General Antisemitism

Top 10 warning signs you may be a ‘Guardian Left’ anti-Semite


H/T Seumas

The Guardian’s associate editor Seumas Milne – who, in case it needs reminding, worked for the pro-Stalinist communist publication ‘Straight Left’ earlier in his career – was kind enough to Tweet a link to a piece in Foreign Policy Magazine by Stephen Walt.

The piece is titled ‘Top 10 warning signs you are a liberal imperialist‘.

The essay itself, written by the co-author of a book widely condemned for its shoddy scholarship and for arguing that Jews wield too much power in Washington, D.C., is unintentionally quite comical – a kind of ‘Western Guilt-Driven Guide to the Universe for Dummies’ – and includes, as #1, the following:

You frequently find yourself advocating that the United States send troops, drones, weapons, Special Forces, or combat air patrols to some country that you have never visited, whose language(s) you don’t speak, and that you never paid much attention to until bad things started happening there.

Whilst I don’t speak fluent academic-ese like the esteemed Harvard professor, I have become adept at deciphering an even more obscure dialect – the language of the Guardian Left.

So, in the spirit of Walt’s mockery of those who ‘unknowingly’ are compromised by a deep-seeded imperialism lurking in their subconscious, here is CiF Watch’s own ‘Top 10 warning signs you may be a Guardian Left anti-Semite – a list, per the links below, inspired by real life Guardianistas!)

1. You claim the mantle of human rights yet find yourself running interference for anti-Semitic world leaders and helping to spread the propaganda of Islamist extremists – and even terrorist leaders who openly call for the murder of Jews.

2.  You claim to condemn racism at every opportunity yet are strangely silent or seriously downplay even the most egregious examples of antisemitic violence.

3. You claim to be a champion of progressive politics yet often use terms and advance tropes indistinguishable from classic right wing Judeophobia – such as the argument that Jews are too powerful, use their money to control politics, and are not loyal citizens.

4. You support nationalism, and don’t have a problem with the existence of more than 50 Muslim states, yet you oppose the existence of the only Jewish state in the world.

5. Even when putatively condemning antisemitism you can’t help but blame the Jews for causing antisemitism.

6. You condemn the Holocaust yet also obsessively condemn living Jews for their alleged ‘inhumanity’ and even argue that Jews haven’t learned the proper lessons from the attempt to annihilate their co-religionists from the planet.

7. You not only support Palestinian rights, but support their “right” to launch deadly terrorist attacks on Israeli Jews, under the mantle of anti-imperialist “resistance”.

8. You characterize extremist reactionary Islamist movements as “progressive“.

9. You accuse Jews of cynically misusing the charge of antisemitism to “stifledebate about the Jewish state.

10. You champion diversity and multiculturalism of all kinds, yet suggest that Jewish particularism represents an inherently tribal, ethnocentric and racist identity.

I’m sure there are more than ten – so please feel free to add to our list in the comment section below.

(This post was revised at 15:15 EST to correct a mistake concerning Seumas Milne’s work at Straight Left.)

115 replies »

  1. You claim that you constantly and harshly criticize Israel because you are a friend, but can never bring yourself to once criticize Palestinians who you also claim to be a friend.

  2. And straight into the Top Three: 3 (this one goes back centuries and to the Rothschilds – funny how the same wankers never mention other influential banking dynasties from past centuries like the Fuggers or Medicis), 5 & 10.

    No. 8 is pretty extreme. Seamus Milne, take a bow.

  3. You say you think nationalism is oh so yesterday, think the first nation state to go should be Israel, but support the creation of a Palestinian state.

  4. You think a Jewish state with Arab and other minorities is ‘inherently’ racist, but the existence of Christian and Muslim ethno/religious majority countries doesn’t register on your hate-o-meter.

  5. remember we are dealing with a newspaper ie The Guardian that ran an articule on corporate tax evasion in its “comment is free” section and then had its censorbots deleting the myriads of comments that had the bottle to question The Guardian’s own tax arrangements. truth and The Guardian go together like honesty and politicians

  6. Top 10 warning signs you may be a ‘Guardian Left’ anti-Semite

    I`m looking forward to Greenwald`s statement on this
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2013/may/22/woolwich-suspect-attack-video

    I suppose he will suggest that the victim derserved it in a way, as soldier of the imperial, colonialist, racist west, therefore the murder was a more symbolic deed and anyway,the perpetrators were themselves victims, the real victims of a society which socially and economically excluded them, leaving them no other choice, and it has nothing to do with religion, or religious leaders who incite young men to terrorize, to use violence in the name of religion. Just like in Gaza.
    And society has to bend its head and confess to be guillty of producing young men who are so hopeless that they have to terrorize. In case these men should be immigrants the society is still guilty as imperial and racist power, forcing people to immgrate. After acknowledging its sins, society has to offer those angry young men whatever they want, because they are right. Just like in Gaza.
    That`s what he suposedly will write, as a good, well-intentioned friend of the West, and, of course, of Israel.

    • According to the ex mayor of London Ken Livingstone on the BBC (where else?) this was an understandable reaction to the actions of the West in Irak and Afghanistan and the Israelis in Gaza,. These Jew-hating “fine men Israel critics” have the brain quality of a Neanderthal (maybe less even).

      • Aren`t some ex-BBC men and women on Al Jazeera? At least at the beginning? Isn`t Al Guardian well connected with both?
        Greenwald`s association with Al Jazeera
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/21/al-jazeera-joseph-massad-retraction
        “…prepared to enter the US television market under the brand name “Al Jazeera America” (as disclosure: I had some preliminary discussions several months ago with some Al Jazeera officials about the possibility of doing something for that new network, though it never advanced beyond that stage; I also covered the US election for Al Jazeera English from Doha, and have appeared many times on that network). ”

        “It’s certainly possible that Al Jazeera America can provide unique and important journalism: networks owned by governments can and do produce real journalism. American cable news – drowning in mindlessly partisan outlets that are endlessly focused on trivial Beltway gossip, along with the fear-driven pointlessness of CNN – could certainly use an independent and intrepid journalistic competitor. Al Jazeera English has some outstanding, fearless journalists and produces some high-quality shows. But that will only happen if it remains independent of the Qatari regime’s foreign policy aims and is free to risk offending and alienating powerful people: the hallmark of good journalism. That’s what makes its silent deletion of Massad’s Op-Ed so alarming and disappointing: it signals that the network is being driven by exactly the corrupting fears that preclude meaningful, independent journalism.”

        Some outstanding, fearless journos like him, you bet, against fear-driven pointlessness – as just happened to an unfortunate soldier.
        To make a career at Al Jazeera he has to be a career dhimmi, a Guardian Left’ anti-Semite isn`t enough, there are so many of them.

      • Please provide a link with Livingstone saying it was “an understandable reaction”.

        These Jew-hating …

        Oh FFS leave it out.

        • Maybe before you make a bigger idiot of yourself (again naturally) you should have listened the BBC radio Live 5 this morning.
          How do you feel here to be this blog’s own local clown?

    • That’s a silly comment. It’s a series of photos specifically about an ultra-orthodox wedding.

      • I agree with Pretz. I don’t think these pictures are symptomatic of anything.

        One thing though that strikes me as odd – isn’t it strange that every caption (apart from one) calls the people “ultra-orthodox Jews”? e.g. “The ultra-orthodox Jewish bride is accompanied to the service” and “Hassidim ultra-orthodox Jews crowd into the service” or even “Ultra-orthodox Jews use binoculars to watch the wedding”.

        The title of the piece makes it perfectly clear that this is an “ultra-orthodox” wedding. It is clunky and strange to keep repeating that in every caption. What would have been wrong with simply saying “the bride being escorted to the ceremony” or “Hassidim crowd into the service” or “Some spectators use binoculars to watch the wedding”?

      • “specifically about an ultra-orthodox ..”, as usual – for intelligent minds easily to detect at Al Guardian..

      • Can you please expand on which official bodies use this definition? Please detail whether this definition is an official EU doctrine.

        • http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/All-Party-Parliamentary-Inquiry-into-Antisemitism-REPORT.pdf
          Defining Antisemitism
          3. We take into account the view expressed in the Macpherson report of the Stephen
          Lawrence Inquiry that a racist act is defined by its victim.1 It is not acceptable for an
          individual to say ‘I am not a racist’ if his or her words or acts are perceived to be racist.
          We conclude that it is the Jewish community itself that is best qualified to determine what
          does and does not constitute antisemitism.
          4. Broadly, it is our view that any remark, insult or act the purpose or effect of which is to
          violate a Jewish person’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating
          or offensive environment for him is antisemitic. This reflects the definition of harassment
          under the Race Relations Act 1976. This definition can be applied to individuals and to
          the Jewish community as a whole.

          The EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism
          25. Despite the difficulties inherent in defining antisemitism, the European Union
          Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), which monitors racism and
          antisemitism in EU Member States, produced in 2005 a working definition of
          antisemitism quoted in full below. The Centre has urged all member states of the EU to
          use this definition as a basis for dealing with antisemitism.
          26. We recommend that the EUMC Working Definition of antisemitism is adopted and
          promoted by the Government and law enforcement agencies.

                • I don’t hate anyone. You are the one with anger and hatred issues. Go and take a good old wank. You’ll feel much better. If you need inspiration, Um Khalthoum might help.

                • Hmm, back to your masturbatory fixations, eh? That’s the old Knight-of-Hypocrishire, with the same idiocies and perversions.

                • Doesn´t matter: it´s the truth. You earned your reputation. I guess next you´ll say something about semen on the keyboard or some such “mature” subjects.

                • Well, sex is a deeply serious and adult matter, as I’m sure you know. Or probably you don’t since I suspect given your officiousness you are clearly a 40 year old virgin. I imagine you with rolls of fat spilling out onto the keyboard. Rather than semen.

                • Oh, yes, you and “credulity” probably have lost of adult fun together. But, beware with your projections…

            • As shown official bodies use the definition. It is your problem of functional analphabetism or idiocy, you can choose by yourself what do you prefer, if you still ask after official bodies, antisemit.

              • Er, no, they have not been able to define what they mean by “use” in this context.

                • You just don´t accept the definition because it characterises you as antisemite. That´s why you quibble.

        • http://www.cpcca.ca/CPCCA_Final_Report_English.pdf
          Recommendation: 8 (Pg 46)
          The Inquiry Panel therefore recommends that Canadian universities work together to develop protocols and procedures for the reporting and pooling of information relating to antisemitic incidents on campus, as defined with reference to the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism. All university staff and students should be encouraged to document and report antisemitic incidents whenever they occur.

          http://www.antisem.org/london-declaration/

          • So all Canadian Universities have adopted this definition have they? Or was the Inquiry Panel’s recommendation not operationalized?

            • Listen, Knight-of-Hypocrishire, anti-Semitism = Jew-hatred. And you know that very well, as a good judeophobic prick that you are. Piss off.

            • As shown official bodies use the definition, if you still ask for more when your question is already answered, then you just want to avoid the realisation that the EUMC definition unveils you as antisemite.
              Why so afraid, why aren`t you proud of being an antisemite? Like the Nazis f.e.

        • Can you please tell us who finances your trolling activities? Please publish your earnings and disclose your employers. Or, better still, just get lost.

            • Nah, as everybody recalls, YOU, Knight-of-Hypocrishire, is the one that bored everybody to death about the blog´s finances. So, as you have ZERO credibility, it´s up to you do disclose your masters. Or just piss off.

              • In other words, you’re chicken. I guess you are probably on benefits, or working some paper pushing job. Or perhaps you are a pimp. More likely a gigolo I would think.

                • Hey, Knigh-of-Hypocrishire, you brought the issue, so you tell us first. SWP? YMCA? STFU?

        • “Can you please expand on which official bodies use this definition? Please detail whether this definition is an official EU doctrine.”

          For what purpose? Who the f___ do you think you are? Please be detailed and specific.

        • “Please detail whether this definition is an official EU doctrine”

          Sanity can you define what exactly constitutes ‘an official EU doctrine’?
          Also can you explain which body would have to sanction a ‘doctrine’ for it to be considered ‘an official EU doctrine’
          If you have any examples of ‘official EU doctrines’ and which body sanctioned them, that would be helpful.

          • Perhaps doctrine is the wrong word. As I understand it, this definition has not been officially adopted in the EU. It carries no legal or institutional weight. Or do you have other information?

            • “As I understand it, this definition has not been officially adopted in the EU”
              Really?
              You derive your ‘understanding’ from what source exactly?

              “It carries no legal or institutional weight”
              So you claim, via your source, that this is correct?

              “Or do you have other information?”
              Yes. As does anyone else who bothers to look for the information in the appropriate place. All you have to do is to understand the way the EU and its various agencies work and their interconnection with the Council of Europe, and you will also find the information.

              • So which bodies of the EU use the definition as either a legal definition, a regulation, a directive, or as a policy tool or as an operational guide or indeed anything at all?

                The Council of Europe a separate body from the EU.

                • ‘Sanity’ the best guidance I can give you is that contained in Matthew 7:7

                  “Seek and you shall find”

                  Believe me you will get more pleasure when you discover the facts for yourself, that is of course if you really want to find the facts.
                  By the way I have asked you several questions, none of which have you attempted to reply to, let me know when you are in a position to reply to them.

                • Why aren`t you proud of being an antisemite? The EUMC definition used by official bodies, which you asked for, integrates and includes you within the field of Jew hate.

                • Your source Sanity is a Jewish Jew-hater Anthony Lerman and it is not a problem at all – it is natural.

                • “By the way I have asked you several questions, none of which have you attempted to reply to”
                  That’s his, by now well-known, M.O. Gerald.

          • Hm, this seems somewhat buried. And they don’t cite the whole definition.

            But what does “use” mean in this sense? Do they use it to measure incidence of anti-semitism? Do they use it as a gospel for the nations? DO they try to persuade others to use it? Is it a legal definition? What does “use” mean here?

            • Now the antisemite turns around, after the confirmation that legal bodies use the definition, in Canada, in the USA.
              ” Do they use it as a gospel for the nations? ”
              Well, looks like we have a christian antisemite here.

              • Who is the antisemite of whom you speak? What does “turns around” mean? Have you ever heard of sarcasm? The evangelism of the US state department was the subject of my sarcasm.

                TO be honest with you, I’m pretty fed up of being called an antisemite on this blog. It has to stop. You have no evidence for it at all. I have no animosity towards Jews. It’s true, I hate Fritzl, SerJew, and so on, but it’s not because you’re Jews it’s because you are dickheads. I am very much in favour of Jews, the best shags I ever had were with Jewish women (and a Jewish man, once).

                Anyway, please stop with the antisemitism accusations once and for all. It just makes you seem utterly ridiculous. WHich you are of course, but you could try to hide the fact.

                • “I am very much in favour of Jews, the best shags I ever had were with Jewish women (and a Jewish man, once).”

                  ‘Sanity’ by your deeply flawed logic a serial rapist is also a feminist. Your need to boast of your, alleged, sexual exploits and your stamping of your feet in a temper tantrum because you don’t like being told you are an anti-semite (It has to stop.) clearly demonstrates what a pathetic individual you are.

                • Is it your practice to have sex with someone you don’t know? Oh well, I won’t judge you on that. Your choice. Strange to pick up sanity on his practice of getting to know a person before he has sex with them, though.

                • Gerald we don’t need to be experts on behavioral science to know that people who are showing off publicly with their sexual adventures are those who have very serious problems with their sex life, have very small whatever, suffering from ejaculatio praecox, impotentia, and/or bad breath and unable to have normal sexual life and need the services of prostitutes. Many of those turning their failures and envy into irrational hate against any convenient target. Sanity here is a perfect textbook example.

    • “Before you accuse someone of antisemitism you need to define it.”

      Where did you get the balls to come up with that? Go back to Mondoscheiss and watch your cartoons. Here your “help” isn’t needed.

    • “Before you accuse someone of antisemitism you need to define it.” alex-the-creep

      A good definition for ya: “anti-semitism is Jew-hatred, to which alex enthusiastically adheres.”

      Hope this helps!

    • Before you accuse someone of antisemitism you need to define it.

      Does assessing “someone’s” written utterances as anti-Semitic actually constitute an accusation? You do need to provide foundations for such a claim.

  7. Does Herr Walt speak Hebrew? Methinks not. His Jew-hating fetish is galling for someone with his Harvard credentials, but really it says more about that “modern, progressive” bastion than it does about the troglodyte they employ.

    We all know too well that Jew-haters, especially those of the European variant, love to hide behind Israel hate, and attempt to inoculate their invective as merely “criticism.” The response should simply be to challenge them to cite examples of where they have made equivalent critiques of any other nation. If this is done in web page comments, ask them to post links to sites where they have decried similar or worse things in places like Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Somalia, Liberia, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Russia. You might also ask them, if their game is that they are only critics and not Jew-haters, to post a link to anything they have posted where they have praised either Israel or Jews in any way for anything. One of my personal favorites is to ask a Brit about their history in Australia and whether they feel qualified to ever criticize anyone else considering their genoicide against the aboriginal population there. It doesn’t shut them up, but exposing the double standards is, if nothing else a way to salve your own irritation about them.

  8. You defend peoples’ right to self-determination – except when it comes to the Jewish people: at this point the right becomes wrong.
    To help solve what may be seen as incoherence, you use Shlomo Sand’s masterpieces, and conveniently (if not convincingly) argue that there’s no such thing as the/a Jewish people.

  9. An oldie but goodie: http://www.freeman.org/m_online/oct03/plaut1.htm

    We have nothing against Jews as such. We just hate Zionism and Zionists. We think Israel does not have a right to exist. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such…

    Sure, we think the only country on the earth that must be annihilated is Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

    Sure, we think that the only children on earth whose being blown up is ok if it serves a good cause are Jewish children. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

    Sure we think that if Palestinians have legitimate grievances this entitles them to mass murder Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such…

    The whole thing’s worth reading.

  10. ‘some country that you have never visited, whose language(s) you don’t speak, and that you never paid much attention to until bad things started happening there’.

    Wow, I wasn’t aware that Stephen Walt, Seumas Milne et al were fluent in Pashto, Dari, Urdu, Arabic, Berber and Tuareg. Such talented men they are …

  11. 5. Even when putatively condemning antisemitism you can’t help but blame the Jews for causing antisemitism.

    How can it be antisemitic to claim the same thing that Zionism is based upon?

    One might easily think that this claim is the very foundation stone of Zionism – Theodore Herzl travelled to London in 1902 and warned us that holding open the doors to fleeing Russians would cause antisemitism in the UK. (A claim long proved false by the welcome that Jews now get in the US, until 1945 most antisemitic).

    Herzl teamed up with a (likely) real anti-semite, Major Evans-Gordon, and warned us that antisemitism would come to the UK if we didn’t block these refugees.

    Another top British Zionist Chaim Weizmann even defends Evans-Gordon in his 1949 autobiography “Trial and Error” (when he was the first President of the new Israel).

    … our people were rather hard on him [Evans Gordon]. The Aliens Bill in England, and the movement which grew up around it were natural phenomena … Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them … The fact that the actual number of Jews in England, and even their proportion to the total population, was smaller than in other countries was irrelevant; the determining factor in this matter is not the solubility of the Jews, but the solvent power of the country … this cannot be looked upon as anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense of that word; it is a universal social and economic concomitant of Jewish immigration, and we cannot shake it off … though my views on immigration naturally were in sharp conflict with his, we discussed these problems in a quite objective and even friendly way. [9]

    As one commentator says “For all his talk about sharp conflict with Evans Gordon, there is no sign that Weizmann ever tried to mobilise the public against him. What did Weizmann say to him in their “friendly” discussion? Neither chose to tell us, but we can legitimately surmise: as with the master Herzl, so with his disciple Weizmann. We can reasonably conjecture that the avowed devotee of pragmatic accommodation asked the anti-Semite for his support of Zionism. Never once, then or in the future, did Weizmann ever try to rally the Jewish masses against anti-Semitism. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Zionism_AgeDictators.html

    • Zionism based on anti-Semitism?

      Really?
      How low can one go?

      For the less perverted minds, let me remind that what Leo Pinsker (in his 1882 essay) and Theodor (no final e) Herzl understood was that anti-Semitism was not going to fade or disappear, and that the Jewish people shouldn’t count or wait for such a thing to happen.
      Pinsker’a answer is in his title : Auto-emancipation – citing Hillel’s If I’m not for myself – who will be for me? – arguing that it’s time the Jewish people restarts taking its destiny and future into its own hands (and stop counting on diaspora rulers’ more or less good will to do it for them). Where else would the Jewish people have the possibility and legitimacy to exert its own self-rule if not in its historical homeland, continued Herzl.
      In short, Zionism’s key idea is the Jewish people’s self-determination and self-rule in the form of a nation-state in its ancestral homeland.

      • You’ve not answered the question – how can it be antisemitic to argue the same thing as the Zionists claim?

        You are supposedly antisemitic if: 5. Even when putatively condemning antisemitism you can’t help but blame the Jews for causing antisemitism.

        And yet, that’s what Theodor Herzl was telling the 1902 Royal Commission!

        Needless to say, the indigenous Jews were most unhappy with what he was saying.

        Just as the indigenous Jews of Palestine were very unhappy with the Zionists speaking for them.

        • Herzl blamed anti-Semitism on the Jews?
          That almost trumps your recent suggestion that Hitler saved the Jews from the SA.

          Almost.

          • Theodor Herzl travelled to London in 1902 to appear at some considerable length before the Royal Commission on Immigration (much to the fury of Rothschild, who thought he was a windbag, and a dangerous one at that).

            On the witness stand, Herzl warned the British that letting even more Jews come into our country from Russia would inevitably result in antisemitism becoming a scourge here as well.

            Major Evans-Gordon of the British Brotherhood League backed him to the hilt and (despite the guy being a quite obvious and extreme anti-semite) remained a stout defender of the Zionists and gets a laudatory mention in Chaim Weizmann’s autobiography.

            It’s all written up in the Maccabean and, despite the Chief Rabbi and others wishing he would go away, Herzl’s wishes were granted with the 1905 Immigration Act.

            “The perceptible number of Jews, of which I have spoken, is most likely to increase, and to increase from immigration under present circumstances, because I notice that even Mr. Arnold White would not try to exclude those immigrants who are victims of persecution. That limitation, if adopted, and it is impossible to think of England doing otherwise, leaves free entry for our people from Eastern Europe.

            … That a serious pressure already exists in England, the fact of your Commission sitting is full proof.

            … I see that a proposal to remedy the evil complained of has been made for disseminating or dispersing our people [this is Theodore Herzl, founder of Zionism, remember? He is talking about the Jews] by inducing them to leave the East End of London and settle in other parts of England. This appears to me at best a most shortsighted means of meeting the trouble. … I agree with what Mr. Greenberg has written upon this point in the current number of the Jewish Year Book, that if to-day there is an evil in one spot, to-morrow, this plan being successful, the evil would be in many spots.

      • Brenner is the Ayaan Hirsi Ali of Zionism – except he’s honest and well-informed and hated by the other Zionists because he exposes their deceit.

        • ‘Nick’ how would you know if someone is ‘honest and well-informed’ when clearly you are neither honest or well-informed.
          Over on the sister site BBC Watch on the thread ‘A story the BBC will not tell’ you wrote on June 4, 2013 @ 1:58AM,
          “Syria is a law-abiding member of the international community. Was then and is now.”

          Oh dear me, ‘Nick’. Then why has the UN Human Rights Council, a body not known for being sympathetic towards Israel and the other western democracies, published the following.
          UN Human Rights Council, 23rd session, Agenda Item 4,
          Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic.
          “This report covers the period 15 January to 15 May 2013. The findings are based on 430 interviews and other collected evidence.
          Government forces and affiliated militia have committed murder, torture, rape, forcible
          displacement, enforced disappearance and other inhumane acts. Many of these crimes were perpetrated as part of widespread or systematic attacks against civilian populations and constitute crimes against humanity. War crimes and gross violations of international human rights law – including summary execution, arbitrary arrest and detention, unlawful attack, attacking protected objects, and pillaging and destruction of property – have also been committed.”

          So tell me ‘Nick’ when you made your ridiculous remark about Syria being a “law-abiding member of the international community.” Is it because you are incredibly badly informed or incredibly dishonest?

          • Those are very serious allegations made against Syria by the UNHRC and I would hope and expect them to be investigated in depth and prosecuted if the evidence justifies it.

            I take it you are in favour of prosecution for murder and torture?

            And I take it you’re still in favour of torture being prosecuted, even if it takes place in a country where its been legalised? Even in the only country in the world where it has been legalised?

            • “Those are very serious allegations made against Syria by the UNHRC”

              No ‘Nick’ they are not allegations. It clearly states;
              ” War crimes and gross violations of international human rights law – including summary execution, arbitrary arrest and detention, unlawful attack, attacking protected objects, and pillaging and destruction of property – have also been committed”

              Note the use of the phrase ‘have also been committed.’ NOT allegedly committed ‘Nick’
              Your futile attempts to defend your ridiculous statement over on BBC Watch are getting more and more pathetic.

              • Everything said by the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) remain allegations until they reach court.

                Are you in favour of Syrian officials and ministers being dragged to the Hague and facing prosecution if they don’t carry out an open and transparent investigation into what, on the face of it, look like very serious allegations?

                Of course, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you are in fact interested in justice and putting a stop to atrocities, and are not simply trying to make a political point against one abuser more than another.

                • Twist and turn all you might, all you are doing is to dig yourself into a deeper hole.
                  Normally I’d be happy to debate semantics with anyone, but not with you ‘Nick’ who has no credibility and is a proven liar and anti-Semite.

                  By refusing to retract your ridiculous statement about the Assad regime, even though the UNHRC has condemned them for the war crimes they have committed, and attempting to twist and turn and divert you have clearly shown what you are.

                  I need add no more I’m happy to leave it to others to judge you for what you are.

                • Answer the question – are you in favour of war-criminals (as you insist that Assad is already convicted of) face prosecution at the Hague?

                  If you’re not in favour of prosecution, are you proposing he be assassinated?

                • No, you have not answered the question – are you in favour of the prosecution of war-criminals?

                  I’m very much in favour – have you lost your voice?

                • “..have you lost your voice?”
                  What a silly remark. How would you hear my voice ‘Nick’?
                  Unless you were in my home, and believe me a scumbag like you would not make it up the garden path.

                  I have answered your question ‘Nick’ I refer you to my answer above @ 2:54 PM.

                  Clearly you have problems reading, writing and comprehending the English language, I suggest you look online for an ESOL course

  12. Not strictly a comment about this story, but, I was troubled to read on the website’s banner it’s “monitoring and combatting… assaults on Israel’s legitimacy…”. Surely the only assault an outsider can perform on the legitimacy of a nation-state is on the concept of it, rather than it (i.e. in debate); whereas legitimacy proper such as can be assaulted, surely consists more in other things. My intuition tells me it’s more the responsibility of the state’s rulers, and turns on a number of factors including normative.

    Alternatively, legitimacy and the nation-state are very peculiar propositions and don’t rely on the same normative benchmarks which would make, say, an executive (as distinct from a state) legitimate. Indeed it’s not clear in what exactly consists the legitimacy of a nation-state as such.

    • Its a storm in a tea-cup – some people seem to think that Israel operates an apartheid regime.

      Supposedly, citizens of Israel can be of different nationalities, a designation stamped into their compulsory ID cards, whereby some get much better access to services and government employment than others.

      It’d be an internationally recognised crime if they were doing such a thing so I can’t imagine that that is really happening.