Does my But look big in this?

I've only just seen Flying Rodent's post on the great But controversy.  Titled But-head.  Clever.  It's a denunciation of the many articles post-Charlie Hebdo which:

screech, wave [their] arms around and call down the vengeance of Heaven upon people who say that cartoonists deserve to be shot, while containing absolutely no examples

But it mostly uses Howard Jacobson's recent Independent article titled, Try ‘and’ instead of ‘but’ and you’ll find that America and Israel are not to blame for all the world’s atrocities as a foil.
Check out the post itself and see Organic Cheeseboard in the comments.  Both OC and FR conclude that Jacobon was being wilfully dishonest in at least two of his claims. Here's OC quoting both Jacobson and the Chomsky article that was the supposed source of Jacobson's criticism of the "But Brigade":

Jacobson says:

how about, “Gunning down the staff of Charlie Hebdo was an atrocity, ‘but’ Israel kills journalists in Gaza.” Would anyone say that? Unless I dreamt it, Noam Chomsky just has.

He hasn't, though. What he's said is that when the USA and its allies intentionally kill journalists simply because they are journalists, they go as far as parading it as a PR triumph, and nobody makes nearly as much fuss as they did over the Charlie Hebdo massacre where journalists were murdered for the crime of being journalists. Chomsky is really clear, in fact:

The more we can blame some crimes on enemies, the greater the outrage; the greater our responsibility for crimes -- and hence the more we can do to end them -- the less the concern, tending to oblivion or even denial.

Now what's particularly impressive about OC's comment is that the quote from Chomsky forms the bulk of a letter Chomsky wrote to The Independent  drawing attention to Jacobson's misrepresentation of what Chomsky had originally written.  Chomsky's letter was published after OC's comment:

I read with much interest Howard Jacobson’s denunciation of the “But Brigade” (24 January) and my culpability in this crime. But (apologies for using the correct word) I’m afraid that he was very careful to miss the point, completely.

There was no “but” in the article of mine that elicited his fury. Rather, the article provided a series of illustrations of a highly significant general principle that was stated quite explicitly: “The more we can blame some crimes on enemies, the greater the outrage; the greater our responsibility for crimes – and hence the more we can do to end them – the less the concern, tending to oblivion or even denial.”

I can easily comprehend why Mr Jacobson would insist that the demonstration of the principle must be suppressed, but (apologies again) I see no reason to accede to his demand.

Noam Chomsky
Massachusetts Institute  of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts

But really the reason  for this post is that I noticed Chomsky's bracketed apologies for his use of the word "but" which reminded me of my own bracketed comments following my use of the word "but" in my previous post.  I don't always agree with Noam Chomsky but (oh never mind).

CH wasn't racist? Does anyone still say so?

Here's a quirky article I just found via Twitter. It's an op-ed on the Ricochet website by a chap called Leigh Phillips who says that assertions that Charlie Hebdo is or was racist were simply wrong or as the article's title has it, "Lost in translation...." by "the unilingual left" that is.

Now I didn't much get into je suis Charlie stuff here or on Twitter though I didn't like what I saw as hypocritical outpourings for free speech by various politicos and journos who seemed to be writing a script and insisting we all read from it.  It was a bit like that Life of Brian bit where Brian tells the adoring crowd that they are all individuals and they all, in unison, agree with him.

Anyway, I don't intend to get into whether or not Charlie Hebdo is racist or has carried racist cartoons but (sheesh, I was also uncomfortable with the war on the word "but") I did notice this Leigh Phillips chap hedging a tad on the output of the late Christopher Hitchens - the CH in my title, geddit!?  See this:

For all of Hitchens’ support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I couldn’t at any point suggest he was a racist.

I've posted this before but I was actually at a London Review of Books meeting on the "war on terror" where panelists included Tariq Ali and Christopher Hitchens and in response to a questioner the latter seemed to berate him more for being from "the Subcontinent" than for what he actually said.

Q[uestioner]. Tariq Ali was the only one I think who mentioned that the United States is the sole global power that we have now and what we are seeing is the dawn of a new imperialism. So why is it that we are so – we, meaning the global community – why are we so content at letting America have its say regardless of what the rest of the world thinks of it. It has committed a whole host of crimes on a vast scale in international law. It is suspending civil rights as far as the al-Qaida prisoners are concerned. It is actually riding roughshod over all norms of international law and why – where is Russia, where is Japan, where are all these countries? 
........
C[hristopher] H[itchens]. ....I will not reject the challenge from the comrade, who I would say was from the Subcontinent. I would ask him this. He wanted to know why a country that – I think I have you right, sir – was indifferent to the norms of international law, was not more opposed by Russia and China, was that how you had it? Where was Russia, you said, where is China, why do they lie down under this lawlessness? I think your question answers itself: I think you had a real nerve asking it actually, or shall I say Chechnya or Cambodia or North Korea or Tibet or Kurdistan? It wouldn’t make any difference to you – would it? – any more than if I asked you how many people are currently flooding to the borders and ports of your country to immigrate to it – or to Russia or to China. Ask yourself that. One of the greatest problems that the United States has at the present moment is that everyone wants to come and live there: they’re wondering now how generous they can be. We should all have such problems; you will never have a problem like that, and nor will your ideology

Now Mr Phillips may not have been aware of that particular outburst but I'm sure Hitchens's enthusiasm for the war on terror sometimes verged on the genocidal.

I said the article was quirky and that Hitchens bit was just one of many quirks. But (it's that word again) it is worth a read and the comments are worth more than a skim too.

UPDATE: I'm indebted to Gert in the comments for drawing my attention to this blog post by Richard Seymour at Leninology which I think is safe to call a take-down of the Leigh Phillips piece.

Holocaust Memorial Day: Never Again for Anyone

	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. On 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.
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network Argentina :: Canada :: England :: Europe :: India :: Israel :: United States ijan@ijsn.net :: ijsn.net © International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network

I'll always remember how fear shook the wealthy

Some of the commentary on the Syriza election victory in Greece reminds me of that line from Leon Rosselson's Song of the Old Communist:

Give it a play and see what you think.

Oh yeah, it's not just the wealthy who might be feeling a tad anxious.  According to the Jerusalem Post Zionists aren't exactly thrilled either.

Surreal sycophancy from Blair on Abdullah

Oh just look at this from Tony Blair's website:

I am very sad indeed to hear of the passing of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah.

"I am very sad indeed to hear of the passing of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah.

“I knew him well and admired him greatly. Despite the turmoil of events in the region around him, he remained a stable and sound ally, was a patient and skilful moderniser of his country leading it step by step into the future. He was a staunch advocate of inter faith relations. He founded KAUST, the science and technology university where women and men are educated equally. And today there are more women in higher education than men. He allowed thousands to be educated abroad people who have experience of the world and will play a big part in the future of the country. He appointed women Ministers. He invested in renewable energy. And of course he launched the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 which has stood the test of time as a potential basis for a solution to the Israeli Palestine issue. 

“He was loved by his people and will be deeply missed."

I knew him well and admired him greatly. Despite the turmoil of events in the region around him, he remained a stable and sound ally, was a patient and skilful moderniser of his country leading it step by step into the future. He was a staunch advocate of inter faith relations. He founded KAUST, the science and technology university where women and men are educated equally. And today there are more women in higher education than men. He allowed thousands to be educated abroad people who have experience of the world and will play a big part in the future of the country. He appointed women Ministers. He invested in renewable energy. And of course he launched the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 which has stood the test of time as a potential basis for a solution to the Israeli Palestine issue.

He was loved by his people and will be deeply missed.

Comment?  Yuk!

Pew on Views on Jews, Muslims and Roma

I'm indebted to my friend Georgina for drawing my attention to this section of the Pew Research Global Attitudes Project from May 2014:

Many people in the seven European Union nations surveyed express negative views about minority groups in their country. In particular, negative attitudes toward Roma (sometimes also known as Gypsies) are common, while many also give Muslims unfavorable ratings. Negative attitudes toward Jews are less pervasive, although substantial minorities express an unfavorable opinion about Jews as well, especially in Greece where nearly half the public hold this view. Negative sentiments about all three groups are consistently more common among people on the ideological right.

Of course that was nearly 8 months ago and much has happened since then like the attack on Gaza by Israel and the attack on Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish shop by islamists.  And of course it doesn't survey Jewish opinions of Muslims or vice versa.  On that latter point, I wonder what some Muslims make of Theresa May's recent speech against anti-Jewish racism delivered round about the same time as her ministerial colleague, Eric Pickles was sending a patronising missive to mosques throughout the UK. And on that latter take a look at Michael Rosen's compare and contrast piece.

When Abba Eban opposed the use of antisemitism to promote Jewish settlement in Palestine

Here's an interesting piece from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency archive, Jan 1960.  Abba Eban opposed the idea of using antisemitism to encourage Jews to settle in occupied Palestine unlike, for example, Bibi Netanyahu:

Abba Eban, former Israel Ambassador to the United States, expressed disagreement at the first world conference of the Association of Youth Pioneers with a resolution which contended it was a “false idea” that Jews could integrate into the general life of countries outside Israel.

Mr. Eban, now a Minister Without Portfolio, told the delegates that anti-Semitism should not be a slogan for the encouragement of immigration to Israel. He said the crisis confronting Jews outside of Israel was spiritual and not economic or social, and warned that there would be no security for Israel and the entire Jewish people if, for example, the safety of American Jewry were in danger.

It is in the spiritual field that Israel’s call to Jews should come, he said, stressing that emphasis should be put on the positive side of building Israel in appeals to Jews to settle in Israel.

He also seemed to hint at support for the Jewish lobby thesis of American support for Israel but I can't be sure of that.

Spot the difference at The Guardian

The Guardian ran an article by Peter Beaumont on Friday with the headline, Why are French Jews returning to Israel in such numbers?  Someone emailed me about it wondering why The Guardian was promoting the idea that Jews settling in Palestine amounted to "returning".

I read the article and found that whilst Peter Beaumont referred to Jewish "immigration" he didn't once use the word "return" or "returning" so I tweeted this query to him:

.@petersbeaumont writes of Jews' "immigration" to Israel. @guardiannews headline says "returning" http://t.co/tmX2nDjQja … Who wrote latter?
— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) January 16, 2015

Unfortunately I didn't do a screengrab but here is a screengrab of The Guardian's tweet of the article:

And here's the embed though, on past performance it might not last:

Why are French Jews returning to Israel in such numbers? http://t.co/WAi6XE93lq
— The Guardian (@guardian) January 16, 2015

Anyway, now look at the headline of the article itself:

Why are French Jews heading to Israel in such numbers?

Now scroll down the article and look for where they say they amended it.  Don't spend too long on it because you won't find it.  I thought it was standard practice at The Guardian to announce their amendments.

Anyway, I wonder what led to their correcting the headline.  In fact I asked Peter Beaumont:

Spot the difference at @guardiannews between this http://t.co/eDyqWJ1VWL and this: https://t.co/qthomIVBC7 Thank @petersbeaumont or me?
— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) January 18, 2015

I'm guessing he won't answer but he does seem to be one of the good guys at the graun, in fact, he's well worth a follow on twitter.

What kind of low-life politicises suffering?

The Liberal Democrat MP, David Ward did a couple of tweets referencing the shameless appearance of Bibi Netanyahu at the Paris march after the attack on Charlie Hebdo.  Here they are:

#Netanyahu in Paris march - what!!!! Makes me feel sick
— David Ward (@DavidWardMP) January 11, 2015

Je suis #Palestinian
— David Ward (@DavidWardMP) January 11, 2015

Fairly standard stuff.  Many of us were disgusted at the sheer hypocrisy of this mass killer of civilians attending a march supposedly for the victims of a murderous attack on civilians. I think I might have tweeted about it.  Let me see.

At least #Bibi #Netanyahu's presence in Paris will expose the "anti"-terrorism charade for the sheer hypocrisy that it is. #Gaza
— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) January 11, 2015

Ah yes, I did.  Twice actually:

Never one to miss a #hasbara opportunity #Bibi heads to Paris http://t.co/RT1TOD6uyS #CharlieHebdo
— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) January 11, 2015

But of course it wasn't just Bibi's attendance at the march that caused such disgust.  He took the opportunity to call on France's Jews to join him as colonial settlers in occupied Palestine.  This had even some zionists running for cover. 

I searched in vain for the Jewish Chronicle's report on Bibi's disgrace but what I did find was condemnation of David Ward's tweets.

Tweet sents from Mr Ward’s account read: “Netanyahu in Paris march – makes me feel sick. Je suis Palestinian”.

In a letter to deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, ambassador Daniel Taub wrote: “Mr Ward’s statement is a disgraceful attempt to politicise suffering.

“It also exhibits a callous disregard for the Jews of France, many of whom look to Israel as they are increasingly targeted merely because of their religion.

Does Zionising suffering not count as politicising?

Dr Ronnie Fraser of FUCU fame

Whilst looking for stuff about the FUCU costs case I noticed that in spite of being derided by three judges for a colossal logic fail, Ronnie Fraser was awarded just recently a Phd.
Here's one report in the Jewish Chronicle:

The director of the Academic Friends of Israel, Ronnie Fraser, can at last breathe a sigh of relief.

After his failed legal action against the University College Union over its anti-Israel policy, the union launched a claim to recover around £500,000 in costs from him and his lawyers Mishcon de Reya.

Nearly two years after the original case, the parties have agreed a confidential out-of -court settlement and the UCU has withdrawn its application.

In fact, on the day of the scheduled costs hearing, he was able to do something far more pleasant than watch lawyers slugging it out again.

He was able to attend his own degree ceremony — Dr Fraser, as he has now become, has just been awarded his PhD by Royal Holloway, University of London, for a thesis on the links between British and Israeli trade unions.

Royal Holloway?  I think prominent zionist, David Cesarani, lectures there so I googled, royal holloway david cesarani ronnie fraser and what came first?  Ronnie Fraser's personal profile page at Royal Holloway.  He's listed as Postgraduate research student supervised by David Cesarani.  Small world huh?

His doctorate seems to have taken him about nine years to achieve but then he has been busy on other things.  And what was his thesis titled? The TUC and the Histadrut, 1945-1982: a problematic relationship.

It might make an interesting read but I find it more interesting the way prominent zionists have taken care of Dr Ronnie these past few years.

Wiping Israel off the map?

I just read on the Jewish Chronicle website that Harper Collins left Israel off of the map in an atlas it sells in the Middle East.

The American-based publishing giant said it regretted leaving the country out of atlases it sells to English-speaking schools in the Middle East.

In a statement reported in the Israeli media, it said: “HarperCollins regrets the omission of the name Israel from their Collins Middle East Atlas. This product has now been removed from sale in all territories and all remaining stock will be pulped. HarperCollins sincerely apologises for this omission and for any offence caused”.

They're making it seem like an accident or oversight or something.  Let's have a look at this map:

Well well, the West Bank and Gaza but no Israel.  And no Palestine either.

But see more of the JC report:

Earlier in the week Collins Bartholomew, a subsidiary of HarperCollins, told the Catholic newspaper, The Tablet, that including Israel in its “Collins Primary Geography Atlas For The Middle East” would have been “unacceptable” to customers in the Gulf states.

Leaving Israel off the maps incorporated “local preferences,” it said.

But if the omission of Israel was to incorporate "local preferences" why no Palestine? And if they do include Israel where will the boundaries go?

I tend to the view that Israel's existence is only temporary anyway.  Maybe Harper Collins should simply wait until Israel disappears and then publish its atlas in the Middle East.