Deborah Orr Tweet of the day: Jews are “not allowed” to “not allow people to be critical” of Israel

Our post yesterday attempted to get the Guardian’s Deborah Orr to issue a more genuine apology for her mocking and distorted characterization of Jews as “the chosen” people in an Oct. Guardian piece on the deal to release Gilad Shalit.

In her original column – for which she ultimately wrote a quasi apology which didn’t address her most egregious passages – Orr essentially argued that the release of 1027 terrorist prisoners by Israel in exchange for one Israeli is evidence of  the Jewish state’s racism, a racism, she implied, which is embedded in Judaism itself.

We posted our request to Orr to issue a more sincere apology following a Twitter exchange in which she challenged us to offer our views on what she should have written, and added that she’d read it and consider endorsing it.

Well, after Tweeting our post (with text of an apology we hoped she’d consider issuing) directly to Orr, she responded in a way clearly showing her lack of remorse for advancing the toxic idea that “chosenness” indicated Jewish racism or a sense of supremacism – a Judeophobic trope which, we added, is typically advanced by antisemitic extremists.

After a series of exchanges there was this Tweet by Orr:

I included this Tweet (before her answer to our direct question) because I think it gets to the heart of the matter regarding a UK liberal intelligentsia (and I use that term lightly) who truly believes that there’s a dearth of criticism regarding Israel, and that powerful pro-Israel Jews are attempting to silence the debate.  

Evidently, Orr is unaware of her own paper’s obsessive negative coverage of the Jewish state – Israel represents the fifth most covered country in the world by the Guardian, based on their own data – nor the fact that such hyper criticism is leveled on the website of a broadsheet which garners tens of millions of unique visitors a month.

If Zionist Jews were indeed attempting to muzzle criticism of Israel then a brief survey of the quantity and degree of such fierce opprobrium towards the Jewish state (found both on blogs and in the MSM) would clearly indicate that we are failing spectacularly at such efforts.

Finally, Orr’s reply, to our Tweet asking her to endorse the apology we wrote, was this.

Yes, Deborah, you continue to make your views quite clear. 

21 replies »

  1. Of course Deborah Orr is *allowed* to write articles. She’s just not allowed to write articles that toe-curlingly misunderstand the Shalit prisoner swap, and that contain a sneering racist lie about Jewish people.

    Or actually, she is allowed to. But that’s The Guardian for you.

    Planet Earth to Orr: if you write racist crap, expect people to protest. And if, when they protest, you wriggle, dig a hole for yourself, and sneer at those you offended, then expect them to consider you a genuinely pathetic individual.

  2. Here’s the rub, and I’d be glad of people’s opinions:

    Are these people attracted to the Guardian because it acitvely encourages them to spout their off the wall ideas/hatreds (no, sorry, meant hatred singular), or have these haters made the Guardian their focus because it hasn’t the sense, nor can it afford, to refuse their rubbish?

    (I keep thinking of Chris Elliott’s immortal “facts are tricky things…” lunatic burble, of some time ago)

    An elderly neighbour is convinced that the media is dumbing down massively, and given some of the rubbish you find online at the Guardian and elsewhere I am inclined to agree with him. To echo his mantra, “Whatever happened to ethical and honest reporting?”

    • Re honest and ethical reporting, ask Johann Hari, the serially dishonest, sneaky anti-Israel bully. One of his most passionate defenders on Twitter? Deborah Orr.

    • An elderly neighbour is convinced that the media is dumbing down massively, and given some of the rubbish you find online at the Guardian and elsewhere I am inclined to agree with him.

      It certainly applies to the Guardian – although by no means exclusivley.

  3. She’s an interesting case. She removes at least one of her children from a state school and places him into a private school and yet still manages to convince herself, and her pals at the Guardian, that she did so from worthy socialist principle. Her child is – of course – a special case.

    She writes a profoundly ignorant and racist comment piece – which is placed in the ‘news’ section by her pals at the Guardian – and yet still manages to convince herself that she is a deeply informed, caring, principled non-racist. Israel and Jews are – of course – a special case.

    She continues with the fairy story that Jews have managed to prevent ‘people being critical of Israel’. The story goes that those who have criticised her piece are solely motivated by the desire to conceal Israel’s -sins – original and otherwise – and crimes. The chosen people with their superiority complex (cf De Gaulle) believe that their one soldier was worth > 1000 Palestinian prisoners – and managed to voodoo the ignorant, unsophisticated Palestinians into demanding that exchange rate.

    Strange woman

    • which is placed in the ‘news’ section by her pals at the Guardian

      An element that added extra offensiveness to the original piece.

  4. Bizarre. Some people already in a hole just don’t know when to stop digging.
    Or perhaps they are unaware they are in said hole – at this point more like a chasm that would rival the Great Wall in terms of satellite imagery.

  5. I’m honestly glad her apology was that pathetic and she kept digging the hole that her original moral bankruptcy and stupidity excavated in the first place. There isn’t any difference between her and the Arun Gandhi/Helen Thomas school, and personally everything that involves D. Bore (though that should be less material, now that she’s too incompetent for even CIF’s spotlight coverage) is going to bring that out from now on.

  6. Just out of interest, but who the fuck are you, Levick, to dictate what does or doesn’t constitute an apology. Get a life.

    • Wow, “yet anuvver joshua already”, what a rhetorical smack down! The “F” bomb, to boot. I really pissed you off, didn’t I?

      Ok, let me put it simply, so you can understand.

      Orr argued that Jews are racist/supremacist by nature.

      I suggested that an apology was in order as such an argument is inherently racist.

      Orr disagreed.

      I called her out on her failure to abide by even the most rudimentary principles of anti-racist politics.

      Get it?

      As to “getting a life”. I have one in Israel, the state of the Jewish people; a nation I will fight with everything in my power to defend from those who don’t quite care if we live or die.

      Tell me, what have you passionately fought and sacrificed for recently?

    • Somebody who recognises the fact that Orr was dragged kicking and screaming into writing a cynical excuse for an apology which has been exposed for what it is. The fact that you have issues with it puts you on the same side of the fence .

  7. Oh dear yet anuvver &c. I can spot Oedipal rage when I see it.

    Let me spell it out for you

    Deborah Jane Orr was grossly offensive and has continued to be.

    In her “apology” she expressed regret for her choice of words not for the fact that she had been antisemitic, but that’s no doubt due to the fact that she works in the Guardian where antisemitism is dismissed by its readers editor as being “inadvertent” which is Chris Elliott-speak for it being unimportant. Deborah Jane probably didn’t cop on until there was an outcry.

    The “inadvertent” nature of the antisemitism at the Guardian may mean that the people who express it aren’t aware that they are antisemites or even that antisemitism is offensive, (although that does not excuse the behaviour) which in turn means that antisemitic talk must happen often enough there for it to form part of the culture of the Guardian; in other words antisemitism has become institutional there. In other words it would be much more difficult for Deborah Jane to be an “inadvertent” antisemite if the Guardian culture made antisemitism unacceptable. With me so far? Good. Hang on in, just a little more:

    Now, the most curious aspect of Deborah Jane Orr’s reaction to being asked to apologise for her “inadvertent” antisemitism is her total lack of insight into how the wording of her apology might be construed. Rather than admit that she had been wrong, that she should not have said what she did about Jews, and made a heartfelt,sincere apology for her offensiveness, she continued to insult.

    In other words she is either incredibly stupid or morally bankrupt or both. She is certainly overweeningly arrogant when her offensiveness is brought home to her. Now, these are not endearing traits are they, and therefore Adam should not be blamed for showing Deborah Jane’s apology for the hot air it is.

    • in other words antisemitism has become institutional there

      OK. It’s official. You’re just a quack.

      • Re: Oedipal rage – Difficult to put into words, pretzelberg – it’s the sense I get from the tenor of the post, the language he uses and that he directs all his anger at the Editor (who represents authority here) – Adam.

        And your post above is again well down to your usual standard I’m afraid, lacking in nuance and any sense of respect for propriety. I’m used to dealing with people like you in quite a different milieu so I’m not going to demean myself by engaging with you any more unless you mind your manners.

  8. Orr: a case of hubris?

    Is it that she is so convinced of her superior insight and intelligence as a soi-disant member of the chatterati that she feels at liberty to brainfart at will?

    A flatulence which reeks of antisemitism as all that emanates from the Islamized Guardian.

  9. “I hope that’s clear enough for you to understand now.”

    Yes, a stupidity which passeth all understanding is worth cherishing for what it is.