Yesterday John Mearsheimer wrote that David Harris of the American Jewish Committee was refusing his offer to debate him, after Harris had accused Mearsheimer of running from debate. I wrote to Harris's aide, Ben Cohen, today, but have heard nothing. It seems this is not the only case of the AJC liking to slag its critics without granting them a platform.
Ben White writes from England:
Z-Word Blog is run by the American Jewish Committee, purportedly to provide "commentary, analysis and information on the debates about Zionism, anti-Zionism, antisemitism, the Middle East and much more". Recently, they published a 'review' of my new book, Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide, by Jonathan Hoffman from the British Zionist Federation.
The comments, which must be moderated to be published, include:Great review Jonathan exposing Ben White for the fraud and holocaust denying antisemite that he is.Today, I completed a response to Hoffman's piece, which I've put on my own blog. You'll see that amongst other things, Z-Word have allowed Hoffman to publish straightforward untruths about my book e.g. that I never mention the Gaza disengagement.
And I wonder whether White sees himself as the reincarnation of Goebbels?
I tried to leave a link to my response on the Z-Word thread. It was not allowed. Ben Cohen then did a new post specifically on not having allowed my comment through:
"...we try to allow a range of comments on this blog. But Ben White? No. While you’ve got to grin at his sheer chutzpah, White needs to understand that the ban on Jonathan Hoffman attending the launch of his ridiculous excuse for a book means that he is, as a direct consequence, not welcome here."
So the 'range of comments' includes the claim that I am the 'reincarnation of Goebbels', but not my link to a response piece which points out that Z-Word have published untruths about a published work. Even those sympathetic to Z-Word have been questioning the logic... Incidentally, Hoffman was indeed banned from the launch but not by me. He was banned by the charity War on Want, something I knew nothing about, on the grounds that he had previously disrupted other events.
Hoffman's piece - apart from containing falsities about my book, also disputes the illegality of the settlements. Is that a position of the AJC?
What, you expect integrity from Zionists? Who are you kidding?
Of course no-one thinks Ben White's not a Holocaust denier, but interestingly enough, Ben White doesn't seem to think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier either – oh, no – Ahmadinejad was merely 'drawing attention to the extent to which European nations prosecute Holocaust deniers, yet are by and large post-Christian societies with little regard for religion. For a devout believer like the Iranian President, this must seem like a strange situation.' In fact: 'It could be argued, therefore, that the comments made by Ahmadinejad in recent months are not anti-Semitic, and instead, throw rhetorical barbs at a subject that is taboo in Western nations, namely, the complex relationship between the Holocaust, anti-Semitism in Europe, Zionism’s beginnings, and continued support for Israel." (http://www.counterpunch.org/white0617.html). It's also totally unfair of people to call Ben White an anti-Semite, because he does not consider himself an anti-Semite (he just understands those who are http://www.counterpunch.org/white0617.html).
(should read: *no-one thinks Ben White is a Holocaust denier)
The more effective a critic of Israel you are, the more likely you are to be called a "holocaust-denying anti-Semite" (if you are not jewish), or a "self-hating Jew" (if you are a Jew). But the more they do that, the less effective the slur becomes.
Also how about Ben White turning off all comments from his blog altogether, thus refusing everyone a platform? http://benwhite.org.uk/blog
I never understood the vehemence of ben White's detractors. been reading him on the Cif in the Guardian and he seemed like a mainstream one stater to me. never saw holocaust denial or anti-semitism. Did notice he is not too keen on zionism's latest exploits, but then neither are most of us here on Phil weiss' blog. I'd characterize him as somewhat to the left of seth friedmann. I do understand why he may turn off the comment section on his blog. The vitriol he got from the hasbara crowd on Cif is an indication. So what is it about ben white that turns certain zionist fanatics into fire spewing dragons of doom and damnation? beats me….* ____ * well, not really…..
Here's what the AJC's Ben Cohen has posted as a comment: "When White apologizes to Jonathan for colluding in this disgraceful antisemitic ban, he can comment here again." http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/c-1208... He does seem to be throwing that word about rather casually… "War on Want's Executive Director John Hilary, who will head the discussion with White this evening at Toynbee Hall, told the Jewish News that Hoffman was informed he would not be permitted access to the event as he may 'disrupt' activities, saying: "It has been advised to us by fellow organisers of similar events that Jonathan Hoffman attends these functions strictly to disrupt proceedings. When he applied to attend the meeting, we informed him he would not be permitted, as we want to ensure the event is not hijacked by people who cannot act respectfully. His suggestion that there are any ulterior motives is absolutely atrocious."" http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/c-1208...
Actually, a comment branding White a "fraud and holocaust denying antisemite" was published at Z Word which, as White notes, moderates its comments section. Did you even read the post to which you're replying? Meanwhile Ben Cohen has described (http://blog.z-word.com/2009/07/chutzpah/#comment-... War on Want's decision to ban Hoffman from the talk as "antisemitic", and has accused White of "colluding" in it. The CounterPunch article you link to is entirely reasonable, and as you say contains repeated statements by White disavowing and condemning antisemitism. If you are unable to understand the elementary distinction between explaining something and supporting it, you really shouldn't be involving yourself in political discussion.
"He does seem to be throwing that word about rather casually" Right, and then he (and obviously this is no way limited to Cohen) complains, not altogether without justification, that people don't take antisemitism seriously enough anymore. It's precisely because of people like him that the term has become so debased and devalued – if they keep throwing the term around as if it were devoid of meaning, pretty soon it *will* have no meaning, a potentially very dangerous development. Trolls, Ben, that's all they are. Professional trolls.
Ben Tell me: do you still 'understand' why some people are antisemitic'? Do you still think there was nothing antisemitic about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denying the Holocaust? Have you worked out which of your freedoms were threatened by the arrest of people planning to blow up a synagogue? And are you going to let anyone post any dissenting comments on your own blog, or your Facebook site? Because if you're not, it's a bit rich to complain when others don't allow you the same priviledge… Jamie SW – if Ben has said he 'understands' why some people are paedophiles/ anti-black/ homophobic/ Islamophobic, would you be so keen to defend him? I suspect not…
So we're supposed to be outraged those Evil Zionist Trolls have censored Ben White, yet understand why Ben White has censored the Zionists? What's the real point you're trying to make?
You mean like the Boston suburb case recently ruled on by the US Supreme court, overuling famous Latina female empathy? There, the municipality's decision ruled unconstitutional in the USA was to ignore the test results by not promoting anyone. I'm sure that helped fire fighting services to the community.
White just pushes the Big Lie Technique and uses doctored quotes to back up his faulty position, then he supports the banning of critics from his meetings, closes down critical comments on his facebook group and is prone to deleting comments on his blog, should they show up his weak arguments. White is not exactly the champion of freedom of speech himself.
Do you understand that being charged with being "antisemitic" accuses any one of being mentally insane, of having not a smidgeon of normalcy, of being mentally defective, of having no intelligence or evidence at all, of being certifiably physically diseased? The assumption is that any antisemite is afflicted with extreme paranoia, hate based on air, and Freudian projectionism? Marx said there was a different reason to account for antisemitism. Of course he was therefore accused of being an antisemite–or rather, a self-hating Jew. Pound echoed him, and as a goy, he earned the pure title of antisemite.
Here's a response to this article: http://seismicshock.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/ben-...
Usury 1.0 – your screenname is Usury, surely a reference to American poet Ezra Pound's antisemitic ideas about usury, if I'm not mistaken? Anyway, Usury, are you suggesting that antisemitism is more than 'hate based on air'? Racism isn't a mental defect but a moral/ethical defect. As a form of racism (anti-Jewish racism), it is wrong. Anyway, this post was addressed to English Literature graduate Ben White, and one looks forward to his response.
I hope you realise that simply capitalising the words "Big" and "Lie" (and in this case "Technique", for some reason) do nothing to persuade or even inform people about the criticism you're making. "he supports the banning of critics from his meetings" Firstly, according to War on Want Hoffman wasn't banned because he was a "critic" but because he has a record of disruptive behaviour. Secondly, according to White he didn't know Hoffman was banned. You may disagree with both of these claims, but to say that you've failed to make a persuasive argument to that effect would be an understatement. "White is not exactly the champion of freedom of speech himself. " I thought it had been established that "free speech" is irrelevant here, since we're talking about privately owned blogs. It is generally considered proper practice, however, to allow an author a right of reply after reviewing his/her book.
My apologies – I thought the issue here was censorship.
"I thought it had been established that "free speech" is irrelevant here" Couldn't have said it better myself…
Really? Because it rather contradicts all the stuff you've been spewing about this. It isn't about "freedom of speech", it's about, among other things, giving a reviewed author a right of reply. Of course one isn't obliged to do this, but it's generally considered proper practice to do so, for obvious reasons.
Zionism is a great enterprise that exceeds in integrity an honor
Philip. there's certainly a case of double standards by antizionists going on. Firstly Mearsheimer and Walt refused to debate with anybody when they first published. Ben White deleted a comment linking to Hoffman's piece in White's facebook page on his book and then threw the member out of the group. War On Want refused to let Hoffman into the meeting. The Jewish Socialist Group in the UK refused to circulate a discussion paper from a long-standing member because it was critical of Hizbolla. The trade union Unison refused to let Trade Union Friends of Israel have a stall at conference even though they had previously always had a stall. Mona Baker a UK boycott leader sacked the ex head of Amnesty Israel from the board of her translation journal because she was an israeli. And the list goes on. So antizionists like to dish it out but as soon as people act in the same way or even just stand up for themselves then it's an antizionist trait to claim they're being silenced by the "zionist lobby. So Philip – with the greatest of respect kindly stop wingeing and moaning like a spoilt brat who can't stand other people having views. And if anti-zionists can't take it then they shouldn't be so hypocritical. The claim of being silenced is an old antisemitic trait thatahas been used by far right opponents of Jewish communities for many years.
One understands the general grumpiness: the "game" as played by the militant Zionist is to have lists on which support for Palestine is noted for organized response by those dedicated to inciting hatred against Palestinians, while a tangent is to booby trap Zionist websites for attacking those so incautious as to comment. Amateur cyberterrorists who believe ideology trumps freedom of speech appear to be of an age where they just don't have the personal freedom to masturbate and find malware gets them off just as well. (Or maybe Mossad is using servers in China and North Korea … who the f*ck knows or cares.) The "game" to juvenile Zionists can be life and death to those under Israel's gun, but mustn't let reality ruin the fun. We'll be the ones defending the Israelis from the maddened crowd – your stupid trolls will have gone on to paying gigs. "Oh, be good to the Zionists, they are all persecuted Jews." Yeah, right; they are using the Jews and they've been found out. Don't like the results – too f*king bad. Boycott Divest Sanction …the stupid, the malicious and the warmongers.