You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Holocaust Denial’ tag.
Here at CiF Watch we, like many others, have for some time been following the very worrying events taking place with alarming regularity in too many British universities.
From the cancellation of lectures by some pro-Israeli speakers, through the heckling and intimidation of others, to the despicable attacks upon Talya Lador-Fresher (Israel Deputy Ambassador to the UK) last year in Manchester and a protester outside SOAS just recently, these events indicate beyond all doubt that something is seriously amiss in the higher education system of Great Britain. Ambassador Ron Prosor apparently thinks so too.
“Speaking at a conference on British-Israeli diplomatic relations at the think-tank Chatham House, he said there had “never been so much hatred and hypocrisy towards the state of Israel in British universities.”
Just as there seems to be very little enthusiasm in those same establishments to face up to the issue of Islamist radicalization within the confines of their protected walls, or the long-since known (but recently further publicized) subject of the funding of some of those institutions by human-rights abusing regimes and dictatorships, nothing very effective appears to be being done to counter the virulently anti-Israel (and sometimes anti-Semitic) atmosphere in what are supposed to be bastions of free debate and liberal enlightenment.
A post (which recently generated some renewed interest) on the Daphne Anson blog regarding the Leicester University lecturer Dr. Claudia Prestel raises some questions as to just how committed the management of British universities are in combating extremism in their institutions. As pointed out in the post, Dr. Prestel has links with the Leicester branch of ‘Friends of Al Aqsa’. She has written for their magazine and spoken together with the chair of that organization, Ismail Patel, at an event organized by the Leicester University Palestine Support Group. She is also a supporter of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel.
Some might say that what Dr. Prestel or any other university lecturer chooses to do with his or her free time is nobody’s business. Others might raise reasonable concerns that perhaps the political opinions of such lecturers do not always remain outside the lecture hall. What I found particularly interesting about this specific case is that Leicester University runs a centre for the study of the Holocaust, of which Dr. Prestel is also a member. And yet nobody in that institution seems to think it inappropriate that she should maintain connections with an organization which has quoted Holocaust deniers on its website, headed by a man who supports a terrorist organization with genocidal aspirations of its own.
‘Friends of Al Aqsa’ is one of the more extremist Islamist organizations at work in Britain today. It supports the Muslim Brotherhood-linked charity ‘Interpal’ (proscribed by the US Treasury) and advertises it on its website. It collaborates with the Khomenist Iranian-funded faux human rights organization known as the Islamic Human Rights Commission in organizing events such as Al Quds day at which public support is expressed for the Iranian proxy militia Hizbollah.
Advert for Friends of Al Aqsa sponsored event
Ismail Patel himself is a member of the red-green ‘Stop the War coalition’ and has represented that body at a Hizbollah conference. He is a spokesperson for the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated ‘British Muslim Initiative’, has been involved in the organization of the annual ‘Islam Expo’ hate-fest, is a member of ‘Conflicts Forum’ which advocates engaging with terrorists and was a passenger aboard the ‘Mavi Marmara’ which tried to break the Israeli naval blockade on Gaza last May. The voyage was co-sponsored by the Turkish organization the IHH which is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Union of Good’. Patel’s recommended reading list includes the work of Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy who does not believe that there was a Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe or that there were gas chambers.
One wonders if those attending last year’s conference on the subject of Holocaust Denial at Leicester University’s Centre for Holocaust Studies were aware that one of the associate members of that centre rubs shoulders with Islamist extremists who are not averse to a little denial of the Nazi Holocaust themselves and support both Hamas – with its genocidal charter – and the Iranian regime infamous for the Holocaust denial of its president.
One especially wonders whether the management of the Stanley Burton Centre for Holocaust Studies and Leicester University as a whole consider Dr Prestel’s extra-curricular associations appropriate under the circumstances and whether or not they have given any thought whatsoever to the fact that allowing people such as Ismail Patel to speak on their campus is precisely the sort of supine approach which is contributing to the spread of increasingly violent extremism in universities throughout the British Isles.
As people who study racial hatred as a profession, one would hope that they would be able to make that rather obvious connection.
H/T Harry’s Place
Guardian contributor Rachel Shabi, frequent and vociferous critic of the Jewish state (See CW posts here, here and here) also just happens to be Facebook friends with notorious anti-Semite, Israel Shamir. (Shamir, its worth noting, is also FB friends with Norman Finkelstein, Lauren Booth, Philip Weiss, and Ken O’Keefe.)
Just to be clear about what a prolific anti-Semite Shamir is, here are a few highlights.
- He’s said: “It’s every Muslim and Christian’s duty to deny the Holocaust.”
- He’s described Jews as “virus in human form.”
- He’s endorsed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
- He’s Stated: Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews; The world is. Palestine is just the place for the world state headquarters.”
It kind of puts everything she’s written about Israel in perspective doesn’t it?
One of the most worn out tropes advanced by the Guardian hard left is that they indeed oppose “actual” anti-Semitism but are frustrated that Israel’s supporters casually employ the term to stifle its critics.
Occasionally, the insincerity of such charges are in full view – especially when such critics fail to condemn those who engage in explicit and undeniable Jew hatred.
The response by many commenters to Andrew Brown’s CiF post, WikiLeaks and Israel Shamir, represents such an example.
Though Brown makes the case that Shamir is an unrepentent anti-Semite quite well, it should also be noted that Shamir has stated that “It’s every Muslim and Christian’s duty to deny the Holocaust;” described the Jews as “virus in human form;” and endorsed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Yet, for some CiF commenters, Shamir is not a hater at all but, rather, a “renegade Jew” who’s tragically misunderstood (presumably in the tradition of renegade Muslims such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali).
While such a comment by itself wouldn’t necessarily be worth discussing, please note that his comment received 204 “Recommends”.
A Guest Post by AKUS
In a recent article, A perfect example of the Guardian’s appalling myopia, I pointed out how the Guardian overlooked a key event in a visit by a group of boys (no girls) from Gaza to the USA, and, specifically, the UN building in New York:
A Guardian video entitled, “Documentary follows 15 boys from Gaza on trip to US” contained the subtitle:
“Fifteen boys left their besieged homeland to visit America earlier this year. The moving film No Sharp Objects reveals their first experiences of snow and skyscrapers.”
Correctly, it should read:
Fifteen boys left their homeland to visit America earlier this year. The moving film No Sharp Objects reveals their first experiences of snow, skyscrapers and pictures and lessons from the Holocaust.
The Guardian, enthralled by the chance to show Hamas and UNRWA, which organized the trip, in a good light completely overlooked mentioning a significant portion of the clip which showed Arab-speaking guides explain to the youngsters from Gaza what the Holocaust was, and why it is so important to the Jews. Clearly, this was the first time that they these young boys had heard of the Holocaust and seen the iconic pictures that form the display.
A day later, despite the same timestamp on the article, Harriet Sherwood followed up with an article about the trip, noting briefly: “the group paused before a Holocaust exhibition at the UN headquarters. As the boys considered the terrible images from the death camps, their teacher, Rafiq Murad, spoke of the significance of what they were seeing. “And so, guys,” he concluded, “because we faced suffering and injustice we have to appreciate and understand the suffering of others, regardless of their religion and race.”
A great message.
It turns out, however, that it was not the message that Hamas wanted the children to see.
This is cross posted from the blog, Jhate
Should Holocaust denier David Irving be permitted to conduct a “tour” of Auschwitz with a group of “revisionist” supporters, as he intends? As of now, the Auschwitz Museum (which controls the site) appears to be saying that Irving will not be stopped from entering the grounds, but that the museum staff will be “closely watching” his visit. ”If his speech will have signs of Holocaust denial, we will take appropriate action,” said museum spokesman Bartosz Bartyzel. ”We cannot allow for statements that defame the memory of the victims.”
I agree that to the extent that it is possible to do so, Irving should be prevented from making a public and highly offensive spectacle of himself at Auschwitz. And I understand that the Auschwitz Museum — an institution that administers and protects what is essentially the largest Jewish cemetery in history — would be exercised first and foremost by its mission to sustain and venerate the memory of the dead. But on a tactical level, I think that Irving should probably not be allowed onto the grounds at all. And defaming the memory of the dead should not be the principle that guides our reaction to Irving’s latest quest for publicity.
Tactics first. Posit that every step Irving takes on Auschwitz grounds is a desecration of the memory of the dead, and every moment his visit is followed by a news crew is a triumph for Holocaust denial. So let’s cut the spectacle short. Bar him from entering. He will strike a dramatic pose at the gates, mutter something about the “traditional enemies of free speech” and the “global vendetta” against him and, unless he is even crazier than I think he is, he will then turn around and leave. End of story. The Auschwitz Museum will have done its job of protecting the memory of the dead, Irving will get his latest ten minutes of fame, and (sigh) the whole sorry state of affairs will be repeated at Treblinka.
What is the alternative? To let Irving enter the grounds at the head of his merry band of Holocaust deniers, trailing camera crews, no doubt, with museum staff hovering to monitor his every word? What will they do when he says something objectionable? Enter into a debate with him? Forcibly eject him from the grounds? Either response prolongs the agony, gives Irving even greater media attention, and transforms the image of the museum from that of a noble custodian of the site’s sanctity and into a petty enforcer of historical orthodoxy and a censor of free speech. In this case, the high road is to just stop the whole thing from starting.
But I think there is a larger issue here: The big problem with Irving’s visit to Auschwitz is not merely that he will defame the memory of the dead, desecrate the grounds, or hurt and offend Holocaust survivors, their children, and all who fought to oppose the Nazis. (Yes, I realize how bizarre that last sentence sounds.) The problem is that Irving — and Holocaust denial in general — disseminates a malicious narrative about World War II and its aftermath that inflames anti-Jewish sentiment around the world and actually resurrects many of the anti-Semitic tropes that led to the Holocaust in the first place.
Holocaust denial is an immense anti-Jewish conspiracy theory. It posits that somehow, amid the chaos and destruction of World War II, opportunistic Jews decided to profit from the whole affair by creating a myth of some phony genocide. It then further posits that those Jews, by dint of their power to influence/control the media, Hollywood, academia, and world governments, successfully imposed this hoax on virtually the entire world. I have written more about this elsewhere, and one day I’ll do an extensive post showing in their own words how individual deniers make this claim. But for now let me just point out that these beliefs — the myth of the world Jewish conspiracy and the widespread belief that Jews cannot be trusted; that Jews lie and cheat to advance their own interests; that they pull the strings behind political and social movements that are antithetical to the interests of the non-Jewish population around them — all these are the same beliefs that attained widespread acceptance in the years leading up to Hitler’s “solution” to this problem.
I grant that this is not 1939, and that no Western government is now on the brink of implementing legislation that penalizes or discriminates against Jews based on this set of beliefs. But I think it’s fair to say that European Jews are in a more precarious situation now than they have been in decades. Anti-Semitic beliefs are at disturbing levels, street violence against Jews is up, and in the name of anti-Zionism, Jews are being demonized, often with these very same stereotypes. I think it’s also fair to say that these stereotypes about Jews and/or Zionists are already well-entrenched in Arab and Muslim societies. The dual loyalty charge, which is also a component of the Holocaust denier’s conspiracy theory, has also been resurrected and more openly promoted than it has in decades, especially in the United States.
Irving’s publicity, and any opportunity he has to hold forth on how Zionists and/or Jews have spun their web of deceit over the world, confirms and reinforces these pernicious stereotypes in the minds of all those susceptible to its influence. His pronouncements subtly — maybe even not so subtly — undermine the security and wellbeing of Jews everywhere.
It would be best if Irving had no platform at all. But we already know that the media will be following this closely. So again: Whether your concern is for the honor of dead Jews or (what appears to me more important) the safety and security of living ones, let’s cut this tour short. Irving should not be allowed into Auschwitz.
This is a guest post by Bataween of Point of No Return
When Georgina Henry moved from the Comment is Free Middle East desk to edit the Culture Section at the Guardian, CIF Watch predicted that Henry would turn her new fiefdom into a cesspool of antisemitism masquerading as anti-Zionism. And so it has come to pass. Henry’s latest commission: Tariq Ali’s review of “The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives” by Gilbert Achcar scrapes the barrel of malevolent ignorance and Orwellian misrepresentation. But wonder of wonders, the readership aren’t having it.
The book in question, is itself a scurrilous work of revisionism, intended by a ‘professor of International Relations at SOAS’ partly to demolish the sacred cow of Arab complicity with the Nazi Holocaust. Like all anti-Israel propaganda, it tries to turn fact into controversy – declaring, as the book’s subtitle denotes, a ‘war of narratives’. Downplaying Arab antisemitism and support for the Holocaust exonerates Arabs from any responsibility for Israel’s establishment.
Tariq Ali, venerable Pakistani Marxist anti-Zionist and warrior against US imperialism, applauds Gilbert Achcar’s ‘systematic and scholarly refutation of the simplistic myths that have arisen from the formation of Israel’. The book, which is being published in an Arab edition, is a ‘valuable corrective’, drawing on such ‘objective’ sources as Tony Judt, Norman Finkelstein, Gabriel Piterberg and Amira Hass. But Ali’s review does not make clear where Achcar’s opinions begin and Ali’s views end.
The ever-estimable Bataween has already addressed on these pages the content of Gilbert Achcar’s CiF article of May 12th. As seems to be generally the case with any CiF article connected in some shape or form to the subject of the Holocaust, the comments generated display a depth to the nature of anti-Semitism which other subjects seem to expose to a lesser degree.
The EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism relates to the subject of the Holocaust in several of its clauses.
“Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).”
Whilst the word ‘amplified’ is not specifically used in the wording of the EUMC Definition, common sense would dictate that its employment could fall into the same clause as “Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.”
What happens when the Guardian has a What do you want to talk about thread?
The simple answer: more Israel-obsession. This time though with plenty of Holocaust denial and other assorted antisemtism mixed in. At the time of writing each of the posts below remain undeleted, some of which have been up for over two days.
The first “treat” of the thread is this, a comment which sets the tone for the entire thread.
If you click on the link that preemptiveresponse directs readers to, it takes you to this:
As Jacob Gewirtz notes in The Lie of Nazi-Zionist Collaboration, “the odious charge of Zionist-Nazi collaboration is a very significant variation of the “Zionism equals racism” theme. The latter was aimed at convincing the Third World that Israel, was like South Africa, a pariah state that had no right to exist.”
If we take a closer look at the source of this antisemitic publication, www.vho.org, an even clearer picture emerges as to the vile nature of what preemptiveresponse posted.
This is a guest post by Bataween of Point of No Return
In his CiF post Lebanese SOAS professor Gilbert Achcar argued last week that Holocaust-denial in the Arab world is much less common than it is believed to be in the West. Where it does exist, Achcar writes, Holocaust denial is the ‘anti-Zionism of fools’: Arabs deny the Holocaust in order to lash out at Israel’s ‘oppression’ of the Palestinians.
Achcar’s thesis is at once contradicted by a poll taken among Arab-Israelis. It finds that 40 percent believe that the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis never happened, almost twice the percentage in 2006. If 40 percent of Arabs living in the Jewish state – where the Holocaust is daily discussed and deeply embedded in the national psyche – manage to deny it, how much more rampant must denial be in the Arab and Muslim world, where information is censored, controlled and distorted. In Iran, President Ahmadinejad has institutionalised Holocaust denial.
Gilbert Achcar’s shoddy analysis takes no account of those Arabs and Muslims who, on the contrary, wish that Hitler had been able to finish the job, the ‘minimisers’, such as Mahmoud Abbas (who claimed in his doctoral thesis that numbers of Jews killed in the Holocaust were much lower); and those who so universalise the Holocaust that it ceases to be a Jewish tragedy.
Achcar then argues that the media should praise rather than ignore Arab acknowledgements of the Holocaust. What are these acknowledgements? Yasser Arafat visiting Anne Frank’s house in 1998. Palestinians in the West bank village of Bil’in dressing up in striped pyjamas, reminiscent of concentration camp inmates, during the Gaza war. Palestinian villagers in Ni’lin holding exhibitions of Yad Vashem photos.
Rather than attempts ‘to empathise and further understand their occupier’, as Achcar puts it, these examples are PR gimmicks – cynical, dishonest and crude attempts to score propaganda points by exploiting one of the most painful catastrophes in Jewish history. The comparison is calculated to offend where it hurts most. The message is ‘the Palestinians are the new Jews”; by implication, ‘the Israelis are the new Nazis’.
The comments thread to Achcar’s piece corroborates two myths: Zionism not only exploits, and exaggerates, the Holocaust in order to attract sympathy for Israel – but that Arabs paid the price of Israel’s establishment as a direct consequence of the Nazi Holocaust. The second myth appears to be believed by President Obama, no less, who in his Cairo speech in June 2009 ‘balanced’ Arab acknowledgement of Jewish suffering in the Holocaust with Jewish recognition of Palestinian suffering. In fact, 14 centuries of Arab and Muslim subjugation and antisemitism validate the creation of Israel as a haven of last resort as much as any European persecution. If any equivalence should be drawn, it should be between the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war, and Jewish refugees driven from Arab countries.
Of all the CiF threads I have written about since joining CiF Watch, I’m afraid that the comments on Yorkshire Post journalist Peter Lazenby’s article of December 21st were for me the most difficult and shocking. Peter Lazenby wrote an appropriately sensitive piece about the theft of the sign from the Auschwitz concentration camp which displayed both empathy for the victims of the Holocaust and an understanding of the real lessons of that part of history.
Many of the comments below the line displayed the exact opposite. Some were even decidedly perverse; I cannot put this down to mere ignorance.
In light of the hole that Ben White entertainingly dug himself today in the comment thread accompanying his latest Israel-bashing article, we are publishing, with the kind permission of ModernityBlog, a post originally published in July on Modernity Blog’s excellent site, that provides a useful reminder as to just why Ben White’s antisemitic writings are thoroughly objectionable.
I feel a bit sorry for Ben White, not for his privileged upbringing or quality Oxbridge education, but rather for the fact that he is a bit of a political masochist and hasn’t learnt the expression, when in a hole stop digging.
White has an article on the Liberal Conspiracy blog, seemingly explaining his views and trying to put some distance between him and the Iranian President.
That is quite understandable and if Omar Khayyam could be persuaded otherwise I am sure that Ben White would like to erase his 2006 article on Ahmadinejad.
Readers will no doubt remember Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory speeches in 2006? And how it was fairly obvious that Ahmadinejad was indulging in populist racism.
Still, there were people who wished to see Ahmadinejad in a charitable light and explain away his views. Any number of quibbles were raised concerning his exact words and their translation into English, but what couldn’t be translated away was his sentiment.
Ahmadinejad’s excusers became less numerous as he invited the creme de la creme of holocaust deniers to Teheran for a denier’s get-together and hosted such notables as Faurisson, Duke and Renouf.
The excuse that Ahmadinejad was merely articulating “anti-Zionism” sounded pretty hollow when he received the applause of so many assorted and deranged neo-Nazis. Eventually, it became an untenable argument except for the most entrenched ideologue or bigot.
Now in 2009, belatedly, White admits Ahmadinejad’s racism, but plays a game with it. White accuses his critics of being “Israel’s apologists” and using “the cry of anti-semitism”. Many of these criticisms relate to White’s new book, and the pasting that it received at the end of Jonathan Hoffman’s pen.
White is clearly on the defensive and, conspicuously, does not acknowledge the numerous errors contained in the book, as highlighted by Jonathan Hoffman’s various critiques.
Nor does White admit, in the Liberal Conspiracy article his use of doctored quotes to bolster his arguments.
Instead White tries to play the victim, the honest author caught by the intrigues of the dastardly “Zionists”.
All in all, its a bit of a feeble ploy to distract attention from his faulty use of history, his propensity for political exaggeration and his lamentable research skills.
I do wish White would stop digging, as the hole he’s in is getting deeper and deeper.
Update: I had forgotten about White’s article in CounterPunch.
White explains how he understands antisemitism, which is not a promising start for someone who tried to explain away Ahmadinejad’s outbursts, then writes a book attacking Israel, containing doctored quotes which portray Israeli and Jewish leaders in the worst possible light.
Update 2: James Mendelsohn has a lovely post at Z-blog, I was struck by this:
“Of course, all of this begs the question: why does White treat all these sources as authoritative? After all, if you are aiming to write a ‘highly readable introduction’ for ‘beginners’, surely you owe it to them to use the most reliable sources possible; or, at the very very least, to give some sort of acknowledgement that the sources you do use have been (vigorously) contested.
White does neither, for which there can surely be only two possible explanations.
Either he knew that many of his sources are discredited but decided to cite them anyway – which would suggest a lack of integrity on his part.
Alternatively, it’s because he didn’t know that they were discredited, which would suggest he is not quite the specialist his own website suggests.
Either way, his use of these sources, without any qualifications or caveats, is a damning indictment of his work.”[my emphasis]
Update 3: Seismic covers White’s twists and turns in detail and shows where White gets his facts from, Roger Garaudy, a well known Holocaust denier.
Update 4: Sourcing your material from a known Holocaust denier is not a sensible approach for someone claiming a degree of expertise in the Middle East, as Ben White does.
Still, less is it a shrewd idea after you’ve made a case about how it might be possible to “understand antisemitism”.
Certainly anyone with a modicum of knowledge would not touch Roger Garaudy with a bargepole, unless it was to explain what a thoroughly nasty piece of work he was.
Readers may remember Roger Garaudy, one time Marxist and PCF intellectual, who seemed to have flipped out years ago (I am grasping for a better explanation) and then became a leading Holocaust denier and fixture on the neo-Nazi circuit
Garaudy publishes his racist filth via IHR’s journal.
This is a selection of Garaudy’s revisionist view of history:
“Following are excerpts from an interview with French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy, which was broadcast on Iranian TV Channel 1 on December 13, 2005.
Roger Garoudy: None of the well-known people who defeated Hitler and exposed his barbaric deeds said even a single word about gas chambers.
In Churchill’s Memoirs of the Second World War, in Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe, and in General de Gaulle’s memoirs there is no mention of this killing device.
[...]
The only film presented to the judges in the Nuremberg trials showed the Dachau gas chamber. The construction of the Dachau gas chamber was never completed, and it was never used. Since this gas chamber was never completed, yet the film presented at Nuremberg portrayed it as if it were completed, this film must have been a means of deception by American agencies stationed at Dachau.
This film is always shown to tourists, since the eye-witness testimony has already been accepted as fact, and the existence of gas chambers during the Third Reich is considered an indisputable fact. One must therefore conclude that no Jews or other prisoners were killed by poisonous gas – not in Dachau, Bergen, or Buchenwald.
[Archived at MEMRI, http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/965.htm requires registration.]
This is the type of source that Ben White would quote.
Update 5: There’s a bit of a silly slanging match going on at Liberal Conspiracy, none of which addresses the issue of White’s doctored quotes and decidedly questionable sourcing methodology .
Update 6: Garaudy got worse, if that’s possible, according to Amir Taheri, he’s now a 9/11 truther:
“Garaudy asserts that the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington were organized by the Bu(sic) administration. He also reasserts his belief that the genocide of Jews by the Nazis during the Second World War never happened and was “invented as a myth by Churchill, Eisenhower an De Gaulle” to justify the destruction and occupation of Germany.
Update 7: Liberal Conspiracy seems to be down for the moment, another link to White’s article is here.
Update 8: There is still a debate going on at Mondoweiss, I rather liked this comment:
“Bennet · 3 days ago
Philip. there’s certainly a case of double standards by antizionists going on.Firstly Mearsheimer and Walt refused to debate with anybody when they first published.
Ben White deleted a comment linking to Hoffman’s piece in White’s facebook page on his book and then threw the member out of the group.
War On Want refused to let Hoffman into the meeting.
The Jewish Socialist Group in the UK refused to circulate a discussion paper from a long-standing member because it was critical of Hizbolla.
The trade union Unison refused to let Trade Union Friends of Israel have a stall at conference even though they had previously always had a stall.
Mona Baker a UK boycott leader sacked the ex head of Amnesty Israel from the board of her translation journal because she was an israeli.
And the list goes on. So antizionists like to dish it out but as soon as people act in the same way or even just stand up for themselves then it’s an antizionist trait to claim they’re being silenced by the “zionist lobby.
So Philip – with the greatest of respect kindly stop wingeing and moaning like a spoilt brat who can’t stand other people having views. And if anti-zionists can’t take it then they shouldn’t be so hypocritical.
The claim of being silenced is an old antisemitic trait thatahas been used by far right opponents of Jewish communities for many years.”
Update 9: JfJfP must be having a problem updating their web site, as they missed off the most recent critiques: More Damn Lies About Israeli “Apartheid” and More White Lies About Israeli “Apartheid”.
Update 10: I have a guest post on Engage relating to this topic.
Update 11: Petra Marquardt-Bigman’s contribution is worth reading in full, here’s a snippet:
“It is all too obvious that the term “apartheid” makes sense only if Israel, Gaza and the West Bank are assumed to be one legal unit, i.e. one state. Indeed, Ben White is an ardent advocate of the so-called “one-state solution” and he enthusiastically relies on writers who claim that this is an “ethical imperative.” As Ben White himself puts it: “To say that the ‘one-state solution’ is impractical or equals the ‘destruction’ of Israel is poorly concealed code for defending the indefensible and a recipe for continual conflict in a land it is impossible to partition.”
That’s plain enough: for Ben White, insisting on Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is “defending the indefensible.”
It is interesting to note in this context that among Ben White’s first published articles there is a piece from 2002 that tackles the question if it is acceptable to “understand” why some people are antisemitic.
White’s stance involves some sophistry, because he pretends that there is no ambiguity to “understanding,” even though the term can obviously refer to a purely intellectual process that results in a rational explanation, or to an emotional process that results in sympathy.
In any case, White proceeds to list “a number of reasons” for antisemitism – which of course means that racism against other groups, like blacks or Muslims, could also be understood as having “reasons”… So would White accept the notion that the attacks of 9/11 provide a “reason” for anti-Muslim sentiments?
Would White accept the ultimately racist notion that the actions of some members of a group somehow provide “reasons” for prejudice and discrimination against the group as a whole?
What is sure is that when it comes to antisemitism, White thinks that “reason” number one is, unsurprisingly, “the state of Israel, its ideology of racial supremacy and its subsequent crimes committed against the Palestinians. It is because Zionists have always sought to equate their colonial project with Judaism that some misguidedly respond to what they see on their televisions with attacks on Jews or Jewish property.”
These few lines illustrate why White has been repeatedly suspected of antisemitism, and they also illustrate why he apparently doesn’t quite understand the reason for such accusations. To begin with, White seems to believe that if he says Israel has an “ideology of racial supremacy,” he is stating an obvious fact, and this of course implies that he believes that Jews define themselves as a “race”… Indeed, White also relies on this notion in order to justify his claim that Israel is guilty of practicing “apartheid.” “
Read more here.
Update 12: Seismic Shock again looks into Ben White and his theological underpinning in The Theology Behind the ‘Israeli Apartheid’ Gospel.
Update 13: Seismic points us to something White wrote previously and there is a curious usage of words:
“Popular struggle, like violent resistance, is not an end in and of itself; it is a method, a strategy. It is the end goal, decolonization and liberation from occupation and Zionist apartheid, that is ferociously opposed by the self-declared international guardians of the “peace process” and their friends in the Palestinian elite. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.”
“It is the end goal, decolonization and liberation from occupation and Zionist apartheid,”
If it were almost anyone else I might feel charitable, but is White talking about the “liberation” of existing Israel? Is that a euphemism, for something else?
If it were almost anyone else I might feel charitable, but is White talking about the “liberation” of existing Israel? Is that a euphemism, for something else?
And how does “decolonization” work an existing Israeli state, full of Israelis? Is he proposing to send them somewhere else?
I don’t know.
I suspect White doesn’t know either, my impression is that he writes half of this stuff without thinking it through. Perhaps I am being too charitable?
[Not sure that happened there with the funny characters, all fixed.]
This is a cross post from ModernityBlog. Comments have been disabled (please comment at ModernityBlog)
There is one sure way of spotting a Jew hater or a Jew baiter, they can’t resist returning to the subject, time after time.
For them their loathing of Jews is a constant, like a scab on their arm that they can’t resist picking.
It is an overpowering fixation, which they can’t stop expressing.
They might be able to hide it for a while, but rather inevitably these twisted obsessives will return to the object of their hatred, Jews. It is just a matter of time.
So I wasn’t surprised that one of the correspondents in today’s Guardian, who’s pushing Holocaust denial in the letters page has ‘form’.
Here’s the obnoxious letter from John Mortl:
”What kind of justice is it that proscribes the normally accepted right of the accused to challenge the assumption that a crime had, in fact, occurred? Normally the prosecution is obliged to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime of murder had taken place. This is not the case in the trial of Demjanjuk. The court will, without proof, arbitrarily accept that the crime took place. Being stripped of his most powerful defence, the accused is reduced to pleading mistaken identity or that he had nothing to do with an unproved murder.
John Mortl
London”
Another letter from Mortl in the Independent:
”Sir: I couldn’t believe the insensitivity displayed by Andrew Gumbel in his article about Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion (5 February). For him to refer to a passage in the Bible as “discredited” is an outrage and a direct attack on Christian beliefs. Would he dare to refer to a passage in the Koran or the Talmud as “discredited”?
JOHN MORTL
London NW6”
Again from the Observer:
” · For half a century, Israelis have viciously brutalised, tortured, assassinated and dispossessed the indigenous population of Palestine.
Periodically, when a new plateau of ruthlessness is reached and the world is shaken out of its numbed acceptance of the previous level then you can count on the anti-Semitic card being played to divert attention.
David Aaronovitch has made his contribution to the proliferation of such comment pieces. The same clichés, the same emotionally-charged innuendos and intimations surrounding the questionable notion of exclusive suffering and collective guilt.
John Mortl
London NW6”
And, finally another example:
“Regarding Robert Bernstein’s ”Lost in the Mideast” (Views, Oct. 21): There are those who should be criticized for their human rights failures and those who get a pass. Why the double standard? Mr. Bernstein suggests an answer: Some countries, like Israel, will eventually rectify their transgressions. How long should these preferred countries be given to rectify their misdeeds?
John Mortl, London”
Astute Readers will see the common theme, how the Jew hater and Jew baiter will exploit the conflict in the Middle East as a shield for their real views, which were revealed in Mortl’s first letter to the Guardian, his sympathy for Holocaust denial.
(H/T: Engage )
Update 1: The CST picks up the issue. Like them I found a IHR reference to “John Mortl”, I believe a resident of Canada around the late 1990s, but as I couldn’t confirm he was one and the same I didn’t comment. Still the name is unusual, Mortl and it might be the same person. Who knows?
Update 2: One of my readers, Jeremy, has much more on the Mortls. It is very good stuff, Conan Doyle would be proud of his sleuthing:
“jeremy Says:
December 3, 2009 9:13 pm at 9:13 pm e
In 1998 a Lynda Mortl of Toronto wrote a letter to the Toronto Sun defending Ernst Zundel. (Google results for her lead to hate sites, so I do not include the links, but to see them, Google “Lynda Mortl” and “Zundel”).) A Lynda Mortl of London in 2005 wrote a letter to the Times defending Israel Shamir (Google “This obsession with anti-Semitism” and “Mortl”).
Interestingly, the recently hacked email messages of David Irving include a message from someone named Lynda Mortl, whose email address is lynjohn35@hotmail.com. (Google the address to see.)
Her message: “Hi: Will you be speaking in New York City. someone I know would be interested if the timing is right. Let me know approximate date. Lynda”
An earlier (from 2002), and longer, message from her (and from the same email address) to Irving appears on his Web site (Google “Lynda Mortl has been investigating library censorship of websites”).
Interesting. What fools these Mortls appear to be…”
Update 3: It would seem that Lynda is the wife of a John Mortl, as indicated by a post on the Usenet group, alt.revisionism, where a John Mortl posts:
“… reminded me of my own experience in the winter of 1986-87 when my wife, Lynda, and I, along with another couple, decided to attend a night course on the Holocaust at a Toronto High School. …”
Update 4: Another Lynda Mortl has been found, in 2005, writing to the Times applauding that well known racist, Israel Shamir with the same postcode of John Mortl, see above, NW6. So I suppose they’ve moved to London and brought their racism to Kilburn. Letter editors beware!
The latest Benny Morris thread provided a veritable collection of comments that underscore just why “Comment is Free” is a cesspit of antisemitic discourse.
One of the last comments in the thread provides a perfect example of the type of commenter that is attracted to “Comment is Free”:
GregoryFegel
25 Nov 2009, 7:47PM
These forums are moderated and censored because you do not have true freedom of speech in the UK.
Questioning the Holocaust is a crime in the UK. What happened during the 1940s that the Zionist-dominated UK government is trying so hard to hide?
Orwell’s England exists today and you are living in it.
And when we take a look at a comment posted on Stormfront, ask yourself if Gregory Fegel’s comment above is so different in substance.
Italo-Anglo-Pole10-01-2008, 11:54 AMPretty long winded, but you bring up some good points.
One question I’ve always had with the Holocaust and the death camps is; Is it outside the realm of possibility to believe that a Zionist dominated government (the USSR) could have manipulated the facts, camps, etc. to make it appear as though there was a genocide to suit their political ambitions in the future? I’ve never heard any information as to what happened to the “extermination camps” after the Soviets controlled them for over four decades. Surely the Soviets could have toyed with the camps, if they wanted to. Also, Auschwitz was liberated in January ’45, a month before the Yalta Conference. Surely Zionists, like Morgenthau, would have cited the discovered gas chambers, crematoria, etc. as grounds to implement his extreme policy. As far as I know he never did, I’ve been trying to find the minutes of the Yalta Conference to confirm this. Anyone have any thoughts or other information?
Anyway, let’s delve into the Morris thread and see how the comments there compare to other comments posted on Stormfront.
Well for starters, from the school of Holocaust denial, we have denial of a slightly different form – denial that Ahmadinejad threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Here’s a comment on the Benny Morris thread that engages in such discourse:
UnderminingOrthodoxy
24 Nov 2009, 1:54PM
From the article
Iran’s nuclear weapons programme
As far as i know, there is no credible evidence that they have one.
isotope
Ahmadinejad called for Israel’s annihilation
Did he really? Citation? Translated from the original Parsi by whom?
Now take a look at a similar comment from Stormfront:
dogsplayingcards //
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Uncle Bob’s Self Storage, GA
Posts: 2,392
Re: No peaceful solution to Iran‘s nuclear ambitions
What Dr. Ahmadinejad said was not to wipe Israel off the map, but to erase the current Likud party and it’s insane policies.
The mistranslation has become the money shot for all the Jew mouthpieces.
Then we have this very telling comment from lovemymod that makes a bit of a freudian slip with a reference to Hitler’s plan to deport the Jews to Madagascar:
lovemymod
24 Nov 2009, 7:21AM
wouldn’t it be absolutely wonderful if after the war Jews had set up their homeland in Madagascar.
not only would Madagascar not have been reduced to an ecological wasterland but we wouldn’t be having a mano-a-mano with Armagedon. choosing to settle in Israel might end up being the worst decision in history.
Now compare this with a comment from Stormfront about the Madagascar plan.
|
Account Disabled
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 13
 |
 Hitler wanting to deport jews to madagascarAs we all know Adolf Hitler was a man of peace and he deeply felt for his fellow officer for all of you who have been reading their TRUE history books and not that crap at high school, I was wanting to get some feedback of how Hitler was wanting to deport the jews to madagascar and not murder them.
I have read meny books on WW2 and I am starting to think that most of the murders and so forth was the allies faults not the germans because Hitler did want peace the king of England wanted peace (the king also supported lord hallifax) So in a nut shell if England didnt interfere and the soviets were not backstabbers would of this whole mess happen?? |
And here’s an example of a comment from the Morris thread straight out of the Protocols:
WhatRecession
24 Nov 2009, 11:21AM
voiceofisrael
After we contain the nuclear problem (by ensuring that it doesn?t grow) we can get down to discussing how to reduce or even eliminate nuclear weapons in Britain, Russia, the US, France, China, India, and Pakistan, and possibly in Israel“We”?
“We” arent on the same side. The Israelis are just war mongerers hell bent on making sure that the West is at war with every middle east country.
Here’s an equivalent comment on Stormfront:
|
Re: Iran And Israel Exchange Threats Of Destruction If it wasn’t for Israel and Jews constantly provoking other peoples and taking aggressive actions.. there would be hardly any conflict in the world.Most groups in the world want to be left alone, and dont’ want to rule over other people. Countries like China, Iran, Russia, Korea etc.. seem to all be able to get along with each other. And this is despite being radically different cultures, races and religions.
|
The next comment from the Morris thread reflects the knee jerk manner in which the guardianistas whitewash Iran’s atrocious record when it comes to “attacking other countries” painting Israel at the same time as some fanatical regime.
controv1
24 Nov 2009, 9:30AM
I see the prozionist trolls are out in force this morning.
Fact, Iran has never attacked another country except in self defence against Iraq, the latter being supported by the West with money and arms.
Nuclear weapons are already in the hands of racist zealots i.e. those who run Israel. We should fear those nutters far far more than any Iranian Mullah. This article is scaremongering rubbish and Morris should be ashamed of spreading the propaganda. There are no nuclear weapons in Iran and the IAEA have only queries on historical Iranian research activities [based on Western allegations] that they want answers for. If you have additional evidence, other than the Zionist bull you read, please send it to the IAEA. To attack Iran would be folly.
Israel should be subject to the same oversight as Iran when it comes to nuclear weapons. Why should they be exempted?
And it seems that on Stormfront there is similar sympathy for the Iranian regime.
Pure Noble BloodLine //
“Friend of Stormfront“
Sustaining MemberJoin Date: Jan 2009
Location: Moving to Valhalla
Posts: 2,716
Re: No peaceful solution to Iran‘s nuclear ambitions
Quote:
Originally Posted by richyrichard What “nuclear ambitions”? Iran is a peace-loving country. Well they are developing nuclear technologies for civilian power plants. There is no evidence they are attempting to build nuclear bombs even though our government, the media, and Israel likes to try and paint that picture.
But as the poster said above, as the muslim in the video said, it is ridiculous to allow Israel, the war monger, an arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons and to claim no other nation is allowed them for defensive purposes in case of an Israeli attack.
Then we have this next comment from the Morris thread that provides another useful insight into how the guardianistas whitewash the truth about the Iranian regime.
twitty
24 Nov 2009, 3:49PM
Iran is among the world’s great nations, anciently Persia & long civilized. Muslim by religion they are not Arabs.
Israel, remember, is a newcomer among the nations, a tiny country & supposedly a refuge for the persecuted Jews..
True enough that Ahmadinejad talks a war-mongering bluster about destroying Israel entirely — fool that he is. Equally true that Israel treats Palestinians as Nazi Germany treated Jews.
Collectives as such never learn & Netanyahu, a scholar’s son, is not the man to lead Israel into a promised land of peace & prosperity.
Now compare twitty’s comment with this:
|
Re: No peaceful solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions I hope that this doesn’t sound “fruity” but we need to stand arm-in-arm with our brother Ahmadinejad in this crisis, right now! ZOG and ZOG’s flunky nations want to nuke his nation, just because it is standing up to ZOG. Every sane White on the planet would want Ahmadinejad to have nuclear weapons. Iran is literally the only thing keeping ZOG from taking over the whole world right now.
|
Then we have this comment from Sumwon who wants to “de-zionise” Israel.
SUMWON
24 Nov 2009, 8:41AM
Mr. Morris, you’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The threat to the region is zionist Israel, not Iran. Iran has not invaded any of its neighbours. Israel is the potential aggressor as it has proved by having attacked its neighbours and having stolen Palestinian land through the aggression of the zionist terrorist groups of Irgun and the Haganah. It is is now stealing more land by ethnic cleansing through the illegal settlements and home destruction. If Israel has nuclear weapons (what are they for?) then Iran has every right to take steps to defend itself from Israel, the USA and its Nato army. Ironically, it is Israel, run by a zionist regime, which is the real threat to the region by its aggressive actions and which is endangering innocent jewish lives in Israel. For peace to emerge, Israel has to be de-zionised so that jews and arabs can live peaceably together as the children of Abraham.
And in case you were wondering where Sumwon got the idea of “de-zionisation” from, check this out:
|
“Friend of Stormfront“
Sustaining Member Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the land where Zion has begun to flee
Posts: 14,833
 |
British Television Airs: Zionist Control of British Government 1940 – 2009 20Nov2009
Zionist Control of Britain’s Government: 1940-2009 by William A. Cook DateFriday, November 20, 2009 at 8:01AM AuthorGilad Atzmon  “After so many years of setting the tone, bribing UK politicians and controlling the BBC they (Zionists) are used to being untouchable.” (Gilad Atzmon, “Britain Must de-Zionist Itself Immediately,” Nov. 17, 2009, MWC News). This week the British people listened to the Daily Mall’s Peter Oborne present, on Channel 4, his devastating account of the Jewish lobby’s control of their government. Now we know that virtually all the principal politicians in the UK of both parties, like their brothers across the lake in our House and Senate, take “contributions” from the Israeli lobby machine ensuring that the Anglo-American mid-east policies follow the dictates of the Israeli government. Gilad Atzmon responded to this report in his article “Britain must de-Zionise itself immediately,” noting that this control has been in place for so many years the lobby feels “untouchable.” |
As an aside, notice how Stormfront has picked up the Oborne documentary with glee. I wonder why that is…
And how about this one.
yekdoseh
24 Nov 2009, 4:14PM
If you try that Mr Morris the Eastern Europeans masquerading as Jewish people currently occupying Palestine will not be doing so for very much longer.
Not so very different in substance from this:
The Mountain King//
Account Disabled
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 254
Re: Hourglass for Iran running out in Israel:Iran approaching it’s fate
The Jews are suicidal. Please let it be the end of Israel.
Then we have this viciously antisemitic comment on the Morris thread that sparked a whole series of comments about whether Jews of Eastern European origin are actually Khazars.
Hornstein
24 Nov 2009, 1:50PM
SUMWON wrote:
For peace to emerge, Israel has to be de-zionised so that jews and arabs can live peaceably together as the children of Abraham.
I agree with your post but with the sentence above which is factually incorrect. The Ashkenazem are Khazars from Eastern Europe who converted to Judaism in the 8th century. Genetically they have more in common with the Huns, Uigurs and Magyars than they have with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
This is the same Benny Morris when accepting Zionists ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians in 1948, which many Israeli so called historians do not, brushes it aside as a necessity for the creation of Israel. He has no qualms about the death of millions of people, as long as they are not Zionist Jews,
No surprise that this is a popular topic of discussion on Stormfront.
ravencall //
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 654
Re: IMPORTANT. Ashkenazis are not Jews but Khazars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by american SS Say what you will, but jews are jews. Ashkenazis are not infact semitic, semitic Jews are dark skinned and have Arab racial features, they’re called Shepardic and Mizharahi Jews. Ashkenazis are Khazaric-European admixture thus they share more genes with Mygars, Huns, Turks, Armenians and Europeans rather than with Arabs.
If you can’t grasp that concept, good luck shooting those shadows.
That is a mistake Hitler made, he confused a tiny number of religious orthodox jews going about their business with a homeless, religionless rabble race of halfbreeds from the Christian/Muslim borderland in SE Europe, who go around the world causing disruption under the judaism flag. The word should be Khazar, not Jew.
And lest you think that the selection of comments from the Morris thread above were mere aberrations, here are a few more to sink your teeth into:
TonyPancake
24 Nov 2009, 6:56AM
I should imagine Iran is as perfectly entitled to nuclear self-defence as is Israel, Pakistan, Britain, France etc..
I should imagine Iran is as perfectly unentitled to nuclear self-defence as is Israel, Pakistan, Britain, France etc…
Iran wants its nukes partly as a diversion from internal conflicts, and Israel wants its nukes because Israel is Israel is Israel.
All nations get away with mass murder – Iran, Israel, the UK, the US – people are always defending this nation against that nation – but all they’re defending is the ruling class of those nations. I’m against Israel’s right to exist, along with Iran’s, etc. Identification with your ‘own’ nation is just as colonising of individual consciousness as the Israeli fascist settlers are of the land of their Arab neighbours. “The working class has no country…” Unfortunately, if the commodity economy continues to destroy the environment and if nuclear weapons continue to be in the hands of the various rulers (‘democratic’ or dictatorial) who most clearly identify with this economy, then it might well be that the working class will also have no world. All analysis that doesn’t recognise this basic banality is a Manichean “either/or” mentality which takes sides with mass murderers.
hideandseeker
24 Nov 2009, 9:24AM
If Iran presents such an existential threat to Israel, maybe someone can explain how it is that Iran’s Jewish minority appear to prefer to remain in Iran rather than accept Israel’s offer to migrate there for sanctuary…
Janissary
24 Nov 2009, 9:39AM
dangor
“UK, one of the most aggressive, self-centered and genocidal political entity in human history”
That’s just stupid. Read a histroy book for christ sake.
I must assume you are Israeli since many Israelis like to fantasise that they are anti-colonial heroes who liberated their “country” from the British imperial yoke rather than being racist colonists.
maceasy
24 Nov 2009, 10:01AM
What a crock of warmongering, misleading, threatening, belligerent, stupid self-destructive rubbish. If anyone doubted Israel’s paranoic messianism, here it is. Another desperate attempt to up the ante and prepare the ground for more Israeli extreme violence and destruction. Dr Strangelove is alive and well and lives in Israel.
JJ139
24 Nov 2009, 12:51PM
I fear history will just the imposition of a zionist state in Palestine to be the greatest mistake of the 2nd half of the 20th century and beyond
Author unknown [recreated from 1830's 24 Nov. 2009 1.10pm comment]
An apartheid, land grabbing, terrorist sponsoring bunch of nutjobs who follow just as vicious and violent Abrahamic faith as Islam, Israel is just as bad as the Arab dictatorships is posits itself as an alternative too and were it not for international observation would have committed it’s own holocaust on the Palestinians a long time ago.
GregoryFegel
25 Nov 2009, 7:26PM
Israel, the USA, the UK are the great enemies of peace, freedom, and justice in the world today.
Israel, the USA, the UK are using radioactive DU munitions to poison the entire planet. Israel, the USA, the UK are a grave threat to all of humanity and to the global environment, and to all species on the entire planet.
The elimination of Israeli, USA, and UK as political and economic entities will bring a great improvement for the entire world.
Global Warming is a hoax, but Israel, the USA, the UK are a very real threat to all life on earth.
Amazing how commenters on “Comment is Free” find such fertile ground to spread their racist filth. Then again this is the Guardian and we already know the rot goes all the way to the top.
Adding parsnips to mashers is a welcome change.
By Aida Mollenkamp
Yes, mashed potatoes are one of the ultimate comfort foods, but even they can get a little tired. Here we mix sweet parsnips and earthy potatoes and fold them together with extra-virgin olive oil for a simple change that makes a world of flavor difference.
What to buy: We usually don’t call for extra-virgin olive oil, but with so few ingredients in this recipe, an assertive extra-virgin olive oil will really shine.
This recipe was featured as part of our Hosting Your First Passover menu.
TIME/SERVINGS
Total Time: 20 mins
Active Time: 20 mins
Makes: 4 to 6 servings
INGREDIENTS
2 pounds Yukon Gold potatoes, peeled and cut into large dice
1 1/2 pounds parsnips, peeled and cut into medium dice
3 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
1 tablespoon kosher salt
INSTRUCTIONS
- Place potatoes and parsnips in a large saucepan, cover with water, and bring to a boil over high heat. Lower heat and simmer until vegetables are fork tender, about 10 to 15 minutes.
- Remove from heat, reserve 1/4 cup of the cooking liquid, drain, and return vegetables to the saucepan. Add reserved cooking liquid, olive oil, and salt and coarsely mash ingredients together. Stir until evenly combined and serve.
See more recipes at: http://www.chow.com
Illustration by Christoph Niemann
Martin Bright over at the Jewish Chronicle has the latest on the news that anti-Israel biased moderator BellaM (a/k/a Bella Mackie) is actually Isabella Rusbridger, daughter of Guaridan editor, Alan Rusbridger, a scoop that CiF Watch broke last Friday.
According to Martin Bright,
I was subsequently contacted by a senior member of Guardian management who assured me that Ms Mackie was interviewed rigorously and won the job as a moderator three years ago because she was the best candidate. I was also told that it was an old story that Isabella Mackie worked at the Guardian (although perhaps not that she felt it appropriate to parade her partisan views as the anonymous BellaM).
Martin Bright also reports that the following is the official position of the Guardian in response to the JC’s report of our exposing Bella Mackie’s outrageous outpouring of hatred against Melanie Phillips in Two Minutes Hate: Melanie Phillips Bashing on the Ed Husain Thread:
“Staff at the Guardian are actively encouraged to engage with users and curate discussions in threads across the whole site, not only on Comment is Free. The well-understood convention is that staff posting in threads do so in a personal capacity and are permitted to express their own opinions; ‘below-the-line’ engagement in an opinion forum is a different role, and the expectation of impartiality that would apply to the regular work of reporters, editors and moderators does not necessarily pertain. When posting in threads, staff cannot be expected to be automatons sticking to leader lines in this informal context of online debate.
“However, they are expected to abide by the site-wide ‘talk policy’, as any user is; and over and above that, to be mindful that, as they are clearly identified in threads as ‘staff’, they should uphold a high standard of civility and avoid any behaviour that might bring the Guardian’s good name into disrepute.
“In this particular case, the staff member concerned was reminded of these guidelines; but no disciplinary action was judged appropriate or necessary.”
Just in case you’ve missed it (and that you’re here because of the Dispatches program) this is what Bella Mackie said on the Ed Husain thread:
BellaM
31 Oct 09, 9:53am
Staff I imagine she’s like that character in Little Britain who is violently sick every time she hears the words ‘black or gay.’ Except for Melanie, the word would be ‘Muslim.’
And since Jewish conspiracy theory is a bit of a hot topic ask yourself how mindful of the “talk policy” Brian Whitaker, commissioning editor of “Comment is Free”, was when he insinuated in a comment thread that pro-Israel posters are paid agents of the Israeli government fuelling Jewish conspiracy theory in the thread. Here’s an example of the kind of discourse that Whitaker encouraged:
illegalcombatant’s comment 17 Jul 09, 12:18pm
BrianWhit 17 Jul 09, 11:55am
Staff Israeli Foreign Ministry to Hire Shills for Internet Warfare Squad
Thanks for posting that Mr. Whit. There is also the GIYUS organisation that performs an identical role in spreading Jewish-Israeli-Zionist propaganda.
Their site offers the co-called Megaphone software that issues alerts which results in the faithful swarming to sites to spread the “truth” – much as we see regularly on the pages of CiF.
I suppose the name Megaphone says it all – any discourse is invariably very loud and one-way only.
Note that this same poster made the following blatantly antisemitic comment on the Debating the Holocaust Thread (which took 16 hours to be deleted) and whom the Guardian refuses to ban despite a track record of antisemitic comments as exposed in our Ban the Ant thread.
IllegalCombatAnt
20 Oct 09, 8:42pm
Why is it that we are not allowed to debate the Holocaust?
Why is it that academics who try to do so have their funding cut off or lose their tenures?
Who came up with the 6 million figure?
And IllegalCombatAnt is but one of many examples of commenters that the Guardian refuses to ban. Now if the Guardian tolerates and actively encourages pond life like IllegalCombatAnt then do you really think that it will take disciplinary action against the likes of Bella Mackie or Brian Whitaker?
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
Rachel Shabi Facebook friends update: The Guardian columnist is also friends with George Galloway
January 5, 2011 in Uncategorized | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Comment is Free, George Galloway, Guardian, Holocaust Denial, Israel Shamir, Rachel Shabi, Wikileak | by Adam Levick | 18 comments
Our post on Dec. 31 noted that Guardian columnist Rachel Shabi (an outspoken critic of Israel) is Facebook friends with a notorious anti-Semite (and Wikileak celebrity) by the name of Israel Shamir.
To recap our previous post, Shamir is an outspoken Holocaust denier, who has referred to Jews as “virus in human form,” and has claimed quite explicitly that Jews are indeed trying to take over the world.
Well, it turns out that Shabi’s Facebook friendship with Shamir is no fluke. We’ve learned, from a highly reliable source, that Shabi is also FB friends with the Hamas and Hezbollah-loving former MP, George Galloway.
But, that’s not all.
Shabi’s FB friend list also includes CiF columnist, and apologist for anti-Semitism, Ben White, and Moazzem Begg, the British Muslim (former inmate at Guantanamo and Amnesty International poster boy) who acknowledged attending al-Qaeda training camps and is a supporter of the Taliban.
Think about this. A Guardian columnist who writes about Israel is friends with virulent anti-Semites, an outspoken supporter of radical Islamist movements, and even one known former al Qaeda member.
Knowledge of the company Shabi keeps certainly places her gratuitous criticism of Israel in much better perspective.
Shabi’s comments in her Guardian piece on Jan. 23, 2009, The self-defence defence, speak volumes about the disdain she has for the nation the Guardian deems her fit to objectively cover:
Yes, “morally repugnant” is certainly one term that comes to mind when meditating upon the views, and friendships, of Rachel Shabi.
Share this:
Like this: