18 replies »

  1. Great competition Hawkeye. Please could Georgina’s wooden nose now be painted blue. After all, Little Brittain has caught a chill recently, and is still blue with the cold.

  2. Pretzelburg, because mention anything about Israel that doesn’t include the comment “a small country, the same size as Wales, and surrounded by hostile neighbours” is automatically considered to be a blood libel by this lot

  3. Popular Front for Judea

    Bravo — a very astute observation there. You’re not the chairman / woman of the PFJ, are you by any chance..?

  4. I did vote for the “winner”, because I felt this was, together with the Oborne piece, the one that would likely be most influential; and for me, it beat out Oborne on the “Lobby” because babies always sell well in the blame-the-Jews-business.

  5. sababa

    I did vote for the “winner”, because I felt this was, together with the Oborne piece, the one that would likely be most influential

    Neither piece is even remotely influential.

    it beat out Oborne on the “Lobby” because babies always sell well in the blame-the-Jews-business.

    Oh, give it a rest. On any given CiF thread there are indeed a couple of anti-Semites (in fact I think I spotted a new one today). But otherwise it’s about Israel – and not “blood libel”.

  6. pretzelberg, when the same basic story line is adapted throughout the ages, there will always be some people who fall for it and claim, like you, that this is really a new story, nothing to do with what went on before… But those about whom this story is told will recognize easily that it may be adapted to the 21st century, but it’s still the same story that was told about their greatgreatgreatgrandfather back somewhere in Eastern Europe, and about their grandfather in Central Europe. Why not check out for yourself for how many centuries the Jews have been blamed for the death or illness of non-Jewish children, for casting a spell on them, or poisoning the wells?
    It has been shown here on this site that there was nothing to Brittain’s story — it was just a rehash of the very old well-poisoning story that made Christian children sick with the Black Death in medieval Europe, and that makes babies turn blue in 21st century Gaza.

  7. sababa

    when the same basic story line is adapted throughout the ages, there will always be some people who fall for it and claim, like you, that this is really a new story, nothing to do with what went on before

    a) It is not the same basic story line
    b) I challenge you to point out where I said/implied that “this is really a new story”

    it may be adapted to the 21st century
    Only according to your perspective.

    It might be news to you, but the vast majority of gentiles in Western Europe (can’t speak for further east, I freely admit) have never even heard of the blood libel, nor are their thoughts about Jews contaminated by such filth.

    How about you take this insider’s word for it?

  8. pretzelberg, I absolutely take your word for it; that’s why it seems a new, and therefore credible story, to a European audience. But Jews, who through the generations have paid with their blood for blood libel stories that falsely accused them of causing harm to Christian children know a blood libel story when they see one. Brittain’s story was one: it falsely accused Jews (as Israelis) of making babies (this time not Christian, but Muslim) turn blue from water poisoning (well poisoning in the old times). The underlying age-old theme is that Jews contaminate (spiritually or physically) the environment for non-Jews.

  9. Fairly obviously it could be seen as a blood libel, dependent on how you define it.

    If you define a blood libel as only a mediaeval tale then nothing will probably convince you otherwise.

    But if you appreciate that ideas, racial symbolism and racist myths mutate and evolve over time then it’s perfectly logical to call this a blood libel.

    The Guardian article aims to portray the Israelis as particularly barbarous, who would indulge in any murderous enterprise against their foes, including poisoning of the water system.

    Anyone with a sense of history will remember the tales of poisoning wells and how Jews are/were depicted as especially ruthless and inhuman, capable of unspeakable cruelty to others, as shown in most antisemitic myths.

    So these themes do tie together, if you think about it a bit.

  10. sababa

    I absolutely take your word for it; that’s why it seems a new, and therefore credible story, to a European audience

    Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. Which “story” exactly are you talking about that is “credible” to Europeans? The old blood libel nonsense or the Brittain article?

    Jews … know a blood libel story when they see one.

    Speak for yourself – and for many on this website. Perhaps you are unware that you cannot claim to speak for Jews in general.
    That, by the way, is a major problem with CiFWatch.

    @ modernityblog

    Anyone with a sense of history will remember the tales of poisoning wells

    Wrong, mate.
    And most Jewish people I know would not necessarily see the association.

  11. @ modernityblog

    But if you appreciate that ideas, racial symbolism and racist myths mutate and evolve over time then it’s perfectly logical to call this a blood libel.

    Yes, sadly they do/have. In this case we indeed have the enduring myths of a) money-grabbing Jews b) intent on world domination c) arch-Capitalists/Communists (take your pick)

    All I’m saying is that the specific case re. gentile blood and matza etc. is not a commonly believed phenomenon.

  12. pretzelberg,

    I wrote “Anyone with a sense of history….”

    Now if you wish to counter that with anecdotes and “the bloke down the pub” type of arguments then there’s nothing I can say, but you do seem to want to nitpick without purpose or admit the bleeding obvious.

  13. Ahhh, I thought it was going to be Hawkeye for not having the gonads to talk to the British Lobby programme makers.