You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted’ category.
Category Archive
Jerusalem: The Media Myth of Two Cities
May 20, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Jerusalem | by Adam Levick | 6 comments
As HonestReporting observed:
“The history of Jerusalem did not start in 1967. Thousands of years of Jewish history took place in what is now called “Arab East Jerusalem.” Only when the Jewish residents were driven from their homes in 1948 [by Jordanian forces] was the city divided between East and West.”
This HR video shows the reality of Jerusalem, which today is celebrating 45 years of reunification.
Related articles
Jerusalem Day: celebrating 45 years of reunification
May 20, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: 1948, Israel, Jerusalem, Jerusalem Day, Moshe Dayan, Six Day War, Yom Yerushalayim | by Hadar Sela | 12 comments
As Israel commemorates Yom Yerushalayim – the 45th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem on the 28th of Iyar – it is important to remember the situation in the city during the 19 years in which it was divided.
Those of us who follow the wonderfully informative Twitter account @1948War have, in recent weeks, been getting real-time reminders of the events which culminated in the fall of the Old City and Jerusalem’s eastern neighbourhoods to the Jordanian forces in 1948. Elsewhere, there are poignant reminders of the expulsion of the city’s Jewish population from areas conquered and occupied by the British-funded, equipped and led Arab Legion.

Jewish families leaving the old city through Zion Gate. June 1948. John Phillips

Jewish families being evacuated from city. June 1948. John Phillips
During the 19 years of Jordanian occupation, neither Muslim nor Jewish Israelis had access to their holy sites in the Old City (in violation of article VIII of the 1949 Armistice Agreement) and 58 synagogues were destroyed, in addition to other sites of religious significance such as the Mount of Olives. Neither did Jerusalemites enjoy peace in their divided city, as the following pre-Six Day War newspaper cutting shows.
Translation:
Jerusalem Municipality to the citizens of Jerusalem
The border with the Old City is mined. The Jordanian snipers are still active; two people were killed by sniping in the Old City. It is strictly forbidden by the army authorities to approach the border or to enter the Old City until further notice.
In fact, divided Jerusalem appears to have been a cause of regret even for the British film-makers of a Pathe newsreel dating from May of 1967. Leaving aside the now anachronistic (and in parts, borderline racist) style of commentary by someone apparently unable to comprehend why visitors from a country which contributed quite a bit to the division of the city may not feel welcomed with open arms, it is nevertheless interesting to note that whilst 45 years ago Jerusalem’s division was perceived as a problem, many of the commentator’s modern-day contemporaries appear to take the exact opposite view.
The rest of us will today celebrate the fact that the city is reunited and that members of all religions are today free to live there and visit, in keeping with the words of the then Defence Minister Moshe Dayan on the 28th of Iyar 5727 (June 7th, 1967).
“This morning, the Israel Defense Forces liberated Jerusalem. We have united Jerusalem, the divided capital of Israel. We have returned to the holiest of our holy places, never to part from it again. To our Arab neighbors we extend, also at this hour—and with added emphasis at this hour—our hand in peace. And to our Christian and Muslim fellow citizens, we solemnly promise full religious freedom and rights. We did not come to Jerusalem for the sake of other peoples’ holy places, and not to interfere with the adherents of other faiths, but in order to safeguard its entirety, and to live there together with others, in unity.”
Happy Jerusalem Day!
The BBC and the Jews
May 19, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Antisemitism, BBC | by Guest/Cross Post | 9 comments
This essay was written by Walter Russell Mead, at ‘The American Interest‘
“American Presidents have long been criticized for being too in thrall to the Jewish lobby. The American Jews influence US foreign policy and that explains Washington’s unwavering support for Israel.”
Who made this statement this past week?
(a) A disgruntled fringe neo-Nazi
(b) Some poor soul ranting on their Facebook page
(c) The BBC
Sadly, as you can see in the clip above, the answer is C. This ugly assertion is the host’s opening line in an episode of this past week’s BBC HARDtalk program. This vicious garbage isn’t “sort of” or “almost” anti-Semitic; it is the real thing: vivid, unapologetic, odious and wrong.
The BBC presenter, hopefully just reading a script that some fool of a writer threw up on the teleprompter, (or, as some readers suggest in the comments since this post first appeared, voicing a view that she does not personally endorse) gives voice to some of the dumbest and ugliest classic anti-Semitic tropes.
To speak of “the Jews” in the aggregate, as though they form a monolithic super-entity with a single view and agenda, is exactly the kind of thinking that gutter anti-Semitism embraces in every age. To talk of an all-powerful “Jewish lobby” which controls American foreign policy is to embrace the paranoid fantasies of the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
But don’t take Via Meadia‘s word for it. Listen to some of Israel’s most strident critics in America–Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of the deeply problematic The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy–explain just how wrongheaded the term “Jewish lobby” is. Responding to a negative review of their book in the NY Times, the professors write:
Gelb refers repeatedly to a “Jewish lobby,” despite the fact that we never employ the term in our book. Indeed, we explicitly rejected this label as inaccurate and misleading, both because the lobby includes non-Jews like the Christian Zionists and because many Jewish Americans do not support the hard-line policies favored by its most powerful elements. The Israel lobby, we emphasized, is defined by its “specific political agenda … not the religious or ethnic identity of those pushing it.”
(Full disclosure: Les Gelb, author of that review and former President of the Council on Foreign Relations is both a former boss and a valued friend. His review of the book was brilliant.)
Somehow, the BBC intro, which gaily and giddily rushes in where Walt and Mearsheimer fear to tread, managed to miss these basic truths. Apparently in educated British circles you can now voice the most virulent and stupid ideas as if they were simple common sense. What is this “Jewish influence” that the Beeb thinks makes a mockery of American democracy and controls the ignorant Gentile masses, who are but passive putty in the hands of their sinister Jewish overlords?
Is it George Soros, Barbra Streisand, Peter Beinart and Noam Chomsky? Is it John Hagee, Mitt Romney, Bill O’Reilly and Sarah Palin?
American Jews voted against George W. Bush in overwhelming numbers. American Jews gave far more money to the Gore and Kerry campaigns than to the Bush campaign. President Obama remains far more popular with American Jews than with any other ‘white’ ethnic group. Yet all over the world, George W. Bush’s Israel policy was seen as the result of the supposedly irresistible power of “Jewish” money and “Jewish” influence. In reality, if Jewish money and Jewish votes controlled the American political system, George W. Bush would never have gotten past the White House door. But little facts like that can’t disturb the Beeb’s serene faith in the overwhelming might and sinister Zionist fixation of “the Jews.”
And the opposition that derailed President Obama’s initial approach toward Israel? Obviously, those dirty Jews again — never mind that a majority supports him still. Facts live in one place and narratives live in another; there is no need for them ever to meet when you are broadcasting for the BBC.
No, the Beeb knows a Jewish lobby when it sees one. This taxpayer-supported broadcast would have viewers believe that there is a shared, sinister Jewish agenda being imposed upon the American body politic through “influence” rather than democracy. To the addled mind of the Jew hater, “the Jews” act in concert, of one mind, with irresistible force and with a single pernicious agenda. Israel policy is thus set by the fiat of the 1.8% of the population that is Jewish, rather than the prevailing opinions of the 98.2% that is not — a formulation that ignores both the diversity of views among the 1.8 percent and the political ideas and preferences of the non-Jewish majority.
The BBC host and her writers would doubtless bristle at the suggestion that they were uncritically blasting the most blatant and ignorant anti-Semitic tropes over the airwaves. After all, the host does forcefully interrogate Israel critic Norman Finkelstein in the interview that follows. There can be no denying that the episode makes a conscious effort to be fair-minded and is much, much better than its catastrophically nasty and inaccurate lead.
But this is why the casual deployment of the phrase “Jewish lobby” at its outset is so disquieting. The presence of the centuries-old canard on a respectable television show reminds us how difficult it can be to root out generations worth of cultural prejudice. The presenter’s opening assertion is so shocking not because she’s trying to be anti-Semitic, but because she’s trying so hard not to be–and yet fails to avoid the crudest kind of mistake.
Just as studies regularly show that subconscious racism still prevails in America even among those without a conscious racist bone in their bodies, moments like this on the BBC reveal just how difficult it truly is to eradicate anti-Semitic attitudes even in the most enlightened and progressive sectors of contemporary Europe.
But fight those attitudes we must. For when these dangerous assumptions about Jews are allowed to fester, they soon create an atmosphere which is dangerous for Jews and where violence against them becomes increasingly commonplace–as we are seeing today across Europe, from France to Sweden, not to mention the rising anti-Jewish invective in places like Germany, Hungary and Norway. If evils aren’t fought, they will grow.
Via Meadia spends quite a bit of time calling attention to the ominous rise of anti-Semitism around the world. It isn’t because we think that anti-Semitism is the only form of hate and bigotry in the world, or that we think that it is more important to fight prejudice against Jews than prejudice against other people. But anti-Semitism, besides being on the ascent at times when many other forms of hatred are mostly on the back foot, is particularly dangerous, and not just because of what anti-Semitism can do and has done to the Jews.
The rise of anti-Semitism is a sign of widespread social and cultural failure. It is a leading indicator of a loss of faith in liberal values and of a diminished capacity to understand the modern world and to thrive in it. Societies that tolerate anti-Semitism take a fateful step toward the loss of both freedom and prosperity.
People who think “the Jews” run the banks lose the ability to understand, much less to operate financial systems. People who think “the Jews” dominate business through hidden structures can’t build or long maintain a successful modern economy. People who think “the Jews” dominate politics lose their ability to interpret political events, to diagnose social evils and to organize effectively for positive change. People who think “the Jews” run the media and control the news lose the ability to grasp what is happening around them. And people who think “the Jews” control America’s Middle Eastern policy lose the ability to understand, much less to influence, American policy in this vital part of the world. Emancipation from anti-Semitism is thus one of the necessary steps that many individuals and cultures have to take before they are able to act effectively and participate meaningfully in contemporary life.
Jew hatred isn’t more stupid or more wicked than other forms of racial and religious hatred. The anti-black bigot is as delusional as the Jew hater; hatred and prejudice of all kinds corrode the intelligence and degrade the spirit of everyone who suffers from them. But Jew hatred is more disempowering and self-defeating than most other kinds of hate because it involves not only negative emotions about a group of people but a deeply false set of ideas about how the world works.
Confident, forward-looking and dynamic societies are neither threatened by Jewish success nor offended by the cultural diversity that results from the free participation of Jews in civic and cultural life. They can come to grips with the vicissitudes of capitalist economics without being sidetracked by conspiracy theories and fantasies.
Failing societies and weak minds, on the other hand, are easily seduced by attractive but empty generalizations. The comment attributed to August Bebel that anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools can be extended to many other kinds of cheap and superficial errors that people make. The baffled, frustrated and the bewildered seek a grand, simplifying hypothesis that can bring some kind of ordered explanation to a confusing world; anti-Semitism is one of the glittering frauds that attract the overwhelmed and the uncomprehending.
Video: The secret of Israel’s success
May 19, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Israel | by Adam Levick | 15 comments
The following 40 minutes will be time well spent.
The film “Israel Inside: How a Small Nation Makes a Big Difference“ is a documentary which explores Israeli society from a humanistic, psychological and social perspective. The film avoids politics, instead telling the story of a people whose resilience has propelled a nation to the forefront of innovation in science, medicine and technology.
The film explores the question:
What underlying growth factors have given rise to this small nation’s triumph over adversity?
Postcard from Israel – Hanata
May 18, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Israel | by Hadar Sela | 1 comment
As Israel’s short spring comes to an end and the winter rains become memories, the landscape changes its hues from luscious greens to shades of yellow and brown. Although it may seem as though the drying vegetation has little to offer, a closer look brings with it the promise of things to come.
In Hebrew the word ‘hanata‘ (I’m afraid I can’t think of a direct English translation – can you?) means the process of a flower turning into a fruit and at present we are surrounded by ‘hanatim’ –the small fruits which are the beginnings of a later summer feast.
Political loyalty & its discontents: A thoughtful CiF reader examines a vexing dilemma
May 18, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Guardian, Simon Jenkins | by Adam Levick | 13 comments
Occasionally we come across a reader comment beneath the line of a ‘Comment is Free’ essay which is not only worth recommending, but thoughtful enough to post and meditate upon.
The essay in question which elicited the comment, “So, you think reason guides your politics? Think again“, May 17, by Simon Jenkins, (which explores what factors motivate our political thought process), represents a rare display of intellectual complexity at an institution often identified as much by a mind numbing uniformity as by a particular political brand.
Writes Jenkins:
“Most people buy a newspaper not to be prised from their settled opinion but to find it confirmed and comforted. They would not be dragged from it by wild horses, let alone the old nag of reason. A newspaper is their tribal notice board, their badge, their identity.”
While Jenkins’ piece does succumb to the chic appeal of (political) biological determinism, his effort represents serious thought, and is refreshingly free of hyperbole or moral posturing.
The essay also inspired this comment, very much worth examining, briefly giving voice to the dilemmas of Zionists who are forced to choose between principles and the comforts of political group identity.
I’d like to hear others’ opinions, both on the specific issue of being a Zionist within political spheres hostile to Jewish nationalism, as well as the broader theme of retaining independence of mind in the context of group demands.
Related articles
- ‘Comment is Free’ reader Zionism = Nazism comment of the day (cifwatch.com)
- ‘Comment is Free’ cheeky reader comment of the day: On Sharon, babies and Semitic tendencies (cifwatch.com)
- CiF reader comment of the day: How the Israel lobby defeated Ken Livingstone (cifwatch.com)
- The anti-Zionist malice of ‘Comment is Free’ contributor Mya Guarnieri (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian reader’s thinly veiled threat against Jews doesn’t result in suspension of user privileges (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian & Richard Silverstein’s battle to see who can most smear the UK Jewish community (cifwatch.com)
- Berchmans or Ben White? Deep thoughts at ‘Comment is Free’ on why Jews are hated (cifwatch.com)
- The stealth Zionism of ‘Comment is Free’ contributor Naomi Wolf? (cifwatch.com)
Leader of ‘Stop BDS at Park Slope Coop’ campaign (& CiF Watch reader) featured on Daily Show
May 18, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, BDS, Boycott, Daily Show, Delegitimization, Park Slope Food Coop | by Adam Levick | 24 comments
I recently noticed the moniker of the following commenter, beneath the line of a CiF Watch post about the Guardian’s coverage of the Palestinian prisoners’ hunger strike, “Observer op-ed on ‘hunger strikers’ exposes double standards on administrative detention issue“, May 13:
I replied and asked whether this commenter was indeed part of the successful efforts to defeat a BDS movement which targeted a coop in Brooklyn.
First, it’s always nice to be compared favorably to Elder and DivestThis!
But, briefly, for those unfamiliar with the BDS battle in Brooklyn’s upscale Park Slope neighborhood, here’s a quick summary.
On March 27, following a long and heated political battle lasting many months, members of the Park Slope Food Coop soundly rejected a proposal that asked the full 16,000-member market to boycott products made in Israel, turning aside the proposal after a 90-minute debate. (The Park Slope coop, one of the oldest and largest in the U.S., carries Israeli hummus, a seltzer water maker, organic paprika, two styles of kosher marshmallows and three varieties of tapenade and pesto.)

Image from site of Jewlicious
In fact, the commenter above is none other than Barbara Mazor of More Hummus, Please - the Park Slope resident who led the anti-BDS fight.
Mazor’s blog, following the BDS fail, noted the heavy publicity surrounding the debate.
“The Coop vote became quite a media sensation, including a segment from the Daily Show. We filmed this a few weeks before the vote (on Ta’anit Esther and Purim), but it aired the night of the vote. Since we already knew the referendum was defeated by the time we viewed it, I enjoyed it doubly.”
You can see the Daily Show clip (which includes interviews, by the Daily Show’s Samantha B., of both Mazor and a humorless pro-BDS activist named Liz Roberts) at Mazor’s blog, by clicking here.
While, true to form for the Daily Show, both sides are the object of some mockery, those of you familiar with the comic style of Jon Stewart’s show will know who comes out looking worse.
As a commenter at DivestThis! observed about the segment:
“It was clear from the cutting that Barbara Mazor of More Hummus, Please (the lady who led the anti-BDS fight) represented the sane side of the argument.
When Comedy Central makes you out to be “less” crazy, it’s a clear win.”
The BDS movement: a fringe group of extremists obsessed with the single minded goal of eroding the Jewish state’s legitimacy and crippling its economy, which has chalked up failure after failure, while causing no discernible injurious economic impact.
It would be hard for anyone not to appear “less crazy”!
Related articles
- ‘Elder of Ziyon’ responds to the Guardian’s Ben White on BDS. (cifwatch.com)
- My interview on Philadelphia talk radio, about CiF Watch (cifwatch.com)
- BDS-promoting Palestine Festival of Literature supported by British public funding. (cifwatch.com)
- CiF Watch welcomes its first follower from Gaza! (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian reader on “belligerent” Jewish race: 72 Recommends, not deleted by CiF Moderators (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian reader on those uppity British Jews exercizing their political rights (cifwatch.com)
- CiF’s Khaled Diab decries Palestinian fixation on ‘right of return’, but still seeks one state solution (cifwatch.com)
- Why is the Guardian afraid to expose their readers to the truth about Global March to Jerusalem? (cifwatch.com)
- Deborah Orr Tweet defends ‘chosen people’ essay, complains about Zionists’ sense of victimhood (cifwatch.com)
Nakba: The Catastrophe of Lost Opportunities
May 17, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Delegitimization, Nakba, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees | by Guest/Cross Post | 26 comments
A guest post by Gidon Ben-Zvi, an Anglo-Israeli writer
While Israel celebrated its 64th birthday, several Israeli Arab Knesset members joined a rapidly growing international chorus in chanting “Nakba”, the “catastrophe”, which the Palestinian Authority recognizes as a national holiday – a day commemorating the displacement of Palestinians sixty-four years ago.
The story contains all the elements of an ancient Greek tragedy, including human suffering on a grand scale. This widely accepted but little-examined narrative begins in 1948, when hundreds of thousands of fleeing Arabs overnight had their assets stolen and lands expropriated by a fearsome imperial interloper.
Unfortunately, bone-dry facts belie the popular notions of imminent genocide and state-sanctioned swindling that speak to the very souls of good-natured activists who unwittingly do the bidding of those who seek to dismantle the state of Israel and its Jewish majority.
First, a bit of background. It was only in the 1990s that Nakba went chic. With Palestinian statehood suddenly looming as a realistic possibility, interest in the holiday surged out of fear that the ‘right of return’ might be negotiated away as the bill for peaceful coexistence alongside Israel. By reimagining “Nakba”, a blunt, unmistakable communiqué was effectively wired to the international community: the ‘right of return’ is non-negotiable.
Now, no one can deny that a colonizing power once confiscated vast stretches of a land labeled ‘Palestine’. Yet, it’s those pesky green shoots of historic proof that must be acknowledged and analyzed.
Mandatory Palestine, under British rule, was to give way to a severely truncated Israel that the Jewish residents acquiesced to in return for independence. Settling for approximately one-quarter of the land mass that had been promised by the original partition plan, Jewish leaders made strenuous efforts to encourage their Arab neighbors to stay on and help build up the new state of Israel. Subsequently, three-quarters of the land that had once been slated to become a Jewish national home was newly minted as ‘Trans-Jordan’, with Amman as its capital.
A large majority of local Arabs responded to the call for coexistence by violently rejecting it. Egged on by a bellicose leadership that darkly warned that its bullets wouldn’t distinguish between Arabs and Jews, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs summarily packed up and took off, having been reassured that they would be able to return once the foreign Zionist entity had been snuffed out.
What followed was an invasion by seven Arab countries of Palestine and Israel. It is also worth noting that until 1967 Egypt and Jordan occupied land that the world community, by way of the United Nations, had decided to turn into a Palestinian Arab state.
Had the Arabs accepted the two-state solution, as formulated by the U.N. in 1947, it is quite likely that war would have been avoided and a separate Palestinian country would have come into existence.
Yet, assuming the role of victim requires that the historical record be edited a smidge, and the facts concerning the displacement of Palestinians have subsequently been overlooked or, at the very least, seriously downplayed.
That a refugee problem arose as a result of Israel’s defensive war is an irrefutable fact. Yet, has any sovereign nation’s birth not resulted in mass displacement and other social upheavals? Unique to the saga of the Palestinian refugee, however, is the phenomenon of the magically multiplying refugees. From close to 750,000 in 1948, today Palestinian refugees number over 5 million. Is there any other displaced group on earth that passes their refugee status on genetically?
Jordan tops the list with its 2.6 million Palestinian exiles, a large number of whom have been denied Jordanian citizenship. In fact, since 1948 Arab governments around the Muslim world have actively excluded their local Palestinian populations from jobs, housing, land and other benefits. Sadly, the Arab world has cynically used Palestinian refugees as a political pawn by which to destabilize and delegitimize the Jewish state.
Fear not, gentle reader, for the Muslim brotherhood’s impotence on the issue of Palestinian refugees has been addressed by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). Persecuted Palestinians are in fact the only displaced group in the world that has that its very own UN agency.
The international organization whose legal raison d’être was to “bring an international claim against a government regarding injuries that the organization alleged had been caused by that state…” addresses violence afflicted against displaced persons in Sudan, Mali, eastern Congo, Liberia and many other hells on earth with a wretched sense of blasé via the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Evidently, the combined moral outrage that the good United Nations can muster up in response to a long, bloody litany of refugee crises around world over is outweighed by orphaned Palestinians.
The David versus Goliath chronicle that now passes for the history of Palestinian refugees shall itself pass into shadowy oblivion, consigned to the same fate as celestial immutability, bloodletting, a geocentric universe and other intellectual blind alleys. In the interim, Israel need only remain committed to upholding and strengthening its foundational principles: republican ideas, civic rights and freedom of conscience.
With Nakba Day 2012 now in our collective rear-view mirror, it’s time to decompress and gear up for the next spasm of piping hot spewage aimed at befouling Israel’s legitimacy…Naksa Day, 2012!
Related articles
‘Comment is Free’ cheeky reader comment of the day: On Sharon, babies and Semitic tendencies
May 17, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Guardian, Independent, Ray Hanania, Sacha Baron Cohen | by Adam Levick | 18 comments
H/T Margie
There were over 300 comments beneath the line of Stuart Jeffries’ review of Sasha Baron Cohen’s movie, The Dictator (Guardian, May 15).
More than a few readers were evidently angered that Cohen, a Jew, had the temerity to mock Arab dictators. Here is the comment of one outraged reader (rayhanania), which garnered 308 ‘Recommends’.
This commenter is possibly the same Ray Hanania (an Arab American journalist and comedian) who was quoted in Jeffries’ review arguing:
“Baron Cohen could be far more effective if he turned his comedic talents inwards and portrayed someone like…prime minister…Netanyahu or even rightwing foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman.”
Another reader, agreeing with the suggestion (by rayhanania) that Jews would never, ever be subjected to crude ethnic stereotypes, strayed into different territory.
The reader was referring to this notorious cartoon (appearing in The Independent in 2003) which he/she characterized as garnering a “great deal of support from the Jewish community”.
Then, there was this cheeky reply:
I think many of us have a relative who can’t control such, um, ‘impulses’.
Related articles
- Guardian reader directs off-topic, anti-Zionist vitriol towards Sasha Baron Cohen (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian’s Becky Gardiner Celebrates Holocaust Memorial Day By Defending Blood Libeler (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian’s duty to Jews on Yom HaShoah? Don’t publish accusations that we’re “supremacists”! (cifwatch.com)
Chair of Manchester Palestine Solidarity Campaign declares Israeli Hoopoe birds ‘Aves non gratae’.
May 17, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, BDS, Boycott, Communist Party of Great Britain, Delegitimization, Hoopoes, International Solidarity Movement, Morning Star, Palestine Solidarity Campaign | by Hadar Sela | 18 comments

photo: Israel Fichman
Courtesy of the anti-racist website ‘Engage’, here’s a funny-but-true story to ease us into the weekend.
It appears that the British publication the ‘Morning Star‘ – originally the organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain – recently ran a quiz in which one of the questions concerned Israel’s national bird, the Hoopoe.
This apparent counter-revolutionary faux pas resulted in two indignant letters to the newspaper from two senior members of the Manchester Palestine Solidarity Campaign who, despite their being married to each other, obviously do not deal in philatelic skimping when it comes to advancing the workers’ cause.
I often wonder why so many of its readers find the Morning Star so exasperating.
Despite its condemnation of zionists (sic) it yet finds space to include an item in its daily quiz about Israel’s national bird.
Is the Star not aware there’s a cultural boycott going on?
And then, despite it’s (sic) condemnation of the Bahrain Grand Prix and rightly so, it then goes on to tell us who won.
For goodness sake comrades, get your act together.
George Abendstern
Rochdale
…
The Morning Star has always been the newspaper you could rely on to support the cause of the Palestinians, so why of all the birds in the world did you choose the Israeli national bird to include in your quiz?
Maybe you don’t support the methods chosen by the International Solidarity Movement of BDS to assist the Palestinians in their struggle for freedom and justice – a demand that came from them originally.
This includes any reference to their wildlife.
Linda Clair
Rochdale
And there’s a sequel; read the rest here.
This rather Voldemortesque (he-whose-name-shall-not–be-spoken) approach to the world is of course thoroughly in keeping with the institutional culture of fringe movements of single-issue obsessives, the members of which frequently appear to be vying with each other for the title of how to appear…well… most mad.
Perhaps Linda Clair will be disappointed, but I am obliged to report that the pair of Hoopoes which live in my back garden seemed remarkably unperturbed when informed this morning of their new ‘Aves non grata’ status.
Related articles
- Bigotry & justifications for terror as ‘progressive’ politics: Air Flotilla 2′s York PSC contingent (cifwatch.com)
- Another day: another Harriet Sherwood report on another British boycott. (cifwatch.com)
- ‘Air Flotilla 2′ Participants – the trailer (Anti-Zionist ‘activists’ consumed by hate) (cifwatch.com)
- More Hoopoe photos from last Wednesday and Thursday (parrotletsuk.typepad.com)
Harriet Sherwood’s Munich Massacre story follows Guardian rule on obscuring Palestinian terrorism
May 16, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Guardian, Harriet Sherwood, Munich Massacre, Terrorism | by Adam Levick | 15 comments
My post on March 23rd, 2011 – following a terrorist bombing in Jerusalem which killed one woman and injured dozens – critiqued coverage of the attack by the Guardian’s Conal Urquhart (who was filling in for Harriet Sherwood). The post was titled “Four simple Guardian rules for journalists reporting a terrorist attack in Israel.”
I noted that Urquhart seemed to be at pains to avoid characterizing the violence as a terrorist act.
This passage, from his initial report on the attack (close to Jerusalem’s main conference hall and central bus station), represents a prime example.
“A bus has exploded opposite the central station in Jerusalem, killing one woman and injuring at least 25 people, four of them seriously.” [emphasis added]
Of course, the bus didn’t “explode”.
A bomb was placed by a terrorist in a trash can, near a crowded bus stop, with the intent of killing Israelis. Some on an Egged bus which had stopped to pick up passengers there were injured (along with others closer to the bomb) as a result of the blast.
Further, in contextualizing Urquhart’s work with other Guardian reports about Palestinian terrorism, I arrived at what appeared to be a few of the Guardian Group’s guiding principles.
One of the rules which Guardian journalists often observe pertains to intentionally unclear causation:
They use passive language which may obscure the fact that an intentional act of violence was perpetrated by a Palestinian terrorist against innocent Israeli civilians.
Harriet Sherwood recently published a report, titled “London 2012 Olympics: IOC rejects silence for Munich victims” (May 15th), which is quite consistent with the Guardian rule detailed above.
Sherwood writes:
“The Munich attack began in the early hours of 5 September 1972, when eight members of the Palestinian military organisation Black September infiltrated the Olympic village, and took 11 members of the Israeli team hostage. The attackers demanded the release of 234 Palestinian prisoners in return for the hostages’ release.
By just after midnight, all 11 athletes, five attackers and a German police officer were dead.” [emphasis added]
By midnight, they were dead. Not “killed“ but “dead“. Sherwood fails to distinguish between victim and perpetrator, and offers no further explanation about how the Israeli hostages lost their lives.
In fact, the Israeli athletes were murdered brutally and quite deliberately by Palestinian Black September terrorists.
Recently the Guardian published a thorough, well-researched and clear account of the murder of Israeli athletes in Munich. It was written by sports editor Simon Burnton and titled, “50 stunning Olympic moments No 26: The terrorist outrage in Munich in 1972“. Evidently it takes a sports writer to report on Palestinian terrorism without ideological blinders.
Burton recounts how, on the last day of the crisis, nine of the eleven Israelis were killed while on helicopters (with their captors) at the runway of Fürstenfeldbruck Air Base near Munich. The terrorists were hoping for a deal, whereby they would fly to safety in Egypt, until negotiations with German authorities broke down.
“…a terrorist threw a grenade into one of the helicopters, killing all but one of the four hostages on board. Another terrorist sprayed the second helicopter with bullets, killing the five tied together there. The final hostage, David Berger, died of smoke inhalation before he could be rescued.”
However, per Burton, two of the Israelis were killed in the athletes’ residence on the first day of the crisis.
“In all 12 hostages were taken, but as the wrestlers were led downstairs to join the coaches one of them, Gad Zabari, managed to escape, with the assistance of the wounded [Moshe] Weinberg. The latter was shot dead and his body thrown, naked, on to the street. The remaining 10 were shepherded into a single bedroom, where the weightlifter Yossef Romano attempted to overcome one of the intruders. He too was shot, apparently castrated and left to bleed to death on the floor.” [emphasis added]
The brutality was beyond description.
Harriet Sherwood’s rhetorical obfuscation is all too predictable.
Related articles
- Harriet Sherwood’s continuing advocacy journalism on behalf of Palestinian terror suspects (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian “journalist” Style Guide related dilemmas: Palestinian “Terrorism” edition (cifwatch.com)
- What the Guardian won’t report: Palestinians continue to laud Itamar Massacre terrorists (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood again takes up the cause of innocent Palestinian “baker”, Khader Adnan (cifwatch.com)
- What Harriet Sherwood won’t report: Journalist arrested by PA for criticizing Abbas on Facebook (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood feels Islamic Jihad terrorist’s pain (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood on the Palestinian prisoners’ hunger strike – high on pathos, low on fact. (cifwatch.com)
- Observer op-ed on ‘hunger strikers’ exposes double standards on administrative detention coverage (cifwatch.com)
- Contrary to what The Observer claims, there has not been “relative peace” in Israel (cifwatch.com)
- Video of Harriet Sherwood’s Palestinian “Baker”, Khader Adnan, calling for suicide bombing (cifwatch.com)
Guardian letters page publishes a diversity of opinion on why Israel is cruel & oppressive
May 16, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, BDS, Boycott, Comment is Free, Daniel Taub, Delegitimization, Ernest Rodker, Guardian, Lord Andrew Phillips, Mordechai Vanunu, Proposals for a Palestinian state, West Bank | by Guest/Cross Post | 17 comments
This is cross posted from Anne’s Opinions
In yesterday’s Guardian letters page (May 15) the decision was unanimous. Israel is guilty.
The first letter is from Lord Andrew Phillips. Before reading it you should know that Lord Phillips has previous “form” on Israel. He has claimed that “America is in the grip of the well-organized Jewish Lobby“, and he once chaired an event organized by MEMO, a Hamas-supporting group.
The basis for today’s letter was a ‘Comment is Free’ column (May 8) objecting to the proposed boycott of Israel by the TUC and other UK unions.
Phillips writes:
Israel‘s ambassador, Daniel Taub, is right to say the Unison boycott is discriminatory (From boycott to bigotry, 9 May). That is the unavoidable crudity of all boycotts, which are usually last-resort expedients when governments do nothing. For many there is no other practical means of expressing, with any sniff of effectiveness, abhorrence at the relentless colonisation by Israel of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (appropriating so far well over 40% of their land mass by recent Foreign Office calculations).
Actually, according to these maps produced by the BBC (whom one could hardly accuse of being biased towards Israel) the following conclusion is drawn:
“Israel has pursued a policy of building settlements on the West Bank.These cover about 2% of the area of the West Bank.”
According to this AIJAC report the number is probably less:
“B’tselem is highly critical of Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank, and commissioned a detailed survey of the West Bank to determine the degree of settlement control and published a highly critical report last year. The group choose to focus their publicity for the report on the fact that municipal and regional councils associated with the settlements had theoretical legal jurisdiction over 42% of the West Bank, but they also conceded that their survey showed that the “built-up area” of settlements constituted a mere .99% of West Bank land. (As for the 42% number, one often quoted by Palestinian advocates, it is pretty irrelevant. This is municipal jurisdiction – ie zoning, planning, responsibility for local road maintenance – over mostly empty land. This land can become part of a future Palestinian state essentially at the stroke of a pen.)”
Back to Phillips’ letter:
“The fact that a significant minority of Israelis, and many Jews here, vehemently oppose both that colonisation and Gaza’s slow strangulation, with the oppression and humiliation that attends them, only underlines the complete failure of western (particularly US and UK) diplomacy, replete as it is with double standards.”
Again, lots of emotive words with no facts to back any of them. He does not even explain what double standards he is talking about.
Phillips continues:
“If the Israeli government were remotely interested in accommodation with Palestine, as opposed to its subjugation, they would long ago have ceased their annexation programme…”
Annexation program? The only area captured in 1967 that has been annexed is “East” Jerusalem, i.e. the part of Jerusalem that was originally home to thousands of Jews until they were expelled by the Jordanians in 1948.
The next letter on the page is from a Sylvia Cohen, who writes to express support for the boycott of Israel’s Habima Theatre (a bit late now that the boycott has been rejected). Again, Ms. Cohen has “form” on Israel with at least two previous letters in the Guardian, one rejecting any celebration of Israel’s birth, as the Jewish state was “founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land.”
The third letter was written by Ernest Rodker. Again, Mr. Rodker is no ordinary outraged citizen. He is the UK spokesman for the Israeli man convicted of treason, Mordechai Vanunu. (He can be seen here being interviewed by Iranian Press TV.)
His letter is a farrago of lies, exaggerations and outright propaganda. He writes:
“It is strange to read Daniel Taub, defending what he calls the voices speaking for peace against being boycotted, when he is representing and defending one of the most vindictive and oppressive governments in the Middle East.” [emphasis added]
While I’m not sure which human rights organizations have attempted to quantify Israel’s level of “vindictiveness”, the suggestion that the Jewish state is among the most oppressive in the region is simply risible. (See this report by Freedom House for a definitive analysis of Israel’s human rights record.)
Rodker continues:
“Faced with thousands of Palestinians imprisoned for long periods without trial, many in their teens, assassinations of suspects not proven guilty, and appropriation of hundreds of acres of land through illegal evictions alongside the building of many illegal settlements, and all in the name of defending Israel, Taub’s comments are hardly credible.”
“Thousands of Palestinians imprisoned”? Wrong. Even B’Tselem has the number at 308. Assassinations of suspects not proven guilty? By “suspects” perhaps he’s referring to the targeted killing of terrorists in neighboring Gaza involved in the planning or execution of attacks against Israelis, a practice the U.S. has been using quite liberally to kill terrorists thousands of miles away from its shores, in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The final letter is by Karl Sabbagh, a Palestinian-British writer, who comments:
[...] if Taub thinks that the boycotts of Israel have done “nothing at all”, why is he so exercised about them?
WhyBecause boycotts have a publicity appeal which have everything to do with delegitimization and nothing to do with practicalities.
Sabbagh goes on to list some companies who have withdrawn from collaboration with Israel under pressure from BDS groups, but the immediate victims of these boycotts and economic blackmail are the Palestinians themselves. If Sabbagh would ever come to Israel he would see that the trains (from which Deutsche Bahn were pressured to withdraw) are running (not on time, this is Israel after all), the electricity (from which Veolia was pressurized to withdraw) is humming and Israel’s economy continues to thrive. The BDS-ers are certainly not having it all their way, as the site “Divest This!” explains.
Sabbagh concludes:
“Taub may say he is concerned on behalf of the Palestinians, but there are plenty of Palestinians – I am one of them – who cheer every victory of the boycott movement as a sign that there are limits to Israel’s power to have things its own way.”
He may claim proudly to be a Palestinian, but he lives in Britain and will not feel the effect of boycotts on himself or his family. He is ready to sacrifice his co-nationals on the altar of his radical-chic “right-on” mentality.
These four letters illustrate more clearly than any textual analysis the Guardian’s World View - showing Israel in the worst light possible, exaggerating every conceivable sin, and belittling Israel’s undeniable progressive and democratic advantages.
Related articles
By the numbers: Jodi Rudoren’s Palestinian Prisoner Article
May 16, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Ali Abunimah, CAMERA, Cross Post, Delegitimization, Jody Rudoren, New York Times, Palestinian prisoners in Israel, Snapshots | by Guest/Cross Post | 4 comments
This is cross posted from at Snapshot, the blog of CAMERA
[Note: This CAMERA post is consistent with their current efforts to analyse NY Times' coverage of the Palestinian prisoner issue numerically, by quantifying their tendency to use certain words, phrases, and themes (and cite certain facts) over others. CiF Watch has also recently published a post similarly providing a textual analysis of Harriet Sherwood's report on the Palestinian prisoner issue. - A.L. ]

NYT Jerusalem correspondent, Jodi Rudoren
Even before Jodi Rudoren began her tenure as the New York Times‘ bureau chief in Jerusalem, serious concerns were raised about her objectivity.
Here at Snapshots we said, “Only time will tell whether [those] concerns will be borne out.”
Unfortunately, judging by Rudoren’s recent story about Palestinian prisoners on a hunger strike, published online on May 3 and in print the following day, those concerns are certainly being borne out.
You can read some criticism of the story here, here and here. Below we take a look at the piece by the numbers:
• Number of quoted words by Palestinian supporters of Palestinian prisoners: 269
• Number of quoted words by Israelis explaining the rationale behind administrative detention (or anything else): 0
• Number of words by Rudoren (or anyone else) discussing Israeli rationale behind administrative detention: 0
• Number of paragraphs before Rudoren gets around to letting readers know that the stars of her article are members of Islamic Jihad: 14
• Countries and groups that list Islamic Jihad as a terrorist organization include: The United States, Canada, The European Union, The United Kingdom and Australia.
• Rudoren’s description of Islamic Jihad: “a radical and militant Palestinian faction.”
• Number of other articles in May 4 edition of the New York Times that use the words “terrorist,” “terrorist organization,” terrorist network” or “terrorist attack” to describe non-Palestiniangroups, individuals and attacks: 6
• Number of people murdered by Islamic Jihad: Hundreds
• Number of rockets fired at Israeli cities and towns by Islamic Jihad: Hundreds
• Number of references in the article to those attacks: 0
• Number of days after extremist activist Ali Abunimah complained to Rudoren on Twitter about lack of coverage of the prisoners’ hunger striker before Rudoren authored what Abunimah endorsed as her “must read” report: 4
Related articles
The Manchester Guardian in 1948, covering the birth of Israel
May 15, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Guardian | by Adam Levick | 27 comments
Yesterday (May 14th), the Guardian republished their original coverage of the establishment of Israel in 1948.
Here are the Guardian reports from that day in 1948:
The main story.
The leader:
I’m very interested to hear readers’ thoughts on these Guardian reports in the context of the paper’s coverage of Israel today.
Related articles
- Contrary to what The Observer claims, there has not been “relative peace” in Israel (cifwatch.com)
- Why is the ‘liberal’ Guardian still rooting for a reactionary antisemitic Islamist named Raed Salah? (cifwatch.com)
- Observer op-ed on ‘hunger strikers’ exposes double standards on administrative detention coverage (cifwatch.com)
- Should the Guardian’s Phoebe Greenwood be sacked? (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian photo story on Gaza drawings by Palestinian who are children curiously on-message (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood cynically exploits a Holocaust survivor on Yom HaShoah to criticize Israel (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood’s continuing advocacy journalism on behalf of Palestinian terror suspects (cifwatch.com)
- Who’s afraid of Richard Millett? (cifwatch.com)

































A Baaaad Man! The Guardian’s scary Bibi
May 20, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Benjamin Netanyahu, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Guardian, Hamas, Harriet Sherwood, Ismail Haniyeh | by Adam Levick | 22 comments
Harriet Sherwood’s latest report, Israeli PM: illegal African immigrants threaten identity of state, May 20, is notable not for the story, concerning Israel’s efforts to stem illegal immigration, nor for the narrative, which suggests racist motives, but due to the photo of PM Netanyahu.
In fact, the photo (of an angry “right wing” Bibi) was used in a July, 2011, Guardian story.
A November 2011 Sherwood report used another angry photo of Bibi…
…which was recycled from a report in August, 2011.
As a point of comparison, here’s a photo of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in a ‘Comment is Free’ commentary from March, 2012.
Finally, here is a photo from a Guardian report, of a gentle, kindly and loving soul (aka, Raed Salah) who, in his spare time, recites poems advancing the ancient antisemitic blood libel.
Related articles
Share this:
Like this: