Martin Rowson: Israel lobby uses antisemitism to silence critics of Zionist brutality


Yesterday, we commented on a cartoon by the Guardian’s Martin Rowson depicting Henry Kissinger which drew upon the visual language of antisemitism – and included the stereotypically large hooked nose, a sneering expression and oversized blood dripped hands.

We briefly noted that, in January, Rowson had defended, in a Guardian commentarythe Gerald Scarfe cartoon depicting bloody, mangled Palestinian bodies buried over with cement, laid by the bloody trowel of a sinister Israeli Prime Minister.  However, he did also acknowledged the history of “Streicher’s foul Nazi rag” which “regularly published the vilest antisemitic cartoons imaginable” – an acknowledgment would suggest that he clearly is familiar with the visual genre of Jew hatred.

How, then do we explain his caricature of Kissinger? 

Again, here is a side by side comparison of Rowson’s Kissinger with the Jew depicted in the Nazi-era book published by Julius Streicher titled ‘The Poisonous Mushroom’.mushroom

Our suspicion that, whatever the inspiration for this particular cartoon, Rowson doesn’t seem to take serious critiques (that his work draws upon antisemitic stereotypes) seriously was confirmed by an interview he gave a few months ago for a leftist magazine – with a predictably anti-Zionist bent – called ‘Red Pepper”.

The journalist at Red Pepper wrote the following: 

Though as a satirist you’d think Rowson would use the forum to launch a vigorous defense of the right to offend, the following exchange shows that he makes exceptions to this principle.  During the interview Rowson is clear that ‘freedom of speech does not absolve the cartoonist of the responsibility for judging what to draw and when‘. While no forms of authority are to be declared ‘off-limits’, the power to ridicule must be exercised judiciously. He is fond of the describing the task of the satirist as ‘afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted’.

Rowson then expands on this subject, responding to a question from the interviewer about the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten’s publication of images mocking Muhammad, by adding the following:

You have to question the motives behind this commission, and to bear in mind the context of years of anti-immigrant propaganda in Denmark. There was no real point behind publishing this stuff other than to feed this victimisation of a minority.

After questioning the judgement of the Danish cartoonists over their decision to draw a cartoon about Muhammad which offended Muslims, Rowson then interestingly pivots to another group – the Jewish community. 

‘The Israel lobby is particularly masterful in using this to silence criticism of their brutally oppressive colonialism.

..

I drew one cartoon for the Guardian which had the boot of an Israeli soldier stamping on a dove of peace after it had left Noah’s ark. Then I had a stream of abuse from a Zionist group which accused me of anti-semitism.

In fact the “Zionist group” in question may be CiF Watch – as we posted about the cartoon here and here.  

Here’s the 2010 Guardian cartoon he’s referring to, published a few days after the flotilla story had broken, which, as you can see, uses biblical imagery in depicting murderous Israeli troops killing the dove of peace, while another soldier is seen aiming his weapon at two unicorns:

screenshot110

Rowson continues:

‘[One man] said the animals in the picture were specifically referenced in the biblical text – it’s a calculated insult to the Jews. I’d already anticipated this line of attack so had deliberately thrown in a few more for good measure.

(Part of the conversation below the line of his Guardian cartoon he’s referring to was actually recounted in a CiF Watch post, here.)

Rowson continues:

So I said, perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to the biblical references to the beavers, the orang-utan, the walrus and the okapi – a species first identified at the turn of the last century. At which point he accused me of being in denial about my anti-semitism!

Finally, he complains:

‘You can’t win – [antisemitism is] the ultimate trump card. No matter how many innocent people the Israeli state kills, any criticism is automatically proof of anti-semitism. No wonder idiots like Ahmadinejad want to deny the holocaust. They are jealous. They’d love to silence their critics like that.’

In addition to the strawman he evokes, and his deftness at employing what’s known as the Livingstone Formulation, Rowson truly seems to wake up in the morning concerned that Israel is not subjected to enough criticism.  He not only draws upon often crude antisemitic stereotypes, but attempts to frame his confrontation with this miniscule and historically oppressed ethnic minority as an act of bravery.

Rowson believes that he is not just a ‘truth teller’, but part of a cadre of fearless writers and artists who are unafraid to speak truth to Jewish power. 

114 comments on “Martin Rowson: Israel lobby uses antisemitism to silence critics of Zionist brutality

  1. Lesley Klaff exposes frauds like Rowson very eloquently. In essence, he tries to use the “anti-Semitism-card” card, whining about being accused of anti-Semitism as a way of legitimizing it.

  2. Earth to Martin Rowson, what do you think Israel should have done, seeing there civilians are being blown to bits by Palestinian suicide bombers, who are deliberately targeting elderly Holocaust survivors at Passover Seders, teenagers in pizza parlours, buses, disco’s, cafe’s and restaurants.

  3. Martin Rowson, even you are under under the control of the Jewish lobby. Next time you slip on a banana peel you must know it was those evil Zionists who planted it in your way.
    It is commonly known that, the only way to shake of the control of the Zionist on your mind is to wear a metal spaghetti strainer. You must try this as a counter measure to the Zionist mind control technics.

    • Barry you are not cleared for this by the Technology Department of the Elders but I got the green light to tell you – the metal spaghetti strainer is useless – the only way for Rowson to escape our new thought control rays is to dip his head in a bucket full of pig excrement and keep it down for more than three minutes. This procedure would give him about five more minutes of protection and mustn’t be repeated more than once in a day. No hiding of our tentacles any more…

  4. Kissinger was a “realist” and probably would have thrown Israel under the bus if it met his ends, so Rowson’s get out of jail free card would not even apply in this case.

  5. Rowson referring to some unnnamed Zionist group’s views on Israel: “any criticism is automatically proof of anti-semitism.”

    Any and all?? That tired old line is bollocks, and he knows it.

    • [Rowson referring to some unnnamed Zionist group’s views on Israel: “any criticism is automatically proof of anti-semitism.”]

      Ironically that unnamed individual’s which the unnamed group used, to whom he also refers, having been banned from that same unnamed group for several years.

  6. I’d like to see Rowson try his hand at a “Koran Stories Retold” cartoon.

    Perhaps Mohammed in bed with a 9-year old girl from Rotherham, or Mohammed beheading a British soldier in the street. But somehow I think hell would freeze over before Rowson ever used the Koran to take aim at Islamic extremists. He knows exactly what would happen to him if he did.

    We can only hope Mr Rowson meets a couple of large Jews in a dark alley, who will point out his past mistakes to him.

  7. What Rowson doesn’t know is that I have been banned from CIF Watch for near 3 years. More significantly what he maintains I said is fictional, and I am grateful that CIF Watch preserved the record.

              • Well, 3 three years ago or so, I said I thought some posters here were ethno-centric. Adam accused me of ‘borderline antisemitism’. I said in an email, if I ever met him, I would kill him (not likely, I am, after all, a wheelchair user). I knew this was wrong, so I apologised. And that, I thought, was that.

                Then in the course of the following year, on 2 or 3 occasions, I felt I had responded to various +anti+-Israel posters too strongly, and I asked Adam to delete those comments.

                The 3rd time he’d evidently had enough, so he banned me.

                To be honest, compared with many comments on CIF Watch, some of which are quite obscene, as I am sure Pretzelberg would agree, my comments were quite mild, and I would have a thought a commenter who is so concerned with being moderate in tone that he requests, on occasion, his posts deleted, would be an asset to CIF Watch. But Adam felt otherwise.

                I do not know why the ban has been lifted, but, then, I am not sure why, of all the pro-Israel posters here, some of whom are not the slightest bit concerned with expressing their views moderately, and wouldn’t dream of asking them deleted, I was selected for such a ban in the first place.

                • I am not sure why, of all the pro-Israel posters here, some of whom are not the slightest bit concerned with expressing their views moderately, and wouldn’t dream of asking them deleted, I was selected for such a ban in the first place.

                  Call me crazy, but it might have something to do with you threatening to kill Adam.

                  I apologised. And that, I thought, was that.

                  Just an innocent jibe, eh? Water under the bridge etc.?

                  I don’t think so.

                • Wow, Pretzel, I didn’t think you’d take against me too: I didn’t say it was ‘an innocent jibe’. But, then, accusing me of antisemitism wasn’t ‘an innocent jibe’, either. It was a completely groundless accusation: is there any evidence from anything I have ever said on CIF Watch that I am an antisemite?

                  Saying that some people cannot see beyond their own group isn’t an innately racist thing to do: it must surely be something at least theoretically possible.

                • If CIF Watch considers me an antisemite, why does it continue to use my material on its website, without even doing the courtesy of m

                • When Adam accused me of antisemitism I was angry and hurt. My response was wrong. I admit that. Surely there is redemption in your world, Pretzel. Surely it is possible for people to repent of things, and be forgiven. It is, after all, part of the purview of Judaism, Pretzel.

                  Equally, have you never been roused to anger by a groundless, hurtful accusation? In short, are you not human?

                  Fine Pretzel. I know you have it tough on CIF Watch sometimes (people routinely down-star you for no reason other than that you are Pretzelberg), so you have to occasionally gang up on an outsider to prove you are part of the group. If you feel it in this case it has to be me, so be it.

                • [Call me crazy, but it might have something to do with you threatening to kill Adam.]

                  But it was nearly a year after I had apologised, Pretzel. It occurred after the 2nd or 3rd time I had asked him to delete pro-Israel comments that I thought were too strong against their targets (the edit function on Harry’s Place is a useful tool). I was trying to be moderate, perhaps too much so: by common standards on CIF Watch, the comments were mild.

                  If I hadn’t emailed him to delete the comments, I doubt anything would have happened.

                • Adam happens to be a personal friend of mine and I can vouch for his character. I have never known him to act rashly and he is among the fairest of people that I know (and I’m not referring to his hair).

                  Just to illustrate, I once wrote a piece for him, but he didn’t accept it as he thought that I had used loaded terms, that despite our being good friends. An unfair person usually gives undue consideration to a friend.

                • Further, as Adam knows, because I told him, I was confined to four square walls most of the time for several years because I was still ‘recovering’ from the operation which crippled me. I was often high, or low, on high doses of medication combined with, as you can imagine, the psychological effects of extreme isolation and depression.

                  That doesn’t excuse what I said (it doesn’t really excuse Adam of accusing me of antisemitism, either). But don’t you think, Pretzel, that might be a mitigating circumstance, Pretzel? Or do you think you really have to put the final boot down to prove you are a true CIF Watcher?

                • zac when you write “Fine Pretzel. I know you have it tough on CIF Watch sometimes (people routinely down-star you for no reason other than that you are Pretzelberg), so you have to occasionally gang up on an outsider to prove you are part of the group. If you feel it in this case it has to be me, so be it.”

                  I have to write that there are times when I disagree with pretzelberg, but, hand on heart that the one thing I have not seen nor could I imagine pretzelberg doing is to feel he has to prove he is part of the group.

                • [Just to illustrate, I once wrote a piece for him, but he didn’t accept it as he thought that I had used loaded terms, that despite our being good friends. An unfair person usually gives undue consideration to a friend.]

                  Oh, well, that just proves he couldn’t make an unjust decision or accusation, doesn’t it? And I have no idea what you mean by ‘loaded terms’. All that needs mean is that your piece was too far to the right of CIF Watch’s usual stance. CIF Watch was often important material, and Adam and the gang do important work in that regard. But it terms of pro-Israel apologetics (in which I often engage), I think to persuade most of the outside world, one has to express views that are somewhat more to the left, to embrace a two state solution with a new partition, including of Jerusalem, old and new, with a detailed plan, somewhat like the Geneva Accord, which remains the best blue print. One also has to show a better understanding of the Palestinian narrative and experience, and acknowledge the fact of e.g. acts of Zionist expulsion/ethnic cleansing, as well as inequalities within Israel today.

                • There is no such thing as conclusive proof in a subjective argument Zac. I mentioned that because it is a reflection on Adam’s character.

                  Besides that, your assertion about convincing the outside world by making the kinds of gestures that you suggest has been proven false. Remember Gaza? It is now judenrein, terrorism INCREASED after the pullout and to the radical left, it’s still Israel’s fault. Furthermore, you completely disregard Jewish claims to the land of Israel and Jerusalem, so your argument is invalid in its lack of objectivity.

                • @ zaccaerdydd
                  In your post from 4:15 am you a) ask me questions b) make suggestions and then c) draw your own analytical conclusions about me without any prompts!

                  But it’s OK. I wouldn’t have bothered answering anyway.

                • [@ zaccaerdydd In your post from 4:15 am you a) ask me questions b) make suggestions and then c) draw your own analytical conclusions about me without any prompts!]

                  Well, to be honest, I am assume the answers are, more or less, yes: you are human and Jewish, after all.

                  Your suddenly turning on others with the group, whose views are not that different from yours is simply something I have noticed in the past.

                  You had a pattern of improperly reading my views in the past, for instance, and simply turning on me on the basis of very poor information on the subject (chiefly historical Christian attitudes to Jews and their relation with the land, for instance), even though you elsewhere said our views were quite close.

                  [But it’s OK. I wouldn’t have bothered answering anyway.]

                  No, well, it doesn’t look as though, when it comes down to it, you are all that much different from the more right-wing and reactionary here: you’ll join with them in alienating the more liberal of Israel-supporters too. Which is a shame, but, there you go.

                  It looks like the future, doesn’t it?

                • Pretzelpenis is the very definition of someone who just wants to be loved by the group. That’s why he brown-noses Adam Levick all the time. Occasionally he says it right, and wants to maintain the “credibility” of this site (ha! good luck!). But mostly he just wants a bit of affirmation.

              • [Why were you banned originally? Unless circumstances have changed why lift the ban?]

                Without knowing the why, why so eager to ban me again? What have I done to offend you?

                • zac, those are two separate questions.

                  The first asking why you were originally banned.

                  The second asking you what you believe has changed to justify lifting the original ban, it does not imply that I am eager to ban you again or to lift the ban.

                  Who Adam bans is entirely a decision for Adam, although I believe him to be far too liberal and lenient on times.
                  Have you offended me? Not yet, I’ll let you know if you do.

                • [Besides that, your assertion about convincing the outside world by making the kinds of gestures that you suggest has been proven false. Remember Gaza? It is now judenrein, terrorism INCREASED after the pullout and to the radical left, it’s still Israel’s fault.]

                  a) I spoke of +persuading+ the outside world. I don’t see CIF Watch having all that much success on that score.
                  b) Israel’s pull-out was unilateral. No peace agreement was reached with the other side: naturally they reached the conclusion Israel had been +driven+ out (not altogether without reason).
                  c) many consider Israel’s immediate reaction to Hamas’ election was a mistake. Some say Israel would have done better to have taken a ‘wait and see’ approach, to respond to Hamas on the basis of what it did, rather than said. That way, had Hamas acted aggressively, Israel would have been able to respond with far more international sympathy on her side. Think ‘Cast Lead’, but with less of the international outcry.
                  d) the only alternative to reaching a peace settlement with the Palestinians is for Israel to live in a permanent siege. She is can withstand that now, because she is relatively strong. But no siege lasts for ever: it is either broken, or the citadel falls. And the siege is unlikely to be broken. And without significant improvements on the Israel-Palestinian front, the external BDS siege is likely only to worsen.

                  Any student of Jewish history should be concerned with this outcome: Judeans have been subjected to such sieges before, in which they had an almost unshakeable conviction that they could withstand them. They only occasionally had happy outcomes. There are already signs that the U.S.’s geo-political stance is changing with regard to Israel, which many people whose pro-Israel credentials are impeccable are warning is increasingly seen as a liability. The wise man tries to pre-empt such outcomes by prudent action in the present. The foolish one simply ignores them and carries on regardless.

                  Jonathan Freedland is no Israel-hater: he says with the Hawking boycott, BDS just went main-stream. As he also says, quoting Ze’ev Mankowitz, people don’t belive in ideas, they believe in people who believe in ideas. It is that settling of an anti-Israel view as simply ‘common sense’ that is most to be feared, since it is considerably harder to shift. And Hawking is admired by many.

                  If that is your attitude to reaching a two state agreement with the Palestinians, that it is not even worth pursuing, Michael, I can see why Adam didn’t publish you: I strongly suspect it was too rightwing/reactionary even for a +somewhat+ rightwing, or, perhaps, rightist-centrist, site.

                  But if you aren’t really concerned with persuading outsiders or neutrals, merely preaching to the converted, this may not matter to you. But as an outlook, it is very short-sighted, and cannot, I think, end well.

                  Furthermore, you completely disregard Jewish claims to the land of Israel and Jerusalem, so your argument is invalid in its lack of objectivity.

                  [Furthermore, you completely disregard Jewish claims to the land of Israel and Jerusalem,]

                  How so? Do you even know my views on the subject? Have I said Israel should surrender all the Old City? I spoke of dividing both Jerusalems, old and new. Either that or some mutually acceptable international status, but that is unlikely.

                  [so your argument is invalid in its lack of objectivity.]

                  Since your premise is somewhat nebulous, your conclusion is entirely subjective.

                • Zac:
                  a. How do you know that CiF Watch is not having an impact? What are you using to gauge your assessment?
                  b. “Israel’s pull-out …reason).”
                  So, it would have been better to wait until a peace agreement would have been signed (which could very well never happen) rather than withdraw?
                  c. “many consider …international outcry.”
                  Is that a serious statement? Are you aware that over 8,000 rockets had been fired into southern Israel prior to Cast Lead?
                  d. “the only alternative … BDS siege is likely only to worsen.”
                  Reading between the lines: Israel makes all the concessions. Ain’t gonna happen. And your premise reads right out of the Beguile, Deceive, and Sham movement propaganda manual.
                  “Any student…regardless”
                  Just more wishful thinking on your part. If there were any veracity to what you’re saying Israel’s economy and exports would be shrinking instead of growing.
                  “Jonathan Freedland…”
                  Can you attribute many pro-Israel statements to him?
                  “If that is your attitude…”
                  I have chosen not to discuss the subject matter of my essay because that would represent an underhanded way of bypassing Adam’s decision not to publish it and I respect his decision.However, I can tell you that while it is, of course, related to the conflict here, it does not directly address conflict between Israel and Arabs.
                  “But if you aren’t really ”
                  It may surprise you that many neutrals do not have an “a priori” bias against Israel and those are indeed the people that we hope to convince. As much as you try to pass yourself off as neutral, your comments show that are definitely pro-Israel, but more the J-Street variety that merely calls itself such.
                  How so?…
                  You’ve stated your views; your “ethnic cleansing” comment among them, so that’s how we know them. Dividing Jerusalem is a non-starter.
                  “Subjective?” You could try to call everything that. However, your comments are very much so.

                • a. How do you know that CiF Watch is not having an impact? What are you using to gauge your assessment?]

                  Because Israel’s image is deteriorating everywhere, including the UK.

                  [b. “Israel’s pull-out …reason).” So, it would have been better to wait until a peace agreement would have been signed (which could very well never happen) rather than withdraw?]

                  No. It would have been better to go the extra mile to reach an agreement, along the lines of the 2003 Geneva Accord, which grew out of Olso.

                  b. “many consider …international outcry.” Is that a serious statement? Are you aware that over 8,000 rockets had been fired into southern Israel prior to Cast Lead?]

                  Yes. But Israel had already put strictures on Gaza, subjecting it to a kind of siege. My point was that had Israel not done so, and then responded to Hamas aggression, internation reaction would have been less hostile.

                  [d. “the only alternative … BDS siege is likely only to worsen.” Reading between the lines: Israel makes all the concessions.]

                  You mean ‘Reading out of your own head’. I didn’t say that. You had to invent it.

                  [ Ain’t gonna happen. And your premise reads right out of the Beguile, Deceive, and Sham movement propaganda manual.]

                  Then a) you don’t know much about BDS and b) you can’t distinguish friend from foe.

                  [“Any student…regardless” Just more wishful thinking on your part.]

                  How so? Are you saying Jewish history is filled with accounts of sieges successfully weathered?

                  [If there were any veracity to what you’re saying Israel’s economy and exports would be shrinking instead of growing.]

                  No. I am saying that is not the whole story, and may, long term, be a misleading and superficial one. Israel will find it increasingly difficult to endure in international isolation, especially if the U.S. decides to turn away.

                  [“Jonathan Freedland…” Can you attribute many pro-Israel statements to him?]

                  Now, your being foolish. Freedland is probably the most Israel-friendly Jewish face in the mainstream media, and certainly one of the most seriously taken in the outside world.

                  [“If that is your attitude…” I have chosen not to discuss the subject matter of my essay because that would represent an underhanded way of bypassing Adam’s decision not to publish it and I respect his decision.However, I can tell you that while it is, of course, related to the conflict here, it does not directly address conflict between Israel and Arabs.]

                  Well, it’s not hard to deduce you’ve a rightish attitude, which strongly suggests to me it was too immoderate for CIF Watch.

                  [“But if you aren’t really ” It may surprise you that many neutrals do not have an “a priori” bias against Israel]

                  Not really. Hence I said ‘neutral’.

                  [and those are indeed the people that we hope to convince.]

                  Not having much luck though. My experience of neutrals i.e. typically average British citizens encountering arguments such as yours is that they are put right off. They are more like to create enemies than friends.

                  [As much as you try to pass yourself off as neutral,]

                  I never said I was neutral. I am pro-Zionist.

                  [your comments show that are definitely pro-Israel, but more the J-Street variety that merely calls itself such.]

                  I don’t know too much about J-Street. But I see liberal pro-Zionist sentiments often vilified by those on the right. It’s an insane policy, since it is only likely to alienate the average outside all the more.

                  [How so?…You’ve stated your views; your “ethnic cleansing” comment among them, so that’s how we know them.]

                  Benny Morris says ‘ethnic cleansing’. Are you saying he isn’t a Zionist?

                  [Dividing Jerusalem is a non-starter.]

                  Then you may well end up losing all of it, long term. The Palestinians also wanted the whole loaf, and ended up with none. I see many on the pro-Israel right making the same mistake, and risking the same result.

                  [“Subjective?” You could try to call everything that.]

                  So could you. So what?

                  [However, your comments are very much so.]

                  Then so are yours. You’re the one who started bandying subjective/objective around.

                • “Because Israel’s image is deteriorating everywhere, including the UK.”
                  Ha ha ha ha! As if that just started happening recently. As for “everywhere,” check out the Gallup Poll in the US, with over five times the UK’s population. http://www.gallup.com/poll/161387/americans-sympathies-israel-match-time-high.aspx. And by the way, statements like yours are commonplace among BSders.

                  “No. It would have been better to go the extra mile to reach an agreement, along the lines of the 2003 Geneva Accord, which grew out of Olso.”
                  You’re misinformed Oslo was an official agreement with the government of Israel as a party. The Geneva Accord had no legal standing and Yossi Beilin was not a member of the government.

                  “Yes. But Israel had already put strictures on Gaza, subjecting it to a kind of siege. My point was that had Israel not done so, and then responded to Hamas aggression, internation reaction would have been less hostile.”
                  Wrong again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2001_through_2006
                  “Several hours after the Israel withdraws the last of its troops from the Gaza Strip two Qassam rockets are fired by Palestinian militants from the Gaza Strip. The first lands near the Israeli town of Sderot, while the second lands near Kibbutz Yad Mordechai.[10][11].” The rockets continued after that. Meanwhile, Hamas was elected in January of the following year.

                  “I didn’t say that. You had to invent it.”
                  Oh? And since you state that Israel should have gone the “extra mile” and since the Palestinians have never actually made any concessions, what exactly do you mean by that “extra mile?”

                  “Then a) you don’t know much about BDS and b) you can’t distinguish friend from foe.”
                  Pshaw. Just try reading a little bit of pro-BDS comments on Ha’aretz. They mirror your own about Israel losing friends around the world, blah, blah, blah.

                  “How so? Are you saying Jewish history is filled with accounts of sieges successfully weathered?”
                  Now that there is an Israel, Jews are much more capable of defending themselves. Ever hear of a war in 1967?

                  “I don’t know too much about J-Street. But I see liberal pro-Zionist sentiments often vilified by those on the right. It’s an insane policy, since it is only likely to alienate the average outside all the more.”

                  Those are views masquerading as Zionism. The end game being an Israel confined to a Tel Aviv city-state. That is not Zionism.

                  “Benny Morris says ‘ethnic cleansing’. Are you saying he isn’t a Zionist?”
                  “New Historian” Benny Morris? Birds of a feather, I guess. Anyway, Arabists always talk about ethnic cleansing, ignoring the fact that it was the Arabs that very often told their own people to get out because of the impending war. Your statements reflect that same version of “history.”

                  “”Then you may well end up losing all of it, long term. The Palestinians also wanted the whole loaf, and ended up with none. I see many on the pro-Israel right making the same mistake, and risking the same result.”
                  Are you even aware that the word Zion is a direct reference to Jerusalem? Jerusalem is considered the heart and you don’t cut out a heart and expect to survive. Nevertheless, I am personally open to a Jerusalem under joint sovereignty, not solely Arab over any part of it.

                  “No. I am saying that is not the whole story, and may, long term, be a misleading and superficial one. Israel will find it increasingly difficult to endure in international isolation, especially if the U.S. decides to turn away.”
                  Like I said, right out of the BDS manual. That is exactly the type of language that they use. Maybe you’re not as much of a “Zionist” as you claim to be.

                  “Well, it’s not hard to deduce you’ve a rightish attitude, which strongly suggests to me it was too immoderate for CIF Watch.”
                  And I can tell you that you’re wrong, yet again. As I have explained above, Adam had an issue with a certain “loaded” term, but he didn’t object to the basic message.

                  “Not having much luck though. My experience of neutrals i.e. typically average British citizens encountering arguments such as yours is that they are put right off. They are more like to create enemies than friends.”
                  Considering that it’s the UK, I’m not surprised. However, your UK-centric world doesn’t represent Planet Earth.

                  “I never said I was neutral. I am pro-Zionist.”
                  As the saying goes, “with friends like you…”

                  “Then so are yours. You’re the one who started bandying subjective/objective around.”
                  Then I suggest that you examine where this started.

                • [“Because Israel’s image is deteriorating everywhere, including the UK.”
                  Ha ha ha ha! As if that just started happening recently.]

                  I never said it started happening recently.

                  [As for “everywhere,” check out the Gallup Poll in the US, with over five times the UK’s population. http://www.gallup.com/poll/161387/americans-sympathies-israel-match-time-high.aspx. And by the way, statements like yours are commonplace among BSders.]

                  Well, you asked for evidence of CIF Watch’s lack of success. CIF Watch pertains mainly to the UK, not the U.S. It doesn’t seem to have much success.

                  But I am surprised by that Gallup poll of the U.S., and if it reflects a general trend, find it somewhat encouraging.

                  But I had read polls which showed a general trend lower. If I am wrong about the threat of a fundamental change in the US-Israel relationship, I wrong. I thought I had read a great deal more about the danger in that direction. I do not express that fear because I +want+ it to be so, but because I know that nothing lasts forever in politics and I see Netanyahu’s having behaved foolishly/outrageously towards the Obama administration e.g. involving himself with Romney contra Obama. In my view, if the emperor of the world is your ally, you go out of your way not to piss him off.

                  [No. It would have been better to go the extra mile to reach an agreement, along the lines of the 2003 Geneva Accord, which grew out of Olso.” You’re misinformed Oslo was an official agreement with the government of Israel as a party. The Geneva Accord had no legal standing and Yossi Beilin was not a member of the government.]

                  I didn’t say it had legal standing. I said it grew out of the Olso process, which it did. It was negotiated by the chief Israeli and Palestinian Oslo negotiators. It remains the best, most detailed blue print.

                  ["Yes. But Israel had already put strictures on Gaza, subjecting it to a kind of siege. My point was that had Israel not done so, and then responded to Hamas aggression, internation reaction would have been less hostile.”
                  Wrong again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2001_through_2006
                  “Several hours after the Israel withdraws the last of its troops from the Gaza Strip two Qassam rockets are fired by Palestinian militants from the Gaza Strip.] The first lands near the Israeli town of Sderot, while the second lands near Kibbutz Yad Mordechai.[10][11].” The rockets continued after that. Meanwhile, Hamas was elected in January of the following year.]

                  And Israel showed restraint in that period. She only began strictures when Hamas was elected.

                  [“I didn’t say that. You had to invent it.” Oh? And since you state that Israel should have gone the “extra mile” and since the Palestinians have never actually made any concessions, what exactly do you mean by that “extra mile?”]

                  I mean e.g. proferring to the P.A. something like the Geneva Accord, which was available from 2003. I mean expressing and articulating a willingness to make peace along those lines.

                  [“Then a) you don’t know much about BDS and b) you can’t distinguish friend from foe.”
                  Pshaw. Just try reading a little bit of pro-BDS comments on Ha’aretz. They mirror your own about Israel losing friends around the world, blah, blah, blah.]

                  Well, that’s not much of a commonality. If that is how you decide who is or who is not pro-BDS you have a limited intellect wherewith to decide such matters. Lots of pro-Israel people who oppose BDS warn about that e.g. Jonathan Freedland.

                  [“How so? Are you saying Jewish history is filled with accounts of sieges successfully weathered?” Now that there is an Israel, Jews are much more capable of defending themselves. Ever hear of a war in 1967?]

                  Of course. Jews enjoyed military successes in antiquity too. It didn’t save them later on, though. Just because you win yesterday and today doesn’t mean you will win tomorrow. That is a fallacy, my friend.

                  [“I don’t know too much about J-Street. But I see liberal pro-Zionist sentiments often vilified by those on the right. It’s an insane policy, since it is only likely to alienate the average outside all the more.” Those are views masquerading as Zionism.]

                  You mean liberal Zionism is a masquerade? Really? You mean e.g. Howard Jacobson is maquerading?

                  You strike me as being a bit intellectually limited, Michael. No wonder Adam didn’t publish you.

                  [The end game being an Israel confined to a Tel Aviv city-state.]

                  ??? What garbage. No liberal Zionist of which I know suggests that.

                  [That is not Zionism.]

                  It seems Zionism is for you only your own brand of right-wing Zionism. You sound like a mediaeval Roman Catholic Inquisitor.

                  [“Benny Morris says ‘ethnic cleansing’. Are you saying he isn’t a Zionist?” “New Historian” Benny Morris? Birds of a feather, I guess.]

                  You didn’t answer the question. So you acknowledge he is a Zionist? Or What?

                  [Anyway, Arabists always talk about ethnic cleansing,]

                  Benny Morris is an Arabist, now? And what precisely is an ‘Arabist’, other than someone who specialises in Arabic studies?

                  [ignoring the fact that it was the Arabs that very often told their own people to get out because of the impending war.]

                  Not much evidence of that in the available documentary evidence, recordings, texts of broadcasts, official communiques etc.

                  This is precisely why your brand of pro-Israel apologetics is so useless other than for preaching to the choir. It stands no chance at converting the unconverted since it is so easily refuted by the opposition.

                  You’re useless when it comes to converting those outside your own group. Again, I’m not surprised Adam didn’t publish you.

                  [Your statements reflect that same version of “history.”]

                  You mean the verifiable acts of Zionist Jewish expulsion, as recorded by e.g. Benny Morris,; or the fact that evidence of general Arab instructions to Palestinian Arabs to leave is slim to none? Which most Jewish academics teaching Israel studies in the UK acknowledge?

                  You’re very behind the times, Michael. Too used to living in your own tiny bubble-echo chamber.

                  [“”Then you may well end up losing all of it, long term. The Palestinians also wanted the whole loaf, and ended up with none. I see many on the pro-Israel right making the same mistake, and risking the same result.” Are you even aware that the word Zion is a direct reference to Jerusalem?]

                  Er, yes?

                  [Jerusalem is considered the heart and you don’t cut out a heart and expect to survive.]

                  You’re now using mystical language.

                  Siamese twins have to share a heart. I’m not talking of cutting out anything. I’m talking of sharing with a nominal division:

                  Jewish and Armenian quarters to Israel, the others to a Palestinian state; with some arrangement on the Mount, along the Clinto parameters: Western Wall to Israel, Haram to the Palestinians, with some ambiguity as to who owns what is behind the Wall and beneath the Haram.

                  First and Second Century Jews thought their religious and spiritual connection to Jerusalem would vindicated them. It didn’t. In the end their actions led them to Jerusalem’s being largely severed from them for near 2000 years.

                  [Nevertheless, I am personally open to a Jerusalem under joint sovereignty, not solely Arab over any part of it.]

                  Well, I doubt you get the average British neutral to see that as reasonable. If anything, exactly the opposite.

                  [“No. I am saying that is not the whole story, and may, long term, be a misleading and superficial one. Israel will find it increasingly difficult to endure in international isolation, especially if the U.S. decides to turn away.” Like I said, right out of the BDS manual. That is exactly the type of language that they use.]

                  No. Not exactly. They say they +want+ BDS, and until it dissolves the Jewish state if not any kind of Israel.

                  I’m not saying that. You’re confused. You can’t tell friend from foe. Which is very sad, and may prove ultimately tragic.

                  [Maybe you’re not as much of a “Zionist” as you claim to be.]

                  I don’t know, exactly how ‘much’ of a Zionist did I claim to be in the first place?

                  But I am glad to see you are admitting that I am at least +something+ of a Zionist, which none of the BDSers are.

                  [“Well, it’s not hard to deduce you’ve a rightish attitude, which strongly suggests to me it was too immoderate for CIF Watch.” And I can tell you that you’re wrong, yet again. As I have explained above, Adam had an issue with a certain “loaded” term, but he didn’t object to the basic message.]

                  Well, that doesn’t prove you’re not of a rightish persuasion! But, judging what you’ve said here, I’m not surprised he’s wary.

                  I might add, he’s published me though :)

                  [“Not having much luck though. My experience of neutrals i.e. typically average British citizens encountering arguments such as yours is that they are put right off. They are more like to create enemies than friends.” Considering that it’s the UK, I’m not surprised.]

                  O
                  OK, well, now you’re admitting you simply +don’t care+ about persuading neutrals in the UK. In which case, following your direction will likely only make matters worse.

                  [However, your UK-centric world doesn’t represent Planet Earth.]

                  No. But it is more like most of the world outside the United States, certainly Europe.

                  “I never said I was neutral. I am pro-Zionist.” As the saying goes, “with friends like you…”]

                  In which case, I feel exactly the same about you: I consider people like you to ultimately threaten Israel’s long term existence. Not as an individual, of course. But your general reactionary, herdish mentality is less capable of thinking Israel out of her situation than exacerbating it. Groups tend to think less than they react. Which is why they need decent leaders, who are unafraid to be unpopular.

                  [“Then so are yours. You’re the one who started bandying subjective/objective around.”
                  Then I suggest that you examine where this started.]

                  Sure. You started with the Objective-Subjective thing.

                • [However, your UK-centric world doesn’t represent Planet Earth.]

                  Pardon me for being British!

                  I didn’t realise that being a pro-Zionist Briton necessitated having one’s world view centred somewhere else entirely!

                  You really have given up on persuading neutral Britons, haven’t you?

                  I think it’s safe to say they’d find your views a bit of a turn-off…

                • “Pardon me for being British!

                  I didn’t realise that being a pro-Zionist Briton necessitated having one’s world view centred somewhere else entirely!

                  You really have given up on persuading neutral Britons, haven’t you?

                  I think it’s safe to say they’d find your views a bit of a turn-off…”

                  It would be a waste of time. The UK is on almost par with Arab countries for its anti-Israel stance.

                • “Knesset Member Ofer Shelah (Yesh Atid ) slammed the Israeli policy in the territories and asserted Israel is on its way to become South Africa. Shelah said the West Bank settlements pose an obstacle to a peace agreement. “The occupation corrupts Israeli society, the IDF , Israeli justice, Israeli media, Israeli psyche and Israeli mode of speech,” he claimed.”

                  http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4391662,00.html

                  Is Shelah an anti-Zionist, BDS bigot, in your view, Michael?

                • ““Knesset Member Ofer Shelah (Yesh Atid ) slammed the Israeli policy in the territories and asserted Israel is on its way to become South Africa. Shelah said the West Bank settlements pose an obstacle to a peace agreement. “The occupation corrupts Israeli society, the IDF , Israeli justice, Israeli media, Israeli psyche and Israeli mode of speech,” he claimed.”

                  http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4391662,00.html

                  Is Shelah an anti-Zionist, BDS bigot, in your view, Michael?”

                  You really know very little about Israel, don’t you? Israeli leftists are among the most extreme anywhere. They make American liberals look like staunch Reaganites. Try reading people like Amira Haas, Gideon Levy, and Akiva Eldar to get a sample.

                • @ michael who wrote “As the saying goes, “with friends like you…””

                  Exactly, this zaccaerdylddo plays the classical “dissapointed friend routine”, saying he’s pro-Israel, but always giving lectures and distributing pathetic little threats.

                • [zaccaerdylddo]

                  You’re such an ignorant, dimwitted bigot that you clearly don’t know that in Welsh that doesn’t sound remotely like your dismally illiterate attempt at “wit” in English. Try learning English before attempting Cymraeg, would be my suggestion.

                  Somewhat far from the knightly etiquette to which your name aspires. Keep trying, and lay off the obscenities for a bit. Who knows, if you wash out your mouth with carbolic, it might even have a beneficial effect on the rest of your inner life? You’d be a much happier person:)

                • LOL! Chill out, zhkarface. What a master whiner! No wonder you get no little stars. Sniff, sniff.

                • [LOL! Chill out, zhkarface. What a master whiner! No wonder you get no little stars. Sniff, sniff.]

                  If I’m a whiner, then CIF Watch is nothing but one massive whine against the Guardian, and you one of its fellow whiners.

                • And back to my query: why the heck you desperately need to post in here? To whine and complain? Go figure.

              • I really don’t care about whether I get stars, least of all from such as you. My point was what the tendency of some here to vote down a commenter on the grounds of his identity rather what it says, even when the information is merely an historical fact rather an opinion on it, to scarcely evince intelligence.

                • Oh, you DO care. You seem so resentful that people vote you down. You feel this urge to whine and moralize the blog non-stop. No wonder you were banned. You are just a boring SOB.

              • [zhkarface.]

                ‘Scarface’, really? Sounds like you’d like to get your machete out, and make me one.

                • Hey, you are the one that threatens to kill people here, remember? That’s why you were banned before.

                  As for machetes, you created your Adebolajos; now deal with them.

        • This well illustrates the idiocy of some on this site: all this comment states is an historical fact. But people down-star it by reason of disliking the individual, without any reference to the merit of the comment itself.

          It is an utterly puerile mentality.

          • “It is an utterly puerile mentality.” & “the idiocy of some on this site”

            Why then are you so desperate to come back to this blog? To control the little stars? What a weirdo.

            • [Why then are you so desperate to come back to this blog?.]

              Why shouldn’t I visit a site that still sees fit to publish and link to what I have written?

              Just because you’re a puerile bigot, should that prevent me from commenting?

                • Even if that were true, which it isn’t, since when was whining or sucking a banning evidence? You’re an appalling commenter, with a constant stream of bigoted drivel, but you’re not banned.

          • [Exactly, this zaccaerdylddo plays the classical “dissapointed friend routine”, saying he’s pro-Israel, but always giving lectures and distributing pathetic little threats.]

            I’m not your friend. And don’t worry, I don’t expect much from your limited abilities. You’re a prejudiced bigot, so far as I can see from what you wrote elsewhere. You can’t disappoint me. And what threats? Asides those in your limited, paranoid imagination?

            • “I’m not your friend” zaccrophilyddo

              Excellent! That’s the point, mr. leftard. Israel doesn´t NEED your type of moralizing creep. Now, sulk it and go embrace the Adebolajos around you. You have the perfect slave-mentality.

              • a) you’re not Israel (what an extraordinary ego, you have)

                b) here we go again with the violent homoerotic fantasies about bloody murderers which you like to project on others

                c) a slave? How?

                Do you think being a kind of half-witted EDL rendition of English knighthood makes you not a slave? Really?

                • [Man, who the hell cares??]

                  You, evidently. Q. E. D.

                  [What narcissistic moron!]

                  Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh, my knightly friend.

              • [Excellent! That’s the point, mr. leftard.]

                Someone who thinks that to be of the left, or to hold left-wing views, entails their being retarded is fundamentally intellectually challenged themselves.

                It’s also ironic, since it was arguably left-wing governments and principles that gave Jews a degree of freedom and emancipation in European countries unparalleled hitherto. The history of European Jewish emancipation would be unthinkable without the contribution of ‘the left’ (not to mention the long history of Jewish socialism, which commanded the majority of Eastern European Jewish support before the Holocaust).

                If was ‘the left’ that granted Jews citizenship in France for the first time in Europe since antiquity, without requiring they apostatize first.

                You really ought to learn some history, instead of wearing this mockery of English knighthood, whereby your professed pro-Zionism looks more like the chauvinism/fascism of an EDL supporter. And is about as likely to win over the sympathy of the average Briton.

              • [zaccrophilyddo]

                More of your projected sexual fetishes? Can’t you keep them to yourself, for a second?

            • Jeff this person’s name is Zachary Cormac Esterson.

              Caerdydd is the Welsh name for Cardiff, where Mr. Esterson is or claims to be some kind of mature student.

              He is not Welsh.

              • I am a PhD student, and I am a Welsh speaker. I am not ‘genetically’ Welsh, I wasn’t born in Wales, but one doesn’t have to be speak Welsh, nor indeed to become Welsh, though I didn’t actually claim to be Welsh. I actually said I was ‘British’. You have a rather prejudiced set of thought categories, whereby one thing in your view necessarily entails the other.

                • [You are just another Jewhater who forgot his meds.]

                  Er, no, I’m not. And if you think that is what I am, and what I have written evinces that, you are seriously deluded, and I suspect that delusion colours all your relations with those outside your group when it comes to putting Israel’s case, i.e. not very well or successfully.

                • [“Because Israel’s image is deteriorating everywhere, including the UK.”
                  Ha ha ha ha! As if that just started happening recently.]
                  “I never said it started happening recently.”
                  So if it has been happening for a long time, what difference do Israel’s current actions make? The British will condemn reflexively.
                  “Well, you asked for evidence of CIF Watch’s lack of success. CIF Watch pertains mainly to the UK, not the U.S. It doesn’t seem to have much success.”
                  That also doesn’t matter. What matters is the overall impact that CiF Watch has, as evidenced by the fact that most posters are not British or at least have not given any indication as such.
                  “But I had read polls…piss him off.”
                  Are you assuming that the comments made by a few bloggers represent an entire nation’s opinion? I assume that you are going to then apply that same reasoning to CiF Watch, which is fine, however all I’m saying is that it’s having an impact. We’ll see how much that impact grows.
                  “I didn’t say it had legal standing…most detailed blue print.”
                  No different from Jimmuh’s “freelance diplomacy,” as described by Bill Clinton and just as invalid.
                  “And Israel showed restraint in that period. She only began strictures when Hamas was elected.”
                  And the point being exactly? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that if Israel had not responded by launching Cast Lead that there would have been a letup in rocket attacks or any increase in sympathy from others for the plight of people in Sderot and other nearby commuities.
                  “I mean e.g. proferring to the P.A. something like the Geneva Accord…those lines.”
                  Back and forth. The Palestinians make no concession whatsoever, so what is to say that proffering them anything would yield results?
                  [“Then a) you don’t know much about BDS and b) you can’t distinguish friend from foe.”
                  Pshaw. Just try reading a little bit of pro-BDS comments on Ha’aretz. They mirror your own about Israel losing friends around the world, blah, blah, blah.]
                  “Well, that’s not much of a commonality…Jonathan Freedland.”
                  Oh really? Have ever read the blogs on Ha’aretz? It panders to the radical leftist, BSd supporters who gleefully demonize Israel there and yes, clearly state their support for BSd. Try reading it.
                  I missed noting this before, but why do not post a single quote attributable to Freeland that is pro-Israel? I’ll get to your comments about my intellect below.
                  “Of course…my friend.”
                  Anything can happen. I trust Israel’s military. They’re much more knowledgeable about that field than you will ever be.
                  You mean liberal Zionism is a masquerade? Really? You mean e.g. Howard Jacobson is maquerading?
                  I have not read much of Howard Jacobson, but from what I can see, he doesn’t seem very left-wing in his Zionism. Funny, how you pompously criticize others’ intellects and don’t grasp how one can have liberal views in one area and more conservative views in another.
                  You strike me as being a bit intellectually limited, Michael. No wonder Adam didn’t publish you.
                  If you could put your pomposity aside, you would have read that I clearly state that he felt that I used “loaded” terms which in no way indicates a lack of intellect. And for the record, he first approached me about writing an essay.
                  “??? What garbage. No liberal Zionist of which I know suggests that.”
                  Do you think that you know all of them? It’s no more garbage than your assertions of Israel’s downfall, if they don’t adopt your policies.
                  Besides that people like Cliff Pinto have accurately pointed out how the BSders don’t come right out and admit their opposition to the existence of Israel, just that they are against the “Occupation;” but, later either admit their opposition to Israel or they let it slip out. “Zionists” like you echo their sentiments. Even if you don’t support that level of extremism, your support for their “Occupation” doctrine puts you on their side.
                  “It seems Zionism…mediaeval Roman Catholic Inquisitor.”
                  It seems that for you Israel has no claims to its territory except what you would allow. Negotiations aren’t even necessary.
                  “You didn’t answer the question. So you acknowledge he is a Zionist? Or What?”
                  My intention is clear. Israel suffers attempts at from revisionist history.
                  “Benny Morris is an Arabist, now? And what precisely is an ‘Arabist’, other than someone who specialises in Arabic studies?”
                  No, but they same similar things. Since you obviously lack the research skills of the average 6th grader, here’s a link to the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arabist and one of definitions itself a person who favors Arab interests and positions in international affairs
                  “Not much evidence…”
                  WRONG!

                  http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Refugees.asp

                  “According to official records of the League of Nations and Arab census figure 539,000 Arabs left Israel at the urging of 7 converging Arab armies so that they would not be in the way of their attack. They promised the fleeing Arabs they would return and move into the Jews’ houses after the anticipated successful annihilation of the Jews.”
                  “This is precisely why your brand … refuted by the opposition.”
                  I apologize for nothing. No country should have to apologize for its existence, including Israel. On the contrary, apologists like you service the Arabist agenda of delegitimizing Israel.
                  I’m sure that in your pomposity, you sincerely believe, although wrongly, that you refute things easily.
                  “You’re useless … I’m not surprised Adam didn’t publish you.”
                  Trying to convince people that Israel should apologize for its existence is a waste of time. Fortunately, there are many who do not subscribe to such garbage. And again, it was Adam who first approached me.
                  “You mean the verifiable acts of Zionist Jewish expulsion, as recorded by e.g. Benny Morris,; or the fact that evidence of general Arab instructions to Palestinian Arabs to leave is slim to none? Which most Jewish academics teaching Israel studies in the UK acknowledge?”
                  See above, assuming you’re not too lazy.
                  “You’re very behind the times, Michael”.
                  Speak for yourself.
                  [“”Then you may well end up losing all of it, long term. The Palestinians also wanted the whole loaf, and ended up with none. I see many on the pro-Israel right making the same mistake, and risking the same result.” Are you even aware that the word Zion is a direct reference to Jerusalem?]
                  “Er, yes?”
                  So, therefore we are right to resist those who would impose their own values and solutions on us.
                  [Jerusalem is considered the heart and you don’t cut out a heart and expect to survive.]
                  “You’re now using mystical language.”
                  You may not be religious and don’t feel any special connection to the land, but you have no business imposing that on others.
                  “Siamese twins have to share a heart. I’m not talking of cutting out anything. I’m talking of sharing with a nominal division:
                  Jewish and Armenian quarters to Israel, the others to a Palestinian state; with some arrangement on the Mount, along the Clinto parameters: Western Wall to Israel, Haram to the Palestinians, with some ambiguity as to who owns what is behind the Wall and beneath the Haram.”
                  No way. The Temple Mount is the holiest place in the world to Judaism. Sharing it is possible. Not giving it up.
                  “First and Second Century Jews…”
                  Wrong again. The Rabbis teach that it was Israel’s sins that led to the destruction of the first two temples. First avoda zara and then sinat chinam. Scoff if you like, it means nothing.
                  “Well, I doubt you get the average British neutral to see that as reasonable. If anything, exactly the opposite.”
                  I’m not about to try to convince the pompous.
                  “No. Not exactly. They say they +want+ BDS, and until it dissolves the Jewish state if not any kind of Israel.”
                  Again, you service the BSd agenda, even if unwittingly. That actually isn’t surprising.
                  “I don’t know, exactly how ‘much’ of a Zionist did I claim to be in the first place?”
                  Very much of one. Thank you for now clarifying that you’re really not much of one.
                  “Well, that doesn’t prove you’re not of a rightish persuasion! But, judging what you’ve said here, I’m not surprised he’s wary.”
                  I’m not saying I’m not, and that’s not cause for embarrassment either. Maybe it’s because you of a problem of anyone not supporting your position. Not surprising from someone as pompous as you.
                  “I might add, he’s published me though :)”
                  Irrelevant.
                  “OK, well, …worse.”
                  I’m not going to waste my energy. I can tell you this though. For the past seven and a half years, I’ve done part-time work teaching English to mostly French people. I have also had many students in other parts of Europe, mainly Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, and to a lesser extent Italy and Germany, among others. I’ve also had students in Russia, Japan, Korea, Colombia, inter alia. The total number of students to whom I’ve taught English may be closer to five digits than four. In all that time, I’ve had a total of 3 students who have reacted adversely to my living in Israel. It’s a very clear indication that we’re not in as bad a position as you claim.
                  “No. But it is more like most of the world outside the United States, certainly Europe.”
                  See above.
                  “In which case, I feel exactly the same about you:…who are unafraid to be unpopular.
                  “Leaders” who would resign us to the Auschwitz borders. That’s much dangerous for Israel than being strong in support of her.
                  ”Sure. You started with the Objective-Subjective thing.”
                  Yeah, due to your comments.

                • [“Because Israel’s image is deteriorating everywhere, including the UK.”
                  Ha ha ha ha! As if that just started happening recently.]
                  “I never said it started happening recently.”
                  [So if it has been happening for a long time, what difference do Israel’s current actions make?]

                  International criticism of Israel was far more muted towards Israel during the Oslo period for instance.

                  [The British will condemn reflexively.]

                  That’s not true. In the event of a comprehensive peace settlement with the Palestinians, one could say the traction that BDS gets falling right off, along with British and other criticism.

                  Yours is a counsel of despair: ‘The world will always hate us, so it makes no difference what we do’. It’s no real answer to anything.

                  [“Well, you asked for evidence of CIF Watch’s lack of success. CIF Watch pertains mainly to the UK, not the U.S. It doesn’t seem to have much success.” That also doesn’t matter.]

                  Then one wonders what, precisely, CIF Watch’s purpose is, if it isn’t primarily to persuade Britons to have a less hostile view of Israel. To some extent it does that, I am sure. Except that it cannot persuade fundamentally, I think, because it cannot work within the redlines of most Britons.

                  I beg to differ. I think lack of success in putting forward a pro-Israel case in Britain does matter. And I think most respectable Anglo-Jewish commentators in the media would agree, Anshel Pfeiffer, for instance.

                  [What matters is the overall impact that CiF Watch has, as evidenced by the fact that most posters are not British or at least have not given any indication as such.]

                  Well, surely the +real+ target should be Guardian readers? But, in any case, I was speaking of this style of pro-Israel apologetics generally, the kind that stresses Israel’s good points, and her adversaries’ bad points. It’s not terribly effective when the opposition can show plenty of unpleasant things Israel has done and does do, and with which such as CIF Watch are not very able to grapple with. As I said, your kind denial about Zionist Jewish expulsions is way, way behind what is quite mainstream in Anglo-Jewish taught Israel studies at academic level, e.g. Colin Shindler, who runs the first Israel Studies department opened in the UK, at SOAS.

                  [“But I had read polls…piss him off.” Are you assuming that the comments made by a few bloggers represent an entire nation’s opinion?]

                  Er, no. I am talking about how Netanyahu behaved towards Obama from the beginning of their relationship, including his courting of Obama’s rival in the last election, which was pretty dumb for Netanyahu to do. I think that if one is dependent on the current world hegemony, and the goodwill of its ruler, one should generally show oneself willing to comport oneself to its wishes.

                  [I assume that you are going to then apply that same reasoning to CiF Watch, which is fine, however all I’m saying is that it’s having an impact. We’ll see how much that impact grows.]

                  Well, like I said. I saw Caroline Glick debating Daniel Levy. She was hopeless, and completely outclassed by him. She was emotional, she sneered, she used the kind of arguments on CIF Watch (some of which are valid, but ineffective in isolation), she raised her voice. Levy was cool, forensic, calm, rational. He won hands down, and all Glick could do was run home complaining of antisemitism. It was quite pathetic. Instead of calmly asking herself, ‘How would I do it better next time? Where did I go wrong?’, she just resorted to blaming her audience as fundamentally irrational. With all due respect, when you say, en effait, there’s no point trying to persuade Britons, you are doing something similar (it almost sounds as though you are giving up on being part of British culture and society entirely).

                  [“I didn’t say it had legal standing…most detailed blue print.” No different from Jimmuh’s “freelance diplomacy,” as described by Bill Clinton and just as invalid.]

                  And yet, old bean, it was what Ehud Olmert offered in 2007, with some adjustments. It was offered for the reasons I have said: it is the most detailed, most reasonable, from both parties’ points of view, and, above all, +negotiated+ set of plans and principles yet undertaken.

                  You do realise, don’t you, that any agreement will have to be negotiated, by both parties, and they will, inevitably, refer to earlier negotiations, or the principles to which they gave fruit?

                  [“And Israel showed restraint in that period. She only began strictures when Hamas was elected.”
                  And the point being exactly? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that if Israel had not responded by launching Cast Lead that there would have been a letup in rocket attacks or any increase in sympathy from others for the plight of people in Sderot and other nearby commuities.]

                  Actually, yes there is. One of the chiefest criticisms of Israel in the run up to that period was precisely the siege, which gave Hamas some kind of pretext which gained considerable traction, rightly or wrongly, for acting aggressively.

                  Without that criticism, and without that pretext, any action Israel undertook would not have had that a priori handicap, a priori.

                  [“I mean e.g. proferring to the P.A. something like the Geneva Accord…those lines.”
                  Back and forth. The Palestinians make no concession whatsoever, so what is to say that proffering them anything would yield results?]

                  Er, the Geneva Accord contains their concessions, since, like all things negotiated, it contains what both sides conceded each other, Q. E. D.

                  [[“Then a) you don’t know much about BDS and b) you can’t distinguish friend from foe.”
                  Pshaw. Just try reading a little bit of pro-BDS comments on Ha’aretz. They mirror your own about Israel losing friends around the world, blah, blah, blah.] “Well, that’s not much of a commonality…Jonathan Freedland.” Oh really? Have ever read the blogs on Ha’aretz?]

                  Again, so what if some things I say are to be found in Ha’aretz, or some things in Ha’aretz are found in BDS discourse. You can play that kind of game with practically anything, and magically argue that A is B is C. It’s rot.

                  I do not support BDS. I am pro-Zionist, but I believe that Israel could be more pro-active in seeking peace. I have no illusions about the good will or otherwise of the other side. They have their faults too. But that is no reason to show both the U.S. and the world that she is both willing and able, should the other side by so willing and able, to come to a Geneva Accord type of deal.

                  [It panders to the radical leftist,]

                  Sometimes ‘it’ i.e. some writers do, yes. Others do not. It is not a monolith, anymore than Zionist was or is a monolithic movement, as I have often to argue against anti-Zionists. It does not automatically entail its most extreme or rightwing exponents. It is a Big Tent/Broad Church.

                  In other respects Ha’aretz is very good. It tends to be better at breaking news, in my experience, than the JP or even YA. It’s a challenging read. It isn’t nice to read about the short comings of one’s own, or institutions or organizations one holds dear. But it is the courageous and adult thing to do. The child hides away from unpleasant realities. The wise man confronts them, before they confront him, as the foolish one tends to.

                  [[BSd supporters who gleefully demonize Israel there]

                  Certainly in the threads, yes. But the journalists rarely, so, if you actually read them. It doesn’t sound as though you do, Michael, which suggests you are relying on hearsay.

                  [and yes, clearly state their support for BSd. Try reading it.]

                  I do, regularly. You are quite mistaken. You clearly do +not+ read Ha’aretz on a regular basis, else you do not read it very closely. You are mischaracterizing the paper in a rather prejudiced way, I am afraid. Again, if you wish to persuade anymore worth persuading, you have to do your basic homework, and you haven’t here, I fear.

                  [I missed noting this before, but why do not post a single quote attributable to Freeland that is pro-Israel?]

                  I didn’t know I had to. OK, well, in last week’s JC, while he thought the Hawking boycott should be a wake up call, since it indicated a mainstreaming of BDS, he made clear that he opposed BDS:

                  ” Avowed opponents of the boycott – and I am one of them”

                  http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/108363/when-israel-boycott-goes-mainstream

                  You have an odd idea of support, Michael, that it necessarily excludes criticism, if necessary considerable criticism. I suggest yours is very poor idea of love.

                  Here’s something he wrote back in 2012

                  “So yes, I’m weary of those who get so much more exercised, so much more excited, by deaths in Gaza than they do by deaths in, say, Syria. An estimated 800 died under Assad during the same eight days of what Israel called Operation Pillar of Defence. But, for some reason, the loss of those lives failed to touch the activists who so rapidly organised the demos and student sit-ins against Israel. You might have heard me make this point before, and you might be weary of it. Well, so am I. I’m tired, too, of the argument that “We hold western nations like Israel to a higher standard”, because I see only a fraction of the outrage that’s directed at Israel turned on the US – a western nation – for its drone war in Pakistan which has cost an estimated 3,000 lives, nearly 900 of them civilians, since 2004.”

                  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/23/gaza-wearying-conflict-end-time

                  “I’ll get to your comments about my intellect below.”

                  OK, :)

                  “Of course…my friend.” Anything can happen. I trust Israel’s military. They’re much more knowledgeable about that field than you will ever be.]

                  I support the IDF too, and have often defended them, as anyone who remembers my numerous to that effect before I was banned can testify. But the IDF can’t make foreign policy, and they can’t make peace with the Palestinians, or Israel’s neighbours. Do you honestly think that foreign policy can or should only be made by the military.

                  [You mean liberal Zionism is a masquerade? Really? You mean e.g. Howard Jacobson is maquerading?] I have not read much of Howard Jacobson, but from what I can see, he doesn’t seem very left-wing in his Zionism.]

                  I don’t think I am am ‘very left-wing in (my) Zionism’, either. I described myself as ‘liberal Zionist’, whch is how Jacobson is usually described:

                  http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/101737/lessons-isaiah-berlins-liberal-zionism

                  I am possibly ‘somewhat left-wing’ in my Zionism. You do realise that Ben Gurion was too, don’t you?

                  [Funny, how you pompously criticize others’ intellects and don’t grasp how one can have liberal views in one area and more conservative views in another.]

                  With all due respect, you imputed to me all kinds of views and opinions I do not hold. You continually labelled me a supporter of BDS, and even an anti-Zionism, en effait. You attributed to me astonishing ignorance e.g. that I did not know that Mount Zion is where stands Jerusalem.

                  In which case some here don’t seem to realise that one can be a liberal Zionist without being antisemitic or a Jew hater, as Adam Levick or others have accused me in the past.
                  And it was you accused me of lacking objectivity.

                  [You strike me as being a bit intellectually limited, Michael. No wonder Adam didn’t publish you.
                  If you could put your pomposity aside, you would have read that I clearly state that he felt that I used “loaded” terms which in no way indicates a lack of intellect.]

                  No, that deduction was from other things, e.g. your continually attributing to me views I do not hold, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. But I still suspect the term in question was loaded with something Adam deemed too immoderate for publication. And you’ve already said or admitted you are somewhat rightwing, by rendering somewhat pejorative the term ‘left’ in your writing so far.

                  [“??? What garbage. No liberal Zionist of which I know suggests that.” Do you think that you know all of them?]

                  No. But I seem to be acquainted with more of them than you. I know no media profile liberal Zionist suggests such a thing. I have only heard the odd way-out crazy suggest such a thing, so rarely I cannot put a name or face to them.

                  [It’s no more garbage than your assertions of Israel’s downfall,]

                  I don’t think I have actually +asserted+ Israel’s downfall. I just think/fear that things could go down for Israel more rapidly than you think if a peace deal is not reached soon.

                  [if they don’t adopt your policies.]

                  They’re not really mine. They’re Ehud Olmert’s and Tzipi Livni, they are Kadima’s. And they are the ones favoured by the Americans, as well as they Europeans.

                  [Besides that people like Cliff Pinto have accurately pointed out how the BSders don’t come right out and admit their opposition to the existence of Israel, just that they are against the “Occupation;”]

                  Sure. Norman Finkelstein did a good job of ‘outing’ them in 2011. You really think I don’t know a lot, Michael, don’t you?

                  [but, later either admit their opposition to Israel or they let it slip out.]

                  Absolutely. So what?

                  [“Zionists” like you echo their sentiments.]

                  Only in your rather limited imagination, Michael. Like the anti-Zionist crowd, you lack discrimination, the ability to detect difference and nuance. And that, alas, is likely through an a priori prejudice or animus.

                  [Even if you don’t support that level of extremism, your support for their “Occupation” doctrine puts you on their side.]

                  Er, really? You think because I want to see an end to Israel controlling and limiting Palestinian life in the West Bank, and the horrible, brutalizing effect that has on the men and women the state requires to occupy that territory (for that is what they are doing. What do else do you think they are doing, baby sitting), that makes me an anti-Zionist BDSer?

                  Like I said, Michael, old chap, you are rather limited as to imagination. You cannot distinguish friend from foe. Which as I said to someone earlier is very sad, and possibly tragic.

                  [“It seems Zionism…mediaeval Roman Catholic Inquisitor.” It seems that for you Israel has no claims to its territory except what you would allow. Negotiations aren’t even necessary.]

                  On the contrary, negotiations are precisely what are necessary to define that territory.

                  “You didn’t answer the question. So you acknowledge he is a Zionist? Or What?” My intention is clear. Israel suffers attempts at from revisionist history.]

                  Your intention seems to be to avoid answering yes or no. I wonder why?

                  [“Benny Morris is an Arabist, now? And what precisely is an ‘Arabist’, other than someone who specialises in Arabic studies?” No, but they same similar things.]

                  In which case, old bean, MEMRI are ‘similar’ to Arabists, aren’t they?

                  [Since you obviously lack the research skills of the average 6th grader, here’s a link to the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arabist and one of definitions itself a person who favors Arab interests and positions in international affairs]
                  ‘One’ of the definitions, exactly. It’s primary meaning is one who specialises in Arabic studies and affairs.

                  And what, exactly, is wrong with that?

                  [“Not much evidence…” WRONG! http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Refugees.asp
                  “According to official records of the League of Nations and Arab census figure 539,000 Arabs left Israel at the urging of 7 converging Arab armies so that they would not be in the way of their attack. They promised the fleeing Arabs they would return and move into the Jews’ houses after the anticipated successful annihilation of the Jews.”

                  Er, I hate to break this to you, Michael, but that scarcely constitutes primary evidence of any kind. It’s just the report of a talking head, who gives no sources, documentary or otherwise for it.

                  However, as to the rest of your document, there are some interesting things in it. There is the occasional Arab testimony e.g. by Father Hakim to a Palestinian Arab expectation of returning with victorious Arab armies, encouraged to leave by the promise of a rapid conquest of the Jews, roughly contemporary with events. Some of this I knew. So, yes, there is some some indirect evidence for such a thing, although it looks more like a general Palestinian Arab hope/expectation of a speedy return, at the promise of a quick victory. That is not quite the same thing as being urged to leave, or is arguably rather different. Direct evidence for such an urging, as I said, written records, broadcasts etc is slim to none. But thank you for the link, I will peruse it later.

                  [“This is precisely why your brand … refuted by the opposition.” I apologize for nothing. No country should have to apologize for its existence, including Israel.]

                  Nor said I it should.

                  [On the contrary, apologists like you service the Arabist agenda of delegitimizing Israel.]

                  Oh dear, oh dear. You’re quite bonkers, old chap. This notion of that I serve some ‘the Arabist Agenda’, out there. This is classic, paranoid conspiracy theorizing. You should get help.

                  [I’m sure that in your pomposity, you sincerely believe, although wrongly, that you refute things easily.]

                  Well, I know I don’t serve ‘the Arabist Agenda’.

                  [“You’re useless … I’m not surprised Adam didn’t publish you.” Trying to convince people that Israel should apologize for its existence is a waste of time.]

                  Nor said I should.

                  [Fortunately, there are many who do not subscribe to such garbage.]

                  Gooood.

                  [And again, it was Adam who first approached me.]

                  And then decided better.

                  [“You mean the verifiable acts of Zionist Jewish expulsion, as recorded by e.g. Benny Morris,; or the fact that evidence of general Arab instructions to Palestinian Arabs to leave is slim to none? Which most Jewish academics teaching Israel studies in the UK acknowledge?”
                  See above, assuming you’re not too lazy.]

                  There is absolutely nothing above which refutes Zionist expulsion. Nothing whatsoever. You think that some Palestinian Arabs couldn’t have left, while others were expelled?

                  You can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, can you?

                  [“You’re very behind the times, Michael”. Speak for yourself.]

                  Always.

                  [[“”Then you may well end up losing all of it, long term. The Palestinians also wanted the whole loaf, and ended up with none. I see many on the pro-Israel right making the same mistake, and risking the same result.” Are you even aware that the word Zion is a direct reference to Jerusalem?]
                  “Er, yes?” So, therefore we are right to resist those who would impose their own values and solutions on us.]

                  In a sense, yes. But all of human life and society is about compromise, negotiations, submitting to rules of law, as well as, where possible, reaching common values and solutions with our enemies as well as neighbours. In a sense we must willingly impose these things on ourselves. That is how we get along in the world, if you hadn’t noticed.

                  [Jerusalem is considered the heart and you don’t cut out a heart and expect to survive.] “You’re now using mystical language.” You may not be religious and don’t feel any special connection to the land, but you have no business imposing that on others.]

                  Not at all. But no long term, peaceful solution will be attained without acknowledging the other party have religious and national claims too. 2000 years of Christian and Islamic (between them) rule and habitation of place does that to one. The possessed have/had an attachment, as well as the dispossessed, be they Jew or Palestinian Arab Muslim or Christian. Living in the world, with other people entails recognising their rights too. Or hadn’t you noticed?

                  ["Siamese twins have to share a heart. I’m not talking of cutting out anything. I’m talking of sharing with a nominal division: Jewish and Armenian quarters to Israel, the others to a Palestinian state; with some arrangement on the Mount, along the Clinto parameters: Western Wall to Israel, Haram to the Palestinians, with some ambiguity as to who owns what is behind the Wall and beneath the Haram.” No way. The Temple Mount is the holiest place in the world to Judaism. Sharing it is possible. Not giving it up.]

                  Well, I don’t think that’s going to work out, long term, I’m afraid. Sorry. Absolute claims rarely do.

                  [“First and Second Century Jews…” Wrong again. The Rabbis teach that it was Israel’s sins that led to the destruction of the first two temples. First avoda zara and then sinat chinam. Scoff if you like, it means nothing.]

                  I do not scoff. I do not see how I am contradicted.

                  [“Well, I doubt you get the average British neutral to see that as reasonable. If anything, exactly the opposite.” I’m not about to try to convince the pompous.]

                  Well, you’re not very good at convincing others than those like yourself, yourself, I suspect.

                  [“No. Not exactly. They say they +want+ BDS, and until it dissolves the Jewish state if not any kind of Israel.” Again, you service the BSd agenda, even if unwittingly.]

                  Er, how so?

                  [That actually isn’t surprising.]

                  That isn’t actually factual: most BDSers insist on the dissolution of the Jewish state of Israel, and ultimately any kind of Israel. I don’t.

                  [I don’t know, exactly how ‘much’ of a Zionist did I claim to be in the first place?” Very much of one.]

                  Really, where? Please quote me.

                  [Thank you for now clarifying that you’re really not much of one.]
                  I think good is good enough. I want a Jewish state to last as long as possible.

                  [“Well, that doesn’t prove you’re not of a rightish persuasion! But, judging what you’ve said here, I’m not surprised he’s wary.” I’m not saying I’m not, and that’s not cause for embarrassment either. Maybe it’s because you of a problem of anyone not supporting your position.]

                  Why is Adam’s decision not to publish you anything to do with me?

                  [Not surprising from someone as pompous as you.]

                  But he already has published me.

                  [“I might add, he’s published me though ” Irrelevant.]

                  Er, how so? You just said he would never publish me.

                  [“OK, well, …worse.” I’m not going to waste my energy. I can tell you this though. For the past seven and a half years, I’ve done part-time work teaching English to mostly French people. I have also had many students in other parts of Europe, mainly Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, and to a lesser extent Italy and Germany, among others. I’ve also had students in Russia, Japan, Korea, Colombia, inter alia. The total number of students to whom I’ve taught English may be closer to five digits than four. In all that time, I’ve had a total of 3 students who have reacted adversely to my living in Israel. It’s a very clear indication that we’re not in as bad a position as you claim.]

                  Well, you’ll be pleased to hear that before my accident, I was also a foreign language teacher, including one in Israel. And I only occasionally encountered an anti-Israel animus (though that got worse during the Second Lebanon War). But since your students were already in Israel(?), wouldn’t that mean they were already quite friendly disposed to her?

                  But I am looking at what governments, and polls are saying, empirical data, rather than my anecdotal experience. Governments have power, to do good or ill to those they deem friend or foes. And they listen to polls, because they depend on their constituency. In short, I am not complacent.

                  [“No. But it is more like most of the world outside the United States, certainly Europe.” See above.]

                  Sorry, anecdotes don’t count for that much. Polls are better indicated, and they are consistently anti-Israel.

                  [“In which case, I feel exactly the same about you:…who are unafraid to be unpopular.
                  “Leaders” who would resign us to the Auschwitz borders.]

                  More rhetoric. The borders are better than those offer in 1947, when they weren’t called the Auschwitz. Any negotiations will have to embrace the 1967 lines, albeit with adjustments to include the larger settlement blocks. Abba Eban coined the term when Israel’s neighbours were threatening invasion on a regular basis.

                  [That’s much dangerous for Israel than being strong in support of her.]

                  It depends what you mean by ‘strong support’. Strong support for a poor long term strategy or policy is actually very dangerous.

                  [”Sure. You started with the Objective-Subjective thing.” Yeah, due to your comments.]

                  I.e. you started it, Q. E. D., thank you.

                • Oh, hello, Pretzel. Decided to comment on me after all?

                  I’m sorry, I’m a student, I’m at my computer on my desk most of the time (we wheelchair users tend to live a sedentary life -my apologies). And you’re hardly short of time for commenting on CIF Watch yourself, are you?

                • Do you think I’m a Jew-hater, Pretzel? And don’t you think some of your fellow regulars are just the tiniest bit bigoted?

                  Are you going to join with them now in ganging up on me after all?

                  There’s a surprise.

                • If you can’t tell bigot from non-bigot, Pretzel, even a liberal Zionist such as yourself has a problem. It’s tantamount to not being able to tell friend from foe. Which magnified to state-wide scale is potentially, if is not actually, a serious problem for a state like Israel.

                • “Which magnified to state-wide scale is potentially, if is not actually, a serious problem for a state like Israel.” zaccaredyddada

                  That´s his typical line: moralizing lectures as if Israel existence depended of his type of whining narcissistic twerp. What a pathetic bore. I´m beginning to miss nick-a-Nazi: at least he wasn´t a professional whiner.

  8. It’s always nice to the see the full circle. 1. Do something anti-Semitic (like draw a cartoon of a Jew with a huge nose and blood on his hands). 2. Declare that you’re not an Anti-Semite. (I shall not be silenced!) 3. Blame world Jewry for calling you an Anti-Semite. (They are trying to silence me!)

    I’d like to think there is more to Jewish survival than the sheer, utter stupidity of our detractors.

    • [That´s his typical line: moralizing lectures as if Israel existence depended of his type of whining narcissistic twerp.]

      Not me personally, of course. But international isolation isn’t healthy, old bean. And if you think Israel can do without the US, I think you are mistaken, to say the least.

      [What a pathetic bore.]

      Then why are you still discussing me?

      [I´m beginning to miss nick-a-Nazi: at least he wasn´t a professional whiner]

      And yet, professional whiner or not, here you still are.

  9. “‘[One man] said the animals in the picture were specifically referenced in the biblical text – it’s a calculated insult to the Jews. I’d already anticipated this line of attack so had deliberately thrown in a few more for good measure.”

    Such a clever boy! Question: Why use the theme of Noah’s Ark in the first place? What has that got to do with the Mavi Marmara? Because they were both boats? Seems like the Trojan Horse would have been a much closer allegory. Rowson is a numb nuts who uses the propaganda fed to him to draw cartoons, and then uses anti-Semitism to defend himself from accusations of anti-Semitism. His interpretation of events put into images is disturbed and ought to land him on a psychiatrists couch.

  10. Antisemitism and its relations to cultural relativism, the teachings of diversity and postcolonial critic cannot be thought without the political concept of alternative narratives replacing thruth and lie which has been deconstructed as tools of oppression of the dominant society as cultural, linguistic and gender studies maintain.

    • Referring to SerJew`s hypocrites and the most used defence tool of today`s antisemites, the denial. The second most used is the traditional inverse of perpetrator and victim, the antisemite reproaches jews to harass him, he is only defending himself.
      Out came Hitler.

        • “What a dimwitted bigot village idiot you are.”

          Sanity, if you must post here at least write correctly.
          It should be “What a dimwitted and bigoted village idiot you are.”

          Not only a wanker but an illiterate one as well.

          • I didn’t realise that grammatical correctness was a requirement of posting here. I presume therefore that you will be making similar comments on all posts. Especially for halfwits like Fritzl and Serjew?

            While I can’t deny being a wanker in the technical, literal sense, I must object to any interpretation in any other pejorative sense.

                • Hmm, the Knight of Hypocrishire is overexcited today. Maybe because he has finally found a soul-mate in this disgruntled zzaaccaarryyddudde.

                • Actually I do recall a couple of years ago being somewhat impressed by Zkharya’s unabashed calling of idiots like you by the correct terminology. So it will be nice to have that back. However, I suspect that while he probably doesn’t care about my animosity towards SerBigot and co, we probably don’t see eye to eye on most things.

  11. [“Because Israel’s image is deteriorating everywhere, including the UK.”
    Ha ha ha ha! As if that just started happening recently.]
    “I never said it started happening recently.”
    [So if it has been happening for a long time, what difference do Israel’s current actions make?]
    “International criticism of Israel was far more muted towards Israel during the Oslo period for instance.”
    Which is why we need to ignore world opinion. The Palestinians didn’t make any concessions to Israel in Oslo, only Israel made the concessions. However, there are certain aspects of Oslo that the Left just ignores thinking of it as Palestinians now completely ruling the West Bank. For example, according to Oslo, Area C was to remain part of Israel, but people still carp about “occupation” about any building there.
    [The British will condemn reflexively.]
    In the meantime, it’s the Palestinians who refuse to negotiate and Israel whom the British condems.
    “Yours is a counsel of despair: ‘The world will always hate us, so it makes no difference what we do’. It’s no real answer to anything.”
    Fortunately, we do have friends. I just don’t count the two-faced variety found in places like the UK.
    “Then one wonders what, precisely, CIF Watch’s purpose is, …most Britons.”
    I invite Adam to comment on that, however you should consider broadening the concept of the world. The lies and distortions found in fish wrappers like the Guardian and the BBC are the same kind that libero-fascist demonizers of Israel carp anywhere. Since many of CiF Watch’s readership is not British, its impact is much more global.
    “I beg to differ. …, Anshel Pfeiffer, for instance.”
    Should it happen, wonderful. However, thinking strategically, it’s probably best to focus energy on where it would do the most good.
    “Well, surely … at SOAS.”
    I’ve showed you evidence to the contrary. The fact that British engage in omitting what is not palatable to the Left is more proof that we should probably just dump them.
    “Er, no. I am talking about how Netanyahu behaved towards Obama …its wishes.”
    One wonders how much many people remember that incident or emphasize it for that matter. You don’t hear much about in the mainstream American press, where it would matter most.
    “Well, like I said. I saw Caroline Glick …point trying to persuade Britons, you are doing something similar
    Could you provide a link to that? I’d like to see that for myself.
    “(it almost sounds as though you are giving up on being part of British culture and society entirely).”
    I’m not British at all and I have no intention of becoming so, so what’s the point?
    [“I didn’t say it had legal standing..just as invalid.]
    “And yet, old bean, it was what Ehud Olmert offered in 2007, …yet undertaken.”
    Are you aware that probably most Israelis regard Olmet as the worst PM in the history of the country?
    “You do realise, don’t you, that any agreement will have to be negotiated, by both parties, …negotiations, or the principles to which they gave fruit?
    Israel repeatedly says that negotiations must take place without preconditions. Palestinians insist on setting preconditions. That is why we are at an impasse. Previous negotiations are a starting point and a reference, not an ending point.
    [“And Israel …nearby commuities.]
    Actually, yes there is. One of the chiefest criticisms of Israel in the run up to that period was precisely the siege, which gave Hamas some kind of pretext which gained considerable traction, rightly or wrongly, for acting aggressively. Without that criticism, and without that pretext, any action Israel undertook would not have had that a priori handicap, a priori.
    For people who ascribe Hamas the privilege of sending rockets indiscriminately into Israel as a result of Israel imposing sanctions on Hamas, there is no hope.
    “Er, the Geneva Accord contains their concessions, since, like all things negotiated, it contains what both sides conceded each other, Q. E. D.”
    As I’ve said, the Geneva Accord is irrelevant. It has no more standing than if you or I would conduct a similar exercise.
    “Again, so what if some things I say are to be found in Ha’aretz, or some things in Ha’aretz are found in BDS discourse. You can pay that kind of game with practically anything, and magically argue that A is B is C. It’s rot.”
    If I were to say, that black people have lower IQ levels than white people. I would be roundly criticized as racist and white supremacist. Note that I don’t mention that they should be in subservient roles. Same thing as what you do vis a vis Israel.
    “I do not support BDS. ..Geneva Accord type of deal.”
    Be that as it may, people like you put pressure solely on Israel. Palestinians never adjust their behavior to international criticism, so the effect that people like you have, in the end, costs Israel.
    “Sometimes ‘it’ i.e…It is a Big Tent/Broad Church.”
    The end result is what counts here. Writers like them support the demonization of Israel and unfortunately perpetuate the myths to which anti-Zionists cling.
    “In other respects Ha’aretz is very good… as the foolish one tends to.
    I’ll grant you that their breaking news section is very good, but their journalism leaves much to be desired. Distortion and omission of fact do not constitute good journalism.
    “Certainly in the threads ..you are relying on hearsay.
    Oh, give everyone a break. Have you ever read the likes of Amira Haas, Gideon Levey, and Akiva Eldar? “It’s always Israel’s fault“ for them.
    “I do, regularly…nd you haven’t here, I fear.”
    It’s quite obvious that you haven’t or that they simply write what you want to read.
    “I didn’t know I had to. OK, …
    My original post asked if you could attribute pro-Israel posts by him. Apologizing for Israel’s existence is not support.
    “You have an odd idea of support, Michael, that it necessarily excludes criticism, if necessary considerable criticism. I suggest yours is very poor idea of love.”
    Criticism is a good thing. Holding Israel to standards that no country could possibly abide is not support.
    Here’s something he wrote back in 2012
    “So yes, I’m weary of those who get so much more exercised, so much more excited, by deaths in Gaza than they do by deaths in, say, Syria. An estimated 800 died under Assad during the same eight days of what Israel called Operation Pillar of Defence. But, for some reason, the loss of those lives failed to touch the activists who so rapidly organised the demos and student sit-ins against Israel. You might have heard me make this point before, and you might be weary of it. Well, so am I. I’m tired, too, of the argument that “We hold western nations like Israel to a higher standard”, because I see only a fraction of the outrage that’s directed at Israel turned on the US – a western nation – for its drone war in Pakistan which has cost an estimated 3,000 lives, nearly 900 of them civilians, since 2004.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/23/gaza-wearying-conflict-end-time

    It’s really not support. Freedland echoes your same sentiments which only prima facie purport to try to hold both sides to act sincerely for peace but in reality, serve to put pressure solely on Israel. He also published this piece:

    http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/57850/this-israel-not-one-i-love

    “Start with the place I visited a week ago: Hebron. What I saw there would shock even those who think they know all there is to know about Israel and its conflict with the Palestinians. The centre of a city of 175,000 people has been utterly emptied, its streets deserted, its shops vacant, thanks to a policy the Israeli army calls “sterilisation” – ensuring the area is clear and safe for Hebron’s 800 Jewish settlers.
    In what was once a throbbing market district, a place teeming with life, successive restrictions have been placed on Hebron’s Palestinian population. A map shows purple roads where no Palestinian cars are permitted, yellow roads where no Palestinian shops are allowed to open and red roads where no Palestinians are even allowed to walk.”
    Freedland completely ignores the reason behind the restrictions: violence. Jews were unable to visit Matpelach because of Palestinian violence directed at them solely because they are Jews. I’ve also not seen where the IDF refers to segregating the population as “sterilization.”
    At least Freedland is not as bad some others.
    “I support the IDF too…by the military.”
    An attempt at diversion? Your previous post referred to ancient military victories.
    “[You mean liberal Zionism is a masquerade? Really? You mean e.g. Howard Jacobson is maquerading?] I have not read much of Howard Jacobson, but from what I can see, he doesn’t seem very left-wing in his Zionism.]
    I don’t think I am am ‘very left-wing in (my) Zionism’, either. I described myself as ‘liberal Zionist’, whch is how Jacobson is usually described:

    http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/101737/lessons-isaiah-berlins-liberal-zionism

    I am possibly ‘somewhat left-wing’ in my Zionism. You do realise that Ben Gurion was too, don’t you?”
    One, liberals are left wing. “Left wing” refers to the “left” side of the political spectrum. However, some are more radical than others.
    “With all due respect, …where stands Jerusalem.”
    I stand by what I said which is that you make the same kinds of statements that anti-Zionist use as veiled threats i.e., if Israel doesn’t do what we want, Israel will lose all support, etc.
    As for Zion, you have made statements relinquishing authority over it.
    “In which case some here ..accused me in the past.”
    Your words. However, by the same token you imply that you cannot be a right-wing Zionist without being anti-peace.

    “And it was you accused me of lacking objectivity.”
    See the statement directly above.
    [You strike me as being a bit intellectually limited, Michael. No wonder Adam didn’t publish you.
    If you could put your pomposity aside, you would have read that I clearly state that he felt that I used “loaded” terms which in no way indicates a lack of intellect.]
    “No, that deduction was from other things…by rendering somewhat pejorative the term ‘left’ in your writing so far.
    You attribute a lack of intellect in me, which is highly hypocritical as well as your pejorative use of “right-wing.”
    “No. But I seem to be acquainted with more … face to them.”
    Doubtful. I live in Israel
    “I don’t think I have actually +asserted+ Israel’s downfall. ..if a peace deal is not reached soon.”
    The difference being? One is simply a wishy-washy version of the other.
    “if they don’t adopt your policies.”
    They’re not really mine. …they Europeans.
    Olmert and Livni aren’t in office anymore. Wonder why? As for what Americans and Europeans want, what Israel decided for itself is what takes primacy.
    “Sure. Norman Finkelstein did a good job of ‘outing’ them in 2011. You really think I don’t know a lot, Michael, don’t you?”
    The point is that they make similar statements to what you make. Whether you are Zionist, or anti-Zionist, pro or anti-BDS is actually immaterial. What matters is what effect statements made by you and others in the blogosphere has on life here.
    “Absolutely. So what?”
    So what? They masquerade (yes, that word again) as human-rights activists, when they are simply anti-Israel.
    “Only in your…And that, alas, is likely through an a priori prejudice or animus.”
    Doesn’t matter. As I’ve said, the effect is what counts.
    “Er, really? You think because …that makes me an anti-Zionist BDSer?”
    First of all, Israelis are capable of deciding things for themselves. Much as the British think that still rule former colonies, Israel is independent and will decide for itself. As for controlling Palestinians, how is that any different from “controlling” Palestinians who live in what you deem “Israel?” Actually, it’s only for security matters that Israel acts in Judea and Samaria. The Palestinians have self-government in most areas there.
    “Like I said, Michael, …and possibly tragic.”
    You want to talk tragedy? How about the lives that have been lost due to Israel removing checkpoints, itself due to the pressure that it gets from people like you.
    “On the contrary, negotiations are precisely what are necessary to define that territory.”
    In that case, you must admit that Israel has valid claims to East Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. Even Gaza.
    “Your intention seems to be to avoid answering yes or no. I wonder why?”
    Avoided? I’ve stated quite clearly that yours and his type of “Zionism” is quite harmful.
    “In which case, old bean, MEMRI are ‘similar’ to Arabists, aren’t they?”
    MEMRI supports the consensus of the Arab League?
    ‘One’ of the definitions, exactly. It’s primary meaning is one who specialises in Arabic studies and affairs.
    And what, exactly, is wrong with that?”
    Duh, I was referring to the other context, itself completely valid.
    “Er, I hate to break this to you, Michael, but that scarcely constitutes primary evidence of any kind. It’s just the report of a talking head, who gives no sources, documentary or otherwise for it.”
    That has to got to be the sorriest excuse for a rebuttal I’ve heard in some time. The evidence is there, so you attack the source without any justification? What exactly makes official documents of the League of Nations talking head?
    However, … I will peruse it later.
    I suggest that you do and I would also state that just because it may be suppressed information in the UK, doesn’t make any less valid.
    “Nor said I it should.”
    And yet, you frequently use the term Israel apologetics when referring to people who defend it.
    [On the contrary, apologists like you service the Arabist agenda of delegitimizing Israel.]
    “Oh dear, oh dear. You’re quite bonkers, old chap….You should get help.”
    As I’ve said, you and others like you put pressure solely on Israel.
    “Well, I know I don’t serve ‘the Arabist Agenda’.”
    See above.
    “Nor said I should.”
    Israel apologetics?
    “And then decided better.”
    A sweeping generalization without having any facts. Not just hypocritical, but pompously so.
    “”There is absolutely nothing above which refutes Zionist expulsion…while others were expelled?”
    Nobody denies that there was violence from the Jewish side leading up to Independence. However, completely denying the
    And here’s another link: http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=121275
    “You can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, can you?”
    [“You’re very behind the times, Michael”. Speak for yourself.]
    Always.” Obviously, you don’t
    “In a sense, yes. …if you hadn’t noticed.”
    Imagine people in Brazil assuming to dictate that they British should fly Ordem e Progresso on top of Buckingham Palace and getting support from the rest of South America. No difference. We will not relinquish our sovereignty within our borders any more than any country would.
    “Not at all. …Or hadn’t you noticed?”
    The big difference is that it is only under Jewish rule that everyone has had free access.
    “Well, I don’t think that’s going to work out, long term, I’m afraid. Sorry. Absolute claims rarely do.”
    Sharing is suddenly absolutist? Only of course, if it doesn’t accede to the Arabist agenda, it would seem.
    “I do not scoff. I do not see how I am contradicted.”
    You deny those explanations.
    “Well, you’re not very good at convincing others than those like yourself, yourself, I suspect.”
    With you as a test case? I think that more sampling is needed.
    “Er, how so?”
    Explained above, but again. Palestinians ignore international calls to cease violence. It’s Israel that acts under pressure.
    “That isn’t actually factual: …I don’t.”
    Even if you don’t, you assist them.
    [I don’t know, exactly how ‘much’ of a Zionist did I claim to be in the first place?” Very much of one.]
    “Really, where? Please quote me.”
    Hello! Advocating ceding Jerusalem!!!
    “I think good is good enough. I want a Jewish state to last as long as possible.”
    As a hellenistic Jewishh state? It may be fashionable in leftist circles to ignore religious values, but it’s hardly liberal.
    “Why is Adam’s decision not to publish you anything to do with me?”
    You implied that he wouldn’t publish me because my statements were too “rightish” and that is absolutely false.
    “But he already has published me.”
    Without knowing why didn’t publish me and assuming that you know, it makes you quite pompous.
    Irrelevant.
    Er, how so? You just said he would never publish me.
    Where did I say that?
    [“OK, well, …worse.” I’m not going to waste my energy. I can tell you this though. For the past seven and a half years, I’ve done part-time work teaching English to mostly French people. I have also had many students in other parts of Europe, mainly Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, and to a lesser extent Italy and Germany, among others. I’ve also had students in Russia, Japan, Korea, Colombia, inter alia. The total number of students to whom I’ve taught English may be closer to five digits than four. In all that time, I’ve had a total of 3 students who have reacted adversely to my living in Israel. It’s a very clear indication that we’re not in as bad a position as you claim.]
    “Well, you’ll be pleased to hear …riendly disposed to her?”
    Try reading again. I state quite clearly that my students are in other countries. In all the time that I’ve taught, I’ve only had six students in Israel, five of whom started this year.
    “But I am looking at what governments, and polls are saying, …I am not complacent.”
    And they’re still negative whether Israel is at war or not. And by the way, as I’ve clearly stated most of my students are in France. During the Second Lebanon War, quite a few of them told me that they usually are less supportive of Israel, but were very much on Israel’s side during the war.
    Going by the polls means that Israelis suffer from not protecting themselves while others hate them a little bit less. No thanks.
    “Sorry, anecdotes don’t count for that much. Polls are better indicated, and they are consistently anti-Israel.”
    See above.
    “More rhetoric. The borders …invasion on a regular basis.”
    1948 is irrelevant. The Arabs rejected those borders, along with the state, and therefore abrogated any expectation for Israel to put that back on the table.
    Saying that 1967 is better than 1948 has no bearing on reality.
    “It depends what you mean by ‘strong support’. Strong support for a poor long term strategy or policy is actually very dangerous.”
    Poor long term strategy means sacrificing what is strategically important.
    “I.e. you started it, Q. E. D., thank you.”
    And to you.

  12. It would be tiresome to untangle this mush, but I will focus on one thing. You accuse me of ‘surrendering’ the Old City and ‘East Jerusalem’, as well as proposing a ‘Hellenistic state’,

    However you yourself say all these things may be ‘shared’.

    But that is precisely what I propose.

    However, If you do not propose a division of these, nor an +actual+ sharing, which would entail +shared sovereignty+ of these sites (which is actually wrt the Old City a Geneva Accord suggestion), that is +shared political sovereignty+ e.g. an +internationally+ shared city on the lines of a joint legally Israeli-Palestinian city (was that what you were suggesting?), then your profession of ‘sharing’ is not really any such thing. You are proposing an Israeli national and state sovereignty, with a toleration of (not even Palestinian?) Arab Muslim and Christian presence.

    That is not actually sharing (which properly implies equality of partnership) at all.

    You are kidding yourself if you think that is what it is, and you are kidding yourself if you think the Palestinians and the international community, including, I think, ultimately the US, will find that acceptable, or if you think that doesn’t matter, in the long run, or even the short or middle term.

    • Show me where I have indicated that “sharing” does not imply joint legal title. That is exactly what I include among possibilities. The signatories to the Geneva Accords had Israel surrendering areas that predominantly Arab and retaining areas that are predominantly Jewish. Anyone who has ever studied demographics knows that they are dynamic and subject to change. So if Jews live in Sheikh Jarrah would it then revert to Israel?

      I also don’t trust the UN nor UNESCO as arbiters of the Old City. That’s the same as giving it the Palestinians.

      • [Show me where I have indicated that “sharing” does not imply joint legal title. ]

        So you’d consider a Jerusalem, old and new, that was under joint Israeli and Palestinian sovereignty? Which is one possibility considered by the Geneva Accord.

        So, effectively, Jerusalem, old and new, would be internationally (which means ‘between nations’) Israeli and Palestinian? OK, well I would not be necessarily be adverse to such a proposal if it could be worked out, too, though I’d prefer a Geneva Accord type-partition.

        [The signatories to the Geneva Accords had Israel surrendering areas that predominantly Arab and retaining areas that are predominantly Jewish. Anyone who has ever studied demographics knows that they are dynamic and subject to change. So if Jews live in Sheikh Jarrah would it then revert to Israel?]

        No. It couldn’t, if it was ceded to Palestine. It would have to stay Palestinian, naturally.

        But I don’t see how your international Israeli and Palestinian Jerusalem could work, practically, because it would require an outside arbitrator to judge between parties within the city borders, and both parties to abide by it. Personally I think it risks being a mess. But, if it’s what you want…

        • “So you’d consider a Jerusalem…Geneva Accord.”

          No. Unlike the Geneva Accord, I do not want to divide Jerusalem. And no, there is no reason to have any Arab sovereignty over West Jerusalem.

          “So, effectively, Jerusalem, old and new…I’d prefer a Geneva Accord type-partition.”
          No, it’s not the international community’s business. There is no need for any outside arbitration. There would be council composed of elected officials from both parts.

          “No. It couldn’t, if it was ceded to Palestine. It would have to stay Palestinian, naturally.”

          Again, Geneva has no legal binding, so Sheikh Jarrah is in Israel. However, you ignore the point about the dynamic quality of demographics.

          “But I don’t see how your international Israeli and Palestinian Jerusalem could work, practically, because it would require an outside arbitrator to judge between parties within the city borders, and both parties to abide by it. Personally I think it risks being a mess. But, if it’s what you want…”

          It doesn’t, as I’ve explained above.

      • [Anyone who has ever studied demographics knows that they are dynamic and subject to change.]

        Indeed. Which is why the G.I.’s Israeli proponents want as many Jews, as few Arabs, within Israel’s borders as possible.

        You seem indifferent to the possibility of an Israel with an additional, increasing Arab population, from either East Jerusalem or the West Bank, to whom you will have to give citizenship and the vote, unless you want Israel to become an apartheid state with an increasingly diminishing Jewish majority.

        Do you even recognize that Israel must cede most of the West Bank, else give its Arabs Israeli citizenship and the vote, or do you think matters can carry on as they are?

        • Where have I stated that Israel would not concede most of the West Bank? That is how it would have to be drawn, so long as Israel’s security takes precedence in drawing boundaries.

          Stick the “apartheid” libero-fascist crap where the sun don’t shine. Israel is no danger of being an apartheid state than any other country in the world.

  13. “You are kidding yourself if you think that is what it is, and you are kidding yourself if you think the Palestinians and the international community, including, I think, ultimately the US, will find that acceptable, or if you think that doesn’t matter, in the long run, or even the short or middle term.”

    Here’s the old zaccarydydleedeedleedoo and his sanctimonious advice.

    Liste, dude, the “international community” can accept 100.000 people killed in Syria, 1.000.000 killed in Rwanda, 5.000.000 in Congo, etc, etc, etc. So, YOU are the one kidding yourself about it. BTW, shove your hypocrisy.

  14. [Liste, dude, the “international community” can accept 100.000 people killed in Syria, 1.000.000 killed in Rwanda, 5.000.000 in Congo, etc, etc, etc. So, YOU are the one kidding yourself about it. BTW, shove your hypocrisy.]

    Not really. It is Michael who wants an outside arbitrator in an international Jerusalem. I want partition.

    You don’t read very closely, do you?

Comments are closed.