Guardian

Why is former Guardian journo David Hearst afraid of a few Zionist activists?


I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are. There are, in fact, a number of reasons. One is the state of Israel, its ideology of racial supremacy and its subsequent crimes committed against the Palestinians. It is because Zionists have always sought to equate their colonial project with Judaism that some misguidedly respond to what they see on their televisions with attacks on Jews or Jewish property….Secondly, and related to the first point, is the widespread bias and subservience to the Israeli cause in the Western media.Ben White (‘Comment is Free’ contributor, and anti-Israel activist)

In late June we cross posted a piece by the CST on a forum held at the Front Line Club in London which was titled “Critiquing the media’s approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict”.  The forum included British Islamist, Ibrahim Hewitt, ex-BBC Middle East correspondent Tim Llewellyn, and former Guardian chief foreign leader writer David Hearst.  

Sure enough, the event did not disappoint, with participants continually attempting to explain the dangerous influence of the Israel lobby (which was alternately referred to as the Jewish lobby) on media coverage of the Middle East.

Additionally, a fascinating glimpse into the mind of the British anti-Zionist Left was offered by Hearst, which you can hear in full if you forward to the 24 minute mark of this video.   Here’s part of what Hearst said:

In my short time as lead writer [at the Guardian] I felt that pressure very, very personally, both within and outside the organization.

If you just Google my name you’ll see…there’s a whole organization which is there to monitor everything I write from a point of view of antisemitism. I mean, the whole thing is disgusting….but it’s pressure. It really is pressure.

Of course, the idea that a well-paid journalist for a global media group felt “pressure” from a blog which combats antisemitism – and employs such ‘chilling’ tactics as publishing sharply worded posts, amplifying that message on Twitter and Facebook, and sending respectful complaints to their readers’ editor – is risible enough.

However, a recent exchange between Hearst and blogger Richard Millett would suggest that Hearst really does fear the subterfuge of CiF Watch Zionists.

The Tweet from Millett links to his blog post – cross posted at CiF Watch – about his experience on Friday at Amnesty International’s London HQ for the launch of Ben White’s (long-awaited!) updated Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide. The event was chaired by Hearst and, as you’ll see from the video clip in his post, Millett was denied the chance to ask a question due to his ‘affiliation’.

Hearst’s exact words, when Millett asked why he was denied the right to speak, were as follows:

“I know exactly what you’re up to. And who you are. And who you write for.”

In response to Hearst’s bizarre reply, Millett wrote:

So, what was I up to? Who am I? Who do I write for? Well, since starting this blog in 2009 I have mainly written for myself. I have occasionally written for the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish News, the Jewish Chronicle and CiF Watch, but I never realised writing could get me boycotted.

Here’s Millett’s subsequent Tweet, which tagged White and Hearst, and linked to his post:

Here’s Hearst’s reply, two days later:

Whilst Hearst was referring to a charge by Ben White – in a post published at the pro-Hamas site, Middle East Monitor (MEMO) – that the Israel Embassy in London tried to nix the Amnesty event, it’s unclear how – even assuming this is true – Millett was connected to this.  And, what did he mean by “folk”?  Is he referring to Israelis? Zionists? The pro-Israel ‘lobby’? 

Millett – who, by the way, is British and not Israeli – tried to get a clarification from Hearst, but, so far, to no avail:

It’s almost as if, in the mind of Hearst, the Israel Embassy, the ‘Israel lobby’, CiF Watch and Richard Millett are all part of one centrally organized international Zionist “pressure” group.

However, let us humbly suggest that, just perhaps, Hearst should be a bit less concerned with the blog posts and Tweets of a few Zionist activists, and bit more concerned with the fact that he chaired an event with an anti-Israel extremist who has expressed sympathy towards Jew-haters.

Enhanced by Zemanta

18 replies »

  1. The Guardian goes out of its way to be controversial and to introduce non mainstream ideas and thoughts and opinions. Hearst was a former Guardian chief foreign leader writer – did he think that he could voice his opinions and only get plaudits?

    CiF is just about the only thing keeping the Guardian going. (That and the proceeds from the sale of AutoTrader). Rusbridger uses the Guardian to put out stories and opinion that no-one else would touch – as a Guardian journalist, why would Hearst think he would get a free ride?

    “In my short time as lead writer [at the Guardian] I felt that pressure very, very personally, both within and outside the organisation.”
    Actually, as a Jew, I take antiSemitism very, very personally David.

    “If you just Google my name you’ll see…there’s a whole organization which is there to monitor everything I write from a point of view of antisemitism. I mean, the whole thing is disgusting….but it’s pressure. It really is pressure.”
    And what would you write if there WASN”T ‘an organisation..monitoring” you, you bastard?”

    Then he shuts Richard up – gives him no opportunity to ask a question and then lumps him in with ‘folk”. Folk?

    CiF Watch and Richard has got David Hearst spot on. Keep up the good work Adam and Richard. Some people (folk?) need keeping an eye on – David Hearst and his friends definitely qualify.

  2. I don’t consider that Ben White is a visceral and obsessive Jew-hater but I can understand those who do.

  3. Hearst: “this from the folk who tried to stop the debate happening”

    Even if the Israeli embassy did make such a move:
    a) What does Richard Millet have to do with it?
    b) What “debate”?!?!

    • Here is another “debate”. Watch the video to get the full flavor

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alanjohnson/100263386/on-israel-the-intellectuals-are-driving-the-students-mad/

      “Last week, I was invited by a group of students to speak at the National University of Ireland Galway to make the case for a “No” vote in a looming referendum on boycotting the State of Israel.

      I accepted the offer. What happened next was not pretty. Watch this 40-second video, but be warned: as they say, explicit language from the start.”

      The likes of Heasrt, Ben White, Nabulsi cannot tolerate anyone challenging them

      • One wonders what Johnson said to infuriate the man so much. Perhaps: “Israel …”
        And what a charming last line: “We don’t want you and your Israeli money.”

        For some reason I’m reminded of a certain Kenneth O’Keefe.

  4. Of course Hearst was furious. Hell hath no fury like an as-a-Jew who is being shown up in front of his racist friends like Ben White

  5. “In my short time as lead writer [at the Guardian] I felt that pressure very, very personally, both within and outside the organization.

    If you just Google my name you’ll see…there’s a whole organization which is there to monitor everything I write from a point of view of antisemitism. I mean, the whole thing is disgusting….but it’s pressure. It really is pressure.”

    I do not think Mr Hearst is fearful of criticism or that he feels he is under any real threat, and certainly not within the Guardian. This is what we call a good example of passive aggression.

    • Hearst felt it ‘personally’, that Jews should criticise his malice towards their national aspirations. He takes it personally that this particular breed of Jews – fashionably defined as ‘the Zionists’ don’t know their place.

      That they are exposing his self-righteous, shallow intellectual posturing as nothing more than the latest round of European bigotry against modern Jewish identity, is beyond his limits of his self-awareness.

      It can only be understood within the confines of his own inverted and corrupted morality – one in which he plays the lead role in every anti-Semites wet-dream; the fantasy that he is the heroic victim of the nefarious and diabolical power of organised Jewry.

      In this sense Richard Millett is his nemesis. Keep up the good work, Richard.

      • nothing more than the latest round of European bigotry against modern Jewish identity

        Steady on there. He’s certainly not alone, but it’s hardly a mass movement either.

  6. What Hearst and many others want is a sheltered workshop where they can
    demonize Israel and its supporters without anyone bothering them.

  7. There’s nowt so queer as folk. Or is it pink washing to say that?

    Hearst doesn’t want anyone to prick his bubble. Which is his intellectual loss.