You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Matt Seaton’ tag.
Yesterday we reported that in the Nicholas Blincoe thread, a certain regular “below the line” commenter, William Bapthorpe, openly advocated the murder of Jewish citizens of the state of Israel with the following comment which I’m reproducing in full for the benefit of those that may have missed it:
As mentioned in our post yesterday (take note Matt!), this comment was deleted however upon review of William Bapthorpe’s posting history subsequent to the post above, Bapthorpe continued to post prolifically (approx. 80 posts since 6 Jan) indicating that no action was taken against Bapthorpe.
In response to a number of complaints made by CiF Watch readers, we learnt from “Comment is Free” editor, Matt Seaton, that
[r]egarding the post in the Blincoe thread which you respectively have complained about, let me assure you that – contrary to the impression Cif Watch chooses to give – the comment was deleted promptly by moderators, and as per our standard moderation protocol the user has been placed in quarantine as ‘untrusted’.
This is a guest post by Israelinurse
On last week’s Lerman thread, Guardian editor Matt Seaton demonstrates that for a man who has made a career out of working with words, he seems to be having remarkable difficulty understanding those in the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism.
He rather clearly demonstrates his personal beliefs in the following comment:
mattseaton
20 Nov 2009, 9:55AM
@ heatwave2022:
For David Cesarani & Co all those who criticize Israel are anti-Semites.
I have to defend David Cesarani from that characterisation. Yes, he took strong exception to this documentary, but to categorise him therefore as in the camp of the ‘new antisemitism’ that would make an equivalence between criticism of Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice is entirely wrong.
Staff So there we have it. Apparently there is a “camp of the ‘new antisemitism’ “, (note the scare quotes) about which Mr. Seaton seems pretty sceptical. One wonders if he has bothered to read the 2006 report of the British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism which clearly stated that anti-Zionism may become antisemitic when it embraces a view of Zionism as ‘a global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history’.
The same report states that traditional antisemitic motives of Jewish ‘conspiratorial power, manipulation and subversion’ are often transferred from Jews onto Zionism. The report notes that this is ‘at the core of the New Antisemitism’.
So let’s take a closer look at a few of the comments in a thread in which Matt Seaton was obviously personally active.
Ranong
20 Nov 2009, 10:54AM
How is it that the Israel lobby manages to ensure that the Minister for State for Israel ( sorry, I mean the Middle East) is always a senior member of Labour Friends of Israel?
The FCO was shocked by the appointment of Ivan Lewis MP after his genuinely appalling and callous comments on the carnage in Gaza.
No other foreign country (even our US bosses) has this sort of power.
Definitely some sort of conspiratorial thinking going on there. In fact that comment seems to fit the clause in the EUMC definition which cites “Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” as one definition of antisemitism, as indeed does the barely-veiled insinuation by edwardrice:
edwardrice
20 Nov 2009, 6:33PM
I’d like it if there were more documentaries on the lobby industry.
It would surprise me if some of them were not interconnected.
Oil, Coal, Pharma, IT, Weapons, Nuclear, GM, Private Security (mercenaries) …
A comment by sqibby77 not only implies conspiracy theories but also falls into the category of “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” as defined by the EUMC definition.
squibby77
20 Nov 2009, 3:09PM
It is utterly despicable that politicians allow themselves, their principles and their duty to their own country be bought in order to benefit a foreign power. British politicians should have the British public and their interests at the forefront of every decision they make.
As for the labelling of “antisemite” to anyone who opposes israels policies, i find it laughable. If going against the policies of a racist apartheid state makes me an antisemite, then so be it.
But hang on a second, what exactly does that word mean? semite refers to the people of semitic origin, namely the aramaic, arabic and hebrew people (from judea). It is common knowledge that the jews living within israel are not originally hebrew (from Judea), most are of eastern european origin (specifically ashkenazi khazarians) and have simply learnt hebrew. Learning Japanese doesnt make me a japanese person! The only people on this planet that are truly semitic are the arab speaking palestinians and hence the true antisemites are the hypocrites who like to shout it at every possible opportunity.
Unfortunately, these are by no means the only examples of equally dubious comments on that same thread which seem to have completely escaped Mr. Seaton’s attention, but I guess that if he does not accept that there is such a thing as new antisemitism in the first place, that’s hardly surprising.
The cynical employment of the dismissal of any attempts by Jews to counteract racist remarks against them by dismissing them as some sort of ‘cry wolf’ tactic is despicable in any circumstance. When it comes from the editor of a prominent British media outlet in the 21st century, British society has much food for very serious thought. I certainly cannot imagine any other minority group in the UK having its objections to bigotry used against it thrown back at in such a vile and malicious manner.
But such is the topsy-turvy world of Britain 2009.
CiF is obsessively anti-Israel, has hosted Palestinian supporters of suicide terror above the line and gives column inches to their supporters below it, as well as British Islamists, and has accrued its very own coterie of Theobald-Jews, all of whom purvey and perpetrate the image of Israel as the unique “evil” in the world.
From its inception CiF has insisted that discussion is freely allowed and that it is not biased against Israel. However, quickly it became evident that CiF states one agenda publicly whilst actively pursuing quite another. In the past month most of its articles have focused negatively on Israel alone and have been magnets for antisemitic comment below the line.
Editors of a blog should, in theory at least, leave the conduct of discussions to the commenters themselves, and should intervene only as a very last resort. True, it was to be expected, given the idiosyncratic nature of the moderation, that at least one CiF moderator would evidentially cast all semblance of neutrality to the winds, but was Bella Mackie solely to blame? She must have thought she could get away with it after CiF’s commissioning editor Brian Whitaker set a completely new precedent which drove a coach and horses through any pretence of CiF editor neutrality when he intimated that pro-Israel commenters of CiF were in the pay of the Israeli government. He must really be prone to believing conspiracy theories. After all, as commissioning editor, he likely commissioned and perhaps even encouraged Peter Oborne’s pre-emptive swipe at the “powerful” Israel lobby before the Dispatches programme made Oborne look foolish.
Whitaker’s inability to do the typing equivalent of buttoning his lip seems to have set rather a bizarre precedent on CiF. All the editors seem to have contracted CiF-Variant Foot in Mouth disease:
We get Georgina Henry trying valiantly to bail out CiF’s wished-for reputation for good taste with the equivalent of a sieve, by her frankly risible response to readers’ complaints about the “choir of ethical cretins” blooper on the Michael Lerner thread:
GeorginaHenry
21 Oct 2009, 12:34PM
Staff
Thanks to those of you who have raised the issue of Michael Lerner’s use of the phrase “choir of ethical cretins”. The intention was clearly not to offend in that he was using it in its colloquial sense, and in a general way. But I have asked the editor of the Guardian’s style guide (where the word is currently not mentioned) whether guidance should be included on its use. Since we’ve taken the point on board, perhaps the thread could now concentrate on debating the merits of his argument.
(Note, once again, the curious implacable and arrogant belief that, just because she tells us that calling people “ethical cretins” was “clearly” not intended to offend then we will not be offended and this can be brushed under the CiF carpet. She does not seem to apprehend that to call someone a cretin in a “colloquial” sense is as insulting as to call that person a cretin in any other sense! She knows that she has offended because she elaborates the excuse with a reference to the Guardian’s style guide, in the vain hope that this will really throw us off the scent).
Matt Seaton seems compelled to interfere on the threads, too! Here he is on his white charger defending the indefensible in the shape of Tony Lerman:
In his post below, Seaton sets out a rather confusing duality of roles - as a CiF editor “.. to try to exercise impartial and balanced judgment over our comment coverage…” (emphasis mine) and what he calls a “staffer joining a discussion below the line, where really we comment in a personal capacity…”
mattseaton’s comment 20 Nov 09, 12:59pm
@ pretzelberg:
20 Nov 2009, 12:31PM
Matt Seaton is a bigwig at CiF and appears to be supervising this thread. Nowt wrong with that.
But when he uses terms like “courageous” in reference to the article by Anshel Pfeffer, then I do have my doubts re. his impartiality.
There’s nothing wrong as such with praising the article – but doing so within said supervisory capacity is a bit dodgy IMO.
Bigwig here. Well, I don’t think I am here in a supervisory role, as you put it. This sounds terribly pompous (but then I am a bigwig, so I can’t help it), but I draw a distinction between my responsibility as Cif editor to try to exercise impartial and balanced judgment over our comment coverage and the role of a staffer joining a discussion below the line, where really we comment in a personal capacity. In short, different roles, different standards applied.
You’re welcome, of course, to disagree with my remarks here, but I’d like to be clear: if you do, it’s because you regard my comments as dodgy, not because it’s dodgy for me to have made them.
I called that Pfeffer article ‘courageous’ advisedly, and partly because I think it’s instructive to see that, given the flak Tony Lerman catches here in the UK, that Pfeffer can make comparable arguments in Israel itself. Of course, Pfeffer probably gets some stick too…
Seaton actually admits above to different roles and different standards applied, but I cannot trust any of the CiF editors to keep the boundaries between the roles. Whitaker has shown that he cannot, and Seaton gives no indication that he realises the difficulties such situations may present. By commenting at all he is pushing those boundaries.
And here Seaton is defending Tony Lerman again, this time in reply to SantaMoniker:
mattseaton’s comment 20 Nov 09, 1:12pm
@ SantaMoniker:
20 Nov 2009, 12:41PM
I’ve been reading up a bit about Mr. Lerman on that other site – you know the one – CW – and its appears that Mr. Lerman is using the Guardian as a way to continue his fight against his dismissal from the Institute of Jewish Policy Research. Hence his attack on Jonathan Boyd’s article in CiF: [... etc]
SantaMoniker, that’s old news… and, in this context, a fairly pathetic smear. I can tell you that Lerman who, as you may not have noticed, contributed an introduction to the pamphlet authored by Oborne and James that accompanied the programme and which was published by OpenDemocracy (here). So his article on this was proposed and accepted long before Jonathan Boyd’s, which we gladly took unsolicited. Lerman, of course, then — at our behest — took in the arguments of Cesarani and Boyd in his article. But you and that ‘other place’ have got it entirely upside and back to front, I’m afraid.
Imputing false motives to Lerman really is the last resort of those would rather avoid discussing the issues and answering his arguments.
(Of course Seaton would hardly tell us if SantaMoniker had been right, would he?)
And here he is again on the Lerman thread in reply to TomWonacott:
mattseaton
20 Nov 2009, 2:22PM
@ TomWonacott:
20 Nov 2009, 1:35PM
The goal of the “documentary” on the Jewish lobby in Britain was simple.
To be fair, the documentary carefully observed the distinction between, on the one hand, the British Jewish community with its many strands of opinion and, on the other, the British ‘Israel lobby’. We here prefer to qualify the latter phrase by calling it the ‘pro-Israel lobby’ (as it is a lobby for Israel, not of it). But in any case, the programme specifically avoided calling the object of its scrutiny a ‘Jewish lobby’.
It’s not just pernicketiness. To say, as you do, that –
The documentary perpetuates myths about Jewish power and influence
is a reasonable contention, and very much at the heart of the discussion on all these threads. But to claim the programme’s declared subject was a ‘Jewish lobby’ is, in effect, to label it as an antisemitic project from the outset.
The glaringly obvious difficulty with this from Seaton, (and he doesn’t make clear whether he is wearing his CiF Editor’s hat or he is commenting as a staffer below the line) is that he is either very ignorant or is obviously trying to pull a fast one. That the article did not distinguish sufficiently clearly between the “Jewish” lobby and the “Israel” lobby is crystallised by the ease of the conflation of the two in the the following post, which is still on line. I would wager that the poster Raskalnikov was not the only one who was easily “confused.” Note the reference to the “Jewish lobby”:
Raskalnikov
20 Nov 2009, 9:31AM
I can understand al the fuss and bluster relating to being ‘found out’. No one likes the stones to be turner over because of what might crawl out. But to raise the cry of ‘Anti-semitism’, is ridiculous. I have watched programmes and read about the work of lobbies in the political process and not felt in any way that it was all a matter of distrortion and conspiracy on the part of the people presenting/writing on the subject.
I watched the Channel 4 programme about the work of the Jewish Lobby in British politics and felt ashamed of our politicians in the manner in which they seemed to be btowbeaten and seduced by cash into support for the state of Isreal’s policies. Something like this needed to be exposed, particularly in the present climate of revulsion against the Britsh political process, so that it can be eliminated. Where is the democratic process in all this miasma of expenses, paid advocacy and the ‘public interest’?
I would challenge anyone to accuse me of anti-semitism I am most certainly not. What I would say though is I do not agree with the policies pursued by the state of Israel and I would like our political elite to take into consideration the views of it’s own electorate on this subject and not cave in to threats, bluster and cash in relation to the interests of another country.
Let me repeat, I am not and never will be anti-semitic, but I do object to our political process being used in the interests of another country.
Irrespective of this last failed attempt by Seaton, what do these few examples of many where CiF Editors interfere below the line, tell us about CiF’s impartiality, or rather the lack of it? Elsewhere on this blog, I wrote about the ways in which I believe that CiF infringes the Code of Conduct of the NUJ (and that I assumed that all the editors are members).
There is not, as yet, an equivalent Code of Conduct for blog editors but when and if one is written, I hope that included in it is strong emphasis on the necessity for blog editors to retain impartiality and neutrality when they themselves comment on the articles they commission. Part of this neutrality and impartiality must necessarily comprise leaving thread authors to fend for themselves rather than rushing in to defend them from real or imagined insult.
Take a look at what Matt Seaton, editor of “Comment is Free”, wrote in the Boyd thread earlier this week.
mattseaton
18 Nov 2009, 6:52PM
@ Ranong:
Why is the writer of this piece given the opportunity to traduce the programme -makers in The Guardian so soon after another anti (but polite) article by another writer?
I don’t accept that the programme-makers are traduced by Boyd. That would imply a wilful misrepresentation, whereas I don’t doubt that Boyd sincerely believes they made a bad and borderline antisemitic programme. No one is obliged to accept his POV on that.
The fact is that Oborne and James were given the first word in the Comment pages (reproduced online here, of course). Further, there will be a response to Cesarani and Boyd here before the end of the week. We are naturally wary of publishing too much on the topic, but we do aim to give a fair balance of views overall. So please look at our comment coverage in the round.
Let me first take issue with this: “Oborne and James were given the first word in the Comment pages (reproduced online here, of course).”
Yes where else! Don’t you feel just proud of yourself to have republished the writings of Oborne and James that reeked of Jewish conspiracy theory. Moreover, you published the Oborne and James piece prior to the airing of the Channel 4 documentary that no doubt gave it a huge boost in terms of viewership and you primed the prejudices of those susceptible who watched the program. Good job Matt.
You then go on to say that you are “[n]aturally wary of publishing too much”.
What utter BS. You published four articles during the week that generated over 1,500 comments in the aggregate (and the comments are still coming in at the time of writing). The amount of antisemitic discourse in each of these threads was simply astonishing. And you’re wary. You’re not wary of anything. You’ll publish anything that will get guardianistas riled up against the Jews and boost the Guardian’s much needed click thru rate.
And you then claim that you “aim to give a fair balance of views overall”. More BS. What utter audacity.
Lets take a look at your comment coverage on Israel in CiF Middle East during the month prior to the Oborne report (Nov 16, 2009 – Oct 16, 2009):
13 Nov 2009 – Antony Lerman “The Community Leadership We Deserve” (anti-Israel)
13 Nov 2009 – Charles Grant “Israel’s Dark View of the World” (anti-Israel)
12 Nov 2009 – Ben White “Fragmenting Palestinian Land” (anti-Israel)
11 Nov 2009 – Seth Freedman “Erdogan’s blind faith in Muslims” (anti-Israel)
9 Nov 2009 – Hussein Ibish “Abbas’ Mixed Messages” (pro-Palestinian)
2 Nov 2009 – Hussein Ibish “Palestinians Must Prepare for Statehood” (pro-Palestinian)
1 Nov 2009 – Richard Silverstein “Obama Must Try Harder” (anti-Israel)
1 Nov 2009 – Jeremy Sharon “Writing Jews Out of Jerusalem’s History” (pro-Israel)
30 Oct 2009 – Seth Freedman “The Far Right That Killed Rabin” (anti-Israel)
29 Oct 2009 – Seth Freedman “Israeli Military Gives Settlers Free Rein” (anti-Israel)
28 Oct 2009 – Michelle Goldberg “Driving Up J-Street” (anti-Israel)
28 Oct 2009 – Ahmed Khalidi “The Palestinian Authority’s State’s First Mistake” (anti-Israel)
26 Oct 2009 – Editorial “Roadmap or Roadblock?” (anti-Israel)
26 Oct 2009 – Isi Leibler “J Street’s ‘Pro-Israel’ Stance is Phoney” (pro-Israel)
22 Oct 2009 – Simon Tisdall “Israel is in Denial Over Turkish Rage” (anti-Israel)
22 Oct 2009 – Antony Lerman “The Liberal Jewish Challenge” (anti-Israel)
21 Oct 2009 – Seth Freedman “Palestinians Send Blair a Wake Up Call” (anti-Israel)
21 Oct 2009 – Richard Goldstone “Israel’s Missed Opportunity” (anti-Israel)
21 Oct 2009 – Michael Lerner “A War Crime Whitewash” (anti-Israel)
20 Oct 2009 – Seth Freedman “Filling Up Israel’s Jails to No Avail” (anti-Israel)
20 Oct 2009 – Harold Evans “A Moral Atrocity” (pro-Israel)
18 Oct 2009 – Olivia Hampton “Reviving Hope for Middle East Peace (neutral)
Out of 22 articles there are a mere 3 pro-Israel articles and about half of the 22 articles were penned by the Guardian’s coterie of Theobald Jews.
Very fair. Very balanced.
The CST has done a great job at deconstructing the Oborne piece published on CiF yesterday. Our focus here will be on the accompanying comment thread which comes fresh off the heels of the Channel 4 comment thread promoting the Oborne Dispatches program that was replete with antisemitic comments. Commenting on the Channel 4 thread, the CST stated,
“we do have concerns, based on the language used by Channel 4 to promote the programme on their website, and the comments that have been posted there by members of the public, that the programme may unwittingly play up to antisemitic stereotypes, and thereby excite and encourage antisemites to think that their views have been validated by a mainstream broadcaster. These concerns have only been strengthened by today’s Guardian opinion piece, written by Oborne and Dispatches journalist James Jones.”
Knowing the types that frequent CiF, it should come as no surprise that the CiF Oborne thread generated large numbers of antisemitic comments so much so that shortly after the thread opened, Matt Seaton, editor of “Comment is Free”, was forced to intervene with this:
mattseaton
16 Nov 2009, 9:33AM
Because this is such a sensitive and potentially inflammatory topic, I would like to take this early opportunity to remind users to abide by our talk policy. In this context, that requires people to make the distinctions Oborne and James do in their article ? for example:
It is important to say what we did not find. There is no conspiracy, and nothing resembling a conspiracy.
Thus commenters who use this thread as an opportunity to apply antisemitic tropes to an otherwise legitimate discussion of influence and transparency are liable to find their posts deleted by moderators.
I, for one, will be following this thread with interest. But I won’t hesitate to r’eport abuse’ if I see it.
Now besides the fact that this is a massive admission that the Guardian has a problem with antismitism on its threads (otherwise why would such a comment be necessary?), consider this: Matt Seaton, a fairly senior Guardian staff member thinks that just because Oborne and James attempt to insulate themselves from accusations of antisemitism by stating that what they write has nothing to do with a conspiracy, that this is automatically so despite the fact that their report is rife with conspiracy theory. Did Seaton actually read Oborne and Jame’s third rate Walt and Mearsheimer wannabe rubbish? Or does he have a massive blindspot when it comes to antisemitism?
And Matt Seaton digs himself a deeper hole with this:
mattseaton
16 Nov 2009, 9:46AM
WhatRecession:
theres a fine line between abuse and legitimate points of debate though. Seems to me you should only be reporting any openly anti-semitic remarks rather than ones you might think allude to such attitudes.
Of course, and it’s always a judgment call ? exercised by our moderators. But people who look as though they are deliberately testing the limits may find that the call goes against them.
Judgment call. Interesting. If it comes down to that, I’m not sure I trust the “judgment” of the Guardian moderators given the “judgment” that a certain daughter of a certain someone displayed recently.
Anyway, lets take a look “below the line” to see a selection of the comments posted:
First off we have some conspiracy theory mixed in with apartheid analogies to get us warmed up.
WhatRecession
- 16 Nov 2009, 9:16AM
- I read about this in Peston’s book Who Runs Britain? Lord Levy used to be Blair’s main fundraiser and also one of the main fundraisers for Jewish charities in the UK.
- I’d always hoped that this lobbying culture was an American phenomenon and that we had more integrity in the UK. Sadly little by little this hope has been eroded.
- This is just more evidence that history will judge us to be the bad guys being in cahoots with an apartheid state amongst other shameful things.
Then LaRit, one of the vilest of CiF’s “protected”, gets in an early comment that sounds like she’s overdosed on Naomi Klein
LaRitournelle
16 Nov 2009, 9:26AM
La Rit
What we really need really to have is an open debate and discuss Israel in terms of its real ‘value’ to the West – that of a strategic military outpost in the ME.
Whilst it remains so, the prominence of the CFI and LFI will remain a powerful feature of British Parliamentary life on both sides of the House.
Let’s be under no illusions here – Brand Israel needs to keep its representatives to the fore as much as any other Corporate organisation and unfortunately, this valued customer for military supplies and British-made WMD needs to be kept sweet and therefore, any open debate about the grotesque continuation of the Occupation or Invasion of Gaza will be supressed and played down in order to keep the customer happy and digging deep into its pockets.
Money talks, as always.
And here’s a familiar trope on CiF that has echoes of the blood libel, a comment which was posted on three separate occasions in the same thread by Sorcey.
- 16 Nov 2009, 9:28AM
- meet3456:
- …cant find any rabbis who will stand at the pulp[it and call for the killing of infidels…
- Oh, I don’t know, the Chief Rabbi of the UK did a pretty good job in January saying that Israel killing children is justified.
Then there’s this “Israel is evil” comment from RoHa2:
RoHa2
16 Nov 2009, 11:32AM
The pro-Israel lobby, in common with other lobbies, has every right to operate and indeed to flourish in Britain.
No it does not.
Israel is evil in conception, evil in creation, and evil in conduct.
There is no right to support evil.
And my my I wonder what chingwu and corrocamino are hinting at here.
- 16 Nov 2009, 11:41AM
- Nerdy boris
- be very afraid, do you know how difficult it is to eavesdrop on their secret meetings with all that click clack click clack of the knitting needles going?
- Even sophisticated listening equipment can’t block that sound out, so their sneaky meetings go unrecorded!
- good tactic, and if they really have nothing to hide then why make all that noise to cover up the sound of their ‘so called innocent’ conversations?
- eh?
eh? eh?
corrocamino
16 Nov 2009, 12:34PM
Something is happening behind a closed door, comment by comment.
And then there is the ever popular sandlout, Shlomo Sands, peddling the lie that the Jews are not a nation.
- 16 Nov 2009, 12:12PM
- On radio 4 program Start the Week last week the historian Shlomo Sand raised a very controversial topic that questions the entire premise on which Israel is based . That is the diaspora and the right of return to the motherland. He says there is not any evidence that the Jews were exiled , instead they were converted in the lands they and their ancestors grew up in and never had any ties to the Holy Land. Of course Sand was met with a furious backlash, not questioning the evidence, but personal attacks.
- Here is an interview in the Israeli paper Haaretz :
- Shattering a ‘national mythology’
- According to Sand, the description of the Jews as a wandering and self-isolating nation of exiles, “who wandered across seas and continents, reached the ends of the earth and finally, with the advent of Zionism, made a U-turn and returned en masse to their orphaned homeland,” is nothing but “national mythology.” Like other national movements in Europe, which sought out a splendid Golden Age, through which they invented a heroic past – for example, classical Greece or the Teutonic tribes – to prove they have existed since the beginnings of history, “so, too, the first buds of Jewish nationalism blossomed in the direction of the strong light that has its source in the mythical Kingdom of David.”
- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html
And here’s xxxxx posting a link to a virulently antisemitic site.
- 16 Nov 2009, 12:28PM
http://islamozionism.blogspot.com/
And here’s one from the Brian Whitaker school of conspiracy theory:
16 Nov 2009, 12:55PM
SantaMoniker
Comments like these make me seriously suspect the sanity of some of those commenting on these threadfs. What alternative universe do they inhabit?yes but this comment is in itself paranoid if you look at it that way!
The Israeli government is known to use people to defend particular points of view on blogs and sites like CiF. Its not some dirty secret. All political parties do it these days. Media warfare I believe its called.
Then we have london38 obsessing about the Zionists oops I mean the Jews.
16 Nov 2009, 12:57PM
Amusing that someone should say the Zionist experiment is now fact and that anyone with a contrary view should get over it. Presumably Zionists would proudly state that the idea of a Zionist state had to exist in the minds of generations so that it could finally become fact. Surely they should realise how important for people with a contrary view it is that such a view remains present in the public conscious. Given Israel’s current military hegemony, isn’t it this battle which the lobbyists are engaged in (so successfully in the case of the Jewish lobby)?
And what would a CiF thread be without an accusation that Israel is racist.
Ranong
16 Nov 2009, 1:17PM
i am amused by the comments about Israel tourism. Some people aren’t exactly “up to date” with the regulations.
Try entering Israel with a Muslim name; or if you have family in Palestine; or if you have friends in Palestine; or if you admit you are going to the “other side” of the annexation wall. You won’t be allowed back into Tel Aviv airport.
Try leaving without hassle if you buy a keffiah, a picture of Al Aqsa or a Palestinian souvenir.
Perhaps many of those “tourists” are on their way to Bil’in to help with the campaign for human rights and justice.
And here is xxxxx trying to distinguish between Zionists and Jews, never mind that he invokes familiar antisemitic tropes in doing so.
16 Nov 2009, 1:18PM
Yet another variation on “..the Jews have unlimited power and are plotting……”
no its not. there is a significant difference between being jewish and being a zionist. one could argue that the israeli lobby is in fact a zionist ideologically led lobby and its patronage would suggest that it is so since zionism does not exclude anyone of any faith or of no faith – what matters is the ideology , power and greed.
And then there is london38 who slipped up mentioning “Jewish occupation” instead of “Zionist”. I guess its all this conspiracy theory talk that gets london38 confused.
london38
16 Nov 2009, 3:32PM
“Israel exists primarily because of what was done to Jewish innocents in the Pale of Settlement over a long period of time.”
Why should that matter to the people who’s land they occupy?
“Palestinians sit within closed borders partly at the behest of their Arab neighbour states.”
The biggest lie of all (and a particular favourite of Melanie Philipps). Why should it be up to Palestine’s Arab neighbours to clean up the mess made by Jewish occupation?
Then we have Papalagi in true form posting a comment which echoes the Protocols.
Papalagi
16 Nov 2009, 2:42PM
If this were the case of a lobby in favour of poor children in India nobody would care about the matter.
We understand the needs of poor people. But the question is that people who are minimally informed, who read the newspapers, books, watch news, normally have more and more reasons to question Israel’s politics towards the Palestinians. Only people who are willing to delude themselves actively still support this politics. We know that it’s unjust to a very high degree. We know that the situation of the Palestinians is scandalous.
So, the people who support this politics (calling it abusively “Pro-Israel”) are effectively supporting a lot of human rights abuses, crimes against international right and sheer brutality and violence. They are effectively agains peace and pro-war. If they acted normally, Israel would have been submited to a boycott and embargo like Serbia, like Indonesia because of East Timor and so on. But this doesn’t happen and the amount of support for this oppressive politics is astonishing. This lobby is not a lobby in favour of poor children and that’s the difference.
Exactly because their cause has less and less respectability (and I repeat that this is not a pro-Israel lobby, but a pro-war, pro-occupation, pro-oppression, anti-humanity and so on, ), they have to act in ways that would be unconceivable in the case of a lobby for humanitarian causes. And this is the case. They are only effective when their influence is out of proportion (this is the case considering that Israel is a tiny, unimporant, country). They have to count with a torrence of propaganda. Their arguments are outlandish, and some times get out of control. Their style is agressive and irrational.
Of course the whole result of this is grotesk and pathetic. It’s really a bit sad to see a large group of men and women acting systematically against justice, against commmon sense and I ask if this is also not acting against decence). They are effectively justifying violence, prolonging a conflict in which we have no interest, acting against human interests. That’s the reason why people question the cause of this lobby and the results that they achieve.
And here is another comment echoing the Protocols.
yorkandy
16 Nov 2009, 5:20PM
you should be covering the many other “friends of israel” branches………this would, of course, refute your opinion that there is no israel cabal operating in UK/Europe……
And here’s a CiF all time top ten - invoking the Livingstone Formulation.
doobydo
16 Nov 2009, 6:03PM
This will indeed make intersting viewing, make no mistake Channel4 will be hit with a million accusations of Anti Semitism from the well trained and funded Hasbarah crowd.
And finally here is Godseye accusing Israel of being a nation of blood lust.
Godseye
16 Nov 2009, 7:19PM
Taking money from lobbyist is a form of corruption all MPs who are funded in any way by a firm or in this case a national interest should be charged with corruption and treason if it conflicts with the British national interest. This behavior is rife in America and Europe and should end immediately. One cannot serve two masters and in this day and age mammon appears to be the master.
The worst aspect of the expenses scandal was petty theft. Yet allowing another nation or their agents to influence policy via ‘allowed bribes’ is worse by far. I can understand firms or other interest groups wanting to make their particular point and maybe influence through rational discourse but to give decision makers financial or any other form of gratuity is bribery. We should pay our representatives well enough to be able to manage their affairs without resorting to any corrupt means of extending their income. That is why judges are paid so well.
All Israel has to do to make itself better received is to act more humanely at the moment it is a nation in a state of blood lust that never seems to be sated. Save money Israel and try to be more neighborly. There has to be something wrong with the character of a nation when it is so disliked and feared by its neighbors. when we appoint MPs they are there to represent their constituents yet as time has proved during the tenure of this and previous governments the true voice of the people has been routinely ignored, they even ignore sound advice from reputable scientific sources. Let us begin to bring some honor back into the public arena and have people with true integrity in the seats of government.
And remember whatever you do don’t criticize the Guardian because you know what happens….
Liraz
16 Nov 2009, 1:12PM
Lobbying political parties and governments is what citizens of free democracies do. All parties have their financial backers.
I’m sorry that you have reported this story as if some kind of sinister plutocratic conspiracy is at work, and, indeed, as if supporting the State of Israel is somehow verboten, or should be.
I used to respect the Guardian as a bastion of liberalism, tolerance, and fairness, but lately you appear to be sailing close to the wind – nay, the stench – of anti-semitism.
Let me end though with my favorite comment of all in the thread from Matt Seaton which speaks volumes about the parallel universe of the Guardian:
mattseaton
16 Nov 2009, 7:03PM
I’m sorry I haven’t been around as much as I’d have liked today in this thread. But I’ll be back tomorrow and in the meantime just wanted to thank users for (mostly) staying within the bounds of civility and on topic in a very sensitive area. I guess those of who can will be watching the Dispatches programme and be back for further discussion.
We will also be running some responses to the Oborne/James article, and the programme and issues raised more generally.
And this is civil discourse…
Update
Here are a selection of comments from the thread today:
17 Nov 2009, 9:25AM
ackclothandsashes:
You will have probably garnered from my comments yesterday that I deeply detest ALL forms of lobbying of our so-called elected representatives and yes, that includes Saudi Arabian Oil royal oil cartels and the slush funds to wine and dine billionaires provided by the British tax-payer. This is no different.
Having watched the programme last night it merely confirmed what I already know and have had experience of. That the pro-Israel machine is deeply entrenched within the corridors of power of this country and that the bottom line is that it is as pernicious and motivated by money and greed as much as that of the Saudis. Saudi Arabia seems to enjoy a similar protected status that Israel pressure groups and lobbyists have worked hard to ensure in the past 20-odd years.
I’ve said before and I’ll say it again and again, it’s all about money and power and economic and military strategy. The lobby is pushing a far-right agenda linked to big-business. Now with the deification of Kaminski, I’m wondering how long before Nick Griffin’s anti-semitic hatreds will all too soon be forgotten?
Mark my words – there is already growing evidence that the anti-semitism of the BNP is already being played down for the sake of promoting a neo-conservative agenda – because the common cause is the perpetuation of the political Islamaphobic agenda, oil and more wars.
La Rit
PeaceCampaign 17 Nov 2009, 10:05AMI would like to congratulate all at involved at C4 and Peter Oborne for the dispatches programme.
Anyone who knows about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict of recent years knows that criticism of Israel or even balanced reporting of an incident in which Israel ‘look bad’ is seized upon by the Israeli lobby and those who dared to report the truth are silenced.
This manner of silencing any criticism of the way Israel behaves only prolongs the conflict as the Israeli state becomes even bolder in the manner in which they treat the Palestinians and in their disregard for the International community.
I sincerely hope Mr Oborne and his family can look back on this documentary proudly in years to come as having taken a brave stance to work for a more peaceful world at a time when too many other journalists and programme makers are looking the other way when injustice takes place.
Might is not right and until more people in positions of influence are brave enough to take on the Israeli lobby, the situation in the middle east will sadly not improve.
If history looks upon this period as one when the media were shamefully complicit in prolonging this conflict by reporting a false balance to placate the Israeli lobby, people like Mr Oborne will shine like a beacon of truth.
17 Nov 2009, 12:29PMOborne’s investigation didn’t touch on half the story.
The programme didn’t mention the role of the Israeli lobby in pushing for the Iraq war. Or how the extraordinary enthusiasm of Conservative MPs for the Iraq war (only 12 voting against) mirrored their over 80% membership of Conservative Friends of Israel. Or the fraudulent intelligence about Iraqi WMD provided by Sharon’s own office. Why this country invaded another a continent away which was no possible threat to us – but which did fund Palestinian resistance to Israel.
Elhaam 17 Nov 2009, 1:52PMtuttinski
I am really concerned about is that most commentators do not seem to be at all concerned with the revelation of just how corrupt our political system seems to be.
Corrupt politicians have always been admired and supported by the majority of their voters for their unique ruthlessness, corruptions and ?cleverness?! As long as these corrupt and criminal individuals can create endless wars where the real money and oil is, sell weapons, get billions in freebies & lousy contracts, bomb the hell out of the weak, bring money and create jobs across the globe for their own population 1000s of miles away, who gives a hoot how they do it or how many millions suffer endlessly along the way? Corruption and deceit is in their DNA; as we can see, their off springs have continued with their great ?charitable? work? totally unavoidable and beyond their control.
hanwoori 17 Nov 2009, 2:36PMSomeone mentioned Israel and democracy in the same sentence, clearly a joke…..
The Zionists have no interest whatsoever in a 2 state solution, they have a long term plan to slowly rid themselves of all Palestinians from the occupied territory and more, the building of settlements is a key part of this plan… The world just sits back and does nothing……..
trueman 17 Nov 2009, 3:37PMDoes this all sound a bit familiar?
South Africa had a powerful lobby in the days of apartheid. In just one example, Peter Hain, a holder of various high offices in our own UK government was anti-apartheid campaigner in the 1970s. He was successively subjected to a private prosecution by well-connected rich people, a criminal prosecution, a letter bomb attack and a framed bank robbery (both almost cerrtainly by BOSS – the SA equivalent of the murderous Mossad). This is not to mention the support of politicians and the media for the regime over decades.
Yet now the apartheid regime is gone and the colonial experiment is over.
It will be the same in Palestine. The colonists will still be able to live in Palestine, but they will have to share the land, water, roads and justice system.
This is tough for the Zionists to accept, but it is probably a more attractive future for everyone than the gangster state that exists now and the poison that it brings to the UK, the USA and the Middle East.
I think we will see increasingly desperate attempts to hijack the UK and US political and media systems.awkassim 17 Nov 2009, 4:08PMThanks to Channel 4 & Peter Oborne for exposing the pro-Israeli lobby which has hijacked British politics and media for so long.
Spatial 17 Nov 2009, 4:25PMmainstream media in the west is so subservient to the pro-Israel group(s) that you can conclude that some countries -like UK, Canada and Australia- are MORE pro-Israel than the US
TRUTHBETOLDTOALL 17 Nov 2009, 4:38PM@Epidermoid
Where once serious study would have to be made of difficult subjects now anyone can voice their opinion however ludicrous it might be. There are some here that believe Israel to be monstrous in its creation and behaviour who hold to such base sentiments because what they learn is learned from those who are war with Israel and wish to paint it so.
I hardly think a doctoral thesis is necessary to comment on CIF. It does not take a great mind to observe an action and form an opinion. No amount of wordplay can alter facts.
It is a fact that the Israeli military(Army/Airforce) kill Palestinian children.
It is a fact that Israel has used battlefield munitions in densley populated urban areas.
It is a fact that Israel practises extra-judicial assasinations
It is a fact that Israel collectively punishes the Palestinians by destroyting their homes and blockading the Gaza Strip.
It is a fact that British government wilfuly ingnores Israel’s war crimes and colludes with the IDF by supplying them with military hardware.
These facts are the main sources of the resentment felt towards Israel and the consequential rise in anti-semitism.It matters not who you learn a fact from so long as it remains a fact. Any objective mind can easily separate factual events from manufactured propaganda
I agree that as passions are inflamed by the subject matter, facts can be skewed to fit a particular narrative.kenth 17 Nov 2009, 4:43PMOkay we’ve got the offending paragraph of my post. I said:
<Nor did it mention the conspiracy (yes, conspiracy) to pervert the course of justice by allowing Israeli General Almog to escape an issued UK arrest warrant for war crimes.>
Tipping of Almog that there is a warrent for his arrest is a clear perversion of the course of justice by some unknown individual. And a conspiracy to enable his fleeing the country. You have no grounds to object to that.
CDale 17 Nov 2009, 4:43PMThe rise in anti-Semitism in the UK is due solely to the misplaced attitude of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and BICOM British Israel Communications, who have unwisely allied themselves, (and with them, the whole of British Jewry), to the brutality of the Israeli army.
The problem being that those aforementioned organizations do not represent the majority Jewish opinion, much of which is horrified at the deliberate killings of hundreds of children and civilians, in Gaza.
That the offspring of Holocaust survivors in Israel could act in this way is almost impossible to believe and a sickening indictment on religious fundamentalism and ignorance.
This is compounded by much of the opinion here, of persons who have no military experience or who have been no further than their local airport for a week in Eilat.
17 Nov 2009, 5:08PM
Oborne seems to think,according to another of his brilliant TV shows last year, that Muslims are being treated like Jews were in Germany in the 30s, a superb comparison we will all agree. As for CDale, thank you for reminding us that anti-Semitism always everywhere is the Jews’ fault, everyone else is just being reasonable. Tolstoy, not known to be a Jew, had some very relevant comments on this. Try reading him when you become sentient and literate.
A little while ago I emailed the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and asked whether their Code of Conduct (reproduced in part below) applied equally to the editors responsible for and authors of threads on blogs. I did so after a succession of CiF articles which inspired some of the most antisemitic and hate-filled below-the-line responses I have ever seen on CiF. I have had no reply from the NUJ.
During my search for information, I also found out that the NUJ is quite a secretive organisation, in that one has to be a member of it in order to find out which other journalists are members. Not being so privileged, of course, I could not find out whether Georgina Henry, Brian Whitaker or Matt Seaton are members either.
When I got to the NUJ’s web page I found its Code of Conduct, part of which I reproduce below.
It is highly likely that the NUJ did not think up and publish its Code of Conduct merely because it wanted to look nice, and that there exists some mechanism within its framework to reprimand or at least call to order journalists who bring their Union into disrepute. The web page tells us that the NUJ has an Ethics Council but, like its list of members, one can find out who sits on this Ethics Council only if one is a member of the NUJ.
It is also highly likely that Georgina Henry, Brian Whitaker and Matt Seaton are all members of the NUJ. In order to join they would have had to do exactly what the preamble to the Code of Conduct says and signed that they would “strive to adhere to it.” Even if they are not NUJ members, the Code should, in theory at least, be a standard to which they should all aspire.
However (assuming that they are paid up members of the NUJ) one would be right to question whether Henry, Whitaker and Seaton have “striven” particularly hard or even at all. CiF Watch has documented on many occasions the depths to which Henry and her team have sunk in their hatred of Israel and their permitting anti-Jewish racism to remain beneath CiF articles. Pro-Israel authors have been viciously attacked and, as is usual for CiF, posts in support of them have often been deleted whilst the crude and insulting comments from Israel/Jew-haters is allowed to remain for all to see.
A closer examination of some of the relevant points of the NUJ’s Code of Conduct is therefore called for, and it will be seen that these are more often honoured in the breach than in the observance as regards the Guardian and CiF. The full Code of Ethics may be found at the link above. My own comments are in italics after the points):
“A journalist:
- Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair (CiF has come to grief already. The Editors are hardly fair to those who are pro-Israel, and the information they convey is often dishonest and/or inaccurate).
- Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies (This gets worse and worse. Not only does CiF not correct harmful inaccuracies, it deliberately perpetuates them)
- Differentiates between fact and opinion. (CiF presents misguided and hate-filled opinion about Israel as fact and so often that it seems to have lost touch with the distinction between them. The editorial team has even commissioned Hamas terrorist leaders to write for CiF and these are hardly renowned for their dispassionate analysis of matters Middle Eastern).
- Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means (What on earth is meant by “cannot be obtained by straightforward means?” And who decides what is “overwhelmingly in the public interest” and how?)
- Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest (How many times has CiF intruded into the private lives or grief of Palestinians, (including during after Cast Lead) in order to get material which tugs at the heartstrings? To what extent can that intrusion be motivated by “consideration of the public interest”)?
- Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information. (This is an interesting one, particularly the reference to inducements. Perhaps CiF does not need them. Perhaps Henry et al believe that they are performing a public service. CiF is already the master of distortion of information about Israel and suppressed a great deal of information about Hamas’ barbarity in Cast Lead, if one goes by the number of articles and column inches devoted to that).
- Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation (A resounding failure to abide by the Code of Conduct here. CiF quite openly and deliberately discriminates against Israel, and, by allowing the monotonous repetition of the same egregious tropes by its commentariat, it manipulates public opinion so as to exacerbate anti-Jewish racism and hatred. This is its raison d’être).
- The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code. The NUJ will fully support any journalist disciplined for asserting her/his right to act according to the code. “ (Question: Have any of the CiF editors or writers refused assignments in respect of Israel which would “break the letter or the spirit of the code?”)
I searched in vain on the web page for an address to which to write to complain to the NUJ about these infringements of its Code of Conduct by the CiF Editors who I believe are members of the NUJ.
However, another Google search did throw up a useful if disconcerting piece of information – that the NUJ itself tried to boycott Israeli goods in 2007 after the Lebanon war, although The Guardian, curiously enough, disagreed with the boycott. The NUJ came in for a lot of criticism and abandoned that strategy, only to try to revive it once more after Cast Lead.
Of course it is entirely possible that the three CiF Editors are not members of the NUJ and they are therefore not bound by the NUJ’s Code of Conduct. However if they were to offer that as an excuse for their reprehensible behaviour and lamentable dereliction of duty, they would be little better than the Labour Party politicians whom CiF has recently been so quick to criticise. The analogy could be rightfully made, that ignorance about what is morally acceptable and ethical in blog journalism is no excuse for not trying to behave ethically and engage with their subject in a morally acceptable way. Perhaps Henry, Whitaker and Seaton have no idea how to go about that.
Two weeks ago CiF Watch exposed the anti-Israel bias of a certain “BellaM”, a Guardian moderator.
“BellaM” made quite a name for herself with this unbelievably idiotic comment engaging in an ad hominem attack on Melanie Phillips in her capacity as a Guardian staff member.
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.’
Her comment spurred post after post of mouth-frothing denunciation of Melanie Phillips in the now infamous Ed Husain thread that we reported on in our post Two Minutes Hate: Melanie Phillips bashing on the Ed Husain thread.
After posting our expose of BellaM this is what she tweeted:
Catch that? Instead of being thoroughly ashamed of herself, she views being exposed on CiF Watch as a biased anti-Israel moderator as some sort of badge of honor.
Anyway it gets better. The Jewish Chronicle is now reporting that the “intervention of one of the Guardian’s supposedly independent moderators, the anonymous BellaM” further complicated the row between Phillips and Husain. According to the JC:
Though she has not been disciplined, the Guardian has reminded BellaM of the paper’s guidelines that staff posting on the site “should uphold a high standard of civility and avoid any behaviour that might bring the Guardian’s good name into disrepute”.
Wow. So who is BellaM?
Well suspecting in yesterday’s post covering the antisemitic moderation on the Steve Bell cartoon thread that BellaM may have had a hand in clicking the delete button a few too many times when pro-Israel posters legitimately pointed out the double standards of analogizing Israel’s security barrier with the Berlin Wall, we exposed who BellaM really is – a certain Bella Mackie.
It doesn’t end there though. It turns out that there is someone called Isabella Mackie that works for the Guardian and that Mackie is the maiden name of the wife of none other than Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger. According to the blog you gotta smile, Private Eye reported:
[i]n the future, parliamentary offspring would do well to follow the example of recent graduate Isabella Mackie, who had the grace to use her mother’s surname when taking a job on the Guardian’s website to disguise the act that she is the daughter of the paper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger.’
How embarrassing for Rusbridger and he probably had to step in to prevent her from being sacked – don’t you just love the nepotism!
So since we’ve got Daddy Rusbridger’s attention with this post (no doubt Bella will be running to Daddy for help), I’d like to ask him a few questions:
1. Why does the Guardian have an obsessive focus on the Israel/Palestine conflict that is quite out of proportion with any other conflict in the world? And why are the overwhelming majority of articles on the Israel/Palestinian conflict anti-Israel in their bias.
2. Why is your newspaper constantly delegitimizing, demonizing and subjecting Israel to double standards through articles and editorials by contributors that harbor openly antismetic views including by a fringe group of self-hating house Jews?
3. Why do you not ban posters that have a track record of making antisemitic comments? This website is replete with examples. Recently we wrote a post calling for a certain poster called IllegalCombatAnt to be banned for, among other things, engaging in Holocaust denial (which by the way took 16 hours to be deleted by your moderators – maybe Bella was on duty then). IllegalCombatAnt still has posting rights as do the numerous other antisemitic posters documented on this site.
4. Why do you instead ban pro-Israel posters? In particular why was AKUS and Cityca banned? Read their eminently sensible articles and posts and tell me what could have possibly warranted their banning other than the fact that they chose to tell the truth about Israel, something the Guardian is incapable of doing. And on the subject of silencing dissent, why was Robin Shepherd denied a right of reply after he was defamed by house Jew Antony Lerman?
5. Why does the Guardian consistently delete comments by pro-Israel commenters? Again this website is replete with examples so don’t even bother denying this. Besides your own daughter has already tried denying that one and failed miserably.
6. By the same token why are antisemitic comments consistently not deleted by your moderators. Again spend a few minutes on this site and you’ll see what I mean. The evidence we have accumulated in the space of under three months is simply breathtaking and no doubt will serve in the future for reports and studies into antisemitism in the United Kingdom. And speaking of reports why did you ignore the 2008 report on Antisemitism on Guardian ‘Comment is Free’ by Jonathan Hoffman? This report was submitted to the UK Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism, an indictment in and of itself. Is this the kind of reputation you want for the Guardian? And while I’m at it let me remind you of the hollow and meaningless words of Matt Seaton to the Jewish Chronicle last year“[w]e have a zero-tolerance policy on antisemitic postings or any other form of hate speech.” Oh really.
7. Have you ever asked yourself what makes the Guardian such a fertile ground for attracting antisemitic views? Did you try taking our recent poll where posts from the neo-Nazi website Stormfront were largely indistinguishable from the comments posted regularly on the Guardian/CiF Israel/Palestine threads? And did you know the Guardian’s very own cartoonist, Steve Bell, may actually follow Stormfront threads. Here’s what the estimable Yaacov Lozowick, former director of archives at Yad Vashem, had to say on the subject:
[CiF Watch] seem to be demonstrating how the Jew haters of the Left and the Jew haters of the Right are coalescing in the way they see the world. They don’t need to copy from each other, if their processes of cognition have converged. It is that convergence which is significant.
8. And tell me what on earth is your commissioning editor of “Comment is Free”, Brian Whitaker, doing insinuating that pro-Israel posters are paid agents of the Israel government fanning the flames of Jewish conspiracy theory? And this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Brian Whitaker making a fool of himself. In fact here is what I wrote in the last hyperlinked post to Brian Whitaker:
Now Brian if you really want to defend the charge that the Guardian promotes antisemitic discourse both above the line and below the line you are more than welcome to defend the indefensible.
Here’s an offer. Why don’t you write an article for us explaining why you think this is not case? I’ll publish whatever you write. In particular, our readers would be intrigued to know the following: Why do you feature a disproportionate number of writers deeply hostile to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state many of whom are self-hating Jews and have a track record of antisemitism? Why do you tolerate antisemitism in the comment threads? Why for example have the numerous antisemitic commenters that populate CiF not been permanently banned – it’s not as if you are oblivious to this? Why do you delete comments putting forward a pro-Israel position? Why did you ban AKUS, Cityca and others? And why do you insinuate that pro-Israel posters are paid agents of the Israeli government?
You can email me at contactus@cifwatch.com with your submission. I’m standing by.
Brian never submitted anything and the silence is deafening.
9. And while we’re at it, why didn’t Elisabeth Ribbans, managing editor of the Guardian, respond to Dennis MacEoin’s critique of Guardian editorial anti-Israel bias. Did he not deserve a response either?
10. What do you think the other board members of the Guardian Media Group and the Scott Trust will say when they discover the depth of antisemitism on the pages of the Guardian? I find it hard to believe that they would just shrug their shoulders particularly those that are independent members of the board.
11. And what do you think your advertisers will say when they too discover that many a guardianista harbors deeply antisemitic views? Just take a look at this Tomasky thread and you’ll see what I mean (I note that HSBC Bank advertised on that thread).
12. Last but not least do you not think that CiF Watch readers and more generally the Jewish community is owed an explanation as to what steps you intend to take to clean up your act or will you continue to stick your head in the sand just like Georgina Henry, Matt Seaton and Brian Whitaker do.
Alan the Guardian is losing money hand over fist and the ship is sinking. The question is are you going to clean house before its too late?
Ever wondered what it takes to get banned as an antisemitic poster on CiF?
Last year Matt Seaton, CiF editor, stated to the Jewish Chronicle “[w]e have a zero-tolerance policy on antisemitic postings or any other form of hate speech.”
Ok. So if you were to make a statement denying the Holocaust, you’d think that would warrant banning. I mean its pretty much as bad as it gets in terms of antisemitic discourse. So when IllegalCombatAnt made the following comment, do you think he was banned?
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?
Nope. How about if you defend your statement denying the Holocaust? Good enough yet?
23 Oct 09, 11:22am (about 5 hours ago)
Now there we have it. I asked a simple question as to why debate is not possible and you fling out the accusation of holocaust denier. This is the tactic we see time and time again. Whenever there is any criticism or discussion that Jews/Israelis/Zionists don’t like they instantly start up with accusations of holocaust denial or anti-semite. You fit into this pattern exactly.
Israel is in denial over Turkish rage
illegalcombatant’s comment 23 Oct 09, 10:24am
ONeill70 23 Oct 09, 10:20am
At least that’s one ‘holocaust’ you don’t place question marks over.
- and of course we are allowed to discuss these events without some swivel-eyed Turk or Armenian throwing about hysterical accusations
The liberal Jewish challenge
illegalcombatant’s comment 22 Oct 09, 3:31pm
ONeill70 22 Oct 09, 12:56pm
“Why are we not allowed to debate the Holocaust?”
We are, you eejit! Holocaust scholars and academics across a range of fields do it every day. But here’s the thing – you’ve got to know something about it first. Debate is kind of predicated upon that.
The Holocaust is not a topic I have any particular interest in and certainly not in debating it and of course anybody who wishes to do so should have some grounding in the subject – which goes without saying really so I dont know why you raise the point. As far as Im concerned it happened and Ill go along with the figure of 6 million bandied about. The problem is that there is one official narrative and any attempt to deviate from that through debate or research or whatever is ruthlessly stamped on. Now you say debate IS possible but what do you have to say about the fact that even posing the simple question that I did warrants a deletion?
Some of the responses I received yesterday show who the eejits really are.
First small Townboy wades in:
There’s nothing to debate. It’s like arguing with someone who insists the Earth is flat.Because as academics, they have proven themselves to be utter failures.
Then Linda Grant sticks her oar in with the killer response:
If a physicist said the moon was made of green cheese, or the earth was flat, they too would have their funding cut off or lose their tenure
The conclusion seems to be that if you wish to debate the matter you are the equivalent of a flat-earther or a total failure or you believe the moon is made of green cheese and therefore debate is not possible – Wow, I’ve really met my match with these mighty intellects! Others simply made do with the standard hysterical, frothing accusations of Holocaust denial. Bunch of eejits.
I knew the day of Holocaust ‘debate’ would come. Just not in my lifetime
illegalcombatant’s comment 21 Oct 09, 1:10pm
So my first post with three simple questions has been removed. Not sure why only after 16 hours it was they decided they were unacceptable.
I have been Carter-Rucked by the Guardian moderators of all people!
Nope. Now what if that same poster has a track record of making derogatory statements about Jews. How about if, for example, he thought that Jewish posters were paid agents of the Israeli government, like Brian Whitaker?
Israel needs the truth about Cast Lead
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.
Iran will emerge victorious
illegalcombatant’s comment 23 Oct 09, 10:02am
Having an aggressive and nuclear-armed rogue state to its west it is imperative for Iran to develop a nuclear capability and the means to deliver it as soon as possible.
I knew the day of Holocaust ‘debate’ would come. Just not in my lifetime
illegalcombatant’s comment 21 Oct 09, 8:30am
Teacup 21 Oct 09, 7:39am
Anybody,
What is an “anorak issue”?Teacup, I assume you know that an anorak is an item of apparel. They are commonly associated with trainspotters, people who meticulously record details of trains.
An anorak is therefore a person immersed in the minutiae of any issue – the subtext is that they are boring and pedantic. A bit like many of the unwelcome visitors to CiF from Giyus and other such places.
End this culture of Israeli impunity
illegalcombatant’s comment 24 Mar 09, 4:14pm
pretzelberg 24 Mar 09, 3:50pm
Unbelievable – especially as Danryan has already posted a dozen comments in the four hours (!) since he logged on to CiF! A typical case of outsiders suddenly weighing in out of nowehere …
It’s clear the GIYUS trolls have invaded this thread.
Changing the subject
illegalcombatant’s comment 04 Nov 08, 3:02pm
Why any mention of the Zionist misinformation campaign
gets deleted sharpish on these threads.
Palin’s preacher problem
illegalcombatant’s comment 26 Sep 08, 3:13pm
But how many of the comments really are anti-semitic?
Here on CiF any criticism of Israel’s thuggish behaviour is generally met with howls of anti-semitism from the GIYUS mob that infests this site.
Still not enough to get banned. How about endorsement for the destruction of the State of Israel?
Israel-Palestine is already a de facto single state
illegalcombatant’s comment 29 Apr 09, 11:17am
Given that no less a figure than Ehud Olmert has questioned the long term viability of the Jewish state I think it would be more correct to say that time is running out for this implant into the Middle East.
The more so with the steady decline of its bully patron across the Atlantic.
Iran will emerge victorious
illegalcombatant’s comment 23 Oct 09, 10:02am
Having an aggressive and nuclear-armed rogue state to its west it is imperative for Iran to develop a nuclear capability and the means to deliver it as soon as possible.
Still not enough. How about some modern day Jewish conspiracy theory?
Talking tough on Ahmadinejad
illegalcombatant’s comment 29 Sep 08, 12:19pm
Yet more aggression against Iran?
One day the US is going to figure out the tough talking needs to be addressed to Israel. This thuggish little implant into the middle east has caused more misery and destruction than all the others in the region put together.
When Barack meets Bibi
illegalcombatant’s comment 27 Apr 09, 4:26pm
I think you’re being overly pessimistic Mr. Tisdall. Israel will most likely continue to have carte blanche from the US to grab yet more land and slaughter Palestinians in the process.
Still not enough to get banned. How about accusing Israel of sponging guilt money from Germany?
Thank you, George Bush
illegalcombatant’s comment 26 Sep 08, 2:10pm
Sabraguy Sep 26 08, 1:51am
Despite what some people like to believe Israel’s survival is not dependent on US aid.
Israel is an economic basket case and is indeed dependent on this rapidly sinking superpower. No less a figure than Ehud Olmert has questioned the long term viability of the Jewish state.
Just last year the Israeli government went cap in hand to the German government sponging yet more guilt money. The Germans rather cravenly gave in and handed over a large wad.
Cyanide on the table
illegalcombatant’s comment 10 Jul 08, 4:37pm
TheSchniz Jul 10 08, 03:45pm
” thewholeninethoughts in a thread about Israel refers to Israel’s ‘holocaust begging bowl’.
There is so much anti-semitism on CiF you get quite used to it but this breathtaking remark deserves a special a mention I think. “
@ A fair term I think and not at all intended to be anti-semitic. After all Israel’s basket case economy is kept afloat only by massive and frequent US handouts.
On top of that didn’t the Israeli government go cap in hand whining to the German government just last year to trouser yet some more guilt money? To their shame the Germans capitulated and dished out a few wads just to get some peace.
Still not enough to get banned. And what is more, other than one or two of these comments, they are all undeleted. Funny that because this is what Matt Seaton had to say in the same article to the Jewish Chronicle:
“We devote considerable and growing resources to moderating out site, with the help of our users.
We do not tolerate any hate speech, and our moderators will delete comments which are antisemitic or Islamophobic or otherwise racist , as soon as they are reported to us or when we see them ourselves. That happens in minutes rather than hours or days.”
Is there something I’m missing here Matt or is it that your moderators share the same mindset as BellaM?
We have a lot of new visitors to our site and for their benefit wanted to provide a list of a selection of posts that we have made over the course of the past two and a half months since our launch that indict the Guardian for encouraging and proliferating antisemitic discourse.
Take your pick and then take a long hot shower. Its truly a cesspit. There is no other word for it.
Shame on Alan Rusbridger, Georgina Henry, Matt Seaton and Brian Whitaker.
The ‘famous’ Dennis MacEoin Letter
Must Read Critique of Guardian Editorial Bias
Editorial Bias and Antisemitism
“Two Minutes Hate”: Melanie Phillips bashing on the Ed Husain thread
Enforcing the GWV: The Guardian J Street poll
Stratification of Antisemitism at the Guardian
A ‘Psychological’ Approach to Demonising Israel
Grauniad caught in a bald faced lie about Israel…again
Guardian: No Israeli nobel peace prize winners…ever
Biased Anti-Jewish Moderation on the Hirsch Thread
How the Guardian Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Iranian Bomb
Does Ahmadinejad read the Guardian?
Lies, Big Lies and Comment is Free
The Use of Nazi Analogies on CiF – Part 2
The Use of Nazi Analogies on CiF
Specific Anti-Israel Bias of Guardian Management
Come meet BellaM, one of the Guardian’s anti-Israel ModsDefending the Indefensible: Whitaker making a fool of himself…again
Georgina’s Cretinous Double StandardsEnforcing the GWV through Misrepresentation – Addendum # 2
Enforcing the GWV through Misrepresentation – Addendum
Enforcing the GWV through Misrepresentation
Goldstoned, Matt Seaton joins the fray
Whitaker defends Human Rights Watch
How Low Will They Go? Pro-Israel Posters Accused of Being on Israeli Government Payroll
Antisemitic threads
Its all in the title: Jewish conspiracy theory on the Tomasky thread
Toxic Mix of Antisemitism on the Tisdall Thread
Guardian World View in Action on the Galloway Thread
Guardian World View in Action on the Ben White Thread
Antisemitism Gushing from the Ben White Thread
While the Cat’s Away the Holocaust Deniers will Play
From the Morris Thread: Candidates for the Second Berchmans Award
A Humorous Look at the Guardian and its Management
Three Misguided Idiots: A Play in Two Acts
Guardian updates its talk policy…well not exactly
Georgina Henry recently made her worst decision so far by attempting to excuse and apologise for an ill-judged and reprehensible by line for an article by Michael Lerner on CiF in which he referred to those who protested against Goldstone’s lunatic and highly creative interpretation of events in Gaza as “a choir of ethical cretins.”
For the reader who may have missed Henry’s priceless and inane attempt to dig herself out of a hole of her own making, it is reproduced below (and it even got 5 recommendations!):
GeorginaHenry
21 Oct 09, 12:34pm
Staff
Thanks to those of you who have raised the issue of Michael Lerner’s use of the phrase “choir of ethical cretins”. The intention was clearly not to offend in that he was using it in its colloquial sense, and in a general way. But I have asked the editor of the Guardian’s style guide (where the word is currently not mentioned) whether guidance should be included on its use. Since we’ve taken the point on board, perhaps the thread could now concentrate on debating the merits of his argument.
Obviously Henry came in for a lot of stick from intelligent people for writing such rubbish, but below is a fly-on-the-wall take of what might have led to that asinine comment and what should have ensued as a result of her making it, if the Guardian/CiF had had any ethical sense at all.
It’s called “Three Misguided Idiots: a play in two acts” and stars Georgina Henry, Brian Whitaker and Matt Seaton, with a last act appearance by Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian’s Editor in Chief:
ACT ONE:
Georgina Henry is moaning and chewing the carpet in her office, having been plied with strong coffee by her PA following an avalanche of emails of complaint about Lerner’s spiteful and inelegant remark. The telephone rings and she picks herself up from the floor as her PA hands her the receiver:
HENRY (spitting out bits of carpet): Yes? What do you want? Oh Matt… What is it now?
SEATON: Well frankly Georgina (and I really don’t want to upset you) it’s this remark by Michael Lerner. What’re we going to do about it (not that I think that we should do anything about it unless you say so of course).
HENRY: (sighs… then): Let’s have a meeting. Go get Brian (Whitaker) and come to my office.
Several minutes pass. Then a knock on the door and Seaton and Whitaker join Henry.
WHITAKER: This is a bit of a nasty one, but of course it’s been planned by Zionists and people in the pay of the Israeli Government so do we actually need to do anything?
HENRY: So are you saying that Lerner deliberately did this to make us look bad? Well, we may be able to spin that…..
SEATON (eagerly) : Well, I think he did..
Both look at him pityingly and then roll their eyes at each other.
HENRY: Well I suppose I could go onto the thread and try to defuse it.
WHITAKER and SEATON: Good idea! Do it now.
Henry dashes something off to the thread and sends it immediately, and shows it to Seaton and Whitaker afterwards.
WHITAKER: (reads the post) What the…??? Well that could have been done better. The Zionists and their chums could drive a coach and horses through that. What if CiF Watch get their hands on it?
SEATON: Yes, I agree with Brian. We could really be in the doggy doo.
HENRY, (glaring at them furiously): I have made an executive decision and I stand by it.
SEATON: Quite right too. I agree with Georgina.
WHITAKER: But….
Henry glares at Whitaker and he sinks into his seat.
The telephone rings. Alan Rusbridger wants a word with all of them immediately.
END OF ACT ONE
=====================================
ACT TWO
Henry, Seaton and Whitaker are in Rusbridger’s office
RUSBRIDGER: (Pacing up and down mumbling under his breath and waving his arms about) What the hell do you three think you’re playing at?
The three look at the floor.
RUSBRIDGER: I am getting emails and letters of complaint about this idiot Lerner, whom I’ve never even heard of and the ‘phone’s been ringing nonstop. It’s bad enough that we allowed ourselves to be led up the garden path about Jenin but this is another blow.
Georgina! Don’t look at the others, all this is your responsibility. And I’ve just read your idiotic post to the Lerner thread. What on earth did you think you were doing?
HENRY: I felt it my duty to keep the thread on track and in the service of freedom of expression …..
RUSBRIDGER: BY DOING WHAT FOR GOD’S SAKE? MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF BY EXCUSING THE SUPREMELY IDIOTIC? DON’T YOU REALISE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE? I COULD LOSE MY OWN JOB BECAUSE OF THIS!
And I’ve spent the morning looking at all your commissioned articles about the Israel/Palestine issue and I’ve got to say I think all of you are unhealthily obsessed – there’s no other word for it. And precisely what do YOU mean, Georgina, by “in the service of freedom of expression?” I’ve been looking at the comments as well and I notice that most of them are frankly crazy and you’ve allowed them to remain. But they can’t all have been crazy. What’ve you done with the comments which disagreed with this man Lerner?
HENRY: (Sullenly) I made an executive decision and told the moderators to delete almost all of them. (Leaps to her feet and gesticulates, voice rising and with dilated pupils and then:) They cannot, they must not be allowed to derail the threads!! I see it as my duty to bring the truth to the nation ….. (Suddenly realises that the others are staring at her and sinks into her seat again, looking at her feet and playing with her fingers).
RUSBRIDGER: (looking shocked) You just don’t get it do you? YOU ARE MAKING US LOOK BAD!
Well, that’s it – I’ve marked all of your cards now and I’ve had a gut full of your attitude Georgina – you’ve done this once too often. I thought you had potential, I gave you free reign to use it creatively, and this is the thanks I get. I am not going to go before the Board to defend your stupidity any more – you’re on your own from now on to clean up your own mess.
(Whitaker opens his mouth to protest, but catches Rusbridger’s eye and thinks better of it)
RUSBRIDGER: And Whitaker, don’t you give me any rubbish either, about this being a Zionist plot by people in the pay of the Israeli government. That may wash with the intellectually challenged who are allowed to spout rubbish underneath what you write but it won’t wash with me. I have several bones to pick with you about making that so obvious too. “Zionist plot” indeed… You have to hint at it otherwise they’ll be all over us, and yet you have all the subtlety of a bull in a china shop.
The Guardian is losing money hand over fist and I’ve been told to economise. There’ll be some changes around here, mark my words.
And as for you, Seaton (Seaton gulps and gets out his handkerchief). WHAT POSSESSED YOU TO WRITE TO MEL PHILLIPS’ COLUMN IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY? Let’s see what you’ve written:
” We admire Melanie’s work so much that we had to nominate this blogpost as one of our ‘best of the web’ on Cif (Cif, please, Mel; not CiF).
” hope she won’t feel too compromised by being included in our ‘institutionalised intellectual and moral depravity’.”
SHE COULD EAT YOU FOR BREAKFAST AND YET YOU STILL TRY TO BE SMART! HAVE YOU SEEN SOME OF THE COMMENTS? (Seaton starts to cry and rubs his eyes).
If I’ve told you all once I have told you a hundred times – DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE CIFWATCH! DO NOT REFER TO IT! DO NOT ENGAGE WITH IT! DON’T EVEN HINT THAT IT EXISTS! DO YOU UNDERSTAND? (they all nod). If we ignore them then they may just leave us alone.
SEATON: Sir….
RUSBRIDGER: Well?
SEATON: I just wanted to say sorry…..
THE END
‘Comment is Free’ is no stranger to Holocaust denial. We recently reported how on Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, the Guardianistas were running amok denying the Holocaust when the Guardian reported Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial at the Al Quds day events.
And Holocaust denial is not confined to “below the line” in the comment threads. Seumas Milne, the former Comment Editor, and regular contributor to Comment is Free is on record for shamelessly defending Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial and the Guardian regularly publishes articles by Ben White who has in the past flirted with Holocaust denial and whose antisemitic book, “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide”, includes an essay on Zionism by Holocaust denier, Roger Garaudy, in its ‘select bibliography’.
So when the Guardian published on Comment is Free “I knew the day of ‘Holocaust” debate would come. Just not in my lifetime” by Jonathan Freedland it should come as no surprise that the comment thread devolved into Holocaust denial. As an aside this begs the question as to why such a misleading title was chosen given the real substance of the article was about the Conservative Party’s purported alliances with far-right groups in Europe.
Before examining some of the comments, a word or two about Holocaust denial is in order. Holocaust denial is defined as the “assert[ion] that the murder of approximately six million Jews during World War II never occurred and that the Germans are victims of a Zionist plot to extort vast sums of money from them on the basis of a hoax.” Holocaust denial is insidiously antisemitic and takes many forms. It includes claims that the six million number is grossly exaggerated, genocide was never carried out using tools of mass murder, survivor testimony is unreliable, the Holocaust is a myth spread by the Jews to enable the creation of a Jewish homeland and the fate of the Jews was no different to that of other people that suffered during World War II. The goal of Holocaust denial is to rehabilitate Nazi ideology and in the context of Israel (and most relevant to ‘Comment is Free’) to delegitimize one of the powerful justifications for its existence.
As Holocaust Denial on Trial succinctly puts it “[u]nder the guise of a reasonable person’s search for truth, Holocaust deniers spread falsehoods and misinformation that appears reasonable to the uninformed reader.” It is in comment threads of ‘Comment is Free’ where commenters find fertile ground to spread the lies and falsehoods of Holocaust denial safe in the knowledge that other than the most blatant forms of Holocaust denial such comments will evade the delete button of the moderators.
Turning to the Freedland thread. Let me start off with this interesting observation from chiefwiley, one of the earlier commenters.
chiefwiley
20 Oct 09, 8:42pm
It should be interesting to see who is lurking out there to “revisit” the holocaust right here at the Guardian. Are the moderators ready for it?
Indeed so and as chiefwiley was typing away his comment the first one to come out of the woodwork was by IllegalCombatAnt that literally set the tone for the entire thread, surviving deletion for at least 16 hours and garnering at least 70 recommendations:
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?
Then you have this undeleted comment with 33 recommendations:
RepublicanStones
20 Oct 09, 11:41pm
How come the ADL are so ready to criticise the Tories on this, but there were rather muted back in the late 80s when real anti-semites who were active in WW2 were found to be employed by Bush the first in his Ethnic Outreach Committee? They referred to the anti-semitism espoused by those guys as ‘antique and anemic’. But the Tories align themselves with people less unsavoury and the ADL are up in arms.
Furthermore, why do some insist on preventing freedom of speech regarding this horrific event? There is no question, millions of jews, romanies, poles and thousands of homosexuals and handicapped people perished, but unless you allow freedom of speech surrounding this event, you’re never going to know who the loony bins are. Also the continued inflation of holocaust survivors by the likes of the Israeli Prime Ministers Office, does not do anything to dispel the revisionists.
And there is this undeleted comment with 108 recommendations:
MMeister
20 Oct 09, 11:51pm
It shouldnt be a ‘crime’ to deny anything. What is this 1984? Thought crime?
Why is it that we are not allowed to debate the Holocaust?
To this day people still debate whether evolution still exists. But they’re never sent to jail for it. Its all rather fishy. A bit like the Red Cross Report from 1947 which had a much smaller figure in the ‘tragedic deaths’ column.
And then there is this one, also undeleted receiving a whopping 116 recommendations:
PhilipD
21 Oct 09, 12:20am
Great article, and I agree with most of it but…. well, I have a problem with your last paragraph:
The strange thing is, I always knew that one day, when every last survivor was gone, there would be “debate” about the Holocaust. Claims that were once deemed shameful – questioning the veracity of documented events – would become somehow acceptable. But I never imagined that I would live to see that grim day for myself. Yet here it is: right here, right now.
Of course the nutcases and bigots who deny the historical reality of the murder of millions of jews must be rejected and marginalised in any civilized society. But I do have a problem with the notion that any topic, even one as loaded as the Holocaust must be immune from serious discussion. As this terrific article in the New York Review of Books indicates, the slaughter that took place in eastern Europe was indeed a very complex phenomenon, with many peoples (including those of Latvia) subject to repeated waves of genocide from both Nazis and Communists. Even the notion that the Holocaust was somehow uniquely a Jewish tragedy should be subject to historical inquiry – by some measures, the Roma suffered an even greater loss of life (as a proportion of the pre war population). The genocides that took place in the Carpathians of islamic peoples by Stalin were also on a near Holocaust scale. It is a serious subject, and we must make a clear distinction between Holocaust denial and its roots in anti-semitism, while allowing historians and others to seriously debate the issue without fear of being labeled a Nazi if they say something which doesn’t quite follow the established narrative.
And here’s yet another. Also undeleted with only 39 recommendations this time.
sherlock001
21 Oct 09, 1:55am
If we are going to charge the Germans with the unique monstrosity of using homicidal gassing chambers to kill millions of innocent victims, we should be willing to allow examination of the history of that monstrosity in the routine way that all other historical issues are examined. But taboo, censorship, prosecution and imprisonment are routinely used to prevent such a historical examination. How could a case buttressed by hard facts possibly be endangered by kooks and anti-Semites? Most of Europe has already criminalized doubting the Holocaust. It is a crime even to confirm that it happened but to conclude that less than 6 million Jews were murdered. Why is the Holocaust a subject that is off limits to examination?
Then we have Teacup, a well-known antisemitic commenter (as we established here), with the strangest justification of Holocaust denial that I’ve ever come across:
Teacup
21 Oct 09, 5:27am (about 7 hours ago)
Jonathan,
While I appreciate how painful a debate on the Holocaust can be to survivours and their families, surely you are not advocating the criminalisation of debate? If nothing else, open debate can help identify the cranks and the prejudiced, and provide a relatively harmless outlet for anti-Jewish sentiments. Before I get e-mud thrown at me for that last sentence, there is a big gap between bad-mouthing a community and actually harming them.
There is nothing new or strange about politics bringing about strange bedfellows. The recourse is obvious – campaign to ensure that they do not ascend to office until they have seen the error of their ways. Your article has set that ball rolling.
It really does take a sick and twisted mind to think that open debate about Holocaust denial is a “relatively harmless outlet for anti-Jewish sentiments”. Then again this is one of the Guardian’s protected and this is ‘Comment is Free’. Needless to say this comment was not deleted.
We then have this gem from FelixKrull, again undeleted.
FelixKrull
21 Oct 09, 7:14am
Why is it that we are not allowed to debate the Holocaust?
I second that question.
As for the Holocaust, a German crime againsrthumanity, sure it happened , but why is any attempt to review the accuracy of the official, jewish-sponsored version immediately labelled as “Holocaust denial”?
And that one too.
Why do you want to re-examine the Holocaust?
Because the examination has so far been based largely on wartime propaganda. Largely, mind you, before you cry ‘denier’.
What do you think the motive is that lies behind Holocaust denial?
Brain damage, probably. But we’re not talking about Holocaust denial, are we, rather than revisionism, a re-examination of history based upon the wealth of information about the matter that has come to light since the Standard Model of the Holocaust was written sometimes in the early seventies.
And if IllegalComabatAnt’s antisemitic bona fides were not clear from his first comment on the thread, there’s this undeleted comment:
IllegalCombatAnt
21 Oct 09, 8:30am
Teacup 21 Oct 09, 7:39am
Anybody,
What is an “anorak issue”?
Teacup, I assume you know that an anorak is an item of apparel. They are commonly associated with trainspotters, people who meticulously record details of trains.
An anorak is therefore a person immersed in the minutiae of any issue – the subtext is that they are boring and pedantic. A bit like many of the unwelcome visitors to CiF from Giyus and other such places.
And for those not fluent in Guardianspeak, “Giyus” is a deeply offensive slur against Jewish supporters of Israel suggesting that they are propagandists (a slur that is encouraged by none other than the Guardian’s very own commissioning editor of ‘Comment is Free’, Brian Whitaker).
And the Holocaust denial continues with these two comments, again both undeleted:
Weeper
21 Oct 09, 8:39am
We are allowed to discuss the Armenian holocaust, the native American Indian holocaust, the Bengal famine (holocaust), and every other one, but not THE Holocaust.
-
Why not?
-
For example, if those who allege that gas could not have been used at Auschwitz could be disproved, then they would shut up for all time. If not, then we need to know why this “fact” was broadcast in the first place.
-
Also, I’d like to know where the figure of 6 million came from, just as I’d like to know how many people have died since Iraq was invaded in 2003.
-
All this is healthy enquiry, I don’t see why people cry “holocaust denier” if I want to find out more.duppyconqueror
21 Oct 09, 9:54am
I was educated on the holocaust with stories of jews being made into bars of soap by the Nazis.
However concentration camp inmates were not made into bars of soap.
even the holocaust museum in israel now accepts this.but to claim so in the past would have raised accusations of holocaust denial.
Then there is this one that provides an interesting insight into the utter ignorance of the Guardianista:
newone
21 Oct 09, 6:41pm
I have to agree with the comment that anyone who dares to even question the “Holocaust” is a anti-semitic and is to be hounded out of existence.
The real problem is they want to hijack the word “holocaust”. You could describe the murder and slaughter of the millions of Russians as a “holocaust” but because in a sense it has been copyrighted by the Holocaust people, you are not allowed to have a Russian Holocaust.
And what would a Holocaust denial thread be without mention of the great hero of the Guardianistas, Norman Finkelstein:
david119
21 Oct 09, 10:14am
On the face of it I can’t disagree with Jonathan Freedland.
But Jonathan is also a well know Zionist and I sense another agenda lurking beneath a literal reading of his text.
I have to agree with Norman Finkelstein, whose parents were both Holocaust survivors, that the “Holocaust industry” has corrupted Jewish culture and the authentic memory of the Holocaust.
So I have to wonder what was the real reason for this piece.
David Cameron is a leading member of “Conservative Friends of Israel”, not a very likely candidate for a closet anti-Semite.
If Jonathan Freedland came out strongly in favour of the Goldstone report, I might take his concerns about “anti-Semitism” in Eastern Europe a bit more seriously.
In fact the thread was dripping with so much Holocaust denial/revisionism that Jonathan Freedland felt compellled to make the following comment:
“Several posters here seem to be under the impression that I want to “criminalise” debate on the Holocaust. Wrong. I am not calling for debate on any topic to be banned; for the record, I have always opposed laws outlawing Holocaust denial.
But while I don’t believe in making such things illegal, I do deplore the notion — supported in several comments here — that the documented facts of the Holocaust should have their veracity questioned.”
Yet Freedland is clearly oblivious to the fact that he created this mess in the first place because of his ill thought out and reckless choice of title for his article: “I knew the day of ‘Holocaust” debate would come. Just not in my lifetime”.
And what would a Guardian Holocaust denial thread be without strict enforcement of the Guardian World View. Here’s an on the money comment from Duballiland:
Duballiland
21 Oct 09, 9:09am
What amazes me is that this paper which spends so much time vilifying Israel making endless attempts to undermine it is so ready to play the J card when it might help them stop a Conservative Government coming to power.
It would appear that the left does love and will stand by Jews, but only dead ones.
Let me leave you with this parting comment from josecher:
josecher
21 Oct 09, 12:09pm
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?
At what point exactly did cif start to become infested with nazis?
When I last looked, the above comment had received 70 recommendations – 70 holocaust deniers/apologists on the Guardian’s forum? What the hell is going on?
So Georgina, Matt and Brian, for the umpteenth time what are you going to do about this? The above is just a sampling of the Holocaust denial on ‘Comment is Free’. As I said yesterday in my post, you should be utterly ashamed of yourselves for having created this and what is worse you do absolutely nothing about this.
As we recently reported, Comment is Free now permits commenters to upload pictures that appear in the posts of the comment threads.
In response to this development, Cityca, who like AKUS and many others was banned for his pro-Israel stance on CiF, has designed a “badge of honor” for those that have been banned by CiF. If you wish to use the “badge of honor” as your picture on CiF, simply right click on the image below and save it to your desktop and then follow the Guardian’s instructions for uploading pictures when editing your user profile.
According to Matt Seaton, “we at the Guardian believe in equality and democracy in all things, even avatars” so based on that you should not have to worry about the Guardian censoring the use of the “badge of honor” !
If you’re a CiF regular, you’ll notice that you can now upload a picture into the enlarged avatar box that accompanies any comment you make; the goal being to “prettify” CiF.
So here’s TawdryDog’s take on all of this, a comment that has of course been deleted:
TawdryDog
09 Oct 09, 5:53am
It will take more than allowing personal graphics to clean up CIF from an obsessive demonetization of Israel and Jews forum.
Quite so.
This is a guest post from Jonathan Hoffman
I wanted to amplify my earlier article about Tony Lerman‘s piece about self-haters.
I was astonished by Lerman’s misrepresentation of Robin Shepherd’s excellent, elegantly written new book, reviewed here recently:
And Robin Shepherd, of the Henry Jackson Society, in a thoroughly wrong-headed book out this month subtitled Europe’s Problem With Israel, uses the concept to explain why leftwing Jews “publicly turn against Israel”.
As Lerman pointed out in the thread (to ‘peterthehungarian’) Shepherd mentions ‘self-haters’ twice (pages 42-43 and 105). But in neither instance does he use the concept to explain why leftwing Jews “publicly turn against Israel”’.
On page 43 he says
Within the Jewish world today the accusation that Jews who publicly turn against Israel are motivated by self-hatred is commonplace. This may be part of the story. But there is another explanation … that could well be more convincing in most cases.
This “other explanation” is that their “radical Left identity” can come to be “of far greater importance than the one that…. they were born into.”
On page 105 he discusses those secular Diaspora Jews whose Jewish identity comes through an affinity with Israel. Anti-Zionist secular Diaspora Jews, Shepherd suggests, are
effectively positing for themselves a state of long-term conversion away from Judaism ….. They may or may not be self-hating Jews but they are certainly self-negating Jews.
He is certainly NOT using the “self-hate” concept “to explain why leftwing Jews “publicly turn against Israel”.
Lerman was completely wrong. He misrepresented Shepherd completely. And so was Matt Seaton wrong, for not agreeing to Shepherd’s request for a correction.
No surprise there whatsoever. They deserve each other.
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
Who gets banned on “Comment is Free”?
January 13, 2010 in Uncategorized | Tags: Antisemitism, Biased Moderation, Comment is Free, Deleted Comments, Guardian, Matt Seaton, Robin Shepherd | by Hawkeye | 71 comments
This is a guest post by AKUS
Today Matt Seaton wrote in response to Robin Shepherd’s blog entry, Guardian website contributor says that recalcitrant Israeli settlers should be “slaughtered” in latest example of a new phenomenon in Great Britain:
Taking the second paragraph first, in fact Seaton appears to be deliberately trying to blur the distinction between “contributor” and “commenter” in the world of “Comment is Free” to wriggle out of acknowledging the truth of Shepherd’s statements about banning and deletions, which can be attested to by myriads of pro-Israeli posters, and I am quite sure, very few anti-Israeli posters.
Read the rest of this entry »
Share this:
Like this: