Guardian

Watch what I do, not what I say……


In tomorrow’s JC, the Guardian says “We reject completely the charge of antisemitism”.

Calling Israel “racist” is antisemitic. Here is “Ilan” (Pappé?) doing precisely that on CIF a few hours ago. The post has been there for three hours now. Does The Guardian expect anyone to seriously believe them?

Ilan
27 Aug 09, 6:35pm
Richard Moore is being disingenuous here on at least two counts.
First up, if he knows anything about Israel at all he will know that Israel is not simply a common or garden serial human rights abuser like other states he names. Israel’s existence is predicated on its on going human rights abuses much as South Africa’s was during the apartheid era.
Second (no particular order) there is, as Loach says, an established boycott of the racist war criminals of the State of Israel. It has been called for by many representative groups of the most numerous and longest suffering of Israel’s victims: the Palestinians. Who in China and Iran has called for a boycott of those states?
The fact that the boycott of Israel is established and that there are not representative groups of victims of other regimes calling for a boycott of those regimes means that it is not Ken Loach granting dispensation to other human rights abusers. Richard Moore must surely know this.
Far be it for me to act as an apologist for Israel but….. But of course Richard Moore is acting as an apologist for Israel by trying to have the racist war criminals of Israel carry on business as usual while he is ignoring the expressed pleas of Israel’s victims.
There is a third issue distinguishing Israel from other serial human rights abusers and that is the fact that whilst Richard Moore claims not to be an apologist for Israel he clearly is one as are many who write in the mainstream media. Can he tell us who is China, Iran and Burma’s Jonathan Freedland at the Guardian? Can he name Zimbabwe’s Matt Seaton at Cif? Do China, Iran and Burma have a Kilroy-Silk at the Express and the Star to abuse their victims? Do they have a Richard Littlejohn at first the Sun then the Mail? Israel has legions of apologists and smear merchants in the mainstream media that other serial human rights abusers just do not have. It is thanks to these that many people still don’t know what it is that is wrong about Israel and of course Richard Moore isn’t going to enlighten anybody by trying to undermine the principled position and the standing of Ken Loach.
There are principled opponents of the boycott of Israel though as we have seen with Neve Gordon’s recent conversion to the cause, they are becoming a rarity. Richard Moore is certainly not a principled opponent of boycott as a potentially effective weapon against the racist war criminals of the State of Israel.
Of course he needn’t be ashamed of himself. Israel apologists are ten a penny in the mainstream media and this disingenuous article certainly won’t do his career any harm.
Since I have space to do so, I may as well mention Richard Moore’s ludicrous and no less dishonest equation of Ken Loach with the chinese state! Perhaps he really can’t distinguish an illegitimate state from an oppressive regime.  One individual is not as powerful as a state, certainly not a state like China. Sometimes I worry that Israel apologetics might be taken seriously by the non-committed but I don’t think that’s a worry in the case of this ludicrous and dishonest article.

18 replies »

  1. “Israel’s existence is predicated on human rights abuses?????”

    Is this clown for real?

    He can’t be if he calls Neve Gordon “principled.”

    Louise, seriously, I think that you are expecting too much from CiF when you ask them to recognise the offensiveness of this without actually hitting them over the head with it. Let’s face it they have been up to their necks in the ordure for so long that they no longer notice the stink.

    We would have to force them into some sort of sensitivity training, but about Jews and Zionists rather than other minorities before they could admit that any of this could be interpreted as offensive.

  2. Arnold

    “Ilan is Mark Elf”

    It appears you’re right:

    ilan

    25 Jul 09, 1:25pm

    This whole exercise is aimed at criminalising criticism of the State of Israel. It is not “naive”. It is not “flimsy”. It is deliberately dishonest. Zionists will not simply use the report to “demonise” criticism of Israel but to outlaw it altogether.

    One example the old EUMC working definition gave of antisemitism was that it is antisemitic to criticise Israel without criticising other states for the same thing. Apart from putting Israel’s victims in the invidious position of having to set out the grievances of other oppressed peoples around the world before setting out their own grievances, the wrongdoings that place Israel’s practices beyond apartheid and towards a nazi policy – ethnic cleansing – is not practiced by other states whilst inviting people from abroad to settle in their place. Israel is the only state that mobilises settlers from abroad whilst denying the natives the right to remain in or return to their own country. It is not antisemitic to condemn this, au contraire, it is anti-racist.

    If the zionists get their way, the apartheid analogy will be illegal, the nazi analogy will be illegal and accurately describing Israel as some way between an apartheid state and a nazi state will also be illegal.

    People need to know that while this is all going on, the British government is trying to amend the law here so that Israeli war crimes suspects – most if not all Israeli leaders plus many Israeli adults, especially males – will be able to come here. If the zionists get their law passed then Israeli war criminals will be free to enter and leave the UK at will and Israeli dissidents and Palestine solidarity activists including elected politicians could face arrest.

    The zionists are plumbing new depths of sheer dishonesty.

    Mark Elf

  3. Roland

    The Guardian was offered sensitivity training on antisemitism – free of charge.

    They did not take up the offer.

  4. If you have the stomach you can see all of ilan’s (aka Mark Elf’s) UNDELETED comments here, many of which are very much in the same vein as the comments above and elsewhere in this site.

    Ah but yes according to the Guardian in the JC article “our moderators will delete comments which are antisemitic or Islamophobic or otherwise racist, as soon as they are reported to us or when we see them ourselves.”

  5. It occurs to me that our Elfin chum’s message leaves out something very vital – proof, but then again that never was a vital pre-requisite on CiF. Notice how he’s parading all his demons as if they are facts to crank up what he may call Israel-hatred but which is, in reality Jew hatred. No sane person can hate a country or state with such a passion (and this goes for all Israel-haters) – no, he hates the Israeli people as well as the fact that their country exists, which of course means that at the very deepest part of his poisoned soul he hates himself:

    “..People need to know that while this is all going on, the British government is trying to amend the law here so that Israeli war crimes suspects – most if not all Israeli leaders plus many Israeli adults, especially males – will be able to come here…”

    ‘Allo ‘allo ‘allo – again where’s his proof of what he calls “war crimes” and what’s he got against allowing Israeli males into the UK? Is he doing a Qaradawi, that all Israeli adult males are fair game for accusations of war crimes (except that Qaradawi said that all Israeli Jews, including women and babies in utero, were fair game for suicide bombers because Israeli children would grow up to join the IDF).

    “…If the zionists get their law passed then Israeli war criminals will be free to enter and leave the UK at will and Israeli dissidents and Palestine solidarity activists including elected politicians could face arrest…”

    Well, quite apart from the fact that the UK seems to welcome any Islamist who says “boo!” with open arms and therefore almost anyone can be and often is allowed in, what precisely is this chump getting at?

    Firstly, and talking of war criminals or those who support their activities, many elected Palestinian officials who want to address student bodies here are members of Hamas and/or the Muslim Brotherhood or are sympathetic to them. The last time I looked both of which were on the list of terror organisations.

    The UK’s reputation for being a soft touch should not extend to offering freedom to enter to people who advocate or support routine and deliberate murder of civilians, train little children and others to want to blow themselves to smithereens among people going about their daily lives. Never so far as I know have any Israelis come to the UK to advocate such violence against Palestinians or Muslims, or to stir up violence here or to ask for support for such violence. Elf is comparing apples with bananas and making a lousy fruit salad of his argument.

  6. “..“our moderators will delete comments which are antisemitic or Islamophobic or otherwise racist, as soon as they are reported to us or when we see them ourselves.”

    How many moderators has CiF? And are they all visually impaired? Why should the readership have to report racist filth before it is removed?

  7. One of the Israel defenders on CIF arranged for The Guardian to have free training in recognizing antisemitism. The offer was turned down. They don’t think they have a problem.

  8. Sam. You ask pertinent questions. I doubt that CIF will ever respond. They use their moderation policy to tip the scales on various threads. A heavy thumb on the scales if you will.

    That is what is left to them now.

    I hope that this site becomes a refuge for abused posters.

    I am sick of seeing excellent and well researched and featured comments with a large number of recommendations suddenly removed. This is CIF moderation ‘at its best’. Remove a well recommended comment that doesnt fit the CI(F) world view.

    And CI(F) maintains that this is ‘free speech’.

    May the Sky Pixie save us.

  9. Maybe my memory plays with me but in the past I read comments on CIF by Ilan and he himself wrote that he is Pappe. I don’t have the time to search for them now but the identity of this vile antisemite is irrelevant. This sentence alone in his undeleted post: – “Perhaps he really can’t distinguish an illegitimate state from an oppressive regime.” – is the absolute proof that the moderators tolerate calls for eliminate Israel.
    You don’t have to be a professor of law to know that calling a country illegitimate means that this country should be dismantled/eliminated.

  10. Louise, really? A formal arrangement and all that, of the sort that social workers, police and public service employees have to undergo as part of their basic training?

    I believe your, “They don’t believe they have a problem…” echoes what I already wrote above, that they’ve been for so long in the sh*t of hatred that they no longer notice the stink.

  11. As a refugee from CiF myself, I have first hand experience of CiF’s particular brand of “justice.”

    I posted after a particularly nasty article by an Islamist and supporter of Hamas and, of course, against Israel, and in response to one of the usual suspects.

    I know my reply was well-researched, gave links, and did not descend to the level of personalised insult so often hurled at supporters of Israel, but I did ask whether CiF was going to get an article from someone who could refute this person’s arguments.

    My post stayed up for about five minutes and by the end of the two or three days, most of the comments were cheering for the hater who had written the article.

    I wrote to the moderators and asked why they had removed my post. They said that it had contravened their talk policy but in spite of a couple of further emails from me (neither of which they replied to) they refused to tell me exactly how.

    Things got busy then in my job (I work shifts) and by the time I was able to post again I found that I had had my posting “privileges” withdrawn. I believe that my three emails of complaint got me noticed and banned.

    Although I read CiF when I feel particularly strong stomached, I have never been tempted to try again. I am glad that CiFWatch is here.

  12. “A spokesman for the Guardian rejected claims of antisemitism on the site. He said: “Comment is Free has always carried a wide range of different opinions on the Israel/Palestine conflict.”

    err, yeah – so where is PetraMB of late ? Is there a boycott of anyone not toeing the party line over at cif ?

    Over on the other thread someone mentions the much promised debate between PetraMB and Seth Freedman on cif – After Freddman backed out, every post asking about the promised debate was deleted from subsequent threads on cif. Comment is free is very tightly controlled.

  13. “If the zionists get their way, the apartheid analogy will be illegal, the nazi analogy will be illegal and accurately describing Israel as some way between an apartheid state and a nazi state will also be illegal.”

    I don’t know about illegal, but some honest reflection of who’s who and what is what in the Middle East would point out the following:

    Jews are not allowed into most Arab countries.
    It is illegal to sell land to a Jew in Jordan, Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
    There are no Jews living in autonomous PA territory.
    There is a demand to remove Israelis from all cities, towns and kibbutzim beyond the ’48 armistice lines.

    The apartheid and nazi analogies do apply, they just don’t set their sights properly.

  14. its not just CIF, even Woody Allen has to be condemned. In his film I watched yesterday, ‘Annie Hall’, he observed to Dianne Keaton,

    “you what Anti-Semitism is?….hating Jews more than is absolutely necessary”

    I hope he’s never invited to contribute to the hated CIF!