Guardian calls Israel “an arrogant nation”, and also gives op-ed to Foreign Office grandee who complained about Jews on the Iraq inquiry
Charles de Gaulle once famously referred to the Jews as an “arrogant and domineering people”. The Guardian newspaper in its editorial today refers to Israel as “an arrogant nation that has overreached itself”. Not the government of Israel — castigated by the Guardian for using British passports in a “Mossad murder squad” in Dubai, as well as over the spat with Washington — but the nation of Israel itself.
I suppose they would argue that that there is still enough daylight, however thin a sliver of it, between de Gaulle’s open disdain for Jews and their equally open disdain for the Jewish state.
But let’s leave whatever room for discussion may still be available on that particular question to one side for a moment, and move on to an op-ed piece published alongside the editorial by a senior Foreign Office mandarin who last year made one of the meanest anti-Semitic remarks to have been made in mainstream Britain for many years.
That man is Oliver Miles, Britain’s former ambassador to Libya. As I have written on this site before, in the Independent newspaper in November he made the following remarks about the presence of the esteemed historians Martin Gilbert and Lawrence Freedman on the board of the UK’s latest Iraq Inquiry:
“Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism,” he said. “…if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunition will be available. Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced.” (My italics)
In other words, Jews are an embarrassment. Ban them.
The substance of his remarks in the Guardian today is irrelevant – for the record he seems to be worried that Obama is going to be too soft on Israel and wants actions against Israel “not words”.
What is noteworthy is that having made the remarks about Jews that he did last November, Oliver Miles is still perfectly welcome in Britain’s opinion forming establishment. He has paid no price, and nothing will be asked of him. The Guardian did not think twice about having him on its pages, and neither would anyone else.
I have tried long and hard to avoid the conclusion that brute anti-Semitism is at the core of the campaign to demonise Israel in Europe, and I still stick to my view that it is an effect of what is going on rather than a cause. But, boy, if ever there were a distinction that is beginning to look difficult to sustain, that is increasingly looking like one of them.
March 24th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
“I have tried long and hard to avoid the conclusion that brute anti-Semitism is at the core of the campaign to demonise Israel in Europe, and I still stick to my view that it is an effect of what is going on rather than a cause.”
As I am Jewish, I regret that I don’t have the luxury of sticking to your view :).
March 24th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
I’m sorry, but with all the antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiments in Europe right now, combined with the UK’s granting every accommodation to their Muslim constituents, it appears that many Europeans would prefer to be living back in the Dark Ages.
March 24th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
“The Guardian newspaper in its editorial today refers to Israel as “an arrogant nation that has overreached itself”.”
Adolf Hitler on Jews:
“Cringing submissiveness to superiors and high-handed arrogance to inferiors distinguish this class to the same degree as a narrow-mindedness that often cries to high Heaven and is only exceeded by a self-conceit that is sometimes positively amazing.”
– Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter XI (“Nation and Race”)
March 24th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
The public may have forgotten an assassination carried openly in the streets of Gibraltar out by whoever does these things for the UK. It was in Mrs Thatchers golden times. The USA assassinates its enemies as and when required. We are repeating History and there is a determination to give israel up to monsters in the hope of assuaging their hatred for the West. it is all very s^ck.
March 24th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
I think it is pretty clear now that there is no distinction of any substance between de Gaulle’s view and the Guardian’s. Obama has opened it up for a free for all.
March 24th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Should there be any residue interest what the flagship media of English (and possibly Western)left-wing anti-Semitism rants on? On another note, Miliband should much rather have grabbed the London Mossad-man by his neck, taken him up to York and just thrown off York Minster as Eddy did 7 centuries ago. (Incidentally, that is what Hamas finished off with many of its rivals in Gaza in 2007 – throwing people off residency apartmenet buildings. They had good mentors.)
March 24th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
I’ve said this on other sites and will repeat it: the British establishment has never gotten over their treatment by the Jews in what was then Palestine. In my view, that establishment expected the Jews to act like the rest of the “wogs” over whom the British Empire extended its control — the attitude that those colonial people were backward and needed only the influence of the advanced, civilizing group led by the British Colonial Office to improve to such an extent so as to be entitled to self-determination. Instead, of course, the Jews wrested a state away from those who wished to deny it to them. The establishment never forgot this and its attitude toward Israel today is colored by what is viewed as ingratitude.
The British were forced out of what is now the land of Israel by a group whom the establishment viewed as no different than those over whom they ruled in other colonies and they could never understand how this could happen.
March 24th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
One other thought. At least Israel has reason to be arrogant — it is a forward looking, technologically advanced country whose citizens — from the least important to the most — are prepared to defend it. It is plain that there are few in Britain who are prepared to defend it as a Western nation. If the opposite of arrogant is humble, well, the current permutation of Britain has much about which to be humble.
March 24th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
it is the basic antisemitism,or rather – hating of jews as such.the jews dont have the same rights as gentiles(are moslem gentiles?):no nation state;no right to self defense:no benefit of doubt etc.etc. everything else is derivative.
March 24th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
I have just finished with reading the Guardian editorial and the subsequent 141 comments. Of course the article was the habitual mean-spirited, low-braw, base and highly nauseating drivel. One thing however surprised me this time. The slight majority of the comments were not only (cautiously) supportive of Israel, but critical, some extremely critical of the editorial itself. It was great to see – if they will leave the slamming comment up on the thread. (I’m not optimistic judging by their absolute inability to tolerate criticism and sissent.) All in all, I’ve never experienced anything similar in examining the TB-sector reacting to a G piece before and this was welcome news for me. Heartening stuff. Probably just a weird congruence of some unintended factors, a one off.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
The British Foreign Office (FCO), has always been Arabist, so what else is new?
The UK like the rest of Europe, is going out of it’s way to accommodate Muslim feelings and as a sideswipe, alienate its Jewish citizens. A few years down the line, when (as you say in your book), the numbers of Muslim have increased exponentially and the Jews have deserted Europe for the US, Israel or the Antipodes, will the FCO be quite so keen to field someone like Miles?
Actually, come to think of it, will they then have a choice?
March 25th, 2010 at 12:15 am
We are moving inexorably toward a time when it will be unsafe to be a Jew in this country. Anti-semitism here is fuelled both by the establishment attitudes that Robin delineates so lucidly in this blog, and by the ingrained hatred of Jews displayed by the ever-growing Muslim population of this country, particularly its youth. It is they who are responsible for the majority of anti-semitic incidents, but political correctness inhibits any reference to this fact in the media. The Muslim threat to the Jews of Britain is the ‘elephant in the room’ that everyone pretends isn’t there!
March 25th, 2010 at 12:17 am
All fights come down to differences on three issues: money, power and sex. Money and power do not seem to be issues between Israel and Britain. They do not share a common border, nor is one trying to compete head-on with the other in the financial field. That only leaves one area – sex.
The “arrogant” remark from the Guardian implies a feeling of loss of status, which is indeed sexually tinged. Israeli males and females have passed through the army, but also through tough secondary schooling and demanding university studies. Many enter engineering, physical sciences and biological sciences. Moreover, they generally marry and raise families. They form communities and solve problems. The central core of Israel is family life, something that is being abandoned in Western Europe. Israelis defend their country and their interests, while those in Europe seem to be failing in that area – even in defining the interest that are worth defending. Why shouldn’t the British and the European hate the Israelis?!
March 25th, 2010 at 12:17 am
The Guardian is despicable. It has become a magnet for every Jew-hating scumbag in the English speaking world.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Probably because it doesn’t bear thinking about, nobody really mentions this, but I will come out and say it..
The terrible reality is that Jews face the very real possibility or worse, likelihood of a second Shoa, Israel may well be destroyed even if Iran’s nuclear program is hampered or destroyed in some way. Israel is outnumbered by hostile enemies bent on destroying it. It is demoralised and divided and in denial on several fronts. Israel has no allies, none, Neville Chamberlain is alive and well in the White House which is obsessed with counting the numbers of homes the Jews are building while Obama continues to grovel and engage in lovey talk with Jew-hating tyrants and demagogues in the Arab Muslim world, all the while the clock ticks..
As an Israeli Jew let me say we have a fifth column within the country headquartered at Ha’Aretz, and English language Jewry in the Diaspora don’t have a clue. American Jews overwhelmingly voted for a hostile anti-Israel president. This scandal is largely unremarked upon.
If Israel is destroyed and I do fear the worst, I fear if we are not finished, we are at least teetering on the brink. The West, the Left and Diaspora Jewry will rewrite history and pretend they supported us all along rather than our enemies. The Left (including the Jewish Left) will never acknowledge blame, there will be no mea culpa, it will simply be buried in the arcane taboo section of history. Revisionism as always will be at the forefront.
Robin, chairwoman is right, it is Jew-hatred as cause (and effect). It is naive to assume otherwise. Robin I admire a man like yourself (and btw your book ‘A State beyond the Pale’ has been well displayed in some of the book stores here in central TA) but my contempt for the UK and Europe is beyond words. My contempt for most English language and the majority of American Jews in particular is even greater. They have less excuse, they are after all “Jewish”, unfortunately it is in name only.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:33 am
It’s not just the Guardian.
Anti-Semitism is back and it is in full flood. There is no question about it, and it is Jeremiah Wright’s faithful disciple, President Obama, who has finally unlocked the straining floodgates. Just one little piece of evidence is provided by the comments section at a now inevitably biased piece about Israel (“Silence that speaks volumes” – see below) at the Times. What I find incredible is not so much those comments themselves but that the Times would allow them. Hands up all those British citizens who ever imagined that Zionism would be described as an “illness” and Israel as a “beast” in the pages of an important national newspaper.
Silence that speaks volumes
http://tinyurl.com/y8ng6zj
And how right Anthony Julius was when he suggested that British anti-Semitism is based not on fear as in the rest of Europe but contempt. Nothing better exemplifies that than this sly comment (oh, how we remember them at our public schools) about a photograph of a religious Jewish boy wearing a hat which is featured at the piece:
“A gentleman should never wear a hat tilted back like that. The brim should always be pretty much horizontal.”
There are other more blatant examples of anti-Semitism. David Green first of all explains that:
“As an expat Brit living in Athens I’m rather closer to the Palestine-Israeli situation than my fellow Times correspondents; in fact on one occasion my family had to leave our holiday accommodation on Crete to make way for a group of Israelis. The overall sentiment in Greece, however, is pro-Palestinian. I have now reluctantly joined them.”
He then moves swiftly on to a Nazi/Israel comparison:
“Given recent events and a new Israeli colonialism of “peace”, reminiscent of Hitler’s Lebensraum “peace” – a little of piece of East Jerusalem, a little piece of the West Bank (cf Hitler’s Sudeten Land), a little piece of Gaza.”
After looking forward to a unitary state in which Jews will be in a minority in fairly short order, David Green wraps up with a few lines of classic anti-Semitism:
“Against his own people, Jesus the Christ made if clear that his kindgom – the kingdom/kingship of God – is not of this world and certainly not a new kingdom of Israel. He was crucified in Jerusalem for his belief just as the Palestinians are being mistreated daily for theirs. Easter 2010, in 10 days’ time, should be a time when the Christian world tells the people of Israel that the God (“Abba” in Jesus’ words) who is our common Father – for Christians, Jews and Musl(ims).”
I’ll let Anthony Julius have the last word:
“I sometimes think that Jews born in the 1940s and 1950s have been living through a golden period but that the closed season on Jews has now come to an end.”
http://tinyurl.com/amnna4
March 25th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Matt Seaton, the editor of Comment is Free at the Guardian, talks about the editorial referred to by Robin Shepherd:
[Q] ‘An editorial that appeared in The Guardian yesterday said that Israel is acting like “an arrogant nation that has overreached itself.” Are you comfortable with such a statement?’
[A] ‘I would look hard at the use of the word “nation.” I would certainly endorse calling Netanyahu’s behavior arrogant; you might reasonably say that his government is behaving arrogantly. Personally, I wouldn’t use the term “nation”: it flattens out all sense that politics is contested and that there are many views inside Israel.’
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159037.html
March 25th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Larry. There will not be a second Shoa and Israel will not be destroyed. The Old Testament of the Bible is a most intersting history of the Jews, but it also tells of the future of Israel.
Paul, writing in Roman’s 1 refers to the prophecies regarding the Messiah, thus emphasising the validity of the prophetic nature of the scriptures in anticipating events. If the Bible is to be believed, and I believe it is, then Israel will not be displaced from the promised land. Isaiah talked of the jews returning to Israel a second time. The first time was their return from Babylon and the second return was to the promised land in 1917.
I would be more concerned living in Damascus than Jerusalem. Damascus has never been destroyed in the 5000 years of its existence. Yet Isaiah foretells of a day when Damascus will be utterly laid waste.
“”This message came to me concerning Damascus: ‘Look, Damascus will disappear! It will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted. Sheep will graze in the streets and lie down unafraid. There will be no one to chase them away. The fortified cities of Israel will also be destroyed, and the power of Damascus will end. The few left in Aram will share the fate of Israel’s departed glory,’ says the Lord Almighty.” Isaiah 17:1-3 (NLT)
March 25th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Joshua
I agree with Anthony Julius. Having grown up in the 50′s, I’m very much afraid that the golden age is coming to an end.
Larry in Tel Aviv,
Have a little faith, Israel will not be destroyed so quickly or easily. The UK and Europe are in more danger from their very own 5th columns than Israel.
March 25th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Read the Oliver Miles article, which was predictably slimy. Miles describes al-Mabhouh as “a member of the Palestine resistance organisation Hamas”. As if he’s some random member rather than their number one arms procurement man. And as if Hamas is ‘resisting’ an occupation regime in Gaza, when the only Israeli of note there is Gilad Shalit.
I then dipped my toes into the cesspool of Guardian reader comments and was surprised to find an excellent riposte from Geoffrey Alderman. So good, I’ve taken the liberty of reproducing it …
“There are a number of sweeping assertions and assumptions in this article that cannot go unchallenged. I will concentrate on just three.
First, although it has indeed been widely assumed that Mossad was behind the elimination of the Jew-hater and murderer al-Mabhouh, the fact of the matter is that the only arrests that have been made have been of Fatah and Hamas operatives. Indeed, not the least merit of the taking out of al-Mabhouh is that it may well have been a joint operation between Mossad and Fatah; if so, this collaboration between Israel and the PA surely bodes well for the future. Be that as it may, far from being “clumsily” executed the taking out of al-Mabhouh – if it was a Mossad-led operation – was in fact brilliantly executed.
Second, the UK’s record of targeted killings is hardly whiter than white, is it? I seem to recall that during WWII there was an allied plan to assassinate Erwin Rommel and that more recently the UK government carried out the assassination of three IRA terrorists in Gibraltar – also a brilliant action, morally correct from every standpoint, that certainly saved innocent lives.
Third, anyone who thinks that the British security services do not indulge in the forging and falsification of documents should read “Spycatcher,” by the late British spy Peter Wright.”
March 25th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Israel should expel the Guardian “reporters” in its country as enemy agents.
March 25th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
I hope Matt Seaton and Rusbridger are happy with themselves. They have helped to whip up a frenzy of ill-disguised Jew hatred.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Miles is chairman of MEC, a consultancy that smooths the way for British companies to do business in such countries as Libya, Syria and Iraq.
I imagine a bit of Israel- or Jew-bashing goes straight on the bottom line.
March 26th, 2010 at 2:26 am
Predictions of a new shoah are hysterical and premature. The Guardian has really become unhinged. Websites like this one are especially needed to sustain a counter-narrative. I am guardedly optimistic that Obama has politically damaged himself in his quarrel with Israel. He has decisively alienated a group of hitherto supporters and not gained many new ones. We’re stunned at the moment, but Mr. O may get a comeuppance. Middle England and Middle America, with a few intellectuals thrown in, may disrupt the plans of their appeasement-minded elites.
March 26th, 2010 at 5:28 am
The dreadful truth, despite the protestations of terrorist enablers, is that assassinations do work in disrupting the ‘righteous’ machinations of ‘freedom fighting’ (scum).
It’s the same with torture. Terrorist enablers claim that it doesn’t work but, for some reason, security forces say the opposite. I wonder who I will believe?
Adam B. S – I hope Matt Seaton and Rusbridger are happy with themselves. They have helped to whip up a frenzy of ill-disguised Jew hatred.
Yes. Matt at least seams to be having second thoughts.
March 26th, 2010 at 6:01 am
Due to scotlands PASSION for libyan oil contracts, show COMPASSION for the VICTIMS of the bombing of Pan Am 103,
http://www.boycottscotland.com
March 26th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Guys I hope I’m wrong and you’re right about Israel’s future (I’m Israeli after all!), it’s not my future I am worried about, I am no longer young and I have no children, it’s the nation’s future that concerns me. However when people say Israel will survive, not because of real world factors and variables – economic, demographic, military, cultural, political alliances and the like, but because of …..a particular interpretation of Biblical prophecy, well then I know we really are in trouble (and I’m no atheist, not at all). The truth is there is no getting away from the fact that the tides of history are running against the Jews and the Jews themselves have such a massive fifth column from within (as I point out above), that it is not feasible that we can survive. At least in ’73 we had the grudging support of the US, now we have Obama in the White House and our enemies are far more powerful than they were in ’73 (and yes I know Nixon was anti-Semitic but Obama shares in the radical Leftist/Islamist narrative on the Middle-East and Nixon did not and he ultimately helped Israel in her time of need). If the only hope or obstacle to the bloodlustful aims of our jihadist enemies and their Western enablers is the appeal to supernatural intervention, there is no hope. This isn’t defeatism on my part, it’s just the terrible harsh reality that people cannot face (least of all Jewry and how could we function day to day if we did?).
Everybody in Israel knows (except the crazies) that war is on the horizon, a likely scenario is coordination between Hamas and Hezbollah and we will have to fight on three fronts, Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank intifada, with Iran and Syria active behind the scenes as always. There is risk of Egypt and Jordan being swept up in hysterial Judenhass and giving support to the jihadists in their own surreptitious ways (even non-surreptitious ways), and then there is Iran’s nuclear bombs. And all the while the US will huff and puff and call on the Jews to stop fighting and make concessions to jihadists who want us dead. What I say is commonly acknowledged among Israeli military intelligence, it’s an open secret. whenever hysterical Jew-hatred reached fever pitch levels, it was followed by pogroms and genocide (in both Europe and the Muslim world), these hysterical levels of Jew-hatred have reached fever-pitch levels once again (the worst since WW2), and we expect a different outcome this time around? Why? Because of a highly disputed biblical exegesis?
March 26th, 2010 at 11:05 am
“Predictions of a new shoah are hysterical and premature.”
1) Absent some remarkable and unlikely successful military intervention by Israel, Iran will possess nuclear weapons within the next few years.
2) It is also unlikely, but not utterly impossible given the madness of the current régime, that Iran herself will use those weapons against Israel. However, I have few doubts that she will do her very best to pass a nuclear device on to a suitable terrorist group.
3) It is quite possible that the mere possession of nuclear weapons will result in the destruction of the Jewish state. With their love of life and the memory of the destruction of European Jewry still fresh in their minds, I don’t believe most Israeli Jews will be content to raise their children under the kind of shadow that a nuclear-armed Iran will represent. They will flee Israel in their hundreds of thousands for, at least what they will believe to be, much safer harbours in the US, Canada, Australia and elsewhere.
March 26th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Shlomo USA
I think you’re right on two counts. A new Shoah is not imminent and Obama looks likely to be a one term president who may face serious opposition to his medicare legislation in November.
I hope you are right about middle England and Middle America. The narrative here in the UK seems hostile, both to Israel and increasingly to Jews as well. The MSM like the Guardian and the BBC clearly have political agendas which they are pushing to the limit. I wonder if this is because Labour have made such a mess of government and look set to be thrown out at the imminent election, that the left are putting on their last gasp show of strength, before they are banished to the political wilderness for a least 5 years?
Some of the UK labour unions are for the first time in ages, flexing their muscles and calling for strikes. It would seem as if there is a general feeling of negativity among the left, that they are trying to deal with through their own form of positive action.That may explain quite a bit – the next few months will be interesting.
March 26th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Oliver Miles is not just an ex Ambassador to Libya. He is the head of a lobbying firm which focuses on acting for Arab regimes. He was the bought-and-paid for Arab lobbyist who organized the round robin letter from 50+ British ex Ambassadors, no doubt all members of his lobbying organization which wrote in protest at Tony Blair’s stance on Iraq. I covered the key facts of his lobbyist role on my blog here..
He makes all the snout-in-trough MPs look positively angelic.
March 26th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
@ 17. Joshua Says:
March 25th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
I am grateful to you for pointing out my response to Ha’aretz’s question about the “arrogant nation” line in the Guardian’s editorial, in an interview given coincidentally at exactly the same time as Robin was posting this comment. I said:
‘I would look hard at the use of the word “nation.” I would certainly endorse calling Netanyahu’s behavior arrogant; you might reasonably say that his government is behaving arrogantly. Personally, I wouldn’t use the term “nation”: it flattens out all sense that politics is contested and that there are many views inside Israel.’
Which only goes to show that not just nations, but all sorts of institutions, media organisations included, should not be treated as unitary and homogenous and of one fixed view.
Personally, I think Oliver Miles’s remark in his Independent article about the Chilcot inquiry and Gilbert and Freedman was wrong and reprehensible. But where I disagree with Robin is that Miles should therefore be branded an antisemite and excluded from public life. There are people of whom that would be true, but Miles’s offence does not make him one of them. Criticising him is fine, and I do, but declaring someone persona non grata and denying him freedom of expression is not.
But Robin, you must come and make your arguments over on Comment is free sometime…
March 26th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
I am at a loss to understand how you can think that the anti Israel sentiment sweeping Europe is unlinked to its 2000 year history of gross anti Semitism. What do you think happened that caused Europe to be cured of the virus of anti Jewish bigotry? Did you imagine that in May 1945, the Europeans suddenly woke up, realized how morally wrong anti Semitism is and repudiated it forever? The human mind does not work that way. People are not that rational.
Europe was never cured of anti Semitism. All that happened was that the symptoms of anti Semitism – the expression of anti Semitic feelings – became socially unacceptable. But the disease itself was never cured. As the taboo against expressions of anti Semitism, the disease returned in full force :There appears to be nothing that can cure Europe of its anti Jewish bigotry.
March 28th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Andrew that is exactly it. I always say to people, what Europeans suddenly stopped being anti-Semitic in May 1945? It’s not even inspite of the Holocaust, it’s because of the Holocaust that they remain anti-Semitic, the guilt it inspires. The desperation to believe the worst about Israel so they don’t need to feel so bad about their history and the history of their culture. As you say there is a taboo against naked anti-Semitism, so it takes the form of anti-Israelism, although I have to say the mask is slipping and the anti-Semitism is becoming more naked and honest, and I prefer that. However anti-Israelism is obviously anti-Semitism, the attempt to hide anti-Semitism behind anti-Israelism only reveals it. Whenever we hide something it is always inadvertently revealed – the paradox of the mask is that it reveals as it hides. People rarely see the obvious, least of all “intellectuals”.
March 28th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
“I am at a loss to understand how you can think that the anti Israel sentiment sweeping Europe is unlinked to its 2000 year history of gross anti Semitism.”
I suspect that Robin Shepherd, civilised man that he is, is merely being exceedingly diplomatic.
“Europe was never cured of anti Semitism.”
Melanie Phillips, that perennial scourge of both the anti-Semitic left and right, wrote an excellent piece about this in 2007, particularly as it relates to the British variant of the virus:
Britain’s Anti-Semitic Turn
http://tinyurl.com/33k7y7
March 28th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Matt Seaton says :
“But where I disagree with Robin is that Miles should therefore be branded an antisemite and excluded from public life. There are people of whom that would be true, but Miles’s offence does not make him one of them. Criticising him is fine, and I do, but declaring someone persona non grata and denying him freedom of expression is not.”
Two points have been lumped together here. 1) Matt disagrees with Robin’s contention that Oliver Miles is anti-semitic as evidenced by his references to the membership of the Iraq inquiry. 2) Matt then accuses Robin of wanting to have Miles ‘excluded from public life’ and denied freedom of expression as a consequence of his alleged anti-semitism.
The first point is open to disagreement. Miles’ choice of words in the article, was at the very least, strange. We’re talking about a war against Saddam Hussein’s regime launched in the aftermath of September 11th. Disqualifying two experts from this commission of inquiry because they’re Jewish seems dubious in the extreme. Miles’ argument that ‘membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced’ looks like a figleaf.
The second point is just wrong. Robin isn’t denying the right of anti-semites to express themselves. I think he’s questioning the judgement of national newspaper editors who offer them a platform to express these sentiments. We’re talking about opinions that are approaching the realms of “incitement to racial hatred”. There are plenty of other publications, such as those of the BNP or the Islamic press, that would happily publish the opinions of Miles and his ilk, which is where they belong.
Robin Shepherd says: That’s right, I am not seeking to ban anyone or deny them their freedom of expression. I would simply see Miles and company in the same way as I would the leader of the BNP. Therefore, if it were ever justifiable to give him a platform in a mainstream paper it should come with health warnings, and certainly should not happen very often. How often does Nick Griffin appear on CiF?
March 29th, 2010 at 7:48 am
http://cifwatch.com/2010/03/28/the-uks-disproportionate-response/
CiFWatch yesterday published a story on the expulsion of the Israeli diplomat that relates an incident that took place a number of years ago where Alistair Crooke (of Conflicts Forum and formerly of MI6) returned home from Israel amidst official concern about his terrorist contacts.
The article demonstrates the duplicity and double standards at play with regard to the passports affair.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“How often does Nick Griffin appear on CiF?”
You can bet your bottom dollar that the Guardian would never have published an article by a individual who had said even remotely similar things about people of colour or Muslims.
In the same way Der Stürmer’s goal was the deligitimisation and destruction of the Jewish people, today the Guardian’s objective is the deligitimisation and destruction of the Jewish state. It will go to any lengths to achieve that end whether it is the production and publication of the most openly anti-Semitic play in Europe since the end of World War II or pieces by the odious Oliver Miles.
There is no question about it, the Guardian lies and Jews will die.
March 29th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
@ Matt Seaton
“But Robin, you must come and make your arguments over on Comment is free sometime…”
What only for the comments to be deleted by your moderators who disagree with Robin’s views?
And don’t deny this doesn’t happen. You know forwell that this is the case from your visits over to the site that cannot be named.
March 29th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
@ Jonathan Karmi and Robin Shepherd:
“Two points have been lumped together here…”
On that first point, allow me to clarify. I said I thought Miles’s view in the Chilcot inquiry article was ‘wrong and reprehensible’. To be specific, his remarks called into question the loyalties of two Jewish members of the panel – making unwarranted assumptions that they must also be Zionists, and in any case implying that whatever attitude they might have towards Israel would compromise their objectivity and judgment on the Iraq war. To me, that’s an only slightly more sophisticated, and actually more insidious, version of the Tebbit cricket test; and I have no problem with calling it an antisemitic argument.
But does it then follow that Miles should be branded an antisemite, a racist on a par with an avowed white supremacist like Nick Griffin, and treated accordingly in the media? That seems to me politically illiterate. Further, if Robin did not mean that Miles should be treated as ‘untouchable’, then clearly I misunderstood what he meant here: ‘Miles is still perfectly welcome in Britain’s opinion forming establishment. He has paid no price…’ Surely, we were meant to infer that Miles’s offence should ensure he no longer has access to mainstream media platforms for his opinions; as Robin seems to affirm.
But I do not mean to quibble over what kind of exclusion Robin wants to see Miles subjected to. My main point is that it is crude and crass to place Miles in the same ideological camp as Holocaust deniers, enthusiasts for the repatriation of immigrants and ‘racial’ purists and separatists. The ability to make intelligent discrimination between categories of opponent and enemy in politics matters too much to fall for easy smear tactics. Surely we agree on that…
Robin Shepherd says: Hi Matt and thanks for your comments. You are always welcome to make them here. I do not believe that Miles is in the same exact camp as Griffin and the BNP. He is not a thug in a suit. But in some ways that makes him more dangerous: he commands greater respectability and, therefore, has more influence across the mainstream.
Miles, as you acknowledge, has made reprehensible anti-Semitic remarks. He has also paid no price for them. That tells us something about the way in which anti-Semitism now has a kind of respectability about it that other forms of racism do not. If he had said that two black people should not be on the Chilcot inquiry Miles would clearly have faced a storm of protest. I doubt very much that he would have been allowed to write again in the Guardian, and his various honorary positions would quickly be terminated.
Personally, I am about as liberal as they come in terms of free speech and would not ban anyone (including Miles) unless their writing amounted to actual incitement. But that is beside the point. What is interesting is that some people are deemed to have crossed a red line in their political writings and others are not. But who has defined where that red line should be, and why do anti-Semites usually find that they are not judged to have crossed it?
And that is even before we get onto the subject of anti-Zionist hysteria, a form of bigotry in its own right that is now all but ubiquitous…
March 30th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
“He has also paid no price for them.”
If Michael White is anything to go by, and I’m sure he is, this seems to a general theme at the Guardian. No matter how heinous the crime committed against Jews, Michael White is against bringing the perpetrators to justice.
1) Here’s Michael White, in early 2008, on the Holocaust (my titles):
The Holocaust is such a bore
“MPs had a short debate yesterday to mark Holocaust Day, a familiar ritual in many countries which causes backbenchers like Hendon’s Andrew Dismore (not Jewish himself, but hot on anti-semitism) to be dismissed in newspapers as ‘Holocaust bores.’ ”
Don’t be mean to the Nazis
“My own favourite parliamentary speech on this subject remains that of the late Thatcherite economist, Lord Peter Bauer. In opposing Lady Thatcher’s 1990 war crimes bill – she used the parliament act to force it through – Bauer said approximately this: ”My Lords, I am a Jew who lost much of his family in the Holocaust. But I oppose this legislation because it is retrospective and therefore undermines the rule of law.” He then sat down. Not bad. I must check which way Mr Howard voted at the time.”
http://tinyurl.com/3aysu3
2) Here, in late 2008, White criticises the extradition of Holocaust deniers, purely on principle, naturally. Look out for these special titbits: “an abuse of process in a country which has not – yet – succumbed to Germany’s “witch-hunt mentality”; “We should not forget, but it smacked of retrospective legislation, pandering again.” Jolly decent of White, however, to suggest that we should not “forget” the Holocaust:
“Two strands of the affair trouble me. One is the restriction on free speech inherent in the laws that some countries – not Britain – have against Holocaust denial. We have broader laws against racial incitement in general, which seems acceptable to me, though not to those who believe that older public order laws would have proved sufficient.”
“The other problem I have with this is process. When the European Arrest Warrant came into force in 2004 to help police fight cross border crime – and post 9/11 terrorism – more effectively it abolished the “dual criminality” principle.”
Once again, in the same piece, White attacks the war crimes bill:
“Holocaust denial is a lesser offence than involvement in war crimes themselves. Britain has a different problem here in that, in the chaos after 1945 when it was often hard to sort victim from persecutor, a lot of bad people slipped into this country and led quiet, guilty lives.
In 1991 Margaret Thatcher used the parliament acts to override the House of Lords, which had thrown out her war crimes bill, passed by the Commons. The average age of current MPs in 1939 was six, one peer remarked during the debate: let it go. But some 300 suspects live on in the UK, countered the bill’s supporters.
At the time I sympathised with the critics. It was all a long time ago, witnesses and accused were old, far away or even dead, their memories faulty at best. We should not forget, but it smacked of retrospective legislation, pandering again.
Last time I looked there had not been a single successful prosecution. Other more recent war crimes dominate the headlines. Who’s right?”
http://tinyurl.com/3w38vc
3) Here, in the style of Patrick J. Buchanan (see piece below), White defends John Demjanjuk:
John Demjanjuk should not be on trial
[Just two of the many appalling lines]
“So string up Demjanjuk? That’s what the Israelis tried to do when he first went on trial in Jerusalem in 1988.”
“there are plenty of bad things that we can try to do something about going on in the world of today rather than weep again for the likes of Sobibor.”
http://tinyurl.com/y8gfel7
The True Haters by Patrick J. Buchanan
http://tinyurl.com/d5aqn8
I seem to remember (I could be wrong about this, but I don’t think so) that White also defended the right of Muslims to boycott Holocaust Memorial Day. After all, White argued, the Holocaust isn’t all that special – there have been plenty of genocides. Why kick up such a fuss about this one?
March 30th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
The Jewish minority and the small state of Israel, encircled as it is by enemies and out of favour as it is at present, does not form a particularly formidable bloc, and it appears from the leeway Miles allowed himself and the lack of response to it, that insults may be made with impunity. This is even more true when you consider how this pleases the ever-growing and vocal Moslem population of the UK backed by the oil rich Arab states.
Who would dare to voice the same sentiment about two eminent Moslem history professors – if such could indeed be found?
March 30th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
I have no problem with calling it an antisemitic argument … But does it then follow that Miles should be branded an antisemite
So, Seaton says, one who speaks anti-Semitism is not necessarly an anti-Semite. (Presumably, according to Seaton, one is an anti-Semite only if the incitement to racism and violence is flagrant and oft-repeated.)
This is of course, the core of the Guardian technique – anti-Semitism isn’t anti-Semitism, minimise anti-Semitism, maximise “Islamophobia” and “Israeli war crimes,” apply disproportion, compare the incomparable, etc.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Matt Seaton,
Just let me tell you simply that O.M. is – for all intents and purposes – a smokescream. It was the Guardian that had absolutely no problem that published a fawning piece on Gilad Atzmon, the “saqsophonist”, not informin the paper’s readers about his views and comments about Jews, synagogues, Jewish holidays etc. etc. We, or some of us know who he is and what he represents. Nick Griffin would NEVER allow himself to say what this individual (marketed and PR-feted as an “Israeli” for cover) said about Jews, let alone Israel. The Guardian has dozens, if not hundreds of scandals from Maagen David-decorated “cartoons” to the hyping of Caryl Churchill’s “play” that on the Guardian’s website was – on a video featuring the show was heralded by black and white pictures of a Jewish family observing Shabbat or Seder – it was unclear which holiday. I saw with my own eyes this video on your website).
CIF watch would not for nothing have been needed to be born. I just think as I said that your paper is the flagship, the standard-bearer of modern English antisemitism and there’s nothing, but absolutely nothing that you can say or explain away with syrupy, pseudo-erudite and high-minded words to wriggle out of it. I am from Central-Eastern-Europe Mister, and many of us clearly see that marginal right-wing fascistoid papers (“Magyar Forum” i.e.: Hungarian Forume, and others) use the exact same language and tropes HERE that your paper uses THERE.
Gábor Fränkl
Budapest, Hungary
March 30th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Matt Seaton – Firstly, it is good to see you trying to engage with the subject here on Robin’s blog. However, you seem to be saying that because people such as Oliver Miles are apparently not card-carrying anti-Semites in that they ‘only’ make anti-Semitic remarks, that they are somehow deserving of a more lenient approach.
That could surely be the subject of a very interesting debate: is a person capable of making racist remarks without holding racist opinions? Or is it that in polite society, racist opinions are fortunately frowned upon and so when Miles or Ben Bradshaw for example let an anti-Semitic remark slip out despite the social constraints, what we are seeing is in fact the tip of the iceberg within?
What worries me personally as a Jew and an Israeli is not the ‘in your face’ racism of Griffin and others of such crude methods. They will never be in a position of enough influence in this country to make a difference, and whilst they are certainly annoying and upseting, we fortunately have laws to keep people like them in check.
No, the real blight in Britain at present is precisely that kind of anti-Semitism sown by Miles, Tonge, Bradshaw and countless others in positions of influence with a veneer of respectability which cushions them from the type of reactions which Griffin or Irving receive.
Your newspaper is complicit in affording those people that veneer of respectability by giving Miles, among others, a platform. Racism or any other kind of bigotry cannot be fought in half-measures and your ‘turn a blind eye’ approach to anti-Semitic remarks from certain quaters because of your view of the calibre of person who made them is a highly dangerous one.
When a person like me goes for an interview, it is not the C18 thug I meet on the other side of the table: it is the Guardian-reading HR manager who on the train that morning learned that Israelis are arrogant or that Jews have dual loyalties.
I grew up in this country in the sixties and seventies and returned after an absence of more than 30 years to find a new degree of socially acceptable anti-Semitism at every level of society and in almost every public institution which is frankly horrific and which Britain should be ashamed of. A liberal newspaper with leftist orientation should be at the forefront of fighting this blight upon the society in which it functions.
March 30th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Matt Seaton: “But does it then follow that Miles should be branded an antisemite, a racist on a par with an avowed white supremacist like Nick Griffin, and treated accordingly in the media? That seems to me politically illiterate.”
Yup, it’s a question of degree. Occasional anti-semites are fine to contribute in the broadsheets, whereas Griffin, who we assume is a fully paid-up anti-semite, should be accompanied by caveats.
But more serious than all this is the Guardian’s attitude that “both events in London and Washington are the marks of an arrogant nation that has overreached itself.” I’ve no problem with the government of Israel being criticised, because I don’t care for it too much myself. And even if I were a supporter, that focussed criticism remains legitimate.
But to slag off a whole nation or people in a broadsheet editorial ? You probably have to go back to Nazi Germany for that.
March 31st, 2010 at 5:07 am
This discussion is low keyed and intelligent.
Matt Seaton. You have to wonder why the discourse on CiF is so disgraceful and why so many obsessive anti Zionist and antisemitic posters are tolerated. This site is pre-moderated but CiFWatch is not and a good discussion can be viewed there as well.
Inviting Robin to comment on your site is somewhat like inviting someone to a casino. After taking half or a full hour to compose a thoughtful and relevant comment only to see it ‘disappeared’ by your over active moderators, has left your threads to the extremists. And mostly extremists of the type who align with The Guardian World View ‘in the extreme’. Your moderators should be re-educated to recognise a quality comment when they see one and to take double or triple time to consider whether banning it will loose CiF a thoughtful and powerful commenter.
CiFWatch is an excellent site which somehow seems to record many of your moderator gaffs.
More on the subject, saying that a comment can be antisemitic while the commenter is not, has some merit. However, this particular statement by Miles would become much more questionable to The Guardian if ‘Jews’ were replaced by ‘Blacks’. There would have been article after article on CiF condemning Miles if he had done so in another context of inquiry.
Georgina, if I understand correctly, is no longer in control of CiF. I have detected a change and hope it will continue. I used to read the Manchester Guardian years ago. Many, many years ago.
March 31st, 2010 at 10:26 am
There is the world of difference between ‘the right of free speech’ and ‘the right to a column in The Guardian’. Miles’ remark about Gilbert and Freedman was despicable. For the Guardian to then grant him a column to write about Israel was grossly insensitive, provocative and belligerent.
Matt Seaton has said: “We have a zero-tolerance policy on antisemitic postings or any other form of hate speech.”
How does indulging a writer who has expressed “wrong and reprehensible” views advance the “zero tolerance” policy?
Whether Miles is an antisemite or not is irrelevant. See the distinction on Robin’s book between ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ antisemitism. Miles’ comment about Gilbert and Freedman was certainly ‘objective’ antisemitism. Whether he is guilty of ‘subjective’ antisemitism is irrelevant.
March 31st, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Matt Seaton asks Robin Shepherd to post on Cif. What a joke anything Robin Shepherd would say remotely supportive of Israel will moderated out for sure.The fact is that Cif now represents a heaven sent opportunity for all the anti-Semites to express their most despicable views of what should happen to Israel and its citizens. Matt Seaton considers Netanyahu to be arrogant – well if standing up for principles and rights that should be afforded to the Jewish people and its State is arrogance that is certainly a whole lot better than blowing up trains on the London Underground as a method of “standing up for one’s rights and beliefs” surely.
Robin Shepherd says: To be fair to Matt his invitation is to write op-eds for the Cif site itself, not just to appear on the threads. I will certainly take him up on it, and soon. Also, my suspicion is that Matt recognises there is a problem at the Guardian and wants to provide some counter-arguments to the consensus viewpoint. We shall see. But in the meantime, let’s all remain courteous and give him the benefit of any doubts we may entertain…
March 31st, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Robin Shepherd writes:
“And that is even before we get onto the subject of anti-Zionist hysteria, a form of bigotry in its own right that is now all but ubiquitous…”
Nothing better demonstrates the everyday partisan bigotry of the Guardian than this gallery of thirteen photographs at the Guardian website which is described as “Jewish religious festival of Purim” (World News – Judaism – Religion). Of those thirteen photographs, incredibly, six deal with “settlers” and the last carries this description:
“An Israeli soldier prevents the passage of Palestinian school children watching Israelis parade in celebration of the Jewish holiday of Purim (not seen) in the West Bank city of Hebron. Under heavy army protection, approximately 200 Israelis paraded in costume through the predominantly Palestinian city to celebrate Purim. With more than 170,000 Palestinian residents, Hebron has long been a flashpoint because of a settler enclave of around 600 hardline Jews in the heart of the city, and a further 6,500 settlers living in Kiryat Arba on the outskirts”
http://tinyurl.com/yh6bsrd
The Guardian: Making the streets of Britain unsafe for Jews
March 31st, 2010 at 1:54 pm
“I’ve no problem with the government of Israel being criticised, because I don’t care for it too much myself.”
In normal circumstances, I would have no problem either. However, the word “arrogant” when it is employed in any kind of Jewish context carries with it a certain type of ideological baggage that is both very unsavoury and chilling (it was, for example, one of Hitler’s favourite charges, as I demonstrate in a post above). And I can’t help but think that for both the writer of the editorial and also most readers, the import would have been exactly the same even if it had been the Israeli government that had been described as arrogant.
March 31st, 2010 at 5:34 pm
There will not be a second Shoah.
President Ahmadinejad may be stupid but his boss, Supreme Leader Ayotallah Khamenei, isn’t.
A strike on Israel would result in Iran ceasing to exist. Khamenei knows this full well.
I have always felt that a suitable intermediary, the Finnish Ambassador to Iran perhaps, was tasked with giving Iran this message from Israel.
March 31st, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Joshua – Nothing better demonstrates the everyday partisan bigotry of the Guardian than this gallery of thirteen photographs at the Guardian website which is described as “Jewish religious festival of Purim” (World News – Judaism – Religion). Of those thirteen photographs, incredibly, six deal with “settlers” and the last carries this description:
Sorry Joshua. I think that the behavior of the ‘settlers’ inside Hebron is provocative and a disgrace.
However, The Guardian is guilty of using subliminal messages in any context that it can, to demonise Israel. It claims to be ‘Fair and Balanced’.
What a hoot.
April 1st, 2010 at 10:18 am
Thanks to Joshua for pointing out the highly politicised selection of Purim photos on the Guardian site, which tells us infinitely more about the Guardian than it does about Israel or the Jewish people.
In reply to Joshua, I don’t think describing the Israeli government as “arrogant” would be good journalism either, never mind the historical connotations. There are members of that government, such as Yitzhak Herzog and Avishai Braverman, who are extremely unarrogant.
In an ideal world, newspapers would just make reasoned criticisms of a government’s actions and policies. But that’s too much to expect. Casting aspersions on the whole Jewish state is now in vogue. As Robin argues, it says as much about the Western “opinion-forming classes” as anything else. Difficult to put my finger on it, but perhaps it’s caused by arrogance.
April 1st, 2010 at 10:31 am
“Sorry Joshua. I think that the behavior of the ’settlers’ inside Hebron is provocative and a disgrace.”
Where did I say that it wasn’t (not nearly as “provocative” however as the 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron)? I do think that the Guardian is guilty of anti-Jewish incitement and nothing better exemplifies that than that particular photograph and caption (by far the longest caption for that last photograph for the obvious reasons).
What really sticks in my craw is not only the complete lack of concern for Jewish sensibilities and security at the Guardian but also that newspaper’s total hypocrisy and blatant double standards. Thus, can you imagine a similar set of photographs about a Christian or Muslim festival? No, I can’t either. And where are all the articles at the Guardian condemning the many thousands of innocents killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia by Britain? Where are the calls to arrest the soldiers responsible for these deaths? Where are the articles and cartoons labelling British soldiers as blood-soaked murderers? Where are the articles attacking Britain’s occupations of such places as the Malvinas (if you want provocative, try the recent oil drilling), Ireland and Gibraltar? Where are the articles justifying 7/7 or IRA attacks in Britain or indeed terrorist attacks anywhere in the world other than the Jewish state? Where are the plays inciting hatred against Christians and Muslims? Where are the many articles condemning China for her ongoing rape of Tibet or Russia’s many atrocities? Why is it only Israel that has been falsely accused in screaming headlines and bloodcurdling text of carrying out a most terrible massacre? Why is Israel constantly challenged to examine her founding “myths” and yet no such calls are made to examine the myths about Britain’s role in World War II (she not only did not lift a finger to help the drowning Jews of Europe, she actually did much to prevent their rescue) and in post-war Palestine (I have in mind the shocking brutality she displayed towards Holocaust survivors). The list goes on and on.
April 1st, 2010 at 12:53 pm
“In reply to Joshua, I don’t think describing the Israeli government as “arrogant” would be good journalism either, never mind the historical connotations.”
As I am sure you are aware, there is an old Jewish (Yiddish) expression, “You say the daughter when you mean the daughter-in-law”. The same is invariably true when people talk in derogatory terms about the “Israeli government” or the “Israeli military” or Zionists. What they really mean is “Jews” but it isn’t diplomatic to say so (not until recent years anyhow). Even in the quote above from Mein Kampf, Hitler is specifically talking about Jewish public officials, but naturally everyone is well aware that his charges are against the entire Jewish people. That is why I really couldn’t care less whether this Guardian apparatchik referred to the Israeli government or nation or people. Whatever the euphemism, we know what he really means and he knows we know what he means.
On a rather tangential note, our always gracious host writes the following: “let’s all remain courteous and give him the benefit of any doubts”. Naturally, he is right (we weren’t raised as good little English ladies and gentlemen for nothing), but I certainly don’t feel like being courteous or giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I am both sickened and furious that Jewish people (and it is mainly Jewish people) should have to spend their time fighting against the virus of anti-Semitism. For God’s sake, it is only sixty-five years ago since the liberation of Auschwitz. There are still many people alive today who clearly remember witnessing the virtual destruction of the Jews of Europe, something that could not have been achieved by the Nazis without the almost complete and willing collaboration of much of Europe, and, at very best, the total insouciance of Britain. These “anti-Zionists” really do have no shame. Perhaps they should be reminded when they go on at length about “the original sin” of Israel’s creation that Israel’s existence owes little or nothing to Jewish crimes and a very great deal to the crimes of “Europeans”.
April 1st, 2010 at 1:05 pm
“President Ahmadinejad may be stupid but his boss, Supreme Leader Ayotallah Khamenei, isn’t.”
They are certainly clever enough to pass on a nuclear device to one of their terrorist proxies to do the work for them. Indeed, it is not only Israel that would have much to fear from such actions. Even you, Robert in Cirencester (I take it that “Robert of Cirencester” is not a formal title) would not be safe.
Also, as I write above: “It is quite possible that the mere possession of nuclear weapons will result in the destruction of the Jewish state. With their love of life and the memory of the destruction of European Jewry still fresh in their minds, I don’t believe most Israeli Jews will be content to raise their children under the kind of shadow that a nuclear-armed Iran will represent. They will flee Israel in their hundreds of thousands for, at least what they will believe to be, much safer harbours in the US, Canada, Australia and elsewhere.”
April 1st, 2010 at 6:57 pm
@ Robin Shepherd:
On your ‘respectable antisemite being more dangerous’ point, I partially agree: that is something to be vigilant about. In particular, I think there is an old-fashioned form of upper-middle-class, English snobbish antisemitism (see Anthony Julius’s anecdote at the beginning of his book about his father and a conversation on the train) that is dying out but not yet dead.
But in terms of Oliver Miles’s larger influence, I think that’s scarcely measurable compared to Griffin appearing on QT and the BNP’s capacity to collect anti-politics protest votes in the forthcoming election. Much more scary.
@ Israelinurse:
Hallo. You make a good argument about ‘educated’ antisemitism, as opposed to boneheaded Jew-hatred. As I concede to Robin also, it needs recognising and exposing and naming – especially where legitimate criticism of Israel morphs into something more sinister and/or reveals itself by its conscious or unconscious use of tropes as antisemitic. Equally, however, I think the space to have reasoned and reasonable debate about the Middle East and I/P must be held open against bigotry from whatever quarter.
On the larger point, you conclude with – “A liberal newspaper with leftist orientation should be at the forefront of fighting this blight upon the society in which it functions”. I can only say yes, I fully agree: it should do that, and it should be big enough to admit its errors when it falls short. I believe it’s going in the right direction.
@ Jonathan Karmi:
I’ve already made my view clear about the ‘arrogant nation’ line. I think it was a careless remark made without a sense of how it would be heard. You have to be fully engaged in these debates to have that ear. I think we let ourselves down with that comment, but having given my personal view of that, I would say that the meaning you’re taking from it would not have been intended.
@ Clap Hammer:
I know you won’t wish to believe me, but we get just as many complaints from people who complain that their comments criticising Israel have been censored by us. It’s a highly contentious area. Believe it or not, Cif tries not to publish too much on it in a way that will simply feed the problem of threads falling into angry, entrenched positions with too many deletions. But are we out to impose a Guardian World View on those threads and suppress dissenters? Absolutely not.
On your point about substituting ‘Jews’ for ‘blacks’, I agree that such analogies can be a good ‘smell test’ for racism(/antisemitism). But analogies are often imperfect and even misleading. It’s a little hard to imagine the context that would be parallel here.
@ Jonathan Hoffman:
I understand your point about ‘subjective’ antisemitism: that is, I think, it makes no difference what Miles’s conscious motivation was in making his Chilcot remark: it was ‘objectively’ antisemitic either way.
But I wasn’t arguing that; I was talking about degree of reaction or punishment. Was Miles’s offence so bad that he should be ostracised permanently; or was it such that we should mark his card and regard him as on probation? I go with the latter, while realising that, for some, that is a kind of collaboration with the enemy they have now decided he is.
Finally, thank you to Robin for hosting this discussion; and for his helpful comments in the thread. Have to go now.
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:18 am
Easily the best post on this thread, at least in my opinion, is by Israelinurse at #44. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Joshua – it’s not as simple as you make out. Back in the sixties and seventies Israel received a relatively good press. It was seen as a plucky underdog, a modern democratic state amidst a sea of backward Arab dictatorships. Volunteering on kibbutz was popular, even trendy amongst young Europeans. The current type of anti-Israel sentiment in Britain was confined to the Trotskyite left, FCO Arabists and oddballs such as Christopher Mayhew. It was only after 1982 that things really went downhill. Menahem Begin’s second government, the obstructionist policies of Shamir, continued settlement expansion, the long sojourn in South Lebanon and the first West Bank intifada combined to cast Israel in a very different light. Israel is not a passive player. It can influence how it’s perceived. But it would need a very astute government to repair the damage.
April 2nd, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Reply to Mr. Karmi
Sorry to butt in with an unsolicited comment, but I would call your attention to the fact that the BBC for example, as other media too purposefully contains any, ANY information about Israel that might put it into positive light. They are doing it deliberately, out of sheer sinister animus for Israel.
My examples? Let me just give you two: Israel last autumn “conqured” The Guiness title from Lebanon in hummus cooking. The BBC deligently reported on the former Lebanese record, but suppressed the Israeli one. The event took place in Abu Gosh, a very well integrated Arab village close to Jerusalem just right next to Highway 1 that connects the capital to Tel-Aviv. On the occasion there were dozens of blue and white balloons, joyous and festive atmosphere in the air, dozens of cooks (Arabs and Jews!) together who prepared the food since that day early morning. Why did the BBC failed to report on it? Embarrassed at the very sight of a Jewish-Arab cooperative spirit, instead of the hebitual propagandistic portrayal of enmity and hatred?
The other one: Nissan will reportedly introduce its electric cars on the UK market in 2013. The very same car-maker (Nissan-Renault) in tandem with “Better Place” (Israeli firm) launches its electric-network and cars equipped with the needed tools in Israel NEXT YEAR, not in three years’ time. Of course they would have risked showing the REALITY to millions of British viewers and the accompanying tens of millions worldwide that Israel (the shitty little country) IS MORE advanced, more developed, more at the cutting edge than Britain. So Mr. Karmi don’t you think that the BBC armed with this kind of prejudice and acute seething hatred for Israel it will NEVER be fair and all the usual blahblah it tells about itself absolutely REGARDLESS of what the composition of the current Israeli gov’t is? Don’t you understand that this is deeper, much much deeper than some particular Israeli cabinet? I, on my part, DO. And this very attitude, this very approach apply to the two partners-in-crime “newspapers”.
Respectfully,
April 3rd, 2010 at 7:53 am
Matt Seaton says (Re: substituting blacks for Jews) analogies are often imperfect and even misleading. It’s a little hard to imagine the context that would be parallel here.
That is true, when you substitute Blacks for Jews. But the analogy is less imperfect and less misleading if you substitute Muslims for Jews. In that context, the parallels are clearer. Now, how likely do you think it is that the Guardian would have published an article that included the following statement:
“Both [Hussein] and [Turabi] are Muslim, and [Turabi] at least has a record of active support for [Islamism],” he said. “…if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunition will be available. Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced.”
M
April 3rd, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Matt Seaton: You say that anti-Zionist commenters also complain when their comments are removed, as if that proves CiF offers some kind of balance. But most of the anti-Israel comments at CiF are based on ignorance, prejudice and an ever-growing body of self-perpetuating historical myths. Deleting them is not the same as suppressing the accurate, factual information often provided by pro-Israel commenters. CiF is being irresponsible if it has not learned to distinguish the truth and allows so much misinformation about the IP conflict to accumulate.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Hi Gábor. You may call me Jonathan.
So why do you think Israel received a good press in the sixties and seventies ? I think the deterioration since then is because both Israel has changed and the general mindset of ‘Western European opinion formers’ has changed, as described in Robin’s book. The question is the level of causality.
As for the BBC, I’ve written dozens of useless complaints to the BBC regarding inaccuracies and bias in its Middle East reporting over the past few years. Jeremy Bowen is a particular disgrace when it comes to presenting shallow opinions as journalism.
Given my mistrust of the BBC, I don’t watch much BBC news and current affairs nowadays. Therefore coverage of the civilisational clash over houmous passed me by. However this BBC website article seems perfectly fair …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8375952.stm
Let’s hope the ‘Better Place’ initiative in Israel goes well and then let’s see then if it gets coverage. The fact is that in people’s minds, ‘the occupation’ blinds them to the many good facets of Israel. The counter argument of Arab rejectionism just hasn’t carried enough weight. I think Israel’s leadership needs to constantly keep the Palestinians on the back foot by showing a clear and public willingness to negotiate and compromise. That will expose any duplicity and intransigence on their part. It will drag them into scarier territory, where they are forced to compromise, eg. land swaps along the Green Line, demilitarisation arrangements etc.
April 5th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Jonathan Karmi writes:
“So why do you think Israel received a good press in the sixties and seventies?”
(I’m pushed for time so my answer unfortunately will have to be for the most part in point form.)
I know this business about Israel being popular in the 1960s and 1970s is a an argument that is much beloved by those on the left wing, but it is a gross distortion of the truth.
1) Remember first that it had been a Labour government with a virulently anti-Semitic Foreign Secretary that had launched a jihad against the Zionist movement in post-war Palestine.
2) Yes, at least up until the Six-Day War, there had been in certain left-wing circles a dewy-eyed romanticism about socialist Israel, but such feelings tended to be confined to the left and were by no means unanimous. Criticism was certainly not the preserve of “the Trotskyite left, FCO Arabists and oddballs such as Christopher Mayhew”. Even at the height of that war, when Israel’s victory seemed far from assured, the Jewish Bernard Levin writing a major piece in the Times informed the world that he was English and not Israeli (I actually think he said “Jewish” but I can’t be sure), and he really didn’t give a hang about the Jewish state. And even at that time such sympathy as there was for Israel was hardly translated into any real practical support like aid or weapons sales.
3) It was shortly after the Six-Day War and not in the 1980s the tide turned against Israel. Thus, in 1973, when Israel stood on the very brink of destruction, Britain like all other European nations refused permission to the U.S. to fly planes loaded with emergency supplies for a beleaguered Israel over its territory. If you look back at the papers at the time, you will see many violently anti-Israeli articles. If you had tuned in to “Any Questions” you would have heard individuals like Paul Foot delivering to wild applause the most poisonous diatribes against Israel. In the wider world, in 1975, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 was passed (75 to 35 with 32 absentions). That resolution determined that: “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”. Three years earlier, in 1972, despite the murder of eleven Israeli athletes and coaches at the Munich Olympics, the world simply sniffed and carried on those Games without further ado.
4) The nations of the world turned against Israel for the most part because they never could cotton to the idea of Jews defending themselves.
5) Your decontextualization of the events of the 1980s together with the white-washing of Labor’s responsibility for the settlements is really quite shocking. Then again, I suppose I should be used to your utterances after what you wrote at Melanie Phillips’s blog about the courageous mayor of Sderot:
“On the platform behind him stood Eli Moyal, the mayor of Sderot, in his sunglasses looking like some gaunt, seedy gangster”
http://tinyurl.com/ykgofwv
6) Even if everything you say about Israel were true, it still would not in any way excuse the hypocrisy, the double standards, the bigotry and the anti-Semitism of the British media. Or perhaps you are suggesting that unless we Jews conduct ourselves according to the dictates of non-Jews, we somehow deserve all the anti-Semitism we get.
April 7th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
J. Karmi, OK – much good you wrote , but this “land swaps along the Green Line” is kind of also official orthodoxy right now in Euro-and-by-now-American official circles it seems. However IF you take a cursory glance at UNSC 242, there is no obligation on Israel to “swap” anything. This is just now the conventional pro-2-states orhodoxy. I don’t want to appear intransigent, who opposes compromise with the Arabs (Palestinians if you will), but just want to point out to you that there is absolutely no obligation on Israel to do this. For me it’s very clear. What the potentates in Brussels, Washington, London, Paris and Moscow say is a completely different matter. Too bad that many people believe them! (At the same time it’s also true that the Palestinians would hardly accept the so-called demilitarisation condition. If I were a Pal, probably I’d hesitate as well, but that’s another matter of course. Israel MUST stick to the would-be state’s demil.)
April 7th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Hi Joshua
I asked previously, “So why do you think Israel received a good press in the sixties and seventies ?” I’m talking here about media coverage and general public perception of Israel, not about specific government policies. All of your points miss the mark …
1) Ernest Bevin was Foreign Secretary in Attlee’s 1945 government. I wasn’t talking about that period, but yes clearly the Middle East policy of that government was a disgrace. Different issue though.
2) I don’t give a hang about what Bernard Levin thought either. Your point on weapons sales is wrong, as back in those days, Israel’s planes were French (Mystere, Ouragon, Mirage, Super Mystere) and the tanks were mainly British (Centurion) or American (Patton). At the end of the sixties American Phantoms and Skyhawks started arriving and became the backbone of the IAF.
3) Various points here. The reaction of many countries during and after the Yom Kippur War was dictated by fears over oil supplies and prices. I agree that the behaviour of Edward Heath’s government at the time was slimy in the extreme, but the media coverage was fair. Can you imagine the BBC employing someone with the journalistic stature of Michael Elkins nowadays ? If you’re too young to remember him, here’s some info on him … http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/michael-elkins-728919.html. You mention Paul Foot. He was editor of Socialist Worker in the seventies and that only underlines my point about anti-Israel hostility being confined to “the Trotskyite left, FCO Arabists and oddballs such as Christopher Mayhew”. The UN General Assembly is not representative of UK public or media opinion, far from it. I remember great sympathy for Israel after the Munich Olympics massacre. Were you around back then ?
4) I think reality is more nuanced. Yes, there’s plenty of anti-semitism out there, but it’s not as universal as you think. A lot of people and nations admired Israel for defending itself and plenty still do.
5) Again several points here. I don’t understand what you mean by my “decontextualization of the events of the 1980s”. Please explain. Yes, I didn’t like the Israeli Labour Party’s acquiescing to the building of settlements in isolated locations in the West Bank. But the main momentum came during the Begin and Shamir years. Settlement building was at the heart of their ideology. The hero Eli Moyal did not stand again for Mayor of Sderot in elections at the end of 2008. He had been investigated for corruption … http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/992002.html. My point against Moyal and Barak was their bad manners during Obama’s speech in Sderot and I stand by that. Obama has since reciprocated with an even worse display of manners towards Mr Netanyahu. He has even less excuse.
6) I’m also deeply unhappy with much of the UK media’s coverage. But I stick by the point that Israel can help its own cause by being more sophisticated in certain respects. Having a Foreign Minister like Avigdor Lieberman isn’t a great help. I was in the same dormitory as him at the Hebrew University many years ago, so I knew the guy. He’s being Foreign Minister is just bizarre.
April 8th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Hi Gábor. I agree that Resolution 242 does not obligate a withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice line. But I work on the principle that modern Israel is a primarily Jewish country with a culture that’s very different to that of most Muslim Arabs in the region. So put crudely, having as many Jews on one side of the line and as many Arabs on the other side makes sense in terms of minimising friction in the long term. That takes into account potential difficulties caused by the high birth rate of the Muslim Arab population. So for example, if it means including Betar Illit and Modi’in Illit in Israel, while Umm-el-Fahm and Arara fall into Palestine, that would be OK with me. Hopefully if peace does ever break out, people will eventually be able to cross to the other side for work, tourism, visiting holy sites etc. Seems a long way off though.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:53 am
When so called enlightened people as in this case Oliver Miles, a former British Ambassador to Libya makes derogatory comments concerning ‘Israel’ criticizing the eminent Historian Sir martin Gibert and other’s, he must have an agenda for spewing out his poisenous venom against anything connected to Judaism. Ther are many people unfortunately still around in the world today who revelled in the ‘Nazi Ideology’ get rid of the Jews and the world will be a much better place for mankind. Israel has every right to be there and to remain there for eternity. Today once again as in the 1970s ‘Zionism’ has become a dirty word, the leftists together with their muslim comrades in arms have welded zionism together with racism, without even understanding the definition of what Zionism means. Zionism is an integral part of Judaism you cannot seperate the two. Zionism is mentioned 132 times in the Old testament it’s synonimous with Jerusalem. Zionism is the National aspiration movement of the Jewish people, just as the national movements of Africa & Asia are to their own people, if you equal Zionism with racism by the same token you must then equal all other national aspition movements. Today people are talking about there is no such thing as a jewish people ie (ethnic race0 so these are not real jews, why then was 6,000,0000 jews genocided in world war two by the Germans and their willing axis allies (excluding the Japanese) If it was ok to kill jews then it’s ok for jews to live in Israel. Palestine never belonged to the arabs, land in palestine was tenured mostly by people who didn’t own land, most of the land was owned by absentee landlords living in Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut etc. formerly part of the Turkish Ottoman empire, from 1516-1918. There were always Jews living there some never left even after the Roman Jewish dispersion of around 135CE. People like miles oliver will never face up to the fact that 1,000,000 Jewish refugees were forced out from their homes in the arab world since the 1940s, there real-estate amounted to five times the size of israel today alone, their bank accounts were frozen, their jewelley in many situations were stolen from them including precious stones etc. Today 75% of those middle eastern Jews who fled to Israel make up over 50% of the total jewish population. many jews whether from the arab countries or not who are residents in europe today have witnessed an increasing amount of violence meted out to them from the islamic community of europe whether arab, or black african muslims, in the uk ithe hatred directed towards the jewish community stems maionly from the muslims of the sub-indian continent, ie. Pakistan, Bangladesh, and muslims who originated from India. These muslims like their bretheren in other parts of europe have been schooled from an early age towards pure Jew-hatred, In France andn other countries muslim children don’t want to know anything about ‘Holocaust History’ insome instances their parents have told them that this history of the Jews is a complete fabrication of the truth, so who do they believe their parents or their teachers. Remember that muslims were not innocent in hunting down and murdering Jews in Hitlers europe, The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj al-Amin al-Husseyni was responsible for recruiting willing Bosnian muslim batallions to fight for hitler and hunt down and kill defenceless jews and serbs in their thousands. He even visited death camps where there where genociding jews and others on a daily industrial scale, so much for your innocent Palestinian arabs, who in actual fact never wanted to be called palestinians ( as they considered themselves only arabs from Syria, Egypt, The lebanon, iraq, Yemen etc.) until 1964, when Yasser Arafat a nephew of the Grand Mufti of jerusalem saw it as a political necessity to start calling the arab refugees of the former palestine, palestinian refugees.