Israel, Likudniks & their enablers: The Guardian’s Ian Williams takes a brave stand against Zionism!

If Ian Williams didn’t exist we’d very much have to invent him, as his musings about the villainy of Israel and her Jewish supporters – and America’s craven submission to the wishes of “the Lobby” – represent the Guardian Left’s bigotries in all of its pseudo-progressive glory.

Like any Guardianista in good standing, Williams – who once praised, in a 2010 Guardian essay, late Hezbollah spiritual leader, and Holocaust denier, Hussein Fadhallah, as, yes, a “liberal” –  is continually outraged by the reactionary forces of the American pro-Israel community, an anger he expressed in the following witticism, in a Jan. 2011 CiF anti-Israel polemic:

“Obama…must face not only a rabidly pro-Israeli Republican party but also a majority of his own party that would sign up to a resolution declaring the moon to be made of blue cheese if the Israeli lobby demanded it.”

Williams’ quote, seriously suggesting that Israel is shielded from its fair share of critical scrutiny, brought to mind a quote by Israel’s former UN Ambassador, Abba Eban, who dryly observed that “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions” – the dairy-free moral inverse of  Williams’ grave concerns about Zionist influence.

Williams January CiF piece also included the careful observation that American supporters of Netanyahu are obviously all anti-Muslim racists, while also evoking antisemitic stereotypes of the ruthless, money-grubbing Jew.

 [Zionists such as] Irving Moskowitz…[who] recycles the proceeds of inner-city gambling in the US to buy and demolish property in East Jerusalem, such as the Shepherd Hotel….”

In fairness, only an “edgy” and truly pithy Brit, such as Williams, can impute greed, racism and Zionist colonialism to an American Jew in so few words. 

Williams’ latest Guardian licensed musing on the effects of Zionist influence, “Obama will rue his lack of principle on Palestine’s UNESCO membership“, Nov. 2, essentially recycles previously expressed prejudices and non-sequitors – adapted to conform to the latest anti-Palestinian outrage.  

Anyone familiar with the comment threads below the line following CiF essays about Israel knows the routine: regurgitating the tropes necessary to implicitly or explicitly characterize US support for Israel as a distortion of US foreign policy, one dangerously under the influence, and dependent upon the largess, of a powerful minority intellectually crippled by obtuse ethnic loyalties.

Williams’ piece is similarly informed by the Guardian Left’s belief that only the politically perverse could defend Israel and oppose Palestinians, arguing that only the “lunatic fringe” would oppose the Palestinians’ UNESCO bid, and that “the US approach” is compromised by a “general lack of principle.”

So, what’s to blame for this utterly inexplicable dynamic of a US government standing in opposition to unilateral Palestinian moves, and their stunning abandonment of “all logic”? Well, he doesn’t quite say.  

However the following passage does provide a glimpse into who he believes to be the culprit, and provides a broader insight into the ideological underpinnings which informs so much Guardian commentary on Israel.

“Over-stretched financially and militarily, beset with problems that can only be solved multilaterally, doing Binyamin Netanyahu’s bidding will win Obama few votes at home. The American Likudniks will still believe the president is an alien-born Muslim and send their votes and cheques accordingly.” [emphasis mine]

The world according to the Guardian Left: Liberal moral leadership is determined by how soberly a nation faces up to the threat posed by racist, check-writing, overly influential American Jews.

Neville Chamberlain may have indeed appeased Hitler, but the British fighting spirit which helped defeat fascist totalitarianism is back in the spirit of Ian Williams – who will inspire in all of us the grit and determination required to stand up to the Zionist menace.

9 replies »

  1. Adam, this comment is excellent for contextualising Williams’s nasty nothings.

    1 November 2011

    UNESCO is a bloated bureaucracy that serves no useful purpose. The USA should pull out of the UN itself as this organisation is equally a bloated bureaucracy that serves no useful purpose. Since so many member states are run by some of the nastiest and most selfish people on the planet, and each tinpot dictator has an equal voice with democratically elected leaders resulting in a system that is rotten through and through.

    As usual those who support those countries whose leaders and people want to annihilate the Jewish people have loud voices. However hitting the UN in the pocket is the best way to emasculate it. Its ineffectiveness is apparent in every war zone where nasty dictators hold sway while its denunciations are loudest against democratic nations who pay the most towards it. There is silence when Hamas and Hezbollah fire off rockets into Israel killing and wounding Israelis; the clamour when there is some retaliation by Israel is deafening. The numbers dying in sub-Saharan and central Africa are running into the millions: UNESCO doesn’t care much nor do UN member states: all turn a blind eye because none want to get involved in helping the helpless if there is a chance of getting killed by lawless tribesmen and militias that roam these areas. So instead of dealing with the real problems, it’s so much easier to grandstand on minor issues that cost nothing and mean nothing: like recognising Palestine.

    West Bank Palestine is conquered territory won fair and square in a war started by Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 1967. The biggest mistake Israel has made has been to give both the West Bank and Gaza a measure of independence instead of trying to integrate these territories into Israel. Give those who hate you an inch and they will take a mile. Without UN finance and bad policies, the original tens of thousands of displaced Palestinians in 1948 would have been resettled in the Middle East long ago. Their numbers have grown to millions over the years and there has been no real action to deal with this other than to keep feeding and housing them. Without the EU or UN, the people in Gaza would be in neighbouring countries looking for food like Somalis as this small area of land cannot ever support them economically. Gaza was part of Egypt before 1967 and its development as a separate state is totally unviable. Neither the UN nor the EU has any strategy to deal with this other than to keep on funding the status quo while blaming Israel all the time after it did what was asked and gave Gaza independence and withdrew all the settlers. The fact that the borders are closed is obvious: good neighbours don’t lob bombs and rockets into your country, so Gaza doens’t want an open border other than for it to be an opportunity to kill Jews.

    The other side of the coin is that millions of Jews have been expelled or fled from Middle Eastern countries… the threats made against them and the seizure of their property was unnoticed by the UN because these countries were all dictatorships where human rights are allowed to be ignored because UN observers don’t return home alive when there is criticism. Israel has tried to deal with this influx in a way that few of the neighbouring countries have tried to deal with Palestinians.

    Why hasn’t the UN recognised Tibet seized by the Chinese in 1959? Russia invaded Chechnya in the nineteenth century and virtually ethnically cleansed it in the twentieth century; where is the UN support for recognition of a free Chechnya on the same basis as a free West Bank Palestinian State? Chechnya is occupied territory so far as Russia is concerned and won fair and square in wars of conquest by various Czars. Its people have never agreed to this. What is the difference between the West Bank and Chechnya? There isn’t any, but it seems UNESCO hasn’t put recognition on the table… why is that?

    The UN is an anti-Jewish organisation that applies double standards: democracies must pay the most and receive the most criticism, while dictatorships pay the least and receive little or no criticism. It won’t be long before Israel is expelled from the UN simply because the leaders of many member states hate Jews. Once that happens, don’t expect Israel to behave like a western democracy when it fights for survival: they won’t be going passively this time when annihilation threatens them.

    And strangely I had also thought of the Tibetans.

  2. Here’s another nutter:

    1 November
    2011 6:52PM

    There seem to be a lot of apologists for the Israeli’s here. Probably orchestrated.

    Mais oui!

  3. As you point out, Williams has a track record of inflammatory anti-Israel rhetoric.
    From his article:

    By reflexively withdrawing from Unesco in response to Palestine’s admission, the Obama-Clinton state department has taken the lunatic fringe and put them centre stage.

    Reflexive? Wasn’t the withdrawal in fact required by some US law (spiteful though it seems)?

  4. From The Guardian profile of Ian Williams;
    “Born in Liverpool, Ian Williams graduated from Liverpool University despite several years’ suspension for protests against its investments in South Africa. Consequently, his variegated career path included a drinking competition with Chou En Lai and an argument about English literature with Mme Mao at the tail end of the Cultural Revolution. He has been living in New York since 1989.”

    Just as well Chou En Lai and Mme Mao were both well known humanitarians with unblemished records, he wouldn’t want to be known to have been drinking with and discussing English literature with representatives of a regime known for human rights abuses and massive loss of human life because of its policies.

  5. Only one word is appropriate.

    The more people like Williams explode with rage, the more evidence that Israel is a success story, in every sense of the word.

  6. As a former UN employee Ian should know that the Pals didn’t qualify as per the UNESCOs own rules….

  7. He has profound ignorance of American history which partly explains why he blames lobbies for the Americans support for Israel.

    I sparred with him many times. In one article he insulted the July 4th holiday by claiming that the Americans wanted to separate from the Crown because they wanted to keep practicing slavery.

    He also became an American citizen recently as he bragged about voting for Hussein Obama….then again…knowing Obama, he may have been an ACORN registry voter (slight pun)

    What he fails to understand is that the unilateral moves by the Pals are designed to kill the peace process and not the other way around.

    If the Pals get a state this way, instead of via negotiations, they will not have to abide by any agreement preventing them from attacking Israel on day one of their existence.

    Ian says: ” Barack Obama, whose speeches in Turkey and Egypt during the early months of his presidency had deceptively signalled a new opening to the Muslim world”

    What a bunch of crock. I am not the ideal defender of Obama but he clearly made an effort to open a new dialogue.
    Who was deceptive there?
    The “Muslim world” spat in his face and bit his hand he held out.
    They either tried to exploit a weakness they perceived in the speeches or defiantly argued that he was a black devil puppet of Joos.

    As if America owed anything to Muslims anyway….but that’s another story.
    Unfortunately the Obama team does have that in them….the 911 was somehow our fault argument has fans in that admin and collectively on the left.

    Ian is a naive fool. He defended Hamas when it won an “election” and praised a Hezbollah leader because he stopped calling for the cutting off of hands of women who wore nail polish.

    He defended Iran and dismissed the dangers it poses.

    This racism of low expectations is so pervasive on the Left its not even funny anymore. He embodies it on his more drunken days.