The anti-Semite's new Santa is Bernard Madoff. The answer to every Jew-hater's wish list. The Aryan Nation at its most delusional couldn't have come up with anything to rival this. (Haaretz)It's bizzare. Madoff destroyed 50 billion dollars, a lot of which is going to be missing from the budget of Zionist propaganda outfits next year. For comparison, this is more than half of the British bank bailout package announced earlier this year. It's huge. Yet the only aspect that really matters to Burston is what the antisemites at Aryan nation think? That is his only concern?
But when the Jew has a national home, surely it follows that the impetus to deprive us of the rights of British citizenship must be enormously increased. Palestine will become the world's Ghetto. Why should the Russian give the Jew equal rights? His national home is Palestine. Why does Lord Rothschild attach so much importance to the difference between British and foreign Jews? All Jews will be foreign Jews, inhabitants of the great country of Palestine. (memorandum...)On the basis of this Edwin Montague accused the government of Britain of antisemitism for issuing the Balfour declaration. That gift from antisemites and to antisemites keeps giving, but don't expect Burston to notice.
Remember the spike in anti-Semitism after the financial meltdown? This will be similar, but with the potential to be a lot more damaging because Madoff is actually being charged criminally....(The Jewish Journal)
See, antisemitism is a lot like the stock market itself. There are spikes, followed by long trends upward or downward, and occasionally even a "head and shoulders" formation. And if you're really bored, following the trends in antisemitism can be a fun gentlemanly pursuit. Heck, we might decide to make a market here in antisemitism futures to cover our costs! Let's just hope this latest "spike" is not a dead cat bounce!
If you go to Google’s blog search page and enter the words “Madoff” and “Jew,” similar trash comes up in the results. And because antisemitism is not really about Jews, but about a vile representation of Jews, the irony that many Jewish charities and non-profit institutions have been badly damaged by the collapse of Madoff’s empire will pass unnoticed. (Z-Word)Shocking! Who would have thought that if you searched for trash on the web you would actually find it? Why Ben? I don't want to know what you found when you entered "Asian" and "sex" on the google search page. At least, Ben might want to read Jews Sans Frontiers more often, because we certainly did not miss the fact that Madoff's victims included Jewish "non-profit" institutions. Apologies if this messes up that whole irony thing.
Dozens of Israel Police officers were injured by their fellow policemen on Thursday during a training exercise simulating violent civil unrest.Maybe that'll happen during the real thing. You never know.
Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said about 45 officers sustained light injuries while practicing riot control techniques.
The majority were hurt while scuffling with each other while five others were injured when a police van overturned, Rosenfeld said.
He would not confirm media reports that the vehicle flipped after a policeman fell asleep at the wheel.
About 7,000 officers took part in the drill in southern Israel, which was the largest of its kind in state history
In a frank interview, Avraham Infeld, president of the suddenly penniless California-based Chais Family Foundation, said the Madoff affair, which has cost Jewish charities hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more, will require the Jewish philanthropic world to rethink its priorities.
Infeld, who served as Birthright’s first president, said humanitarian needs at home and in Israel must take precedence over other good causes.
“In addition to the foundations that will no longer be able to provide aid, there are a lot of private individuals who have lost their nest eggs, and they need our help. More and more of the Jewish community’s money will have to go toward feeding the poor and aged. Unfortunately, less money will be available for education, culture and so on. I find this is a watershed,” Infeld said. (The Jewish Week)
We believe that the most serious threat to Jewish continuity is assimilation and intermarriage. We are succeeding in reversing the trend of intermarriage and asimilation in our community by enhancing Jewish pride through the innovative programs of our Youth to Israel, Jewish Continuity and Interfaith Outreach Committees.
The greek government is urgently seeking fresh supplies of tear gas from Israel and Germany, the police said. (The Telegraph)The word 'democracy' was born in Greece. Maybe it will be reborn there too.
Israel’s siege of Gaza, largely unseen by the outside world because of Jerusalem’s refusal to allow humanitarian aid workers, reporters and photographers access to Gaza, rivals the most egregious crimes carried out at the height of apartheid by the South African regime. It comes close to the horrors visited on Sarajevo by the Bosnian Serbs. It has disturbing echoes of the Nazi ghettos of Lodz and Warsaw.The comment by JamieSW is here:
When Weisglass spoke about putting Palestinians on a "diet", apparently he was referring to animal feed and grass.Diet of animal feed? Diet of grass? What next, worms? I doubt if the soil could sustain them.
I've been around this world for awhile, and it's pretty hard to leave me speechless. But when I learned about Omer Goldman - well, her story got me.If you haven't heard the name Omer Goldman yet, have a seat and grab your Kleenex. Her courage, and the courage of the other "Shministim" in Israel is utterly humbling. And amazing. I don't use those words lightly.
As you can see from the photo, she's young and lovely. 19 years old. She's already served two terms in an Israeli military jail, where she had to wear an American military uniform (a gift to the Israelis) or face solitary confinement. Now, she's out of jail for medical reasons. But as you read this, many of her young friends are in an Israeli prison for refusing to serve in the military there.
This new generation of young Israeli kids is standing up to the government - they call 'em "Shministim." The Shministim- all about ages 17, 18, 19 and in the 12th grade - are taking a stand. They believe in a better, more peaceful future for themselves and for Israelis and Palestinians, and they are refusing to join the Israeli army. They're in jail, holding strong against immense pressure from family, friends and the Israeli government.
They need our support and they need it today.In her own words:
"I first went to prison on September 23 and served 35 days. I am lucky, after 2 times in jail, I got a medical discharge, but I'm the only one. By the time you read this, many of my friends will be in prison too: in for three weeks, out for one, and then back in, over and over, until they are 21. The reason? We refuse to do military service for the Israeli army.
I grew up with the army. My father was deputy head of Mossad and I saw my sister, who is eight years older than me, do her military service. As a young girl, I wanted to be a soldier. The military was such a part of my life that I never even questioned it.Earlier this year, I went to a peace demonstration in Palestine. I had always been told that the Israeli army was there to defend me, but during that demonstration Israeli soldiers opened fire on me and my friends with rubber bullets and tear-gas grenades. I was shocked and scared. I saw the truth. I saw the reality. I saw for the first time that the most dangerous thing in Palestine is the Israeli soldiers, the very people who are supposed to be on my side.
When I came back to Israel, I knew I had changed. And so, I have joined with a number of other young people who are refusing to serve - they call us the Shministim. On December 18th, we are holding a Day of Action in Israel, and we are determined to show Israelis and the world that there is wide support for stopping a culture of war. Will you join us? Please, just sign a letter. That's all it takes."
So, there you go. Omer Goldman. Now that you've met her, I'll bet you won't forget her. Better yet, damn it, do something for her, for the Shministim, for peace. Jewish Voice for Peace is the U.S. group heading things up for them. Here's the link.
One more thing - I know that this can be a tough subject for many of us Jews. But, I find it hard to believe than anyone can look Omer in the eye and tell her that she has to risk her life and her future for Israel whether she wants to or not. It's just not right. Especially during this time of year, when many of us are getting ready to celebrate a holiday about freedom- well, take a good long look at that photo. You're celebrating her.
Thanks for reading and send your letter here.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank You! Muntadar al-Zaidi, I nominate you for the next U.N. Secretary General.A surprise visit by US President George Bush to Iraq has been overshadowed by an incident in which two shoes were thrown at him during a news conference.
An Iraqi journalist was wrestled to the floor by security guards after he called Mr Bush "a dog" and threw his footwear, just missing the president.
...In the middle of the news conference with Mr Maliki, Iraqi television journalist Muntadar al-Zaidi stood up and shouted "this is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog," before hurling a shoe at Mr Bush which narrowly missed him. (BBC December 14, 2008)
Showing the soles of shoes to someone is a sign of contempt in Arab culture.
Al-Baghdadiya's bureau chief told the Associated Press that he had no idea what prompted Mr Zaidi to attack President Bush, although reports say he was once kidnapped by a militia and beaten up.I mean, Gosh, what could prompt an Iraqi to such behavior? I couldn't come up with a plausible hypothesis if my life depended on it.
A poster named "Geary" posted sarcastic approval.... (The Jerusalem Joke...err, Post, December 13, 2008)When this kind of "news" is "reported" in a "newspaper," (other than The Onion) you just know the end is near. Silverstein has a whole bill of complaints against the J Post, including that the Post failed to link to his blog or report that he condemned the attack. But seriously, when a newspaper devotes a full article to reporting snide talkbacks, isn't it time to just hold its hand and wait for merciful nature to take its course?
NEED[s] to see the Mumbai attack as based in anti-Semitism....The Jewish Zionist establishment is invested in an idea of antisemitism that is a mirror image of the antisemitic idea of "the Jew". Instead of the mythical, transhistorical Jew, Zionism today imagines the figure of the antisemite as the metaphysical evil that lurks behind everything and anything, without history and without cause other than the purity of the disease that possesses it. In doing so, Zionism recreates and justifies antisemitism--keeping it, if not alive, at least a living dead. Zionism produces, for the imaginary antisemite and through her, the very imaginary Jew that the antisemite needs to hate. (Worse! It produces that Jew sometimes for real.)
David T of the Harry's Place blog is attempting to get someone fired for reviewing a book I wrote, positively, in The New Statesman. Now, this could be because the reviewer namechecked the Harry's Place blog in passing. It could be because, so far, Mr T has not found a way to get me fired from anything. It cannot, however, be the result of any personal animus. I know this because David T would like nothing more than to be friends. Every now and again, he will send a missive to invite me to his birthday party, or to try and get a rise out of me in some way. He will coyly approach if he spots that I am available on Google chat, and try out a new opening line. This despite the fact that I had made it perfectly clear online that I regard him as something of an unstable creep. Even after I 'outed' him, when he launched a witch hunt against selected academics for thought crimes, he still didn't turn off the charm. Only the other day, he wrote to say that he had dreamed about me the previous night - me and him doing lawyer talk, apparently.Yuk.
Describing the reviewer, Owen Hatherley, as the "Dilpazier Aslam" of the New Statesman (recalling a case in which a trainee journalist was fired from The Guardian, having written an article that included praise for Hizb Ut-Tahrir while he was a member of said organisation), the post on Harry's Place claims that Owen Hatherley is a member of the Socialist Workers' Party. He is not, and never has been. But it is on the basis of this single fabrication that the author of the post launches a lengthy diatribe effectively demanding that the New Statesman publish a correction and fire the reviewer. It is a small irony that, while in effect demanding a purge on the basis of an invention, David T fantasises that it is SWP members who are 'totalitarian'.It's a funny thing but in the comments there's a chap who also uses "T" for a surname suggesting that his name (or second initial) sake wasn't trying to get the reviewer dropped by the New Stateman. I don't know if this is a legalistic panic on Toube's part but he (Toube) does have quite a lot of form for trying to lose people their jobs and Matt Seaton of the Guardian even wrote thanking him for helping him remove an Iranian blogger from Comment is free before writing to me to say he had done no such thing.
This could therefore not have been an honest review. The New Statesman has deceived its readership by hiding the fact of Mr Hatherley’s membership of the Socialist Workers’ Party from its readers. I ask the editor of the New Statesman, Jason Cowley, to remedy this failure online as soon as possible, and it its print edition next week.Now why on earth should the New Statesman check out the political party affiliations of its writers? And why should it be assumed that one member of the SWP cannot critically review the work of another? And remember of course, the guy isn't even an SWP member but T's explanation of this is downright childish and ultimately, typically, dishonest:
Were Hatherley to have provided a critical assessment of Seymour’s book on the pages of the New Statesman, he would risk discipline and expulsion from the Socialist Workers’ Party.Anyone who has read the Socialist Worker two weeks running will know that this is simply not true. The comrades are criticising each other all the time. But you don't actually have to do that. You can read the whole of the Harry's Place post where T ends up shooting himself in the foot by exposing his own stupidity and dishonesty in his first update:
"a", in the comments points out that the New Statesman has form. Here’s Richard Seymour reviewing a book by his party boss, Chris Harman. Seymour does not mention the fact that that Harman is a Socialist Workers’ Party activist, and the New Statesman doesn’t disclose Seymour’s membership of the Socialist Workers’ Party.But Richard Seymour and Chris Harman are such high profiles in the SWP, anyone who reads New Statesman will know who they are. The first comment points out that both are in the SWP, the sign-off says that Richard Seymour's blog is Lenin's Tomb the writing in which T describes as an "echo chamber for the politics of the Socialist Workers Party" and Richard Seymour does criticise Harman's book in a way that T pretends is out of the question:What contempt for its readership.
There are a number of points where engagement with recent scholarship might have altered Harman's account. On the subject of the First World War, for example, he in part accepts the idea that the German masses greeted the war enthusiastically, a view that has lately been demolished by the historian Jeffrey Verhey. And one could split hairs over some of the formulations. It is surprising to see Harman defend a version of Marx's conception of an "Asiatic Mode of Production". It is also surprising that he does not discuss the controversies over the origins of capitalism. Given the demands of concision, it is an understandable omission. Nevertheless, it might have been useful to give the general reader at least some indication that they exist.Richard goes on to describe these as "minor quibbles" which they are not. Perhaps he was pandering to some party discipline...not!
Denis MacShane, a former Labour minister for Europe, is passionate about fighting racism and anti-Semitism and writes frankly about how he wants this book to be seen: "I hope [it] is polemical, partisan and political." It is. But does it increase our understanding of this deep-seated prejudice and propose new ways to combat it, or fail to rise above the bitter controversies - mostly about whether severe criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic - which characterise so much discussion of current anti-Semitism?The book's subject is "neo-anti-Semitism", which the author sees as a dangerous threat of unprecedented proportions: "Neo-anti-Semitism is a developed, coherent and organised system of modern politics that has huge influence on the minds of millions. Neo-anti-Semitism impacts on world politics today like no other ideology." Although MacShane says neo-Nazi and right-extremist anti-Semitism is alive and well, he believes this "defining ideology of the 21st century" consists mostly of hatred of Israel and the denial of the Jewish state's right to exist, "expressed by Islamists in the east and intellectuals in the west".
To anyone who has followed the growing recent literature on current anti-Semitism, the arguments and material in MacShane's book will be familiar stuff that does not command universal agreement. Are they any more credible in his treatment than in anyone else's? Only if you are swayed by exaggeration and ready to overlook a surfeit of unsubstantiated assertions and errors of fact. Anti-Semitism has certainly worsened, but are we seriously to believe MacShane's view that it is "the world's most pernicious ideology and practice", that it is "preventing just and equitable solutions to world problems", and that Islamism is merely a sub-component of it?
What about the hatred that led to the Rwandan genocide? What of the Roma, by any measure the most discriminated against, disadvantaged, reviled and abused minority on the European continent? And don't world leaders bear some responsibility for the perpetuation of world problems?
To elevate the threat of anti-Semitism today to such levels betrays a lack of knowledge and understanding of its modern history. "Anti-Semitism is not a force consigned to history," MacShane tells us. But who said it was? Certainly no self-respecting serious student of the subject. He calls Israel "the one state in the world where anti-Semitism by definition cannot exist", when there has been ample evidence of anti-Semitic neo-Nazi groups emerging there in recent years.
He draws attention to how Jews were dis proportionately represented among the "disappeared" under the Argentinian junta of the 1970s and 1980s, but then grossly exaggerates the actual number. [And presumably ignores the fact that Israel was collaborating with the Galtieri regime at the time] He makes much of genuine Jewish fear of anti-Semitism today, but provides no evidence for his assertion that "no other religion, community or birth-defined group" has to face such a degree of fear.
Unsurprisingly, at the heart of MacShane's definition of "neo-anti-Semitism" is the belief that "anti-Zionism is Jew-hatred by other linguistic means". Some anti-Zionism is a cover for anti-Semitism, but expressed as a general rule, MacShane's view is conceptually and historically false. Moreover, it ignores the fact that hundreds of thousands of strictly Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism, and thousands more secular-leaning Diasporan Jews and Israelis, who feel strongly Jewish, reject Zionism's current form. The equation of anti-Zionism with Jew-hatred allows him to delegitimise Palestinian national claims by making anti-Semitism the defining element of Palestinian politics. "Palestinians will never have their state until they eradicate all traces of anti-Semitism from their politics and ideology," MacShane writes, when they are more likely to "eradicate" anti-Semitism from their politics once they have a state. And anyway, since when has a nation's prejudice against others prevented it from having a state?
MacShane wants a Palestinian state established alongside Israel, but the arguments in this book are a gift to the Israeli right and right-wing Diaspora Jews, who use the mantra "the world is against us and Palestinians are like Nazis" to stymie any determined moves towards a two-state solution.
I don't doubt that MacShane's polemical approach derives from genuine concern about the continued danger of anti-Semitism, but it is no substitute for cool-headed accuracy and balanced judgement. Combating anti-Semitism is made that much more difficult if you exaggerate the threat and wrongly conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Set the bar too high and effective measures to u it become almost impossible to imagine. Or you end up, as MacShane does, calling for "a new politics of tolerance and internationalism" - [and Jewish supremacy in occupied Palestine] hardly a match for the "defining ideology of the 21st century".
Antony Lerman is director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research
Engage will love this MacShane guy. Not so Antony Lerman, I'm guessing.
The calamitous weakness of the “anti-Zionism can’t be antisemitic because some Jews are anti-Zionist” argument ought to have driven it from the public square long ago. Nevertheless, this rotten corpse of an idea keeps popping to the surface, again and again.The problem is that a mere glance at what Lerman actually says shows that he isn't saying that Jews can't be antisemitic, he is saying that anti-zionism can be a cover for antisemitism but the fact that so many shades of Jewish opinion held by thousands (not one or two or three or four) of Jews are anti-zionist tends to suggest that anti-zionism is not, of itself, essentially antisemitic. We know, and Lerman knows, that Jews can be antisemitic and we know, as Lerman says, that anti-zionism can be used as a cover by such people. To use the example of one homophobic gay man in a profoundly homophobic society just doesn't cut it.
Writing in a review of Globalising Hatred, Denis MacShane’s book on antisemitism, Antony Lerman says,
Unsurprisingly, at the heart of MacShane’s definition of “neo-anti-Semitism” is the belief that “anti-Zionism is Jew-hatred by other linguistic means”. Some anti-Zionism is a cover for anti-Semitism, but expressed as a general rule, MacShane’s view is conceptually and historically false. Moreover, it ignores the fact that hundreds of thousands of strictly Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism, and thousands more secular-leaning Diasporan Jews and Israelis, who feel strongly Jewish, reject Zionism’s current form.
Let’s try a few examples of the same argument in different contexts and see how it works. Roy Cohn, Joe McCarthy’s homophobic sidekick, was gay. From the existence of Cohn, and others like him, we might reasonably conclude, if we follow Legman’s logic, that there is nothing necessarily anti-gay about people who express hatred and contempt for homosexuals. After all, Ray Cohn used to do that and he was one himself, so what’s the problem?
Rod Cox (letter, 10 December) disgracefully accuses Howard Jacobson of blaming anti-Israel criticism for both terrorism and antisemitism, when Jacobson clearly said nothing of the sort.Nevertheless, the saddest thing is that Cox is merely repeating the self-serving canards that are now so frequently expressed in supposed liberal-left circles. Namely, that any criticism of Israel is immediately denounced by Jews as antisemitic, and that Jews are cunning co-ordinated liars who only cry antisemitism in order to conceal Israel's supposed crimes. For Cox and so many others, Howard Jacobson's identity obviously counts for far more than his many carefully written words and articles ever will.
Mark Gardner
Director of Communications, CST
Goodness gracious! Did you see what the Independent allowed into print? Mark Gardner is right to be so angry. Can you believe that the Independent, a liberal newspaper in the UK allowed someone to go on record saying that "Jews are cunning co-ordinated liars who only cry antisemitism in order to conceal Israel's supposed crimes"? Can you believe that the Independent would publish a letter taking issue with Howard Jacobson's Jewish identity? No? What, you can't believe they'd do that? Well done, you're right. They didn't do that or anything like that. Here's Rod Cox's letter
When Howard Jacobson says "Propaganda kills" (Opinion, 6 December), I agree with him.So where is there anything about Jacobson being Jewish and Jews being cunning and co-ordinated in their cunning? Only in Mark Gardner's mind and in his letter. Not only that, Howard Jacobson did say precisely what Rod Cox accused him of saying. See for yourself.
I have seen an old Palestinian watch while the Israeli Army bulldozed his olive trees, pushed his wife into the dirt, clubbed his sons, and drove him out of his house "for security reasons." Armed only with his anger and his helpless tears, he faced down their guns by shouting "Who will help us? Where is Osama Bin Laden? I will become Osama Bin Laden."
Since the Israeli Courts, EU or USA will not, and Arab states cannot, help him, I know that Arab youth will. Since even international solidarity movement activists, and MPs, are arrested by Israel, the only vehicle for their idealistic help is Bin Laden.
Just say this, and Howard Jacobson blames you for the terrorism and for anti-semitism. In his mind, exposing Israeli war crimes is an offence worse than the crimes themselves.
If the persecution of Palestinians ends, terrorists would have no support base. If propagandists like Jacobson stopped persecuting anyone who speaks out against Israel, the sooner these crimes would be exposed and ended, and the safer we all will be.
Propaganda kills, Howard, so stop it.
Rod Cox
Chester and Palestine exchanges Ltd, Chester
to argue that Palestine fuelled the massacre at Mumbai, that the Hindu waiter shot in the forehead after serving water to a terrorist was paying for the inequities of Gaza, that he wasn't already, in the eyes of that terrorist, expendable enough as an unbeliever, as one who had stolen Kashmir, or simply as a spot of target practice en route to a mad and misguided martyrdom, is not only preposterous, it is irresponsibleHe goes on to make the tedious hint of antisemitism on Lucas's part:
However carefully Caroline Lucas distinguishes between Jews and Israelis in her frequent newsletters and platform speeches on these and other "Green" issues; whatever her hurt at being accused of anti-Semitism when it is only a Jewish country, for God's sake, and not Jews themselves she abominates – it would appear she has not succeeded in communicating this nice distinction to the Mumbai terrorists.Why does he say "It's a Jewish country, for God's sake"? "Jewish country" as distinct from Jewish state needs a bit of explaining and why does he say she "abominates" the country? Why does he have to spin it that way? Could he not just say she criticises the state? Well no he can't. That wouldn't satisfy the point that he is trying to make, that she somehow "abominates" an unchangeable reality and a Jewish one at that. Countries are fixed, states are moveable. And "abominating" is being hateful. And if there's one thing the supporters of Israel's ethnic cleansing hate, it's hatefulness.
I have visited Israel several times recently, making a documentary about Jesus, travelling in the company of Israelis of all parties and persuasions. The "Green" view is that there are good Israelis and bad Israelis, the good being those who oppose the occupation. Nothing could be more simplistic. I encountered extreme left-wingers who could not bear what their government was doing, but understood its sometime necessity; I met right-wingers who had no sympathy with settlers, and could not wait to live in peace with Palestinians; all wanted change, all were frightened, all loathed the naive, ahistoric sentimentalism that paints them as brutal invaders of a foreign land, and not as fellow combatants in a long and tragic struggle for safety and self-determination.Mealy mouthed doesn't get more mealy mouthed than that. If he was younger and a woman he'd get an Orange prize for that nonsense.
And propaganda, by Caroline Lucas's own account, kills. Come the next massacre, when she is looking around for someone other than the perpetrators to blame, she might ask how much of their hatred she has stoked.Ok the responses. First up, we'd better take a look at Caroline Lucas's response in yesterday's paper:
I am astonished at Howard Jacobson's inability to distinguish between what he terms "playing the blame game", and genuine efforts to comprehend what is driving the spread of extremism ("Another act of terrorism", 6 December).It's a little naive to think that a resident zionist in the UK media can allow the belief that Israel's behaviour needs a bit of a look at to flourish but moving on to someone who actually read the irrelevant guff about those Israelis Jacobson met, all of whom "could not wait to live in peace with Palestinians". Hold on. Does Jacobson really not know that the whole point of Israel is that Israelis don't get to live with Palestinians at all, peace or no peace? The Palestinians are mostly barred from returning to Israel and those that remain are barred from 93% of the surface area. But anyway, here's the letter:
He criticises my response to a question about whether extremism can ever be defeated (on the BBC's Any Questions last week) as evidence that I am "looking around for someone other than the perpetrators to blame". To the contrary, I am simply suggesting that unless we seek to unravel some of the root causes of appalling terrorist acts, we stand little chance of preventing them in future. Jacobson offers no proposals of his own on this point.
Terrorism can never be justified. But to vent spleen on those who try to seek its root causes is simplistic and unhelpful. I said on Any Questions that defeating extremism cannot be done by military means. If Jacobson wants to argue the opposite, let him do so – that would at least be a more constructive debate than knee-jerk criticism of those with whom he disagrees.
Dr Caroline Lucas MEP
I do hope that while Howard Jacobson was travelling around the Holy Land recently he spared a thought for the 1.2 million Palestinians incarcerated by Israel in Gaza.Now you remember I mentioned Mark Gardner. Well his letter appeared before that one from Riyad Tibi but it is so out of order I wanted to show the letter that Gardner was criticising straight after it and I didn't want the flow broken. Cop this from Gardner:As he is making a documentary about Jesus, I'm sure he paid a visit to Bethlehem and saw the ghettoisation of the town and its encirclement by Israeli settlements. Perhaps he even had time to visit some Palestinian refugees and explain to them the "truth" that they had been expelled from their villages not by Israel but by an "ahistoric, naive sentimentalism" on their part?
As for the Mumbai outrages, I as a Palestinian neither accept nor see any linkage between these crimes and the just struggle of the Palestinian people.
Riyad Tibi
Marlow, Buckinghamshire
Rod Cox (letter, 10 December) disgracefully accuses Howard Jacobson of blaming anti-Israel criticism for both terrorism and antisemitism, when Jacobson clearly said nothing of the sort.Nevertheless, the saddest thing is that Cox is merely repeating the self-serving canards that are now so frequently expressed in supposed liberal-left circles. Namely, that any criticism of Israel is immediately denounced by Jews as antisemitic, and that Jews are cunning co-ordinated liars who only cry antisemitism in order to conceal Israel's supposed crimes. For Cox and so many others, Howard Jacobson's identity obviously counts for far more than his many carefully written words and articles ever will.
Mark Gardner
Director of Communications, CST
Goodness gracious! Did you see what the Independent allowed into print? Mark Gardner is right to be so angry. Can you believe that the Independent, a liberal newspaper in the UK allowed someone to go on record saying that "Jews are cunning co-ordinated liars who only cry antisemitism in order to conceal Israel's supposed crimes"? Can you believe that the Independent would publish a letter taking issue with Howard Jacobson's Jewish identity? No? What, you can't believe they'd do that? Well done, you're right. They didn't do that. Here's Rod Cox's letter
When Howard Jacobson says "Propaganda kills" (Opinion, 6 December), I agree with him.So where is there anything about Jacobson being Jewish and Jews being cunning and co-ordinated in their cunning? In Mark Gardner's mind and in his letter. Not only that, Howard Jacobson did say precisely what Rod Cox accused him of saying.
I have seen an old Palestinian watch while the Israeli Army bulldozed his olive trees, pushed his wife into the dirt, clubbed his sons, and drove him out of his house "for security reasons." Armed only with his anger and his helpless tears, he faced down their guns by shouting "Who will help us? Where is Osama Bin Laden? I will become Osama Bin Laden."
Since the Israeli Courts, EU or USA will not, and Arab states cannot, help him, I know that Arab youth will. Since even international solidarity movement activists, and MPs, are arrested by Israel, the only vehicle for their idealistic help is Bin Laden.
Just say this, and Howard Jacobson blames you for the terrorism and for anti-semitism. In his mind, exposing Israeli war crimes is an offence worse than the crimes themselves.
If the persecution of Palestinians ends, terrorists would have no support base. If propagandists like Jacobson stopped persecuting anyone who speaks out against Israel, the sooner these crimes would be exposed and ended, and the safer we all will be.
Propaganda kills, Howard, so stop it.
Rod Cox
Chester and Palestine exchanges Ltd, Chester
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s one-day visit to the UK next week has been dismissed by officials in his own government as "pointless" and an "embarrassing waste of national resources".Let's see if I can understand this. Olmert is departing office soon because he is believed to be more of a criminal than Israeli leaders have to be if they are to maintain Jewish supremacy in occupied Palestine. His own officials don't particularly want him to come to the UK to meet with his zionist cohort, Gordon Brown, but he's coming anyway at great cost to Israel and, presumably, to the UK. So why is Gordon Brown going along with this? The article doesn't actually say. All it says is that Olmert asked and Brown obliged. What a sick joke. Can't someone cobble together some war crimes charges so that Olmert could beat a hasty retreat from Heathrow airport? He comes here Monday, he leaves here Tuesday. I think Brown might want to superglue the ornaments to the mantelpiece.
Despite the Israeli PM being officially invited to London by Gordon Brown, Israeli officials have told the JC that Mr Olmert was "angling" for an invitation and that there was no urgent matter that warranted a face-to-face meeting between the two leaders.
So the question is: who will be the best prime minister for Israelis and the Palestinians ruled by Israel. As far as I can see, there are two main possibilities: Tzipi Livni and Benjamin Netanyahu. Between the two, Netanyahu wins hands down.Read the full analysis. It is totally correct. Bibi is the one we should all hope wins the coming elections. On top of all the reasons Magnes raises, I would add that Bibi is a human relations disaster. Everybody who worked with him despised him. And in particular, there isn't much trust between him and the top echelons of the army. Bibi in power reduces the chances of war with Iran by about 50% in my opinion.
A final note: The usual suspects of the old "Zionist left," led by dinosaur Amos Oz, are forming a new party with the tentative name, "Titanic Deck-Chairs," or something like that.
"Once a Palestinian state is established, I can come to the Palestinian citizens, whom we call Israeli Arabs, and say to them 'you are citizens with equal rights, but the national solution for you is elsewhere,'" Livni was quoted by Army Radio as saying to students at a Tel Aviv high school.Elsewhere? Where? Where do you move over a million, what is it, 1.2 million Arabs in Israel "proper"?
Bruce Kent defends the "alternative carol service" which was put on in St James's Church in London this Christmas. The Carols were re-worded to combine the demonization which is characteristic of "new antisemitism" with the Christian iconography characteristic of an older antisemitism.Uh, yeah? What's wrong with that? It happens all the time. What's that got to do with Livingstone and his formulation?
When challenged, Bruce Kent said to The Times: "Anyone who speaks against Zionist policies is labelled anti-Semitic."
the portrayal of Israel as a unique evil, the new apartheid state, a bloodthirsty child-killing state, etc - in this case also portraying Israel as a Jewish tyranny like the one which Christian antisemites have always held responsible for threatening the baby Jesus in Bethlehem and for finally murdering him on the cross.Now Dr Hirsh has provided no evidence from the lyrics of the carols or the lessons from the evening but Israel is uniquely structured. It is a state not based on the people of the territory it rules but on ethnicity and religion. It is a state of constant population transfer: Jews in, Arabs out. Jews are invited by law and financial inducements and Arabs are forced out by war, mostly on civilians, and legislative and economic means. To describe it as a "unique evil" isn't such a stretch if one is happy with applying the word "evil" to anything in politics we can certainly apply it to Israel and if we do that we can certainly say that there is a certain uniqueness to Israel's brand of "evil". I know, most people, most activists anyway, aren't happy with the word "evil" but the point here is that Israel's system does stand out for being an on-going breach of human rights. It is uniquely horrid, uniquely not nice, uniquely condemnable.
By conflating criticism with demonization Kent avoids confronting the difficult questions associated with the event. Instead, he bounces the allegation back, in effect accusing "the Zionists" of making the charge of antisemitism in bad faith in order to de-legitimize criticism of Israeli policy in a cynical and dishonest way.But nowhere is Dr Hirsh saying what was actually said at this meeting. All we know is that there was a campaign event against Israel, zionism and/or the occupation. Aside from the fact that demonisation of a state is not racist against the people the state claims to represent, Hirsh hasn't said what was said. He is saying that a) to run a campaign event against Israel in a church is "demonisation" and b) that demonisation of a state, in this case, Israel, is racist against its people, in this case, antisemitic. That's tosh. I'm sure Engage has run a cartoon showing Ahmadinejad in the shape of a swastika. Was that racist against Iranians? Was it islamophobic? Or is only Israel to be uniquely protected from demonisation?
The Livingstone Formulation has become an absolutely standard response to a charge of antisemitism. It is a rhetorical device which enables the user to refuse to think about antisemitism. It is a mirror which bounces back an accusation, magnified, against anybody who makes it. It sends back a charge of dishonest Jewish conspiracy in answer to a concern about antisemitism.Zionists in media and government have for a long time now used the false allegation of antisemitism to smear Israel's critics. That's a fact. It's undeniable and even some zionists have been embarrassed by the false allegation's gung-ho deployment. So why is it Livingstone's formulation? Surely Ken wasn't the first to notice that since there's no case for Israel, zionists and those non-zionists who support and condemn everything that zionists support and condemn have to smear the opponents of Israel or lie about Israel's true nature.
Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, wrote: ‘for far too long the accusation of antisemitism has been used against anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government'.1 The Livingstone Formulation does two things.Woah! Hold it, hold it, hold it. "Criticism of Israeli human rights abuses is not only legitimate, it is entirely appropriate." Thank you Dr. But "Demonization, for example, which singles out Israel for unique loathing, or which claims that Israel is apartheid or Nazi or essentially racist". But Israel is constituted as a state specially for Jews and not a state for all of its people. It is a state based on ethnic cleansing. The denial of people's right to return to their homeland is a breach of the human rights. Dr Hirsh has given is permission to criticise Israel's human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing is their worse one. Without the ethnic cleansing Israel wouldn't exist. And what "about claims that Israel is apartheid or Nazi or essentially racist"? How can a state that names the mostly inborn identity group that it purports to exist for be anything other than racist? The idea that some people have the right to expel others based on their birthright is racist, essentially racist. Conceivably, Israel could be non-racist but a state specifically for Jews cannot be anything but. The apartheid tag is a fair one too. Is it demonisation? Who cares? It's fair comment. Israel is a segregationist state, segregation is English for apartheid.Firstly, it denies that there is a distinction between criticism of Israel and demonization of Israel. Criticism of Israeli human rights abuses is not only legitimate, it is entirely appropriate. Demonization, for example, which singles out Israel for unique loathing, or which claims that Israel is apartheid or Nazi or essentially racist, or which characterizes Israel as a child-killing state, or a state which is responsible for wars around the world, or a state which is central to global imperialism, is not the same thing as criticism of Israeli government policies.
