Who sneers at "AsaJews" and says Jews have "big noses and loud behaviour"?

Well search the internet for examples of the usual suspects like certain Islamists and neo-Nazis and if you turn up anything at all it will probably be quotes from the various Zionist sites I linked in my previous post.

But I remembered writing to the Jewish Chronicle in response to a libelous article by David Aaronovitch.  I've been published there before, at least twice in response to pieces by Aaro but the time I had in mine proved beyond question that he is a bare faced liar and so they wouldn't publish. My letter's here and I remembered roughly the last bit:

Still, in these ecumenical times I think it's nice that a non-Jew such as David Aaronovitch can write for the Jewish Chronicle but when he invokes stereotypes like "big noses and loud behaviour" I'd say he's crossed a line. Surely in the JC a Jew's anti-Zionism is preferable to a gentile's anti-Semitism.

I actually found my old post whilst looking for the David Aaronovitch article that prompted it.  What I couldn't find was the article by Aaro.  It could be that the JC smartly disappeared it.  But not to worry. I smartly pasted a copy (together with a running critique) here.  Here's the bit I was referring to at the end of my letter:

Ah yes, say some readers, we are way ahead of you. Mr Elf and Mr Greenstein are archetypal “self-haters”. They are typical Jews who hate Jews (an organisation, come to think of it, which would complete the long, self-indulgent list of Jews For or Against This or That). They wish somehow to lose their unwanted Jewishness by currying favour with the goyische welt. They like the Nobel prizes and the comedy, but they don’t want to be associated with the big noses and loud behaviour in Waitrose

He actually goes on to say:

The boycotters, and especially the Jews for Boycotts, are not self-hating Jews — they’re adolescents. It isn’t themselves they hate, but Daddy and Mummy. In fact, they’re so vain they probably think this piece is about them.

Clever huh?  So according to Aaro, Jews have big noses, are loud and Jewish parents are Zionists?  In case you think he missed an antisemitic stereotype like say the money thing, here's how he started the piece:

It has long been one of the perverse talents of British middle-class activists

So there we are, according to David Aaronovitch, Jews have big noses, are loud, Jewish parents are Zionists and we are all middle class too.  I must remember that when I spend 12 hours in a minicab I don't even own.

Now why couldn't I find Aaro's masterpiece on Google except on my own blog?  Maybe he got the right to be forgotten.  Dodgy characters can do that when they've been rehabilitated out of their dodginess but Aaro hasn't.  He hasn't changed at all.

And that brings us to the antisemitic AsaJew put down.  The latest campaigner against "antisemitism", Baroness Royall, makes a specific point of this one in her blog post for the UK Labourite wing of the World Zionist Organisation:

Many students reported that should a Jewish student preface a remark “as a Jew …” they are likely to face ridicule and behaviour that would not be acceptable for someone saying “as a woman …” or “as an Afro-Caribbean”.  This should not be tolerated.  

We need to note here that Baroness Royall offers no evidence of what she claims but if you google AsaJew you will pretty much only find Zionists throwing this particular antisemitic putdown around. Aaronovitch is not just not an exception, he even offers advice on when or how it should or can be used or abused:

On the uses and abuses of the Asajews. My @JewishChron column this week -https://t.co/mqbSIN1SLF

— David Aaronovitch (@DAaronovitch) May 6, 2016

Of course Aaro works for Murdoch, probably the biggest Zionist in Christendom, and typically also antisemitic:

Why Is Jewish owned press so consistently anti- Israel in every crisis?

— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) 18 November 2012

And as a JC regular he also works for Stephen Pollard, assuming the editor of the JC is the commentator's boss. And here's Pollard:

The Grauniad has more Asajews today https://t.co/RS3ti8grG6

— Stephen Pollard (@stephenpollard) 11 May 2016

Of course no one has to pay for Aaro's racist outbursts at The Times or the JC but he is also something of a regular on BBC Radio 4 and if you live in the UK, as I do, and you own a television, which I do, you do have to pay for the BBC so most Brits have to pay for David Aaronovitch one way or another.

So while the Labour Party is allowing Zionists to goosestep all over it, silencing criticism of Israel amid a welter of bogus allegations of antisemitism,  those most likely to hurl antisemitic abuse at their political opponents are given a free, indeed a paid for, hand.

Why is a Sun reporter supporting Momentum Head Jon Lansman?

I noticed a Sun reporter, @MrHarryCole touting Jon Lansman ludicrous idea of banning the word "Zionism" from discussions in Labour Party circles.  I thought it was odd for anything anyone connected to Corbyn to get Sun approval.  Sam Kiley, an ardent Zionist, before he began working for Murdoch at Sky actually left The Times because of Murdoch's aggressive proprietorial interventionism for Israel's sake.

Here's his tweet:

Well known Blairite agitator Lansman is calling for sanity and asking comrades to stop banging on about Zionists. https://t.co/aQDWKuub38

— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) May 3, 2016

Obviously leftists noticed how Jon Lansman of the supposed grass roots Corbynite support group, Momentum, had won the approval of a Murdoch staffer.  It's hard to imagine that a pat on the back for a Corbynite from a Murdoch staffer would happen without approval from the Digger himself.  It would be like Ha'avara happening without Hitler's approval. At the time I didn't think too much of the Sun imprimatur.  I just tweeted how it was ludicrous to ban the word "Zionism" from Labour Party discussions.  But I then got retweeted by this Harry Cole chap, look:

Grim https://t.co/kNFZmFScZJ

— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) May 3, 2016

Now look at the thread after the tweet Cole quote/retweeted:

See my little offering there?

.@BDSJustice The Digger's digging in the Golan. No one at the Sun or Times will criticise Zionism @TheBirmingham6 @jonlansman @MrHarryCole

— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) May 3, 2016

Well at this point Jon Lansman's Comrade Harry Cole seems to have had a panic because now look:

See that? The guy engages with me by QRTing my tweet then blocks me. But did you see the side bar when it asks you to consider following something similar to what you were looking at? Yup, The Telegraph - no surprise there - and Jon Lansman. And why am I not surprised at that one?

So what have we learned? Jon Lansman is either a Zionist himself or at least someone willing to appease Zionism for some short term gain. He certainly seems to have pleased someone at the Murdoch stables. And when I mentioned the Diggers interests in the Golan heights the previously cocky Harry Cole had a panic.

And what haven't we learned? Well what I, rather than we, haven't learned is what the flip is going on?

Elie Wiesel's hasbara is too disgusting even for Murdoch's Times

In an ad that has appeared in many mainstream US papers, Elie Wiesel accuses Hamas of child sacrifice over the hundreds of children killed in Israel's latest Palestinian cull.  Well Rupert Murdoch's Times newspaper has refused to carry the ad.

 Here's Ha'aretz on yet another humiliation for hasbara:

The London Times refused to run an ad featuring Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel speaking out against Hamas’ use of children as human shields.

The ad sponsored by The Values Network, which was founded by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, has run in The New York Times, Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, among other U.S. newspapers. The refusal was first reported by the New York Observer.

The London Times refused the ad because “the opinion being expressed is too strong and too forcefully made and will cause concern amongst a significant number of Times readers,” according to a statement from a representative of the newspaper, the Observer reported.

Headlined “Jews rejected child sacrifice 3,500 years ago. Now it’s Hamas turn,” the ad began running last week. It reads, in part: “In my own lifetime, I have seen Jewish children thrown into the fire. And now I have seen Muslim children used as human shields, in both cases, by worshippers of death cults indistinguishable from that of the Molochites.

“What we are suffering through today is not a battle of Jew versus Arab or Israeli versus Palestinian. Rather, it is a battle between those who celebrate life and those who champion death. It is a battle of civilization versus barbarism.”

Now Times owner Rupert Murdoch is a big fan of Israel so I'm guessing his staff must have run the rejection by him before letting the weasels know.

Israel killed maybe 2,000 people including over 400 children and its western backers were mostly supportive but cracks appeared as never before.

The scoreline was something like, Zionists killed 2,000+ Palestinians, 64.  A victory for Zionism?  No.  With supporters like Rupert Murdoch running for cover from racist lunatics like Wiesel, Israel's firepower deployed as it has been against a defenseless people has knocked a hole in the side of the ship of the State of Israel.  The time is coming when Israel's murderous chauvinism will hole it below the waterline.

Press Complaints Commission cloud still hangs over Scarfe but not his boss Murdoch

From November 2012 to January 2013 there were two complaints of antisemitism against people connected to the Sunday Times.  The first was from anti-racists against Rupert Murdoch for the following tweet:

Why Is Jewish owned press so consistently anti- Israel in every crisis?
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) November 18, 2012

The second was from zionists about this cartoon by Gerald Scarfe:



Of course Murdoch's antisemitic tweet asserting Jewish press ownership and a failure of Jews to live up to his expectations didn't appear in any of his papers.  I just searched The Jewish Chronicle website for mention of the tweet and found nothing.  The Gerald Scarfe cartoon for which Murdoch and Scarfe apologised  got nearly twenty mentions in the JC and there were complaints to the Press Complaints Commission.

Well apparently the PCC is still on the case, three months down the line.  Apparently there were two grounds for complaint.  One is that showing an Israeli leader with blood on his hands recalls the blood libel even though saying Netanyahu has blood on his hands is perfectly true.  The other is that the cartoon appeared on Holocaust Memorial Day.  There are then two problems here involving the privileging of Israel. One is, no matter how violent the State of Israel is to its natives and neighbours, cartoonists are not allowed to show blood on an Israeli leader's hands.  The other is that even if you are allowed to draw such images, there is a day of the year when all other leaders can be portrayed with blood on that hands but not Israeli leaders.

Anyway, here's the JC on the continued consideration of the PCC:

The Press Complaints Commission is still considering what, if any, action it will take over Gerald Scarfe's cartoon about Israel, nearly three months after it appeared in the Sunday Times.

The watchdog has resolved three complaints about the publication of a drawing depicting the Israeli Prime Minister wielding a bloodied knife over a wall dripping with blood on Holocaust Memorial Day.

After the Sunday Times admitted error for the cartoon and printed an apology, three people withdrew their complaints.

But a PCC spokesman said others had confirmed that they did wish to pursue the matter, and their complaints are still under consideration.

What do they want, blood?

Who cares about zionist antisemitism?

I read a wonderful comment on the tolerance zionists have towards antisemitism when it is expressed by one of their own.  It was on a Harry's Place's post again falsely accusing the Guardian's Steve Bell of antisemitism whilst failing to notice Rupert Murdoch's.  This chap who calls himself Discredited Andrew came out with this little gem:

Discredited Andrew • a day ago

• −

I keep noticing these little digs at Jews from certain quarters for not being pro-Israel and/or hawkish enough. Apparently Jews are obliged to push a neo-con agenda in order to be accepted as equals. Nasty stuff. Not that anybody here cares.

0  1 

•

Reply

•

Share ›

I've posted the whole exchange here because HP deletes all comments after a week.  Please check out all of the comments and see how the HP faithful defend antisemtism when it's from a friend like Rupert Murdoch.

Revisit: What was antisemitic about Rupert Murdoch's "Jewish owned press" tweet?

Harry's Place is going ape again about a couple of Steve Bell cartoon strips:



  

The depictions are of, from left to right in order of appearance, Rupert Murdoch, Bibi Netanyahu and a puppet from UK television called Sooty.  The cartoons above are a response to the allegation, false in my opinion, that the following cartoon was antisemitic:



The cartoon was saying that whatever was being said by Netanyahu about the November 2012 Israeli attack on Gaza was being thoughtlessly repeated by UK foreign minister, William Hague, and Israel's ambassador at large (for now), Tony Blair.

During the same month, Rupert Murdoch issued the following tweet:

Why Is Jewish owned press so consistently anti- Israel in every crisis?
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) November 18, 2012

Now to many, I hope most, people, this was instantly recognisable as antisemitism.  There were immediate protests and Murdoch, in spite of being too stupid to know what he had done rushed out an apology:

",Jewish owned press" have been sternly criticised, suggesting link to Jewish reporters.Don't see this, but apologise unreservedly.
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) November 18, 2012

But there were no protests from the usual suspects. For example, checking Harry's Place archive for November 2012 there are no criticisms of Murdoch's original tweet nor his what-did-I-say apology.  And in the thread for the piece condemning the latest Steve Bell cartoons it's clear that the HP faithful don't even see Murdoch's "Jewish owned press" tweet as antisemitic.  I'm guessing the above the line crew just think it's best ignored.  If you look at the thread you will see that the faithful had no idea that Murdoch had no idea what he had said that was wrong.

But what did he say that was wrong?  His terminology was very unfortunate. Murdoch is not Jewish and he owns more press than anyone so he knows that not all of the press is Jewish owned.  If his tweet recalled the trope that the Jews own the media he can't have meant that.  But some might say that unfortunate terminology alone was worth the apology.  He was actually saying something like "why aren't those media outlets which are owned by Jews not more supportive of the racist war criminals of the State of Israel?"

And that is the antisemitic bit. He is berating Jews for not living up to his expectations of them.  And that is one of many racist things about Harry's Place.  They are smart enough to know that Murdoch's tweet was antisemitic but it is no more antisemitic than they are when they berate Jews for not falling into line over the latest batch of zionist atrocities.

Actually there is another antisemitic bit.  Whilst Murdoch wasn't saying that Jews own all of the media, he does seem to think that if some Jews own something then all Jews own and are responsible for that same thing.

Murdoch owns Sunday Times and its staff

Rupert Murdoch has managed to undermine both the Sunday Times's acting editor, Martin Ivens, and its cartoonist, Gerald Scarfe, over the latter's cartoon of Netanyahu published on Sunday just gone.  Here's the cartoon from The Commentator website:

Critics - the usual suspects - have said the cartoon involves antisemitic imagery and they made much of the fact that it was published on Holocaust Memorial Day. See this from The Guardian:

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, an elected group representing Jewish people in the UK, said it had complained to the Press Complaints Commission about the cartoon published on Sunday.

In the cartoon, the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, was depicted building a wall using what appeared to be the blood of Palestinians. It carried the strapline: "Will cementing peace continue?"

It was described by Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, as "appalling" and "shockingly reminiscent of the blood libel imagery more usually found in parts of the virulently antisemitic Arab press".

Benjamin said that cartoon was "all the more disgusting" because it was printed on Holocaust Memorial Day, when millions of Jews and others killed in the Holocaust were being remembered in services across the UK.

Scarfe has said that he regrets the timing of the publication of the cartoon.  Here's the Jewish Chronicle:

Cartoonist Gerald Scarfe says that he "very much regrets" the timing of his controversial depiction of Benjamin Netanyahu in this weekend's Sunday Times.

Mr Scarfe, in a message to the JC denying permission to reproduce the cartoon, said that he had not been aware it was Holocaust Memorial Day.

Actually, it's interesting that he didn't know it was HMD on Sunday. I wouldn't know either if it wasn't for the now ritual condemnation of whichever criticism of Israel is being howled about at the same time of year, it seems, every year.

And the Sunday Times denied any antisemitic content to the cartoon:

the Sunday Times denied that the cartoon was antisemitic. In a statement, the News International title described Scarfe's imagery as "typically robust", and added: "It is aimed squarely at Mr Netanyahu and his policies, not at Israel, let alone at Jewish people. It appeared yesterday because Mr Netanyahu won the Israeli election last week.

Well now Rupert Murdoch has tweeted against his acting editor and the cartoonist.

Gerald Scarfe has never reflected the opinions of the Sunday Times. Nevertheless, we owe major apology for grotesque, offensive cartoon.
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) January 28, 2013

Now Murdoch wasn't always so sensitive to antisemitism.  In fact he did a tweet that was unambiguously antisemitic only a couple of months ago:

Why Is Jewish owned press so consistently anti- Israel in every crisis?
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) November 18, 2012

He apologised on the same day but didn't understand what he had said that was antisemitic:

",Jewish owned press" have been sternly criticised, suggesting link to Jewish reporters.Don't see this, but apologise unreservedly.
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) November 18, 2012

So where's this going to go now that the acting editor and the cartoonist have denied any wrong-doing on their part and the owner of the paper has basically denounced both?  I'm guessing the acting editor won't last but that Gerald Scarfe will remain in post but let's see.

Born again Christian Zionist Rupert Murdoch berates "Jewish owned press"

This is great.  I just got it from the Daily Beast.  I wonder how the various white supremacist websites who insist that Murdoch is Jewish will respond to today's tweet from the great man:

Why Is Jewish owned press so consistently anti- Israel in every crisis?
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) November 18, 2012

It might also have an impact on those who believe that rich powerful people must be sane and sensible. Which anti-Israel major newspaper is there which is also owned by Jews? Tell me and I'll go out and buy it.

UPDATE:  He's sorry now:

",Jewish owned press" have been sternly criticised, suggesting link to Jewish reporters.Don't see this, but apologise unreservedly.
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) November 18, 2012

Murdoch plays Israel card for Romney

I just found this by accident in the Brisbane Times.  In among a few Murdoch (on twitter, Murdock/@rupertmurdoch) was:

Nightmare for Israel if Obama wins.Biden outright lied about personal relations with Bibi. Susan Rice for State real nightmare.
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) October 13, 2012

I don't know if this helps or hurts Israel or Obama or what. I just thought I'd mention it.

Zionists panicking over possible loss of Murdoch

I thought the Jewish Chronicle might be a lone Jewish voice so lacking a moral compass that they are panicking out loud over the possible demise of the Murdoch empire.

Anyone following the way Israel is portrayed here in Britain will be concerned. Murdoch's publications (from time to time, at least) provide rare counter blasts against the prevailing winds of anti-Israeli hostility. His commitment to Israel is resolute. In a speech last year to the Anti-Defamation League he spoke of "the disturbing new home that antisemitism has found in polite society - especially in Europe", and of "an ongoing war against the Jews".

As long as Rupert is at the helm, The Times, the Sunday Times and the Sun are safe from the anti-Zionist consensus.

Anti-zionist consensus in the UK media? Wow!

But it's not just here. Yanks and aussies are worried too. Here's Ron Kampeas on the Jewish Telegraphic Agency website:

“His publications and media have proven to be fairer on the issue of Israel than the rest of the media,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice-chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “I hope that won’t be impacted.”

And for Australia:

Murdoch’s affection for Israel arose less out of his conservative sensibility than from his native Australian sympathy for the underdog fending off elites seized by conventional wisdoms, according to Isi Liebler, a longtime Australian Jewish community leader who now lives in Israel.

There's something grotesque about the way these zionist Jewish leaders can only worry about how the discomfiture of such a repulsive character affects Israel.

Murdoch latest

From The Independent

Don't let Murdoch off the hook

The closure of the News of the World when most of its advertisers have said they won't advertise with it any more hardly amounts to penance for the sick behaviours of its journalists, subs and editors.  It is clearly a case of a damage limitation exercise, cutting adrift something that was holed below the waterline anyway.

From the noise coming from the government and Ofcom, the powers that be desperately want Murdoch to continue and enhance his role as the UK's offshore Berlusconi.

Well help is at hand. The 38 Degrees website has a petition and an email campaign to "help break Murdoch's grip" on media and politics in the UK.