Boring, Boring, Boring

by craig on January 13, 2009 9:07 am in Palestine

Oh dear. it was bound to come sooner or later. As soon as anybody sticks their head above the parapet to criticise Israel, an attempt is made to slur them as an anti-semite. I now have the notorious Zionist propagandist Jonathan Hoffman on my case.

Hoffman is the Zionists’ equivalent of the Witchfinder-General. In July 2008 he produced a report on “Anti-Semitism on The Guardian Comment is Free”, in which his definition of anti-semites included “Those who question the Zionist aim of a Jewish Homeland”.

http://www.zionismontheweb.org/CommentIsFree_ParliamentASCttee_July08.pdf

This blatant conflation of anti-Zionists with anti-Semites is typical of his methodology. It does not wash. There are a significant minority of anti-Zionist Jews, for one thing. My personal view is that all those now living in Israel and Palestine should be allowed to stay there, in a new secular and race-blind state. I do reject the state of Israel with its racially defined citizenship qualification. That is not an unusual position – Germany was only recently obliged by the EU to abandon citizenship laws based on race.

In 2004 Jonathan Hoffman made this laughable contribution as a submission in the consultation exercise on the BBC Charter:

I want to comment on the BBC’s persistent anti-Israel bias. They have

appointed Malcolm Balen as overall editor of programmes with a Mid-East

content but it has made no difference

.

www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/first_phase_responses/H/Hoffman_Jonathan.rtf

It is, incidentally, interesting that he appears to have the impression that the appointment of Malcolm Balen was supposed to help Israel. Anyone know anything about Mr Balen?

It is worth comparing Hoffman’s complaint about the BBC to the comment by OrwellianUK after the blog entry before this.

Anyway, Hoffman is now onto my case. I have just had the following email exchange with him:

Dear Mr Murray

Are you content that your site is being used to propagate anti-Semitism? :


I am a newcomer to your site. I found it because rense.com linked to your

recent colourfully titled piece on Gordon Brown (though they applied

asterisks where you did not).

I am delighted to find a former member of the British Establishment who holds

the views that you do and also that you clearly take an active interest in the comments left by your readers.

If you feel so inclined, I would be grateful if you might consider giving

your opinion on an issue regarding Israel that troubles me often: why is it that the European nations’ response to Israeli atrocities is so feeble and

half-hearted when, if it were a Muslim country doing the same thing, they would be down on it like a ton of bricks? Is it because, as respected Israeli historian and military adviser Martin van Creveld has revealed, a sizeable proportion of Israel’s nuclear weapons is trained on Europe? Is it because so much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Zionists? Is it because the Mossad has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment?

Jonathan Hoffman

Jonathan,

There are many comments on my site that I do not agree with, not only the anti-Jewish ones. There are some very rude comments about me, for example, some completely untrue. There are currently people defending the use of the word “Paki”. I disagree with them too. There have been a number of offensively worded pro-Israel comments, and I have not deleted them. But I tend to the view that freedom of speech is most important, so I almost never delete anything from comments. My own views are the bits of the blog which I have written.

I have only ever deleted, I believe, 36 comments from my site in four years; 2 because they were about children of politicians, and 34 for being anti-semitic. This post from five days ago explained my position:

I have not deleted a single pro-Israeli comment from discussion on these pages, though I disagree profoundly with many. I have deleted three anti-Jewish comments. I should make it plain that I am in profound disagreement with those commenters who conflate Israel with Jews in general. We have had commenters excusing anti-Jewish comments on the grounds Jews are not a race, and positing claims of a world conspiracy of Jews and freemasons. I have only deleted three of these, because in general I believe the suppression of any opinion to be an evil which requires major justification. I find it hard to define the exact line which leads to deletion.

The great John Stuart Mill said it was legitimate to express the opinion that all corn merchants are thieves of the people’s bread; but it was not legitimate to shout the same thing to a howling mob at night carrying torches outside a corn merchant’s house. He was, as ever, right.

So almost any opinion can be expressed here. But I would be grateful if those people who have a serious grudge against Jews in general, would go and express their views on their own websites.

UPDATE

Michael has overstepped the mark by a posting about “Jews with their Satanic Smirks” and then introducing the Protocols of Zion. All of his 31 comments have therefore been deleted.”

In addition I have added numerous comments in dialogue with commenters to the effect that one should not confuse anger at the killings by Israel, with racism against Jews in general.

It is an extraordinary and terribly sad and bad thing that anti-semitism still exists. It is to me genuinely incomprehensible.

But sadly any discussion forum on Israel attracts two kinds of malevolent people.

The first kind are anti-semites.

The second are those who seek to portray as anti-semites anyone who opposes Israel’s appalling actions in Gaza. I rather fear you may be one of that kind of malevolent people, Jonathan.

I have given a fair and full answer to your question. Let me now ask you, are you content with the murder by Israel of so many women, children and old people in Gaza?

Craig Murray

127 Comments

  1. Jonathan

    13 Jan, 2009 - 11:18 am

    Craig

    I am surprised that you think it is OK to publish a one-to-one correspondence without asking my permission.

    It is the most basic breach of Internet etiquette

    You seem to think this comment on your website is OK:

    "Is it because so much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Zionists? Is it because the Mossad has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment?"

    Well it is not OK. It is redolent of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

  2. spot

    13 Jan, 2009 - 11:21 am

    You do well to resist Mr Hoffmann on behalf of those Jews who are not Zionist.

  3. Jonathan

    13 Jan, 2009 - 11:25 am

    How come you didn't puiblish my reply to you Craig?

    "Thank you for your full and prompt response. First I am very concerned about antisemitism on the Internet in mainstream sites, see my paper on CIF above. "Freedom of speech" requires limits to be set on what is and is not acceptable. Antisemites (and all racists) should be free to post on the Internet, but on known racist sites eg Stormwatch. Not on respectable sites – of which I regard yours as one. Second you have a bloody nerve to assume "I rather fear you may be one of that kind of malevolent people, Jonathan".

    Why do you assume that Craig? Because I point out that you host antisemitism?

    You ask: "Are you content with the murder by Israel of so many women, children and old people in Gaza?"

    Of course not.

    Regards Jonathan

  4. Craig

    13 Jan, 2009 - 11:33 am

    Jonathan,

    I have no idea what you mean by "OK". It is not my comment. Do I think it is a view which must be censored? No.

    It is worth noting that the commenter postulates "Zionists". If one were analysing whether the proposition is true or not, one might like to consider for example that Rupert Murdoch may hold Zionist views. He is not, as far as I am aware, Jewish. The commenter appears to me (and I can't get inside his heas) to be questioning whether those holding a particular political view control the media. He is not making a racial comment.

  5. Craig

    13 Jan, 2009 - 11:39 am

    Sorry for not posting your reply Jonathan – I had not opened it yet as I've been cooking plov. I would have posted it, as anyone who has followed this blog will know.

    Anyway, you've posted it now.

    I am a liberal. I have not a racist bone in my body. Given your record, my presumption was that your email to me was the prelude towards launching an attack on me on Harry's Place or some such harbour of irrational hatred. I therefore decided to get my retaliation in first.

    I suspect I was not wrong!

  6. Ron

    13 Jan, 2009 - 11:41 am

    Craig

    That's the issue – Mr Hoffman appears to think he should be able to decide what can and cannot be said or written and where it should be said or written. No further comment is required.

    I suggest that if you correspond further with him it is in netiquette terms "feeding the troll"!

    Ron

  7. Jonathan

    13 Jan, 2009 - 11:57 am

    Craig

    You have played the 'Livingstone Manoeuvre' card

    I wrote to you to object to you leaving this antisemitic comment on your site:

    "Is it because so much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Zionists? Is it because the Mossad has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment?"

    You then published our exchange without my permission and accused me of trying to stifle criticism of Israel by the charge of antisemitism.

    "As soon as anybody sticks their head above the parapet to criticise Israel, an attempt is made to slur them as an anti-semite. I now have the notorious Zionist propagandist Jonathan Hoffman on my case."

    When an antiracist points out racism, can you not see how competely inappropriate is – not to mention intellectually banbkrupt – to accuse them of trying to make a political point?

    If a Muslim tells you a comment on your site is Islamophobic, would you publish the correspondence without their permission and accuse him/her of trying to make a political point?

  8. Craig

    13 Jan, 2009 - 12:11 pm

    Jonathan,

    Probably.

  9. Craig

    13 Jan, 2009 - 12:20 pm

    Actually, come to think of it, I have been accused of Islamophobia on this site – over the Danish cartoons issue. I supported feedom of speech there too.

  10. Jonathan

    13 Jan, 2009 - 12:28 pm

    "I have been accused of Islamophobia on this site – over the Danish cartoons issue. I supported freedom of speech there too."

    But Craig did you accuse the accuser of trying to stifle criticism of the policies of – say Iran? Of course not.

    So why do you accuse me of trying to stifle criticism of Israel??

  11. Ann Levin

    13 Jan, 2009 - 12:37 pm

    I would like to know Craig Murray's views on Hamas sending rockets daily into the civilian population in Israel. Does he consider this behaviour acceptable whilst Israel does not have the right to self defence. Hamas wishes to anniliate Israel and Israel has the right to self defence. Same as any other country.

  12. Ron

    13 Jan, 2009 - 12:45 pm

    So there you have it. Mr Hoffman has now decided to have his friends post the usual nonsense (When Hamas stop the rockets the fighting will stop) and another oasis of free speech will be bombarded by people like Ann Levin so everybody has to wade through so much tedious and unilluminating (is that a word?) comment that they give up visiting your site. No doubt for Mr Hoffman that would be mission accomplished.

    As to your point, Ann "When Hamas stop the rockets the fighting will stop". I see no logic in this. After all, Israel didn't exactly treat the people of Gaza well when the PA was in charge, did they? See Amira Hass's book Drinking the Sea at Gaza, which I recommend highly.

  13. Johan van Rooyen

    13 Jan, 2009 - 12:46 pm

    @ Ann Levin,

    The rockets will stop when Israel stops occupying other people's land.

    The rockets will stop when Israel stops confining the Palestinians in virtual concentration camps.

    The rockets will stop when Israel starts recognising those whom the Palestinians elected as their representatives.

    The rockets will stop when Israel itself really does become a democracy by extending the vote to all those who live there and to all those who once lived there but were kicked out by the Zionists.

    The rockets will stop when Israel starts behaving just like any other country.

  14. Sabretache

    13 Jan, 2009 - 12:48 pm

    "Is it because so much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Zionists? Is it because the Mossad has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment?"

    I would like to know by what criteria that can possibly be construed as 'anti-Semitic', unless 'Zionist' is to be equated with 'Semitic'.

    Frankly I regard the statement as largely self-evident with the media-control part of it factually accurate and easy to confirm with minimal research. Sir Gerald Kaufman would no doubt agree with it, as would vast numbers of Jews who can see Zionism for what it really is.

    Persistently conflating 'anti-Zionist' with 'anti-Semitic' remains a constant with Israeli apologists. It has served them well for the best part of 60 years. It effectively stifles any airing of the precise nature of the Israeli State which is both racist and apartheid in its very constitution

  15. David

    13 Jan, 2009 - 1:00 pm

    "My personal view is that all those now living in Israel and Palestine should be allowed to stay there, in a new secular and race-blind state"

    Israelis don't need Craig Murray's permission to live in Israel. Neither does Israel need Craig Murray's permission to be a state with a Jewish basis.

    How many dead Israelis would Murray accept as the price for "one (secular) state?"

    Because the only way it can happen is by force.

  16. Ron

    13 Jan, 2009 - 1:07 pm

    David

    I have seen nothing from Craig to suggest he supports the death of any people, whether Israeli, Palestinian or any other. Although I have a sneaking suspicion he might think the world would be better off without Mr Karimov ;-)

    Have you seen such evidence?

    May I ask if you believe the deaths of Palestinians in Gaza in the last two weeks of Israeli attacks have been a price worth paying for what it has achieved?

  17. algernon

    13 Jan, 2009 - 1:16 pm

    Seems as though anti-semitism exists (against Israeli Arabs) in Israel's own parliament.

    from Al Jazeera…

    Israel poll ban for Arab parties

    Two Arab political parties have been disqualified from running in Israel's parliamentary elections on February 10 after they were accused of not recognising the country's right to exist.
    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009…

  18. Jonathan

    13 Jan, 2009 - 1:22 pm

    algernon

    please name me a democracy that would allow a political party to stand at an election when that party is committed to that country's destruction

  19. Leon

    13 Jan, 2009 - 1:26 pm

    For a clear and consice review of the background to the current conflict, the article by Amir Taheri in The Times 9/1/09 is one of the best I have read.

    http:/www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5477420ece

  20. Craig

    13 Jan, 2009 - 1:27 pm

    "Committed to that country's destruction" is a deliberately misleading term again seeking to play on genocidal fears. "Seeking a fundamental revision of the State" would be more appropriate to the two parties banned.

    Democratic parallels? Well, Sinn Fein and the SNP come to mind for starts.

  21. Leon

    13 Jan, 2009 - 1:37 pm

    Jonathan…..you beat me to the punch in sharing the article by Amir Taheri with fellow contributers.

    Remember, If Hamas lays down their arms there will be peace, if Israel lays down their arms there will be no Israel…..!

  22. derek

    13 Jan, 2009 - 1:41 pm

    Jonathan says

    please name me a democracy that would allow a political party to stand at an election when that party is committed to that country's destruction

    Well how about Britain?

    Throughout the Northern Irish troubles the IRAs political wing Sinn Fein was allowed to stand in elections. And as far as I recall when the IRA lobbed mortars the British army response was not to raze Belfast to the ground.

  23. ingo

    13 Jan, 2009 - 1:41 pm

    Far from intending to join into your private melee, I would like to know why anybody should feel the need to point out their primacy to a debate that can only throw fog on the real Issues at hand.

    Why has Israel, deciedely, not invested in an uptodate missile defense system against these fire crackers and has rather concentrated on blood and gore weaponry,has in advance planned and accepted fatalities on both sides, wailing for loved ones and revenge, when one could have gone down the road to defensive technology, systems that blow these missiles out of the sky, i.e. holding the other cheek, instead of offensive capabilities such as bunker busting bombs, in the full knowledge that half of Gaza's population are children.

    May I term this period the 'continuation of guaranteed hate period', forever enthralled by the need for hate to advance stealing of land and ignorance of a wider world community?

    Hamas is a legitamitely and democratically elected Government, are you going to advocate that it is legitamit to remove it by force, because the better equipped and educated side can't be bothered to protect its population properly?

    What gore to challenge criticism of a behaviour worth of a neanderthal with a cudgel.

    Another little niggle, how much more excessively violent has one got to be to the UN,Johnathan, what do you think, before one is thrown out, how many more violations and ignorance towards UN resolutions have there got to be, before European preferential trading arrangements and other help is taken away?

    Seeing all these ill fitting creases in your jacket Johnathan, when will you show us all your real glory and take that itching zionist jacket, why not defend judaic history being taken over by a bunch of nationalistic dogmatic's, fanatics, evil doers even, it does not square with many in the world anymore? Start behaving as an equal amongst many and you will be surprised what support you would get.

    Craig is right he is is not antisemitic, nor am I, sadly, we have to be guided in the world by the actions and interactions of people between each other, not by primitve waring, thats why your aquisations do not make us tick Johnathan, they are inconsequential.

    Israels right to existence has to be seriously questioned after what has been forced upon us to endure for sheer might, without rhyme or reason.

    Israels many undeclared borders and increasing illegal aquisitions of east Jerusalem and many other parts of Palestine, the occupation of the Golan and the west bank, further apartheid through wealls, all these are conflicts that did nothing to endear you to the world, never mind your neighbours.

    Gaza's unscrutinised massaker is not a war on terror, its a war against innocense, against children, when one could have done different, the motto of my university.

    May peace one day hit you on the head Johnathan, listen to those many jews that had enough of this divertion of judaism to suit a nationalistic and racist fringe agenda, that only breeds more hate and bad feelings so one can have another war paid for by others, and steal more land, aquire more problems.

    Why should Question time be ever broadcast from Israel? First try and make peace in Gaza, not support the breeding of more terrorists, then come back and tell us all about it.

    Now rush, you must be busy.

  24. Jonathan

    13 Jan, 2009 - 1:45 pm

    Try again Craig.

    Sinn Fein was not committed to the destruction of the UK. It was committed to the unification of Ireland. The SNP is not committed to the destruction of the UK. It is committed to Scottish independence.

    Israel is surrounded by hostile countries and by Hamas and Hizbollah. Only Jordan and Egypt have signed peace treaties. Ahmadinejad in Iran is committed to wiping israel off the map.

    The UK is surrounded by friendly nations and is a member of the EU.

    Your examples are completely inappropriate as you well know.

  25. ken

    13 Jan, 2009 - 1:57 pm

    I am lost for words when such human horrors as are now occuring in Gaza are trivialised by the specious comments of Mr Hoffman, so I apologise for using the words of others, I have much respect for them:

    "…… another oasis of free speech will be bombarded by people like Ann Levin so everybody has to wade through so much tedious and unilluminating comment that they give up visiting your site." As long as I can read the internet I will not stop visiting this site.

    To Ann Levin, I say, just to repeat,

    "The rockets will stop when Israel stops occupying other people's land.

    The rockets will stop when Israel stops confining the Palestinians in virtual concentration camps.

    The rockets will stop when Israel starts recognising those whom the Palestinians elected as their representatives.

    The rockets will stop when Israel itself really does become a democracy by extending the vote to all those who live there and to all those who once lived there but were kicked out by the Zionists.

    The rockets will stop when Israel starts behaving just like any other country."

    And please tell me, as well as others who have asked, what IS anti-semitic about the question, "Is it because so much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Zionists? Is it because the Mossad has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment?"

    Finally, the awful BBC reporting of yesterday evening, might it have had anything to do with obliterating a report that was heading to the newsrooms that Israel had completely destroyed a Christian Aid medical clinic in Gaza, part funded by the EU, and all the equipment inside it? Who will be the next to complain of anti-semitism???

  26. algernon

    13 Jan, 2009 - 2:02 pm

    Jonathen

    Is the Israeli democracy that fragile that it considers these parties a threat? Come on, the overwelming majority of the electorate want the state to continue to exist, so why not let democracy vote the two arab parties down.

  27. PetraMB

    13 Jan, 2009 - 2:03 pm

    Mr. Murray, you hold forth here very confidently about Israel, antisemitism, and anti-Zionism. How about first making sure that you get some basic facts right?

    For example, you write:

    "I do reject the state of Israel with its racially defined citizenship qualification."

    Well, I assume that with "racially defined" you mean Jewish, i.e. you assume that Jews are a "race". Are you sure you are in good company with this?

    Moreover, you might be surprised to learn that about a quarter of Israel's citizens are non-Jews — I, an Israeli citizen by naturalization, am one of them.

    Maybe you have too many "racially defined" notions in your head?

  28. Jonathan

    13 Jan, 2009 - 2:18 pm

    http://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/AS/AS-Wor…

    Some of you need to read the EUMC Definition of antisemitism which is the most widely accepted definition.

    You ask why the following is antisemitic:

    "Is it because so much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Zionists? Is it because the Mossad has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment?"

    Antisemitism is the world's oldest hatred. The accusation that Jews (and yes everyone knows that by 'Zionists' the poster means 'Jews') control the media and the financial system is a core trope of antisemitism. Look at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for example.

    I cannot believe I have to explain this but for your information financial institutions and media companies are 'controlled' by their shareholders which include pension funds and sovereign wealth funds from Asia and the oil producing Middle East, as well as small savers.

    The suggestion that "Mossad has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment" is utter garbage. Again I cannot believe I am having to explain this but in every one of the 26 EU members we have something called 'democracy' which is what decides 'the European political establishment'

    If Craig Murray wants to keep antisemitic comments on his site there is nothing to stop that, but most people will take him far less seriously as a consequence.

  29. ken

    13 Jan, 2009 - 2:26 pm

    Two comments on the Taheri article in Rupert Murdoch's Times (referred to above):

    "life for nearly a tenth of Israelis (is) an exercise in anxiety." – So more than 90% of Israelis do not feel anxiety in their lives. Would it be that for the last 60 years, Palestinians could say the same thing? And let me get this right – every day Gazan children and babies are butchered and burned alive so that fewer than 10% of Israelis can live with "less anxiety"?

    Taheri's article is full of similar topsy-turvy rhetoric. Like:

    "Cutting Hamas down to size would be good not only for Israel but also for the Palestinian people, more specifically the people of Gaza." So let me get this right again, it's important – cutting down, (and burning down) Gazan children would be good, specifically, for the people of Gaza????

    I've never heard of this Taheri person – someone tell me who he is.

  30. eddie

    13 Jan, 2009 - 2:31 pm

    I would like to support Craig on this one. I don't agree with his politics and I am a regular supporter of Harry's Place but Craig has been a decent and honourable blogger whose principal objectives are freedom of speech and honest debate. There are bound to be nutters on any site and things often get heated but this blog is not like CiF where there is an army of checkers deleting "unsound" comments. I made a comment on another thread about the Harry "raghead" issue which has not been delted. Surely we are all adults who can make up our minds about postings?

  31. Jonathan

    13 Jan, 2009 - 2:35 pm

    "Sabretache" wrote "Frankly I regard the statement as largely self-evident with the media-control part of it factually accurate and easy to confirm with minimal research."

    Ok then "sabretache"- please substantiate it.

    To remind you: "much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Zionists" and "the Mossad has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment".

  32. duppyconqueror

    13 Jan, 2009 - 2:46 pm

    Hate addicts.

    isn't it about time you went to rehab?

  33. Leo Davidson

    13 Jan, 2009 - 2:48 pm

    "If Craig Murray wants to keep antisemitic comments on his site there is nothing to stop that, but most people will take him far less seriously as a consequence."

    On the contrary, Jonathan. The fact that Craig allows the comments BUT THEN GOES ON TO CHALLENGE THEM makes me take him far more seriously than someone who simply deletes anything he disagrees with.

    If you challenge what someone says and point out they are wrong in public then that does a better job of stopping that idea from spreading than censoring the idea. People will come across the same idea in other places but if they only come across the idea on sites where everyone feels the same then they will not see the idea challenged by anyone.

    One hopes, however vainly, that when challenged the commenter may also think about the issue and improve their understanding of the world, too. Another potential benefit, however unlikely it is that people actually change their mind as a result of a discussion about such heated issues.

    I do not see the point of comment or discussion if only what people visiting the site already agree with is allowed. That is just public masturbation.

  34. robins

    13 Jan, 2009 - 2:55 pm

    Firstly, regarding criteria for citizenship, there are very many countries who grant citizenship to individuals with ethnic ties to these countries (so-called leges sanguinis). see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

    Should countries such as Greece, Hungary, Bulgaria or Spain be disbanded or does Mr Murray maintain that view only regarding Israel?

    Secondly, is the following statement regarding Islamists (a political term) and the Arab League acceptable?

    "Is the response to worldwide Islamist terrorism so feeble because so much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Islamists? Is it because the Arab League has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment?"

    If not, then why is the equivalent comment about Israel and Zionism OK?

  35. ken

    13 Jan, 2009 - 3:18 pm

    Mr Hoffman, as far as I know, the word "everyone" expressed in these sorts of fora includes me. And just to let you know, I do not know that by "Zionists" the poster means "Jews." So your statement "…..and yes everyone knows that by 'Zionists' the poster means 'Jews'….." is complete bul******t, and an insult. Do not attempt to assume what I know and what I do not know.

    I have been a reader of this blog for a long long time (don't know how long), and I venture to suggest that you are the first, or maybe the second person in that time who has used the empty statement that always starts "…… yes, everyone knows that…….."

    Craig has headed this entry "Boring boring boring." Well, just to continue the boredom, maybe you can tell us just exactly how it is that you know that by 'Zionists', the poster, MJ, means 'Jews'.

    And to keep the boredom going, if you followed any financial news over the last couple of years during the "boom" in commerce you would know that even powerful shareholders like pension funds, insurance companies and others have had zero effect in their attempts to control the obscene payments made to the board members of those companies that these shareholders supposedly had "control" over. Shareholders have virtually no control over the companies in which they hold shares.

    Finally, take a look at the current UK Government, and count how many members of that government were elected by the people, and how many have been appointed by a Prime Minister-led cabal. And please tell me by what democratic process the European Commission exists?

  36. George Dutton

    13 Jan, 2009 - 3:25 pm

    "LIVE WEBCAM FROM GAZA! UPDATED"…
    http://tinyurl.com/6yk34v

  37. lwtc247

    13 Jan, 2009 - 3:27 pm

    @ Ann Levin.

    Israel does not have the right to self defence.

    What you call "Israel" simply never had ve the right to self defence. Grand larceny delivers no legitimacy.

    The Palestinian resisters have the total right to fight the filthy murderous genocidal occupation. That isn't the right to kill innocents of course, not that apologists like you would understand such a concept.

  38. lwtc247

    13 Jan, 2009 - 3:46 pm

    "everyone knows that by 'Zionists' the poster means 'Jews'" – Most don't share your obscure fantasy jonathen.

    Sorry, well, no, I'm not sorry really, I'm pretty glad really that you've primitive tactics won't wash. You see, were all conscious of it. For many, it broke ground long ago.

    And this latest murderthon (a sponsored murder fest) is galvanising opinion against the butchers racists and manipulators, who panic that their illegitimate child Israyhell is teetering on the being of vanquish.

    Ha ha! The souls of those killed by your beloved areligious faux state will have the last laugh, don't you worry.

  39. Ron

    13 Jan, 2009 - 4:04 pm

    Mr Hoffman asks sabretache to substantiate his arguments, but doesn't substantiate his own. "Antisemitism is the world's oldest hatred", maybe, but how can this be proved? Please substantiate. More importantly, please refrain from suggesting that people who say zionists mean Jews. Most people here do not use the terms interchangeably. Allow us to be persuaded by the power of your argument rather than your snide imputations.

  40. Sally

    13 Jan, 2009 - 4:17 pm

    Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Suspend logic and humanity when it comes to discussing Israel, together with hijacking the term Semite and Semitic.

    I don't understand how so many people, including those of the Jewish faith, living as they do outside Israel, owe their primary allegiance to Israel, and not to the countries that shelter them, of which they are citizens and residents? I don't mean in the nostalgic sense a Brit of Italian parentage might feel towards Italy, for example.

    However, I do understand that Israel's "right to exist" came about via a European-supported theft of Palestine, populated as it was by Muslims, Christians and Jews, that was sanctioned by Balfour and UN declarations, Zionist ideology, biblical promise, and was some sort of European penance for the atrocities perpetrated by Nazis, living not in Palestine, but in Germany.

    Could the chutzpah associated with the above mentioned "right to exist", and all the other blind-spots and apologies wrt Israel, have anything to do with the billions in 'forgiven' loans that Israel has received as military and economic "aid" from the hapless taxpayers of USA, Canada, UK and the EU?

  41. Craig

    13 Jan, 2009 - 4:41 pm

    robins

    Yes, I do deplore the jus sanguinis concept everywhere – not just in Israel. It is undeniably a racist concept. Germany was obliged by the EU Commission to change it – I have not researched the situation in Spain and Hungary, but yes if they have it they should change it too.

    I am well aware that not all Israeli citizens are Jews, But the fact that Palestinians have been displaced from their lands over sixty years while, on a purely racial basis, settlers from the United States, Russia, Africa, Bokhara and numerous other places have been given those lands – even though their ancestors had not had connection with those lands somethimes for hundreds or thousands of years – is a crime of ethnic cleansing.

    It is pure racialism, and should be called so.

  42. Spot

    13 Jan, 2009 - 4:45 pm

    I used to agree with a two atate solution.

    Now, I agree that a single non-apartheid secular state would be optimal.

    When my family were pogrommed out of Russia they didn't envisage that the solution would be for them to, in turn, ethnically cleanse another people.

    Of course, these GIYUS types call me a self-hating Jew but, no matter, my back is broad.

  43. Ruth

    13 Jan, 2009 - 4:58 pm

    I have a feeling that this issue has deliberately been brought up to divert attention away from those raised in Craig Murray's new book, which are particularly sensitive to the government

  44. Sabretache

    13 Jan, 2009 - 5:04 pm

    Johnathan

    You will be fully cognisant of the extent of Israeli ownership and influence in the Western media, but for the benefit of others, here are a few links.
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/d1x0
    http://tinyurl.com/2g4vcw
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/2zzxd

    For the most part they just list the dominant trans-national media-owning companies (and their dominance is absolutely overwhelming). To get a real flavour of the extent of Israeli influence that they represent you will need to research their majority shareholders and the extent of their investment in Israel itself. In both cases Israeli interests are grossly out of proportion to the size of the country.

    That's one leg of the the case. The other is the modus operandi of Western media organisations – including the BBC – necessary for their continued existence. One of the very best resumes of the extent to which they are of necessity subservient to the official narrative of current world affairs can be found at 'Media Lens' here: http://tinyurl.com/8plta, the latest entitled 'An Eye for an Eyelash' – and I particularly recommend The book 'Guardians of Power' by David Edwards and David Cromwell. For any ambitious reporter, dissent from the official 'Washington Consensus view of the world may be allowed; but within strict unspoken bounds – and it is very risky to prospects for career advancement too. And of course Israel is absolutely central to the 'Washington Consensus' as it applies to shaping, moulding and controlling the Middle East in the interests of the West. The result is that criticism of Israel is permissible but only within very very strict limits which must never be allowed to question its real intent vis-a-vis its Arab population, lands and neighbours or its fundamentally apartheid structure. It is assumed to be 'one of us'.

    So, we get a reporter like Jeremy Bowen, clearly very uncomfortable with his 'balance' brief and biting his lip to refrain from saying what he really thinks whilst watching the Gaza bombardment. Concious that, if he does not give massively disproportionate time to Israeli official spokesmen in his reports, he won't be reporting events for much longer – and probably risking his position with the BBC to boot.

    Come to think of it I haven't seen Jeremy Bowen on the airwaves for the past few days. Anyone know why?

  45. john

    13 Jan, 2009 - 5:34 pm

    I think all this can be cleared up quite simply.

    What is a Zionist ?

    What is a Jew ?

    If we can have two clear definitions from the experts we can all avoid misunderstandings in the future and move on to a rational debate

    Personally I think defining oneself and others primarily in terms of race and religion displays shows a limited experience of life.

  46. resistor

    13 Jan, 2009 - 5:52 pm

    Someone here asked 'who is Amir Taheri?'

    Amir Taheri is a neo-con Iranian who is exile because he was a supporter of the Shah.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri

    Amongst other fabrications, it was Taheri who came up with the bogus story that Iran was going to make its Jewish citizens wear yellow badges.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Iranian_sumptua…

    Taheri has a track record which makes him a poor source.
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Amir_T…

    Taheri's 1989 book, Nest of Spies, was debunked for citing "nonexistent sources," fabricating "nonexistent substance in cases where the sources existed," and distorting the facts "beyond recognition," wrote Larry Cohler-Esses in The Nation. The book described the rule and fall of the Shah in Iran.

  47. Ron

    13 Jan, 2009 - 5:56 pm

    john

    Why do you need an expert to define this. Zionism is a well known political phenomenon the roots of which are very easy to discover. Try here:
    http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern%20Histor… for a piece on Theodore Herzl, often referred to as the father of Zionism. Please note I choose an Israeli source.

    I trust you do not need me to point you to a definition of Jew?

    The point is one can be a Zionist wothout being Jewish and Jewish without being Zionist. The great recent achievement of the Zionists, certainly in the US and most of western Europe is to deliberately and falsely conflate Zionism and Jewishness.

  48. resistor

    13 Jan, 2009 - 5:59 pm

    Taheri has tried to smear Obama recently too.
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/amir_ta…

    'Noted Bamboozler Behind Latest Obama Smear

    By Zachary Roth – September 16, 2008, 12:14PM

    Since yesterday, the right-wing blogosphere has been all aflutter over a report in the New York Post, written by the Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri, that Barack Obama has privately tried to delay an agreement between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration on a draw-down of American forces from Iraq.'

    and more on the badges – and how The Times and Hitchens Snr. were suckered by this charlatan.
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2006/06…

    'The "Yellow Badge" Bamboozler's History of Bamboozlement

    By Justin Rood – June 1, 2006, 2:10PM

    Turns out that the "yellow badge" fiasco isn't the first time Amir Taheri has landed himself in a controversy over charges of sloppy reportage. (Put on your oven mitts, this stuff comes pre-heated.)

    In the pages of the New Republic noted Iranian scholar Shaul Bakhash reviewed Taheri's 1989 book, "Nest of Spies: America's Journey to Disaster in Iran." He appears to not only have pored over Taheri's text, but also checked his sourcing. Guess what? He found problems. Oh, did he ever.
    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/taheri-tnr/

    Taheri "Repeatedly refers us to books where the information cited does not exist," Bakhash wrote. He found Taheri "capable of generalizations of breathtaking sweep and inaccuracy." "His interpretations of the documents are often egregiously inaccurate." Taheri "has trouble transcribing even the simplest information."

    Now, this wasn't everyone's opinion. Christopher Hitchens called the book "finely written and highly intelligent." The Times of London said it was "well documented and well written." The Washington Post determined it was a "well-researched book. . . highly readable" and "indispensable."

  49. Allan Solomon

    13 Jan, 2009 - 6:08 pm

    Its very hard for a reasonable emailer to send comments to a site which advocates the genocide of Jews ("Israel does not have the right to self defence.") Mr Murray may not like being called an anti-Semite, but it's not Hoffman's definition; it's that of the EU: see
    http://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/AS/AS-Wor…

    So, if the cap fits…

  50. Allan Solomon

    13 Jan, 2009 - 6:08 pm

    Its very hard for a reasonable emailer to send comments to a site which advocates the genocide of Jews ("Israel does not have the right to self defence.") Mr Murray may not like being called an anti-Semite, but it's not Hoffman's definition; it's that of the EU: see
    http://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/AS/AS-Wor…

    So, if the cap fits…

  51. luckluke

    13 Jan, 2009 - 6:12 pm

    Good points Ron.

    Hasn't Denis McShane been trying to get a specific offence of 'AntiSemitism' introduced in law and applying to any criticism of the Israeli Government?

  52. Ron

    13 Jan, 2009 - 6:17 pm

    Allan Solomon

    So that's it then. We should just accept the working definition of a bunch of EU bureaucrats then. I don't think so. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence will realise that the definition was moulded by all sorts of outside influences, including the Zionists I referred to in my previous comment who want us to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. We should resist!

  53. Sabretache

    13 Jan, 2009 - 6:21 pm

    I posted this a couple of hours ago and – no-show. Many posts since so here it is again

    Johnathan

    You will be fully cognisant of the extent of Israeli ownership and influence in the Western media, but for the benefit of others, here are a few links.
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/d1x0
    http://tinyurl.com/2g4vcw
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/2zzxd

    For the most part they just list the dominant trans-national media-owning companies (and their dominance is absolutely overwhelming). To get a real flavour of the extent of Israeli influence that they represent you will need to research their majority shareholders and the extent of their investment in Israel itself. In both cases Israeli interests are grossly out of proportion to the size of the country.

    That's one leg of the the case. The other is the modus operandi of Western media organisations – including the BBC – necessary for their continued existence. One of the very best resume's of the extent to which they are of necessity subservient to the official narrative of current world affairs can be found at 'Media Lens' here: http://tinyurl.com/8plta, the latest entitled 'An Eye for an Eyelash' – and I particularly recommend The book 'Guardians of Power' by David Edwards and David Cromwell. For any ambitious reporter, dissent from the offical 'Washington Concensus view of the world may be allowed; but within strict unspoken bounds – and it is very risky to prospects for carrer advancement too. And of course Israel is absolutely central to the 'Washington Concensus' as it applies to shaping, moulding and controlling the Middle East in the interests of the West. The result is that criticism of Israel is permissable but within very very strict limits which must never be allowed to question its real intent vis-a-vis its Arab population, lands and neighbours or its fundamentally apartheid structure. It is assumed to be 'one of us'.

    The result is a reporter like Jeremy Bowen, clearly very uncomfortable with his 'balance' brief and biting his lip to refrain from saying what he really thinks whilst watching the Gaza bombardment. Concious that, if he does not give massively disproportionate time to Israeli official spokesmen in his reports, he won't be reporting events for much longer – and probably risks his position with the BBC to boot.

    Come to think of it I haven't seen Jeremy Bowen on the airwaves for the past few days. Anyone know why?

  54. lwtc247

    13 Jan, 2009 - 6:35 pm

    Allan Solomon

    How utterly idiotic. I wrote "Israel does not have the right to self defence." Yet I would never advocate genocide of the Jews. That's obnoxious.

    The theft of lands from the Palestinians should not be defended. The Shoah against the Palestinians cannot be defended. The collective punishment of the Palestinians cannot be defended.

    But of course, you knew that was the meaning of my statement. But like all apologists for godless Yisrael, you don't care what false aspersions are gleefully churned out. Hasbara does it for you yes?

  55. MITNAGED

    13 Jan, 2009 - 6:55 pm

    The heat rather than light generated by the Israel Palestinian conflict is exemplified by some of the replies here.

    Murray certainly sheds no light on anything much.

    And he seems so exercised by Israel's "wrongs" that one can be forgiven for wondering whether his animus is merely political or against its Jewish population too and its Jewish supporters around the world.

  56. Ron

    13 Jan, 2009 - 7:18 pm

    Well, well, well. MITNAGED is probably not the first, but probably the most artless in calling Craig Murray anti-Jewish. No references, no argument, nothing. Probably because he cannot find any references, so he simply asserts it. How sad.

    Still, not as sad as Mr Hoffman's absurd analysis (?) of the Guardian's CIF website. Pathetic.

  57. throw him a banana

    13 Jan, 2009 - 7:19 pm

    Who the hell is talking about 'the Jews'?

  58. amk

    13 Jan, 2009 - 7:28 pm

    Jonathan,

    "Some of you need to read the EUMC Definition of antisemitism which is the most widely accepted definition."

    To use different criteria for judging bigotry against different groups is itself bigotry. If someone accuses (with no evidence) the Jews of striving towards World Domination, this is anti-semitism. If someone accuses (with no evidence) the Muslims of striving towards World Domination, this is… what?

    "The accusation that Jews (and yes everyone knows that by 'Zionists' the poster means 'Jews') control the media and the financial system is a core trope of antisemitism."

    a) Appeal to bandwagon fallacy ("everyone knows"), a common propaganda technique.
    http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.sa.ba…

    b) The attempt to associate Zionism with the Jews is fallacious – not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews. Accusations of anti-semitism based on this fallacy are naked attempts to shut down debate with an ad hominem attack on the debater.
    http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.wg.na…

  59. anthony

    13 Jan, 2009 - 7:29 pm

    I wondered where the antisemites had gone after they cleared the worst of the infestation from Guardian CIF. Now I know. Here.

  60. Ron

    13 Jan, 2009 - 7:51 pm

    That's right, anthony, make a contribution to the discussion. Isn't it past your bed time?

  61. Guin

    13 Jan, 2009 - 7:59 pm

    I am not suprised at Israel banning Arab parties.

    The Palestinians inside Israel are often referred to as a 'demographic timebomb' which will destroy the Jewishness of the State.

    A policy of 'transfer' is one of the measures advocated by the likes of Avigdor Lieberman, the deputy prime minister appointed by Ehud Olmert, who has powerful friends in Washington.

    He has put forward a proposal of a loyalty oath for Palestinians inside Israel, not to their country but to Israel a Jewish state.

    At the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Washington Lieberman informed American Jewish leaders 'He who is not ready to recognise Israel as a Jewish & Zionist state cannot be a citizen of the country.'

    The government has supported a bill which will revoke citizenship for those participating in 'an act that constitutes a breach of loyalty to the state'.

    Tzipi Livni, foreign minister, has observed that a Palestinian state would be the 'answer' to Israel's Palestinian citizens: 'They cannot ask for the declaration of a Palestinian state while working against the nature of the State of Israel as home unto the Jewish People.'

  62. Ed Davies

    13 Jan, 2009 - 9:19 pm

    "I am surprised that you think it is OK to publish a one-to-one correspondence without asking my permission."

    IANAL, etc, but as I understand it, for a letter (and therefore, I assume, an e-mail) the receiver is under no obligation to keep the contents private in the absence of any prior agreement (though the sender does retain the copyright – but that would only be relevant if the contents actually had any commercial value).

    P.S., I too don't read "Zionist" as meaning "Jewish".

  63. Human Being

    13 Jan, 2009 - 9:59 pm

    Here's a toast to this prick of an anti-Semite, Craig Murrary. May he develop a terminal melanoma, as soon as possible.

  64. Ruth

    13 Jan, 2009 - 10:12 pm

    Israel is a state from the Dark Ages bereft of humanity. It often promotes itself against the Arab states by plugging democracy but not all people living in Israel have rights. It says it's a democracy but limits press freedom. We don't know what's happening in Gaza right now. But we know what's happening on this blog. Each comment from a pro-Zionist contains little logic. Many of the comments smear. Smearing is a common device also used by the secret services in the UK to demean a person but in fact it is of very little use here. It damages those who use it. Disrupting websites damages those who do it for it just shows how far from a democracy the perpetrators, whether it be the UK or Israel, are.

  65. Chuck Unsworth

    13 Jan, 2009 - 10:17 pm

    Who are these clowns? 'Anti-Semitic' is the same as 'Anti-Israeli'? Really? Is Judaism a nationality? Astounding!

  66. Craig

    13 Jan, 2009 - 10:57 pm

    Human Being

    You are not the most pleasant representative of the species. The fact I am not going to delete your extremely unpleasant comment is further evidence of my commitment to free speech.

    I am genuinely confused as to what I have said or done which you claim is anti-semitic. Could you kindly provide a quote or example?

  67. Lev Bronstein

    13 Jan, 2009 - 11:18 pm

    I think Hoffman would do well to stop pretending to know so much about things he actual knows nothing about. The terms "Semite" and "Semitic" refer to not only Jews, but also Samaritans, Arabs, Kurds, Ethiopians, Assyrians, and Maltese. The idea that someone who opposed Israel's murderous policies and believes that Palestinian Arabs are entitled to the same rights as everyone else is "anti-Semitic" is not only ignorant, it's stupid.

    If I were your father, Mr Hoffman, I'd be ashamed to call you my son.

  68. BGD

    13 Jan, 2009 - 11:42 pm

    Next time you are told that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East mention this decision to them: http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009… The Central Elections Committee (CEC) yesterday banned the Arab parties United Arab List-Ta'al and Balad from running in next month's parliamentary elections

  69. George Dutton

    14 Jan, 2009 - 12:03 am

    "The Clean Break Doctrine"

    "What we have witnessed in Gaza since December 27 is the implementation of one crucial part of an Anglo-American strategic doctrine for redrawing the map of the Middle East (within a broader context), known as the "Clean Break."…
    http://tinyurl.com/79bzrw

  70. Nazi hunter

    14 Jan, 2009 - 12:05 am

    If you were anyone's father, Mr Bronstein, you would be locked up for child abuse because you are a racist halfwit who tries to belittle antisemitism by changing its definition.

    The word specifically applies to hatred of Jews.

  71. writerman

    14 Jan, 2009 - 12:36 am

    Craig,

    How odd. There I was thinking I'd made a valiant attempt to come to your aid, not that you need it, and make a blistering attack on the rent-an-apologist for genocide crowd, taking them and their ideology head on, and it's vanished into the either again. Shame, as it was calculated to make them go absolutely apeshit with anger. One of the best comments I've ever written I believe. How strange. I wonder where it could be?

  72. writerman

    14 Jan, 2009 - 12:43 am

    Craig,

    What I meant to say was that I was deliberately setting myself up as a target to draw their fire and give you a bit of a break. Why should you have all the fun? Not that this rabid, partisan, lunacy is really very funny, considering the criminal tragedy that's occuring in Gaza. Funny as in grotesque. I find the use of the word etiquette particularly amusing.

  73. researcher

    14 Jan, 2009 - 12:55 am

    Freedom of Speech limited to predefined opinions is not freedom of speech.

    The "antisemitism" slur is a propaganda device used to smear critics of Zionist gangsters, war criminals and talmudic supremacism advocating the concept of a chosen race. They try to hide behind ordinary Jews, cynically diverting hate towards innocent Jews. Caveat emptor. Anti-semitism is a total misnomer. There is nothing racist about exposing the effectively very anti-Jewish Zionist ideology and abuses.

    Jews should be proud that "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews", according to Joel Stein in
    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-…

  74. Nazi hunter

    14 Jan, 2009 - 1:06 am

    Better go, researcher, you'll be late for the Nazi reunion meeting

  75. amk

    14 Jan, 2009 - 1:13 am

    "How strange. I wonder where it could be?"

    If it contained multiple URLs it could have been held back for moderation as an anti-spam method.

    Unless that's it in another thread?
    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/01/th…

  76. researcher

    14 Jan, 2009 - 1:14 am

    When you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Organised propaganda shills exposing their sad life by showing their bitterness in baseless ad-hominem attacks.

  77. amk

    14 Jan, 2009 - 1:19 am

    "If you were anyone's father, Mr Bronstein, you would be locked up for child abuse"

    Lock up someone because they disagree with you? The eliminationist impulse, the calling card of fascism.

    "belittle antisemitism by changing its definition."

    Including criticism of Zionism in the definition of "antisemitism" belittles real bigotry.

    By the way, your name "nazi hunter" can be interpreted two ways. One is what you intended, the other more accurate.

  78. nazi hunter

    14 Jan, 2009 - 1:29 am

    Well Craig Murray, you must be really proud of yourself, providing a nest for Nazis. Much better than lording it in that Embassy in Uzbekistan. I just hope they can buy lots of copies of the new book. Does it have lots of cartoons from Der Stuermer in it?

  79. oulwan

    14 Jan, 2009 - 2:40 am

    How pathetic but predictable. I've been opposing Israel's utterly barbaric attack on Gaza all over the internet and I haven't had an anti-Semitic thought in my life. I'm not anti-Jew. I don't even think about "Jews" when I think of Israel. "Jonathan" and the rest can talk till they're blue in the face and it still won't make me anti-Semitic. We all know the first line of defense when Israel is criticised is to try to put critics on the back foot by yelling "anti-Semitic" — and I've had it up to my eyeballs. You can stuff it!

  80. Ruth

    14 Jan, 2009 - 2:44 am

    Nazi hunter is very vindictive. I wonder if he/she is an associate of Spicer/secret services?

  81. spot

    14 Jan, 2009 - 2:44 am

    I remember this post from The Guardian.

    'maimon

    I think Israel has exercised restraint ever since they made the bomb and didn't drop it on Europe in revenge for the Holocaust. Instead of supporting their enemies, you europeans might want to make friends with the Israelis – just in case they choose to remember what you did to them.'

    We know what you are up against, Craig.

    Nazi Hunter exemplifies it.

  82. Chris Close

    14 Jan, 2009 - 3:33 am

    I think Craig has the title exactly right.

    These people are boring boring boring and poisonous.

    The Israelis are committing war crimes and should be punished as War criminals.

  83. lwtc247

    14 Jan, 2009 - 3:55 am

    Ho Ho!

    The Zioslime must be quaking in their boots now. They've all but exhausted their propaganda chest – AND IT HASN'T WORKED… ONE LITTLE BIT, and it's not just here either, it's happening across the whole world!

    How the beads of sweat break out when they realise their orgies of slaughter (not Raphel/Olmert types of orgy please note) aren't met with the same indifference as before.

    With each savage round the Ziofascists mete out against ordinary run of the mill innocents, the more the onion skins are peeled back to reveal Zionisms putrid core.

    As Craig beautifully said "Zionism is Bullshit" :)

    I Wonder what the group "Jews Against Zionism" would rename themselves as if some of the Ziofascists here had their way.

  84. Lev Bronstein

    14 Jan, 2009 - 4:37 am

    Nazi hunter, as a matter of fact you're wrong: the term derives from a refutation of the 19th century writings of Ernest Renan about the mastery of the Aryan civilization over that of the Semitic peoples and other races. Renan, however, not only included Arabs, Ethiopians, and other Middle Easterners under this term, but expressly REJECTED the idea that Ashkenazi Jews were part of the Semitic race. He instead thought that Jews were an incomplete race scattered across Europe in an archipelago of tiny ghettoes, no longer either truly Semitic, nor yet fully assimilated into Aryan culture.

    You, too, need to learn some facts before you shoot your mouth off.

  85. Friend of Regina

    14 Jan, 2009 - 4:43 am

    "Three Christmas', Hanukkah's and Haj's ago I was working in Israel for one month on a video project. We stayed in the homes of Jews and Palestinians. It was one of the most profound times of my life as one perception after another was torn apart by the reality that lay before us. One newfound truth was that the new city of Jerusalem (as opposed to the walled ancient city at the interior of the metropolitan area) was much like any American city in that the primary focus of Hanukkah was not religious rites, rather holiday sales at the Jerusalem Mall. That's when I learned that 60% of the Israeli population were agnostic. This was told to us by our Jewish hosts. My belief that Israel was created for purposes of religious freedom was blown."

    h-ttp://-consciousmedianetwork.blogspot.com/

    {remove hyphens)

  86. nobody

    14 Jan, 2009 - 5:50 am

    PS. If anyone wants to get huffy and accuse me of anti-Semitism I offer the following perfectly valid reasons -

    1 – I didn’t do it and no such thing happened. (Just quietly, they probably did it themselves. They do that doncha know)

    2 – I didn’t do it, but they were shooting at me so I had no choice.

    3 – I did do it but since the UN failed to tell me otherwise I had to shell that building with forty civilians in it.

    4 – Well not that building. I was actually shelling another building where they most certainly were shooting at me (and I defy anyone to prove otherwise) and it was all a big accident.

    5 – Anyway, I’m the victim and as the aggrieved party I can do no wrong. And besides, as a Caucasian, I assert my right to reject all criticism of me as anti-Semitism.

  87. Tom Kennedy

    14 Jan, 2009 - 5:51 am

    writerman:

    I've gotten into the habit of preparing my comments in Notepad and then pasting them just in case they disappear. Maybe Craig will eventually use different software to manage this blog?

  88. nobody

    14 Jan, 2009 - 6:48 am

    Oh dear, it's just like the bad old days on indymedia. Nazihunter is that really you? By his endless ad hominems ye shall know him.

    I'm reminded by this debate of the school debating club. There, the greatest sin was to have the whole thing end up as definitions debate. This being due to the fact that no debate could take place since no one would be able to agree on what it was we were talking about. Which is bad if the point is to have a debate. But it's good if the point is to kill a debate and just turn the whole thing into a pointless shit-slinging blatherfest. And since the Zionists could never win any debate on facts, it's blatherfest here we come. Every time. Always the same.

    But why don't we do the definitions thing anyway? It passes the time. Mr Bronstein above is perfectly correct. Pretty much the whole Levant qualifies as Semitic. And, (with the irony running rampant) the only people of the Levant who aren't Semitic are the Ashkenazi Johnny-come-lately's, all of whom came originally from Khazaria in the Caucasus (by way of Russia, Poland, Germany etc). Which is to say, they're Caucasian. Oh alright, arguably they're Turkic since that's where they started out. But either way they're no more Semitic than I am.

    So – Between a Palestinian shooting one of his Caucasian Ashkenazi occupiers, and an Ashkenazi lobbing white phosphorus into the Gazan concentration camp (Biggest in the world! Bigger even than the Warsaw Ghetto!), where does the anti-Semitism lay?

    So – Between the Ashkenazi authorities of the 50's who dragged Sephardim kids (and only Sephardim kids) out of school on the pretext of ringworm and blasted them with insane doses of radiation, (no really, google 'israel ringworm scandal'), and the adult Sephardim survivors who had lots of uncomplimentary things to say about the Israeli government and their refusal to compensate for, or even acknowledge, what was done to them, who was the anti-Semite?

    So – Between the Ashkenazi Israeli government failing to pay the Ashkenazi Holocaust survivors in Israel any of the monies put into various Israeli banks by Germany, and the survivors who, sick of their penury and of being ignored for decades, complained that the Holocaust survivors in Germany were treated better than they were and shame on the Israeli government, who was the most anti-Semitic?

    First correct answer gets a free ticket to Gaza. And for the runner up – two free tickets! Good luck!

  89. nobody

    14 Jan, 2009 - 6:50 am

    PS. If anyone wants to get huffy and accuse me of anti-Semitism I offer the following perfectly valid reasons –

    1 – I didn't do it and no such thing happened. (Just quietly, they probably did it themselves. They do that doncha know)

    2 – I didn't do it, but they were shooting at me so I had no choice.

    3 – I did do it but since the UN failed to tell me otherwise I had to shell that building with forty civilians in it.

    4 – Well not that building. I was actually shelling another building where they most certainly were shooting at me (and I defy anyone to prove otherwise) and it was all a big accident.

    5 – Anyway, I'm the victim and as the aggrieved party I can do no wrong. And besides, as a Caucasian, I assert my right to reject all criticism of me as anti-Semitism.

  90. nobody

    14 Jan, 2009 - 6:53 am

    PPS Actually Ehud Olmert told me to say it. I was in the middle of a speech in Philadelphia and he called me mid-speech and of course I quit whatever I was doing and rushed over and he told me to tell Condoleeza Rice to tell the UN that it's not true that Zionists run America. So clearly Zionists do not run America or any other thing. And anyone who says otherwise, like whoever it was that said, "We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." are obviously anti-Semites. Oh now I remember, it was Ariel Sharon. Bloody anti-Semite!

  91. writerman

    14 Jan, 2009 - 8:03 am

    I'm not a great believer in the 'science' of racial catagories. I think it's highly problematic and deeply ideological. We all know where this kind of thing can lead when taken to extremes.

    Perhaps Jews and Israelis should simply drop the term 'anti-Semetism' altogether as it's confusing, as what's happening in Gaza could be defined as an 'anti-Semetic' attack, because the Palestinians are a semetic people too, as are most Arabs.

    So one could make an argument that this is a war/conflict between the same 'racial' group, or people. A form of civil war. Which, I would contend, on several levels, is what it really is. Up until the influx of tens of thousands of European Jews into Palestine, the actual 'racial' or cultural differences between the different semetic 'tribes' in the region were minimal.

    Perhaps we should use the terms 'anti-Jewish' or 'anti-Israeli' instead? Wouldn't this be clearer and more precise? But perhaps that' the point. 'Anti-Semetic' is a vague term, with a useful elastic meaning that incorporates a variety of 'nuances' though they are all bad and negative when applied to someone or some attitude which is labelled 'anti-Semetic.'

    It seems to be used somewhat frivolously, especially by Israeli politicians to describe anyone who criticises Israeli government policies or actions, and used like this it's clearly a very useful phrase. And if the criticism gets really bad one can always cynically resort to dragging up the Holocaust as a form of political rhetoric, which is highly problematic and rather shameful in my opinion.

  92. writerman

    14 Jan, 2009 - 9:08 am

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Believe it or not, I actually strive for 'neutrality' in this whold debate and 'balance', but it's difficult to ignore that one side, the Palestinians, are very weak and have suffered and lost an awful lot compared to the Israelis, who clearly have 'triumphed' in the sixty year struggle over territory of Israel/Palestine.

    Is that an 'anti-Semetic' statement, or simply a statement of fact? Israel has been successful and secured most of historic Palestine for itself. Israel is a vastly richer and militarily stronger country than any other in the region, aside from the Gulf, let alone compared to the Palestinians, who are some of the poorest people in the world. Really a people without a country, that's gone, wiped off the map.

    So even if one strives for neutrality one can't ignore reality and the collosal differences between the two groups. What this means is that it's difficult to accept that Israel is the weaker party, under attack, in mortal danger, threatened with destruction, on the verge of being pushed into the sea, with its back to the wall… when it objectively and empirically, simply is not.

    When a country as powerful as Israel is involved in a military conflict like the one in Gaza, which clearly is so one-sided, a modern army fighting a poorly armed militia, one cannot help but question and be sceptical of Israeli claims that they are fighting for survival and being 'invaded' when it's the Israelis who are pushing and shooting their way deep into Gaza. The massive differences in the relative military strengths of the two sides cannot be denied, surely?

    Yet one gets the impression, more than that, one is told that one is 'anti-Semetic' if one dares to mention the above, objective, facts. Somehow we pressured, and are supposed to look away from reality, and accept the partisan Israeli version of 'reality' or be labelled 'anti-Semetic'! The phrase is used as a smear in a war for the hearts and minds of world public opinion, espcially in the United States, where the phrase can make or break a political career.

    The label is even used against individuals with a Jewish background like me. I've been called anti-Semetic and anti-Jeswish and anti-Israeli, when I'm not. I've been called a 'self-hating Jew' which I certainly am not. I've been smeared with all kinds of shit, just because I don't support Israeli government policies and actions and I question the ideology of Zionism, and I don't have anytime for the growing theocratic/fascist movement in Israel. In a democracy one is allowed, in fact it's a kind of duty, that one criticises the government and its policies, even the very structure of the state, even the existance of the state itself, even the idea that certain groups rule that state in its present form. States, countries, peoples – are not absolutely static entities, frozen forever in time and space. They are continually changing and evolving, change is life's characteristic. If you don't believe me, and I'm stating the bloody obvious, look at the history of Europe over the last two centuries for Christsake!

    Israel has a problem that many of its people seem to have bought into a highly problematic and dangerous myth. The myth of Zionist nationalism, which was successful as the ideology of conquest, but isn't as successful as the ideology of peace. Zionism, in its most extreme form, which seems to be growing, is a real danger to the character of Israeli democracy. I would argue that it's a threat to the Israeli version of democracy and arguably it's incompatible with democracy, freedom and human rights. I'm concerned that Isreal may be moving away from secular democracy and towards overt militarism and theocratic fascism, if one follows the logic of Zionism to its logical conclusion.

    Is there any evidence for this? Yes, I believe there's lots of evidence. Military states tend to move more easily towards totalitarianism and fascism. The threat of permanent war makes fascims more likely. However the substantial Palestinian minority inside Israel, 20% of the population and growing, is the real test and challenge for Israeli democracy and Zionism.

    Already Israelis are accutely aware of the 'demographic timebomb' which is inexorably ticking away in the heart of Israel. The 'racist' banning of two Palestinian political parties, regarded as 'terrorists' and 'traitors' because they are demanding equal civil rights and an end to segregation and subjugation, don't bode well for the future. That these parties are deemed a 'threat to the Jewish identity of Israel' is a telling reaction. What happens to the dream and ideology and Jewish character of Israel, to Israeli democracy itself, when the Palestinians become Israel's majority in a few decades time? What is the Zionist answer to this challenge?

    As there are so many supporters of Israel coming to this site to attack Craig for merely stating the obvious, I'd be interested in their points of view, because I think that perhaps Zionism isn't just bullshit, it's arguably far more than that. It's probably racist as well, discuss. Zionism is racism.

  93. Jonathan

    14 Jan, 2009 - 9:40 am

    "Sabretache"

    As I said your suggestion that Zionists control the media comes straight out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the notorious Tsarist antisemitic forgery. You posted three links which tell us about the large media companies: Vivendi, ASL Time Warner, Disney, News Corp, Bertelsmann. None of your links in any way substantiates your allegation. Other readers will note that Bertelsmann was a printer to the Nazis.

    So you have to base your case on 'argument by assertion': "The result is that criticism of Israel is permissable but within very very strict limits which must never be allowed to question its real intent vis-a-vis its Arab population, lands and neighbours or its fundamentally apartheid structure. It is assumed to be 'one of us'."

    Says you. But those with an open mind will look at the incessant criticism of Israel in such media as The New York Times, Ha'aretz, BBC, Guardian, Independent and conclude that you have no case whatsoever. I have not read the book you mention "Guardians of Power". But I note that John Pilger says it is "the most important book about journalism I can remember". I wonder if that is the same John Pilger who wrote in the Guardian last year "Israel is high in an international league table for its murder of journalists" which The Guardian was forced to subsequently correct?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/…

  94. writerman

    14 Jan, 2009 - 10:39 am

    Knowlegde is supposed to be power. The pen is mightier than the sword. The idea comes before the deed. We live in an information age. We're in a battle for hearts and minds. The truth is out there.

    Lies, lies and propaganda.

    I'm not really sure about all this, but I know that selling ones version of the truth in a war has never been more important than it is today.

    Emperically there is no evidence that the media in Britain is unduly or especially critical of Israel, at leat not compared to the scale of Israel's actions in Gaza.

    This is an important point I believe. Israel may well be a democracy fighting a vicious terrorist movement dedicated to its destruction, but that doesn't give it the right to a free pass for everything it chooses to do in Gaza.

    Israel and it's supporters insist that the foreign press is biased against Israel compared to Hamas. Is this really true? No, it isn't. This is part of the propaganda war. If one examines the American press, telvision, radio etc. It is overwhelmingly slanted towards Israel. The situation is so glaringly obvious that one only needs to do a bit of quick mental arithmatic, and one comes to the conclusion that roughly 90% of US media coverage is pro-Israel and only a fraction, under 5% could be characterised as pro-Hamas.

    But the magnitude, violence and disproportion between the two sides in the assault on Gaza, is so striking that even the usually staunchly pro-Israel US press cannot ignore reality completely. And this is a problem for the Israeli propaganda machine. The collosal disconect between its version of events and what's obviously happening.

    Europe is different, more critical. Americans are usually amazed when they read European newspapers and watch European television. It's a real culture shock for them. Suddenly it's acceptable to criticise Israel! But still, statistically and emperically, Israel recieves preferential treatment and understanding. Here the media generally takes its lead from the politicans in framing the debate.

    Look at Britain. There are a handful of famous journalists who are openly critical of Israel, but they are not representative of the vast majority of writers who are far more sympathetic to Israel.

    Part of the problem for Israel is that it has simply gone too far this time. The glaring difference between the firepower of the Israeli army, navy and airforce. The massive difference in the casualty rates on both sides. The collosal differences in the level of destruction in Gaza compared to Israel, are so obvious, that it's hard, even for those sympathetic to the Israeli version of events to ignore how disproportionate this current struggle is. To do so would be to lose all credibility with their readers and viewers. Oviously this is frustrating for Israel. The old narrative of little David versus evil Goliath, is hard to maintain when one Israel is so clearly the giant Goliath and armed with nukes!

    Propaganda is a useful tool in war, but one cannot press it too far, demand too much credulity, or the whole train goes off the rails and it loses its effectiveness. This is Israel's problem.

    Also the longer the conflict, I have difficulty calling it a war, I believe one needs two armies for that, or at least comperable forces; anyway the longer the conflict continues the harder it is for the Israeli version to be accepted as factual and unbiased. This is why Israel prefers the Blitzkrieg strategy. Only recently the Palestinians have countered with their own Stalingrad strategy, which slows the Blitzkrieg down long enough for world opinion to see and realise what's really going on. Once again a problem for Israel.

    Clearly Israel is losing its grip on the Western media, its ability to frame the outline of the debate, to say nothing of world public opinion which is shifting radically away from sympathy for Israel. This is a problem for Israel. Israel was a supremely effective military state, but this is changing, the enemy is learning how to fight back 'successfully' in the sense of not being defeated and humiliated, but surviving. Of course this means massive casualties on their side, but in a war of attrition inside 'Stalingrad' they can afford it, can Israel?

  95. George Dutton

    14 Jan, 2009 - 10:39 am

    The way the wind blows…an ill wind…
    http://tinyurl.com/8wr2q9

  96. Ron

    14 Jan, 2009 - 10:50 am

    'argument by assertion' You sum up your own method perfectly, Mr Hoffman.

  97. Jonathan

    14 Jan, 2009 - 11:04 am

    How predictable "George Dutton". You clearly have not read Ross' seminal book "The Missing Peace". If you ever do you will find this on page 11: "During the Bush administration of 1989-92 – especially given President Bush's very clear pressure on the Shamir government – I received hate mail labeling me a self-hating Jew."

  98. Jonathan

    14 Jan, 2009 - 12:02 pm

    page 8 not page 11

  99. researcher

    14 Jan, 2009 - 12:22 pm

    Obviously, Jonathan Hoffman discards all evidence threatening his world view and Zionist ideology, and attacks the messengers instead. Wake up, Jonathan, the cat is out of the bag, Mearsheimer and Walt have published The Israel Lobby, and other Jews like Joel Stein in the LATimes are proud that Jews control the big media companies. In Israel/Palestine the ruling Zionists are the Nazis now for all the world to see.

  100. George Dutton

    14 Jan, 2009 - 12:34 pm

    Jonathan

    "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite"

    Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970)

    "Dennis Ross"…the chief Middle East peace negotiator in the presidential administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton…say's it all really…

    You just keep believing Jonathan it's what you do best.

  101. OrwellianUK

    14 Jan, 2009 - 3:06 pm

    Not still using the "Iranian president wants Israel wiped from the map" mantra are you?

    That is a blatant distortion of the truth

    Either you know this, in which case you are a lying propagandist, or you don't in which case you're just a lousy journalist

    See globalresearch.ca and informationclearinghouse.info for accurate facts

  102. Edward

    14 Jan, 2009 - 3:45 pm

    That is untrue, see New York Times:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11…

    "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say "wipe off" or "wipe away" is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive. The second translation issue concerns the word "map." Khomeini's words were abstract: "Sahneh roozgar." Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as "map," and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not "Sahneh roozgar" but "Safheh roozgar," meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word "map" again. "Ahmad Zeidabadi, a professor of political science in Tehran whose specialty is Iran-Israel relations, explained: "It seems that in the early days of the revolution the word 'map' was used because it appeared to be the best meaningful translation for what he said. The words 'sahneh roozgar' are metaphorical and do not refer to anything specific. Maybe it was interpreted as 'book of countries,' and the closest thing to that was a map. Since then, we have often heard 'Israel bayad az naghshe jographya mahv gardad' ?" Israel must be wiped off the geographical map. Hard-liners have used it in their speeches."

  103. MJ

    14 Jan, 2009 - 3:49 pm

    I know I'm a bit late off the mark here, having not checked in for a few days, but I have to say I'm vaguely flattered that this Hoffman fellow took such exception to my post about the European response – or lack of it – to the Gaza massacre.

    I thought it was a simple enough question, supplemented by some obvious and demonstrable facts. It's a shame that Hoffman didn't quite get round to specifying what he found anti-Jewish about it, but if he reads this and wishes to correct his oversight I'd be most curious to know.

  104. George Dutton

    14 Jan, 2009 - 3:57 pm

    Jonathan wrote…

    "which The Guardian was forced to subsequently correct?"

    "As I said your suggestion that Zionists control the media"

    Thanks for pointing that out Jonathan.

    The Guardian the mouthpiece of New Labour…
    http://tinyurl.com/7368jt

    The BBC the mouthpiece of New Labour…
    http://tinyurl.com/a5rcku

    "The shadowy role of Labour Friends of Israel"…
    http://tinyurl.com/7ezxje

    That means New Labour the mouthpiece of Zionists.

    Sabretache 1 Jonathan 0.

  105. George Dutton

    14 Jan, 2009 - 4:07 pm

    "Not still using the "Iranian president wants Israel wiped from the map" mantra are you?"

    "That is a blatant distortion of the truth"

    "Either you know this, in which case you are a lying propagandist, or you don't in which case you're just a lousy journalist"

    OrwellianUK

    And there I was I thinking he was both.

  106. MJ

    14 Jan, 2009 - 4:22 pm

    Oh hang on, he did specify what he objected to in my post, in a later comment that I've only just spotted. It was the phrase:

    "Is it because so much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Zionists? Is it because the Mossad has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment?"

    What on earth does he find anti-Jewish about that? The first point is a well-documented fact and I thought it just might have some bearing on the European (and American) response to the Gaza massacre. The second was simply a speculative question. Clearly Mr Hoffman is unaware of the measures Mossad takes to promote Israel's interests world-wide. Sorry to mention it.

    Funnily enough, he doesn't appear to object to my comment about part of Israel's nuclear arsenal being targeted on Europe, perhaps because I quote an Israeli authority on this. In my view however it's the most telling and damning point that I made. With friends like that, who needs enemies? (As the saying goes).

  107. researcher

    14 Jan, 2009 - 4:38 pm

    NYTimes cites the UK Guardian newspaper: "The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that 'this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time'", then corrects that the persian word translated as 'vanish' is 'active and transitive', thus better translated as 'wiped off'. So Ahmadinejad is advocating active "regime change" in Israel, just like his fellow NWO puppets and warmongers in the US government advocate and instigate for many countries, especially since using their fabricated false flag attack of 9-11 as the current pretext. Colin Powell and Joe Biden (See his "Mark My Words") announced a new false flag attack on the West for this spring 2009. Look up "Iran Contra" to understand the secret collaboration of the apparent opposites in drumming up a war of the west against the east since 1980 (artificially inciting Christians, Jews and Moslems towards a premeditated ww3 against each other, while all three are based on similar and related mind-control fairy tales known as the Torah, Bible and Koran).

  108. MJ

    14 Jan, 2009 - 4:58 pm

    robins asked:

    …is the following statement regarding Islamists (a political term) and the Arab League acceptable?

    "Is the response to worldwide Islamist terrorism so feeble because so much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Islamists? Is it because the Arab League has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment?"

    If the observations were factually correct then of course yes, it would be more than acceptable. Essential in fact. Am I missing something here?

  109. nazi hunter

    14 Jan, 2009 - 5:08 pm

    To 'MJ', 'researcher' and 'Dutton' who get off on Jew-baiting: Try going forth and multiplying instead.

  110. OrwellianUK

    14 Jan, 2009 - 6:31 pm

    "And there I was I thinking he was both."

    You're probably right George.

    to nazi hunter:

    You seem to get off on non-jew baiting

    So what's the difference exactly?

  111. George Dutton

    14 Jan, 2009 - 6:47 pm

    OrwellianUK

    Stay away from nazi hunter whoever they are they have just (I think)propositioned 'MJ', 'researcher' and me.

  112. Sabretache

    14 Jan, 2009 - 6:50 pm

    "….Other readers will note that Bertelsmann was a printer to the Nazis."

    And how very convenient that is for Israeli apologists for whom research into TODAY's facts must be discouraged lest they show the Zionist State for what it is.

    That was then. This is now; and the Bertelsmann Foundation (owner of @ 80% if Bertemsman Inc) are the largest venture capital providers in Israel http://tinyurl.com/9b8bt4 ; They have no interests whatsoever (that I can find) anywhere else in the Middle East. Do you seriously suppose that any of their myriad publications would be allowed to adopt an editorial position that advocated fundamental reform of the Israeli State or put their substantial investments there at risk? Yes their newspapers carry articles that can be showcased as 'critical of Israel' but, like I said, all such criticism remains within strict boundaries that are obvious to any researcher honest enough to remove his 'Washington Consensus' blinkers. The same applies in spades to all the other organisations I linked to.

    But of course you know all this don't you? Your task is simply to obfuscate inconvenient facts in pursuit of the primary objective which is defence of the indefensible.

  113. George Dutton

    14 Jan, 2009 - 7:05 pm

    "That there is a Zionist lobby and that it is rich, potent and effective goes largely unquestioned on the left. Big Jewry, like big tobacco, is seen as one of life's givens. According to this view, Israel has the British media pretty well sewn up. Wealthy Jewish business leaders, acting in concert with establishment types and co-ordinated by the Israeli embassy, have supposedly nobbled newspaper editors and proprietors, and ensured that the pro-Palestinian position is marginalised both in news reporting and on the comment pages. As one well-known foreign affairs specialist puts it: "The sheer scale of the activity is awesome. It operates at every level. By comparison, the disparate, underfunded and shambolic pro-Palestinian organisations don't stand a chance." He insists that these words remain unattributable because, he claims, "the fact is that journalists put their careers in jeopardy by speaking up for the Palestinians. That's ultimately the Zionist lobby's most powerful weapon."…
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/7tvyt7

  114. amk

    14 Jan, 2009 - 7:12 pm

    Jonathan:

    "Ahmadinejad in Iran is committed to wiping israel off the map."

    A summery of those who disagree with the "wipe Israel off the map" translation can be found here:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/the-impo…

    In any case it is irrelevant: the Supreme Leader of Iran (Khamenei) has complete control over Iranian military matters, including the declaration of war, mobilisation of the military and acting as Commander in Chief. This is the relevant bit of the Constitution of Iran:
    http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/ir00000_.html#…

    The President (Ahmadinejad) simply has no constitutional role.

  115. Guin

    14 Jan, 2009 - 8:10 pm

    The 'objective' Dennis Ross who puts the 'needs' of Israelis above the legal rights of Palestinians!!

    LOL!!

  116. DM

    14 Jan, 2009 - 11:02 pm

    US VP-designate Joe Biden stated that "You don't have to be Jewish to be a Zionist". Is he wrong? In which case what is Christian Zionism?

    *Sally wrote:

    "I don't understand how so many people, including those of the Jewish faith, living as they do outside Israel, owe their primary allegiance to Israel, and not to the countries that shelter them, of which they are citizens and residents?"

    This matter was actually spotted at the time of the Balfour Declaration:

    "[Zionism] has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom. If a Jewish Englishman sets his eyes on the Mount of Olives and longs for the day when he will shake British soil from his shoes and go back to agricultural pursuits in Palestine, he has always seemed to me to have acknowledged aims inconsistent with British citizenship and to have admitted that he is unfit for a share in public life in Great Britain, or to be treated as an Englishman."

    Edwin Samuel Montagu (HM Secretary of State for India) 23 August 1917

    (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Montagumemo.html)

    Edwin Montagu was from one of the leading Sephardi families of the Empire, and thus arguably a Semite – unlike Chaim Weizmann who had been lobbying for the Balfour Declaration.

    And Prof Shlomo Sand's recent book makes the claim that today's Palestinians are actually the descendants of the Judaeans of the 1st Century, and thus it is they who are the Semites being argued about as those to whom the land was promised.

  117. writerman

    14 Jan, 2009 - 11:17 pm

    I actually thought my point about the Palestinian 'demographic timebomb' would have elicited some comment from the allies and apologists for the Israeli war machine. But perhaps some subjects are just too hot to handle and too explosive to contemplate? Or, as I suspect, they are all working form a script with power-points to help them, unable as they are to really think for themselves, programmed and groomed to serve their country, right or wrong.

  118. George Dutton

    14 Jan, 2009 - 11:34 pm

    writerman

    They are really rattled,"anti-semitism" it's the last card they always play trouble for them is it's worn so thin everyone can see through it…
    http://tinyurl.com/9wfjbz

  119. Giordan

    15 Jan, 2009 - 1:30 am

    Craig, the fact that out of 36 deleted comments, 34 were what you categorised as 'anti-semitism' tells us a great deal abut you. Why is it that you only feel a need to censor perceived anti-semitic remarks? Why are you protecting the Jews – and, it would seem, only the Jews from criticism? What's your game?

  120. Craig

    15 Jan, 2009 - 2:05 am

    Giordan,

    It happens to be the only form of outright racism I have encountered on the site, that is all.

    I would treat any other form of racism the same way: reasoned argument with the person in the comments, try to get them to examine what they have said and if it is what they really mean, or what can have misled them to think it, then if they persist with racial abuse – ban and redact.

  121. ellis

    15 Jan, 2009 - 6:00 am

    "Sinn Fein was not committed to the destruction of the UK. It was committed to the unification of Ireland. The SNP is not committed to the destruction of the UK. It is committed to Scottish independence."

    Cannot the author of this comment see the illogicality of the argument?

  122. John

    15 Jan, 2009 - 8:00 am

    A WAR ON THE TERM "ANTI-SEMITISM".

    >"In July 2008 he [Hoffman] produced a

    >report on 'Anti-Semitism on The

    >Guardian Comment is Free', in which

    >his definition of anti-semites…

    If someone is an anti-Semite, they hate a person for merely being a Semite. But Semites include the Arabs, and that, by definition, means the Palestinians.

    So, by this fact alone, if you attack Jews, and Jews alone, you cannot be an anti-Semite.

    Second, most Jews are not Semites; they come from various races, many hailing from Eastern Europe and Russia. The majority of the Jews, therefore, are NOT descendents of the Old Testament Hebrews.

    So, even if you are a real anti-Semite, you do not hate Jews as a group because the bulk of the Jews are NOT Semites.

    Therefore, it could be argued that those who support Israel are the real anti-Semites, displacing the Palestinians – true Semites! – and colonising their land with non-Semites.

    Hence, to call someone an "anti-Semite" for merely criticising – or even disliking – a particular group of Jews is clearly nonsensical and unintelligent.

    The question to ask is why, in particular – if it is in particular – have Jews ended up being disliked more than any other religious group? No other religious group that I know of claims the right to take land forcefully and violently off others, for starters.

    By building a wall between themselves and others, Jews are saying, we want nothing to do with you lot, you ignorant heathens! Well, if you behave anti-socially, stand aloof, you end up being hated. This is something shy people know all about. When you choose to stay outside a group, that group tends to view you as unfriendly or hostile, particularly if they know nothing about you.

    The fact that Jews use the term "anti-Semitic" in the same way others use the word "racist", only strengthens the idea that Jews are more than just a religious group. The use of the terms "anti-Semitic" and "anti-Semitism" needs to be dropped – especially by Jews themselves, if they are to change people's perceptions.

    The idea is to undo the damage people like Hitler did (Anne Frank was a Caucasian girl, a German like any other German), not reinforce it!

    A Jewish person is asking for enemies – and to be treated with something akin to racism – when anyone who legitimately criticises them is called an "anti-Semite".

    But, perhaps, it is as rabbi Yisroel Weiss (www.nkusa.org) says: Zionists are fake Jews, atheists pretending to be religious, as are many others. In other words, the fake Jews are giving the minority of real Jews a bad name.

    Personally, I think Muslims are far more hated today than Jews. And just as some people treat Jews like a race, others use the word "Muslim" when they mean Arab.

    If Hoffman made an effort, he'd discover large numbers of people online revelling in – or expressing indifference at – the massacre of Palestinians and Iraqis. If Palestinians were bombing Jews with the same force Jews are bombing Palestinians, there'd be outrage.

    For propaganda purposes, however, Israel would like us to believe that Jews are persecuted all over the world – even in Israel!

    Unfortunately, Muslims are "falling" into the same "traps" Jews fell into. When I saw some Muslim women at a shopping centre, their bodies and faces were covered in black cloth – only their eyes were visible. They looked very sinister. I felt very uncomfortable in their presence, and tried not to stare. These individuals were utterly alien to me, not like any people I had seen before. My primal instincts began to surface – all the rubbish I had heard about Muslims ran through my mind – and for just that one instant I was open to the suggestion that Muslims are terrorists.

    Finally, Craig Murray is not responsible for, and does not endorse, the comments left by his readers. I understand this, everyone else here understands this, so why does Jonathan Hoffman not understand this?

    Perhaps it is because Hoffman is well aware that multi-millionaire proprietors control the content of most newspapers (and so newspapers reflect to a large extent the views of their proprietors), so Hoffman wrongly assumes that owners of Web sites should also act like rich proprietors, gagging "journalists" freely.

  123. Steve

    15 Jan, 2009 - 3:51 pm

    Did you ever encounter a rabid animal ?

    Whatever you try, however you behave, it will savagely attack you.

    It's a truly disillusioning experience.

    There is no cure against rabies.

    The only way to stop a rabid animal is killing it.

    The state of Israel was born out of violence.

    It grew with more violence.

    And it will perish in a sea of violence.

    Inevitably.

  124. pedigree

    17 Jan, 2009 - 5:02 pm

    This guy sounds like a prat to me. I dont like what Israel is doing to Gaza so he would label me a Jew hating racist? Well, Ive got something here that he can better waste his time on

  125. TeawTeltLowly

    19 Jan, 2009 - 5:58 pm

    I think you are thinking like sukrat, but I think you should cover the other side of the topic in the post too…

  126. richard

    19 Jan, 2009 - 7:39 pm

    My personal view is that all those now living in Israel and Palestine should be allowed to stay there, in a new secular and race-blind state.

    It is obvious why this phrase is discriminatroy. No one seeks to question the make-up of another country. Would Mr Murray question the Islamic Republic of Iran or the same in relation to saudi arabia? No, because Murray is a complete coward and has nothing to lose by slamming Israel. He seems obsessed with Israel and obsessed with its dissolution as a Jewish state. He is so obsessed with Israel that the thousands dying around the world can hardy get their suffering heard. Yes, Gaza is a tragedy and the whole damn Israel/Palestine problem is a tragedy and there is blame on both sides but cowardly Murray is just focussed on Israel, Israel, Israel! I find Murray et al sickening the way they drag Zionism through the mud. You should be ashamed of yourself degrading such a huge part of Jewish culture. You would never do this to the Muslim culture, quite rightly, but you are an opportunist who thinks he knows which side his bread is buttered. Lay off Zionism will ya. It is as just as any other nationality and was not based on ethnic cleansing. If the Arabs had accepted UN Res. 181 instead of going to war with Israel then no one would have moved from their homes you idiots!

  127. Richard

    19 Jan, 2009 - 7:47 pm

    Seeking a fundamental revision of the State"

    You are a total fool. Have you read the Hamas Charter? What is it about Article 7 on killing Jews that you don't understand. How did you ever become an Ambassador? Were we totally desperate???

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted by Expathos