Trending Topics:

Ilhan Omar and the anti-Semitic ‘trope/canard’ smear

News
on 87 Comments

The latest brouhaha over Ilhan Omar’s supposed flirtation with anti-Semitism was started by Batya Ungar-Sargon of the Forward, who ignited a twitter debate by challenging Omar’s assertion on February 10 that AIPAC used financial pressure on members of Congress on behalf of Israel. Ungar-Sargon then wrote a column accusing Omar of repeated use of anti-Semitic “tropes,” which has become something of a “mot du jour.” The exchange exploded quickly into a firestorm, leading to rebukes from Democratic Congressional leadership and calls from President Trump for Omar to resign from Congress or at least the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Ungar-Sargon, who views herself as politically “on the left,” has perversely become a leading practitioner of the familiar playbook smearing those who stray from the narrow boundaries of acceptable criticism of Israel as anti-Semites who are conjuring some historical anti-Semitic “trope” or “canard.”

There has been plenty of discussion regarding the Omar-AIPAC affair, but for Ungar-Sargon, it is a repeat performance from this past November, when she set her sights on Linda Sarsour. At that time, in a Facebook defense of Omar’s stance in favor of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), Sarsour called out “folks who masquerade as progressives but always choose their allegiance to Israel over their commitment to democracy and free speech.” Sarsour was criticizing those who preach progressive values of equality and inclusiveness while excusing Israel’s innumerable violations of those principles, a rather common phenomenon known as PEP – Progressive Except for Palestine. Enter Ungar-Sargon, who immediately tweeted her dismay: “Really really really disappointed to see this canard of dual loyalties.”

The “canard of dual loyalties” involves accusing an entire Jewish community of being more devoted to their own minority community (or to Israel) than to the interests of their nation. It casts Jews as self-dealing, secretly devious outsiders unwilling to join in a communal effort to benefit the larger polity.

Sarsour’s complaint didn’t remotely resemble this “canard.” She criticized unnamed individuals who are self-proclaimed “progressives” and said nothing about Jews in general. Sarsour accused these PEP progressives of sacrificing free speech principles to protect Israel from criticism, a charge that would be applicable to a large swath of Democratic Party officials.  Bungar-Sargon disingenuously connected Sarsour’s entirely bigotry-free remark to the “dual loyalty canard,” apparently thinking that use of the word “canard” alone was sufficient to demonstrate anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitic “tropes” and “canards” and “slanders” have become the go-to staple of Israel support. In January, a six-year-old tweet by Ilhan Omar during Israel’s brutal 2012 assault on Gaza that “Israel has hypnotized the world” was revived and dragged into the spotlight, most prominently by Bari Weiss in her New York Times column.

Omar’s language was harsh but the nature of her exasperation is obvious: How does Israel establish and maintain a state that harshly discriminates on the basis of ethnicity and religion, killing and immiserating untold numbers of victims in the process, and convince the world, or at least a significant and powerful part of the world, that it is the victim? When recently asked on CNN to justify her 2012 tweet, Omar replied: “I don’t know how my comments would be offensive to Jewish Americans. My comments precisely are addressing what was happening during the Gaza War and I’m clearly speaking about the way the Israeli regime was conducting itself in that war.”

Weiss, duly horrified, claimed that Omar’s criticism of Israel’s slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza is another chapter in the long-running “conspiracy theory of the Jew as the hypnotic conspirator.” Weiss says “criticisms cross the line into anti-Semitism when they ascribe evil, almost supernatural powers to Israel in a manner that replicates classic anti-Semitic slanders.” She meandered through a pseudo-scholarly discourse of ancient Rome and the death of Jesus, Goebbels’s 1940 approval of an anti-Semitic movie, and criticism of Jewish neocons for promoting the Iraq War launched in 2003. (On this latter note, Weiss’s claim that Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, because of their Jewish heritage, were blamed for Middle East carnage more than Bush and Cheney were blamed, strikes me as paranoid.)

Not surprisingly, Weiss’s column referenced Omar’s “Israel not Jews” defense but conspicuously failed to acknowledge much less refute the distinction. She was unable to offer any argument, coherent or incoherent, that US Jews should feel threatened by Omar’s or any other criticism of Israel. Instead, Weiss essentially takes Omar to task for referencing Israeli hypnosis without first conducting a thorough historical investigation of the nature of anti-Semitism throughout world history.

Would Weiss think that it “crosses the line” into bigotry to accuse others of hypnotizing, brainwashing, or just plain lying? In fact, Netanyahu recently accused Israeli media outlets of “brainwashing.” He has previously accused Palestinians of “brainwashing.” Other pro-Israel propagandists have leveled the “brainwashing” charge against BDS activists and the “left” and LGBT activists. Does Weiss feel that an accusation of “brainwashing” is okay but “hypnosis” is not?

This trope/canard nonsense could be used to immunize Israel from virtually any criticism. Anyone who dared suggest that Israel, throughout its history, has deliberately killed civilians could be accused of appealing to the anti-Semitic “canard” that Jews place a lower value on the lives of non-Jews. Accusing Israel of conducting espionage in foreign countries, whether spying on the US or stealing New Zealand passports, would invoke the anti-Semitic “trope” of the devious, dishonest Jew. There surely is an anti-Semitic trope, canard, or slander, real or imagined, to fit every criticism of Israel.

These defamations by Weiss and Ungar-Sargon are part of an effort to portray those who oppose ethnic/religious discrimination as perpetrators of discrimination. The smear artists hope to deter future transgressions, warning others who contemplate speaking out for Palestinians that they risk association with historical anti-Semitic slanders that led to genocide of millions. The stench of an anti-Semitism accusation can be quite destructive with far-reaching consequences, electoral and otherwise. Bari Weiss has a long history of such calumny dating to her undergraduate years at Columbia, but it is unfortunate that Ungar-Sargon, who has occasionally taken progressive stands as the Forward op-ed editor, has joined the army of slanderers who use the anti-Semitism cry as a weapon.

Recently, a Harvard Law professor offered this common sense warning about overuse of the accusation of anti-Semitism:

“I think we have to be very careful before we accuse any particular individual of being an anti-Semite…And I think one has to be very careful about using the term anti-Semitic…I don’t think anybody should be called or accused of being anti-Semitic unless the evidence is overwhelming.”

Thank you, Alan Dershowitz, that’s excellent advice, even though you used it to defend Steve Bannon.

David Samel

David Samel is an attorney in New York City.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

87 Responses

  1. Maximus Decimus Meridius on February 19, 2019, 10:58 am

    Slightly off-topic but still relevant to the broader issues addressed in the article…. back in the UK 7 minor members of the Labour party have split off off to found an ‘Independent Group’. Several of them cited – yes you’ve guessed it – antisemitism as one of their reasons to leave Labour, something they’d been threatening to do for months if not years.

    Of these 7 individuals, 5 were members of Labour Friends of You Know Where. Not a word in the MSM about this. Could you imagine if a clear majority of a new breakaway party were Friends of Russia? Or Iran? Or China? Or indeed just about any country other than Israel. It would most certainly be an object of discussion. But because it’s Israel, nobody would dare.

    • amigo on February 20, 2019, 9:19 am

      MDM , Someone tweeted or posted somewhere !! “Joan , ( Ryan, I assume they were referring to ) is gone , Palestine Lives on ” .This was immediately characterised as Antisemitic.

      What next ?? The mere utterance of the word “Palestine is antisemitic.

      How does one deal with such nonsense.

      Joan Ryan is the zionist apologist who was caught on tape , colluding with an Israeli spy whose goal was to “Bring down any British Minister who is not sufficiently pro Israel”.

      This woman should be in prison for sedition .

      OOPS , there I go again with my antisemitic comments.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on February 20, 2019, 11:27 am

        I’ve been saying for a while that the aim is to essentially criminalise all – yes all – meaningful criticism with Israel, as well as any solidarity with its victims. Make it so that anything which goes beyond the vapid ‘Oh I oppose the settlements but support a two-state solution” nonsense is a massive headache at the very least, potentially career ending at worst.

        And I hate to say it, but I was right. That bloke who Joan Ryan was fawning all over in the sting video said “We need to make the UK more like the US.” Well, looks as though he has succeeded.

        And I also hate to say this, but Corbyn has dealt with this whole mess very very badly. He might have given them the benefit of the doubt once, but as soon as it became clear that they weren’t interested in dialogue or reasonable compromise – and this became crystal clear very quickly – he should have told the plotters to put up or shut up. Now, he’s handed them the initiative. What a mess.

  2. eljay on February 19, 2019, 11:13 am

    Zionists like Ungar-Sargon and Weiss have a bad habit of anti-Semitically conflating Israel and Zionism with all Jews and all Jews with Israel and Zionism in order to score tawdry points against people rightly criticize Israel and Zionism.

    • Talkback on February 19, 2019, 3:17 pm

      Zionism is abusing world Jewry as human shields.

    • Misterioso on February 20, 2019, 10:14 am

      @eljay, et al

      Meanwhile, in Canada:

      https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/jewish-canadians-deeply-divided-over-israel-poll-finds

      “Jewish Canadians deeply divided over Israel, poll finds”

      Ali Abunimah, 19 February 2019

      EXCERPT:
      “Jewish Canadians are deeply divided in their opinions on Israel, and many are highly critical of it. Moreover, a majority does not see criticism of Israel as necessarily anti-Semitic.
      Those are key findings of the first survey to ask Jewish Canadians about their views on the situation in Palestine.

      “The report on the survey – entitled ‘Two Jews, Three Opinions: Jewish Canadians Diverse Views on Israel-Palestine’ – notes that Canada’s ruling elites justify their virtually uncritical backing of Israel by ‘claiming it is necessary to support Jews and oppose anti-Semitism,’ treating Jewish opinion as ‘monolithic.’

      “However, the survey, according to the report’s authors, ‘refutes the claims by the Canadian government and political parties that they are defending Canadian Jews against anti-Semitism by uncritically supporting Israel.'”

  3. CHUCKMAN on February 19, 2019, 2:50 pm

    It is growing very tired, the accusations of Anti-Semitism.

    Much like the boy who cried “wolf.”

    Genuine anti-Semitism has always been a phenomenon of the Right. Always.

    But Israel’s government hates people from the left because the Left honors Western traditions of rule of law, democratic rights, and human rights.

    Why? Because Israel’s policies directly contradict these Western traditions. Therefore, the Left is hated for the fact that they keep bringing them up.

    And, by the way, where will you find a more Right-wing government in violation of all our best traditions than Israel?

    Search as you may, you won’t.

    • Misterioso on February 20, 2019, 10:06 am

      @CHUCKMAN

      “Much like the boy who cried “wolf.”
      Precisely!! I have often thought the same thing.

  4. Keith on February 19, 2019, 3:35 pm

    “Anti-Semitic “tropes” and “canards” and “slanders” have become the go-to staple of Israel support.”

    Use of this technique is also being applied to critics of empire whose analyses are being labeled as coinciding with the “Russian narrative,” therefore, being banned from the social media. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51128.htm

    • Talkback on February 19, 2019, 4:49 pm

      Yep, not only Hasbara has completely failed. The US propaganda has become a laughing stock, too. It literally made me start watching Russian Today.

    • JWalters on February 19, 2019, 5:13 pm

      Excellent parallel. And there is good reason to think the “Russian meddling” conspiracy theory is also being engineered by Israel, to distract attention from Israel’s MASSIVE influence, which is being obediently IGNORED by the MSM.

      The “anti-Semite” accusation is always a highly emotional accusation that carefully avoids ANY discussion of any EVIDENCE. The “anti-Semite” canard is the hollow content for a blast of emotion intended to intimidate the weak-willed.

      I think Batya Ungar-Sargon must realize by now that she is lying.

      • Keith on February 20, 2019, 11:31 am

        JWALTERS- “The “anti-Semite” accusation is always a highly emotional accusation that carefully avoids ANY discussion of any EVIDENCE.”

        That is exactly correct. There is no discussion. Pejorative labels are arbitrarily applied as part of a dishonest and frequently vicious ad hominem attack in order to avoid having to defend the indefensible. Gilded victimhood. Non-Jews the eternal enemy.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on February 20, 2019, 11:36 am

        In fact, the mere act of asking for evidence can be deemed ‘antisemitic’! “How dare you question a JEW? It’s an antisemitic trope to claim that JEWS fabricate claims of antisemitism!”

      • JWalters on February 20, 2019, 6:02 pm

        “It’s an antisemitic trope to claim that JEWS fabricate claims of antisemitism!”

        That’ll be in the next Hasbara Handbook.

      • RoHa on February 20, 2019, 10:12 pm

        “the mere act of asking for evidence can be deemed ‘antisemitic’! ”

        The same principle now applies to questioning any accusation, whether fashionable or unfashionable. (But especially the fashionable ones.)

        http://mondoweiss.net/2019/02/definitely-benjamins-financial/comment-page-1/#comment-941994

      • RoHa on February 21, 2019, 12:54 am

        (And I had to dig to find that comment.

        Will there ever be a search function?)

      • Talkback on February 21, 2019, 8:51 am

        JWalters: “That’ll be in the next Hasbara Handbook.”

        There will be no next Hasbara Handbook. Hasbara has collapsed. So they decided to transform Israel’s propaganda machine into a global sh**storm generator.

        They realized that Zionists are not intelligent enough to do anything more complex than shouting “antisemitism”. Of course not all of them. Some of them were trained to shout “antisemitic trope”. The fact that they are paid with bananas and peanuts helps, too.

  5. Brewer on February 19, 2019, 4:37 pm

    Some years ago, the logic of antisemitism began to trouble me. It seemed to give rise to a number of anomalies. How could someone who has never practiced or even felt a moment’s discrimination against any person be labeled antisemitic for criticizing a political entity?
    How could it be that a Jew could be called antisemitic?
    Currently, these anomalies are writ large in the public mind as we witness mainstream media obsessed with Russian influence in U.S. politics while having a conniption fit over a perfectly valid criticism of Israeli influence.
    Over the years I have come to the conclusion that the very idea of antisemitism defies reason, is a concept that, when subjected to scrutiny, gives rise to contradiction and paradox.
    The idea is not yet fully formed in my mind as it requires a complex chain of thought but here are a few pointers.
    Antisemitism is an offense that is defined, not by the act itself but by the religion or identity of the victim. All other offenses are universal in nature – assault, theft, rape etc are equally deplored and prosecuted no matter the identity of the victim. (This is not without precedent. In times gone by, crimes against clergy or the potentate were similarly given special treatment or punishment. Such laws have fallen out of favor in the modern era. We no longer attribute judicial weight to fratricide, regicide etc, it is all murder.)
    This would seem to imply that the victims of this offense are a separate class of human.
    Is it not the case that the very definition of “antisemitism” involves treating Jews as a separate class? Thus those who accuse another of antisemitism have themselves already transgressed that particular taboo.

    The illogical nature of the concept has given rise, among less rigorous thinkers, to some nonsensical conclusions. Consider this article by Chris Floyd:
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02/15/pence-and-the-benjamins-an-eternity-of-anti-semitism/
    In it Floyd alleges that Pence’s fundamental Christianity is antisemitic
    “Mike Pence not only believes that every Jew alive today will be tortured and tormented for eternity, but that every single Jew since the time of Jesus Christ is right now burning and writhing in undying flames — unless, again, they had cast off their cursed Jewishness at some point and become Christians.”.
    It does not seem to have occurred to Floyd that Pence’s prejudice applies equally to Atheists, Hindus, Muslims and the vast majority of human beings who do not subscribe to Pence’s particular form of lunacy. As such, characterizing it as “anti-Semitic” is inappropriate, as is the myriad of occasions when this epithet is applied to critics of Israel, the lobby and Historians who do not conform to the Jewish mainstream account of History.

    Another weird result of this self-contradictory contrivance is the concept of the “self-hating Jew”. In order to get over the problem of Jews who criticize Israel (or even their own culture) this concept had to be devised – a product of a fallacious circular argument. This despite the fact that most people consider self-criticism a worthy pursuit, not some sort of Freudian psychosis. Once again, those who resort to such such labeling are invoking a discriminatory special case – Jews are above criticism therefore self-criticism among Jews is a sickness.

    Personally I am coming around to the conclusion that the concept of antisemitism is an unnecessary and misleading adjunct to the concept of racism which is a concept with universal application in common with all sound moral principles.

    • JWalters on February 19, 2019, 5:16 pm

      Excellent logic.

      • Brewer on February 19, 2019, 5:55 pm

        Thank you. Your comment is a relief as I had some trepidation about articulating these misgivings. During the writing I kept thinking of a phrase but couldn’t work it in. Emboldened now I think I have it:
        “Antisemitism is to racism what a bicycle is to a fish”.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius on February 19, 2019, 5:31 pm

      I agree.

      Plus, as Norman Finkelstein wrote in these pages, if antisemitism really were the huge problem it’s claimed to be, why would it be the go-to smear? This was in reference to the ridiculous anisemitism circus surrounding Corbyn in the UK, but is equally true in other contexts. The antisemitism smear works because it is practically guaranteed to provoke univeral outrage among the media and political class – ie the people who matter. In other words, it works precisely because hatred of Jews – as opposed to hatred of blacks, Gypsies or Catholics – is considered uniquely offensive. This would hardly be the case if Jews were truly an oppressed minority. Au contraire.

    • eljay on February 19, 2019, 6:53 pm

      Anti-Semitism – like homophobia – is a perfectly good term to describe a specific “focus” of hatred.

      Zionists have grievously tainted the term by using it as…
      – justification for; and
      – a shield against criticism of and accountability for,
      …the specific brand of evil they advocate, engage in, support and/or defend.

    • Donald on February 19, 2019, 8:36 pm

      “It does not seem to have occurred to Floyd that Pence’s prejudice applies equally to Atheists, Hindus, Muslims and the vast majority of human beings who do not subscribe to Pence’s particular form of lunacy. “

      Yeah, I’ve noticed that too. Of course I grew up around people who thought that if you weren’t baptized via total immersion you were going to Hell. A couple of my friends in college thought that— they thought I was going to hell for not being baptized correctly. It was nothing personal, just the rules they thought God laid down. I sort of resented it anyway. But it is funny that some otherwise sensible people think that if various fundamentalist Christians apply this logic to Jews somehow this is especially evil — antisemitic. Um no. It’s what they think about everyone who doesn’t believe exactly as they do.

      I don’t even bother pointing this out anymore, but you see it all the time. I think it has even appeared here a time or two in some posts. I am not a big fan of fundamentalist Christianity anyway, but still, this particular charge is false. ( Some might be antisemitic for other reasons, but if one wants to make that charge it has to be based on something else.)

      Floyd is generally a pretty good anti- imperialist writer, but he has his off days I guess.

      • RoHa on February 19, 2019, 9:25 pm

        “they thought I was going to hell for not being baptized correctly.”

        What’s wrong with that? I can’t think of any other reason why you are going to Hell.

      • Donald on February 20, 2019, 8:53 am

        “I can’t think of any other reason why you are going to Hell.”

        That’s the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.

      • MHughes976 on February 20, 2019, 1:09 pm

        You don’t cease to be prejudiced against Jews because you are equally prejudiced against lots of others.
        But it may be a bit unfair to see theological condemnation as prejudice since it is usually the result of an argument whose premises about providence and salvation have often been regarded as plausible.

      • RoHa on February 20, 2019, 10:03 pm

        “That’s the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.”

        I hope it will be a comfort to you when you are in Hell.

  6. Shingo on February 19, 2019, 5:11 pm

    Batya Ungar-Sargon is a fraud and a coward.

    I have repeatedly challenged her to explain why she is willing to attack Ilhan Omar, but doesn’t issue the same condemnation of Tom Friedman for saying far more serve criticisms, or the AIPAC affiliated lobbyists quoted on the Al Jazeera documentary about the Israeli Lobby.

    Needless to say, she has refused to respond.

    Following her slander of Omar, she was clearly shocked at the response she received the significant backlash from Ilhan’s defenders, including many Jews. She defended herself in the Forward with a totally disingenuous piece insisting there are non antisemitic ways to criticize AIPAC. Of course, she never bothered to outline how this is to be done.

    One gets the feeling that this was a defeat for the lobby and Israel’s attack dogs. They took on the wrong target and only served to highlight Omar’s profile and made her into a hero.

    I must say, even Peter Beinart came unhinged in his piece on the issue. He wrote the following:

    “Accusing a largely (though not officially) Jewish organization like AIPAC of buying politicians is different than accusing the NRA or the drug industry of buying politicians because modern history is not replete with murderous conspiracy theories about how gun owners and pharmaceutical executives secretly use their money to control governments”
    In other words, even if it is true that AIPAC is doing what any other lobby is doing, namely using money to influence politicians, we’re not allowed to talk about it because of the history of anti Semitism. This is insanity.

    If that was not bad enough, Fareed Zakaria then delivered a pious whitesplaining lecture to Omar and Tlaib, that they need to be extra careful when talking about Israel and the lobby because they were Muslims and women of colour.
    It was nauseating.

    • marc b. on February 19, 2019, 7:15 pm

      Good for Beinart. Credit where credit’s due.

    • echinococcus on February 19, 2019, 8:46 pm

      “even Peter Beinart came unhinged…”

      “Even”, nothing. The guy Beinart. Is. A. Zionist.
      He is unhinged by definition.
      Repeat, he’s a Zionist and any differences he may have with the current leaders of Zionism are between him and the Z direction. He’s trying hard to sell the idea that invaders are entitled to keep their loot. His official main enemy is the logically non-existant, ie absurd, concept of “Antisemitism”.

    • MHughes976 on February 20, 2019, 1:14 pm

      U-Sargon is an Assyrian infiltrator.

  7. Kay24 on February 20, 2019, 1:45 am

    Well, what do you know John Legend, who has always stood up for the Palestinians, says it is time progressives spoke up for the rights of the Palestinians. On that staunch Israeli supporter, Bill Maher’s, show Real Time. I guess that took Maher by surprise!

    “Legend said, “As progressives, we should also speak up for human rights for Palestinians, and for too long, I think, it has been out of balance for progressives to speak up for the rights of Palestinians.”

    https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/music/john-legend-says-it-s-time-to-speak-up-for-the-rights-of-palestinians-1.827387

  8. Eva Smagacz on February 20, 2019, 5:44 am

    Just joined by 8th defector, Joan Ryan, who chaired Labour Friends of Israel, and was infamously portrayed in Al-Jazeera’s “Israel Lobby (UK)” documentary, as a person that twisted canard of “antisemitism” to such a pretzel shape that it fitted just about anything. 197/213

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius on February 20, 2019, 9:13 am

      It’s astounding.

      I’ve been watching and reading MSM commentary on this, and not a single person has mentioned the fact that her eyes lit up when an agent of a non alligned foreign state mentioned the existence of a £1 million slush fund to ‘take down’ elected British MPs.

      Not a single one.

      Again, imagine for one second that an Iranian or Chinese or Russian – or even French or Finnish – agent was caught doing such a thing, and an MP ostensibly elected to serve the interests of her constituients was caught playing along. Particularly if she had just joined an organisaiton where a clear majority were ‘friends’ of that agent’s country.

      We would never hear the end of it. And rightly so. Yet here the silence is deafening.

      It really is astouding. Future historians of this era will study it with interest.

      Oh, and has she resigned as Labour Friends of Israel chair? Given that she’s no longer a member o f the Labour party? Or is that about as likely as her calling for a bye election to ask if the voters of Enfield are as keen on her representing a foreign state as she is?

    • amigo on February 20, 2019, 9:55 am

      Joan Ryan , the darling of J Post.

      “She also said that Winstanley had previously accused her of “belonging to a front group for the Israeli Embassy” because she is Jewish, adding “I utterly oppose the Israeli government.”

      Evidence please Joan.Or am I being antisemitic .

      https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Eighth-lawmaker-quits-Britains-Labour-Party-581161

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on February 20, 2019, 11:07 am

        But she isn’t Jewish! Which makes her unswerving alliegance to the selfstyled ‘Jewish state’ all the more absurd.

        As for Winstanley, he is a very careful writer. He has to be, because he knows that the minute he or any of his colleagues writes or tweets anything, it will instantly be scrutinised and the slightest error leapt upon to discredit everything he says. I’ve seen plenty of the usual suspects hurl the ol’ antisemitism smear at him, but am yet to see any of them point out factual errors in his work. I’ll wait.

      • Sibiriak on February 21, 2019, 1:20 am

        Maximus Decimus Meridius : But she isn’t Jewish!
        ———————————————————————

        Most Zionists aren’t.

  9. William3 on February 20, 2019, 11:29 am

    Looks like Ilhan’s first apology wasn’t enough. I guess they feel they need to humiliate her…..

    https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1097996992310054912?s=21

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius on February 20, 2019, 12:57 pm

      It’s Corbyn all over again. The similiarities are obvious.

      First trawling through years – in Corbyn’s case decades – of social media and other statements to find something, anything which could be twisted into ‘antisemitism’; then the apologies (for doing nothing wrong),;then the ‘meetings’ with ‘Jewish community leaders’ where nothing less than total grovelling is expected; then the demands for ‘inquiries’ whose results are never accepted….. and it’s still never ever enough.

      As you say, they don’t want dialogue, they don’t want compromise. They want public humiliation and, ultimately, either the complete neutering of their political stance and/or the end of their career. You cannot appease the unappeasable.

      • William3 on February 21, 2019, 8:15 am

        Indeed, Well said!

  10. Ossinev on February 20, 2019, 1:58 pm

    @MDM
    “They want public humiliation and, ultimately, either the complete neutering of their political stance and/or the end of their career. You cannot appease the unappeasable”

    Absolutely spot on. Jeremy Corbyn`s actions and reactions throughout this blatant Zionist Lobby smear campaign have been ones of appeasement by which I mean trying his best in an open and democratic manner to address “concerns ” raised. As you say the Israeli Firsters aren`t remotely interested in any investigations of allegations or any genuine attempts to address concerns raised – right from the start of the campaign they have been going for the jugular. Unfortunately what was needed and still is needed to expose this revolting campaign was and is a fight fire with fire response starting by making it absolutely clear that the Labour Party , its MP`s and its members are not being in any way Anti – Semitic when they condemn a state which has been illegally occupying another peoples land , is in continuing breach of International Law,the Geneva Conventions and UNSC resolutions and is a state which is openly practicing Apartheid Racist Laws. This ideally should be underpinned by a clear and unambiguous policy statement that holding these views which are critical of a state`s action are not Anti – Semitic. If challenged then those challenging should be asked specifically how support for International Laws and condemnation of a country in regular ongoing violation of them etc is remotely “Anti – Semitic”. This should be followed in turn by a clear statistical statement from the Labour Party outlining all of the “accusations” and “allegations” of supposed Anti – Semitism as opposed to Anti – Zionism , those that have been investigated and those that have been proven together with an outline of the actions taklen to address. The statistics will show that only a miniscule number of A/S actions/statements as opposed to Anti – Zionist statements or actions have emanated from the Labour Party and its half million plus members. There should also be a clear invitation to the Conservative Party to clarify what they have done to address allegations and accusations of Anti – Semitism.

    The longer this disgusting blatant smear campaign continues without a proper and measured retaliation by the Labour Leadership the more individual members of the party will question the strength and integrity of Labour .In addition perversely it may generate actual Anti – Semitism within the UK public which see the accusations as being manufactured and is sick and tired of the constant tedious laughable headlines. At the end of the day this is probably the end goal of the Israel First Lobby in the UK as in “I told you so”

  11. Ossinev on February 20, 2019, 2:21 pm

    Borrowed with thanks from a Haaretz reader`s comments:

    “Jeremy Corbyn is a raving anti-semite!! Just look at the undisputed proof!! 1. In October 1936, Jeremy Corbyn’s mother participated in the battle of Cable Street in defence of British Jews after British fascists had staged an assault on the area. Corbyn was raised in a household passionately opposed to antisemitism in all its forms. 2. In 23rd April 1977, Corbyn organised a counter-demonstrationto protect Wood Green from a neo-nazi march through the district. The area had a significant Jewish population. 3. On 7 November 1990, Corbyn signed a motion condemning the rise of antisemitism in the UK 4. In 2002 Jeremy Corbyn led a clean-up and vigil at Finsbury Park Synagogue which had been vandalised in an anti-Semitic attack 5. On 30 April 2002, Corbyn tabled a motion in the House of Commons condemning ananti-Semitic attackon a London Synagogue 6. On 26 November 2003, Jeremy Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemningterrorist attacks on two synagogues 7. In February 2009, Jeremy Corbyn signed a parliamentary motion condemning a fascist for establishing a website to host antisemitic materials 8. On 24th March 2009, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising British Jews who resisted the Holocaust by risking their lives to save potential victims 9. Nine years ago, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising “Jewish News”for its pioneering investigation into the spread ofAntisemitism on Facebook 10. On 9 February 2010, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion calling for an investigation into Facebook and its failure to prevent the spread of antisemitic materials on its site. 11. On 27 October 2010, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising the late Israeli Prime Minister for pursuing a two state solution to the Israel/Palestine question. 12. On 13 June 2012, Corbyn sponsored and signed a motion condemning the BBC for cutting a Jewish Community television programme from its schedule. 13. 1 October 2013, Corbyn appeared on the BBC to defend Ralph Miliband against vile antisemitic attacks by the UK press. 14. Five years ago Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning antisemitism in sport. 15. On 1 March 2013, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning and expressing concern at growing levels of antisemitism in European football. 16. On 9 January 2014, Jeremy Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising Holocaust education programmes that had taken 20,000 British students to Auschwitz. 17. On 22 June 2015, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion expressing concern at the neo-nazi march being planned for an area of London with a significant Jewish population. 18. On 9 October 2016, Corbyn, close to tears, commemorated the 1936 Battle of Cable Street and recalled the role his mother played in defending London’s Jewish community. 19. On 3 December 2016, Corbyn made a visit to Terezin Concentration Camp when Jewish people were murdered by the Nazis. It was Jeremy’s third visit to such a camp, all of which were largely unreported in the most read UK papers. 20. Last year, a widely-endorsed 2018 academic report found ninety-five serious reporting failures in the reporting of the LabourAntisemitism story with the worst offenders The Sun, the Mail & the BBC. 21. On 28 February 2016, five months after becoming leader, Jeremy Corbyn appointed Baroness Royall to investigate antisemitism at Oxford University Labour Club. 22. On 27 April 2016 Corbyn suspended an MP pending an investigation into antisemitism. 23. A day later, Corbyn suspended the three times Mayor of London after complaints of antisemitic comments. Party. 24. On 29 April 2016, Corbyn launched an inquiry into the prevalence of antisemitism in the Labour Party. In spite of later changes in how the inquiry was reported, it was initially praised by Jewish community organisations. 25. In Corbyn’s first seven months as leader of the Labour Party, just ten complaints were received about antisemitism. 90% of those were suspended from the Labour Party within 24 hours. 26. In September 2017, Corbyn backed a motion at Labour’s annual conference introducing a new set of rules regarding antisemitism. 27. In the six months that followed the introduction of the new code of conduct, to March 2018, 94% of the fifty-four people accused of antisemitism remained suspended or barred from Labour Party membership. Three of the fifty-four were exonerated. 28. When Jennie Formby became general secretary of the party last year, she appointed a highly-qualified in-house Counsel, as recommended in the Chakrabarti Report. 29. In 2018, Labour almost doubled the size of its staff team handling investigations and dispute processes. 30. Last year, to speed up the handling of antisemitism cases, smaller panels of 3-5 NEC members were established to enable cases to be heard more quickly. 31. Since 2018, every complaint made about antisemitism is allocated its own independent specialist barrister to ensure due process is followed. 32. The entire backlog of cases outstanding upon Jennie Formby becoming General Secretary of the Labour Party was cleared within 6 months of Jennie taking up her post. 33. Since September 2018, Labour has doubled the size of its National Constitutional Committee (NCC) – its senior disciplinary panel – from 11 to 25 members to enable it to process cases more quickly. 34. Under Formby and Labour’s left-run NEC, NCC arranged elections at short notice to ensure the NCC reached its new full capacity without delay. 35. Since later 2018, the NCC routinely convenes a greater number of hearing panels to allow cases to be heard and finalised without delay. 36. In 2018, the NEC established a ‘Procedures Working Group’ to lead reforms in the way disciplinary cases are handled. 37. The NEC adopted the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and all eleven examples of antisemitism attached to it. 38. A rule change agreed at Conference in 2018 means that all serious complaints, including antisemitism, are dealt with nationally to ensure consistency. 39. Last year, Jennie Formby wrote to the admins and moderators of Facebook groups about how they can effectively moderate online spaces and requested that any discriminatory content be reported to the Labour Party for investigation. 40. Since last year, no one outside Labour’s Governance and Legal Unit can be involved in decision-making on antisemitism investigations. This independence allows decisions free from political influence to be taken. NOW TELL ME THERE IS NO POLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST HIM AND THE UK LABOUR PARTY”

    • amigo on February 20, 2019, 3:10 pm

      0ssinev , that,s all well and good but the only way Jeremy Corbyn can prove he is not an antisemite is to resign and climb to the top of Nelson,s pillar and shout out loud that there is no Palestine and then jump off.

      Even then the Joan Ryans of this world would continue to slander his memory.

  12. Sibiriak on February 21, 2019, 5:49 am

    “For the first time in many years, anti-Semitism is killing people again in France,” Macron said at the annual dinner of the CRIF umbrella of French Jewish groups. He added that French authorities “did not know how to react effectively,” calling this a “failure.”

    “Anti-Semitism is hiding itself behind anti-Zionism. I said so in the past: anti-Zionism is one of the forms of modern anti-Semitism,” stressed the French president, as quoted by i24NEWS.

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/259372

    • Sibiriak on February 21, 2019, 7:52 am

      [Macron] said applying the working definition of antisemitism drawn up by the IHRA would help guide police forces, magistrates and teachers in their everyday work.

      Since the IHRA approved the wording in 2016, some critics of Israel have said it could be used to suppress Palestinian rights activists. The definition states antisemitism can take the form of “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour”.

      Macron said he thought that view was correct.

      “Anti-Zionism is one of the modern forms of antisemitism,” the French leader said. “Behind the negation of Israel’s existence, what is hiding is the hatred of Jews.”

      Sylvain Maillard, a politician in Macron’s centrist La République En Marche, said this week that anti-Zionism must be made a punishable offence in France, arguing that it was too often being used as a cover for antisemitism. But the adoption of a new working definition of antisemitism in France, to include anti-Zionism, will not at this stage mean changing the law.

      https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/21/emmanuel-macron-says-france-antisemitism-has-reached-worst-levels-since-second-world-war

      • Talkback on February 21, 2019, 8:23 am

        Well, Macron must have missed that even in the most Zionist friendliest definitions of antisemitism we read: “taking into account the overall context”.

        What does that mean? That it is context-dependent if the negation of Israel’s existence is based on antisemitism or not. And being judeo-fixated he doesn’t understand that there could be reasons to negate Israel’s existence which have to do with supporting rights of Palestinians.

        Anybody could up with a definition of antipalestinianism which includes the negation of a State of Palestine’s exisence in the all of Palestine. That’s how stupid this definition of antisemitism is.

      • Sibiriak on February 21, 2019, 8:51 am

        “taking into account the overall context”.
        ———————————————————–

        An anti-Zionist will be presumed to be an anti-Semite. They might be able plead innocent on the grounds of extenuating context, but the burden of proof will be very heavy and weigh solely upon the accused.

        Anybody could up with a definition of antipalestinianism

        Sure, but not just anybody has the power to impose such definitions on society.

      • Talkback on February 21, 2019, 9:49 am

        Sibiriak: “but the burden of proof will be very heavy and weigh solely upon the accused.”

        Only in the military courts of the Apartheid Junta. Not in real democracies.

      • Keith on February 21, 2019, 10:31 am

        SIBIRIAK- “Sure, but not just anybody has the power to impose such definitions on society.”

        Yes, and control of the narrative is a key to controlling the debate and of social power and control in general.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on February 21, 2019, 11:43 am

        Where are all the folks who changed their FB profiles to “Je suis Charlie?” Because free speech was supposedly so very important to them and must be defended at all costs. I guess it all depends on just who is being offended by free speech, doesn’t it?

        And if Macron is so bothered about denying Israel’s ‘right to exist’, perhaps he can do what nobody else can do and show us the borders within which said ‘right to exist’ exists. And then suggest how he intends to penalise Israel’s activities outside of those legal borders.

      • RoHa on February 21, 2019, 10:26 pm

        “Not in real democracies.”

        No, that applies everywhere now. Presumption of innocence, due process, and so forth are all gone.

      • Sibiriak on February 22, 2019, 12:20 am

        Talkback: […] even in the most Zionist friendliest definitions of antisemitism we read: “taking into account the overall context”.
        ———————————————————————————-

        Well then, what kind of “overall context” would exculpate an anti-Zionist accused of anti-Semitism? What “overall context” would prove an anti-Zionist guilty? Some examples, please.

        Keep in mind that this definition equating anti-Zionism with anti–Semitism would be used to “guide police forces, magistrates and teachers in their everyday work“. Are you sure the French magistrates, teachers and police (who have been doing such a stand-up job with the “Yellow Vest” protesters) are going to be inclined to make subtle distinctions based on an unelaborated notion of “overall context”?

        Keep in mind also that accusations of antisemitism alone, apart from any legal proceedings, can be enough to destroy reputations and livelihoods. Enshrining in law new bases for such accusations is surely not something to be taken lightly, is it?

      • Keith on February 22, 2019, 12:31 am

        TALKBACK- “Only in the military courts of the Apartheid Junta.”

        I think that Sibiriak is referring to the court of public opinion which is easily influenced by the dominant elite which includes significant numbers of Zionists.

        TALKBACK- “Not in real democracies.”

        And where might we find these “real democracies?” Surely not in the Western oligarchies with elections.

      • Talkback on February 22, 2019, 1:11 pm

        Sibiriak: “Well then, what kind of “overall context” would exculpate an anti-Zionist accused of anti-Semitism?”

        Not defaming Jews as Jews.

      • Sibiriak on February 22, 2019, 9:08 pm

        Talkback:Not defaming Jews as Jews.

        ——————————————

        Don’t be obtuse. This new definition of anti-Semitism backed by Macron says anti-Zionism can defame Jews as Jews, i.e. be anti-Semitic.

        The French government will instruct police officers and magistrates to investigate critics of Israel who question its right to exist as a Jewish nation-state for possible violations of the law against anti-Semitic hate speech, President Emmanuel Macron said on Wednesday night.

        “Anti-Semitism hides more and more behind the mask of anti-Zionism,” Macron said in an address to the Council of Jewish Institutions in France. “Anti-Zionism is one of the modern forms of anti-Semitism.”

        You say this is nothing to be concerned about, since, you say, “overall context” will be taken into account (in that “real democracy”, France) to determine when anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism and when it is not

        But you didn’t answer the question at all. I repeat: What “overall context” would prove an anti-Zionist guilty? Some examples, please.

      • Talkback on February 23, 2019, 7:31 am

        Sibiriak: “You say this is nothing to be concerned about, since, you say, “overall context” will be taken into account (in that “real democracy”, France) to determine when anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism and when it is not.”

        All I said that I countered your “but the burden of proof will be very heavy and weigh solely upon the accused” will not happen in real democracies. I was refering to the principle in dubio pro reo which is never upheld in an Israeli miliatary court.

        I never said that it will be taken into account. I said that Zionists and their supporters don’t take it into account. They simly claim that negating the existence of Israel is antisemitic despite of the the definition which demands to take into account the overall context.

        And I never said that France is a real democracy. It obviously isn’t a democractic principle to prosecute anyone who doesn’t defame a group as such, but rejects an ideology that not all of its members endorse. And regarding the US: It isn’t a democratic principle to criminalize to boycott or call for boycott against a state. Both cases are examples of stalinist and not democratic principles.

        Sibiriak: “But you didn’t answer the question at all. I repeat: What “overall context” would prove an anti-Zionist guilty? Some examples, please.”

        You asked two questions. I answered the first which is just the opposite of your second. Your first:

        “Well then, what kind of “overall context” would exculpate an anti-Zionist accused of anti-Semitism?”

        M y answer: Not defaming Jews as Jews. So the logical answer to your second question “What “overall context” would prove an anti-Zionist guilty?” is: Defaming Jews as Jews. Example of antisemitism: “Jews shouldn’t have a state, because they want to control the world.”: Antisemitic context: “Jews want to control the world”.

        I think that one shoudln’t be concerned with being pro equality pro international and human rights law and even pro single state solution instead of being “antizionist”. We should leave the latter to True Torah Jews and Neturei Karta. To be “antizionist” is nothing else than being trapped in a Zionist framing. And one can easly be accused of singling Israel out.

        This for example is a far better approach:
        “How to build an opposition: Lessons from South African Apartheid

        What can the Israeli left learn from South Africa? Instead of trying to defeat its right-wing rivals, the opposition should propose a platform of equality and humanism.”
        https://972mag.com/south-africas-apartheid-can-teach-israeli-opposition/140231/

      • MHughes976 on February 23, 2019, 9:51 am

        It is true that if the IHRA definition were the letter of the law the opportunity would arise for a defendant accused of anti-S to claim that the overall context – even if the dreaded claim that the foundation of Israel was a racist endeavour had been made – vindicates him/her. Doubtless people would, if it ever came to this, argue that their general anti-racism and total abstention from negative remarks about Jews was the relevant and decisive context. What you think would happen depends on what you think of the courts and the judges who would decide and of the nature of the political pressures that would be upon them.
        If Macron chooses to go beyond this so-far friendliest to Zionism definition and add the even friendlier stipulation that anti-Z is anti-S with no more ado then for him and for any legal system acting on his ideas no defence from context would be relevant. Mind you, we are not quite at that point in Western legal systems yet. Defining Z would be necessary and would be quite a problem.

      • Sibiriak on February 23, 2019, 10:15 am

        talkback: I never said that [“overall context”] will be taken into account. I said that Zionists and their supporters don’t take it into account.

        [….]All I said that I countered your “but the burden of proof will be very heavy and weigh solely upon the accused” will not happen in real democracies.

        […]And I never said that France is a real democracy.

        ———————————————

        Okay. But since I was talking about France , I can’t see how your remarks “counter” mine.

        In any case, thanks for pointing out that in some nowhere-to-be-found “real democracy”, this kind of anti-Zionism = anti-Semitic law would be no problem at all.

      • Talkback on February 24, 2019, 5:52 am

        Sibiriak: “In any case, thanks for pointing out that in some nowhere-to-be-found “real democracy”, this kind of anti-Zionism = anti-Semitic law would be no problem at all.”

        What I have pointed out was the principle of in dubio pro reo works in real democracies. I also pointed out that prosecuting anyone who doesn’t defame a group as such, but rejects an ideology that not even all of its members endorse is not based on democratic principles. I also pointed out that this particular definition includes “taking into account the overall context”. I actually don’t know how France is actually going to handle this. And I frankly don’t care, because nobody who endorses equality and humanity, etc. has to narrow down himself to being an “anti-Zionist” and fall into this trap.

    • Talkback on February 21, 2019, 9:41 am

      Meanwhile in France:

      “France has reportedly threatened to boycott the Eurovision song contest in protest over an Israeli television series which portrays France’s entry in the popular competition as a terrorist.”
      https://www.rt.com/news/452053-israel-france-boycott-eurovision/

      France’s entry is a gay Muslim. He’s only fault is that he can’t cry “antisemitism”.

    • Keith on February 21, 2019, 10:42 am

      SIBIRIAK- (Macron quote)- “For the first time in many years, anti-Semitism is killing people again in France….”

      Yes, but how many people compared to non-Jews? Notice the typical complete lack of statistical corroboration that French Jews are not as safe (or safer) than French non-Jews. This is power cloaked in victimhood. This is control of the narrative.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on February 21, 2019, 11:48 am

        “This is power cloaked in victimhood.”

        Well put.

        To repeat what Norman Finkelstein said in these pages: If Jews were really so victimised, then why would charges of antisemitism be the go-to smear? Why are such charges not subjected to the scrutiny which surrounds other similar charges? It’s precisely because Jews as a group are powerful (even saying that is a ‘trope’ these days) that even the slightest perceived criticism of them is taken so very seriously. Who would give a toss if Corbyn, for example, were perceived to be anti-gypsy? Precisely nobody. Or at least, nobody that mattered.

      • mondonut on February 21, 2019, 11:59 am

        @Keith, Yes, but how many people compared to non-Jews?

        Yes. We absolutely need to know how many non-Jews are being killed for being Jews.

      • amigo on February 21, 2019, 4:09 pm

        “Yes. We absolutely need to know how many non-Jews are being killed for being Jews.” m nutter the Irish Catholic.

        Yes. We also absolutely need to know how many non Jews are the slightest bit concerned with how many non Jews are being killed for being Jews and how many Jews are concerned with how many non Jews are killed for being Jews.

        If I were a Jew I would be pretty upset if some Non Jew went and got himself killed for pretending to be a Jew (What ever that is) and stepping on the God given Jewish Right to victimhood.

        But just in case one non Jew is losing sleep over the issue , perhaps you can provide the answer.I am sure you have it tucked away somewhere in your hasbara files.

        Psssst , Mondonut . try not to embarrass the Irish people by posting this nonsense.We have spent decades trying to get beyond being called Tick Irish Micks.

      • RoHa on February 21, 2019, 10:31 pm

        “Who would give a toss if Corbyn, for example, were perceived to be anti-gypsy? ”

        Gypsies might. And a gypsy wench might then cast a curse that would turn him into an Old English sheepdog.

      • RoHa on February 21, 2019, 10:33 pm

        “try not to embarrass the Irish people by posting this nonsense.We have spent decades trying to get beyond being called Tick Irish Micks.”

        It would help if Irish people were to say loudly that Americans are not Irish, even if they pretend to be.

        And ban those awful songs.

      • Keith on February 22, 2019, 12:21 am

        MONDONUT- “Yes. We absolutely need to know how many non-Jews are being killed for being Jews.”

        No, we need to know what the murder rate of Jews per 100,000 is compared to the murder rate of non-Jews per 100,000. And the assault rate of Jews per 100,000 is compared to the assault rate of non-Jews per 100,000. Then we can compare the relative safety of Jews versus non-Jews, and see if there is any significant change. Numbers, Mondonut, show me the numbers or shut up.

        As for “anti-Semitism” loosely defined, including criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism is worse than useless. It means that an increase in in Israeli atrocities eliciting criticism will be turned on its head to be portrayed as an increase in anti-Semitism. The more you abuse others, the greater your victimhood!

      • mondonut on February 22, 2019, 10:36 am

        @Keith No, we need to know what the murder rate of Jews per 100,000…

        No, you simply need know if Jews are being killed again for no reason other than being Jews.

      • amigo on February 22, 2019, 11:58 am

        RoHa ,which particular awful songs did you have in mind.

        I need to know which of the thousands you dont like.
        Give me your best English Australian opinion.

      • Talkback on February 22, 2019, 1:33 pm

        mondonut: “No, you simply need know if Jews are being killed again for no reason other than being Jews.”

        Nonisraeli Jews, Israeli minor Jews, Israeli Jewish soldiers/reservists or Israel’s illegal settler Jews?

      • Mooser on February 22, 2019, 2:19 pm

        “Give me your best English Australian opinion…”

        And what a sterling opinion it will surely be.

      • Keith on February 22, 2019, 2:47 pm

        MONDONUT- “No, you simply need know if Jews are being killed again for no reason other than being Jews.”

        In evaluating relative safety, the motivation of the attacker is almost always debatable and hardly the main concern. Are Jews relatively safe compared to Gentiles or aren’t they? Are the statistics for Ashkenazi Jews comparable to white non-Jews, or aren’t they? Statistical data makes it abundantly clear that Gentiles of color are relatively unsafe compared to whites, and unless you can demonstrate that Jews are less safe than other whites, the imputed motivation of the attacker is hardly a reason to claim victimhood. And your lack of concern for the relative safety of your fellow citizens of color speaks volumes about your motivation and your ongoing spurious claims of victimhood. Don’t you think it unseemly that a relatively privileged group complains so much about being society’s victims?

      • RoHa on February 22, 2019, 10:04 pm

        “No, you simply need know if Jews are being killed again for no reason other than being Jews.”

        What criteria do you use to distinguish between a Jew being killed for no reason other than being a Jew, a Jew being killed for doing something wrong, and a Jew being killed for reasons unconnected with either his conduct or his Jewishness?

      • RoHa on February 22, 2019, 10:38 pm

        “I need to know which of the thousands you dont like.”

        There are a lot of good Irish songs, but such stuff as “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling”, and “Kelly from the Emerald Isle” must surely make any self-respecting Irishman cringe.

        The Irish Government needs to set up a committee to track down those horrors and expunge them from history.

        While they’re at it, it would be helpful if they could work out which songs actually are Irish.

        “Whiskey in the Jar” and “Black Velvet Band” are Irish, and damned good songs as well. “Danny Boy” has a wonderful melody. It comes from the Little People, and is about as Irish as you can get, but the English lyrics were written by an Englishman, so I’m not sure it counts.

        And on various websites I have seen “Wild Mountain Thyme”, “Donald Where’s Yoor Troosers”, “A Man’s a Man, For a’ That”, “Leaving of Liverpool”, “The Band Played Waltzing Matilda”, and “South Australia” all claimed as Irish.

        It’s flat out, unconscionable, cultural appropriation!

      • gamal on February 23, 2019, 3:42 am

        “cultural appropriation!” …..O’ppropriation..it’s an old time tradition.

      • gamal on February 23, 2019, 5:04 am

        “O’ppropriation”

        To preempt any complaints I should explain the above is a Ni O’ligism of that ilk. Sometimes even I suspect I may on occasion drink a little too little.

      • Mooser on February 23, 2019, 12:18 pm

        You want “cultural appropriation”, “RoHa”?

        What price the “Essgee” G&S productions?

      • RoHa on February 23, 2019, 9:28 pm

        G&S are regarded as the joint property of the British Empire.

        Actually, cultural appropriation is usually fine, (“The Holy Ground” is a rewrite of “Old Swansea Town”, and I prefer it to the original) but there comes a stage when adaptation turns into foul, barbaric, vandalism. An egregious example of that is the Hollywood remake of The Ladykillers. That Hollywood was not immediately blasted from the face of the Earth is clear proof that Divine Justice is a baseless myth.

      • Mooser on February 24, 2019, 12:18 pm

        “G&S are regarded as the joint property of the British Empire.”

        In that case, Canada significantly raises the average.

      • RoHa on February 24, 2019, 8:07 pm

        Very much so. Way back in the sixties I recall seeing some excellent TV versions produced by a Canadian troupe. And, as far as I can tell, the Canadians keep up the good work.

        Though we do know of one exception.

  13. Ossinev on February 21, 2019, 11:10 am

    @amigo
    “0ssinev , that,s all well and good but the only way Jeremy Corbyn can prove he is not an antisemite is to resign and climb to the top of Nelson,s pillar and shout out loud that there is no Palestine and then jump off”

    Agreed but as you indicate there is no way that Hasbara Central wants JC to ” prove” that he is not an Anti – Semite. It is not part of their strategy which is to keep the A/S pot boiling. However everything and anything by way of proof that there is an ongoing strategy being organised by a foreign country to discredit a UK politician can only help undermine the strategy.

    Speaking of Hasbara Central they must be running around in ever decreasing circles and be more than a little pissed off as a result of the recent defection of the three Conservative MP`s to the “Independent Group”. With the defection of the Labour Seven Dwarves and surprisingly late in the day a very tall dwarf in the form of Joan Ryan of Al Jazeera Israel Lobby Expose fame they could at least sell the event as basically a reaction against the “Institutionalised Anti – Semitism” in the Labour Party. However the Con 3 have defected over Brexit and the Right Wing drift within the Con party with nary a word about Anti – Semitism – after all they couldn`t very well say they are leaving their party because of “Anti – Semitic ” issues in the Opposition Party.Now that they are on board this Independent Group ship somehow they will have to be persuaded by HC to eg claim that part of their decision was to aid their ex Labour MP`s in their glorious heroic struggle against A/S. They will soon be out of a job and will need some income support so shouldn`t be too difficult to find interested donors.

  14. Talkback on February 21, 2019, 11:39 am

    Jonathan Cook, brilliant as always:

    “Anti-semitism vigilantes are feeding the far-right
    Has anyone else noticed how almost anything you say nowadays – if it’s leftwing – can suddenly be cited as proof of your anti-semitism?
    That is, if you haven’t already been denounced as a Kremlin stooge. …”
    https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2019-02-16/anti-semitism-vigilantes-are-feeding-the-far-right/

  15. Ossinev on February 22, 2019, 7:33 am

    Meanwhile back here in the Institutionally Anti – Semitic UK – not in the growing right wing of the Conservative Party you understand only in the left wing of the Corbyn led Labour Party the latest rat to emerge fom the Zio sewer and resign from the said Labour Party is one Ian Austin MP.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47330079
    Mr Austin appears to have friends in the highest of all places on earth , AIPAC , and just loves visiting Zioland at donors expenses of course. Witness his recent foreign trips as listed in the Parliamentary Register of MP`s interests:
    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=11553

    Now if I was one of his constituents I would be asking him why he needed to spend his supposedly valuable constituency time cosying up to an American Pro- Israel Lobbying Group.

    Definitely a stench here.

    NB Austin is not joining the new “Independent Group”. I do wonder why. Perhaps he has been instructed not to by Herr Erdan via AIPAC ? Perhaps he will form a new one man Labour Zionist Party ? Stuff Brexit,stuff the crisis in the National Health Service – protecting Israel is his priority.

  16. Ossinev on February 22, 2019, 9:29 am

    More on the ” highly principled ” Ian Austin MP (or is it MK wannabe?):
    “I think that the rest of the Middle East should be looking at Israel and learning from it,” Austin says. “If those countries had done what Israel has done in the past 70 years, think what a different place the Middle East would be. Israel is a beacon of democracy in a really difficult part of the world. If you look at the technological advancements, the contribution to culture — all of these things, it’s been remarkable.”
    And again from the same Times of Israel article:
    “Israel Apartheid Week is a complete disgrace,” says Austin. “Apartheid was a strictly enforced system of racial segregation where black people and white people weren’t allowed to get married or live in the same areas. Israel could not be further than that. In South Africa, the legal system enforced racism and segregation; in Israel it does the opposite.”

    (It must be noted that in Israel, there is no civil marriage and members of different faiths cannot legally be married inside the country. However, if married abroad, mixed-faith couples’ marriages are officially recognized by the state.) = Editors slimy just in case it is pointed out comment.
    So according to Austin not allowing black and whites to get legally married was Apartheid but not allowing Israeli Jews and Israeli Muslims to marry is totally not Apartheid. Perish the thought – Zioland could “not be further from that”

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-rural-english-town-fights-anti-semitism-thanks-to-a-holocaust-survivors-son/

    The level of hypocrisy being spouted by this creep is astounding given the blatant segregation policies implemented through the Nation State Law and all the more so at a time when the Yahoo has joined forces with the cuddly Judeo-Nazi Kahanists in Zioland . Truly a non – Apartheid beacon unto the nations.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius on February 22, 2019, 12:32 pm

      Ugh. And look at all that uncritical, fawning coverage Austin is getting. Which is interesting as I’d never heard of him until he started becoming an ‘antisemitism’ obsessive. Same with Joan Ryan and Luciana Berger and all the other ‘Independent’ non-entitities.

      “Now if I was one of his constituents I would be asking him why he needed to spend his supposedly valuable constituency time cosying up to an American Pro- Israel Lobbying Group.”

      Me too.

      But you know what we’d be called if we did ask that, don’t you?

      Is support for Israel really a major issue among in Dudley, whihch he supposedly represents? Are the good people of that town really badgering him about it? I doubt it.

      And as I think we agree, Corbyn has handled this very poorly and it’s hard to see how he can ever recover. If only he had been as forthright as George Galloway. But then unlike Corbyn, Galloway is not a professional politician or even a member of Labour, so has little to lose. Which is the whole point, as I’ve been saying for years. Make any and all meaningful criticism of Isreal into such a headache that nobody who has anything to lose will dare.

    • RoHa on February 22, 2019, 9:55 pm

      ““If those countries had done what Israel has done in the past 70 years,”

      Expelling the natives and looting their property? Tricky. They are the natives.

  17. fishbiol on March 12, 2019, 9:37 pm

    Perhaps a more accurate term is needed to describe criticism of any Jew.

    Since “semite” can mean three things and “semetic” can refer to a family of languages. But “antisemitic” is defined only as hostility toward or discrimination against Jews.

    Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary online.

    Definition of Semite
    1a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs
    b : a descendant of these peoples
    2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

    Definition of Semitic (Entry 1 of 2)
    1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic
    2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
    3 : JEWISH

    Definition of anti-Semite
    : a person who has a hostile, prejudiced attitude toward Jews

    Definition of anti-Semitic
    : relating to or characterized by anti-Semitism : feeling or showing hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a cultural, racial, or ethnic group

Leave a Reply