Weird kids on the blog

Hey get this. If you had the misfortune of following a "discussion" in the Comments box of the previous post then you will have noticed that I have been baited a bit by a Zionist called Anonymous (original that) and an anti-Semite called Steve. Well I've got heartily sick of Anon since he posts much more than Steve so I went to ban him. Guess what. Zionist Anon and Nazi Steve have the same IP address and both have blueyonder for a server. This evening they both posted within five minutes of each other. Well well well, the dark side of the net eh? It takes us back to an earlier post by Jewish anti-Zionist Les Levidow: Zionist anti-Semitism. Or is it like the movie Psycho?But then Jon - the missing link between Steve and Anon - is also on the same server. And a poster called Alan. They never leave email or url either. Weirdo(s)!

Obey international law: Zionists tell Palestians

Palestinians found guilty by a jury of their peers. Well ok, not their peers. Our peers. These peers: Lord CLARKE OF HAMPSTEAD; Lord JACOBS; Lord JANNER OF BRAUNSTONE; Lord HOGG OF CUMBERNAULD; Baroness MILLER OF HENDON; Lord MITCHELL
House of Lords.

Andover Parish (Town) Council Update

Is this weird? I thought, with all this "handover" business going on, it would be funny to do a spoof about Iraq on the lines of Private Eye's St.Albion's Parish. I thought to call it 'Andover Parish. To see if there was such a thing I punched "Andover parish" into the Google search bar. Out of 201 sites the Andover Lib Dems came first! Check it.

One state solution

Very useful article here. I missed it when it came out. A Noel Ignatiev (no relation I hope) argues against the so-called two-state "solution" on the grounds that it's an apartheid solution that hasn't worked when tried elsewhere. It also demonstrates very clearly the difference between movements (associations) and peoples (societies) for those knaves and/or fools who still need telling.

Just in from America

According to a Greg Bates in Counterpunch today, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, and no doubt lots of other leftists who we have been told are going to vote for the Bush-lite Kerry, are going to vote for Ralph Nader. The logic of this is that they live in the safe state of Massachusetts. If a state is safely Democrat then a vote for Nader won't translate into a vote for Bush. However, a vote for Nader in an unsafe so-called swing state could be a problem for Kerry. My own view is that if you want Nader you should vote Nader. I'm not convinced that the Kerry who supported the war on Iraq and supports Sharon as strongly as Bush does is going to make much difference. I don't always agree with Chomsky but go and read his work first hand. He's very incisive and I think he's a man of the highest integrity. He also replies to my emails!

BBC and JC agree to agree

The launch of a book by the Glasgow University Media Group seems to have smoked out the BBC's Zionism tsar: Malcolm Balen. The book, "Bad News from Israel", criticises the BBC's pro-Israel bias. The curious thing is that when Malcolm Balen spoke to the Jewish Chronicle about it he criticised the book in very similar terms to the JC's own Geoffrey Alderman. Consider the following:

Malcolm Balen to the JC: "I have never been someone who thinks one can detect bias simply by counting up the number of interviews on TV. There could be 100 interviews with Israeli government spokesmen but they could be quite critical [when?] and hard interviews. [I've got to admit he's funny this guy].....Equally you could say that if there are fewer Palestinian interviews, it's a sign that the BBC isn't asking enough hard questions of the Palestinians, not that it's biased in their favour.[ok so he lost the plot by the end or the journalist did]

Geoffrey Alderman in The Guardian (see link in title above, oh ok here it is again): "It's quality, not quantity that counts. By this I mean that the nub of the matter is what is said about the deaths of Israelis, and what is said about the deaths of Palestinians. Context is everything. A mere word-count [of media coverage] is useless."

So there we have it, the BBC and the JC kiss and make up and it's on the front page of the JC itself. I do love a happy ending! But what's this?

Compare but don't contrast

More judeocentric nonsense
Remember back in early 2002, the "New" Statesman. published an edition with a cover showing a gold star of David on top of a union flag for a pro-Zionist story (literally a story) titled "A kosher conspiracy?" Well they were actually accused of anti-semitism for that which just goes to show that appeasement doesn't pay. Well now they have Simon Sebag-Montefiore engaging in the same pro-Zionist judeocentric tosh. But don't take my word. Read the article through and leave a comment. Here's a taste:
"This Heinzian principle of Juda-ism has been overshadowed by the contemporary image of Israel - and by the frenzied anti-Zionist, anti-American circus of bizarre conspiracy theories that present Jews as a single political "cabal" rather than the world's most diverse diaspora, a wealth of religious, cultural and racial communities, separate from Israel or America"

Great minds etc

Check out Lenin's tomb for June 04.

ZIONIST ANTI-SEMITISM

By Les Levidow, publ. in RETURN (London), Dec. 1990

This article is well worth a read....

Zionism has always purported to be the prime or ultimate protector of Jews from anti-Semitism. The proposed solution has been mass emigration to what the Zionist's term Eretz Israel, ('the Land of Israel'), a term which means possession of the region for the Jews; this territorial notion corresponds to Biblical myths rather than to any clear geographical boundaries. The emigration itself has been termed aliyah ('ascent'). The term originally described Jews'
pilgrimage to Palestine as a duty of Orthodox Judaism. Zionism appropriated the term for secular-settler purposes: through Aliyah, Diaspora Jews, regarded as mere 'human dust' elevate themselves to the status of human beings. As Israeli citizens, the Jews claim their rightful place as 'nation among (European) nations'.

Many critics have shown how advocacy of this solution has undermined any struggle against anti-Semitism. Some critics have even shown how Zionist leaders have collaborated with anti-Semitic persecutors for the sake of that aliyah (as in Nazi Germany), or for the sake of Israel's arms sales (as during the Argentinean junta).

This essay takes the argument further, to the cultural field, by arguing that the Zionist mission involved suppressing or denying all Jewish identities other than the 'New Jew' who conquers Palestine.

St.Bill rubbished by John Pilger

At last someone has cried "foul" over Bill Clinton's complete cobblers* over Camp David and who did/said what to whom. Now read on...

Camp David was Clinton's failure

You quote Bill Clinton as blaming Yasser Arafat for the failure of the Camp David talks (G2, June 21); yet you say nothing about Clinton's unerring, documented support for Israeli Zionism and its US lobby. What Clinton told you is a favourite myth.

The Camp David negotiations were actually steered by Robert Malley, Clinton's national security adviser for the Middle East, who has since revealed that, although Arafat rejected certain Israeli proposals, "it could be said that Israel rejected the unprecedented two-state solution put to them by the Palestinians, including the following provisions: a state of Israel incorporating some land captured in 1967 and including a very large majority of its settlers; the largest Jewish Jerusalem in the city's history [and] security guaranteed by a US-led international presence". In other words, had the Israelis accepted such an "unprecedented" offer, there might now be the germ of a just peace in occupied Palestine. If anyone failed to grasp this opportunity, it was the mendacious, self-serving Clinton.
John Pilger
London

* OED = economical with the actualité**
** actualité = French for what really happened

Self-righteous? Moi?

NOT IN MY NAME - An analysis of Jewish righteousness - Gilad Atzmon

Gilad Atzmon worries me with his reasoning sometimes. He rails against secularist Jews on the grounds that there is no reason to "identify" with being Jewish unless you practice Judaism. Curiously he has time for Neturei Karta as they are anti-Zionist religious. Jews. Has he asked them where they stand on women's rights? gay rights? etc. At one point he accuses secularist Jews of dishonesty and yet many of us would feel wilfully dishonest if we were to deny being Jewish. I share his scepticism about the motives of many "not-in-my-name" types but many of us simply use the Jewishness with which we genuinely identify, not to validate our own positions but to invalidate. Zionist claims. Both Atzmon and the Zionists argue that you cannot have a Jewish identity without a Jewish state or a Jewish religion.

Another deadline wooshes by

The deadline for the 2nd Jews sans frontieres £10 challenge passed with one good attempt, by "anonymous" but, again no takers. The Guardian's. readers' editor didn't even try this time; unlike last time. What happened here was a letter purporting to come from a Mark Cohen and signed off "by email" criticised, in my view unjustly, an article by Stephen Rose which promoted the academic boycott of Israel. The Guardian. usually insists on an address and phone number from correspondents, not simply "by email". The £10 challenge was to find criticism of Israel coming in "by email". As I said an "anonymous" had a go but this was a letter from some high profile Jews criticising Israeli war crimes in Rafah and calling for support for the victims. I didn't think it was the same as a letter from a possibly bogus, that is non-existent, source. But I couldn't pay out because of the anonymity of the entrant. More £10 challenges to come. I might do one that actually leaves me exposed to losing a tenner next time.

If Putin said it, it must be true!

David Aaronovitch: Observer, Sunday 20/6/2004
"On Friday, on a visit to Kazakhstan, Vladimir Putin said something that seemed to me quite remarkable, but (it appears) to no-one else. He told reporters that Russian intelligence had believed that Iraq intended to launch terrorist attacks on the USA. 'After the events of 11 September 2001,' said Putin, 'and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues.' Such attacks might happen inside the United States or outside it. "

David Aaronovitch reserves all of his scepticism for the anti-war movement. Putin is up to his eyeballs with the so-called "war on terror". He needs America onside for his war in Chechnya. Furthermore he is cracking down on the so-called oligarchs: the nouveau riche. multi-billionaires who enrichened themselves through privatisations of former Soviet industry. Richard Perle, of the US Defence Policy Board, has called on G8 to expel Russia over the arrest of Khordokovsky and, presumably, Putin wants the American's off his case over his dealings with such oligarchs. Even through the so-called "prism of 9/11" most observers were sceptical about any link between the Islamist followers of Osama bin Laden and the secularists of the Saddam Hussein regime. Aaronovitch finds it remarkable that only The Guardian. picked up on Putin's statement and that The Times. and Independent. didn't. Frankly, I'm surprised that Murdoch didn't order his people to fire such a cheap shot but then Murdoch seems to guard his credibility more keenly than Aaronovitch guards his.

Good question

"If the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority can count how many Iraqi cell phones subscribers there are, why can't they count the number of Iraqis they have killed (Leaders, June 16)?
Sarah Meyer
Rodmell, E Sussex"

Et tu Polly?

A friend of mine wrote to "International Rescue" to complain about Jonathan Freedland's involvement with a refugee event. The reply he got said that Jonathan Freedland has now dropped out, but not because he disapproves of the likes of Henry Kissinger, Lord Winston and Elie Wiesel, not to mention James Rubin. Now Polly Toybee will be doing the honours. To be continued....I think.

Ethnic cleansers and International Rescue: the plot sickens

Many thanks to Jah Phillips for pointing out the true nature of the so-called International Rescue Committee. They really do have leading Zionists on their Board of Directors such as Elie Wiesel, Henry Kissinger and Lord Winston. Elie Wiesel refuses to criticise Israel in any way, Kissinger's yen for imperialism is a matter of public record and Lord Winston has said that Ehud Barak offered Arafat "all those [occupied] territories two or three years ago".

Ethnic cleansing enthusiast to Chair Refugee Week event

The Guardian's. resident Zionist leftist, Jonathan Freedland, is to chair a discussion for Refugee Week hosted by The International Rescue Committee (UK). Jonathan Freedland has described the ethnic cleansing of Palestine as "a bad thing to achieve a good thing". The good thing being the apartheid state of Israel. So at least he considers ethnic cleansing to be a bad thing but he is opposed to the Palestinians' right to return to Palestine but in favour of his "right" to "return" there even though he doesn't come from there. Hardly an appropriate choice for someone chairing discussions on the plight of refugees.

The voters deserved better parties

So says an Observer. leader. Readers need a free press that isn't in thrall to the war party and better commentators than the pro-war David Aaronovitch*. Don't look to The Observer. to uphold our right to these things, its a lovely day and you'd be wasting your time.

*Once more Aaronovitch has been exposed for getting his facts wrong, and in a way that supports the "logic" of his pro-war stance. Once again he has refrained from comment on the war this week. There's a pattern emerging here. Aaronovitch promotes the war by getting his facts wrong, reader exposes Aaronovitch's wrongdoing (which, of course, unlike the letter writer below, I am not suggesting is wilful dishonesty, I am sure it is the overzealousness that one associates with converts to a cause, ie. incompetence), Aaronovitch writes about the weather, the price of fish, his daughters; anything not to mention the war.

Cod history?

David Aaronovitch is, in general, right [yuk]: there is no comparison between D-Day, one of the great culminating battles of a five-year-old (for Britain at least) world war and the invasion and occupation by two large military powers of Iraq, a small sovereign country in the Middle East run by a vicious dictator (Comment, last week).

What is tiresome is when he and, more regularly, [surely more frequently - Aaronovitch is weekly]Tony Blair invent cod history. In 2001, Blair emotionally cited the US 'standing shoulder to shoulder with Britain during the Blitz'. The US did no such thing.

Aaronovitch says that, like Iraq, Germany had not threatened the USA. Wrong. Hitler declared war on the USA in 1941 and German U-boats sank US shipping and killed merchant and military personnel long before US troops took part in D-Day.

A pity Aaronovitch spoils good writing by not knowing the simplest historical facts.
David Townsend
Island Bay, Wellington, New Zealand

Where on Earth....?

Conal Urquhart in The Guardian. today reports on how Ariel Sharon is trying to sweeten the Gaza "evacuation" by a combination of financial and racial inducements. Apparently Gaza settlers who accept the pay off to leave will get hundreds of thousands of pounds on a sliding scale depending on how much they have stolen from the native population. Those who have stolen land merely for habitation are expected to receive about £180,000 whereas those who have engaged in the exploitation of the natives might get as much as £600,000. The racial inducement is the fact that these war criminals "could be persuaded that they could better help Israel and Zionism by populating the new towns which are designed to prevent the expansion of Arab communities in northern and southern Israel"! Unbelievable! Where else on earth can a State give vent to such grotesque racism? And does anyone suppose that the "Labour" Zionists would be any better? Blair and Blunkett have been accused of racism for far less but imagine them calling on Welsh and Scots people to come and populate the cities of England to thwart the "expansion" of non-white communities. The letters page has Linda Grant wrestling with her conscience and losing. She's anxious about Israeli war crimes in Rafah. One day she'll wake up to the realisation that Israel exists solely thanks to such war crimes as making whole villages and towns homeless. Then she can write a novel promoting the anti-Zionist position. Who knows? She might even win an Orange prize or a Free Jaffa Orange prize, when Jaffa's free that is.

More results

But what do they say? We're hearing that people voted against the war, but why did the Tories do so well? The UK seems to be losing the war. Why vote Tory? The Tories do war better than Labour. Can we look forward to a Saatchi style poster with rows and rows of dead bodies in Iraq with the caption "Labour isn't winning"? Respect's showing in places was, well, respectable. Their name is ridiculous. It suggests that they didn't consult very widely and that, in turn suggests a lack of, well, respect for democracy. Ken Livingstone even threatened to sue Respect over the name because of Greater London's "Respect" anti-racist festival. Ken was worried that people would get confused. I was more worried that people would think the publicity was for Ali G. Maybe they did but thousands voted for Respect in spite of the silly name. For me the surprise result was that the Tories did as well as they did. No tenners for explaining why the Tories did so well, but go ahead: explain. I really want to know why one Conservative party out of power would do better than another conservative. party that is in power.