We’re all familiar with the tendency of pundits and writers to divide the Jewish community into “good Jews” and “bad Jews.” While I don’t generally consider this crossing the line into anti-semitisim, I do find it objectionable.
As Sophia has blogged over at Solomonia:
I think we are in fact being stereotyped into “good Jews” and “bad Jews,” with the bad ones being from the “wing” of Judaism which belongs to AIPAC, as if there were any such thing, and as if Israel for that matter were simply going around deliberately sabotaging Obama’s peace plans, or as if there were no wars or terrorism in the Middle East and as if there were no history of violence against Jews there, and as if Israelis just want to crush Gazans for the sake of being mean.
Worst of all supporters of Israel [are being lumped] into a far Right, warlike, “neocon”, mode, which is per se “bad”, regardless of the complexities of the situation in the Middle East and regardless of the variability of American Jews.
And, one of the few things that Leon Wieseltier nailed in his otherwise turgid criticism of blogger Andrew Sullivan was this passage:
Contemporary Israel is “a betrayal of many Jewish virtues.” I thought that human rights, if this is what Sullivan sees Israel abusing, is not a Jewish virtue, or a Christian virtue, or a Muslim virtue, but a human virtue. Israel is a secular state. The primary offense of Israeli brutality in Gaza was not against Maimonides. But Sullivan desperately wants the Jews to be good Jews, to be the best Jews they can be. He wants edifying Jews. Don’t they realize that if they fail to edify, they may lose his friendship? The fools! Jews ought to determine their beliefs and their actions apologetically, so as not to disappoint “goyim like me.”
But John Mearsheimer has taken the simplistic, objectifying task of categorizing Jews to a new low. In a speech delivered yesterday at The Jerusalem Fund, titled “The Future of Palestine,” he extends the hateful Israel-Apartheid South Africa comparison to this inevitable conclusion:
American Jews who care deeply about Israel can be divided into three broad categories. The first two are what I call “righteous Jews” and the “new Afrikaners,” which are clearly definable groups that think about Israel and where it is headed in fundamentally different ways. The third and largest group is comprised of those Jews who care a lot about Israel, but do not have clear-cut views on how to think about Greater Israel and apartheid. Let us call this group the “great ambivalent middle.”
Righteous Jews have a powerful attachment to core liberal values…..To give you a better sense of what I mean when I use the term righteous Jews, let me give you some names of people and organizations that I would put in this category. The list would include Noam Chomsky, Roger Cohen, Richard Falk, Norman Finkelstein, Tony Judt, Tony Karon, Naomi Klein, MJ Rosenberg, Sara Roy, and Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss fame, just to name a few. I would also include many of the individuals associated with J Street and everyone associated with Jewish Voice for Peace, as well as distinguished international figures such as Judge Richard Goldstone. Furthermore, I would apply the label to the many American Jews who work for different human rights organizations, such as Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch.
On the other side we have the new Afrikaners, who will support Israel even if it is an apartheid state…..I would classify most of the individuals who head the Israel lobby’s major organizations as new Afrikaners. That list would include Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Ronald Lauder of the World Jewish Congress, and Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America, just to name some of the more prominent ones. I would also include businessmen like Sheldon Adelson, Lester Crown, and Mortimer Zuckerman as well as media personalities like Fred Hiatt and Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, and Martin Peretz of the New Republic. It would be easy to add more names to this list.
The key to determining whether the lobby can protect apartheid Israel over the long run is whether the great ambivalent middle sides with the new Afrikaners or the righteous Jews. The new Afrikaners have to win that fight decisively for Greater Israel to survive as a racist state.
There is no question that the present balance of power favors the new Afrikaners…..I believe that most of the Jews in the great ambivalent middle will not defend apartheid Israel but will either keep quiet or side with the righteous Jews against the new Afrikaners, who will become increasingly marginalized over time. And once that happens, the lobby will be unable to provide cover for Israel’s racist policies toward the Palestinians in the way it has in the past.
So, what type of Jew are you? (C’mon, it’s easy, since we fall into just three categories: Evil Racists, Noble Liberals or the Cowardly Undecided.)
Do you want to join the ranks of “Righteous Jews,” who include loathsome crackpots like Philip Weiss, Norm Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky? (Since when did being “righteous” include making jokes about Auschwitz or defending Holocaust deniers or obsessing over “Jewish control” of the media and political parties?)
I’m sure, by the way, that borrowing the term “Righteous Jews” from “Righteous Gentiles” was not accidental. By comparing these supposed paragons of the Jewish community to those who saved Jewish lives during the Holocaust gives Mearsheimer a twofer—those Jews who are not “righteous” are, by default, not only Afrikaners, but turning a blind eye to Nazi-type genocide.
Reading the text of Mearsheimer’s speech actually gives me some sublime pleasure. No longer does he even attempt to qualify his views with statements such as how the creation of Israel was a “wonderful thing” or that the “Israel Lobby” is not the “Jewish Lobby.” He’s come completely out of the anti-Zionist closet, spouting hateful, simplistic rhetoric that is no longer hidden behind the façade of respectable academia.
Meet Alfred Lambremont Webre—a self-described futurist, peace activist and international human rights lawyer.
Mr. Webre’s resume includes stints as a guest expert on Iran’s Press TV. He claimed that Operation Cast Lead was actually an Israeli plot to seize natural gas supplies. And, he had this to say about U.S.-Saudi relations during the war in Gaza:
“On the day of September 11, 2001 [attack], which was a false flag operation carried out by President George W. Bush in concert with his father George H.W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the US in the only aircraft allowed to fly in the entire continental United States and Canada,” Webre told Press TV.
“So I think it was much more to do with family ties and with an agreement between the Bush family, which is a Zionist family, and their agreement to go along with the Israeli attempted extermination of the Palestinian people, and the Saudi royal family being on that fix and being surprised by the resistance of Hamas, which has come out as a clear democratic winner on the side of constitutional order,” he added.
Mr. Webre also believes in the existence of extra-terrestrials. In principle, I’m OK with that. I’m not one of those people who claims to have been repeatedly abducted and anal-probed by flying saucers, but I do think it’s likely that sentient life exists elsewhere in this vast universe.
But, Mr. Webre really, really believes in extra-terrestrials. So much so, that he was quite upset about Stephen Hawking’s recent comments that alien life might prove to be hostile.
In fact, Mr. Webre has figured out Stephen Hawkings true agenda:
In this larger context, Stephen Hawking’s April 25, 2010 public statements about extraterrestrial civilizations can be plausibly interpreted as a part of a larger psyops – psychological operation – by U.K. military intelligence to use Hawking’s carefully crafted profile as Royal Society protégé in brainwashing the human population into fear-driven support of the weaponization of space, and acceptance of a possible false flag war in space against a hyperdimensional extraterrestrial civilization which is being groomed as a foe of humanity’s sovereignty over Earth’s 3rd dimension.
We’ll see how long it takes him to link this alarming development to the Zionists. You’ll likely see it first on Press TV.
The Frankurter Israelitisches Familienblatt in a recent article on “the lessons of the Cracow pogroms,” has the following instructive remarks on the most recent developments of anti-semitism in Eastern Europe: “Apart from their individual significance,” it says, “the incidents in Galicia have a more general bearing which should not be overlooked. They are a symptom of the new anti-semitism, which is springing up nearly everywhere in the course of the war. The war has in all countries strengthened and inflamed national feeling to an extraordinary degree, and throughout the world has unchained a spirit of ruthless and overbearing chauvinism. This chauvinism finds expression in an increased antipathy towards all other nations; and in regard to the Jews, it takes the form of the new anti-semitism.”
— Canadian Jewish Chronicle, 1918
Professor Horace M. Kallen, chairman of the World Jewish Congress commission to combat anti-semitism, said…there was a great difference between the old anti-semitism of the pre-war kind and the new anti-semitism. He said the attack on the Jew now is based “upon the notion that the world is divided into two races, the Aryan and the human race, and that the former is destined to be master of all mankind.”
—The New York Times, 1936
Even if the theory of blood and race, which is invoked in support of the new anti-Semitism were better based scientifically than it is (whereas in the eyes of most dispassionate critics it is no less a quackery in science than it is for Christians a heresy in theology), it would still imply a relapse on the part of its upholders into a conception of the physical basis of the unity of society as of more importance than the common reason or the interest in a common redemption on which the philosophy and the religion of Europe have respectively laid the principle stress in what we call the humanism common to both alike.
—Journal of Philosophy, 1940
The virus of Hitlerism still infects public opinion in Austria, Hungary, and Rumania, but one should not forget that Hitler was not the initiator of this movement, but rather a pupil who extended and intensified it. The new anti-Semitism has partly an economic motive and partly a demographic one. The economic motive moves the new owners of stolen or robbed Jewish property who are afraid that it will be restored to the rightful legal owners, though the process is lamentably slow. What I called the demographic motive is….the destruction of the means of production, through mass killing and the expulsion of large masses of population….There is lack in necessary foodstuffs and essential commodities. This causes greater friction between individuals, classes, and races. Every mouth to be fed is a mortal enemy.
—Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 1949
The Anti-Defamation League said a new anti-semitism has developed across the world, but it is less deliberate and less violent than that which marked the era of Nazi Germany. An analysis of a comprehensive study over three and a half years reveals that the major difference between the new anti-semitism and “the traditional kind is that…the new form is more often expressed by respected individuals and institutions here and abroad—people who would be shocked to think themselves, or have others think them, anti-semites.” The study revealed the new anti-semitism is “compounded by anti-Jewish hostility from pro-Arab elements, the radical Left, the radical Right, black extremists, the Soviet Union, Arab nations, and movements in Europe and Latin America—all in addition to the remnants of a hatemongering apparatus which has plagued the United States since the early 1920s.”
— UPI, 1974
Anti-Semitism has to be resisted in whatever form it displays itself. Controversy continues over how much the recent terrorist attacks against Jews in Paris reflected anti-Semitism or the war in Lebanon. But a lack of deep concern about these tragedies, whatever their motivation, could betray an underlying anti-Semitism. And the subtler forms of anti-Semitism have to be increasingly resisted in the light of a changed international situation. Many Europeans, for example, have long since stiffened their attitudes toward an Israel whose policies appear to threaten Mideast sources of oil vital to Europe…..These must not be allowed to feed a new anti-Semitism or excuse remnants of the old pre-Israel variety. Those appalled by these acts have to prevent reaction to a government from slipping into bias against a people.
—Christian Science Monitor, 1982
Another brave new German, Bundestag deputy Herrmann Fellner, 35, resorted to the oldest of anti-Semitic clichés: the Jew as money-grubbing Shylock. Dismissing compensation claims by Jews who had done forced labor in Adolf Hitler’s factories, he noted: “Whenever there is money to be had from German coffers, the Jews are there to grab it.”
Anti-Semitism, then, seems to be an anthropological given—an indispensable projection mechanism that can only be suppressed but never exorcised. It is impervious to historical experience like Auschwitz; indeed, anti-Semitism thrives in total isolation from experience. It is doubtful whether Fellner, who hails from rural Bavaria, has ever met a Jew. Yet he “knows” exactly what Jews are like, and he resents them for what they “are.”
Why is the taboo beginning to crack now? Fellner provides us with one answer when he reports that his generation is “sick and tired of having to remember,” and wants more “sensitivity” from the survivor….Theirs is a truly new anti-Semitism: It thrives not in spite of but because of Auschwitz. It is based on a total role reversal between culprits and victims. According to this not-so-original defense mechanism, the survivors are the aggressors, since they won’t let the Germans forget. Their very presence makes for a permanent provocation, and one that the new generation, saddled with inherited guilt, is no longer willing to suffer. Hence the Jews must show more “sensitivity”— otherwise they will bring down on themselves just retribution in the form of a “counter-reaction.”
—Los Angeles Times, 1986
What is most distinctive about the new anti-Semitism is its character and its different set of rules. In the past, Canadian anti-Semitism, like its American counterpart, was essentially a social disease, a prejudice that found its expression in predictable forms: not wanting to work for a Jew, live near one, hire one or golf with one.
But now, according to all the studies, the number of people with these feelings is relatively small. Anti-Jewish attitudes have instead become more insidious. The charges are that Jews now have too much power and that they are more loyal to Israel than to their own countries. There seems to be a growing sense in Canada and the U.S. that Jews are getting more than their fair share, that though they make up less than 2 per cent of the total North American population, they are far too influential for their small numbers. Many— too many —voices are being raised that Jews are too visible, they are too wealthy, too educated, too integrated. There are too many of them in high political, judicial, cultural, medical and educational positions. They control too many industries, are too prominentin the media, and dominate the entertainment and other businesses. In essence, according to the anti-Semite, they are far too important in both Canadian and American society, given their insignificant numbers.
—Globe and Mail 1995
The anti-Semitism now abroad is qualitatively different from the prejudice against the Jewish people which the Roman Catholic Church harbored in the 19th century and fascist parties promulgated in the 20th. The new anti-Semitism of the 21st century is advanced not through Rome and the far Right but fundamentalist Islam and the radical Left. Which is why contemporary condemnation has been so muted…..In the Middle East the terrorists who challenge Israel’s right to exist are invested with radical chic and suicide bombers are depicted as romantic martyrs rather than mass-murderers.
The New Left’s insistence on dissolving sovereignty works against the survival of Israel as a Jewish State because it rejects the “exclusivist” principles of self-determination and secure borders. This animus against the nation state is given expression by bodies such as the EU, which consistently favors Palestinian claims over Israel. It finds an outlet among international lawyers such as those in Brussels demanding to try Ariel Sharon for “war crimes.” And it is amplified in the UN through events such as the Durban “anti-racism” conference where Zionism was equated with racism.
—The Times of London, 2002
Hugo Chavez is continuing with his plans to convene a Fifth Socialist International in Venezuela. (World Utopia, here we come!)
The Chavezistas inform us that Caracas is the ideal venue for this event, “due to the role that Venezuela is playing as the epicenter of the great transformations that have occurred since the beginning of this century.” (Such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, pandemics, climate change and global economic recession?)
Anyway, all good parties need a theme—but curiously, the main theme of the proposed Fifth Socialist International is not socialism.
So, what is the grand, unifying theme? In this interview, Julio Chavez, a delegate to Venezuela’s United Socialist Party, explains:
Why is anti-imperialism being proposed as the common element and not just socialism?
We say that this call has to have a broad character, and it is possible that in some countries, such as in the Middle East, there are organizations and movements fighting against some expressions of imperialism and international Zionism as such, but that are not socialist in essence, in the programmatic sense. But, undoubtedly, they are fighting imperialism. That’s why we say that it could be that in some Islamic countries that do not have socialism as an ideological element, for example the case of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, which is anti-imperialist, that this element will be an element that will convoke as many parties, organizations, movements of the world to raise the battle, the confrontation with imperialism.
From this perspective of an anti-imperialist character….it is possible to call as many parties, movements, and currents in the world….in order to agree on a plan, a minimum transition program, to move concretely towards a socialist project at a world level.
I’ve noted this before, but it bears repeating: anti-Zionism on the far-Left is not simply ideological, it’s tactical. Opposition to Israel is one of the few themes that can unite so many disparate movements—including, apparently, the ideologically “backwards” Islamic countries that are not as enlightened as Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela.
Remember Joseph Massad, the associate professor of modern Arab politics at Columbia University? The professor got himself into hot water back in 2005, following accusations that he harassed and intimidated pro-Israel students. The result was an internal investigation, briefly summarized here by the Institute for Global Jewish Affairs:
Despite hearing testimony of tens of instances of professorial misconduct, the committee focused only on the three that had received the most media attention. It was “particularly concerned” with these three incidents because “they challenge in varying degrees our collegium’s widespread normative expectations concerning a civil and tolerant learning environment.”
Since not much was investigated, little could be found. In one case, Professor Massad allegedly ordered a student to leave his classroom if she persisted in “denying Israeli atrocities done to the Palestinians.” The second incident again involved Massad, this time at an extracurricular, off-campus lecture where he reportedly refused to take a question from an Israeli student, instead retorting: “How many Palestinians have you killed?”
In addition, the report only admitted that Professor Massad was at fault in cases where this conclusion was almost unavoidable. Regarding Massad’s refusal to permit a student to “deny Israeli atrocities,” the committee found “it credible that [he] became angered” at her question, and that “his rhetorical response to her query exceeded commonly accepted bounds by conveying that her question merited harsh public criticism.” Nevertheless, no disciplinary measures were proposed.
Furthermore, continuing to obfuscate matters, the report “found no evidence of any statements made by the faculty that could reasonably be construed as anti-semitic.” This, however, is irrelevant, since none of the students had accused the professors of anti-Semitism in the classrooms. Ariel Beery, leader of the group Columbians for Academic Freedom, called this finding “deeply insulting,” since complaints were about intimidation, not racism.
This recent editorial by a Columbia University student shows that little has changed:
Several weeks into the semester, [the school newspaper] interviewed me about Campus Media Watch, a Middle East watchdog group I founded at Columbia. After reading the article, I noticed I was incorrectly described as the sole contributor to one of the group’s innocuous blog posts regarding Massad. The following day, I attended class for what I thought would be a regular lesson. After a few minutes of friendly banter with Massad, I sat down as he brought order to the class. With the full attention of his students, Massad singled me out and asked several questions about my attendance. Although I tried to clarify that I was still unsure about registration, my explanation was useless —Massad told me to leave his class immediately, explaining that I was in violation of school policy. Confused and embarrassed for being singled out in front of nearly 60 of my peers, I left the class with an uneasy feeling. Over the next few days, many
of my former classmates approached me and described Massad’s disturbing reaction to the incident. Although I was not present at the time, I was told that Massad had gone on a “paranoid rant,” denouncing me as a “Jewish spy” for the same organization that “had tried to get him in trouble before.”
After reviewing school policy, it turns out that Massad had the right to ask me to leave the classroom for not being registered. He did not, however, have the right to deliberately humiliate me in front of my peers. Massad’s claim that I was spying on his class is just as bizarre as it is baseless. During the times I attended his lectures, I sat in the front row, making my presence even more obvious with the handful of questions I asked each class. By not confronting me about registration during the time we talked before class began, Massad had the clear intention of making an example of me. I had entered the class with an optimistic mind-set—I had left it embarrassed and shocked by the unprofessional behavior of an instructor at Columbia University. Massad has since filed a grievance against me, which was thankfully resolved, in yet another attempt to stifle free speech and intimidate those who do not blindly follow his teachings. After four years
at Columbia, a university known to encourage free speech and debate, I have never encountered a professor who has fought so diligently to vilify and silence a student who he believed had done nothing more than discuss his class on a blog, which leads me to ask a simple question—what does professor Massad have to hide?
Earlier this month, I posted about claims in the Egyptian media that Heavy Metal music was a “manifestation of a well-funded Zionist campaign” to promote Satanism, drug use and sexual promiscuity.
But the headbangers are fighting back. A new Facebook group has been started: “Against Heavy Metal Persecution In The Arab World.” Their mission statement:
Our purpose is to raise awareness concerning the persecution and arrest of heavy metal fans and musicians in the Middle East. By bringing enough support to this cause, we hope to bring change that will allow us to have the freedom to play and listen to the music we love without fear of harassment, intimidation and arrest. We love our countries and our families. We mean no harm to anyone. Our only crime is playing and listening to what many other people reject. We are law-abiding, good citizens who only ask to be treated fairly and equally, instead of being questioned and harassed.
And, Heavy Metal fans are indeed being harassed—and being used by the Egyptian government as political scapegoats. Al-Masry Al-Youm reports:
In January 1997 these claims culminated in the arrests of nearly 100 metal fans. While such wholesale crackdowns may have decreased, and while metal is said to be on the rebound, its fans still report incidents of detention and harassment at the hands of authorities.
Metal fan “Bulldozer” told Al-Masry Al-Youm that he was arrested with eight other black-clad metal fans in October 2005. Having attended a metal concert earlier that night “we were hanging around on the street outside the venue. We weren’t causing any problems, nevertheless a police patrol pickup truck stopped in front of us, and rounded us up.”
“Bulldozer” added “they arrested us and took us to Qasr el-Aini Police Station where we were questioned for two hours. The interrogating officers kept asking us: why are you dressed like this? Do you worship the devil? Do you sacrifice cats? Along with other absurd questions.” He concluded that the Egyptian media was responsible for distorting the image of metal fans.
Metal fan Omar “Caesar” Mostafa argues that the Egyptian state, having crushed an armed Islamist insurgency in the 1990s, “sought to show the populace that they lived under a righteous, moral, and faithful authority; it used metal fans as scapegoats to prove this point.”
A Pentagon report submitted to Congress included the phrase: “With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015.”
Newspapers and wire services picked up on the story—and everyone, predictably, performed their pre-assigned roles. Conservatives lambasted the Obama White House for downplaying the threat from Iran (“America in Iran’s Crosshairs?” declared Fox news) and demanded that the United States step-up efforts to construct a multi-zillion dollar missile defense shield. Liberals, meanwhile, saw it as “yet another sign” that the Obama administration was laying the groundwork to justify an imminent U.S. attack on Iran (much like the six-year-long “imminent attack on Iran” that pundits kept warning us about during the Bush administration).
Thankfully, the blog Arms Control Wonk is fluent in wonkese, and provides some much-needed perspective:
Unfortunately, this is just intelligence community boilerplate — the same sentence has appeared in every edition of “Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat”: 2009, 2006, 2003 and 2000. Seriously, you can look it up.
Is this different from the May 2009 NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] that ….deemed Tehran unlikely to have a long-range missile until between 2015 and 2020?
Good question. Are the two estimates — “could by 2015” “unlikely before 2015” — consistent?
As it turns out, yes!
In the modern area of estimative language and politicized intelligence, the two estimates are perfectly consistent with one another. The word “could,” thanks to the 1998 Rumsfeld Commission, is estimatese (or estimative language) for “not likely.”
Here is how the intelligence community explained their novel use of “could” in Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat:
Our assessments of future missile developments are inexact and subjective because they are based on often fragmentary information. Many countries surround their ballistic missile programs with extensive secrecy and compartmentalization, and some employ deception. Although such key milestones as flight-testing are difficult to hide, we may miss others. To address these uncertainties, we assess both the earliest date that countries could test various missiles, based largely on engineering judgments made by experts inside and outside the Intelligence Community, on the technical capabilities and resources of the countries in question, and, in many cases, on continuing foreign assistance; and when countries would be likely to test such missiles, factoring into the above assessments potential delays caused by technical, political, or economic hurdles. We judge that countries are much less likely to test as early as the hypothetical “could” dates than they are by our projected “likely” dates.
As a result, every estimate has two sub-estimates: The real one (likely) and the one for missile defense advocates (could). Guess which one headline writers like?
For the record, I do believe that the current regime in Iran poses a threat to regional security—and to the well being of its own people. But let’s keep the discussion steeped in facts, as opposed to hyperbole.
We all know the traditional manifestations of divine retribution: plagues, locusts, the Angel of Death (and, arguably, Muzak).
But, according to the hard-line, pro-Ahmadinejad website, RajaNews, this time God is going straight for the jugular—by striking at Europe’s economy.
According to this summary & translation at RFE/RL:
The recent eruption of Iceland’s volcano and the cloud of ash that has led to travel chaos was God’s reaction to attempts by European Union countries—led “by the U.S., Britain, and the Zionist lobby”— to impose tough economic sanctions against the Islamic republic.
In a piece titled “There Is No Remedy For God’s Economic Sanctions,” RajaNews says that shortly after “rumors” about including sanctions on Iranian flights in a draft UN resolution gained strength, the volcano erupted and created a cloud of ash that resulted in the closure of airports across Europe, resulting in economic losses for EU countries.
“It’s not important whether they call it a ‘natural disater’ or ‘nature’s wrath’ or anything else,” RajaNews says. “What matters is that ‘the calamity’ came from where they didn’t expect it.”
The pro-Ahmadinejad website continues by suggesting that the problems created by the volcano are akin to God’s own sanction against EU countries.
“We know that all the power lies in the hands of God and no one but God can remove a sanction it has imposed or make it ineffective,” it says.
The blokes over at Harry’s Place have done a first-rate job keeping us apprised of the ongoing lunacy at the Palestine Telegraph—your one-stop website for blood libels, 9/11 Truth and Jewish/Zionist conspiracy theories.
This post at Harry’s offers a good summary:
Palestine Telegraph is currently in the news because one of its patrons, Baroness Jenny Tonge, was sacked as Liberal Democrat health spokeswoman for her comments about allegations, in an article on the Palestine Telegraph website, of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti. Palestine Telegraph is run by a Gazan called Sameh Habeeb and has two patrons, Tonge and the journalist Lauren Booth. On Sunday it published an article titled “Whose world are we really living in?”, an all-encompassing conspiracy theory whose explanation of world events is best summed up by these two paragraphs:
“It turns out that WW1 and WW2 were planned in advance for the sake of a group following the dictates of Zionism, a non religious socio-political Ideology which puts their leaders at the top of a Pyramid, while the rest of mankind, their “servants” are piled in a heap right at the bottom, unaware of what is being instigated at the pinnacle of this structured pyramid!! It is not too dissimilar to a Social Class Ladder: the working class, that is the masses or, I prefer to use a stronger and more apt term, the Servants/Slaves; then we have the Middle class, the middle men who in turn receive their delegated orders from the higher echelons of society, their MASTERS, the Elite, Aristocracy, the “Illuminati Factor” in fact, the billionaires in Power, who are covertly controlling our world and our communities and lives, choosing methods that are abhorrent to a fair, just ethical moral Society.
These Masters, controlled by such luminaries as the Rothschild Dynasty, have been working in the wings establishing their Corporate Financial and Imperialist, Colonialist Empire, getting richer by the day, their power increasing by the hour, while their servants, their minions, their puppets do all the hard work, shed blood sweat and tears, and physical and mental sacrifice.”
The Palestine Telegraph has just published this column —written by Peter Eyre, a self-proclaimed “Middle East Consultant”— titled “Harry’s Place is an Empty Shell.” (He writes about “Harry” as if he is a single person, which I’m not sure is a lame attempt at satire or sheer stupidity.) The column, by my reading, includes a not-so-subtle threat of legal action:
Harry is British and thus comes under the law concerning racism. Everyone in the UK understands the sensitivity of racist remarks and one would be foolish to even attempt to go down this road. One could interpret some of Harry’s comments towards the owner of the Palestine Telegraph, Sameh Habeeb or to myself, for example, as also having strong racial overtones and could be considered libelistic.
To accuse anyone of being “Anti Semitic” when they are clearly not certainly fits into this category. In the same way that if someone from the Jewish community goes on the attack against Islam or a Palestinian for instance this must surely fit into the same category as being Anti Islamic or Anti Palestinian. My question would therefore be where do you draw the line?
The Palestine Telegraph always prides itself in telling the truth or telling things as they are and therefore if such people as Harry, who feel compelled to be critical, then why do they not join the papers comment section and bring things out into the open, which in turn allows other people to respond to their comments.
The Palestine Telegraph is not racist and no member of its staff are Anti-Semitic and if one wishes to get on a soapbox and make such a statement then I would suggest they back it up with evidence. On the other hand if Harry Houdini wishes to reveal his true identity then we would be more than happy to accommodate his criticism and racial comments…….it is obvious that he may be part of that regime that existed in South Africa called “Apartheid” as he clearly supports the same regime that exists within the Israeli Government.
So “Harry” we at the Palestine Telegraph would like to invite you to challenge our current stories and state your reasons for not believing or agreeing with our factual news items.
With your vast experience on worldly matters perhaps you would like to pass your own technical experience or advice on matters relating to 9/11 or any other topic we cover? No doubt with your aviation background and immense understand of Aeronautics and Aerodynamics you could explain to the public how a Boeing 757 managed to fly into the Pentagon on the flight path officially declared by the US NTSB when its actual physical path was elsewhere? Perhaps with your own air accident investigative qualities you would like to explain how a huge 757 can crash into a field without leaving any wreckage? Perhaps you can explain why one of the aircraft that hit the twin tower was in actual fact many miles away at another location being tracked by their own airline staff? Oh I forgot you are pals with Mossad so maybe you can consult them for a suitable response….nice one Harry!
There is no greater honor than to piss-off anti-semitic nutjobs. Nice one, Harry!
Commenting upon this survey of global opinion commissioned by the BBC, Andrew Sullivan declares:
Note too how Israel is grouped among the least popular countries—not far above Iran and Pakistan and ten points below Russia. I’m sure many attribute this to anti-Semitism and that may be a factor. But outside the neocon bubble, the world notices illegal occupations, the bombardment of Gaza and the stealing of other countries’ passports in assassination bids.
Speaking as someone “outside the neocon bubble”, a few comments:
First, as usual, pundits such as Sullivan can’t be bothered by such details as reviewing the poll’s methodology and more detailed results [pdf]. If he had, he would have noticed that, in several major countries, Israel’s “unfavorable rating” has precipitously declined since just 2009 (14 points in Canada, 20 points in Australia, 12 points in China). And, 20 percent of the people surveyed were from Muslim countries which—shockingly!—gave Israel a disproportionately high unfavorable rating.
Second, international public opinion polls have a long-cherished tradition of disproportionately singling out Israel for opprobrium. Need I remind people of the 2003 EU poll, which designated Israel the “greatest threat to world peace”— more so than Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan and Pakistan? According to the BBC ,European Commission President Romano Prodi expressed his concern about the findings, saying that they “point to the continued existence of a bias that must be condemned out of hand. To the extent that this may indicate a deeper, more general prejudice against the Jewish world, our repugnance is even more radical.”
Wow, anti-semitism and anti-Israel bias. Who knew such things existed?
Actually, Andrew Sullivan did, back in the days before he was afflicted with IOS (Israel Obsession Syndrome). He posted about the most egregious examples of anti-Israel media bias , and he commentated favorably on columnist Julie Burchill’s decision to resign from the Guardian.
Here’s the text of Sullivan’s 2003 post:
GOODBYE TO ALL THAT: Julie Burchill says goodbye to the Guardian. One of the things she will miss the least is the polite anti-Semitism that now seems such a growing feature of the Western left:
“If you take into account the theory that Jews are responsible for everything nasty in the history of the world, and also the recent EU survey that found 60% of Europeans believe Israel is the biggest threat to peace in the world today (hmm, I must have missed all those rabbis telling their flocks to go out with bombs strapped to their bodies and blow up the nearest mosque), it’s a short jump to reckoning that it was obviously a bloody good thing that the Nazis got rid of six million of the buggers. Perhaps this is why sales of Mein Kampf are so buoyant, from the Middle Eastern bazaars unto the Edgware Road, and why The Protocols of The Elders of Zion could be found for sale at the recent Anti-racism Congress in Durban.”
I like the term “Judeophobia.” It’s the common thread between old-style anti-Semitism and new-style “anti-Zionism” that somehow manages to find excuses for murderers of civilians—as long as the civilians are Jews.
But, as I said, that was then, this is now. Sullivan should take a closer look at who is actually living in a bubble these days.