends over all sorts of subjects, but we always come back to the idea that we’ll “agree to disagree.” I’m not suggesting that we should go out and meet everyone here for a few pints, but we should have the self-confidence to tolerate those with whom we disagree. And if someone just won’t see it “our way,” so what? Will we shrivel up and disappear if we don’t convince everyone of our way of looking at things? I think not.
February 9, 2010 at 3:32 am
Gerald Kreeve
Terry Malloy
You’re absolutely right. It shouldn’t take anything as drastic as banning to change things. Some people have the grace to be ashamed when they have been found out as hypocrites and liars and to stay away.
Will they shrivel up and disappear if they don’t pepper this board with their opinions? I think not.
February 9, 2010 at 3:01 pm
HairShirt
terrymalloy and Gerald Kreeve and commentscount, you may all have a point. Perhaps Berchmans’ comments should remain and we take them to pieces if we can be bothered to do so to because we can, here whereas any criticism of Berchmans’ version of the GWV would be disappeared in the blink of an eye at the other place.
February 9, 2010 at 3:20 pm
smtx01
Please dont ban anyone, We all need to hear other voices,(otherwise our own would begin to echo & hopefully disagree) The voice of opponents and all that…
February 9, 2010 at 3:32 pm
smtx01
I also think it would be a good idea, if one day,we could all have a one off discourse about antisemitisim in the UK and globally(without referance to the Guardian and cif) about antizionisim and antisemitism, about how different people view Israel and Jews and about what forges and sustains these beliefs, between the left, the right and to involve religious and secular, to discuss the relationship between Jews and Muslims,(past and present) and between Israeli and Palestinian, about our grievances and their grievances(past and present) their hopes and our hopes, about where we go from here..and maybe our collective hopes could maybe form the beginning of a plan.
February 9, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Independent Observer
I also think it would be a good idea, if …
We’ll all be long gone from this earth before such a discussion ends.
February 9, 2010 at 8:37 pm
smtx01
@ independent observer
Kol ha’olam kulo gesher tzar meod ve ha ikar lo lefached klal
All the world is a narrow bridge and the important thing is not to be afraid at all