Showing posts with label holocaust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label holocaust. Show all posts

April 19, 2021

Is Baddiel calling Ken Loach a Holocaust Denier?

David Baddiel attempted a bit of a pile on against me a couple of weeks ago and in so doing seems to have accused Ken Loach of Holocaust denial.

The smearing of Ken Loach begins with the BBC wildly misrepresenting a speech by Miko Peled at a fringe meeting hosted by Free Speech on Israel at the Labour Conference 2017. Labour had done remarkably well in the general election of that year and the establishment decided to focus all the smearing on exaggerated, manipulated or fabricated allegations of antisemitism. Anyway, here's Miko Peled:



There was no discussion, just that remark by Miko Peled. Anyway, let's see now what the BBC did with that:



It's interesting but at some point in the interview the interviewer notes that Loach is alleging that some Labour MPs - actually it was mostly Labour MPs - were "confecting" allegations of antisemitism before going on to do exactly that herself. But anyway, this is the interview where Loach is wrongfooted by a Beeber flat out lying about what had occurred at the aforementioned FSOI meeting. She said that there had been a discussion as to whether or not the Holocaust had happened. Having no clue what she was talking about but knowing she was lying, he couldn't straight up condemn Holocaust denial or debate because that would have seemed like confirming that the discussion that had not taken place had taken place.  Wow, I just looked at the video again and the Beeber was such an outrageous liar.  Look from 01.44 "there was a discussion about the Holocaust, did it happen or didn't it?" Loach shakes his head vigorously and says "I don't think there was a discussion". She then says "well it was reported and it was on the [unintelligible]" She then says 01.57 "would you say that is unacceptable?" Loach then says "I think history is there for us all to discuss", thereby turning to a generalisation about history, not the specifics of the Holocaust.

This is one of the most lied about lines of the whole long smear campaign and the BBC's tweet truncating the clip so as to lie about Loach is still in place. Dave Rich of the Israel lobby and security group, Community Security Trust, couldn't resist his own mischief, tweeting that "Ken Loach said....whether the Holocaust happened "is there for us all to discuss".

But Dave stops short of calling Loach a Holocaust denier. He was challenged by Linda Sayle.

Now if you look, even Dave Rich wasn't stooping to accusing Loach of denial, just of tolerance towards deniers and debate with them.

Poor Linda didn't know how Dave likes to play with quotation marks. Do you see how his quotes are simply around "is there for us all to discuss", not "whether the Holocaust happened"? Dave does that all the time. Anyway, Dave did not, repeat not, call Loach a Holocaust denier. But note, he stops short of denying "scattering accusations of antisemitism around like confetti". He should have stopped at "I have no idea".

Anyway, David Baddiel picks up and runs amok with Dave Rich's smear and, for the book, sexes it up just a tad.  See page 66 on:

The film director Ken Loach was made a judge of a school competition run by Show Racism the Red Card, which is a football anti-racist charity similar to Kick It Out. In 2016, [it was 2017] during an interview at the Labour Party conference, Loach said, on being asked about the presence at a fringe meeting of a speaker alleged to have questioned the history of the Holocaust, [Miko Peled in the above clip] ‘Well, I think history is there for us all to discuss.’ He has since very strongly refuted being a Holocaust denier*, [my italics] but nonetheless this appointment led to protests from the Jewish community. For a while, SRtRC reacted angrily, doubling down, getting Eric Cantona to tweet about what a great anti-racist Ken Loach was and suchlike. In the end, Loach did step down from judging the competition, but as ever there was no outcry from progressive quarters – only Jewish ones – about the possible incongruity of his appointment.

I wouldn’t particularly mention this – it’s just a standard, everyday example of #JewsDontCount – were it not for the fact that while this minor furore was going on, a man called Dave Rich, who works for a charity, the Community Security Trust, which provides security against racist attack for Jewish schools, synagogues and community centres, [and lobbies the government for Israel and smears Israel's critics] tweeted this:

Followed by a second tweet that just said: ‘I can think of better judges for an anti-racism competition.’ I retweeted it. And then Ken Loach’s son, Jim, tweeted this:

First up Baddiel misrepresents Miko Peled. Baddiel has written a book which he intends to be taken seriously. Clearly he is either lying about Miko Peled or he simply didn't check anything, even the thread that he RTd a tweet from. In fairness the lack of checking is possible given he gets the year wrong. But even without checking, surely he realised that Dave Rich was being slippery with the Ken Loach quote. If he didn't know any of this or didn't reason any of this for himself, then why did he ignore most of Jim Loach's tweet?  "@Baddiel casually retweets internet trolls like @daverich1 who defame my father @KenLoachSixteen".

Jim Loach protests Baddiel RTing "internet trolls like @Dave Rich who defame" his father. No pause for thought over the word "defame", no? Jim Loach is accusing Baddiel and Rich (and by extension and most concerning of all, the BBC) of lying about Ken Loach, which they all were. But Baddiel had points to score and scores to settle so he takes the opportunity to show what a know-nothing he really is. 

You see, Jim Loach references one of Baddiel's racist outbursts, this one against the former footballer, Jason Lee who Baddiel encouraged famously racist football fans to mock by way of Baddiel donning blackface makeup and wearing a pineapple on his head to represent dreadlocks.Googling Baddiel, pineapple, Jason Lee, stuff like that, you will happen upon many an article with Jason Lee saying that Baddiel never apologised to him for what he did. Baddiel claims he apologised. He doesn't say who he apologised to and doesn't seem to realise even what he did wrong. Now see page 70:

What the apologies make no difference to is the recurring presence of that photo on my Twitter timeline. Particularly since I started speaking out publicly about anti-Semitism, whether it be anti-Semitism in general or on the left. In fact, it can seem that what the people demanding apologies from me want is not apologies. What they seem to want, really, is silence. They want me to shut up, particularly about anti-Semitism. As far as they are concerned, the photo of me as Jason Lee is a trump card that means I cannot speak about racism...

There is a tactic some of you may be aware of called Whataboutery. 

Yup, there is a tactic called Whataboutery. It's when you justify your own wrongdoing by reference to the wrongdoing of your opponents.  But Jim Loach is not accusing Baddiel of doing what his father has done. He is correctly calling Baddiel a liar about his father and a hypocritical liar over antisemitism. 

But there is another charge of hypocrisy to be made against Baddiel. He says that his own racism is used to try to disqualify him from talking about racism in other situations, in particular in his case, against Jews, He says this is a #Jewsdon'tcount instance. But that's exactly what Baddiel is saying about Ken Loach. The only difference is that Baddiel, Rich and the BBC all lied about Loach. You don't have to look far to find examples of Baddiel's racism. That is, you don't have to lie to make a racist out of Baddiel.

Here he is saying he looks like a "pikey".

Here he is essentialising Blacks, Asians and Jews by occupation. He got some rare mainstream flack for that, albeit in the Guardian's letters page.

But really mentioning two (three with blackface - many with blackface many times) examples of Baddiel's racism spanning over 20 years doesn't convey nearly enough of it.

He does another slippery thing. He claims that people have tried to silence him since he started talking about antisemitism as if this postdates the examples of his racism which go back to the 1990s but I'm sure I saw him alleging antisemitism against Israel's leftist critics back in the 1990s, which you could say was Baddiel's racist heyday if only it was over. 

But the final thing is this. I remember the first time I read Baddiel's stupid book, the line about Ken Loach that baffled me the most was after Baddiel claimed Loach was challenged about "the presence at a fringe meeting of a speaker alleged to have questioned the history of the Holocaust" we have what looks like a non sequitur:

He has since very strongly refuted being a Holocaust denier

Now remember Dave Rich insisted he certainly wasn't accusing anyone, certainly not Loach, of Holocaust denial. So who did accuse Ken Loach of being a Holocaust denier? Why would Baddiel say he denies it?

It rankled with me as I was sure my skim reading had let me down. That's one reason I got the Kindle version, so I can cross-reference, search, copy and paste, etc.

But then a couple of weeks ago I was googling for something, probably Baddiel related and I found that Baddiel himself has been "confronting Holocaust denial", ie, debating with Holocaust deniers,ie, what I thought Baddiel, Dave Rich and the BBC were falsely accusing Ken Loach of promoting.

I noticed that in the BBC puff for the stuff two Holocaust deniers are named and it appeared that Baddiel goes off to debate these people. I tweeted that Baddiel was doing what he falsely accused Ken Loach of doing, ie, debating the Holocaust. Actually, it's worse, it's publicising not simply the fact that some people deny the Holocaust but their names. This meant that people intent on denying the Holocaust could hone and further publicise their arguments by going to the go-to names. 

I tweeted my criticism in a four tweet thread.

The BBC's lie that Jewish socialists discussed whether or not the Holocaust happened was the most disgusting of all the lies in a smear campaign that is still ongoing. In fact, Baddiel's book with the Loach smear replicated in it is the most recent contribution to the campaign.

That could have been that but rather then respond to my first tweet that QRTd his tweet, he grabbed the fourth one which didn't name anyone and didn't tag him. He knew that I was slagging him over Loach but none of his followers could know because he grabbed the tweet, he didn't QRT it. Sneaky huh? Look: 

Now even in the tweet he grabbed there is no suggestion he is a Holocaust denier. That's just silly and his followers are silly. Many of them replied to him saying how illogical I was and some had a go directly at me. I responded pointing out that I had said that he condemned Loach for promoting Holocaust debate whereas by confronting Holocaust deniers he is engaging in the debate that he falsely condemned Loach for promoting.

Well in all the toing and froing, I finally said to someone, the only way Baddiel's tweet tagging me works is if he thinks that me comparing what he is doing to what he accused Loach of doing is if he is accusing Loach of Holocaust denial. Oh wait! Finally the penny dropped. "He [Loach] has since very strongly refuted being a Holocaust denier" followed by the word "but". Baddiel seems to be flatly contradicting his mentor, Dave Rich (or maybe Rich is Baddiel's mentee). Baddiel appears to be accusing Ken Loach of Holocaust denial. I wonder.

By the way, the smearing of Ken Loach is yet another score settling exercise in Baddiel's stupid book. This time it is more aimed at Ken's son Jim. What a piece of work that Baddiel (aged 55) is.


Posted by @ No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

October 29, 2017

Spot the difference as the Jewish Chronicle removes a published letter from its website

My friend Deborah Maccoby had a letter published in the Jewish Chronicle last week which read as follows:

About free speech

In his Holocaust Education Trust dinner speech ( “The scourge of antisemitism is changing form”, JC, October 20 2017) Andrew Neil erroneously cited the Free Speech on Israel fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference: “the chair of the meeting asked: ‘We demand the right to debate ‘Holocaust: yes or no’”.

The chair of the meeting, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, made no mention of the Holocaust.  The guest speaker, Miko Peled, an Israeli-American who is not a member of the Labour Party, said:

“This is about free speech, the freedom to criticise and to discuss every issue, whether it’s the Holocaust: yes or no, Palestine, the liberation, the whole spectrum.  There should be no limits on the discussion”.

Peled was defining free speech as a principle, not calling for a Labour Party debate about whether or not the Holocaust happened, as was implied by Mr Neil.

Later in his speech, Andrew Neil quoted Mark Twain: “the truth has barely got its boots on before a lie is halfway round the world”.  Exactly. 

Deborah Maccoby, 
Leeds LS17
The link to the letter was here.   Clicking on the link though, you will not now find the letter.  Thanks to Google cache I know that you would have seen the letter if you'd have clicked the link between some time on 27 Oct 2017 and roughly "28 Oct 2017 02:46:01 GMT".  But now, sadly it's gone.

 It's a real shame because I tweeted the link and it got several retweets and likes:
The removal of Deborah's letter from the webpage involved significant changes to the page's appearance. Look, here it is before:


Obviously, scrolling down you would see the letter, which fortunately still appears in Google cache together with the link to the Andrew Neil article which Deborah was criticising.

And here's the page after the letter was removed:

I can't help wondering if Andrew Neil (on Twitter as @afneil) asked @StephenPollard to have the letter removed.  But whatever or whoever caused Deborah Maccoby's published letter to be removed from the Jewish Chronicle, thanks to Google cache and to me everyone can see the letter and everyone can see that it has been removed.

Who knows?  Maybe the Jewish Chronicle will restore the page to its original splendour.
Posted by @ No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

October 16, 2017

Another Letter by Loach, Another Lie by Rich

Ken Loach has had a letter published in the New York Times refuting demonstrably false claims made about him by Howard Jacobson.

Here's the letter:
To the Editor:
Re: “Now Labour is the Enemy of the Jews,” (front page, Oct. 7-8):
Howard Jacobson alleges that I defended questioning the Holocaust. I did not and do not. In a confused BBC interview, where question and answer overlapped, my words were twisted to give a meaning contrary to that intended. The Holocaust is as real a historical event as World War II itself and not to be challenged. In Primo Levi’s words: “Those who deny Auschwitz would be ready to remake it.”
Exaggerated or false charges of anti-Semitism have coincided with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Discredit his supporters, and you weaken his leadership. The Jewish Socialist Group wrote: “accusations of anti-Semitism are being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.”
We will not be intimidated. The Labour Party will continue to assert “the values of peace, universal rights and International law” as proclaimed in its manifesto.
KEN LOACH
LONDON
And here's what he was refuting:
In a moment that will live in infamy, the distinguished film director Ken Loach defended questioning the Holocaust. “I think history is for all of us to discuss,” he said, dodging the question of why the Labour Party should have chosen the Holocaust, of all historical events — and not slavery, say — to subject to scrutiny. 
But the defaming of Ken Loach didn't start with Howard Jacobson and didn't end with him either.  Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust thought he detected a claim of victimhood in Loach's letter.  He tweeted:
I immediately knew he was lying but I was pleased Ken Loach had another chance to answer his slanderers so I followed the link and word searched "victim".  Obviously, you don't have to use the word "victim" to claim to be one.  But on reading the letter and re-reading it, there was nothing there to suggest that he was claiming that he was a victim.  Scroll back up.  See what he wrote.  Any sign of self-pity?  This is a guy who supports the Palestinian cause.  It's inconceivable that he would claim victim status when the only reason he's being smeared is because he supports the cause of a victimised nation.  Of course, Ken Loach has been victimised but I think he has enough self-awareness to refrain from complaining about it.  He was simply setting the record straight.

So did he write anything at all that could be construed as claiming victimhood?  Let's take it line by line.
1.   Howard Jacobson alleges that I defended questioning the Holocaust.
Nothing there.
2.  I did not and do not.  
Nope, not there.
3.   In a confused BBC interview, where question and answer overlapped, my words were twisted to give a meaning contrary to that intended. 
 Nor there.
4.   The Holocaust is as real a historical event as World War II itself and not to be challenged.
Hmm, nothing in that line about Ken at all.  I'm starting to think Dave Rich made this up.  Surely there was a kernel of truth, as Goebbels used to say.  Let's keep looking:
5.   In Primo Levi’s words: “Those who deny Auschwitz would be ready to remake it.”
Aha!  Now I could give Dave a bit of a pass here and say that he might have thought that in agreeing with Primo Levi, Loach was actually likening himself to Levi.  See if he tries that one.  It would be all he's got because, well, let's see some more...
6.   Exaggerated or false charges of anti-Semitism have coincided with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader.
Nope, that's about Corbyn, not Ken.
7.   Discredit his supporters, and you weaken his leadership. 
Again. mostly about the leadership but also about the supporters.  Discrediting isn't necessarily victimising.  Dave to me is an utterly discredited figure.  He's hardly a victim.
8.   The Jewish Socialist Group wrote: “accusations of anti-Semitism are being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.”
Now that's not a claim of victimhood, in fact it looks like Dave's job description.

Ok, to the final paragraph and what have we here?
9.   We will not be intimidated.
What we have here is a flat contradiction of what Dave Rich is claiming Ken Loach said.  What's extremely concerning is that Dave was so confident that his followers would "agree" with him, he even helpfully provided the link to the letter that he so flagrantly lied about.  If you look at the tweet, look at the replies too.  Last I checked I was the only one pointing out that Dave was misrepresenting what Ken Loach had said.

So to the last line:
10.  The Labour Party will continue to assert “the values of peace, universal rights and International law” as proclaimed in its manifesto.
And so we see, er, nothing to see.  And that is Dave Rich, one of the UK's most prominent antisemitism hunters.

But I did say in the headline, "Another Lie by Rich". So what else have we.  How far before yesterday do we have to go.  Well, the day before yesterday.  Really.  Check out this exchange between Rich and Jamie Stern-Weiner.  Here's a tweet that sums up the whole thing but there's a whole thread above and below it:
And from exactly one year ago, here's Dave smearing Jonathan Rosenhead of  Free Speech on Israel.

And here's what he was referring to on Free Speech on Israel:
It is impossible to know from the outside exactly what and who have made this moral panic [the antisemitism smear campaign] go with such a swing. Key individuals may well be Jeremy Newmark, well-placed in JLM, though only just in time, to fan these flames. The wily Mark Regev took up his post as Israeli ambassador in London at the start of April. In July Ella Rose left her job as public affairs officer at the Israeli Embassy to become Director of JLM. Who knows? Organisationally, judging by their public pronouncements there is an at least informal coalition of forces involving JLM, Progress (the Blairite pressure group), and Labour Friends of Israel which have all been promoting the idea that the left is permeated with antisemitism.
 See that?  Dave was clever here. He put the word "wily" in quotes but not the word "Jews".  So he could, and did, claim that he wasn't actually misquoting.  Again check out the thread.

And this is Dave Rich's job and, apparently his hobby too.

Dave Rich is just one player in this annoying and damaging game.  He's not a particularly bright one by any means, in fact, a sure sign that Rosenhead wasn't generalising about wily Jews is that, whilst many of the merchants of smear can be justly accused of fabrication, Dave Rich and many others can never be accused of being wily.
Posted by @ No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

May 29, 2016

Zionists order Corbyn to follow John Vorster to Yad Vashem

This is interesting.  Having jumped through hoops to appease the UK's Zionist movement it turns out that Jeremy Corbyn may have disobeyed a direct order to indulge in a bit of holocaust hypocrisy at Israel's holocaust museum, Yad Vashem.  Here's The Guardian:
Jeremy Corbyn faced fresh criticism over his handling of antisemitism allegations after Labour’s sister party in Israel said it had had no reply to a letter its leader [Isaac Herzog] sent to him a month ago expressing dismay and inviting him to Jerusalem to see the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum.
Visits to Yad Vashem are something of a walk of shame given some of its past visitors.  Here's John Vorster, a one time president of apartheid era South Africa and a nazi internee during WWII:



The picture is from Yad Vashem's own website.

And apart from Israel's own leaders, Vorster isn't the only racist to have graced Yad Vashem with his presence.   Here's Poland's Michal Kaminski of the virulently nationalist, Civic Platform Party visited Yad Vashem too:



Here's Tony Greenstein on Kaminski:
Kaminski led the campaign against a national Polish apology for the burning alive of up to 900 Jews in Jedwabne by Poles in 1941 (see )  Kaminski was formerly a member of the fascist National Revival of Poland Party. 
Vorster and Kaminski are just the kind of people you might expect to turn up at the jewel in the Zionist crown.  That tribute to Jewish suffering that says that no-one else matters and Israel can do no wrong.

And so to Corbyn:
Herzog invited Corbyn to bring a delegation to Yad Vashem to witness that the last time the Jews were forcibly transported “it was not to Israel but to their deaths”. An Israeli Labour party official confirmed that it had “not had a reply” after rumours circulated in the Jewish community in London that no response had been received in Jerusalem or issued from London.
 So no answer from Corbyn so far so we can only hope that if he does ever answer he won't make that walk of shame.

But not content with implying that Corbyn has done something wrong, rather than the first thing he's done right since this whole orchestrated smear campaign began, Toby Helm (The Observer journo who wrote the piece) managed to take do something no self-respecting journalist should ever do.  He took a Zionist's words at face value.  Let's see that again:
the last time the Jews were forcibly transported “it was not to Israel but to their deaths”
Now that's just not true.  There have now been many instances of Jews being forced to go to Israel when they haven't wanted.  Even West Germany back in the 1980s handcuffed Soviet Jews and bundled them on to El Al planes bound for Israel.  Poland had an antisemitic campaign in the 1960s where an agreement with Golda Meir had Jews being forced to go to the Israel they didn't even approve of.  And with the collapse of the Soviet Union Jews who wished to go elsewhere once again found themselves being forced to go to Israel. For that unhappy episode, see 972 Mag.

Posted by @ No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

October 23, 2015

Netanyahu the historian?

Apparently Bibi's dad was a historian. That's according to Anschel Pfeffer in today's Jewish Chronicle. Look:
According to Mr Netanyahu - whose father was a lauded historian - Hitler asked Al-Husseini: "What should I do with them [the Jews]?" He replied: "Burn them."
 I don't know if Netanyahu Senior was a zionist "historian" or a historian who happened to be a zionist but clearly Netanyahu Junior is no historian.

But then Aschel Pfeffer is no historian either.  Watch how he stumbles into no-shit-Sherlock territory:
Some commentators said that Mr Netanyahu's words revealed either that he sees the conflict between Israel and its immediate neighbours as a continuation of the Holocaust, or that he is prepared to manipulate history for political purposes.
Wow, there's an insight.  Zionist leaders play the holocaust card for political advantage.

Norman Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry is available in good bookshops, at least it was several years ago. It might of interest to wannabe historians like Netanyahu Junior and Anschel Pfeffer.
Posted by @ No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

June 24, 2015

Earl Grey Tea Leaves at Auschwitz

I heard yesterday about two private school students stealing some items from Auschwitz. I'd just come out of a museum.  I managed to resist the temptation to actually steal anything but I certainly know the feeling of wanting to own an exhibit or two.

Here are some links to reports from yesterday and today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33237625
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/23/uk-teenagers-held-thefts-artefacts-auschwitz-museum
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3135957/British-teenagers-arrested-stealing-items-former-Nazi-concentration-camp-Auschwitz.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/23/british-steal-auschwitz-_n_7649024.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.662615

Of course you can always google Auschwitz where you will find the thefts as the lead news item for the time being anyway.

I noticed that the first reports I read focused on the enormity of what had occurred at Auschwitz during the holocaust with the privileged character of The Perse School being considered of secondary importance.  Here's The Daily Mail:
The pair, who attend Cambridge’s exclusive The Perse School where fees are more than £15,000 a year, were spotted acting suspiciously on Monday afternoon.
And here's The Guardian:
Perse school counts the theatre director Sir Peter Hall and Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyd among its alumni.
So, posh young men at a posh school.  I'm guessing profit wasn't the motive.  Maybe they were overwhelmed by curiosity.  I can't help feeling sorry for them given the way the news of what they did has traveled round the world but I suppose the law is the law.
Posted by @ No comments:
Labels: , ,

April 14, 2015

Why would a nice Jewish woman involve herself with anti-racist politics?

Here's a piece from last week's Jewish Chronicle about a holocaust survivor active in the anti-racist, Beyond UKIP group.   It's about a woman called Ruth Barnett, who survived the holocaust by way of the Kindertransport, joining the demonstration against Nigel Farage at his local pub and then getting caught up in the attack on the Beyond UKIP group by the fascist activists of the Britain First group:
So why does Mrs Barnett, who arrived in the UK on the Kindertransport when she was four years old and now lives in north London, continue to put herself in harm’s way for the sake of politics?

She said: “As a Jew I don’t think I can speak out about the rise in antisemitism without speaking out about the rise in other intolerances and I think Ukip and others are stirring up hatred towards immigrants. It seems we are still not learning the lessons of the Holocaust.

“Beyond Ukip are passionate about standing up for vulnerable minority groups. It is fun and exciting to be around such young and passionate people.

“I was a vulnerable minority group as a child and I’ve spent my life protesting and campaigning for similar groups.”
I dunno, I suppose I'm old school. I find it really sad that the Jewish Chronicle has to ask why a Jewish survivor of the holocaust would want to side with the oppressed.  I remember when you wouldn't have to ask.

In the same edition of the JC, Marcus Dysch is thrilled to announce that a recent survey suggests that 69% of UK Jews will vote Conservative and this he believes because they like the uncritical supporty David Cameron offers to racist war criminals.
Posted by @ No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

January 27, 2015

Holocaust Memorial Day: Never Again for Anyone


ijan_logo_regions

January 27: Holocaust Remembrance

 

Never Again for Anyone:

On the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz,
we honor Hajo Meyer’s life and his commitment
to the liberation of all people suffering dehumanization.

images 2On the occasion of this International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the day that marks the liberation of Auschwitz, we remember Dr. Hayo Meyer, proud member of IJAN and long time anti-Zionist activist who passed away at the age of 90 on August 22, 2014. The day after he died, a letter from Jewish Survivors of the Nazi genocide and their descendants was published as an ad in the NY Times. The ad reflected Hajo’s words “never again for anyone”: decrying Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza and Elie Wiesel’s attempt to use the genocide of Jewish people to justify the attacks on Gaza. Dr. Meyer was the first to sign on.
 
Hajo was unwavering in his conviction and passion that Never Again meant Never Again for Anyone and in his outrage that his experience in Auschwitz was misused by Israel and Zionism to justify the colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Dr. Meyer was born in 1924 in Bielefeld, Germany. When he was barred from attending school there after November 1938, he fled to the Netherlands, alone. In 1944, after a year in the underground, he was caught and subsequently survived 10 months at Auschwitz. During the last decade of his life, Dr. Meyer dedicated himself to countering the Zionist manipulation of the Nazi genocide to justify the colonization of Palestine. He played a leading role on the Never Again for Anyone tour of Europe in 2010, and of the United States and Canada in 2011.

By trade, he was the Director of the Phillips (electronics) Physics Laboratory (NatLab). After his retirement he became a builder of custom new violins and violas. He also played and performed the violin. In the last decade of his life, he traveled the world with his wife and companion, Chris Tillanus, to bring the message of Never Again for Anyone.

While we will miss Hajo, his message continues and grows stronger in the world as he is joined by survivors of the Nazi genocide, the descendants of its victims and survivors, and all people committed to justice.

This short video includes some of Hajo's powerful words:https://vimeo.com/117251606.
 
unnamed
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network
Argentina :: Canada :: England :: Europe :: India :: Israel :: United States
ijan@ijsn.net :: ijsn.net
© International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network
Posted by @ No comments:
Labels: , ,

April 27, 2014

Finally Abbas recognises Israel as Yad Vashem with an air force

Well Ha'aretz is excited about this new development:
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas released a special message on Sunday in Arabic and in English on the occasion of Israel's Holocaust Remembrance Day, in which he decried the murder of Jews in the Holocaust as "the most heinous crime against humanity in modern history.
But what's it got to do with anything now?

Apparently it represents a bit of a turnaround for Abbas:
A number of senior Israeli officials, including Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Strategic and Intelligence Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz, have declared over the past year that Abbas is anti-Semitic and a Holocaust denier. Their claims were based on Abbas' doctoral thesis from the University of Moscow, which asserted cooperation between elements in the Zionist Movement and Nazi Germany in the years before the Holocaust.

Abbas had since retracted these claims. In interviews he gave in recent years he maintained that he was not denying the Holocaust and that he recognizes the fact that six million Jews were killed during World War II.
They shouldn't do that conflation if they don't want people denying the holocaust.  So you see what they did?
Abbas' doctoral thesis from the University of Moscow.....asserted cooperation between elements in the Zionist Movement and Nazi Germany in the years before the Holocaust
Asserting the very well documented fact that the zionist movement, that is the mainstream of the zionist movement, collaborated with the nazis before and during the holocaust, and after, given that some zionists went on to testify for nazis at Nuremberg, is not the same as denying that the holocaust happened.

So what was Abbas's thesis?  That the holocaust didn't happen? or that it did happen and zionists collaborated?

What does it matter anyway what Abbas is forced to say now or what he used to say?  It seems like only yesterday that Ha'aretz was saying that "Israel should be more than Yad Vashem with an air force".  Apparently they don't believe their own position on this.
Posted by @ No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

May 15, 2013

Supreme and Other Sacrifices

Here's a very good post by Mike Marqusee, Remembering Szmul Zygielbojm:

Seventy years ago, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was crushed. In London, Szmul Zygielbojm took his own life in protest. He was a Polish Jew, a socialist and the representative of the Bund (the Jewish workers’ party) in the Polish government in exile.
He left behind a letter in which he explained his action:

“The latest news that has reached us from Poland makes it clear beyond any doubt that the Germans are now murdering the last remnants of the Jews in Poland with unbridled cruelty. Behind the walls of the ghetto the last act of this tragedy is now being played out.

The responsibility for the crime of the murder of the whole Jewish nationality in Poland rests first of all on those who are carrying it out, but indirectly it falls also upon the whole of humanity, on the peoples of the Allied nations and on their governments, who up to this day have not taken any real steps to halt this crime. By looking on passively upon this murder of defenceless millions – tortured children, women and men – they have become partners to the responsibility.
… I cannot continue to live and to be silent while the remnants of Polish Jewry, whose representative I am, are being murdered. My comrades in the Warsaw ghetto fell with arms in their hands in the last heroic battle. I was not permitted to fall like them, together with them, but I belong with them, in their mass grave.
By my death, I wish to make the strongest possible protest against the passivity with which the world is looking on and permitting the extermination of the Jewish people. I know how little life is worth today, but since I was unable to do anything during my life, perhaps by my death I shall help to break down the indifference of those who have the possibility even now, at the last moment, to save the handful of Polish Jews who are still alive from certain annihilation.

… My life belongs to the Jewish people of Poland, and therefore I hand it over to them now. I yearn that the remnant that has remained of the millions of Polish Jews may live to see liberation together with the Polish masses, and that it shall be permitted to breathe freely in Poland and in a world of freedom and socialistic justice, in compensation for the inhuman suffering and torture inflicted on them. And I believe that such a Poland will arise and such a world will come about…”

Zygielbojm’s suicide was a deeply reasoned and socially responsible act. But according to the values prevailing in our own society, it should be dismissed or even condemned as a “futile gesture”, a “pointless sacrifice” – and therefore something pathological, neurotic, “self-indulgent”. All my political life I have heard this said about any sacrifice made for a just cause. It was said in the 80s about the miners who tried and failed to save their communities, and about the councillors who stood up for local democracy against rate capping and got surcharged and chucked out of politics for their pains. It’s being said now about Palestinian hunger strikers. It has been the stock-in-trade of Third Way, post-social democratic politics, where to sacrifice one’s political career or “viability” by standing up against power and prejudice is viewed as a self-evidently self-defeating folly. Surely it is this ideology of self-serving “pragmatism” that ought to be dubbed “self-indulgent”? What’s truly pathological and neurotic is the “common sense” of egocentric individualism, the obsession with personal success and status, the desperation to conform to an inhuman, destructive social order.
Posted by @ No comments:
Labels: , , ,

February 13, 2013

French Holocaust Rescuers Boycott Zionist Holocaust Memorial Event

This is from The Forward:
PARIS — A French organization that saved Jews during the Holocaust has declined to attend a commemoration because it was organized by pro-Israel Jews.
The Marseille branch of CIMADE, a French Protestant group established in 1939, declined to attend the region’s main memorial ceremony for Jewish Holocaust victims because of the pro-Israel attitude of CRIF, the umbrella group representing French Jewish communities, which organized the event together with the municipality.
The values that led CIMADE to save Jews make the group “equally committed to oppose the colonial, discriminatory and bellicose policy of Israel with regards to the Palestinians,” CIMADE regional deputies Françoise Rocheteau and Jean-Pierre Cavalie wrote in a letter to the local CRIF branch on Dec. 21. It also said CIMADE was determined to fight “apartheid.”
The letter, which was published online on Feb. 11 by a group which promotes a boycott of Israel, was a reply to an invitation extended by CRIF to CIMADE to attend the 70th commemoration on Jan. 20 of the deportation and subsequent murder of thousands of local Jews.
Marseille had a Jewish population of 39,000 in 1939, according to Beit Hatfutsot, the Museum of the Jewish People. Only 10,000 remained after the Holocaust. CIMADE organized “vital relief and later resistance” in connection with the murders, according to Yad Vashem, and helped smuggle Jews to safety. Yad Vashem named Madeleine Barot, who headed CIMADE during the Holocaust, a Righteous among the Nations in 1988. She passed away seven years later.
“We understand our positions may appear unacceptable, making us unwelcome at your commemoration,” the CIMADE representatives wrote. “We cannot keep silent on our convictions but do not wish to cause a scandal.”

It's interesting that they're trying a softly softly approach.  I wonder if CRIF will appreciate that. 
Posted by @ No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

November 07, 2012

Lighting the torch - Jewish Socialist Group event

From the Jewish Socialist Group website:
LIGHTING THE TORCH, ALGIERS 8 NOVEMBER 1942 Speaker: Charlie Pottins
7.30pm, Sunday 11th November 2012 at MIC Centre, 81-103 Euston Street, London NW1 2EZ (3 min from Euston station) 
How a band of poorly armed, mainly Jewish, rebels took on Vichy French forces in Algiers, opening the way for Allied forces. On the 70th anniversary, we look at a little known page of history, and at what happened afterwards.
ALL WELCOME
Note the anniversary was 8 November but the commemorative event is on the 11th.  Well it had me confused....
Posted by @ No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

August 17, 2012

Liberating Palestine by exposing anti-zionist zionists?

The expression "anti-zionist zionist" was first coined by a zionist, the late Steve Cohen. Like much of what Steve Cohen had to say, the expression was designed to muddy the waters as to what zionism actually is.  Here's a taste:
I am an anti-Zionist because Zionism is racist
I am a Zionist because Zionism is anti-racist
Zionism is racist because it oppresses, depresses, represses and suppresses the Palestinians
Zionism is anti-racist because it is a response by Jews to the oppression, depression, repression and suppression of anti-semitism
That last line is a bit like saying that nazism is anti-imperialist because it was a response to the Treaty of Versailles but I just wanted to show who it was that seems to originally have coined the term.

Gilad Atzmon subsequently took the expression and applied it to Jews who claim to be anti-zionist in that they (we) oppose the existence of the State of Israel as a state specially for Jews and who therefore support the Palestinians' right of return.  In spite of chopping and changing what he (that is Atzmon) means by his plagiarised saying, he does apply it to Jews who are opposed to racism and in particular he claims that Jews, regardless of where they stand on Palestine, are zionists if they object to anti-Jewish racism, aka, antisemitism and often he seems to apply the term to all Jews.

Now I noticed a chap called Martin Iqbal (aka nit2am on twitter) using the expression "anti-zionist zionist" on the deLiberation website which was co-founded by Gilad Atzmon though Atzmon has now left it presumably on the grounds of irreconcilable similarities.  So let's have a little look at how Martin Iqbal uses the term "'anti-zionist' zionist":
The selective morality of ‘anti-Zionist’ Zionists (self-professed anti-Zionists who harbour certain Zionist viewpoints) says that Palestinians must languish in refugee camps merely because it would be ‘immoral’ to re-settle Israelis who live on stolen land. This is all while Israel proves its capability to resettle its own citizens when it colonises vast swathes of the West Bank and East Jerusalem......
This writer [Martin Iqbal] has recently spent time working with Israeli ‘anti-Zionists’ taking part in activism in solidarity with Palestinians in Occupied Palestine. Opposition to enacting the Right of Return is prevalent in these ‘anti-Zionist’ circles, making them decidedly Zionist, regardless of their protestations to the contrary.
When I first saw this article on deLiberation it concerned me that the goal posts had been moved. Atzmon had reduced the expression "zionism" to meaninglessness by falsely accusing anti-zionist Jews of being zionists simply for identifying or being identified as Jews or at least for opposing racism against Jews.  Martin Iqbal was now saying that anti-zionist zionists opposed the Palestinians' right of return. I wouldn't want to comment on the deLiberation site but when I saw Martin's post on his own blog, Empire Strikes Black, I also saw that Max Ajl, of Jewbonics, had commented asking for clarification of why Martin Iqbal appeared to have changed the meaning of the expression, "anti-zionist zionist" and suggesting that it was actually Gilad Atzmon's coinage.  This is how Martin responded:
I used the term 'anti-Zionist Zionists' because the people I refer to (who I've been speaking to and working with lately) claim to be opposed to the Zionist project, but there are key aspects of the Zionist project that they are not willing to oppose. I've cleared the wording of the article up and added some text to clarify it.
You seem to be talking about a different matter, over-analysing the terminology I'm using. I am not alluding to the specific "Zionist anti-Zionists" coinage of which you speak. If you read the article now it should be clear. I've no interest in getting into pedantic debates about semantics.
M
So Martin claims to be talking about something completely different from Atzmon's usage of the expression "anti-zionist zionist".  He also, wrongly, claims that the question is about semantics.

I put this to Martin in a few comments.  Here's one:
Max is right that the term as copied by Atzmon (most of Atzmon's formulations are copied from elsewhere and often from zionist sources) means a Jew who opposes the entirety of the zionist project and who therefore supports the right of return. Martin appears to want to make the charge, anti-zionist zionist, stick by factoring in Israeli Jews who oppose the right of return but that was never what was meant by anti-zionist zionist and he has failed a couple of times now to name anyone or any group he is accusing of claiming to be anti-zionist whilst opposing the right of return.
Also, in spite of his [Martin Iqbal's] claim to have "cleared the wording of the article up and added some text to clarify it" the article still reads as if there are identifiable people who claim to be anti-zionist whilst supporting one of zionism's central tenets, ie the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. 

 That must certainly be the view of deliberation.info readers since the Jews routinely smeared as being zionists on that site (where this article is cross-posted) all support the right of return and the abolition of the State of Israel as a state for the world's Jews. 

 So Martin, please name any person or group who you say call themselves anti-zionist whilst opposing the right of return or stop dog-whistling and do the decent thing by rewriting the article as something about the shortcomings of the so-called two state solution.
Martin got decidedly tetchy, repeating claims of semantic arguments, pedantry, grammar policing, trolling and resorting to homophobic and racist put-downs.

I don't know how many times I have to say this to make you understand. You either have nothing better to do, or this article really struck a chord with you. And I suspect it struck a chord with you not because you are so deeply concerned about semantic inconsistencies, rather you just want to defend the tribe. And perhaps you have been to 'Israel' and perhaps you have spoken to these types of people, you just want to convince the world that they don't exist. You clearly have a hard-on for Gilad Atzmon - go and write him an angry letter. You've made your point, your rants are falling on deaf ears now.
But Martin wasn't done yet. Here's another of his comments:
Okay, khalas? Can we move on now? Perhaps you would like to answer my question to you. I would say that you are a paradigmatic example of an ‘anti-Zionist’ who is also decidedly Zionist, because you perpetuate myths that are crucial tenets of Zionism. You’re terrified of challenging these lies – these are red lines that you will not cross. Aside from token denunciations of Islamophobia, which is just about as far as you’re willing to go, I’ll have more respect for you when you talk about Israel’s central role in 9/11 on your ‘anti-Zionist’ blog. Or, if you have the courage to tackle the popular narrative of the ‘holocaust’ – Israel’s most important founding myth – then you can claim to call yourself an ‘anti-Zionist’. Why do you, a self-professed 'anti-Zionist', remain utterly silent on these issues, which are the most damaging and dangerous Zionist myths that exist?

For all my "rants" were "falling on deaf ears now" Martin decided to pay Jews sans frontieres a visit and to email me.  The email and his comment stated pretty much the same thing as that last comment and offered, possibly inadvertently, some explanation of what he meant by the clunky oxymoron, anti-zionist zionist:
Dear Mark,

It seems that you don't want to discuss this in a public forum, which
I completely understand, but perhaps you would like to comment via
email.

As you are aware I submitted a comment to your blog, and I'm sure you
will not be approving it.

While we're discussing 'anti-Zionists' who are indeed closet Zionists,
it seems fitting to discuss your 'anti-Zionist' blog.

Why do you, a self-professed anti-Zionist, refuse to discuss Israel's
central role in the 9/11 false flag attacks?

Why do you refuse to tackle the popular narrative of the ‘holocaust’ –
Israel’s most important founding myth?

You are a paradigmatic example of an ‘anti-Zionist’ who is indeed
Zionist, because you perpetuate the myths that are crucial tenets of
Zionism. You’re terrified of challenging these lies – red lines that
you will not cross.

Aside from token denunciations of Islamophobia, which is just about as
far as you’re willing to go, you dare not challenge these dogmas.

You'll be able to rightfully call yourself an anti-Zionist when you
courageously tackle these issues rather than shrinking from them in
such a cowardly manner.

As long as you perpetuate Zionist propaganda and myths and skirt
around these issues, you have no right whatsoever to call yourself an
'anti-Zionist'.

It's supremely ironic that you of all people - a bona fide
'anti-Zionist' Zionist - spent so much time heckling on my blog about
this issue.

To be perfectly honest, I do not expect you to reply and address this
issue, because you've proved that you are afraid of discussing it.  I
would love to be proven wrong.
Martin
Actually I did want to challenge some of his views publicly or privately and I truly want to know how people like Martin Iqbal believe that denying the holocaust and promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories helps the Palestinian cause.  I am a bit of a "no platform for racists" merchant but when racism is couched in coded language and the dishonesty is flagrant enough to expose, it can be a useful exercise to do just that, expose it.  Here's my reply:
Martin

You appear to be in the throes of a temper tantrum. I hope my delay in replying hasn't made you worse but you said I was reluctant to discuss "this" in a public forum when it's you who appears to have deleted all the comments to your post on "anti-zionist zionists".  This is strange because my comments abided by the rules of your blog set out as follows:  Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam. When I recapture the comments I think I can establish that it was you that was not nice, you that failed to keep it clean and you that strayed off topic and in quite a big way too.

Anyway, let's deal with your points blow by blow.

1. I am not aware that you have commented to my blog. There is no pending comment from you.  This is another reason I suspect a temper tantrum on your part. You seem to make hasty claims and then regret them.  Anyway, by all means send in a comment and I'll deal with it as appropriate but please remember your own rules:  Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam. I'd add to that that you must refrain from racism, sexism and homophobia since one of your comments to me was definitely racist and had clear homophobic overtones.

2. If I thought that 9/11 had any bearing on Israel's legitimacy one way or another I would discuss it but since Israel has no right to exist whoever is responsible for 9/11, I see no point.

3. The holocaust crops up from time to time on my blog and it has been widely discussed but since most of the imperial powers (all bar the Soviet Union) already supported zionism by the end of WWI the events of WWII are, like 9/11, irrelevant to Israel's lack of legitimacy.  And anyway, the holocaust cannot be considered a founding anything of Israel since Israel and the zionist movement didn't start deploying it as a propaganda and ideological weapon until the early 1960s.

4.  You don't know what the word "paradigmatic" means nor how pretentious and silly using it makes you sound and if I don't discuss these issues how can I perpetuate people's current (mis)understanding of them? Again, the holocaust and 9/11 have no impact one way or another on Israel's legitimacy or lack of.  I think that deals with four of your paragraphs.

5. I wasn't heckling you on your blog; you are over-sensitive to legitimate criticism and inquiry. When I sort the cache out I'll remind you of the things you said and the things I said.  Both Max Ajl and I were trying to point out to you that the expression "anti-zionist zionist" is used by Atzmon against Jews who support the right of return.  You claimed you were applying it to different people altogether but from this email it appears you use it in the same way as he does but throw in a pack of lies about people you claim to know whose names you have forgotten who oppose the right of return.  Your email proves that Max and I were right to treat your bogus claim with scepticism but then so did your contributions to the comment thread which you have so conveniently mislaid.

6. You say you would love to be wrong. I know you love to be wrong but you don't seem to like to be exposed for being wrong.

7. Just a general point, you mention courage and cowardice here and there. I don't think either term applies to blogging and commenting.  Just more silliness on your part. Try not to be so dramatic.

I think that covers everything.  I'll give you a shout when I sort the cache out unless you want to be really "courageous" (just honourable really) and restore and reopen the comments yourself.

Finally, I think I might like to do a post on your post, the comments and this correspondence. Would it be ok with you if I publish your email?

Cheers



Mark Elf

Jews sans frontieres
I then found his comment in the spam and emailed him accordingly:

Hey Martin

Great news! I found your comment to my blog.  Somehow it ended up in the
spam filter which I have never checked before and I only found it today by
accident.

The comment was of course way off topic but you managed to avoid sexual and
homophobic insults so I approved it..

Anyway, as I said in my earlier email and in my reply to your comment on my
blog, I intend to do a post about this "anti-zionist zionist" business.
In the meantime if you scroll down you will see I have recaptured all the
comments that disappeared from your "anti-zionist zionist" post. It'll
probably take a little bit of work because they seem to be in the wrong order and
the ones from google cache need formatting but perhaps you could replace
the old comments and reopen the comments for further discussion.

There is another thing. I saw on your blog that you claim the Israeli
attack on the USS Liberty to be a false flag op intended to draw the USA
into a nuclear attack on the USSR.  Since it is so well documented that it was Israel that
carried out the attack and was admitted to by Israel close to the time it
happened do you have a link to support your allegation of a false flag
operation together with the motive you allege? I tried commenting but I
don't know if my comments are blocked or if you have started moderating.
So, we now have three possibilities for these issues you claim to be eager
to discuss. We have email, your blog and my blog.

Cheers then

Mark Elf
Jews sans frontieres

Back came Martin:
Hi Mark,

Your spam filter blocks short comments with no links, and you've been
blogging for years but haven't checked your spam filter once?  Kinda
likely.  I don't really think my comment got stuck in your spam
filter; you chose not to approve it, and I subsequently removed your
comments from my blog, and you didn't want to look like a hypocrite so
my comment "got stuck in your spam filter".

If you want to know the source for the information on the Liberty
affair, read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Cyanide-Why-Bombing-Liberty-Nearly/dp/1904132197
Cheers yourself,
Martin
Now I got tetchy:
Martin
You are a joke.
You deleted all of the comments from your post on "anti-zionist zionists", not just mine. I have no problem with how I appear to a serial fantasist like yourself and I have no motive for lying.
I have approved your comment now and I have sent you all of the comments you deleted. Even if I refused to approve your comment it wouldn't be hypocritical. My comments to your blog conformed to the rule of being on topic. Your comment was totally off topic. But since your comment is now approved, you are beefing about nothing.
Something you need to consider about yourself is that not only do you make false or unprovable allegations you then supply supposed motives for whatever it is you are alleging. It's silly and tiresome but such is the wacky world of the conspiracy theorist.
I then checked the source for his USS Liberty claim and emailed him again:
Martin

Here's what you wrote in your post titled, On History and Intellectual Courage:
Most Americans have not even heard about the Liberty – a false flag attack designed to draw the USA into nuclear war with Soviet Russia. 

Here's the blurb from the book you claim to have got your information from:
The USS Liberty was attacked by unmarked planes and torpedo boats in international waters during the Six Day War between Israel and the Arab States. The attack on the surveillance ship lasted 75 minutes -- 34 men died and 172 were injured. Initially it was thought that either Egypt or the U.S.S.R. was responsible, but astonishingly Israel, the U.S.'s closest ally, said that the planes and boats belonged to them, and that they mistook the ship for an Egyptian vessel -- despite the prominently displayed Stars and Stripes.

Now there is much to be sceptical about with the Israeli claims and with the US acceptance of them but those, like myself, who believe Israel's attack to have been deliberate narrow the motive down to two possibilities, 1. that Israel thought the US was helping Egypt and Syria to co-ordinate their defence.  2. that the people on board the Liberty were recording the commission of war crimes by Israel in that Israel was killing its Egyptian POWs.  I think that's the most plausible explanation but I could be wrong.  You appear to be only person who is saying that Israel carried out the attack to make it look like a Soviet attack.  Perhaps you'd like to reword that post like you did with the "anti-zionist zionists" post. Or perhaps you keep getting things wrong deliberately especially as even the blurb itself claims that Israel claimed responsibility for the attack.

Cheers



Mark Elf
I know I shouldn't bother trying to discuss anything with a racist, whether antisemitic or zionist or both.  They never argue in good faith as the discussion with Martin Iqbal has shown.  But as I said before coded language does need to be challenged and sometimes this can only be done by asking questions directly.

I have detailed three areas where Martin Iqbal is claiming that spreading a certain version of events could completely change the discourse and the public perception of Palestine.  They are, the holocaust, 9/11 and the USS Liberty.  With the holocaust he doesn't actually say what he is disputing apart from the "myth" or the "narrative" or perhaps the "paradigm".  And he certainly doesn't explain how the holocaust helped zionism win the support of the major imperial powers prior to World War II.  With 9/11, I'm not sure of the details, but he claims that Israel played a central role and that the commonly held view of what happened and who did it somehow amounts to a "founding myth" of a state that was founded over 50 years before 9/11.  He has also flagrantly lied about the USS Liberty and it is not clear what he thinks can be gained for the Palestinian cause by repeating and spreading that lie.  Surely the truth was bad enough for Israel.

Martin Iqbal claims modestly that his position amounts to "intellectual courage" and I suppose making himself look so silly does require some kind of courage but he really only wants to dog-whistle to the existing believers.  What is it they say?  For those who believe no explanation is necessary, for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible.  How convenient for Martin Iqbal.  He never has to explain anything and if he is asked to, in the name of "intellectual courage", he will simply delete or ban the comments.

Posted by @ No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)