Ten years ago – minus a couple of months – Deborah Orr declared herself to be “getting fed up with being called an anti-Semite”.
Clearly, Orr did not appreciate even then that the best way to avoid being called an anti-Semite is not to behave like one and her October 19th article in the Guardian indicates that the passage of a decade has done nothing to improve her ability for self-awareness.
This so-called “leading social and political commentator” obviously hasn’t got a clue concerning the subject about which she writes. The implication that it is Israel which defined the 1:1,027 ratio of the recent exchange shows her ignorance in a spectacular light. The fact that she fails to factor into her pernicious arithmetic the hundreds of Israelis – Jews and non-Jews alike – already murdered by the released prisoners, as well as those who will yet be kidnapped or murdered in the future, further indicates the malicious nature of her argument.
Her failure to mention that Israel made a similar deal with Hizbollah in the past in order to retrieve the remains of a Bedouin soldier and his two Jewish comrades can only be interpreted as deliberate omission. The fact that she even equates at all between a kidnapped soldier held in violation of all internationally-accepted protocols and terrorists convicted by due process in a court of law reveals that her motive for writing such drivel is solely political.
But of course Orr does not need to have any real knowledge or understanding of the subject about which she is writing, or to display any integrity in doing so, because her real design – as revealed in her final paragraph – is not the transmission of information to her readers or appropriate comment on a news item. She has absolutely nothing of relevance or interest to impart. Her sole aim in writing these four short paragraphs is to advance an anti-Semitic trope.
“At the same time, however, there is something abject in their eagerness to accept a transfer that tacitly acknowledges what so many Zionists believe – that the lives of the chosen are of hugely greater consequence than those of their unfortunate neighbours.” [emphasis added]
There is no point to Orr’s article without its anti-Semitic finale, and yet it clearly must have received editorial approval before being published. Apparently no warning bells sounded, no red lights flashed in the editor’s head. That could only occur in an environment de-sensitized to anti-Semitism by overfamiliarity.
These have been a difficult few days for reflexive Israel-haters such as Deborah Orr. Despite all the demonization of Israel over the past decade or so, the visuals of the exchange spoke for themselves. The difference between one sole pale and emaciated Israeli and the hundreds of well cared-for Palestinian prisoners was very clear to the world as a whole. The stark contrast between the Israeli public’s spontaneous outburst of joy at having saved a life (albeit at a terrible and painful price) and the meticulously orchestrated ‘celebrations’ of the release of mass-murderers, (complete with threats of new kidnappings) overseen by masked gunmen in the Gaza strip was not lost on the vast majority of onlookers who, unlike Orr, do not wallow in the bigoted idea that Israel is a “shitty and little” country.
Faced with the frustration of such an undeniable negation of her precious stereotypes, Orr did not reassess her stance, or even keep quiet. Instead she resorted to a four paragraph abusive rant.
Deborah Orr cannot be allowed to resort to the form of the previous decade by feigning surprise or indignation at being called out for that.






48 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 20, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Geary
What typically ridiculous PC garbage.
Of course – in abstract terms – an Israeli life is worth no more than that of any other human being.
But Israelis value a human life 1027 times more than its enemies value a human life. Don’t they teach logic any more?
October 20, 2011 at 5:21 pm
HairShirt
No, Geary, they don’t. Otherwise CiF would be defunct
December 22, 2011 at 4:25 pm
David Richardson
The capture of one Israeli soldier was used by Israel as an excuse for an assault on Gaza that cost thousands of innocent lives. Israel constantly talks about Israeli lives lost to what they like to call Palestinian terrorism, ignoring the many more Palestinians killed by illegal Israeli incursions – and the use of live ammunition against unarmed protestors. This kind of thing makes many people think that, to Israelis, an Israeli life is worth more than another human being’s. The USA has something of the same attitude in respect of American lives. Am I being anti-Semitic?
December 23, 2011 at 12:18 am
peterthehungarian
Am I being anti-Semitic?
Yes, you are. And an especially ignorant and stupid one.
December 23, 2011 at 3:39 am
David Richardson
Could someone explain here how Israel can ever be criticised for any of its actions, if anyone making that criticism is automatically to be considered anti-Semitic? Can Israel do wrong?
I notice that my previous comment, along the same lines, was not published. The Guardian prints comments from all points of view, except those that are abusive, and yet the Guardian is accused here of being biased in some way. Could anyone please explain this too?
Is this site only for those who share a certain set of preconceptions?
December 23, 2011 at 4:44 am
peterthehungarian
Could someone explain here how Israel can ever be criticised for any of its actions, if anyone making that criticism is automatically to be considered anti-Semitic?
If the criticism is based on hard facts and not lies than probably it is not anti-semitic.
Your criticism is a textbook example of the antisemitic kind.
You wrote:
The capture of one Israeli soldier was used by Israel as an excuse for an assault on Gaza that cost thousands of innocent lives.
You successfully put two outright lies in one sentence.
Gilad Shalit has been kidnaspped in the summer of 2006 – Israel attacked hamas in gaz in the winter of 2008 – two and a half yeaqrs later – and never said that it happened as a consequence of the kidnapping, but because of the need to stop the launching of rockets from Gaza to israeli civilan centers.
According to every available sources (and confirmed by Hamas itself) the number of casualties in Gaza during the attack was between 1300 and 1400 persons – more than 700 of them armed Hamas personnel.
December 23, 2011 at 5:32 am
David Richardson
During the subsequent pause in hostilities, I understand that the Israeli government did demand that steps be made to release the Israeli soldier: but I appear to have been mistaken about the causes of the war. The UN report described the Israeli response to the primitive rocket attacks as excessive, and probably in violation of human rights, as were the rocket attacks themselves.
There are, however, surely reasons to criticise Israel: the continued occupation of the West Bank and continued expansion of illegal settlements, in defiance of international law and Security Council resolutions, its conduct during the invasions of Lebanon, the continued blockade of Gaza. While there are also questions about the foundation of the state, the expulsions of Arabs from their villages, and the destruction of those villages, the refusal to allow refugees to return, I agree that the continued existence of Israel is a sine qua non, and must be defended. But Israel appears to present insuperable barriers to all efforts at restarting negotiations for a settlement, and to be its own worst enemy.
But the main point I would like to make about the postings I have seen on the cif Watch site is regarding the calumnies directed against the Guardian. The paper publishes a very wide variety of shades of opinion. Jewish and Israeli contributors have ready access to the letters column and the comment articles, and the paper is at pains to present a balanced picture. The fact that Israel’s actions are sometimes unpardonable, and are attacked, is not evidence of anti-Semitism. To call the Guardian the most anti-Semitic publication in the West is sheer fantasy. You are asking that Israel should be immune from criticism, and that is unacceptable.
I still note that no dissenting voices seem to be allowed on your site, which, as I have said, contrasts greatly with the Guardian’s own policy.
December 23, 2011 at 5:37 am
David Richardson
I would like to reply to myself. You do seem to be publishing my posts. My apologies, and thanks!
December 23, 2011 at 6:00 am
peterthehungarian
Let me to limit my answer to only one of your points:
The UN report described the Israeli response to the primitive rocket attacks as excessive, and probably in violation of human rights, as were the rocket attacks themselves.
Do you mean the same UN whose GA mourns the death of Kim Jong-il?
And please try to not abuse the readers intelligence with the so called “excessive response” crap… Did the reaction of Israel violate the human rights of the Hamas personnel? It did definitely. A pity that didn’t violate it much more…
December 24, 2011 at 6:45 am
David Richardson
So you don’t believe in the concept of human rights, that’s plain. So what’s the argument about? Might is right?
December 23, 2011 at 6:24 am
Thank God I'm an Infidel
David Richardson, How close to one of hamass “primitive” rockets are you or dear members of your family would you willing to be when it explodes?
10 feet? 20 feet?
If you believe that body counts reflect guilt or innocence, do you consider Britain to be the aggressor in WW2 because more Germans than Brits died in WW2?
Are you willing to hold hamass, hezbullah, the Islamic Republic of Iran to the same standards that you hold Israel?
What uniform did hamass fighters wear to distinguish themselves from REAL civilians?
What is “progressive” about siding with the likes of hamass, hezbullah, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and those who sanction the murder of writers of fiction like Salman Rushdie, the beheading of journalists like Danil Pearl, the indoctrination of children to view Jews as “sons of pigs and apes”?
December 24, 2011 at 6:38 am
David Richardson
Thank God I’m an infidel, here are my answers to your questions:
David Richardson, How close to one of hamass “primitive” rockets are you or dear members of your family would you willing to be when it explodes?
This is a silly question, surely. How close would you like your family to be to an assault helicopter, targeting a block of flats in Gaza? How would you like your children to be exposed to Israeli snipers? Your question displays indifference to the plight of ordinary civilians in the occupied territories and Gaza: because they are only Arabs?
If you believe that body counts reflect guilt or innocence, do you consider Britain to be the aggressor in WW2 because more Germans than Brits died in WW2?
I make a point of body counts because Israeli spokespersons make a point of body counts – except that they tend to confine their concern to the Israeli body count.
Are you willing to hold hamass, hezbullah, the Islamic Republic of Iran to the same standards that you hold Israel?
Yes, I am. I deplore some aspects of Islam, in particular the attitude to women, and to sexuality and the human body in general. But many of those attitudes are shared by orthodox Jews, and even to some extent Christians. I myself am an atheist, so Muslims would not particularly like me. But Israel is the aggressor in the Palestinian situation. Whatever its faults, Iran is not occupying any other people’s territory.
What uniform did hamass fighters wear to distinguish themselves from REAL civilians?
I don’t know, and, I suspect, neither do you. What is certain is that, when a modern military power attacks a country that is deprived of the means to defend itself (adequate anti-aircraft defenses, fighter planes, tanks, artillery – all of which Israel has in abundance, and the Palestinians have not), civilians die. And soldiers defending their homeland and families are also, in my eyes, to that extent innocent: would you not agree?
What is “progressive” about siding with the likes of hamass, hezbullah, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and those who sanction the murder of writers of fiction like Salman Rushdie, the beheading of journalists like Danil Pearl, the indoctrination of children to view Jews as “sons of pigs and apes”?
I made no claim to be progressive, but I will accept the compliment. I deplore extremism, whether it is Islamic, Christian or Jewish. But aggression is aggression, and Israel is guilty of aggression. Are not Israeli children indoctrinated with a particular view of MIddle Eastern history?
December 24, 2011 at 8:52 am
Thank God I'm an Infidel
> Thank God I’m an infidel, here are my answers to your questions:
>> David Richardson, How close to one of hamass “primitive” rockets are you or dear members of your family would you willing to be when it explodes?
> This is a silly question, surely.
Really? Since as you claimed above that the hamass rockets are “primitive”, are they harmless, ineffecitive? For the second time I ask you whether you would accept you or your family being within 20 feet of a “primitive” exploding hamass rocket????
> How close would you like your family to be to an assault helicopter, targeting a block of flats in Gaza?
I would be far, far away. As I would be far, far away from a hamass rocket launch team setting up to fire one of their rockets against Israel.
> How would you like your children to be exposed to Israeli snipers?
How would you like your children exposed to hamass, hezbuallh, al qada snipers, suicide bombers?
> Your question displays indifference to the plight of ordinary civilians in the occupied territories and Gaza: because they are only Arabs?
It is a shame that ordinary civilians in hamss dominated Gaza are used as human shields by hamass. It would be encouraging if progressive people would demonstrate in Trafalgar Square against hamass, hezbullah, al qada, islamofascists, the genocidal Islamic Republic of Iran. But I am expecting too much from a dhimmified UK.
>> If you believe that body counts reflect guilt or innocence, do you consider Britain to be the aggressor in WW2 because more Germans than Brits died in WW2?
> I make a point of body counts because Israeli spokespersons make a point of body counts – except that they tend to confine their concern to the Israeli body count.
Excuse me but it is hamass and socialists who make a point of “1,400″ dead. How many are REAL civilians and not hamass terrorists relabeled as “civilians”?
>> Are you willing to hold hamass, hezbullah, the Islamic Republic of Iran to the same standards that you hold Israel?
> Yes, I am. I deplore some aspects of Islam, in particular the attitude to women, and to sexuality and the human body in general. But many of those attitudes are shared by orthodox Jews, and even to some extent Christians. I myself am an atheist, so Muslims would not particularly like me. But Israel is the aggressor in the Palestinian situation. Whatever its faults, Iran is not occupying any other people’s territory.
Good for you David. What about the genocidal chants by the Islamic Republic of Iran? You know, the Nuremberg style rallys where tens of thousands cry out for death to Israel and death for America?
What about the Islamists within the UK who threaten the UK with massacres?
>> What uniform did hamass fighters wear to distinguish themselves from REAL civilians?
How does one differentiate a civilian from a hamass fighter/terrorist?
The terrorists of 9/11 were not dressed in military uniforms but in civilian clothing.
The terrorists of Londons 7/7/05 bus and underground bombings were not dressed in military uniforms but in civilian clothing.
> I don’t know, and, I suspect, neither do you. What is certain is that, when a modern military power attacks a country that is deprived of the means to defend itself (adequate anti-aircraft defenses, fighter planes, tanks, artillery – all of which Israel has in abundance, and the Palestinians have not), civilians die. And soldiers defending their homeland and families are also, in my eyes, to that extent innocent: would you not agree?
Perhaps you wouldn’t mind if the IRA had planes and missiles to attack Great Britain too? Perhaps you wouldn’t mind if Israelis were thrown to the wolves, Islamofascists, as they were in WW2?
>> What is “progressive” about siding with the likes of hamass, hezbullah, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and those who sanction the murder of writers of fiction like Salman Rushdie, the beheading of journalists like Danil Pearl, the indoctrination of children to view Jews as “sons of pigs and apes”?
> I made no claim to be progressive, but I will accept the compliment. I deplore extremism, whether it is Islamic, Christian or Jewish.
You think there aren’t extremists atheists too? You are too smug David.
> But aggression is aggression, and Israel is guilty of aggression.
Islamofascists are guilty of aggression all over the world. A fact that atheists, “progressives” like to bury.
And if Israel is guilty of anything, it is guilty of not being the unarmed Jews of WW2 national Socialist infested Europe or of Khybar.
> Are not Israeli children indoctrinated with a particular view of MIddle Eastern history?
Please show us a Youtube where Israeli children indoctrinated like these Arab children.
Arabs brainwashed little girls to hate Jews
Here is a Youtube from a GREAT Atheist with a viewpoint not as dhimmified as yourself.
Useful idiots for Palestine
http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell?blend=1&ob=4#p/a/u/2/LeGYAfh9A1k
David, It’s like Pat had you in mind.
December 24, 2011 at 2:58 pm
David Richardson
It’s the morning of December 25 where I am at the moment, and, even for an atheist, this is a day for family and children. So, goodwill to all peoples, and silence for a day.
December 24, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Thank God I'm an Infidel
“It’s the morning of December 25 where I am at the moment”
Where are you?
December 25, 2011 at 6:11 pm
David Richardson
Hi. I am in New Zealand at the moment – I don’t live here though. Where are you?
I watched the videos you recommended. The Islamic one with the little girl is, of course, obscene, and it makes me as angry as, I imagine, it does you. Pat Condell, whether an atheist or not, is just another hate-monger, as far as I can see. He insults those who criticize Israel merely by calling them names (“Islamic lefty” etc.) and impugning their intelligence. He also is beneath contempt, not worth bothering with. If there are extremist atheists, Pat Condell would appear to be one of them.
Your first question, in your previous posting: of course, I answered it, but my answer was unwelcome, and so you ignored it. Of course I would not want my family to be targeted by rockets, or by tanks, assault helicopters, or fighter-bombers. Ok? I presume you feel the same about your family. Where does that get us?
My position as regards Israel is, first, that there are ethical and legal problems as regards its foundation, but, second, that Israel now exists, and must continue to exist. We Europeans owe it to the Jewish people, after centuries of persecution, and especially after the Holocaust under the Nazis. Arabs were not responsible for the Holocaust, even if one or two of their leaders have since thought fit to approve it or deny it.
The problem regarding Israel’s foundation is primarily, of course, that it was founded on land that already belonged to other people. The influx of Jews into Palestine in the first couple of decades of the twentieth century was naturally resented and fought against by Palestinian Arabs, who nevertheless could not do much about it. The Zionist settlement was largely, if typically half-heartedly, supported by we British. Some land was purchased by Jews, but often from Arab leaders who themselves could not claim clear legal title to the land they sold – the situation was similar, at a slightly earlier date, here in New Zealand, where European settlers “purchased” land from people who had a different culture, and little concept of land ownership in the European sense. In Palestine, Zionist leaders (can I use the word “Zionist”? I think it has a clear historical meaning) such as David Ben Gurion realized that there could be no Jewish state with a majority of Arabs, and, again with covert British backing, in the run-up to the declaration of the Israeli state they instigated a programme that today would be called ethnic cleansing, driving Arabs from their homes and destroying or appropriating their villages. Israel has never addressed that shameful aspect of its foundation (I myself believe that no solution is possible in a divided land, and that only a unified, secular state of Israel/Palestine would have a hope of achieving it – but that’s by the way).
That is the past. Now, Israel continues with illegal appropriations of Arab lands and homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which have never been part of the modern state of Israel. Those appropriations are driven by religious fundamentalism, founded on myths concerning the past. Whenever there seems to be a possibility of peace talks, the building of illegal settlements is pursued with redoubled speed. The conclusion I arrive at is that Israel’s government does not want a peaceful settlement. I come to that conclusion on the evidence, not because I have fallen for some sinister Islamic propaganda, or because of any predisposition towards Palestinians – although my impression is that Palestine has been a reasonably progressive part of the Islamic world, relatively speaking. Israel should try putting an end to the illegal settlements, and negotiating seriously. Nobody in the West would countenance the demise of Israel.
I deplore the internal politics of Iran, but I welcome its support for Palestine in the face of Israeli oppression – I do not apologise for using that expression. I also, by the way, feel that, while Israel has nuclear weapons, it is difficult to object to Iran’s having them too. At least Iran has signed up to the international non-proliferation protocols, and inspection by the IAEA, unlike Israel, and so far there appears to be no evidence that it is developing nuclear weapons. A non-nuclear Middle East would be a worthwhile aim, but Israel would have to put its weapons on the table. As it is, any desire by Iran to have nuclear weapons would be understandable. Iran would like to drive Zionism into the sea – so how about a non-Zionist Israel?
The terrorists of 9/ll and 7/7? They were not soldiers, but deluded criminals. Why would you expect them to wear uniforms? On the other hand, soldiers defending their homeland, whether they are the soldiers of Hamas or those of the IDF, of Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan, are doing their duty, and are protected under international law. As to your point about the IRA, they were fighting a legitimate nationalist cause, if a largely outdated one. The issue has now been more or less settled by negotiation.
There is no international plot against Israel. Quite the contrary. There is great goodwill towards Israel, a goodwill that is sorely tested by the extremism of Israel’s policies, and its at times arrogant exclusivism. All this talk about “Islamofascists” smacks of racism, of a conspiracy theory that itself has echoes of Anti-Semitism. Israel has the seemingly unquestioning backing of the USA. It has access to every modern weapon. Its attacks on its comparatively defenseless neighbours (in the case of the Palestinians almost entirely defenseless) are shameful, cowardly, and ultimately counter-productive.
October 20, 2011 at 3:37 pm
pretzelberg
It’s a complete disgrace – especially that last sentence. And it’s not as if the Israelis themselves insisted on releasing a thousand prisoners, is it? What if the numbers were reversed? No doubt the same critics would then be lambasting Israel for demanding too much – and blaming the impasse on a swap on them and them only. I can almost feel a Pat Condell moment coming on.
What the hell is a comment piece (although that description is generous) doing in the World News section anyway?
December 23, 2011 at 5:17 am
Thank God I'm an Infidel
pretzels demonstrates the “broken clock” condition.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Even%20a%20broken%20clock%20is%20right%20twice%20a%20day
October 20, 2011 at 3:57 pm
peterthehungarian
I perfectly understand the frustration of Deborah Orr and her Guardian paymasters
The little shitty Israel’s place on the world happiness index = 7
UK = 17
Little shitty Israel collected in the last 45 years 1.5/million Nobel prizes
UK = 1/million
The little shitty Israel came out of the last economic crisis with flying colours
UK = austerity measures
Little shitty israel has one of the most developed and effective health system available for every citizen
UK = NHS with bedbugs
For these haters of Jews and democratic Israel these facts must have a devastating effect, so I wouldn’t expect from them anything else.
We got back an Israeli citizen, the Palestinians got 1027 criminal murderers – sorry Deborah we won (again).
October 20, 2011 at 4:20 pm
pretzelberg
The thing is, peter, there are plenty of other countries ahead of the UK on certain indicators. But I don’t see Orr display such anger against them.
October 20, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Gerald
You may remember the scandal earlier this year of ‘Dirty Hari’ at The Independent and his made up quotes.
This is an interview on BBC2′s Newsnight programme during which Deborah Orr attempts to justify Johann Hari’s actions and admits to having done the same herself “earlier in her career”
October 20, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Thank God I'm An Infidel
Orr sounds like Gallowsway.
Two peas in the fascist pod.
October 20, 2011 at 4:20 pm
AKUS
The Deborah Orr article demonstrated that whenever you think the Guardian can sink no lower, it proves it can.
Absolutely disgusting.
October 20, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Brad Brzezinski
Societies that encourage their children to become suicide killers as a matter of course, unfortunately do merit having their lives being deemed of lesser consequence.
I do not personally encourage this point of view but it is a simple fact.
October 20, 2011 at 5:15 pm
cba
Here’s the caption to the photo that accompanied the article:
“Wafa al-Biss, one of the freed Palestinian prisoners, on her return to her home in the northern Gaza Strip”
Wafa al-Biss is the woman who, after receiving free medical treatment at Soroka Hospital for several months, decided to return the favour by blowing up the place, killing the doctors and nurses who had been helping her and whoever else happened to be in the vicinity. Luckily she was stopped at the checkpost (and when she tried to self-detonate, she failed).
On her return to Gaza, she told a group of schoolchildren that she hopes they’ll become martyrs. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/freed-female-palestinian-terrorist-to-gaza-children-i-hope-you-will-become-martyrs-1.391014
October 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm
pretzelberg
she told a group of schoolchildren that she hopes they’ll become martyrs
Simply sick.
October 20, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Thank God I'm An Infidel
“On her return to Gaza, she told a group of schoolchildren that she hopes they’ll become martyrs.”
Thus demonstrating that palestinianism is a death cult.
October 20, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Mitnaged
The subtext of this is the pernicious and rage-driven envy on the part of the challenged and mindless supporters of Palestinians (and particularly of their fellow travllers like Deborah Orr), who realise only too well and have had it proven to them that Gilad Shalit is prized by his family and his nation, whereas the second-rate bullies and psychopaths who were returned to their Palestinian masters will easily be forgotten about because their “heroism” rested only in the fact that they were. quite rightly. confined within Israeli prisons. That Israel thought them so worthless as to dispose of more than one thousand of them back to where they came from in exchange for just one of its own, rubs salt in that much deserved wound.
Regardless of what these ex-prisoners may boast in TV interviews, their capability to do much harm has been neutered. Returned to their families and the ignominious ideologies which spawned them, they will merely be ordinary once more. Gilad Shalit, on the other hand will be the hero of his nation for what I hope will be the rest of a long and contented life.
That Israel’s careful negotiations said the equivalent of, “Sure, take them, they’re as worthless as old shoes to us” has registered in some deeply disturbed, atavistic corner of what passes for the souls of people like Orr means that they, too, believe that the released prisoners are worthless. Orr’s reactions, like those of so many others are the product of cognitive dissonance that has caused for them.
They were hoping that the exchange would go wrong but it didn’t. Israel made no fuss about letting the Palestinian prisoners go once they had decided that this would happen. Orr and others wanted there to be delays, second and third thoughts on Israel’s part and for Israel to play false. They were disappointed. Instead the Hamas and the Egyptian TV crew who tortured Gilad Shalit that one more time and so publicly, showed themselves to be the animals they are and Israel and Shalit behaved with dignity throughout.
The intelligent world has seen the contempt in which Hamas held the life and welfare of one young Israeli Jew and now has a chilling perception of how worthless Jewish lives are to it and its West Bank coreligionists. They have compared the hollow-eyed, sallow countenance of this young man, who had been kept like an animal for over five years, with the round, suntanned, healthy well-fed Palestinians who were proof positive of Israel’s humanity even to her sworn enemies, and the scales are beginning to fall from their eyes.
And Orr and her ilk are fighting against that knowledge and the cognitive dissonance it creates in the only way they know – with insults and hatred.
October 21, 2011 at 12:02 am
Penny
Well, they’re certainly desperate for an angle on this story. The twisting and turning evident here is not becoming in an adult.
Although I watched the TV news for this story, it was only the once. I really don’t see the point of bothering with Britsh newspapers or TV who exist only to tell you waht opinion you should have, not what the facts are.
Anyway – in that one-off program I didn’t see any photos of the Palestinian prisoners, so I’m wondering if any were shown on TV? If not, it’s rather telling.
October 21, 2011 at 7:01 am
Mitnaged
Penny, with all respect, you make a big mistake if you perceive these people as adults. They are developmentally stuck either at the toddler stage – the frothing and tantrums – or the adolescent, “I hate you” phase directed at the “parent” societies.
I saw some Palestinian prisoners on the BBC, I think. They looked fit, healthy and positively fat in comparison with Gilad Shalit and as if they had just come from a trip to the seaside.
TGIAI, don’t forget that Al-Biss was snared by Hamas because, having been rejected by her fiance because she had been scarred by burns, she was viewed as sub-standard. Consequently she was deeply depressed and Hamas spun her its usual yarn about paradise and peace from her suffering. Being depressed, she may have had suicidal thoughts anyway.
Al-Biss’ scars and burns are still there. She also failed to kill Israelis or herself so the black mark against her still operates. Therefore she’s trying to talk big so as to get her wonderful fellow-Palestinians in Hamas and the religion of peace to lift it and forgive her.
October 21, 2011 at 11:50 am
Penny
Mitnaged -
I agree about the apparent developmental delay. Even so, Orr and all who travel with her are adults, and as such should be accountable.
My point about not seeing photos may not be clear here. Most of the media is biased – which is why I can hardly bother with it. My cycnicism is now such that I wouldn’t have put it passed them to have aired a photo of Gilad prior to his capture rather than the lad himself whose poorly, gaunt appearance speaks volumes about the enormous pressure he must have been under whilst in the hands of Hamas.. If – and I don’t know for sure – they did not show, by contrast, photos that attest to the well-being of the prisoners kept in Israeli jails, then was that because they didn’t want the contrast to be seen and comparisons made?
As Israelinurse says: the visuals of the exchange spoke for themselves, but did our biased media give them the opportunity to do so?
Incidentally, what does TGIAI mean?
October 23, 2011 at 10:09 am
Mitnaged
Penny, I too believe that Orr and her fellow travellers should be held accountable, I also believe are split in the psychological sense (ie that they project all their “bad” aspects onto Jews and Israel – Jenny Tonge is a prime example of this – so that they can feel all “good” but the comfort they get from this doesn’t last for very long). The Jew/Israel-hatred, and the sheer one-track-mindedness of it shows that there is a failure to develop cognitively there as well.
You will agree with me that these hatreds are not merely ideas. Rather they carry with them an emotional overlay, a “buzz” which can be very addictive for the ones who hold them. In my opinion, the most dangerous emotional malaise of the 21st century is the need to feel constantly emotionally stimulated and to seek to find that stimulation externally rather than from a rich internal emotional life which has regular contact with reality, or, more realistically, from the realisation that the lack of buzz in the absence of the feelings of rage will not derange or kill!
I have said here before that such hatred is like a drug of which the haters need an almost constant fix. Withdraw the objects of or the reasons for their hatred and these people would have to detox cold turkey. They would probably be terrified of having to do that.
As for the photos of Gilad Shalit, you would probably not be surprised that below the line on a Daily Telegraph blog about him recently were arguments that the photographs were indeed tampered with to make him look gaunt, so uncomforable was the cognitive dissonance and so desperate the need to hang on to their hatred.
October 20, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Ben
If dumborah was that gung ho for the equal value of life spiel she’s been crafting, she had more than 5 years to make a case for a 1-for-1 exchange on the basis of, you know, one Israeli and one Palestinian being a matched pair.
Either Hamas doesn’t care what she thinks, she has a serious mental illness that’s been covered up, or both. I vote both.
October 21, 2011 at 12:10 am
benorr
That the lives of THE CHOSEN are of greater consequence than their unfortunate neighbors…..
When you have psychotic neighbors,whose sole being in life is to kill you………
Then the lives of THE CHOSEN become of much GREATER VALUE than your unfortunate neighbors………
That we have unfortunate neighbors that have corrupt and murderous leaders is no fault of ours.
BTW,the web is full Arab and Muslim posters commenting on the lengths that Israel go to,to save just one of it’s soldiers.
At the same time that Arab and Muslim states are going to great lengths to kill their own people.
At this very moment it is happening in Iran,Turkey,Iraq,Syria,Gaza.Egypt,Libya,Yemen,naming just a few of these Arab/Muslim states………
October 21, 2011 at 12:26 am
benorr
She asks “is an Israeli life worth more important than than a palestinian’s”…..
Dumb question…….If those palestinians happen to have the blood of Israeli men women and children on their hands…..Then YES………….
October 21, 2011 at 1:46 am
EricD
This woman’s bigotry is not only in the mind, but the heart. It reinforces that when it comes to anti-Jewish bias in a publication, the Guardian has perhaps no peer day in and out, and proudly so.
The juxtaposition of the health of Shalit compared to the convicts should say a lot to anyone, excluding those with an obsession.
It would be interesting to note, at least to me, the aggregate costs to the respective societies due to Shalit compared to the convicted that were released.
October 21, 2011 at 1:50 am
benorr
This hypocrite shamelessly asks “Why can’t politicians seem to learn from past mistakes”…………….
“The passage of a decade has done nothing to improve her ability for self-awareness”……………..
This woman would need a lot more than a single decade to improve her ability for self-awareness,if at all……..
October 21, 2011 at 7:05 am
HairShirt
Talking of politicians failing to learn from past mistakes, the UK is very good at being boneheaded in this regard. Its House of Lords invited a high-ranking member of the Muslim Brotherhood to address it, courtesy of the thoroughly disreputable Lord Ahmed, the same Ahmed who called for a march of 10,000 on parliament if Geert Wilders was invited there. Of course the spineless House of Commons rescinded the invitation, although Wilders was invited subsequently and allowed to speak.
I note that there wasn’t even a bleat of protest from the British public about the smilers from the Ikhwan, but then the Ikhwan’s visit was not widely publicised.
October 21, 2011 at 2:03 am
benorr
We can all rest easy in the knowledge that all these palestinian mass murderers will be going to good and respectable homes………
Would Deborah Orr like to invite some of these Charmers to her home…….
October 21, 2011 at 4:13 am
Clive (@FatPooftah)
What a thoroughly disgusting woman. Par for the course for the Graun though, which is Der Sturmer de nos jours
October 21, 2011 at 5:05 am
Hoi Polloi
Deborah Orr on “Passenger”, the first opera to be set in Auschwitz:
“Deborah Orr, brazenly asked why The Passenger was not staged through a prism of Israel-Palestine.”
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/56022/provocative-profound
October 21, 2011 at 8:22 am
Wendy Fingerhut II
It’s probably a good thing that you can’t post responses on that particular comment piece – she would’ve gotten a torrent of ‘response’ from me. I can hardly believe that this garbage made it to print; it;s almost too low for the Guardian.
October 23, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Samson
Forgive me for reposting a comment made on LGF, but here goes:
Deborah Orr is an out-and-out Israel- and Jew-hater. Her short piece, inexplicably included under news items rather than opinion, sets new lows for the Guardian – already the most overtly anti-semitic mainstream news source in the English-speaking world. Aside from the article making no sense whatsoever, I agree with Jeffrey Goldberg’s description of its “almost-comical nastiness.” If you had any doubts about the usual congruence between hatred of Israel and hatred of Jews, this little bit of Zyklon B in print ought to convince you. A pity there is no opportunity to respond to her directly in the Guardian (as there usually is for the CIF articles), but my experience with the Guardian is that they would delete any comment that pointed out the obvious anyway.
I could say more, but most of what I am thinking has been covered already.
And yes, not that it matters, but she is married to Will Self, whose mother was, of course, Jewish:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Self
October 24, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Brian Meltzer
As Joseph Telushkin asks:
Does Judaism believe that chosenness endows Jews with special rights in the way racist ideologies endow those born into the “right race”? Not at all. The most famous verse in the Bible on the subject of chosenness says the precise opposite: “You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth. That is why I call you to account for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). Chosenness is so unconnected to any notion of race that Jews believe that the Messiah himself will descend from Ruth, a non-Jewish woman who converted to Judaism.
October 26, 2011 at 9:51 pm
David.
I remember a time when Journalism was considered a noble profession.
Now it seems to be a forum for bigoted ignorant opinions with no regard for the facts.
And I fear that it will only get worse and may reach the point where no one believes anything they see or hear in the press.
Sad.
November 8, 2011 at 2:35 pm
jaysonrexJayson Rex
There is no doubt that Deborah Orr has become a serious liability and The Guardian ought to consider parting ways. Or, conversely, the Editorial Board admits that the line followed by The Guardian is in tune with Ms. Orr’s posture, ideas and terminology. In other words, it is high the time for British media to open the cards and show what game it prefers to play. Codling AGAIN to Arabs, like it did since HM Government did right after WW1, will simply not do. We are living in the age of TERRORISM and this should neveer be forgotten, just like the Brits should never dismiss 7/7 and the lives of so many innocent victims. It is, after all, a matter of dignity.
December 26, 2011 at 3:42 am
Thank God I'm an Infidel
My reply to David Richardson post of December 25, 2011 at 6:11 pm
> Hi. I am in New Zealand at the moment – I don’t live here though. Where are you?
I’m in the United States of America.
> I watched the videos you recommended. The Islamic one with the little girl is, of course, obscene, and it makes me as angry as, I imagine, it does you.
No need to imagine. And if you spend a little time you will find that it’s just the tip of the iceberg.
> Pat Condell, whether an atheist or not, is just another hate-monger, as far as I can see. He insults those who criticize Israel merely by calling them names (“Islamic lefty” etc.) and impugning their intelligence. He also is beneath contempt, not worth bothering with. If there are extremist atheists, Pat Condell would appear to be one of them.
Pat Condell is “spot on”. Those who are beneath contempt are those who bash Israel at every opportunity while ignoring the great pain and suffering inflicted by Islamist hate mongers and their “lefty” water carriers all over the World – Nigeria recently. I recommend you watch more of Pat Condells videos. You might learn something that reading Der Guardian has deprived you of.
> Your first question, in your previous posting: of course, I answered it, but my answer was unwelcome, and so you ignored it. Of course I would not want my family to be targeted by rockets, or by tanks, assault helicopters, or fighter-bombers. Ok? I presume you feel the same about your family. Where does that get us?
Once again I have to direct your attention to your previous characterization of the hamass rockets as “primitive”, as if that meant that they are ineffectual, that they could not kill.
So I ask you once again, are you willing to subject yourself or your loved ones to a “primitive” hamass rocket blast? Perhaps the hamass rockets are not as benign as you seem to imply.
> My position as regards Israel is, first, that there are ethical and legal problems as regards its foundation, but, second, that Israel now exists, and must continue to exist. We Europeans owe it to the Jewish people, after centuries of persecution, and especially after the Holocaust under the Nazis.
There are ethical and legal problems with the establishment of many countries. What is the Union Jack doing on the flag of New Zealand, so far away from the home of the Union Jack in the North Atlantic?
> Arabs were not responsible for the Holocaust, even if one or two of their leaders have since thought fit to approve it or deny it.
Not “since”, but DURING WW2. Are you really that ignorant or pretending?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini
Arabs killed Jews in rampages in “Palestine” in the decades before 1948.
Nazis also found refuge in Syria, Egypt after WW2.
> The problem regarding Israel’s foundation is primarily, of course, that it was founded on land that already belonged to other people.
Any other countries that fit your description? Possibly the one you are visiting or any neighboring country? A colonial outpost? I hope you don’t have double standards David, but I suspect you do.
> The influx of Jews into Palestine in the first couple of decades of the twentieth century was naturally resented and fought against by Palestinian Arabs, who nevertheless could not do much about it.
Naturally resented? Awww. Those pesky Jews, those “sons of pigs and apes” not willing to abide by dhimmi sharia law. Is that what they call a Nakba?
> The Zionist settlement was largely, if typically half-heartedly, supported by we British.
Half-Hearted kudos to the British.
> Some land was purchased by Jews, but often from Arab leaders who themselves could not claim clear legal title to the land they sold – the situation was similar, at a slightly earlier date, here in New Zealand, where European settlers “purchased” land from people who had a different culture, and little concept of land ownership in the European sense.
Similar to the growth of the USA and Canada.
> In Palestine, Zionist leaders (can I use the word “Zionist”? I think it has a clear historical meaning) such as David Ben Gurion realized that there could be no Jewish state with a majority of Arabs, and, again with covert British backing, in the run-up to the declaration of the Israeli state they instigated a programme that today would be called ethnic cleansing, driving Arabs from their homes and destroying or appropriating their villages.
British backing? You must be joking. The imperialist British did everything possible to stymie the influx of Jewish refugees from racist Europe during and after WW2.
And when the British retreated from “Palestine” in 1948, just three years after the end of the Holocaust, did your British expect the Jews of Israel to be massacred as they were in WW2 without the “protection” of the British Army? And what was the reaction when the Israelis prevailed, counter to the smug expectation of the imperial British?
> Israel has never addressed that shameful aspect of its foundation (I myself believe that no solution is possible in a divided land, and that only a unified, secular state of Israel/Palestine would have a hope of achieving it – but that’s by the way).
Firstly Jordan is “Palestine”. That’s EAST of the Jordan River. Israel was reborn in its home WEST of the Jordan.
> That is the past. Now, Israel continues with illegal appropriations of Arab lands and homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which have never been part of the modern state of Israel.
Jerusalem is unified under Israeli governance and all religions are able to worship at their holy sites which is unlike the situation when Islamist domination was in effect. Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries need to be compensated too. A population transfer. A wash. Repeated many times – India and Pakistan for example.
> Those appropriations are driven by religious fundamentalism, founded on myths concerning the past.
Are Islamist claims to Israel founded on myths concerning the past? Do you consider claims to Mecca based on myths too?
> Whenever there seems to be a possibility of peace talks, the building of illegal settlements is pursued with redoubled speed. The conclusion I arrive at is that Israel’s government does not want a peaceful settlement.
Are you one of those people who think that building a house is appropriately responded to with murder?
> I come to that conclusion on the evidence, not because I have fallen for some sinister Islamic propaganda, or because of any predisposition towards Palestinians – although my impression is that Palestine has been a reasonably progressive part of the Islamic world, relatively speaking.
Relative to what? Beheading? Honor killing? Throwing opponents off a roof? You do set the bar very low David. Hamass is “progressive”??? The Hamass charter of 1988 is “progressive”? The farewell videos of palestinian suicide bombers are “progressive”? Hijacking the 1972 Olympics is “progressive”?
> Israel should try putting an end to the illegal settlements, and negotiating seriously. Nobody in the West would countenance the demise of Israel.
What about socialists and their fellow socialists, the national socialists in Britain and the nether regions of Eurabia? Your words ring hollow.
> I deplore the internal politics of Iran, but I welcome its support for Palestine in the face of Israeli oppression – I do not apologise for using that expression.
I see that you as an atheist do not deplore the external politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The genocidal rants of its president and the ruling ayatoallhs (not atheists BTW).
> I also, by the way, feel that, while Israel has nuclear weapons, it is difficult to object to Iran’s having them too.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not a “atoms for peace” nation, but a nukes for war. The various genocidal speeches by its president make its goals clear. Why does the Islamic Republic of Iran hide its nuclear program facilities deep underground if it were for peaceful purposes? Since the IRoI is a signatory of the NNPT, it should open its doors to unfettered international inspection – but it doesn’t.
> At least Iran has signed up to the international non-proliferation protocols, and inspection by the IAEA, unlike Israel, and so far there appears to be no evidence that it is developing nuclear weapons.
You are as deluded as Neville Chamberlain. As if the Islamic Republic of Iran cares a whit about “a piece of paper” or a unhindered inspection or a “fair” election. If you really deplore the Islamic Republics internal politics, its death squads, its religious police, how can you possibly think that its external politics are any more civilized? You can judge a country by the way it treats its people.
I believe what the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran says in his speeches to throngs. You choose to dismiss what he says.
> A non-nuclear Middle East would be a worthwhile aim, but Israel would have to put its weapons on the table.
Israel having nuclear weapons means that Israel can never be defeated in a war militarily and it has the ability to punish and destroy any attacker. The Islamic Republic of Iran openly declares its genocidal aims. The “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” are on record. There goes any claim to a peaceful Islamic Republic.
Can you present videos of a President of the US or a President of Israel declaring their goal of “Death to Iran”?
Perhaps you can tell us why Britain has nuclear weapons? I suggest that Britain surrender its nuclear weapons to a country like Canada because that would keep Britains nukes out of the hands of the Islamist and Socialist elements taking over Britain.
> As it is, any desire by Iran to have nuclear weapons would be understandable. Iran would like to drive Zionism into the sea – so how about a non-Zionist Israel?
How about a non-British Britain? There are people in Britain who call for sharia law and sharia compliant hamlets in Britain. Perhaps that OK with you?
> The terrorists of 9/ll and 7/7? They were not soldiers, but deluded criminals. Why would you expect them to wear uniforms?
Criminals? Criminals with what goal in mind????
They were soldiers of al qada. Isn’t it odd that so many criminal attacks are committed by Islamists? Do you need me to list some of their crimes against humanity – a list that grew just this Christmas in Nigeria?
> On the other hand, soldiers defending their homeland, whether they are the soldiers of Hamas or those of the IDF, of Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan, are doing their duty, and are protected under international law.
To a degree if they are in uniform.
> As to your point about the IRA, they were fighting a legitimate nationalist cause, if a largely outdated one. The issue has now been more or less settled by negotiation.
British have retreated from Ireland too?
> There is no international plot against Israel. Quite the contrary. There is great goodwill towards Israel, a goodwill that is sorely tested by the extremism of Israel’s policies, and its at times arrogant exclusivism.
Good to hear that. So the progressive socialist and islamist supporters of hezbullah and hamass, the Saddam Hussein regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran threats of genocide are imaginary?
It must gnaw at you that the Israelis are not willing to submit to European national Socialist dictates. I enjoy it.
> All this talk about “Islamofascists” smacks of racism, of a conspiracy theory that itself has echoes of Anti-Semitism.
Just Google Images “arab nazi salute” or Google Web “hitler mufti”. Google “hamass charter 1988″ and read it. Then tell me about Arab racism and fascism.
> Israel has the seemingly unquestioning backing of the USA. It has access to every modern weapon. Its attacks on its comparatively defenseless neighbours (in the case of the Palestinians almost entirely defenseless) are shameful, cowardly, and ultimately counter-productive.
That’s OK with me considering that palestinians and islamists have the unquestioning support of European socialists.
You must be beside yourself that the Israelis are not unarmed thanks to the US and in 1948 thanks to Czechoslovakia. That 6 million Jews in Israel are able to survive wars directed at it since its inception when it has the tools to defend itself. Good. It teaches you humility. Something Europeans need a lot of.
December 26, 2011 at 3:24 pm
David Richardson
Hi
“Primitive weapons” – They are short range. They have killed few people, unlike the modern weaponry deployed by Israel. But weapons of war, even so primitive, should not be targeted on civilians. I agree, if that is what you are saying.
All that I could see in the Pat Condell video was insults aimed at those who have views he disagrees with. No rational arguments at all.
Israel has a legal status under international law. The West Bank of the Jordan, what you probably call Judea and Samaria, is not part of the state of Israel. You do not appear to recognise any such concept as international law. Continued appropriations and building of settlements pre-empt any negotiation, and are illegal. The Palestinians have every right to resist them. International law is defined by treaties and agreements, not by force. Jordan also has a legal status. The foundations of colonial dominions such as Canada and New Zealand occurred prior to the establishment of such international conventions, but all such countries are trying to come to terms with the problems thrown up. Of course, the USA itself was established by the genocide of its indigenous population – this probably makes it more difficult for you as an American to understand the rights of such peoples. But you are right. If you go back far enough, all nation states were founded on appropriation and murder. Such methods are now regarded as unacceptable.
I see that you do not deny the ethnic cleansing of Arab villages in the run-up to 1948.
Hamas is a comparatively recent phenomenon. I hear that Israel had som covert involvement in its creation, as a possible alternative negotiating partner to the PLO. Of course, it did not work. The Palestinians still want a viable state. They turned to Hamas, as I said before, in desperation, but by a democratic process. Israel continually redefines its critics and opponents as terrorists.
Your talk about socialists and fellow socialists and Eurabia is just bunkum, I’m afraid, to use an old-fashioned American term. Your view of world politics is very parochial, unreal, and extreme.
Britain’s nuclear weapon is a nonsense. Who are we supposed to be aiming it at? Disaffected Muslim youths in Northampton, I suppose. But I can see why Iran, even under democratic government, would want a nuclear weapon as long as Israel has one. The threats against Iran, from Israel and from your country, have been very clear in recent months.
A non-Zionist Israel would perhaps be able to get on better with its neighbours. As for a non-British Britain, well, if Scotland leaves the UK, and Wales after it, I suppose that is what we shall have. It does not bother me. Ireland was England’s first colony, but there is still a majority in the North who identify themselves as British. They would have a problem if the UK were to dissolve into its constituent parts, but it may well happen. The Conservative Party is now the English National Party in all but name, and Labour has entirely lost its identity.
The European Union has a very pro-Israeli stance at the moment. The European Socialists you refer to are very few and far between these days. The world is very different from the way you imagine it to be.
Returning to Deborah Orr, as we should, I would imagine she really is simply tired of being called an Anti-Semite.