Trending Topics:

Did the BBC cover up the anti-Semitism of Gaza’s children?

Middle East
on 141 Comments

Was the motivation of the broadcaster to avoid diminishing sympathy towards the Palestinians while increasing antipathy towards Israel?

For those that missed the coverage let me bring you up to speed.

According to a report in the Jewish Chronicle, Britain’s oldest and most widely read Jewish newspaper, the BBC substituted the word “Israelis” for “Jews” in its translation of interviews with Palestinian children.

The documentary, Children of the Gaza War, was presented by the BBC’s chief international correspondent Lyse Doucet to mark the first anniversary of the conflict and included extensive and sympathetic interviews by Doucet with both Israeli and Gazan children and their parents.

At one point in the film, a Gazan child says the “yahud” are massacring Palestinians. However the TV subtitles read: “Israel is massacring us”. The Jewish Chronicle pointed out to its readers that the correct translation for “yahud” from Arabic to English is “Jew”.

Lyse Doucet

Lyse Doucet

Lyse Doucet told the JC:

“We talked to people in Gaza, we talked to translators. When [the children] say ‘Jews’, they mean ‘Israelis’. “We felt it was a better translation of it.”

The Jewish Chronicle appears to be raising two very important issues. Are Palestinian children in Gaza antisemitic and can we trust the BBC to be fair to Israel?

Let me attempt to unscramble the thinking (or lack of thinking) going on here.

Listener context

With words (and much else) context is everything.

To Jewish ears, mine included, the pejorative use of the word “Jews” conjures up enough historical baggage to fill the reclaim hall at Ben Gurion airport.

Immediately I’m thinking: ‘Christ killers’, ‘blood libels’, ‘pogroms’ and the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’.

Very soon I’m thinking: ‘Nazis’ and ‘gas chambers’.

If that’s how the children of Gaza think of me, and every other Jew in the world, then doesn’t the BBC have an obligation to tell us? This seems to be what the JC’s article is inferring.

If this is the truth and the children of Gaza are cold hearted, old school, antisemites then they do not deserve the world’s sympathy.

The State of Israel is again entitled to present itself as the victim rather than the villain and as the guardian of Jewish safety against the genocidal intentions of those that seek to harm us.

I’m sure that advocates for the State of Israel would want to update me on my understanding of antisemitism and move me on from its classic Euro-centric brand to its new mutation in the Middle East.

They would no doubt point me to the rhetoric and propaganda of Hamas, its charter, and the views of other more extreme Islamist groups. They would direct me to text books, TV channels, websites and social media to illustrate how widespread is anti-Jewish hatred in the ‘Arab world’. Pogroms and blood libels have been replaced by rockets and terror tunnels.

This was the emotional, political and historical context into which the Jewish Chronicle was happy to pitch its story.

Speaker context

But the speakers, in this case the children of Gaza, have context too. And it’s just as emotional, political and historical.

If the Jewish Chronicle cared to give it a little consideration, it might realise that there are many good reasons why the children interviewed by Doucet would naturally choose the word “yahud” when describing their enemy.

Don’t we call Israel the ‘Jewish State’? Don’t we insist that it is the State not just of its Jewish citizens but of all Jews wherever they may live? Don’t Israeli Prime Minister readily talk as if they represent the interests of the Jewish people around the globe? Don’t our communal leaders throughout the Jewish diaspora act as defenders and apologists whenever Israel faces criticism? The Jewish Chronicle certainly knows that all of this is true. In fact it promotes all of this every week.

So, if you were a Palestinian child in Gaza is it really so unreasonable to think that “Jew” and “Israeli” were interchangeable?

Haven’t we made identification with the State of Israel so central to modern Jewish identity that the Gazan children are only reflecting what we have been saying of ourselves for decades? We are at one with Israel.

I understand that identity politics can be complicated but in accusing the children of antisemitism I think we are trying to have our Jewish nationalist cake and eat it.

But there is plenty more context where this came from.

If you are a child in Gaza then over the last seven years, during three Gaza wars, either you, or a relative, or a friend, are likely to have lost someone close to you, had your home damaged or destroyed, watched your parents lose their business, been forced to move out of your home, had your school or mosque blown-up, had a limb amputated, or been orphaned.

Max Blumenthal's new book on Gaza

Max Blumenthal’s new book on Gaza

If you want a picture of what it was like to be a child in Gaza last summer I’d recommend Max Blumenthal’s The 51 Day War. Blumenthal entered the Strip during the sporadic ceasefires last August, and in the days following the truce, collecting testimonies from children and adults while the memories and the blood were still fresh. He describes entering the ruins of Eastern Shujaiya after Israeli shelling and bombing from F16s: “I began to sense that I was inside a vast crime scene.”

After reading his account, with its eyewitness stories of random killing, casual brutality and deliberate humiliation of civilians, all at the hands of the ‘the most moral army in the world’, it strikes me that it would be miraculous if the children of Gaza had not developed sweeping and indiscriminate views about Jews.

Racism in plentiful supply

So perhaps the children of Gaza are antisemitic. If so, we have given them a great many reasons to be so.

But are we Jews, and Jewish Israelis in particular, free of such charges of racism? On the evidence of last summer it’s a categorical ‘No’.

Don’t we (adults and children) also hold sweeping and indiscriminate views about Arabs, and Palestinians in particular.

The quality of the discourse I heard from the Jewish community in Britain last year was far from up-lifting. It echoed the lines being pumped out by Israeli spin doctors on air and online.

The Palestinians are not like us.

They teach their children to hate.

They do not value life like we do.

And to prove these points the following summary of Palestinian military strategy was put forward:

Israel uses missiles to protect its people while Hamas uses its people to protect its missiles.

It was a propaganda slogan that gave permission for the indiscriminate mayhem unleashed by the Israel Defence Forces from land, sea and air.

The bottom line of all this talk is that the Palestinians are considerably less human than we are.

And in Israel there was far more rabid commentary than this doing the rounds last summer. Not just on Twitter and Facebook (“kill Arab children so there won’t be a next generation”), but from newspaper columnists, academics, Rabbis and all the way up to the Knesset itself. Blumenthal quotes the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset at the time, Moshe Feiglin, who wrote on his Facebook page suggesting mass transfer of Gaza civilians to the Sinai border so that their former homes could be shelled to “exterminate nests of resistance”.

I’m not sure how much Israeli Jewish racism the Jewish Chronicle got around to reporting last summer. If it did, I trust there was no sleight of hand with the translation.

As for trusting the BBC, the corporation gets equally criticised by Palestinian advocates as it does by Zionists. Personally, I think the BBC is not perfect but it gets most things right most if the time. In the grand scheme of things, it is not part of the problem.

To return to Lyse Doucet, her documentary was powerful and she clearly felt for the children on both sides of the divide. But the pictures of devastation in Gaza spoke louder than anything being spoken. It hardly matters how the children choose to label their foes.

What needed no translation in Doucet’s documentary was the trauma still on the faces of Gaza’s children. It’s hard not to think that as time passes the trauma will turn to bitterness and the bitterness to hatred.

What else would you expect?

The upshot of all this is that the Jewish Chronicle has its news priorities seriously skewed along with its ethics.

If the JC really cared about the Jewish future and the safety of the State of Israel it would be calling for Israel to ditch the demonising rhetoric, open the borders to reconstruction in Gaza and start talking to Hamas.

This is not naivety, it is common sense and basic humanity.

This post first appeared a week ago on Patheos, in its Writing From the Edge series, and at Robert Cohen’s site.

 

Robert Cohen
About Robert Cohen

Cohen is a British writer. He blogs at Micah's Paradigm Shift. http://micahsparadigmshift.blogspot.co.uk/

Other posts by .


Posted In:

141 Responses

  1. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    August 1, 2015, 12:18 pm

    “At one point in the film, a Gazan child says the “yahud” are massacring Palestinians.”
    It’s like Amerindians saying “The whites are driving us out”. They don’t necessarily mean that the white people as a broad category are doing this, like whites in Italy, but whites in their specific context in North America.

    • Domino3034
      Domino3034
      August 3, 2015, 9:45 am

      As Robert Cohen says…”the speakers, in this case the children of Gaza, have context too. And it’s just as emotional, political and historical”.
      Historical because the conflict started before the Jewish State became to be called Israel. So the struggle was with the Jews or Yahud
      Political because the Palestinians do not recognize the state of Israel. So they remain as yahud.
      Emotional because they hear their parents call yahud as the enemy and the children experience it at first hand

    • August 3, 2015, 10:46 am

      Robert writes “So perhaps the children of Gaza are antisemitic. If so, we have given them a great many reasons to be so.

      There is no “perhaps” about it. There are oceans of horrible Jews in Israel. But of course not all Jews are horrible. The word antisemitism has been ruined by the horrible Jews, some of them even in the USA and elsewhere. They have used the word antisemite without thought and reason, in order to intimidate and silence good people who criticized them. So if the kids in Palestine call them Jews they are correct and justified in doing so as far as I am concerned. The word antisemite means nothing in the current Israel and Palestine, given the current behavior of the Israeli government. Spitting hairs about who is an antisemite is total joke when an IDF Colonel jumps out of his truck and shoots a Palestinian stone-thrower in the back. If this Colonel called me an antisemite I would be proud.

  2. a blah chick
    a blah chick
    August 1, 2015, 12:21 pm

    Most Zionists did not have a problem with Israeli troops carving Stars of David everywhere they went in Gaza. And if they do they need to take it up with the butchers in Jerusalem.

    • ziusudra
      ziusudra
      August 2, 2015, 2:54 am

      Greetings blah chick,
      I beg to ask, regardless of the subject matter, we’re led to only talk of them, their trials & tribulations while it is in this topic the devastation to the Palestinians.
      Historically, the Judeans founded the 2nd Kingdom of Judea, they were known as Judean subjects of said kingdom.
      Different languages convey the same meaning. Judean, Judah, Giu, Jew, Jud, Juif, etc. Where’s the Insult? What’s derogatory? A term is a term is a term.
      World Jewry claims to be Semites, they are, they speak modern Herbrew as of 1922AD, but they are Europeans professing to Judaism & 40% are Israeli Citizens. This is their identity.
      Does Mr. Cohen deem himself a British Jew or is it we who speak of him?
      ziusudra
      PS The Palestinians aren’t complaining about Judaism. They complain about Israelis, Judah, in their Semitic term.
      PPS Anyone within World Jewry could ask why is anyone against them?
      It won’t be because of Judaism or Euro. DNA, but because of what has happened to the indigenous people of Palestine since the 1930s.

  3. just
    just
    August 1, 2015, 12:22 pm

    Solid article, Robert.

    The Jewish Chronicle has an obvious agenda and mission, doesn’t it? I thought I remembered something from last summer’s massacre related to TJC and here it is, from wiki:

    “In 2014 the paper published an advertisement for the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Gaza appeal, for which it received complaints from a significant number of readers. The editor issued an apology for the publication of the advert,[7] stating that the paper’s position was supportive of Operation Protective Edge, and that he did not accept the generally published figures on the number of civilian casualties, believing many were terrorists. The editorial stated that “Almost alone in the British media the JC has stressed Israel’s right to defend herself and sought to explain why Israel was faced with no choice but to take action in Gaza.”[8]”

    I’ve long appreciated Lyse Doucet’s reporting. I accept her rational explanation.

    I agree with your argument with regard to the “Jewish State”, etc. Do the children and people of Gaza think of Max Blumenthal, Dan Cohen, Amira Hass, Alex Levac, Gideon Levy, etc. as the enemy?

    NO.

    Thanks, Robert.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 3, 2015, 9:28 am

      Solid article, Robert.

      @ Robert and Just. I would have simply said that “Out of the mouths of babes oft times come gems.”

      The Jewish Chronicle itself has written articles that call attention to the “hayalim bodedim (lone soldiers) who are here [serving in the IDF] FROM ABROAD”. (emphasis added) http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/yom-hazikaron-most-heartbreaking-day-year

      So, I can’t completely agree with the approach taken in the article. For example: So, if you were a Palestinian child in Gaza is it really so unreasonable to think that “Jew” and “Israeli” were interchangeable?

      It’s just a FACT of life for these kids that many of the refugees living in Gaza still belong to families or clans that are comprised, in large part, of so-called “Israeli Arabs”, who do not serve in the IDF.

      Conversely, tens of thousands of gun-toting HOSTILE FOREIGN JEWS have ALWAYS been part of the illegal settlement enterprise and/or members of the brotherhood of Hagana/IDF “lone soldiers”. It isn’t anti-Semetic when the Jewish or Israeli press brags about them and calls them “Jews”, e.g.:
      * “2 American Jews among IDF dead in Gaza combat” – http://www.timesofisrael.com/soldiers-from-texas-california-killed-in-gaza-combat/
      * “The American Settler You Don’t Know” – http://www.haaretz.com/beta/the-american-settler-you-don-t-know-1.388640
      *”Mickey” Marcus, a US citizen and US Army Officer, was appointed the first General of the Israeli Army in 1947 under the assumed name “Michael Stone”. – https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/marcus.html
      *Michael Oren served as an officer in the Israel Defense Forces, in the paratroopers in the Lebanon War, and as an IDF spokesman during the Second Lebanon War and the Gaza operation in January 2009. But he didn’t renounce his US citizenship, until the day he subsequently accepted the position to serve as Israel’s Ambassador to the USA. – http://www.israelemb.org/washington/AboutTheEmbassy/Pages/former-ambassador-michael-oren.aspx
      *Jefferey Goldberg served as a prison guard in an infamous IDF concentration camp in the Negev during the 1st Intifada. http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/books/prisoners/

      These, and thousands of other “Jews”, have always participated directly in the mayhem unleashed on the children of Palestine or their family members.

      • just
        just
        August 3, 2015, 10:04 am

        You’ve nailed it again, Hostage.

        “These, and thousands of other “Jews”, have always participated directly in the mayhem unleashed on the children of Palestine or their family members.”

        It’s a critical fact that should never be forgotten, and your point that “The Jewish Chronicle itself has written articles that call attention to the “hayalim bodedim (lone soldiers) who are here [serving in the IDF] FROM ABROAD” is an important one.

        Further, the children may not know it now, but there are entire organizations comprised of Jewish people and many wealthy individual Jews outside of Israel who are hell- bent on supplying the armaments, the money, and the unflagging support for those that unleash the mayhem and death “on the children of Palestine or their family members.”

        They’ll know it one day, and wonder why and what they did to deserve it.

  4. Bandolero
    Bandolero
    August 1, 2015, 12:31 pm

    Well.

    Don’t we call Israel the ‘Jewish State’? Don’t we insist that it is the State not just of its Jewish citizens but of all Jews wherever they may live? Don’t Israeli Prime Minister readily talk as if they represent the interests of the Jewish people around the globe? …
    So, if you were a Palestinian child in Gaza is it really so unreasonable to think that “Jew” and “Israeli” were interchangeable?

    Of course, this is true. The children are innocent and Zionists claiming to represent “the jews” have no ground to damn it being anti-semitic when perpetrators of zionist crimes are identified as “the jews.”

    However, I’m off the opinion that there is one angle missing in this story. When children call those who commit the massacres “the jews” they didn’t invent that sectarian language, but they got it somewhere: from family, TV and political and cultural leaders. Taking into account that “family” usually gets their language from TV and political and cultural leaders, take out the family here, and look on to mass media and political and cultural leaders.

    Be sure it’s not Israeli political and cultural leaders and not Israeli TV where they get that sectarian language from. These Israeli media and leaders spread that sectarian message, but the families of the children talk arabic. So, be sure, it’s Arab political and cultural leaders and mass media spreading the sectarian language.

    Now, it’s not hard to find it: take Hamas, Egypt brotherhood politicians, clerics, GCC media, and others, many of them use that sectarian language. They cannot claim innocence. Over and over they are being told that sectarian language is disgusting, wrong and harmful to the struggle of Palestinians. What they do amounts to treason, treason against the struggle of Palestine and treason against peace in West Asia and Northern Africa.

    Over and over again, people from Neturei Karta, Jews against Zionism and many more tell them that zionism is not judaism, and that Israel lays a false claim on judaism and Israel is not acting in the name of “the jews.” At the PLO, in Iran, Hisbollah, Syria and other independent countries the message was received well, and it is well understood that to win a struggle, the opponents – or enemies in case of war – shall as group be defined as narrow as possible, so as to have as few enemies as possible. So Iran, Hisbollah, Syria and so on teach their people to struggle against zionism and takfirism, not judaism and sunna.

    In most regional countries allied with the US, however, that logic is known, but wilfully ignored. TV, preachers and politicians in these US-aligned countries, GCC, Egypt, Jordan, often speak in sectarian terms, and define opponents as wide as jews, Shia or infidels, and often all of them together. To me it’s pretty obvious, that this is a willfully and treasenous strategy in betting on xenophobia to sabotage the liberation of Palestine and the struggle to end colonialism in the arab world, executed by the political leaders of these US-allied countries – who are often also on good terms with Israel. Of course, Israel is on good terms with the anti-semites in the arab world, as almost everywhere, because anti-semitism is the life elixier of Zionism.

    The children of Gaza, interviewed by the BBC, blaming the jews for the Israeli massacres, were duped be these arab traitors, as well as their families where they got this sectarian junk from.

    • ritzl
      ritzl
      August 1, 2015, 2:31 pm

      Dunno, Bandolero. Maybe the Arab media reinforces and/or hardens the attitudes of these kids, but all these kids have to do is look up at the Star of David painted on the aircraft/tank/ship/uniform that just killed their family (or as someone already mentioned, drawn in feces on their living room wall) and that PoV is slammed in place.

      Pretty organic, imo.

      • Bandolero
        Bandolero
        August 1, 2015, 4:36 pm

        ritzl

        I don’t dispute that the primary responsibility for the sectarian, anti-semitic world views often seen in the arab world lies with Israel, and especially the monsterous Israeli claim that Israel commits all her actions and crimes in the name of all the jews in the world.

        However, there is also a great responsibility of those arab regimes, mass media and cultural/religious leaders who lend credence to that preposterous claim of their supposed enemy Israel.

        It doesn’t need to be like this that the enemy is perceived “the jews.” If it were not repeated so often in the arab world every Palestianian child would laugh about such a stupid claim. The children might say: “You want to tell me that the jews are the enemy of Palestine? So you want to tell me that our jewish PLO brother Ilan Halevi was an enemy of Palestine? Go away, he’s a brother in arms standing with Palestine. We know that our enemy is not the jews and the followers of the divine religion of judaism, but Zionism, an evil perversion of humanity.”

        It would be as simple as that, and to great benefit for the Palestinian cause. That however, again and again, instead of Israel “the jews” are projected as enemy of Palestine, just like Israel wants it, is without collaboration of arab leaders – especially those geopolitically aligned with the US – unimaginable. To me, it points to a purposeful design, social engeneering in the service of Israel at work.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        August 1, 2015, 8:39 pm

        Bandolero, I agree with you if you’re saying that the difference between anti-semitism and, say, warranted extreme dislike, is the difference between hating* the 95% of local Jews who either don’t care if your family is slaughtered and/or actively participate in killing them, and lumping the 5% who do NOT in with them.

        I agree that Arabic and Persian media push pretty hard and incessantly on the latter. Classic “bread and circuses” delection stuff, as much for domestic consumption as anything (imho).

        Maybe the quibble I have is that the Palestinians don’t seem to buy into it to any great degree because as so many people have commented here already, their daily lives embrace the 5% as well. They’re living both sides of the embrace.

        To me that’s a huge credit to the Palestinians that they don’t succumb, and it’s a similarly amazing phenom that the efforts of the Jewish 5% mean as much to the Palestinians as the malice of the 95%.

        That’s my perception anyway. Maybe some of the Palestinian contributors here can provide more/better insights.

        —–
        * I use the word hate because I have no idea how life in Gaza would affect me. Hate may be too strong.

    • Bumblebye
      Bumblebye
      August 1, 2015, 7:33 pm

      The answer to the JC’s whiney article should be as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. The children trapped in Gaza – and others around them who might use “yahud” too – are not using the word in its religious sense, but to denote the *nationality* that those who perpetrate these attacks on them claim. So that’s how it was translated. JC can’t claim ignorance of this, so didn’t even bother mentioning it – thus the article must have been intended to manipulate the ignorant among their readership!

      • just
        just
        August 1, 2015, 7:38 pm

        Well stated, Bumblebye!

      • straightline
        straightline
        August 2, 2015, 2:36 am

        Agreed ritzl and Bornajoo (and others) – all the Gazan children were doing was repeating what they could read on the Israeli passports of the soldiers who were setting about trying to kill them under the heading “Nationality”. Period!

        As to the BBC, ever since the Hutton report (and perhaps before), it has become a tool of the Zionist (of its own admission) UK government.

        http://www.jpost.com/International/Cameron-declares-himself-a-Zionist

      • turveyd
        turveyd
        August 3, 2015, 10:49 am

        I don’t think Israelis discriminate between Arabs and Moslems….just saying.

      • diasp0ra
        diasp0ra
        August 5, 2015, 7:51 am

        This is exactly it. Bumblebye.

        In Palestine Yahud very seldom refers to the religious group and literally means Israeli in the colloquial terms. You have to remember that this term stems from before the creation of Israel when they were just “Jews” (as they identified themselves to the Palestinians) before Israel was established. This term has remained.

        It’s quite easy to spot someone who has never talked in detail with Palestinians, or understands our culture, our history and our context. If someone spoke with a Palestinian in Palestine for 10 minutes it would be crystal clear that any talk about Yahud refers only to Israel. And why shouldn’t it? Isn’t that how they keep identifying themselves and shoving it down our throats? Isnt there no Israeli nationality, but a citizenship based on religious belonging? Aren’t the Israeli pilots that kill the children almost exclusively Jewish?

        The second point, with regards to antisemitism:

        Anti-Semitism is the irrational hatred of Jewish people, culture and anything Jewish ONLY because they are Jewish, and for no other reason.

        I don’t think you can classify Palestinians under that flag. It’s natural for people to hate their oppressors, no matter what religious group they belong to.

        It’s as ridiculous as claiming that the anti-Apartheid movement on part of the indigenous South Africans was fueled purely by anti-white hatred, and had nothing to do with their oppression.

        This narrative of natural enmity between Arabs (Muslims mainly) and Jews needs to end, it’s a very recent thing and has no bearing on history. But if you heard the pro-Israeli crowd talking you’d think we are born hating each other, rather than it being a result of political realities.

      • annie
        annie
        August 5, 2015, 11:35 am

        i agree diasp0ra

  5. amigo
    amigo
    August 1, 2015, 12:48 pm

    “Haven’t we made identification with the State of Israel so central to modern Jewish identity that the Gazan children are only reflecting what we have been saying of ourselves for decades? We are at one with Israel. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/semitism-gazas-children#sthash.J6SIxf05.dpuf” RC

    But when Israel,s apologists claim Israel is surrounded by a sea of Arabs or run to the pols, the Arabs are going in droves or Arab terrorism or Arab intransigence or Arab hatred blah , blah, blah , thats no issue. Apparently Israeli Jewish children refer to Jordanians or Palestinians or Lebanese , etc etc.I should darn well think ,the children of Gaza hate the people who imprison them and bomb their homes and schools and hospitals and spray them with skunk juice and beat them up .Why would it be such an unusual thing for them to hate “The Jewish State”.Hell , I hate “The Jewish State because of it,s policies and actions.So if I say I hate Israel all will be forgiven.This is just sem-antics by people who are scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to divert attention from their evil deeds.

    .

    • michelle
      michelle
      August 1, 2015, 5:45 pm

      .
      it’s been my experience that children don’t hate
      children don’t want to be hurt
      children don’t want the people who make their lives happy and safe to be hurt
      children want the people who hurt people/others to just stop
      children want to be able to love. trust and look forward to a happy and safe tomorrow(s) for every & all
      .
      G-d Bless
      .

  6. Tom Suarez
    Tom Suarez
    August 1, 2015, 12:50 pm

    Thanks to Israel, the only Jews people in Gaza ever see are invading Israeli soldiers. Why should their choice of word be surprising?

    • annie
      annie
      August 1, 2015, 1:04 pm

      i’ll never forget being surrounded by schoolchildren in gaza when a boy about 7 or 8 lifted his shirt and showed me a big diagonal scar across his stomach. he pointed at it and said “jew”. i winced, but knew he was telling me the truth. it was a jew who did that to him.

    • michelle
      michelle
      August 1, 2015, 5:58 pm

      .
      thanks to ‘Israel’ too many people believe;
      the Palestines/Arabs are ‘all’ terrorists
      the only Semites are Jewish
      the only a-bombs in the Middle East are in Iran
      the I-deal is a death sentence to America
      .
      G-d Bless
      .

  7. Fritz
    Fritz
    August 1, 2015, 1:02 pm

    “If this is the truth and the children of Gaza are cold hearted, old school, antisemites then they do not deserve the world’s sympathy.”

    What means “they do not deserve sympathy”? Isn’t that the Netanyahu argument? We can deny human rights / imprison / kill an anti-semite. Or most often: when we want to deny human rights / imprison / kill someone we have to show that he is an anti-Semite?

    • ritzl
      ritzl
      August 1, 2015, 2:14 pm

      Yeah, Fritz. That one jumped out at me too. WTF?!

      I don’t know if it was meant as a simple, declarative fact or as a purely dismissable rhetorical pivot point/device/foil. The latter is bad enough as the disclaimer is TOTALLY unwarranted, but if the former, an unforgivable expression of the merciless, murderous, maniacal cheering section for slaughter that lurks just beneath the surface of even on the Jewish left (who this author would seem to count himself among).

      I’m probably in the minority here, but to me this article is a textbook example of the banality of “balance” as a perpetuator of ongoing evil. It all seems so rational.

      I don’t see this topic as even as the slightest bit relevant to any solution to the screaming problem of Jews killing Palestinians by the thousands on a regular and planned basis, for no reason whatsoever. The tone and word choices here imply that there might just be a reason for that slaughter. Very off-putting.

      I don’t get a sense even of what value this strident balancing act has even in an intra-Jewish context, except to show why such deeply-embedded equivocation makes it highly unlikely that, with a handful of notable, unequivocating exceptions (many here), Jews are very unlikely to lead (from concept to conclusion) any effort for Palestinian justice. Too thin-skinned. Too willing to walk away when the going gets rough (as this article implies, in one of the things it does get absolutely right, is coming).

      Oh well.

      ——

      PS MW Editors, the title to this article reads as a rhetorically suggested FACT on Twitter. I hope you can massage it some so there is more of a overt questioning of the assertion for headline readers.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        August 1, 2015, 2:18 pm

        I wish I could edit on the phone. I’d take out a lot of the “even”s. Sorry.

      • just
        just
        August 1, 2015, 2:32 pm

        Points taken, ritzl. I actually had to read the article twice, because I did think I misinterpreted it the first time.

        Thank you.

      • annie
        annie
        August 1, 2015, 2:55 pm

        just, my first instinct (in rejection) when i read the title and the opening of the article was ‘the bbc did not change jews to israelis to protect palestinians, they did it to protect jews’. jews don’t like reading or hearing the term jew relating to massacre or bad things. period. so, to tell the story they changed it for their own protection/sensibility — not to protect the children.

        as the author states

        To Jewish ears, mine included, the pejorative use of the word “Jews” conjures up enough historical baggage to fill the reclaim hall at Ben Gurion airport.

        and i think the author’s own logic supports this idea although he never comes out and expresses it as such.

        and really, what difference does it make if children getting bombed to smithereens and watching their family members die left and right call those bombing them ‘jews’. so what? as the author states

        The upshot of all this is that the Jewish Chronicle has its news priorities seriously skewed along with its ethics.

        If the JC really cared about the Jewish future and the safety of the State of Israel it would be calling for Israel to ditch the demonising rhetoric, open the borders to reconstruction in Gaza and start talking to Hamas.

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/semitism-gazas-children/comment-page-1#comment-786538

        and shame on the bbc to pandering to the sensitivities of jews by mistranslating the childrens words.

        all jews, instead of so many continually playing the victim card, need to grasp that the actions of israel is the direct cause of a LOT of anti semitism in the world. quit scapegoating others for the end results of those actions. as i pointed out here (3rd time in the last few days) http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/palestinian-toddler-settler#comment-786359

        the report avoids the word “anti-Semitism” when describing these attacks as consequences of Israeli actions. No less curious, there’s an earlier chapter in the report, Chapter 8, that’s devoted exclusively to the rise in European anti-Semitism, essentially referring to those same attacks. But Chapter 8 never mentions the testimony by European Jewish leaders in Chapter 9 about a link between Israeli actions and attacks on European Jews. “Anti-Semitism” and “Israeli actions” don’t appear in the same chapter.

        In a way, the reticence is understandable. Drawing a causal link … between any anti-Semitism and any Jewish behavior, for that matter — is taboo in current Jewish discourse, to the point that suggesting it is itself treated frequently as an anti-Semitic act. It must have been frightening for scholars operating in this environment to stumble across first-hand testimony that the link is real.

        from How Israeli Wars Hurt Diaspora Jews:
        http://forward.com/opinion/317923/israeli-study-finds-jews-fretful-as-israeli-actions-stir-bias/

      • just
        just
        August 1, 2015, 3:22 pm

        Thanks, Annie.

        You make great sense, as usual. Upon further reflection, I agree with “shame on the bbc to pandering to the sensitivities of jews by mistranslating the childrens words.”

  8. amigo
    amigo
    August 1, 2015, 1:38 pm

    Isnt,t part of this problem caused by Israel,s insistence that no deal will be made with the Palestinians, (there won,t be in any event) until , they , the Palestinians recognise the “Jewish State.Hell these kids are doing just that .

  9. John Douglas
    John Douglas
    August 1, 2015, 2:14 pm

    500 children slaughtered in Gaza last summer by Israeli bombs and missiles. But wait! Don’t you know that Gaza’s children are anti-semites? There seems no limit to the stupidity of the pro-Zionist’s attempts to change the subject, divert the eyes of the world from the slaughter of children?

    So US drones attack “terrorists” in Pakistan when in fact it was a wedding party. A child who survives says to a reporter, “The Americans killed my family.” Do we gloat, “Notice how the child blames ‘Americans’ and not ‘the drone pilots’! That child an anti-American bigot. What utter nonsense!

    • Stephen Shenfield
      Stephen Shenfield
      August 1, 2015, 5:11 pm

      Yes, this is the ordinary way people talk in any national conflict. No doubt many survivors of the Holocaust have said: “The Germans killed my family” without anyone making a big fuss about it, even though it would be fairer to anti-fascist Germans to say: “The Nazis killed my family. I know there were many decent Germans who hated the Nazis as much as we did.” And a few did say that, but unfortunately not many.

      So if Palestinians refer (and have always referred since the conflict began) to their opponents as Yahud/Jews, that just means they do the same as members of all national groups always do under comparable circumstances. And if we are talking about children then it is unreasonable to expect them to draw fine political distinctions that have no basis in their experience.

      I admit that if the bombs and missiles that rained down on Gaza came not from Jews in Israel but (let’s say) from a Martian spaceship (clearly marked as such), then blaming Jews might well be attributable to anti-Semitism. But first the premise must be proven.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        August 1, 2015, 5:33 pm

        Finally some sense.
        Let’s add one more thing: if anyone out there is not even a bit ashamed of being Jewish, something is wrong in his make-up.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        August 2, 2015, 5:02 am

        You’ll have to explain that to me, echinococcus.

        To be ashamed one would have to see oneself as in some way sharing the guilt for the evil.

        If we think (as I do) that being Jewish is voluntary, then continuing to count oneself as a member of – and thus a supporter of – a group that enables and encourages such deeds is a deliberate sharing of the guilt.

        But if we think of being Jewish as involuntary and inescapable, a result of birth, then being a member does not imply being a supporter, and in that case there is no sharing of the guilt.

        If a Jew holds the involuntarist view, I do not think that lack of shame necessarily implies a flaw in character.

      • eljay
        eljay
        August 2, 2015, 3:01 pm

        || echinococcus: Finally some sense. Let’s add one more thing: if anyone out there is not even a bit ashamed of being Jewish, something is wrong in his make-up. ||

        IMO, non-Zionist Jews should not be ashamed of the actions of hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist Jews and non-Jews.

        Therefore, I would say: If anyone out there is not even a bit ashamed of being a Zio-supremacist, something is wrong in his make-up.

      • just
        just
        August 2, 2015, 4:01 pm

        +1, eljay!

      • annie
        annie
        August 2, 2015, 4:06 pm

        Let’s add one more thing

        let’s not. let’s not push the envelope right off the cliff.

      • German Lefty
        German Lefty
        August 3, 2015, 4:03 am

        echinococcus – “if anyone out there is not even a bit ashamed of being Jewish, something is wrong in his make-up.”

        WHAT? Do you expect me to be ashamed of being German because of Nazism? Hopefully not.

        RoHa – “If we think (as I do) that being Jewish is voluntary, then continuing to count oneself as a member of – and thus a supporter of – a group that enables and encourages such deeds is a deliberate sharing of the guilt.”

        I disagree with you. You totally equate Jewishness with Zionism. Being a Jew is not the same as being a Zionist. Numerous people become Jewish because they like Judaism, not Zionism. Besides, you don’t need to be(come) a Jew in order to support Zionism.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        August 3, 2015, 8:48 pm

        RoHa and Eljay,

        I wrote you a short, reasoned answer day before yesterday.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        August 4, 2015, 4:03 am

        “You totally equate Jewishness with Zionism. Being a Jew is not the same as being a Zionist. ”

        It seems to me that the vast majority of modern Jews support Israel and the evil it commits. Thus, anyone who chooses to be a Jew chooses to associate him/herself with that group, even if s/he does not support Israel. Such a person should feel shame for associating with evil.

        Choosing to be a Jew does not only mean converting to Judaism. It also means accepting the idea that a person born to a Jewish mother and brought up to be a Jew can, nonetheless, stop being a Jew, and yet not stopping.

        A Jew who believes it is not possible to stop being a Jew, and who does not support Israel, has no cause for shame. He is not choosing the association with evil, because he does not believe there is a choice.

        Zionists who are not Jews have chosen evil, and should feel shame.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        August 4, 2015, 4:04 am

        Sorry, echinococcus. I can’t find it.

      • eljay
        eljay
        August 4, 2015, 7:00 am

        || RoHa: Sorry, echinococcus. I can’t find it. ||

        Same here.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 4, 2015, 1:30 pm

        “Let’s add one more thing: if anyone out there is not even a bit ashamed of being Jewish, something is wrong in his make-up.

        So that’s why Debbie Wasserman Schultz puts her eye-liner on upside down! I should have known.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        August 5, 2015, 9:34 am

        RoHa, Eljay: I know you can’t, so we’ll do it elsewhere if ever.

  10. Kris
    Kris
    August 1, 2015, 2:53 pm

    Does “anti-semitism” mean anything at all in this century? As far as I can tell, claims of “anti-semitism” are nothing but an attempt by Zionist Jews to secure the badge of special victimhood to themselves to deflect criticism of their crimes against the Palestinians.

    In most western countries, including the U.S., Jews are a wealthy, privileged, influential minority. The Holocaust ended in 1945, and most countries (not including Israel, of course) have outlawed racial/religious discrimination. If there are racial or religious crimes against Jews, they are prosecuted.

    If Zionist Jews are upset because people generally don’t like murderers and thieves, they should change their behavior instead of claiming religious/racial persecution.

    It is not yet a crime to tell a Zionist that his support of Israel reflects poorly on him, however “threatened” he may claim to feel by such an observation.

    Beating the dead horse of special victimhood while the bodies of your victims pile up is arrogant and clueless in the extreme.

    • MHughes976
      MHughes976
      August 1, 2015, 3:46 pm

      I think that anti-Semitism is a reasonable term for prejudice against Jews – not the same as rational objection to the actions of people who are in fact Jewish.
      If people whose families have been eliminated by people who are in fact Jewish identify those responsible as Jewish people their statement is not untrue: that it results from prejudice rather than rational observation of fact is quite hard to argue.
      Which is not to deny that prejudice against Jewish people sadly exists and should be rebutted wherever it is found.
      That this choice of words somehow makes the children of Gaza guilty people, with no good reason to object to what has been done to them or their relatives, is a preposterous and monstrous idea.

  11. tokyobk
    tokyobk
    August 1, 2015, 4:12 pm

    When Palestinians say “Yahud” it should be translated as “Jew” full stop.

    The emotional and political consequences and implications for every group are important but only secondarily.

    Meanwhile, the “special victimhood” claim is an old canard, stretching from a time where Jews were indeed experiencing discrimination and violence. If the Jews would just stop being Jews and claiming to be discriminated against it would all go away. Old argument predating Israel by centuries. Anti-semtiism doesn’t need Israel.

    There is no comparison between prejudice experienced by African Americans and by Jews in America, however saying that “anti-Semitism” is a superfluous or special term (itself aggressive) is not only the above described ancient tactic, but exactly like the lame #alllivesmatter retort to #blacklivesmatter. What its claiming (beyond these Jews and their constant kvetching) is — your particular is already covered by our definition of universal.

    Thats not true for any minority group, not just Jews. Each has its own particular relationship with the world and the majority, and the majority tends to like to blame minority for not properly assimilating.

    • diasp0ra
      diasp0ra
      August 5, 2015, 7:56 am

      “When Palestinians say “Yahud” it should be translated as “Jew” full stop. ”

      I disagree. Anyone who knows anything about Palestinian Arabic would tell you that Yahud 99% of the time refers to Israelis. I say this as someone who works as a translator for colloquial Palestinian Arabic.

  12. tokyobk
    tokyobk
    August 1, 2015, 4:18 pm

    The emotional and political consequences and implications for every group are important but only secondarily.

    Meaning:

    1) the truth matters and should be presented.
    2) If violence is done to Palestinians in the name of Jews than Jews will have to accept that it is reasonable for Palestinian children to conclude Jews are bad people.
    3) If Palestinian rhetoric has elements of anti-semitism that needs to be out front as well.

    Finally, I do believe strongly that the lives of any people are more important than the feelings of others, so it would not matter to me if the kids were quoting Hitler, it makes their lives and property no less valuable. (after peace an justice I will debate them about anti-semitism).

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      August 2, 2015, 11:23 am

      Oh, for Gawd’s sake “tokyobk”, take a little responsibility. Just a tiny bit. Just enough, maybe, to not want to excoriate or “debate” Palestinian children.

    • tree
      tree
      August 3, 2015, 4:39 pm

      Why wait? Why not debate American Jewish kids who exhibit eliminationist racism now? You’d probably have more believability speaking to them as a fellow Jew than a Palestinian or any other non-Jew would. Such debates might even hasten the day of peace and justice. Why wait for Jewish prejudice to end on its own?

  13. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson
    August 1, 2015, 4:38 pm

    RE: According to a report in the Jewish Chronicle, Britain’s oldest and most widely read Jewish newspaper, the BBC substituted the word “Israelis” for “Jews” in its translation of interviews with Palestinian children… At one point in the film, a Gazan child says the “yahud” are massacring Palestinians. However the TV subtitles read: “Israel is massacring us”. The Jewish Chronicle pointed out to its readers that the correct translation for “yahud” from Arabic to English is “Jew”. ~ Robert Cohen

    MY COMMENT: If the BBC had translated “yahud” as “Jew” rather than “Israeli” so as to place the blame for the devastation in Gaza on “Jews” rather than “Israelis”, couldn’t the BBC have been accused of fomenting anti-Semitism? I can easily imagine the ADL (or The Board of Deputies of British Jews) criticizing the BBC for inciting anti-Semitism by using “Jews” rather than “Israelis”.

    • tokyobk
      tokyobk
      August 1, 2015, 9:35 pm

      I think of course you are right that someone would have said something like that but we shouldn’t cater to those who will make extreme interpretations in the name of their politics.

      To give avery neutral example of my point:

      An early translator of the Tale of Genji thought to put chairs into the story in translation.

      Why chairs?

      Because he did not think any Westerner would believe that aristocrats anywhere would sit directly on the floor as Heian era (and later) nobles did.

      Fortunately, this did not become a trend.

      So, should translators change things for the context of the reader/listener or express the worldview of the speaker/writer? As much as possible I think not.

      • tokyobk
        tokyobk
        August 1, 2015, 9:36 pm

        As much as possible I think the second of those.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        August 1, 2015, 10:06 pm

        tokyobk,

        If you want, as you say, express the worldview of the speaker/writer, then the translation of “Jew” as used by Palestinians can only be “Zionist illegal invader”. No other likely interpretation. If you want to change things for the context of the reader/listener you’ll have to use the same, as there is no difference in reflecting the user’s world view and adapting language to the context of the reader. One doesn’t have to be a translator to figure that out in a split second.
        The alternate, propaganda translation of “Jewish person” is neither accurate nor even related to what it expresses.

  14. Keith
    Keith
    August 1, 2015, 4:57 pm

    ROBERT COHEN- “To Jewish ears, mine included, the pejorative use of the word “Jews” conjures up enough historical baggage to fill the reclaim hall at Ben Gurion airport….Immediately I’m thinking: ‘Christ killers’, ‘blood libels’, ‘pogroms’ and the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’….Very soon I’m thinking: ‘Nazis’ and ‘gas chambers’.”

    Oh really? And why are you so traumatized by the word “Jews?” How many pogroms, concentration camps, and gas chambers have you actually experienced? How long will Jews claim some sort of special victimhood? What purpose does your self-induced victimhood serve?

    ROBERT COHEN- “If this is the truth and the children of Gaza are cold hearted, old school, antisemites then they do not deserve the world’s sympathy.”

    WOW!!! Hard to know how to respond to this. In the second half of the article you redeem yourself somewhat, but that still leaves the question of how you can still see yourself as a victim? The story in the Jewish Chronicale doesn’t say this or even infer this. It is a very brief recap of the Jews versus Israelis issue, the word “anti-Semitism” doesn’t appear. Even to bring up the issue of anti-Semitism in regards to these children strikes me as perverse. I leave the final words to Noam Chomsky.

    “There is, evidently, much satisfaction to be gained by careful inspection of those writhing under our boot, to see if they are behaving properly; when they are not, as is often the case, indignation is unconstrained.” (Noam Chomsky)

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      August 2, 2015, 4:01 am

      “The story in the Jewish Chronicale doesn’t say this or even infer this. ”

      The story in the Jewsih Chronicle does not imply this. But apparently RC managed to infer it.

      And how self-obsessed, how convinced of the supreme importance of Jews, must he be to declare that anti-Semitism is so egregiously evil an attitude that even a child who has that attitude no longer deserves moral consideration!

  15. Shmuel
    Shmuel
    August 1, 2015, 5:03 pm

    “Israelis” is a very reasonable translation of “Yahood” in this context. It’s what Palestinians call their oppressors. Arguably, to translate “the Jews”, in English, would have been misleading. The decision can certainly be questioned or debated, but to ascribe some sort of ulterior motives to it is really over the top.

    I’ve been in situations, as an Israeli Jew in a group of Israeli Jews, where Palestinians (especially children) have described some form of violence against them (usually by the army or settlers) as having been perpetrated by “al-yahood”. They certainly didn’t mean me or the sympathetic groups that had come to help them replant or rebuild.

    • tokyobk
      tokyobk
      August 1, 2015, 6:28 pm

      I defer humbly to your specific experience but in general, with translation, I think its a mistake to translate inaccurately in the name of trying to be more accurate. “al-yahood” does not mean Zionist or Israeli.

      Related, documentaries about the Pacific Theatre started in about the 90’s to edit out or even overdub the word “Jap” used by American soldiers recalling their experience of 50 years prior because in the American political context this would have not only caused angry phone calls and letters but (similar to what I think you are saying) would have made the soldiers less sympathetic. I thought that was a mistake as much as I hate that word. “Japs” too may have only meant the hated enemy not every Japanese person.

      • gamal
        gamal
        August 1, 2015, 7:17 pm

        “I defer humbly to your specific experience but in general, with translation, I think its a mistake to translate inaccurately in the name of trying to be more accurate”

        oh

        “al-yahood” does not mean Zionist or Israeli.”

        you are not deferring then, despite your assurance that you were, what does it mean on the lips of these children?

        Yes Americans and Japanaese, how exact, yes overdubbing is the sine qua of anti-racism, how many Jap soldiers did American civilians have to contend with, have you seen “bad day at blackrock”(there are Jews in it)

        how perfectly it captures the relationship between Israeli’s and Palestinians, you have no shame at all, give me gush emunim any day or even ateret cohanim.

    • just
      just
      August 1, 2015, 7:37 pm

      Thanks, Shmuel.

  16. pshoben
    pshoben
    August 1, 2015, 7:40 pm

    Robert, you are right that BBC receives criticism from both sides, and it is of course within its charter to remain objective, not to take sides.

    However I disagree with your assertion that BBC is ‘not part of the problem’. The fact is that a very latrge number of english people, including many politicians (judging by their Westminster statements) rely on the BBC to inform their judgement.

    Lyse Doucet’s assertion (on twitter) that everyone already knows the wider context – with the implication that in her program she had no obligation to mention e.g. the occupation, the daily ceasefire violations, administrative detentions, the *killings* before and after OPE, or explain even the slightest aspect of the wider context – is patently untrue.

    Her program represents a very moving, very skillful framing of the 3rd Gaza Massacre as conflict of two equal sides. The closing caption of the program, invoking the cynical explanation of ‘self-defence in response to rockets’ message – the same cheap talking point rolled out in Westminster time and again, was simply shameful.

    • just
      just
      August 1, 2015, 7:53 pm

      Thanks for that review, Stan. How terribly disappointing.

      I have not seen it, from what you relate it is “simply shameful” and another missed opportunity to educate and inform.

      • pshoben
        pshoben
        August 1, 2015, 8:34 pm

        Thanks just It is worth watching some time, I’m glad I did. There is some harrowing footage from inside al-Shifa hospital that I hadn’t seen before, and (for those of us who are already aware of the wider context) the footage does speak for itself, and powerfully so.

        You are exactly right, it was a missed opportunity to educate and inform.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b061vbdj

      • just
        just
        August 1, 2015, 9:57 pm

        Many thanks for the link, Stan~ I’ll watch it later tonight or tomorrow.

        Speaking of al- Shifa hospital, did you see this:

        “Fighting Israel with a camera and a stethoscope

        … In July 2014 Operation Protective Edge, the most recent Israeli onslaught, inflicted more than 2,200 Palestinian fatalities, including 551 children. This attack was also partly witnessed by Gilbert; in its wake the Israeli authorities did not stop at defamation, but imposed a permanent ban on his entry to Gaza, reportedly for “security” reasons.

        In the preface to his new book Night in Gaza, Gilbert comments: “When a pen, a camera and a stethoscope are seen as security threats, we know we are dealing with a regime that is afraid of the truth and that believes power confers rights.”

        Clearly, however, the ban on Gilbert stems less from fear of the “small, black Sony … compact digital camera” that he carried wherever he went, even into the operating theater, than hostility to his unapologetically political stance. …”

        https://electronicintifada.net/content/fighting-israel-camera-and-stethoscope/14731

  17. ritzl
    ritzl
    August 1, 2015, 7:59 pm

    I guess I’ll be more explicit on the muddled wrongness of the title:

    “Did the BBC cover up the anti-Semitism of Gaza’s children?”

    Two things are contained in that title:

    A) “…THE anti-semitism of Gaza’s children” is posed as FACT. Not alleged. Not hypothetical. Not a question. Actual, premising fact.

    B) That falsehood has to be stated as fact, and can only be read that way, because it sets up the discussion question of the rest of the article, “Did the BBC cover it up?” No anti-semitism, no cover-up.

    It’s a classic, “When did you stop beating your wife, and why have you not been straight with us about it?” construct.

    It’s not anti-semitism if it’s with cause and in context.

    To malign all the children of Gaza this way, here and everywhere else it has been shared, given everything they have gone and continue to go through is well beyond offensive — no matter what point the article is trying to make and why. It feeds into how the killing is justified (“little snakes” and all that) in Israel and abroad. This phrasing is an enabling factor in the ongoing dehumanization of Palestinians and therefore contributes directly to their ongoing oppression.

    The discussion set up can be done without heaping another layer of crap on Gaza. It’s just not necessary.

    Maybe something more to the point like a simple, “Why did the BBC change ‘Jews’ to ‘Israelis’ in a recent article?” Or heck, go straight after the Jewish Chronicle with, “JC calls Gaza’s children anti-semitic.” and background/discuss from there as a teaching moment.

    I think there is enough stuff to change out there on this issue without creating more. We should change what is within our ability to easily change, and in this case it’s the @$!& title.

    Cheers. FWIW.

    • just
      just
      August 1, 2015, 8:08 pm

      It’s worth a lot. You make great sense, and you are correct, imho.

      Cheers right back at you!

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        August 1, 2015, 8:50 pm

        You have such a giant, kind, generous, and resilient heart, just.

        Just sayin’. :))

      • just
        just
        August 1, 2015, 9:58 pm

        What a very lovely thing to say, ritzl. ;)

        I am humbled, and hope that I can live up to your kindness.

    • Bumblebye
      Bumblebye
      August 1, 2015, 8:11 pm

      Totally agree – please, eds, change the title!
      This really is “JC calls Gaza’s children anti-semites”.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      August 1, 2015, 10:21 pm

      I agree the title slams the child victims as anti-semites. Even just putting quotes around “anti-Semitism” would reflect the tenor of the article itself.

      Also: “If this is the truth and the children of Gaza are cold hearted, old school, anti-Semites then they do not deserve the world’s sympathy.” I don’t follow the logic here either, considering how the children of Gaza have been treated by “the most moral army in the world.” PS: Didn’t the israeli high court conclude there is no “Israeli” nationality?

  18. eGuard
    eGuard
    August 1, 2015, 8:18 pm

    So perhaps the children of Gaza are antisemitic, you conclude halfway.

    Thanks for sharing your thinking capacity with us, however limited it is. So if you see a Gazan child talking about Israel and the bombing (“the first anniversary of the conflict” huh?), your first thoughts are “Nazis” and “pogrom”. If you see a Gazan child your first worry by Pavlov is anti-Semitism. This is what keeps you awake. But please, next time solve your inner wresting first before you bother us with arm-chair moralism.

    I too think of “Nazis” and “Warsaw ghetto” and “pogrom” quite easily, more so since about one year. Especially when I hear a Gazan child saying “jahud”, or anything else. Actually, already when I see a Gazan child — dead or alive. When I see the word Gaza.

  19. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    August 1, 2015, 11:22 pm

    Poor JC!
    May be Geller,Spencer,Horowitz,Liberman,Netanyahu,and the Sheldon supported GOP hopefuls should start talking about Sinai terrorist,Libyan terrorists,Syrian terrorists,and Pakistani terrorists instead of Muslim terrorists . Once that change takes effects ,we may approach the grieving sons , daughters,and parents to reconsider their labeling problems which incidentally might turn out to be the least of the problematic issues to them and to the rest of the world.
    But JC is getting lost in the fine grainy semantics to obscure the handwriting of one sided murder,mayhem,destruction by the Zionist entity to persuade us to imagine the screams emerging out of those cluster bombs and phosphorus burning as the collective Arab chants against Christ killer .

  20. Bornajoo
    Bornajoo
    August 1, 2015, 11:46 pm

    “I guess I’ll be more explicit on the muddled wrongness of the title:

    “Did the BBC cover up the anti-Semitism of Gaza’s children?”

    Two things are contained in that title:

    A) “…THE anti-semitism of Gaza’s children” is posed as FACT. Not alleged. Not hypothetical. Not a question. Actual, premising fact.

    B) That falsehood has to be stated as fact, and can only be read that way, because it sets up the discussion question of the rest of the article, “Did the BBC cover it up?” No anti-semitism, no cover-up.

    It’s a classic, “When did you stop beating your wife, and why have you not been straight with us about it?” construct.

    It’s not anti-semitism if it’s with cause and in context.

    To malign all the children of Gaza this way, here and everywhere else it has been shared, given everything they have gone and continue to go through is well beyond offensive — no matter what point the article is trying to make and why. It feeds into how the killing is justified (“little snakes” and all that) in Israel and abroad. This phrasing is an enabling factor in the ongoing dehumanization of Palestinians and therefore contributes directly to their ongoing oppression.

    The discussion set up can be done without heaping another layer of crap on Gaza. It’s just not necessary.

    Maybe something more to the point like a simple, “Why did the BBC change ‘Jews’ to ‘Israelis’ in a recent article?” Or heck, go straight after the Jewish Chronicle with, “JC calls Gaza’s children anti-semitic.” and background/discuss from there as a teaching moment.

    I think there is enough stuff to change out there on this issue without creating more. We should change what is within our ability to easily change, and in this case it’s the @$!& title.

    Cheers. FWIW.”

    Superb analysis Ritzl! After reading the title then the article something wasn’t sitting right in my head but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. You sussed it completely

    I agree that the title of this article should be changed, as Bumblebye suggests to “JC calls Gaza’s children anti-semites”

  21. yourstruly
    yourstruly
    August 2, 2015, 2:25 am

    Since studies have shown that antisemitism in Europe spikes every time Israel takes to the mass slaughtering of Palestinians, what, are we to believe that the victims of Israel’s rampages shouldn’t have negative feelings towards those who destroy their cities and kill their loved ones? As for the children in Gaza who blame their suffering on the Yahud, since Israeli leaders have proclaimed Israel to be a Jewish state, who, other than Yahud, should they say is mass murdering them? Norwegians, perhaps, or Japanese, or why not Aliens instead of Yahud? Indeed, it’s surprising that Prime Minister Netanyahu hasn’t already seized upon this contested section from “Children of the Gaza War” as proof that Palestinian have come around to accepting Israel’s claim that it represents Jews everywhere? Maybe he eventually will, but not until the Jewish Chronicle exhausts its effort to get as much mileage as it can out of the words “the Yahud are massacring Palestinians” – as an example of the Palestinians turning their children into antisemites. Contrariwise, P.M. Netanyahu, it’s Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine that’s responsible for any rise in antisemitism. Indeed, were it not for this, antisemitism would quickly drop to an amount that could easily be flushed down a toilet.

  22. Accentitude
    Accentitude
    August 2, 2015, 3:23 am

    This is really a non-issue. If you live in Palestine and speak Arabic, then you know that in daily language “Yahud” and “Isra’aliyeh” are interchangeable and it has nothing to do with anti-semitism because if you also engage in further discussions with those same people you’ll find that many of them do not have a problem with Jews around the world but rather with the Israelis that are occupying their lands.

    On the other hand, you also have Israelis that admit that they are not just “anti-Palestinian” but “Anti-Arab”. Does that mean that they’re racist towards Egyptians, Jordanians, Yemenis, etc…who knows? I think probably not. In Israeli culture, “Arabs” and “Palestinians” are interchangeable.

    What you have to understand is that in the Middle East, centuries old tribal laws and traditions are still very much alive today. Prior to the state of Israel, there weren’t Palestinians and Israelis engaged in conflict. There were only Arabs and Jews living on the same lands.

  23. bryan
    bryan
    August 2, 2015, 5:10 am

    There is surely another angle on the “Jew” / “Israeli” terminology that I don’t think anyone else has raised here. Was Gaza attacked by Israelis? The Israeli population is 75% Jewish, but with a very significant 20%+ element that is composed of fellow Arab Palestinians, and often of relatives of those living in Gaza. The Gaza Palestinian population is overwhelmingly composed of refugees from the 1948 creation of Israel; the Israeli Palestinian population is composed of those, who often came from the same villages and regions, but managed to avoid being made refugees in 1948. They are not only coreligionists, but often relatives.

    Gazans are aware that despite the overwhelming pressures on Israel’s Palestinian population to be patriotic, an overwhelming majority of Palestinian Israelis were strongly opposed to the war. An Israel Democracy Institute poll of August 11th-12th 2014 found 62% of Israel’s Arabs opposed to the war (and only 24% in favour). Palestinian Israelis played a very significant role in the limited protests against the war, with some 1500 Palestinian Israelis arrested for peacefully demonstrating against the war, and many illegally fired, reprimanded, or suspended from work for their opposition to the war. See http://www.jta.org/2014/09/04/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/after-gaza-conflict-israels-arab-minority-fears-rising-discrimination

    So for any well-informed Gazan to refer to the “Israeli” attackers would be bizarre, especially when the number of Palestinian Israelis volunteering for IDF service is “minute” (despite the significant social, educational, pecuniary and career incentives of doing so). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Bedouins_and_Israeli_Arabs

    Who fomented, incited and executed the attack on Gaza? – the dominant elite within Israeli society which is overwhelmingly (exclusively?) Jewish. Perhaps the most accurate descriptor of Gaza’s attackers would have been “Jewish Israelis”, but even that is unsatisfactory. How was it possible that this murderous and utterly disproportionate slaughter could persist for almost seven weeks despite the horror it invoked in much of the civilized world (and Gazans will have been intensely aware of the mass protests in all the major cities of the world)?

    The reasons why so many Western political leaders and much of the Western mass media backed Israel’s “berserkers” are complex, but figuring high on the list would be the vigorous support of Israel provided by the US Congress (395-8 in the House, and unanimous in the Senate). And what can account for that level of bipartisanship in the backing of Goliath against David? Self-evidently the influence of the “Israel lobby”. That is a disparate alliance of forces, including Christian fundamentalist nutcases, but at its heart is the political and economic power of the American Jewish establishment, not withstanding the fact that an increasing number of predominantly younger Jews oppose Zionism and are decidedly luke-warm in their backing for Israel.

    The perceived oppression of Gaza by the yahud then has no connection to antisemitism – it is the most appropriate short-hand approximation of the truth.

  24. Jabberwocky
    Jabberwocky
    August 2, 2015, 6:12 am

    Semites like to resort to semantics to distract attention from their murder and mayhem. And when semantics don’t work, lies are the next line of defense!

    You are judged by your actions – let’s focus on the actions of murdering innocent civilians, including hundreds of children and traumatizing many more.

  25. NickJOCW
    NickJOCW
    August 2, 2015, 8:39 am

    Palestinian Infant Burned to Death in West Bank Arson Attack; IDF Blames ‘Jewish Terror’

    was the headline in Haaretz. Anyway, the BBC was simply translating. Translating involves going back from one word to what the user means and bringing that meaning out in another language. It’s like squash, you don’t hit the ball across to your opponent, you bounce it off the wall. If you said you were going to boil a kettle to a French speaker they would think you were going to put it in a pan like a potato.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/1.668871

  26. abc223
    abc223
    August 2, 2015, 10:00 am

    Hello everyone. I apologize if anyone mentioned this in the comments because I didn’t read them all. If we go back in history, namely 1882 and after, since the beginning of first Aaliyah, the Arab population of Palestine called the Jewish immigrants “Jews” (and there’s nothing unusual about that). Similarly, the Jewish immigrants also called the Arab population of Palestine Arabs. Keep in mind that at the beginning of this conflict/interaction, no modern concept of statehood fully materialized yet for the two peoples. It wasn’t until sixty years later that an Israeli state was imposed on the land and guess what? The Palestinians kept on calling the Jewish population of Israel the Jews. “The Jews took my farm” you would hear someone say. “The Jews arrested me for forty days without a trial” another would say. The Jewish population of Israel still, a lot of the time, refers to Palestinians as Arabs. It didn’t change in the other side as well. It’s absolutely correct to assume that those kids meant Israelis and not Jews. If you question those kids and ask them “wait you antisemites, do you mean all Jews everywhere in the world?” What do you think their response would be?

    Also keep in mind that modern state of Israel agencies such as the army and government are referred to in colloquial Arabic as Israeli army and Israeli government. Which is expected.

    I would say: have the Jewish immigrants to Palestine referred to themselves as Israelis when they started immigration in the 19th century, those kids in 2015 would have called them Israelis. However the Jewish immigrants didn’t. They identified themselves as Jews and therefore their reference to themselves survived to this day and survived the creation of Israel. The name of the other people (the intruders) in the Palestinian mind stayed the same.

    Hope this makes any sense.

    • just
      just
      August 2, 2015, 11:45 am

      Thanks very much for that, abc223! It’s helpful.

      Welcome to MW!

    • German Lefty
      German Lefty
      August 2, 2015, 4:21 pm

      Right! Now that you say it, Israel doesn’t register its citizens as “Israelis” because there’s no Israeli nationality. An Israeli is registered as either “Arab” or “Jew”. So, why are Palestinian children expected to say “Israelis” when not even the state of Israel officially recognises the existence of “Israelis”?

      Supreme Court rejects ‘Israeli’ nationality status
      Allowing citizens to relinquish ethnic or religious identity in the population registry would undermine Israel’s Jewishness, ruling says
      http://www.timesofisrael.com/supreme-court-rejects-israeli-nationality-status/

  27. Les
    Les
    August 2, 2015, 11:04 am

    It’s safe to presume that Germans were likewise critical of Jews for being anti-Nazi. When the US media stops reporting on behalf of the Israel Lobby, its reports of Jews who oppose Israel’s efforts to exterminate the Palestinians will help to move away from this hollow and tiresome charge of anti-Semitism by Gaza’s children who were lucky enough to havc survived.

  28. Fritz
    Fritz
    August 2, 2015, 11:40 am

    After reading ritzls analysis I became more and more worried about the perspective on the issue which the piece of Robert Cohen has taken. The article is based on the assumption that human rights should not be applied fully to people who are seen by Westerners like him as anti-Semitic. And this decision is based only on what they say, whether they use the words “Jew” or “(the) Jews” or “Israeli” correctly and without taken into consideration their age (children) and what they did to other people eventually. There is something fundamentally wrong in Robert Cohen’s piece.

    • Bornajoo
      Bornajoo
      August 2, 2015, 6:35 pm

      “After reading ritzls analysis I became more and more worried about the perspective on the issue which the piece of Robert Cohen has taken. The article is based on the assumption that human rights should not be applied fully to people who are seen by Westerners like him as anti-Semitic. And this decision is based only on what they say, whether they use the words “Jew” or “(the) Jews” or “Israeli” correctly and without taken into consideration their age (children) and what they did to other people eventually. There is something fundamentally wrong in Robert Cohen’s piece. “(Fritz)

      I’ve been thinking about this article since yesterday and I’m starting to agree that there is something fundamentally wrong too

      First of all the article should maybe be titled as:” JC attempts to label Gaza’s children as anti semitic and therefore deserving to die”

      The thrust of the article should have been nothing less than a full out assault on the JC’s despicable attempt to justify the deaths and maiming of these children because, in the eyes of the JC, they committed the greatest crime ever known to humankind since the beginning of time: anti semitism

      I’m not sure that “The upshot of all this is that the Jewish Chronicle has its news priorities seriously skewed along with its ethics.” really cuts it. The JC should be hammered for this disgusting tactic and blasted for even thinking about such a perverted angle

      But more to the point, the author explains that what these children say is not *real* anti semitism. So therefore the children didn’t deserve to be blown up. Great!

      But what if it was decided that it actually really was a genuine form of anti semitism. Does that mean that the children did deserve to be blown up?

      You make a very good point Fritz and thanks again to Ritzl for the initial analysis

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        August 2, 2015, 8:13 pm

        But what if it was decided that it actually really was a genuine form of anti semitism. Does that mean that the children did deserve to be blown up?

        That’s the crux of it, Bornajoo. The big rock in the shoe.
        Well said.

        That the JC would pose, or even imply, killing children as an option instead of an absolute prohibition is stunning. And who decides these things anyway?

        PS. Thanks for your kind words. Bakatcha!

      • tree
        tree
        August 3, 2015, 3:57 pm

        Hi Bornajoo and Ritzl,

        I understand and agree with your general drift but I don’t think that you actually read the JC article. It is quite short and only mentions that the BBC translated “yahood” as “Israeli”, the standard translation is “Jew” and then went on to quote the BBC’s reasoning for translating it as “Israeli” in this context. The JC article said nothing about anti-semitism at all. It may have intended or expected that its readership would make this leap of inference, but it clearly didn’t say it or explicitly imply it in its article. And I think there are a few others here who are making the same assumption about what was actually in the JC article without having read it. Its an easy assumption to make from reading Cohen but I think that a lot of what you are rightly objecting to is actually the responsibility of Cohen and his reactions rather than the JC article itself.

        Unfortunately it was Robert Cohen who made this inference himself, not the result of any stated implication in the JC. As much as I appreciate the point he makes later in his opinion piece and what I believe are his good intentions in writing this piece, its obvious to me that he has his own prejudices to deal with, and they are on display at the very start of his piece. Quoting Cohen:

        To Jewish ears, mine included, the pejorative use of the word “Jews” conjures up enough historical baggage to fill the reclaim hall at Ben Gurion airport….Immediately I’m thinking: ‘Christ killers’, ‘blood libels’, ‘pogroms’ and the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’….Very soon I’m thinking: ‘Nazis’ and ‘gas chambers – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/semitism-gazas-children#sthash.4XJd1Lq0.dpuf

        First off, “Jews” is not a pejorative. Second, he has immediately leapt from the child’s accurate description of what happened in Gaza to the idea that somehow this victimized child is the embodiment of Hitler.

        While sitting in the comfort of his own home in Britain, far away in place and time from any violence or destruction, suddenly he has cast himself as more of a victim than a 7 year old child who’s mostly likely had her home destroyed and friends and family wantonly killed. I think this is a perfect example of the kind of prejudice that some Jews have and have not dealt with, because it is so ingrained that they don’t even realize it is there. To them, any hint of anti-semitism, real or imagined, is only a half step away from the gas chambers. In this kind of mindset, every non-Jew is essentially a potential Hitler just waiting to be exposed, and liberal Zionist or not, this bigoted attitude is just the flip side of believing that every Jew is just as evil as the worst Jew is.

        This attitude is why those who are Jewish bigots carp so much about anti-semitism. To them anti-semitism is so much worse than any other bigotry, their own unacknowledged bigotry included. That’s why we see the hurt feelings when Israel is criticized being described as the result of anti-semitism when clearly its not.

        Robert Cohen fell into this bigoted mindset at first, and although he was able to rationally conclude that the child’s words were not particularly anti-semitic, he still seems to think that if the child were anti-semitic that no sympathy should be felt for her.

        Not only should no sympathy be felt for her, but none should be felt for all of “Gaza’s children”. The headline on this piece is his own. He didn’t title it “Did the BBC coverup one child’s anti-semitism?” No, he used the words “Gaza’s children” as if they were all responsible for what this one child said, whether anti-semitic or not.

        In other words he did the very same thing that he objected to when first hearing that the child used the term “yahood”. He blamed all Gaza’s children for the words of one. Given the historic violence that Zionists and Israeli Jews have perpetrated against Palestinians, should Cohen’s words immediately remind us of the massacres, ethnic cleansing and dispossession that have been visited on the Palestinians and thus cause us to withhold any sympathy for him should some equivalent violence be visited upon him? I’m sure he’d recognize that such a reaction would be heartless and bigoted itself. I wish he would analyze his own reactions and take responsibility for them.

        Perhaps he was trying to do so to some degree in his opinion piece. He has farther to go to unwrap his own prejudices. As he pointed out, many Israeli Jews, and even some of his fellow British Jews, have exhibited prejudices against Palestinians, some of them eliminationist in nature. Does he think that the world should deny them any sympathy as well if they become victims of violence? I doubt it.

        As I said, I appreciate the points that Cohen makes in the second part of his opinion piece. But, respectfully, I would suggest that he look into his own reactions and prejudices as well. Cohen’s own unexamined prejudices are what makes the piece feel a bit “off” in my opinion.

      • Bornajoo
        Bornajoo
        August 3, 2015, 5:54 pm

        Many thanks Tree. Once again, superb analysis.
        I was thinking yet again about this article today and must agree that I went in too hard on the JC and too easy on RC. It’s absolutely true that most of the inferences come from him directly. I would really appreciate it if he could answer your comment because I think you have demonstrated that there are definitely issues with his own reactions and prejudices. “off” is an appropriate term.

        Going too easy on RC was a result, as you very astutely pointed out, of not reading the JC article and relying on his own article. However, you say “The JC article said nothing about anti-semitism at all. It may have intended or expected that its readership would make this leap of inference, but it clearly didn’t imply it in its article.”

        Having now read it I think that the *hidden* intention of the article was to imply it, albeit in a very subtle manner. Why on earth didn’t the JC simply write a short article about this documentary, what it was about and what time it was on? Why did they only choose to talk about this documentary using the title “Why Jews were lost in translation in BBC children of the Gaza war documentary”?

        We need to think about why they would actually choose to highlight this issue rather than just focus on the actual content of the documentary. Even though the rest of the article doesn’t imply anything about anti-semitism it seems to me that the reference to the documentary was just a sideshow to highlight this point only. It’s very subtle and cleverly done but I think the JC did intend and did expect their readers to make this leap. Maybe the question is, would they have even bothered to mention this documentary at all if the translation issue didn’t exist? I doubt it

        What you have so forensically shown us is that RC made that leap which became the thrust of his article rather than just hammering the JC for even attempting to imply it in the first place. His article ended up exposing a lot more about himself than the bigotry of the JC

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        August 3, 2015, 5:44 pm

        Hi tree. First, let me say that your desire and ability to drill down, make sense of the totality, and express that sense so eloquently is exquisite, instructive, and always a pleasure to read. Standalone compliment.

        You’re right I didn’t dwell on the JC article. I was narrowly reacting to Cohen’s take, the title, and why that was deemed appropriate as a discussion item for MW. But I do believe that this line from the JC article did imply anti-semitsm/Jew-hatred:

        [Quoting Doucet] “We are not trying to cover it up – we took advice on it and that was the advice we were given by translators.” (emphasis mine)

        I guess I’ve read too many of those kinds of articles to assume that that first “it” meant anything other than anti-semitism. Maybe that’s a bad assumption, but I think that it is very likely the case in that article. Otherwise, what was JC’s hook?

        Cohen took that wink-wink level code, subscribed to it, and expanded on it to create the inside-out analysis that you so brilliantly dissect in your comment.

        Thanks here, and generally.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        August 3, 2015, 5:48 pm

        And you’re right tree. The JC article did not imply killing anyone.

        My bad. I glommed it all together.

      • Bornajoo
        Bornajoo
        August 3, 2015, 6:15 pm

        “And you’re right tree. The JC article did not imply killing anyone.

        My bad. I glommed it all together.”

        Ditto that Ritzl. I made the same assumption.

        As Tree points out its actually RC who infers that the child in Gaza doesn’t deserve any sympathy IF that child really was somehow anti semitic. RC exonerates the child by showing the child is not anti semitic. But we can only assume therefore, that this child (and according to RC all “Gaza’s children”) deserves no sympathy for being blown up if the child was *proven* to be genuinely anti semitic

        It would be great if RC could respond

      • just
        just
        August 3, 2015, 6:43 pm

        Quite a few comments @ the link, maybe he’ll answer over there. :-o

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/writingfromtheedge/2015/07/did-the-bbc-cover-up-the-antisemitism-of-gazas-children/

        tree, Bornajoo, and ritzl~ thanks for the discussion.

      • Bornajoo
        Bornajoo
        August 3, 2015, 7:27 pm

        Thanks for the link Just. Most of the comments there are off topic and he hasn’t responded in any case

        I would really appreciate it if he will respond here. I think it’s a very important must have conversation

      • just
        just
        August 3, 2015, 7:40 pm

        “I would really appreciate it if he will respond here. I think it’s a very important must have conversation”

        I wish he would, too. It is important, Bornajoo. He’s had his article published in at least 3 places and nary a peep.

      • Keith
        Keith
        August 4, 2015, 10:39 am

        TREE- “This attitude is why those who are Jewish bigots carp so much about anti-semitism.”

        Absolutely! Additionally, this attitude forms the basis of much of Jewish Zionist tribal solidarity. Us versus them. Furthermore, it is a potent weapon of intimidation to get Gentiles to defer to Jews. And while some Mondo commenters think that charges of anti-Semitism are losing their sting, those who depend upon Jewish campaign contributions take them very seriously. And Europe may be even worse with their Holocaust education requirements and laws against anti-Semitism.

        Additionally, Mondoweiss itself seems overly sensitive to comments which can conceivably be labeled as anti-Semitic. A comment I made to you on this thread yesterday quoted The Saker and linked to the article which included a video with Alain Soral and Dieudonne. The comment didn’t pass moderation. The video involved the influence of the CRIF (French Zionists) on freedom of speech in France and the persecution of anyone the Zionists label as anti-Semitic. Apparently, being labeled anti-Semitic by French Zionists has considerable influence in the US and on Mondoweiss. Since I have not included the quotes nor the link, hopefully this comment will go through.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 4, 2015, 2:01 pm

        Unfortunately it was Robert Cohen who made this inference himself, not the result of any stated implication in the JC

        The same JC author, Sandy Rashty, wrote an earlier, related article: “Is the BBC biased when it comes to Israel? Two of its journalists speak out” http://www.thejc.com/blogs/sandy-rashty/is-bbc-biased-when-it-comes-israel-two-its-journalists-speak-out

        Unless it was a really slow day for news, I’d have to guess that she took a great deal of umbrage in this case too, i.e. “Why ‘Jews’ were lost in translation in BBC Children of the Gaza War documentary … A BBC documentary has substituted the word “Israelis” for “Jews” in its translation of interviews with Palestinians, its maker has admitted.”

        I didn’t see the BBC documentary, but it appears that the JC may have inserted the definite article in their own translation, since it’s not inside the quotation marks:

        In one instance, a Gazan child says the “yahud” are massacring Palestinians. However the subtitles read: “Israel is massacring us”.

        If the BBC deserves to be used as a punching bag by any group, then all of “British Israelism” has a long overdue apology coming for the way the Beeb has always facilitated the Judean Zionists in substituting the name of the 10 “Lost Tribes” in order to enlarge their alleged patrilineal claims to places like the “Galilee” or “region of the Gentiles” (Isaiah 9:1). …;-)

        On an interesting side note, when you register a foreign language word mark with the USPTO, like “KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL,” you automatically own the English translation. For some reason, “The Jewish National Fund” stubbornly peppered the USPTO with numerous unsuccessful (dead or abandoned) applications for translations like “The Perpetual Fund of the Jewish People”. This somewhat puzzling translation was finally successful:
        Word Mark: KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL
        Translations: The English translation of “KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL” in the mark is “perpetual fund for the Jewish people of Israel”. The English translation of the mark individually are “KEREN” is “fund”, “KAYEMETH” is “perpetual” and “LEISRAEL” is “Israel”.
        Goods and Services IC 036. US 100 101 102. G & S: Charitable fundraising services. FIRST USE: 19010000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19010000
        Standard Characters Claimed
        Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
        Serial Number 77384425
        Filing Date January 30, 2008
        Current Basis 1A
        Original Filing Basis 1B
        Date Amended to Current Register May 26, 2009
        Registration Number 3652802
        Registration Date July 7, 2009
        Owner (REGISTRANT) Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael), Inc. CORPORATION NEW YORK 42 East 69th Street New York NEW YORK 10021

    • tree
      tree
      August 3, 2015, 6:09 pm

      Thanks, Bornajoo and Ritzl. I think you both just made very good points. The emphasis of the JC article was off as well, perhaps intentionally so, perhaps an unconscious result of its own bias. In any case, a “dogwhistle” which Cohen responded to exactly as the JC expected. Well taken analyses. Thanks.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        August 3, 2015, 9:51 pm

        This has a bit of a “Drudge Report” manipulation feel to it (planted innuendo followed by purposefully drawn out, derogatory inferences about the target).

        Is it too much a of an escalation to wonder if this was an arranged “tag-team” approach to a smear or just Pavlovian/reflexive (as Cohen states in his article). As tree (I’ve lost track of the nesting) laid out, the mildly suggestive JC article wouldn’t seem to warrant Cohen’s exuberant interpretation. Where did that come from?

        I think Bornajoo has described where it comes from in many of his comments here. As just suggested, it would be interesting to hear Mr. Cohen’s version.

  29. German Lefty
    German Lefty
    August 2, 2015, 12:53 pm

    Well, the Zionist Israelis who commit crimes against the Palestinians are in fact Jews. So, referring to these Jews as “Jews” is totally correct. Even if the Palestinian children said “the Jews”, then this only means “the Jews who attacked us”, not “all Jews”.

  30. mascraig
    mascraig
    August 2, 2015, 12:57 pm

    Who committed genocide against the Jews, Germans or Nazis?

    • German Lefty
      German Lefty
      August 2, 2015, 4:14 pm

      German Nazis. They were Germans as well as Nazis.

      • mascraig
        mascraig
        August 2, 2015, 8:01 pm

        Precisely, GL. To the Jews, those terms are often interchangeable. When they say ‘Germans’ they certainly don’t mean the multitude of Germans who lived in the US or other areas and had nothing to do with the Nazis (many of them actually fighting with their new home countries against Nazism). Saying Jews slaughter Palestinians in Gaza (the Zionist variety, clearly, as opposed, say, to the good folks at MW who combat Zionism daily) is no more or less offensive than saying Germans slaughtered Jews in the concentration camps because, indeed, they did.

  31. German Lefty
    German Lefty
    August 2, 2015, 4:51 pm

    I am in favour of correct translations. If the children said “Jews”, then it should be translated as “Jews”. However, the context should be explained to the audience in order to avoid misunderstanding.
    I remember a German documentary. An English-speaking person said, “I fought the Jewish Defense League”. The German translation was, “I fought the Jews”.
    Likewise, Ahmadinejad has always used the term “occupying regime” or something like that. However, it was translated as “Israel”. This inaccurate translation allows for the misinterpretation that Ahmadinejad rejects Israel because it’s Jewish, not because it’s an occupier.

    • just
      just
      August 2, 2015, 5:11 pm

      Thanks, German Lefty.

      wrt the mistranslation of Ahmadinejad’s words, it is completely unbelievable to me that the lies persist. Professor Cole and others have written about it, to no avail. I guess it speaks to the success of the Bushco’s/ the Neocons/Israeli agenda.

      May it forever pass from the “stage of times”.

      “The Biggest Lie Told To The American People: Ahmadinejad’s Alleged Remarks On Israel”

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/the-biggest-lie-told-to-t_b_70248.html

      • just
        just
        August 2, 2015, 5:26 pm

        And for the latest smearing of poo:

        “Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a book on how to destroy Israel and outsmart the U.S., arguing that his position is based on “well-established Islamic principles,” The New York Post reported Saturday.

        The 416-page book, entitled “Palestine,” reportedly reached The Post through a source Iran – the only place the book is said to be currently available in. The report has yet to be confirmed independently and was written by Amir Taheri – an Iranian expat whose reports have been mired in controversy amid claims of fabrications.

        The book’s blurb reportedly bills it as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.””

        read more: http://www.haaretz.com/beta/1.669241

        Leave it to the NY Post. Wonder how much and who paid Taheri…

      • German Lefty
        German Lefty
        August 2, 2015, 5:33 pm

        Thanks, just. Great article with great explanations. I could have never explained it that well.
        I don’t speak Farsi. However, you don’t need to speak Farsi to notice that the translation is incorrect and to hear that Ahmadinejad didn’t actually say anything that resembles the word “Israel”. And once you know that “Israel” is a mistranslation, you start wondering what else is mistranslated.
        Of course, there’s an important difference between inaccurate translations made by Zionists and inaccurate translations made by anti-Zionists. Zionists translate inaccurately in order to DISTRACT from the actual meaning of the sentence. Anti-Zionists translate inaccurately in order to better REFLECT the actual meaning of the sentence.

      • annie
        annie
        August 2, 2015, 6:03 pm

        just, taheri is a freak (he fabricates stories). just google his name in wiki. and he’s the europe chairman of the neocon gatestone institute, so they fund him. actually, i wrote about this earlier today before realizing we were not publishing today and before haartz covered it. haaretz had the decency to mention taheri, unlike jpost who just reported it as news.

        the nation article says this about him “”with a rap sheet that leaves one amazed that he continues to be published.””

      • Bandolero
        Bandolero
        August 2, 2015, 6:22 pm

        just

        “Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a book on how to destroy Israel and outsmart the U.S., arguing that his position is based on “well-established Islamic principles,” The New York Post reported Saturday.

        Amir Taheri claims in the NYPost of August 1, 2015 (Iran publishes book on how to outwit US and destroy Israel):

        While Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama do their best to paper over the brutality of the Iranian regime and force through a nuclear agreement, Iran’s religious leader has another issue on his mind: The destruction of Israel.

        Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called “Palestine,” a 416-page screed against the Jewish state.

        “New” as in “new book” means almost 4 years ago. “Memri” claimed in it’s “review” of the very same book on January 25, 2012:

        On October 1, 2011, alongside the start of a conference in support of the Palestinians in Tehran, the website of the Institute for the Compilation and Publication of Supreme Leader Khamenei’s Works announced the publication of a new book, 416 pages long, titled Palestine in the Viewpoint of Leader Khamenei, which features his statements on the issue, on ways to resolve it, and on the heroes of Palestine, its defeats, victories, and future.

        Amir Taheri claims further in the NYPost of August 1, 2015:

        A friend sent me a copy from Iran, the only place the book is currently available, though an Arabic translation is promised soon.

        Seems that Amir Taheri’s internet is broken. The original book Amir Taheri writes about – with Khamenei’s quotes on Palestine in Farsi – is for free to the world to download here:

        http://www.book-khamenei.ir/index.aspx?&fkeyid=&siteid=1&pageid=208&description=16235

        An official English translation of that book is available for download here:

        http://www.book-khamenei.ir/index.aspx?&fkeyid=&siteid=1&pageid=208&description=16236

        As the book is for download available in English in the whole world, I won’t bother to correct the usual hasbara lies Amir Taheri claims and Zionist mass media from Jpost to Hasbaretz repeat regarding the content of the book. Who wants to know what Ali Khamenei thinks about Palestine, and how his thinking evolved over the years, may just read the mentioned book containing some of his major quotes on Palestine.

      • just
        just
        August 2, 2015, 6:30 pm

        Annie~ I actually did google the lying & libelous creep because I thought I remembered him as being pro- Shah, sour grapes, all neocon & rather Islamophobic.

        “the nation article says this about him “”with a rap sheet that leaves one amazed that he continues to be published.”” ”

        Gatestone, and I suspect others, have funded this and are responsible for getting his garbage published. I also believe that it’s too little and way too late, although ivri’s “spirits” may not have whispered that to him just yet.

        I look forward to your article on this!

        Thanks, Bandolero. Wow~ so they trot it out “as the situation demands”.
        Memri, Gatestone, NY Post… nifty.

      • annie
        annie
        August 2, 2015, 7:16 pm

        well, don’t look to forward on it — if i even finish it. it’s not that exciting, just the usual ‘this happened’ big lump of salt and — timing people! yes, of course i thought of ivri’s whispering spirits*.

        *oh maybe like a listserve that goes out to 100’s of thousands telling them to tweet and share this garbage heavily. it was on several jewish sites when i googled it for news this morn at about 5 am. sheesh!

      • just
        just
        August 2, 2015, 7:31 pm

        “Sheesh” is about right.

        dang, you’re droll, Annie!

      • annie
        annie
        August 2, 2015, 8:47 pm

        ;) i’m having one of those days.

    • zaid
      zaid
      August 3, 2015, 3:01 pm

      And Netanyahu also mistranslated (actually fabricated) in the congress a story about a tweet of the Ayatollah Khamenei about annihilating israel , but the real tweet is different.

      Netanuaho words:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Q40_SxmTU

      Actual tweet:

      https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/531366667377717248

      • German Lefty
        German Lefty
        August 3, 2015, 5:17 pm

        @ zaid

        So, according to Netanyahu, anti-Zionism is a threat to “the Jewish people”. Well, then the Palestinian children correctly referred to Israelis as “Jews”.
        The tweet is interesting. I agree with Khamenei on the referendum, but I disagree with him on armed resistance. However, he doesn’t sound like a Jew-hater at all. He even included Jewish Palestinians when talking about the indigenous people of Palestine. How anyone can read anti-Semitism into his statement is a mystery to me.

      • zaid
        zaid
        August 3, 2015, 10:23 pm

        German lefty

        zionists call anyone who deviate from their plans anti semitic.

  32. eGuard
    eGuard
    August 2, 2015, 7:51 pm

    Robert Cohen: another Zionist mind unaffected by the Israeli Jewish state terrorism on Gaza. Noted. Next.

    • German Lefty
      German Lefty
      August 3, 2015, 5:22 pm

      What makes you think he’s a Zionist?

      • eGuard
        eGuard
        August 4, 2015, 9:17 am

        The title.

        First state Gazan children are anti-Semitic. Then spend the rest of the day pondering and smoking in your armchair whether you will forgive those children. (But no. His conclusion is: So perhaps the children of Gaza are antisemitic). I prefer Tony Greensteins comment, below.

      • German Lefty
        German Lefty
        August 4, 2015, 11:42 am

        @ eGuard

        I agree that the title is totally tabloid level. However, I assume it was phrased that way to attract Zionist readers. After all, it looks like the goal of the article is to educate Zionists. Cohen brings up typical Zionist arguments in order to disprove them. Just because the article is directed at Zionists doesn’t mean that the author himself is a Zionist.

        “His conclusion is: So perhaps the children of Gaza are antisemitic.”

        I have the impression that you and I read a different article. You need to consider the context of Cohen’s statement: “So perhaps the children of Gaza are antisemitic. If so, we have given them a great many reasons to be so.” The emphasis is on the second sentence, not on the first. To me, this does NOT look like a conclusion that the Palestinian children are anti-Semitic. I think that he uses the word “perhaps” to talk about a hypothetical what-if situation. He wants to express that Zionist crimes in the name of the Jews CAN fuel anti-Semitism.

        Please note that Cohen voluntarily read Max Blumenthal’s latest book. Would a Zionist do that? Probably not. Cohen also wrote: “I’m sure that advocates for the State of Israel would want to update me on my understanding of antisemitism.” This clearly sounds like he’s NOT a Zionist and does NOT believe that the Palestinian children are anti-Semitic.

        “I prefer Tony Greensteins comment, below.”

        Yes, I agree with that comment too. However, Greenstein says the same as Cohen.

      • eGuard
        eGuard
        August 4, 2015, 8:08 pm

        re German lefty: 1. I wrote “Zionist mind”, you misquoted me. Can’t you read? 2. “So perhaps the children of Gaza are antisemitic” is exactly what Cohen concluded. If you did not see that, indeed you might have read a different article. 3. “I agree that the title is totally tabloid level. However, …” — Nothing tabloid. It is Cohens title. It proves what I claim, and it answered your question. Having to start a ‘however’ spin – I’m not interested in you washing clean Cohen (why does he do that himself btw?). 4. Great to learn that Cohen “voluntary” read Max Blumenthal. Quite an offer for his kind of mind. Other Zionist minds must be enforced to read it. 5. For the rest: have nice day, take a cigar in your armchar. 6. This piece by Cohen is Zionist minded. If you think Tony Greenstein says “the same as Cohen”, go try licking yourself up to him with that. I’d love to read Tony’s reply.

      • German Lefty
        German Lefty
        August 8, 2015, 6:25 am

        @ eGuard

        I wrote “Zionist mind”, you misquoted me. Can’t you read?
        -> Apparently, you are the one who can’t read. I didn’t quote you at all in this respect. Besides, a person with a Zionist mind IS a Zionist. Therefore it doesn’t make any difference whether you refer to him as “Zionist mind” or “Zionist person”.

        “So perhaps the children of Gaza are antisemitic” is exactly what Cohen concluded.
        -> The use of the words “perhaps” and “if” indicate that it’s NOT a conclusion.

        It is Cohens title. It proves what I claim, and it answered your question.
        -> Judging an article by its headline is like judging a book by its cover. It’s very shallow. So, don’t do it. Besides, we don’t know whether Cohen chose the headline for the article himself.

        Other Zionist minds must be enforced to read it.
        -> Yes, Zionists usually don’t read Blumenthal’s books voluntarily. That’s precisely why Cohen’s voluntary read indicates that he’s not a Zionist.

      • eGuard
        eGuard
        August 10, 2015, 8:43 am

        German Lefty, no need to reframe words. The title says what it says. And everything after “So” is a conclusion, his conclusion. That’s called language. If he meant something else, he should have written something else.

        Robert Cohen is showing a pattern turning a major issue into overindulgence in Jewish paranoia
        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/jesuisunjuifbritannique

  33. GeorgeMKeynes
    GeorgeMKeynes
    August 3, 2015, 8:54 am

    I believe the mistranslation was to avoid any suggestion that the BBC saw the problem as one associated with Jews and nothing to do with the children’s language or perception. The children of Gaza are largely the product of the displacement of Arabs by Jews in the process of establishing the State of Israel. The people who prevent them from leaving their prison are Jews, the people who harass them daily and occasionally conduct a full-scale ‘war’ on them are Jews. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings… They say it how it is. It is we who want to conceal the truth for our own comfort.

    • German Lefty
      German Lefty
      August 3, 2015, 5:33 pm

      “I believe the mistranslation was to avoid any suggestion that the BBC saw the problem as one associated with Jews and nothing to do with the children’s language or perception.”

      That sounds logical. If the BBC translated the word as “Jews”, then the channel would have to clearly distance itself from the children’s statement. Otherwise, the BBC would be accused of:
      1) having “approvingly quoted” Palestinian children,
      2) blaming all Jews for Israel’s crimes,
      3) fuelling anti-Semitism.
      If the BBC distanced itself from the Palestinian children’s statement to avoid accusations of anti-Semitism, then this could create the false impression that the Palestinian children’s statement is actually anti-Semitic and that therefore the distancing is necessary.

      • eGuard
        eGuard
        August 4, 2015, 8:35 pm

        German Lefty: Otherwise, the BBC would be accused of: ..

        By whom? By another false armchair moralist like you or Robert Cohen who did not have to pay a child (your child) for the Israeli attack on Gaza?

        German Lefty, why are you occupied with the BBC-Cohen-anti-Semitism angle? Say after me: The Jewish State Killed Over 500 Children Because They Were Not Jewish. Repeat: The … Jewish … State …

  34. tony greenstein
    tony greenstein
    August 3, 2015, 9:51 am

    The Jewish Chronicle under its tabloid editor Stephen Pollard (he was editor of the Daily Express owned by Britain’s biggest pornographer, Richard Desmond) has become little more than a Zionist propaganda sheet. Hence none stories like these.

    If someone comes to your house, kills your relatives, demolishes the house and does it all in the name of ‘the Jewish people’ then it is expecting a lot of a child to distinguish between Zionist and being Jewish when his/her elders often fail to.

    The fact is that Zionism goes out of its way to conflate being Jewish with being a Zionist. Most adults are taken in. Why should children living in the middle of the appalling catastrophe that is Gaza be expected to be politically sophisticated? As far as they are concerned it was ‘the Jews’ who did the evil. But notice that Max Blumenthall, who was based in Gaza, like Amira Hass, was not harassed or attacked because he was Jewish, unlike Arabs in the Jewish state.

    • Bumblebye
      Bumblebye
      August 3, 2015, 3:05 pm

      Tony, if you’re still about, I discovered yesterday that Virgin Media blocks your site from tender eyes (while it doesn’t block many harsher ones) with its “WebSafe” guardian. Bit of a pain! Did you know? Your content doesn”t seem to breach whatever their code is.

      • German Lefty
        German Lefty
        August 4, 2015, 11:56 am

        @ Bumblebye
        Do you mean that one? http://www.azvsas.blogspot.de/
        Did you get a message that the website was blocked? Did you use the link on Greenstein’s commenter profile on Mondoweiss? I ask because that particluar link doesn’t work.

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        August 4, 2015, 2:32 pm

        Yes, the site is blocked by Virgin’s “Web Safe”. I accessed it thru a different website, not MW, tried directly and still got the message. Eventually used a different wi-fi provider to access it and the article was an old one.

    • eGuard
      eGuard
      August 4, 2015, 8:20 pm

      Thanks Tony. I suggest Mondoweiss swaps this comment with Robert Cohens post.

  35. eGuard
    eGuard
    August 3, 2015, 3:43 pm

    Note that the title Did the BBC cover up the anti-Semitism of Gaza’s children? conveniently prevents Robert Cohen having to answer the more primary question: what anti-Semitism?

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      August 4, 2015, 1:40 pm

      Gee, one wonders if even the strictest “hate speech” laws demand penalties as stiff as those meted out to Gaza.

  36. lyn117
    lyn117
    August 4, 2015, 1:33 pm

    It would be more precise for the children to say “A group of Jews known as Zionists who claim to represent all Jews everywhere are massacring us,” however that would be a huge mouthful for any child.

    “The Jews are massacring us” is an accurate statement, if imprecise. It was “The Jews” who were doing the massacring.

    Why does the JC think that the massacre of 500+ children, by Jews, less important than the resulting attitudes among those who survived?

    By translating al-Yahood as Israelis, it seems more that the BBC is covering up evils done by Jews than covering up anti-semitism. However, I’m perfectly fine with their translation, it wasn’t all Jews everywhere that did the massacre and it doesn’t mean Jews everywhere are evil people.

    Cohen falls into that trap rather easily, making a bigger deal of anti-semitism than massacres of people.

  37. Taxi
    Taxi
    August 4, 2015, 4:55 pm

    Imagined antisemitism is about the dullest and most tedious subject matter on the planet – even more boring than folding grocery bags.

    Over indulgence in Jewish paranoia expressed in articles such as this one is the very reason I’ve been turned off from visiting MW.

    I blame the editors.

    https://platosguns.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/cedars-sewers-and-platos-guns/comment-page-1/#comment-3007

    • just
      just
      August 4, 2015, 5:11 pm

      TAXI~ how I’ve missed you and your quick wit and wonderful mind. I do, however, read you over at your place and wanted to voice my deep appreciation for your reporting and commentary there.

      I was absolutely blown away with your post “Cedars, Sewers… and Plato’s Guns”. You are an incredible talent and person.

      (the photo makes so much sense, too ;-)

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        August 5, 2015, 2:10 am

        @ just,
        As usual, you are forever charming and disarming.

        @ eGuard,
        Hope you’re doing good there, old pal.

        @ everyone,
        Sending good vibes and a good old-fashioned box on the ear to each one of you!

    • eGuard
      eGuard
      August 4, 2015, 8:26 pm

      Taxi: Over indulgence in Jewish paranoia expressed in articles such as this one is the very reason I’ve been turned off from visiting MW

      Thanks, Taxi. Well said.

    • eGuard
      eGuard
      August 7, 2015, 7:33 pm

      Dear Mondoweiss. Please drop Robert Cohen. Already last January, he turned a world-wide topic into his pet mouse minded issue.

      http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/jesuisunjuifbritannique

  38. diasp0ra
    diasp0ra
    August 5, 2015, 8:15 am

    You know the world is in dire straits if the alleged prejudice of children takes center stage while their murder takes the backseat.

    What is the purpose of this article?

    People hate their oppressors. Full stop. If they were Muslims, Christians, Hindus, whatever, a hatred for that group would evolve. It has nothing to do with the fact that Israelis are Jewish, it’s the fact that Israelis are Israelis. I reject outright this baseless accusation of anti-Semitism, and it’s actually quite low of you to even suggest that.

    On another note, anyone who knows anything about Palestinian Arabic knows that Yahud refers to Israelis and not Jews as a religious group. When speaking about Judaism as a religion it is often prefaced saying such, whereas plain “Yahud” refers to Israelis.

    I say this as a translator, as mentioned earlier.

    Another point I’d like to raise, is that Israeli media and media sources close to Israel conflate Arabs with Palestinians with Muslims all the time. Not a peep is heard about this when people say “Islamic Terror”. As if such a thing exists. We are dehumanized DAILY in Israeli media, treated as demographic threats and nothing but snakes, 0 outrage.

    • eGuard
      eGuard
      August 6, 2015, 8:08 am

      diasp0ra: I reject outright this baseless accusation of anti-Semitism, and it’s actually quite low of you to even suggest that.

      Hear, hear. And the bigger issue is that Mondoweiss publishes it.

Leave a Reply