David Cesarani wrote a very good article on Cif on January 27th about Sir Oliver Miles’ questioning of the allegiances of the Jewish members of the Chilcot inquiry committee in which, as befits one of Britain’s leading historians, he pointed out the long tradition of such prejudiced traditions in the UK. Of course this practice is far from being confined to Britain’s shores; from first century Rome, through the Dreyfus affair, Stalin’s Soviet Union and up to modern times, Jews have been accused of holding dual loyalties.
Such accusations are defined as being antisemitic in the EUMC Working Definition of Anti- Semitism – “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations”. Indeed it comes as no surprise that in a Google search for the words ‘dual loyalty’ and ‘Jews’, among the first half dozen results, two are from David Duke and one from Stormfront.
The Chilcot inquiry’s task is to investigate the UK’s involvement in Iraq:
“Our terms of reference are very broad, but the essential points, as set out by the Prime Minister and agreed by the House of Commons, are that this is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK’s involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country.”
Any possible objection to the fact that two of the committee’s members are Jewish can only be explained by the fact that the objector must buy into the idea that Israel somehow influenced the British government’s decision to go to war. One of the first people to promote that strange version of events was of course Yasser Arafat when he claimed in 2003 that the Israeli government was “the first inciter for the war against Iraq”. It is, however, worth remembering that the PLO had sided with Libya and Iraq against the coalition in the first Gulf War and that right up until 2003 Saddam Hussein was financing the families of Palestinian suicide bombers up to the tune of $25,000 a family. One would, therefore, hardly expect Arafat to say anything different, but it is nevertheless quite strange that Westerners would swallow Arafat’s propaganda, apparently with no questions asked unless, of course, that propaganda was falling on fertile ground.
Imagine for a moment that some British person of notability had suggested in the press that Baroness Usha Prashar CBE was unfit to be a member of the Chilcot inquiry committee because she is a non-UK born Hindu and, given the spiritual links between Hinduism and India and the fact that India has less than peaceful relations with its Muslim neighbour Pakistan, and an ongoing dispute over Kashmir, the Baroness could find herself at the mercy of ‘dual loyalties’ whilst investigating the Iraq war. One would hope that the British public would be disgusted by such implications and their blatant bigotry which clearly negates values of both multiculturalism and meritocracy. So why should Sir Martin Gilbert and Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman be subject to different standards?
With all the above in mind, let’s take a look at some of the below the line comments relating to David Cesarani’s article. Many were extremely ugly and their volume was so great that it is impossible to show them all here, so this is just a selection. Firstly; some of the comments from those for whom Jewish dual loyalty is an accepted fact.
29 Jan 2010, 1:11PM
Either he thinks it is a problem that Jews are serving on the Iraq inquiry because they have a dual loyalty or he thinks that less enlightened folk than him in the Arab world might draw this conclusion.
When one of them is a renowned Zionist – it skews your argument slightly.
29 Jan 2010, 1:18PM
Either he thinks it is a problem that Jews are serving on the Iraq inquiry because they have a dual loyalty
Ever read anything by Melanie Philips or Barbara Amiel? It’s not hard to see where this suspicion comes from. Just out of interest, does anyone know what percentage of Jewish MP’s are members of one of the various “Friends of Israel” groups?
Are Muslims to be barred from the Ministry of Defence or Home Office lest a terrorist outrage be perpetrated by a Muslim?
If, as Sir Martin Gilbert has, these Muslims have shown that their commitment to their race/religion is worldwide then this would be perfectly reasonable. We wouldn’t put a Muslim who wanted a global caliphate on this committee, why is a committed Zionist there?
29 Jan 2010, 2:05PM
Jews like David Ceserani make too much of everything. How many Jewish soldiers have been killed while serving for the British Army in Iraq? None? I think so. The Chilcott Enquiry is not perfect, but it is the only opportunity the country at large and, especially, the parents of the British dead, will have to hear evidence from those involved in the decision to invade Iraq.
The panel should have been constituted to avoid the stain that Jews loyal to Israel – which is probably 98% of them – would bring to it. I hope the two Jews on the panel rise above their ethnic interests and equit themselves appropriately. David Cesarani’s attitude suggests that that is rather unlikely.
29 Jan 2010, 2:10PM
In the Pinochet extradition litigation a leading law lord (Lord Hoffman) was criticised for not standing down after it became clear that he was a paid-up member of Amnesty International.
The Chilcot enquiry has already heard evidence that the Iraq invasion was strongly supported by the American Jewish lobby, presumably reckoning that a weaker (or US vassal state) Iraq could only benefit Israel.
It is not anti-semitic at least to question whether the perception of a conflict of interest might now arise. If people are able to question the partiality of the enquiry panel members, they can equally question the panel’s eventual conclusions. And then we are no further forward.
It may be that when the panel was appointed nobody could have foreseen arguments about the invasion being in Israel’s interests. Now that cat is out of the bag, it would be foolish to ignore the perception problems which could now arise. At the very least, Chilcot is forewarned and forearmed that he has an issue to manage.
29 Jan 2010, 2:31PM
greytiles,
My point is that since, as you say, it is statistically unlikely that many Jews would be included among the British Army’s two hundred dead, why have we got two Jews – one a Zionist – out of fice panel members?
You are right that I have no demographic figures for the British Army. I would like them. And I would also like the figure for British passport-holding Jews serving in the IDF. I would bet a fair sum that there are more British passport holers in the IDF than there are their kinsmen in the British Army.
I read a fair while back that 98% of Jews support open borders in the West, 99% support Israel, but 100% support the holocaust movement. Jews are a hyper-ethnocentric people, and it is asking much more of a Jew to relinquish his ethnic interests than it is of a European, who is, on average, much given to individualism and out-group altruism. It is not unreasonable to suspect the capacity of Jews to perform, perhaps, in negation of their ethnic interests. It is not as great as Europeans.
29 Jan 2010, 4:34PM
I have done quite a bit of reading on anti-semitism in Britain and what strikes me is that ‘spikes’ in anti-semitism always accompany real events and real conflicts of interest: the Boer War, the period 1917-21 and the fear of Bolshevism, the stresses of the Second World War (especially in the East End of London), the riots that resulted from Jewish attacks on British troops in the Palestinian Mandate in 1947.
There is a strong tendency in Jewish historiography (and Prof Cesarani absolutely typifies this strain) to attribute anti-semitism to ‘irrational’ (preferably Christian) forces, whereas ethnic conflict is usually the result of an objective struggle between ethnic groups over resources (which can include ideological resources, such as competing interpretations of history). I know Jews don’t like talk of dual loyalties, but it is hard not to attribute such duality to Sir Martin Gilbert, and thus the view that he is not working fully for the British national interest.
For a wider perspective on anti-semitism I would recommend Albert Lindemann’s book, ‘Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews’ (Cambridge University Press).
30 Jan 2010, 4:05PM
Why is it “dismaying” that Sir Miles may think that Jews on the Chilcot inquiry might have dual loyalties? Is there a precedent for Jews in Western nations showing dual loyalty? There certainly is.
I would say therefore that it is prudent of Sir Miles to express such a concern. It is well founded. Israel was a prime mover and shaker in the propaganda war leading up to the attack on Iraq.
Many Jews feel loyalty to Israel, but certainly the fact that Chilcot inquiry member Gilbert has a record of active support for Zionism stands out and must bring into question his impartiality. This is not prejudice, it is most often described as a conflict of interest, and as far as I am aware, usage of that term in reference to a Jewish person is not yet ground for being labeled ‘anti-Semitic’.
If anyone still has doubts about how the CiF pages foster an atmosphere in which anti-Semitism becomes part of common parlance, the following comments should put those doubts to rest. Here are some examples of those who still think that anti-Semitism is just a trumped-up charge on the part of Jews.
29 Jan 2010, 6:39PM
The relevant sentence in the Oliver Miles article reads :
Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism.
If , by raising their Jewishness, he wishes to suggest that they are likely to be Zionists and therefore hold dubious partisan views, then he has a good point. However, the manner in which he has raised it is ambiguous and leaves him open to a charge of anti-semitism. His defence on Newsnight seemed quite robust, particularly his point about how their presence on the panel would debase its findings in the Arab world and he denied the charge.
His other points about their partisanship for Blair were also strong ones. Who appointed this panel and did they do any research ?!
I think this article is part of the “bigging up” of a problem that is really very small, as the Yoav Shamir film on More4 showed us recently. The way Dennis McShane addressed it on Newsnight, but avoided Miles’ charge, just reinforced this belief. It is a blind to draw us away from sensible discussion of the crimes in Gaza, the West Bank and the stolen towns and villages of Palestine. Who are the real victims here ? Where is the real suffering ?
Say no to fake anti-semitism charges.
31 Jan 2010, 1:27PM
It seems to me that this slur on Oliver Miles – proclaiming he “continues a long tradition of prejudice” against Jews – is born of the typically disingenuous, anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism over-reaction canard which is so often used to curb criticism of the State of Israel. And by pointing this out, I am not implying that Mr. Miles is an “anti” Zionist. In fact, I don’t know what his views are on Israel – furthermore, these views may not even be in the public arena.
Martin Gilbert is clearly an active “pro” Zionist – as David Cesarani rightly points out, he “unaccountably vented his ire in an interview on a rightwing Zionist online radio station serving Israeli settlers”. So it would appear that he supports (or at the very minimum approves) of the expropriation of Palestinian land by the State of Israel. How can a man who approves the flouting of international law by Israel, himself be fit to serve on an inquiry into the British government’s role in the Iraq War?
29 Jan 2010, 2:33PM
DougallTheDog
Here are some of the headlines from your links:
Data suggesting rise in U.K. anti-Semitism are misleading
But British Jewish watchdog says ‘there is no doubt’ there has been rise in hate crimes in U.K. ummm yup.. no chance of bias if the British Jewish Watchdog said it. Much like the ADL claiming that hate crim against jews is on the rise but struggle to fine one thats serious enough to be used as an example.
I was going to past more of the headlines until I realised that the sourse of the statistics for all the above linked articles are the same group – The Community Security Trust who solely serve jews despite the ambigious name.
So I repeat – I thought Yeov’s documentary already dealt with this one. Why then do we keep hearing the lies.
Next; a selection of the many comments which were blatantly anti-Semitic and downright objectionable.
29 Jan 2010, 1:23PM
The author seems to think nothing of tarring a whole nation with “antisemitism” because of a single comment by an individual. A comment that although crude actually has some relevance when one member is revealed to be a “champion of Israel” – dont pretend thats not relevant, it very clearly is.
if theres a word for racism against Jews perhaps there should be a word for Jewish racists like Cesarani. I mean surely i could answer that question with “Israeli” if we are to adopt Mr Cesarani’s standards.
29 Jan 2010, 2:02PM
Logic101
“Is comparing muslims to jews a fair comparison. Im always told that jews are a race. Muslims are not. Im told that antisemitism is racism and not religious intolerance.”
Who told you that ?
Historian Shlomo Sand has shown that Jews are overwhelmingly religious converts from lands outside of the Middle East, and overwhelmingly not semitic.
Judaisim is a religion, not a race. Also, the recent Jewish school furore sealed that in British law.
29 Jan 2010, 2:11PM
Keithsimmons,
You make some fair points.
Does anyone know a Jewish postman or builder?
29 Jan 2010, 3:04PM
PaulMetcalf01,
The question concerns the balance of the loyalty to Israel of the two gentlemen on the panel and their loyalty to Britons and the British state.
I am quite prepared to accept that all non-natives have some loyalty to the land of their ancestors. Peoples are not without ties of blood to their own soil, and it does violence to them to deny them this natural feeling. That is wholy true of Ashkenazim and Sephardim in diaspore, who plainly see Israel as that soil, and are fiercely loyal to the Jewish state.
The question over these two gentlement on Chilcott is wholly valid and does not imply anti-anything! That’s really all people here are trying to get across, I think.
29 Jan 2010, 3:09PM
greytiles,
It means, assuming you are Ashkenazic, that one of your uncles is either very rich, very educated or very powerful. It doesn’t mean that that wealth, education or power is wholly the product of nepotism or wholly the product of inate intelligence, but both together.
29 Jan 2010, 3:38PM
greytile, pretz,
I am nearly sixty years old. I have observed a great deal in my lifetime, including the remarkable capacity of Jews to organise and find the pressure points of the political process. Did you never hear of the Labour Friends of …?
You two gentlemen are, in your aggressive pursuit of “anti-Semiticism” I suppose, merely confirming my opinion, and the opinion of a lot of people reading this, that Jews are poorly equipped to accomodate the idea that you are visible and known. You dish it out. I have read Jewish culture theorists who maintain that the position of separateness affords great observational advantages. Well, separatism is a two-way street. The host also has eyes. We are human too, you know.
29 Jan 2010, 4:03PM
HebrewHammer
Do i have some kind of obligation to renounce every time some one say something stupid ?
no not at all. but you are posting on an article which declares a British tradition of prejudice as if its ingrained into every man woman and child and it doesnt seem to even get on your radar. yet if someone suggests that Jews are disproportionately represented you are outraged. maybe your outrage would be more valid if you were so vocal about all prejudice and not just the type against your fellow man.
or is that part of the Jewish mindset? look after your own and f*** the “Gentiles” (except the “Righteous” ones of course). I have to say a lot of the Jewish attitudes towards non Jews to be extremely patronising.
29 Jan 2010, 5:57PM
MindTheCrap
Talk of ‘blaming the victim’ undermines a proper historical analysis of ethnic conflict. Of course, Jews have been victims but the behaviour of some Jews is not irrelevant to anti-semitism. Historically (that is, until the Enlightenment), Jews have acted as a ‘middle-man minority’, gathering rent, lending money etc. They have developed a particularly close relationship to the state, which has made them very vulnerable if the regime loses support, as happened in mediaeval England and led to their expulsion in 1290.
The problem we have with the historiography of National Socialist Germany is that on the one side we have the made anti-semites, who populate far right websites, and on the other an extreme view of Christian Europe that attributes all hostility to Jews to some irrational force in European culture. There must be some sane and balanced middle way that allows us to see Jew-Gentile relations as an interaction and get away from this ridiculous perpetrator versus victim mentality.
The fact is that despite representing only 0.6% of the population Jews were everywhere that mattered culturally in Weimar Germany. I don’t have the figures with me and I am not going to quote from one of those aforementioned made far right website, but Yuri Slezkine in his book ‘The Jewish Century’ sets out in a great deal of detail the disproportionate influence of Jews in Germany and (even more so) in Poland.
Is it really anti-semitic to suggest that Jews, due to various factors, including high IQ, tend to be rather more powerful than other ethnic groups and that this might lead to a conflict with other groups?
Well there we have it; just some of the examples of anti-Semitism and bigotry of the most blatant kind which adorn the Guardian’s virtual pages. So the next time a Guardian editor states that ‘we take anti-Semitism very seriously’, the question which must be asked is ‘do we take the Guardian’s editors seriously? ‘. When neo-Nazis such as those at Stormfront and racists such as David Duke are among those promoting the ‘dual loyalties’ trope, one would think that any respectable media outlet would avoid the further propagation of such ideas like the plague.
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
36 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 3, 2010 at 1:24 am
Independent Observer
one would think that any respectable media outlet would avoid the further propagation of such ideas like the plague
Whatever would make one think the Guardian respectable? It is clearly an institution dedicated to destroying the Jewish state and Jewish people. It’s slightly more subtle than the Stürmer, but the objective is the same.
March 3, 2010 at 2:53 am
peter1
What makes the commentary both above and below the line anti-semitic in this latest example of the guardian’s distorted world view?
Most obvious is the innuendo questioning the allegiance of the Jews on the committee, whether to Israel or Britain on the question of the Iraq war, when it is clear (to the accusers)
that Israel unduly influenced Britain’s involvement.
Firstly one has to assume that any Jews on the committee will have their opinions influenced by Israeli decisions and official policy.
Secondly one has to assume that Israeli policy and decisions run counter to Britain’s.
Thirdly, one has to assume that Israeli pressured the invasion of Iraq.
Now, the gaping hole in the entire issue, the one that cements the anti-semitism induced
hollow moral outrage is Israel’s position on the Iraq war.
Israel was OPPOSED to attacking Iraq.
The Prime-Minister Ariel Sharon, all levels of gov’t, all levels of Israel’s supposedly vaunted pressure groups failed to influence the US and Britain from going ahead.
All Israeli efforts to convince them of the need to maintain Iraq as a buffer to Iran fell on deaf ears.
At the end of the day, if Jew on the committee are “naturally” going to have an automatic bias based on Israeli opinion- it would be to condemn Britain on any aspects involving the war.
Oylem Goylem,
For these types of people it really doesn’t matter what “Jews” actually say or actually do, it makes no difference if mind-bending and outright lies are the basis for accusations.
The accusation is made and reality MUST be distorted to fit, the pattern that is well embedded in the gaurdian’s promotion of Arab revisionism and devotion to the electronic intifadaists that pepper their columns.
March 3, 2010 at 4:51 am
Serendipity
Al-Grauniad’s sccusations of “dual loyalties” is yet another blatant example of double standards.
I wonder when Bungle or some other supporter of Islamism will inveigh at the other place and squeal about the “islamophobia” in the Dispatches programme about the IFE’s double loyalties and the influence of the Muslim lobby in British politics?
Deafening silence so far from al Grauniad in spite of its shilling for the programme about the “Israel” lobby.
March 3, 2010 at 5:22 am
pretzelberg
It was either on that thread or a related subsequent one where – wait for it – a poster claimed that my preferred “loyalties” were clear (i.e. Israel first)!
And looking at the posts above from the Cesarini article, I’d forgotten about the poster haplomack, who said:
greytile, pretz … You two gentlemen are, in your aggressive pursuit of “anti-Semiticism” I suppose, merely confirming my opinion, and the opinion of a lot of people reading this, that Jews are poorly equipped to accomodate the idea that you are visible and known.
The conclusions some people rush to are sometimes frankly unbelievable.
Re. Oliver Miles
I generally like Cesarini’s articles, but for me he went too far when saying that Miles’ comment “continues a long tradition of prejudice”.
March 3, 2010 at 5:36 am
Biodegradable
That’s at least the second time I’ve seen that phrase “the holocaust movement” in a CiF comment.
WTF is it supposed to mean?
Is its use a form of Holocaust denial?
March 3, 2010 at 6:56 am
peterthehungarian
Hi pretzelberg
I generally like Cesarini’s articles, but for me he went too far when saying that Miles’ comment “continues a long tradition of prejudice”.
So what about these assertions:
I disagree that Arab members of the knesset vote in matters connected to the I/P conflict.
I’m against that Roma members of the European parliament (is there any at all?) participate in any session connected to the fight against poverty in Europe.
I strongly oppose that gay politicians have a word in matters of family law?
Wouldn’t you say that I continue a long tradition of prejudice?
March 3, 2010 at 7:49 am
pretzelberg
@ Biodegradable
Now you mention it I also remember that bizarre reference to “the holocaust movement”. It makes you wonder where this individual “read” such material …
@ peterthehungarian
I find your analogies inappropriate.
My point is: while there is of course a certain tradtion of anti-Semitism in Britain, I found Cesarini was too general in his assertions and insinuations. And Miles – far from it be for me to defend him – never said or implied that no Jews should be allowed on the committee or involved in any way in British ME policy.
That said: I also took issue with his original comments on the CiF thread.
March 3, 2010 at 8:32 am
peterthehungarian
pretzelberg
And Miles – far from it be for me to defend him – never said or implied that no Jews should be allowed on the committee or involved in any way in British ME policy
He did.
“Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media, but The Jewish Chronicle and the Israeli media have no such inhibitions, and the Arabic media both in London and in the region are usually not far behind.
All five members have outstanding reputations and records, but it is a pity that, if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunition will be available. Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced.”
He didn’t wrote “they should not be allowed”, he wrote that “it is a pity that they had been allowed.” What can I say… Huge difference!
March 3, 2010 at 9:40 am
Abandon hope
I thought your tone was reasonable at first and you made a brave fist of it but to launch into Stormfront and David Duke by the second paragraph was a little iffy. I agree haplomacks post was clumsy.
Independent Observer
“the Guardian an institution dedicated to destroying the Jewish state and Jewish people. It’s slightly more subtle than the Stürmer ”
The Chardonny swigging cardigan wearers can sleep safe tonight , knowing that CIFWatch… the main blog dedicated to showing bias on CIF can attract such hyperbole.
March 3, 2010 at 10:12 am
pretzelberg
@ peterthehungarian
I’m familiar with the article and repeat: he did not say or imply that Jews should automatically be excluded from the committee.
March 3, 2010 at 11:24 am
peterthehungarian
pretzelberg
Please then explain the meaning of this:
““Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media, but The Jewish Chronicle and the Israeli media have no such inhibitions, and the Arabic media both in London and in the region are usually not far behind.
All five members have outstanding reputations and records, but it is a pity that, if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunition will be available. Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced.”
March 3, 2010 at 12:32 pm
canadaneil
Some of the most horrible comments I have ever seen on Cif…..
I am struggling to find out what the real issue is here. Yes some commentors are clearly, obviously, and outrageously anti-semitic/ anti-Israel. However, it is true that cyberspace biases in favour of nutcases who have the time and inclination to express such opinions. They take the bait and regurgitate their hateful narrative to cause the biggest offence while hiding behind the familiar pillars of “legitimate criticism of Israel” or claiming they are merely “reacting to cries of antisemitism shutting down debate”. How many folk out there really, really support this narrative. V few folk that I have met. It is as if the internet – far from being morally neutral – appears to suck these folk our of mainstream society by giving them a voice.
But Israelinurse puts her finger on it by saying:
“If anyone still has doubts about how the CiF pages foster an atmosphere in which anti-Semitism becomes part of common parlance, the following comments should put those doubts to rest.”
CiF permits this atmosphere, and the Guardian should be accountable for all that is published on it.
March 3, 2010 at 12:47 pm
TomWonacott
Worthings comments are interesting, but a classic attempt to paint Jews as powerful. So Jews really aren’t a minority at all, but really a powerful majority holding the minority population in Europe hostage. This all too common theme is the basis behind the far left support of the “victims”, the Palestinians – and the antisemitic tropes found on Stormfront and other hate sites.
Thanks IsraeliNurse for another great article.
March 3, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Yohoho
Dopey, is “hyperbole” your new pet word?
Have you no intelligent criticism to make rather than to resorting to inanities?
You support CiF, the bastion of pc antisemitism cloaked as antizionism.
The Guardian and CiF are obsessed by Israel’s wrongs, real or imaginary. Never once have I read there of the good Israel does in the world, what Israel contributes in terms of science and technology and medical advances in research and treatment which she shares with the rest of the world; indeed even the execrable Freedman managed to turn the excellent and first-class aid she sent to Haiti into something to curse her with. Why did you not pull him up about that?
Sloganeer on CiF about them giving the mouthbreathers below the line a balanced picture rather than post your rubbish here.
March 3, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Serendipity
I note that the Bungler is on CiF belief trying to play both ends against the middle in his usual fashion about IFE.
Pile in people at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/03/dispatches-islamic-forum-europe
March 3, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Abandon hope
Yohoho
” the good Israel does in the world, what Israel contributes in terms of science and technology and medical advances ”
I have said this before but because no one has even come close to being able to argue with it I repeat it.
In 1800 Scots were amongst the leaders of the world in philosophy, economics and many aspects of medicine and science. A Scot at this time was the finest poet the world has ever produced.Yet at this time Scots were sought out as overseers for the slave trade such was their reputation for violence.
It is possible to be brilliant and horrendous simultaneously. You are resting your argument on a wobbly table.
March 3, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Yohoho
Dopey, you mean spirited individual, what is your point precisely?
You may be correct about being brilliant and horrendous at the same time, although you are engaging in hyperbole when you call Israel horrendous. She is much less horrendous than the government of the “poor” Palestinians in Gaza, the richest charity cases in the world in terms of the aid dollars given them, most of which those who need it never see.
So, I am sure that you will recognise and agree that the exception to your “brilliant yet horrendous” example are Hamas and Arab states generally. “Horrendous” alone sums them up. You know the sort of thing, a mass rally where the circumstances of a young man held in captivity without access to the Red Cross and against the Geneva conventions, are mocked before a cheering crowd of thousands; people kneecapped or tortured in front of their families; young woman arrested for laughing in public, &c &c.
Brilliant? Hardly.
Horrendous? Definitely not, at least in terms of its effect on Shalit’s family.
March 3, 2010 at 2:12 pm
pretzelberg
@ peterthehungarian
You seem to be interpreting Miles’ comments as advocating a ban on Jews sitting on such a committee.
I disagree – no matter how many times you repost his comments.
March 3, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Yohoho
Correction:
“Horrendous? Definitely so….”
March 3, 2010 at 2:45 pm
terry malloy
canadaneil-
Great post. There hasn’t been much discussion about how the anonymity of posting on the internet confers far more “credibility” to posters than they would have ever had pre-internet. I sometimes wonder what some of the individuals who post on CiF are really like.
I consult with people who have been injured at work. Occasionally, I come across someone with a personality disorder or some other serious psychiatric malady. While I’m not a psychiatrist, I don’t find it difficult to realize within minutes of speaking to such a person that something is not quite right. Furthermore, my assessment is corroborated by colleagues. I remember recently walking and hearing someone screaming at me. I was about to respond when I realized that this person was living in a cardboard box. Obviously, I did not engage this person in conversation. Is it only me that thinks that some of the CiF posters are not far removed from the guy in the cardboard box?
March 3, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Jonny Moses
In my opinion the most revealing comments exposing deeply offensive and classic anti-Semitic tropes are: ‘the Holocaust movement’ and ‘does anyone know a Jewish postman or builder?’.
Can you imagine the Guardian – that bastion of self-proclaimed progressive liberalism, hosting a question such as: ‘Does anyone know a black lecturer or physicist?’ Of course it wouldn’t dare, because it would be blatant racism and the Guardian would be pandering to the basest prejudices of its readers. Just as it is now, except of course, the victims of such vile bigotry are ‘only’ Jews.
The rest of the comments are by-and-large examples of the new anti-Semitism, that the Guardian does so much to foster. Namely; Israel is the world’s number-one warmonger and Jewish sovereignty is an affront to the liberal values of peace, equality and justice.
Thanks Israeli nurse, another searing indictment against the bigotry that the Guardian that encoura
March 3, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Jonny Moses
Sorry folks, I was having a ‘little dickie’ moment. Ignore the last incoherent sentence!
March 3, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Yohoho
You and me both, Jonny :~))
March 3, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Mitnaged
terry malloy, in the past I have trained people to offer online psychotherapy. I warn therapists, even those with much experience, about how quickly the brakes can come off in an internet psychotherapy encounter and that such a therapy session can be much faster paced and get into deep stuff much more quickly than a face to face one.
I believe that a similar process is in play on blogs like CiF, where people can post anonymously and without the inhibitions which might constrain extreme behaviour in face to face interaction. Add to that the fact that CiF is an enabling space for those who toe its party line of obsessional Israel-hatred, and any severely twisted Jew-hater can join in under that banner. It doesn’t take them long to display their Jew-hatred then, particularly if they have difficulties with impulse control.
The pathologies of certain posters are so evident that they might as well be advertised in neon lights. One example I remember the egregious khartoumi who could never be wrong about anything and regularly looped the loop if he was shown to be so, and yet he was kept on as part of the coven’s coterie of Israel bashers and Jew haters. I seem to remember that he was banned only after he had threatened violence against Petra MB, or something like that, but if I am wrong, then I am sure someone will correct me.
I believe that more than a few of the regulars with written diarrhoea at the other place evidence some sort of disordered reality.
However, hits mean money to Georgina Henry and the Guardian is in dire straits financially so Georgina can’t afford to be choosy except when it comes to pro-Israel posters who make mincemeat of the arguments of many of the Israel-haters who post there.
And don’t let’s forget either that Georgina sets out deliberately to incite argument and in spite of the laughable community rules – more honoured in the breach than in the observance and dependent upon whether its the moderator’s turn for the communal brain cell – the dirtier the debate the better. I can’t remember whether it’s still written on its page (and again perhaps someone will let us know) but initially people were actually encouraged to “join the fray.”
That says it all, really. No place there for reasoned debate.
March 3, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Abandon hope
Mitnaged
“people can post anonymously obsessional Israel-hatred, and any severely twisted Jew-hater. It doesn’t take them long to display their Jew-hatred ”
I often crack jokes about the invisibility of posters and their “bravery” especially in advocating war but your post with its allegations of madness and hatred is so severe…I understand why people are frightened and wish to stay anonymous.
March 4, 2010 at 7:10 am
Mitnaged
I am glad that you understand something Berchmans; that at least some aspect of the blind hatred of Jews and Israel and anything different gets through to you. As a matter of interest, do you stay anonymous because of the rank insanity, at times, at the other place?
Regardless of whether or not you think my post is severe, I believe that what I have written represents the lived experience of many pro-Israel posters, Jewish and otherwise, at the other place. CiF feeds Israel-hatred – that seems to be its sole mission – and many commenters cannot, do not, or perhaps deliberately will not, differentiate between Israel and its Jewish nature. Some of them slip-slide into Jew-hatred and don’t seem to be aware of what they are doing. That they do so proves that animus towards Israel and of Jews is linked in their minds at an unconscious level and, given the facilitating environment which CiF provides, it pops out. William Bapthorpe’s wish to see all the Jews of the West Bank slaughtered is but one example of this. I can’t imagine any other place, except perhaps Stormfront, where he might have felt so free to air such opinions.
CiF seems to have woken up a little to its part in disseminating this hatred and feeding the haters’ obsession, no doubt as a result of CiFWatch’s shining a light onto it, and to the damage and insult it perpetrates, but it still has a long way to go before it becomes an intelligent, even-handed debating forum.
At present, CiF acts as a magnet for any of those afflicted with Jew-hatred who believe that they can get away with spewing it all out as thinly disguised antiZionism. CiF encourages Theobald-Jews to write articles for it to make its obsession with Israel’s vileness “acceptable” and “well-founded.”
Also, Georgina Henry and CiF have a responsibility for deliberately cranking up that hatred and reinforcing it by allowing it onto the page and by creating a facilitating environment for it. The more haters are allowed to spew mindless garbage which fits CiF’s agenda, the more they will think it’s acceptable to spew it.
That hatred has a particularly addictive quality associated with it – recent psychological research tentatively concluded that political activism generates a particular form of arousal and that activists felt more energised – which means that unless the levels of it are kept fairly constant on CiF, people will leave because they are not getting the excitement.
As I have written above, Henry and her team also have their eye on the money, too, since lots of hits make them look good to their advertisers. It’s in Henry’s interest, therefore, to keep the haters “hooked” – the CiF coven are akin to drug pushers in this respect – and the haters need more and more of the drug in order to get high on it. CiFWatch is threatening that supply.
I gather that the CiF coven were offered sensitivity training about what might be offensive to Jewish and other pro-Israel readers of CiF. They turned it down.
What does that tell us:
1) That the training would cause them too much cognitive dissonance because they would have to revise their attitude to Israel and Jews?
2) That they are so insensitive and lacking in insight that they think they don’t need it?
3) That (assuming they were capable of benefiting) their increased sensitivity would necessarily result in a change of emphasis, which would in turn be reflected in reduced numbers of hits to CiF because the haters would go elsewhere?
Any or all of the above?
March 4, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Abandon hope
mitnaged
Despite the distance between us I recognise an attempt to communicate when I see one and thank you for your effort. Peace to all ..the sooner the better.
March 4, 2010 at 1:02 pm
JerusalemMite
Abandon hope
mitnaged
Despite the distance between us I recognise an attempt to communicate when I see one and thank you for your effort. Peace to all ..the sooner the better.
Is that you playing games Dotty??
March 4, 2010 at 1:59 pm
HuddsOn
“from first century Rome, through the Dreyfus affair, *Stalin’s Soviet Union* and up to modern times, Jews have been accused of holding dual loyalties.”
Can anyone suggest any good books or online educational resources dealing with the persecution of the Jews in communist countries? I recently watched a film called Sunshine (starring Ralph Fiennes), an historical epic about a Hungarian Jewish family, which has picqued my interest in the subject.
March 4, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Yohoho
Oooh, you charmer, Berchmans
Any hope of seeing those posts of yours actually condemning Hamas by name?
Seaton has managed to get near to it apart from the mealy-mouthed euphemism that Hamas “consolidated its position” (ie bumped off its opposition) in the post below:
mattseatonmattseaton
4 Mar 2010, 12:04PM
Staff
“@ savernake:
4 Mar 2010, 11:14AM
Funny that Ingram never mentions the fact that Hamas were elected in Gaza by the Palestinian people, and that they would be in the West Bank if elections were not perpetually postponed.
As far as I can remember the Provisional IRA were never elected, in internationally supervised and approved elections, the Government of Northern Ireland.
Don’t you think that’s become a historical irrelevancy now. Hamas consolidated its position in Gaza after armed conflict with Fatah/the PA in 2006/7? We’d be deluding ourselves now to describe it as in any way a democratic force or to expect further elections in Gaza (or even toleration of opposition movements) any time soon. There were certainly Gazans who did not vote for Hamas in 2006; perhaps we should ask them now how they feel about living in a one-party theocratic statelet?
Also, your analogy with Northern Ireland doesn’t really stand up: Gaza as an entity does not match NI. (emphases mine) PIRA was not a political party that fielded candidates. During direct rule, there was no government of NI. However, Sinn Féin was successful in getting numerous local councillors, as well of course as seats in Westminster (albeit never taken up).
All that aside, what is suggestive about Adam Ingram’s experience is the pragmatic attitude to talks with moderate elements. The weaker part of the argument is whether you can appeal to reformist parts of Hamas while simultaneously seeking to ‘undermine’ their position. It’s also a big ask to envisage the sort of economic development that Ingram regards as a useful tool to woo people away from extremism as long as the Egyptian-backed Israeli blockade of Gaza is still in place.”
Note that he refers to people deluding themselves that Hamas is ruling democratically.
He’s set an excellent example. Why don’t you follow?
March 4, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Mitnaged
I am trying to be patient with you Berchmans.
But I am still waiting for an apology for that obnoxious post to me and evidence that you have condemned Hamas by name in your posts to CiF. You said you were rushing out to work but would get onto it when you had returned.
Did you? Or couldn’t your find any?
March 4, 2010 at 4:15 pm
pretzelberg
It amazes me that people here of all places bother to communicate with Berchmans.
A waste of space and a waste of time.
March 5, 2010 at 2:55 am
Abandon hope
pretzelberg
” A waste of space and a waste of time.”
Trying to put clear blue water between us my friend ? Boats keep crashing?
Mitnaged
“But I am still waiting for an apology for that obnoxious post to me”
You are clearly a rather better balanced person than I had thought so I will apologise ..because you have taken offence and seen something that was not intended. I will try to be more careful in future.
“evidence that you have condemned Hamas by name in your posts to CiF.”
I had not meant to imply I criticised Hamas by name . I have been developing a strategy on CIF to fight their violence and have indirectly called them cowards, bullies and implied they were anti Socialist and unIslamic many times ..especially during operation cast lead when sharp voices on CIF were apologising for the rockets .
I have always felt that it was obvious it was Hamas I meant . I did reply BTW( one.. 22Feb 310 is the one I remember ) with 2 dated posts once showing I used the word “coward . I have used the word ” murderous” many times. I think you want me to condemn them in their entirety and this would not be honest. I think I said I have worked in prisons with murderers and rarely condemn in large letters.
Yohoho
I say the same to you.You appear to want me to ploddingly say ” I condemn Hamas ” when it is the violence that is the only issue for me and that I condemn all the time.
I earlier noted Finkelsteins point that Abbas wrote his thesis on “was there a holocaust?” …he could be accused of having a way more anti Semitic background than Hamas.
If he feels that the Palestinians have not had an easy time post WW2 …what representative of the Palestinians can a boy support without being called horrible names?
March 6, 2010 at 4:47 am
JerusalemMite
pretzelberg
It amazes me that people here of all places bother to communicate with Berchmans. A waste of space and a waste of time.
A wise comment.
However much Berchmans tries to derail serious discussion, he’s not having any success. The discussion on CW threads is in a different category to the naked hate comments on CiF.
I notice that ‘terrorist scum’ is not permitted on Cif. However ‘aparthied Israel’, ‘Israel baby killers’ and other such expressions of sheer unadulterated hate for Israel do not get deleted.
I remember Georgina’s words in her now famous letter to the JC. ‘Fair and balanced”.
She is in some parallel universe.
March 8, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Mitnaged
“I had not meant to imply I criticised Hamas by name .” Oooh, that’s very weasely, Berchmans. How is it “plodding” to say that you condemn Hamas by name (unless of course you are worried for your “status” at the other place)?
Why not do so? Hamas are barbarians to their own people. They don’t hesitate to put their own children in danger. The CiF lot are so thick that you would need to hit them on the head with it. But then, it’s a big decision to make, isn’t it, if you don’t want to be slung in to premoderation. Mind you, Matt Seaton set a precedent by referring to Gaza as a “theocratic statelet” (ie that it is not the “democracy” that the challenged on CiF keep yowling that it is) and implying that Palestinians might well not want to vote Hamas in again, if, that is, they were ever allowed to vote at all.
And pointing to Abbas and saying that he’s worse than Hamas simply doesn’t work. He may well be as duplicitous and I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him, but when was the last time any of his lot shelled Israel and denied that they had? The West Bank economy is improving at a pace. Gaza’s isn’t because of the Hamas corruption.
As for your apology, I acknowledge it but time will tell whether you can stay away from the antisemitic tropes in your posts. You should be more careful in future to say exactly what you mean.
March 8, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Mitnaged
A PS:
But I just saw this disappointment from Berchmans. Berchmans is not doing so well so far in encouraging me to believe that he has no vested interest in Israel/Jew bashing
Berchmans
7 Mar 2010, 6:54AM
OZKT29B
## the absurdly high hopes that were placed on him .. he would prove to be a world-saving messiah, ##
.
No…I wanted a guy who had the all important I am not George Bush factor. No one saw him as a messiah..that was made up by right wingers to sneer once the inevitable shine disappeared.
Who would have thought he’d start tap dancing to the Israeli beat quite so quickly though ? That threw me.
B”
Now, Berchmans, was this some not-so-oblique reference to Israeli/Jewish power in the White House? Please explain and clearly