Dr Hirsh censors himself on the Engage site

Here's a curious thing. When I read the following intro to one of David Hirsh's masterpieces on the Engage site yesterday, I thought I saw something like this:

My daughter is five and she knows what a Likudnik is. Well, kind of. If I catch her kicking her little brother, and I tell her she is not allowed to hit people, she will say: "Well, he started it." And my answer to that will be: "We're not Likudniks, you know."

Fortunately, she is still (just about) young enough not to be embarrassed by her Dad's lame and repetitive jokes.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is not five, but it does seem to be inspired by Likud's traditional strategy of taking revenge: you hit us, we'll hit you back harder; you hit us again, we'll hit you back again, harder.

Looking at the same page now, in fact later yesterday, the intro looked more like this:

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) seems to be inspired by Likud's traditional strategy of taking revenge: you hit us, we'll hit you back harder; you hit us again, we'll hit you back again, harder.

ADL's response to the "academic intifada" is like Likud's response to the real intifada. Abraham Foxman, ADL's national director, said:: "We call on the entire academic sector in the United States to cut funding, support and contact with any academic who advocates a boycott of Israel."

You see he drew some flak from Likudniks for indoctrinating his five year old daughter against the zionist overt right and came to his senses. But the original version of the intro is still in tact on the Guardian's Comment is free space.

Further, he posted the following comment about his self-censorship:

I've removed references to my children in this piece. I was wrong to mention them.

That too has now been removed.

So here we have an academic who campaigns against academic boycotts of Israel on the grounds, he says, that they are antisemitic. He claims to be a non-zionist. And yet he encourages his daughter to beware of one narrow segment on the zionist political spectrum. Leaving aside the sheer disingenuousness of Likud's atrocities amounting to "retaliation" and the idea that such atrocities are a singular preserve of Likud led governments, which zionist parties does he want his daughter or anyone else to emulate?

But it gets curiouser. Remember the Engage rules of Engagement.

The editors of Engage are looking to enforce a stricter policy in the comments boxes. We all had our fun over the holidays - but:

1 Comments will be posted if the editors think that they add something to the debate. Editors will make a judgment about the quality and relevance of comments. Editors will try to be consistent but will not always succeed. Commenters should not feel they have a right to have their comments posted - it is an editorial decision.

2 Engage is not primarily a forum for discussion of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Its focus is on antisemitism. Endless and in-depth discussion about why the peace process broke down, for example, are interesting and important - but are not the core business of Engage.

3 Short comments are more likely to be posted than long comments.

4 Reasoned argument is more likely to be accepted than insults and hype.

Have a quick look at those same comments again. The absence of comments from pro-boycotters or anti-zionists have cut down on the insults that clutter up the box and even had one anti-boycott zionist complaining bitterly of juvenile behaviour in an earlier post but what's this?

While the ADL reacts a bit too strong, it may be worth to point out that ADL's offer is completely in sync with that of NAFTHE. After all, if the counterpunch is not stronger or equal to the original punch... Oh, well, stupid is as stupid does.

This is not why I am here, actually. I have accidentally stumbled on a dialog between two odious persons that includes a highly significant remark by one of them (Deborah Fink, who appears here frequently):

"But I guess we all need to be careful what we say on blogs in case it ends up in the JC!"

It appears here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JustPeaceUK/message/18483

One could ask why would a person call for such a strange behavior, after all what is it she considers worth hiding from the public eye? Hmm...

Actually blogs are both ephemeral and potentially permanent. It's so easy to make a comment without thinking, that you might want to retract having thought about it but, too late, it's in the public domain. A throwaway line becomes engraved on a tablet of stone. And who was it who cast aspersions on Deborah Fink? Why none other than , er, Snoopy the Goon from a blog called Simply Jews; one of the more ridiculous among the zionist blogs. Stupider than Engage but not quite as stupid as Banned by Elf. Now I'm not an intrepid blogger. I'm not going to investigate this Snoopy the Goon character to find their real identity but I am guessing Snoopy the Goon is not the character's real name. This raises some queries. How did someone who posts pseudonymously (effectively anonymously) to their own (and other) blogs not realise how hypocritical they were being by attributing a sinister motive to Deborah Fink's suggestion of due caution over postings to blogs? How in Engage's name did such a silly comment get past the censor on the Engage site? Did it contribute to the debate? In fairness they do say "Editors will try to be consistent but will not always succeed." But are the editors really trying to be consistent? Or are they silencing dissent on the one the hand and having it swamped by juvenile insults and absurd hypocrisy on the other?

I think we have been told.


UPDATE: I gather that the Guardian Comment is free post has been updated now and that Deborah Fink has tried to respond on Engage to a comment against her by this Snoopy the Goon character but it hasn't been approved.... yet.