Why does Britain ignore antisemitism?

stevejones123′s comment 25 Jul 09, 11:38am

A few months back, a high ranking Foreign Office Diplomat was charged with inciting hatred for an anti-semitic rant. It was reported in all the papers apart from the Guardian and Independent.

To the best of my knowledge the story had no basis.

Why does Britain ignore antisemitism?

stevejones123′s comment 25 Jul 09, 11:18am

Why does Britain ignore antisemitism?

Perhaps because pro-Israeli shills such as yourself, have totally demeaned the term, by applying it to everybody who attacks Israeli government policies.

There were more than 600 attacks on British Jews in the first six months of the year. This is twice as many as the same period in 2008. Most consisted of verbal abuse – … If since January there had been – scaled up proportionately – 2,000 attacks on British Muslims, it would make headlines everywhere

I suspect there are that number of attacks every month. As far as verbal abuse goes you’ll find that number on Cif before you reach the end of January.

To call Jews Nazis is wrong. I think it is antisemitic.

So calling Sinhalese Nazis and genocide deniers is anti-Aryan? People use the term ‘Nazi’ to show they are pissed off. It’s not the best of rhetorical tactics but to claim it is antisemitism is just a cheap attempt at demonizing the opposition.

It’s not British fascists we should fear

stevejones123′s comment 12 Jun 09, 5:40pm

n. The Jews accepted the tiny portion partitioned off for them. The Arabs did not.

The Jews actually got 53% of the land, even though they only owned 10% of the land in the mandate. They then proceeded to ethnically cleanse much of the land given to the Arabs.

We’re all in public now

stevejones123′s comment 07 Feb 09, 6:03am

It’s clearly worse to refer to a black tennis player by the grossly offensive “golliwog” phrase

Missing the point, Mark. ‘Golliwog’ was not seen as grossly offensive either by Thatcher or the thousands that wrote in to support her. There are terms taken as offensive by all, such as ‘coon’ or ‘yid’ but ‘golly’ is not one of them.

But the fact that it was misdirected does not make the remark any less potentially antisemitic

What on earth is ‘potentially anti-semitic’? It’s either anti-semitic or it isn’t. That can be argued over, though the suggestion that all Jews are against humanitarian aid to Gaza (or in favour of Israeli atrocities there) isn’t open to argument; it’s risibly contra-factual.

But the fact remains that it is uncontroversial to consider the influence somebody’s ethnic background in relation to their political stance on certain matters, unless they are Jewish, when a strident demand for exceptionalism comes in. If a British citizen commented on the Sri Lankan affair I would automatically ask if the person was Tamil or Sinhalese before deciding what weight to give to their opinion, and the same goes to whether somebody is Indian or Pakistani before listening to their opinion on South Asian matters in general. The pro-Israeli lobby is much better organized in the UK than the pro-LTTE or Hindutva lobby yet we’re supposed to gloss over it.

Sri Lanka: Crushing victory

stevejones123′s comment 12 Apr 09, 9:54pm

As far as Sri Lanka goes Fein just parrots whatever his LTTE clients give him. Lets look at just a little of the junk of his you’ve quoted.

There are no Tamils in the military or security forces, just as Adolph Hitlers Waffen SS and Gestapo were purged of Jews.

Yea, we all know that Hitler had Jewish Foreign secretaries, Yiddish speaking chief whips, half-a-dozen Jewish ministers, spoke in Yiddish in his government addresses, made a public apology on behalf of all Germans for the KristalNacht, and provided free public education in Yiddish to all Jews, and received Jewish sporting heroes at the Presidential Palace.

The Sinhalization of the security forces goes back to the 1962 failed coup against the then Prime Minister, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, and was more aimed at weeding out possibly disloyal English-educated Sinhalese, Tamils and Burghers than as discrimination against Tamil speakers.

The LTTE’s policy of deliberately targeting Tamil members of the security forces for assassination didn’t help recruitment either. The discrimination should be ended, but to suggest it is a preparation for genocide is pure libel. There were and are few Northern Irish Catholics in the British Security Forces but nobody ever suggested that was a preparation for genocide.

Hamas isn’t open to compromise

stevejones123′s comment 27 Feb 09, 1:38pm

Hamas’s main goal is the physical destruction of Israel and its people.

You would be more accurate to say that the Israeli government’s main goal is the physical destruction of Palestine and its people. You’d certainly have more facts behind you.

Hamas no, human rights yes

stevejones123′s comment 19 Feb 09, 7:49am

Had Israel had a genuine desire for peace and made reasonable progress in the negotiations with Arafat then Hamas (which was supported by Israel for a long time as a counterweight for Fatah), would never have won the election.

Had Israel not subjected Gaza to an illegal and immoral economic blockade for months, then the feeling would not be so extreme.

Had Israel not killed over a thousand civilians in its latest bout of war crimes then Hamas might not be so paranoid or vicious.

And had the West done something about the plight of the Palestinians then maybe Hamas would listen to any criticisms it makes.

The truth is Hamas gives the Israeli government an excuse for not making peace with the Palestinians and continuing its annexions. Israel very much needs Hamas in power and will tailor its policy to ensure it continues.

An open letter on antisemitism

stevejones123′s comment 16 Feb 09, 3:00pm

The Holocaust is very well documented and some witnesses (not only Jewish) are still alive, but we already have folks trying to deny or even justify it. Isn’t that an indication of antisemitism?

We also have people who try to deny the earth is round or more than six thousand and something years old? Your point?

stevejones123

Oct 16 08, 6:25pm (about 10 hours ago)

I’m sorry but Brian Whittaker is right to be dubious of writers and associations that are allied to islamophobic neo-cons. What would your opinions be of an apostate Jew who gave seemingly scholarly articles on Judaism and the Jewish situation in the world and then referred to the perceptive analysis of the Jewish situation given by his friend the political author, Adolf Hitler? I think you would have stopped reading on the spot. I had been reading with interest articles by Grayling’s friend, Ibn Warraq, in the New English Review and then came across a passage where he recommended Daniel Pipes as a perceptive analyst of contemporary Islam. I stopped reading on the spot. Hayshan Ali likewise is rightly viewed by most Moslems as a self-publicist who is quite prepared to lie about her religion and her life to keep herself in the limelight and the money flowing in.