……what they are and why they are necessary.
The pillar sustaining the State of Israel is, of course, the US. In place of the US you can insert “the West”, given that the foreign policy of most Western nations can be summarised as “stay close to the Americans”. This was famously exemplified by Tony Bliar’s famous instruction to the British Ambassador in Washington, “get up the White House’s arse and stay there”.
Israel is the most dependent nation on earth. No other nation is entirely dependent on another for its very existence.
That having been said, a second crucial existential pillar is “anti-Semitism”. Anyone that doubts this should try to imagine the landscape without it. Imagine if Israel had to get along without anti-Semitism, just as white South Africans had to get along without anti-Dutch racism and the Soviets had to get along without anti-Slav racism. Imagine if the State of Israel and the wider Hasbarafia were divested of the anti-Semitism card, and the goons at CAMERA and similar organisations were not able to launch into self pitying squeals of “anti-Semite” at any reference to Israel that fell short of eulogy.
These squeals aggregate into an impenetrable crescendo of deafening noise that intimidates the target leaving him/her/it battered and bewildered. The churches are particularly susceptible to being quieted and having their public positions “modified” by this phenomenon. Ask the Methodist Church in Great Britain.
Unfortunately, most targets of this white noise either back down or make the fatal error of trying to go through it, only to find it, as I have said, impenetrable. Those few who have wised up simply put their ear plugs in, step around it, and leave them to squeal at the moon.
“persecution of or discrimination against Jews” Collins English Dictionary
“hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group” Merriam Webster Dictionary
“hostility and prejudice directed against Jewish people; (also) the theory, action, or practice resulting from this” OED
Now here, we have statements of the meaning of anti-Semitism, the definition of anti-Semitism, arrived at by the dictionary compilers’ observations of the aggregate force of the uses of the expression by the multitudes that speak the natural language. Unfortunately for the Hasbarafia, in the West, there is not a lot of it about. As the regulars will testify, down at the Dog and Duck, when the boys have had a few and the racist garbage starts to flow, Jews rarely, if ever, warrant a mention. There certainly isn’t enough to keep the Hasborafia squealing about it 24/7.
Worse, there is no reference to Israel in the definition. Why should there be? If you stand on any random street and ask 100 random passers-by what they understand by anti-Semitism, you can be confident that Israel won’t get a mention.
The Hasbarafia overcome these problems by creating a private language in which they stipulate a privatised definition that they energetically seek to force on the rest of us.
And, of course, there is always anti-Semitic tropes. They are not as good as anti-Semitism but they are better than a blank minute.
Anti-Semitic tropes expand the arsenal of the Hasborafia, infinitely. So, what are they?
You are in the presence of an anti-Semitic trope when it is suggested that a Jew, or group of Jews is guilty of something that Jews, as a collective, have been accused of in the past, however dim and distant. This constitutes a “libel against the Jewish people” and is anti-Semitic.
This kind of libel is different from the more familiar kind of libel, in that these are libels to which there is NO defence. If the man down the road accuses me of libeling him, I have certain potential defences; fair comment, privilege etc., etc. The best defence of all, of course, is that the published statement is true. None of these defences is available in the case of an anti-Semitic trope. Truth and falsehood are entirely irrelevant. Whether the statement is true is not any part of the issue.
So, if you imply or state that a Jew has blood on his hands as in the now famous Scarfe cartoon (above ) you are anti-Semitic. This is because way back in the 13C, Jews were persistently accused of using the blood of Christian children in their religious rituals. So, to suggest that a Jew has blood on his hands today, is an invocation of this 13C blood libel. I am not sure whether accusing a Jew of killing someone bloodlessly, eg. by poison, counts as a blood libel or whether it doesn’t.
So, the above cartoon is racist but the many depictions of, for example, Tony Bliar with blood on his hands is not, Tony Bliar not being Jewish.
For centuries, Jews as a collective have been suspected and accused of being in the habit of poisoning Gentile water supplies. This makes it difficult to discuss Abba Kovner and Nakam. It is said that Kovner and his boys poisoned the water supplies of several German cities in the immediate aftermath of WW2. Once again, whether this is true or false is not in any way the issue. It probably isn’t true. What is certain is that they planned to. How far they got with these plans is disputed. But it is anti-Semitic to even talk about this because that puts us in the presence of an anti-Semitic trope and we are therefore, racists.
Another centuries old canard is that Jews were engaged in one great plot to control the world, if not the cosmos. What that means for us today, is that it is anti-Semitic to connect a group of Jews with power and influence. This is particularly so when this power and influence relates to policies and attitudes in respect of The State of Israel. Making such connections amount to invocations of the “rule the world” canard and are libels of the Jewish people. Only anti-Semites suggest these kind of connections.
Once again, truth and falsehood are irrelevant. So, we cannot make references to an American Jewish/Israel lobby despite everyone being perfectly aware that not only is there such, but it is immensely powerful and well organised, second only to the gun lobby. So powerful that no American President, Senator, Congressman, candidate or wannabe candidate dare stray from its line for very long. Menachim Begin famously told Ronald Reagan, “Don’t worry about the Hill Ron, I’ll take care of them”. In making these assertions you can be sure that no Zionist will tell me I am mistaken. Why get involved in that, when simply calling me anti-Semitic, settles the issue once and for all.
The idiotic Zio-fascist (albeit now defunct ), Jonathan Hoffman, went so far as to tell the Channel 4 presenter Jon Snow, that he was anti-Semitic after he expressed doubts about the strength of this lobby. Hoffman explained that any reference to the lobby was anti-Semitic, even in the form of a negative existence statement, because it conjured up unwelcome evocations.
Jewish organisations may not be as powerful outside the US, but they are invariably well organised and effective, especially in the UK and Australia.
Lobbying and the seeking of influence is perfectly legitimate in a democracy of course, but then so is the the pointing out that this influence has been sought and obtained. Except that it isn’t. It’s anti-Semitic. It’s one of those tropes.
Further, it needs to be said that the lobbying isn’t always legitimate, in that the employment of tactics involving bullying, threats, intimidation and even blackmail, is not Kosher. My detailed knowledge is restricted to the UK, but I am able to testify that these illegitimate tactics are common. They don’t boast about it like they used to, because they don’t want Harriet to see what they are up to. But Harriet sees anyway. Anyone harbouring doubts about this needs only to visit our sister site, Harriet’s Methodist Room here.
For centuries, among the excuses for intensified persecution of Jews, pogroms, the charge of disloyalty to the “host country” was often prominent. What this means for us today is that we cannot state, with impunity, the blindingly obvious fact that many Jews and Jewish organisations find choosing between the interests of Israel and the interests of their own country, when they conflict, as they often do, a no brainer. In America, they are called “Israel firsters’. The existence of these people and groups is rarely allowed to become a subject for debate. The inconvenient truth is dealt with by declaring an anti-Semitic trope, since this truth has some resemblance to charges laid against Jews in the days of yore. Anyone suggesting such a thing is anti-Semitic. End of story.
In the UK, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, at one time the primary Jewish organisation, but now in terminal, precipitous decline, functions as an extension of the Israeli Embassy, a fact ruefully acknowledged by the Board treasurer Laurence Brass, one of the saner members of this lamentable organisation.
The interests of the UK and the perceived interests of Israel are clearly often at odds. For example, the continuation of occupation is manifestly contrary to British interests as evidenced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s designation of the territories as “The Occupied Palestinian Territories”, and affirmation of the illegality of the colonising of the West Bank. The Board rejects the advice of its own government in favour of “whatever the government of Israel sees fit.”
The Jewish organisations work in close tandem with the Israeli Embassy and regularly seeks its advice, for example when the JLC and the Board proposed to visit the territories in 2012. When doubts set in, they sought the advice, not of their own Foreign Office, but that of the Israeli Embassy. That is, they sought permission from the Embassy. Permission was denied and the trip did not take place.
The former CEO of the JLC and official spokesperson for the Chief Rabbi, the notorious perjurer Jeremy Newmark, is merely a gopher on behalf of the Embassy. Newmark was APPOINTED to the steering committee of the Global Coalition for Israel by the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
The Jewish organisations work closely with the Embassy in conducting lawfare campaigns against British citizens and organisations. That is, organisations of BRITISH Jews, collaborate with a foreign power to constrict the civil liberties, including the right to assembly or non-assembly of other British citizens.
Now, I do not expect to be challenged on these facts. Once again truth and falsehood are not the issue since we are in the presence of an anti-Semitic trope. I am therefore, anti-Semitic, matter resolved.
This is not an exhaustive list of anti-Semitic tropes. There are many others. However, I hope to have outlined enough to make it easy to spot others, when they are encountered.
How to deal with the accusation of being a purveyor of anti-Semitic tropes?
It is a bewildering thought that Dexter Van Zile is a Christian. He seems to be extremely uncomfortable with the Christian message and, in fact, exhibits a positive antipathy towards it. Our understanding of Christianity is that Christians profess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour and live so far as is humanly possible, in accordance with His teachings. Dexter makes no effort whatsoever, to live in accordance with Christ’s teachings, but rather denigrates and vilifies those who do. The reality is that Dexter is a fake Christian just as he is a fake everything that he has purported to be.
He also seems to have a learning disability. After his attack on Munther Isaac went bellyup and made him a laughing stock, his response was not “I can learn something from this”. Instead, it was to make a strategic retreat, lick his wounds, and then to begin a smear campaign against Sami Awad.
What Munther had said in his talk at CATC2014, laid along side what Dexter wrote about it, clearly demonstrated Dexter to be obsessive and vindictive. Similarly, a comparison with Dexter’s life and Sami’s is, to be frank, embarrassing. While Sami is out in the trenches in the Holy Land, doing his Lord’s work, softening hearts and seeking to heal wounds, Dexter sits in his Boston office collecting his CAMERA welfare cheques, and blowing raspberries.
Almost unbelievably, Dexter attacked Sami for living Christ’s Gospel and preaching and teaching the ways of peace to men of violence. Sami fearlessly takes the message of non-violence and peaceful advocacy for change, even to Hamas. Dexter maintains that there is a line and that Hamas are on the wrong side of it. As in all violent situations, the men of violence have to be won over or a never ending spiral of violence has to be expected and accepted. What would Dexter have Sami Awad do? What would Jesus have Sami Awad do? Would Jesus accept that there was a line and that those on one side of it could be redeemed and those on the other could not?
Dexter complains that Sami’s efforts with Hamas have not brought any positive results. When the
Christian Dexter says his prayers, (koff) does he say “well Lord, I’ve given it a bit of a whirl, but I haven’t had much in the way of results, so I’m moving on”?
Disgracefully, Dexter represents Sami as providing training for Hamas in how to deceive the West. The man is a fraud and dissembler. How does Dexter know what’s in Sami Awad’s heart, the will of his Lord, and the hearts of the men he is reaching out to. This kind of projection is one of Dexter’s frequently used tools to control the images that leap off the page during the course of his smear campaigns.
This is just about the immediate Sami Awad situation. There is so much more to tell you about this freak and you can be sure that we will be doing so. So……stay tuned.
At this year’s CATC2014 conference, Munther Isaac gave the most amazing, inspiring talk that should make us all optimistic about a way forward in Israel/Palestine. The theme was inclusivity and “who is my neighbor”? We at Harriet’s Place are a diverse hodge podge of people for whom this theme had great resonance.
Unfortunately, the thugs of the Zionist extremist propaganda organisation, CAMERA don’t like this message and are seeking to represent it as something different, entirely. It is extremely important that people hear what Munther said rather than being left with CAMERA’s “mis”representation.
You can see and hear Munther’s brilliant talk here: https://vimeo.com/89537008
Please help us spread the truth and the light by distributing Munther’s talk as widely as you can.
CAMERA’s “Dexter Dilemma”
Well, it sure seems that after I highlighted Dexter Van Zile’s habitual lack of context in his “reporting” he has doubled down on dumb. Since my piece “The Echo Chamber of Dexter Van Zile”, he has been on an online rampage lashing out in all directions in an attempt to be heard as per the “Echo Chamber” in which he lives and writes. It is very hard to know who is listening to him, other than his own choir.
There has been a lot of attention recently, on the fact that Evangelicals, a demographic that is historically pro-Israel and where the Israeli narrative has had a monopoly, is shifting. The younger Evangelicals are listening more to the Palestinian story and beginning to get a broader perspective. Over the past 5 years there has been a shift, in part, thanks to conferences like ‘Christ at the Checkpoint’ in Bethlehem, films like ‘With God On Our Side’ and more leaders coming out with less fear of any backlash. People are doing what CAMERA doesn’t like, asking questions and educating themselves.
This raises an interesting question. Is Van Zile the right person at CAMERA as the ‘Christian Media Analyst’ in this new era of shifting dynamics? It seems he is having to go to extreme lengths to come up with a “gotcha” by taking comments out of context, hashing up old articles and retweeting them. Van Zile, in a public lecture on February 15, 2012 in New Hampshire personally admits that dealing with Evangelicals is “difficult” for him because he is an ‘outsider to that community’. (11:12 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaVHLUvP03U) This becomes more evident every time Van Zile writes…he is playing catch up and doesn’t understand the issues he is talking about.
In his latest attempt at smear reporting, Van Zile questions whether Munther Isaac, who has become a favorite target of Van Zile’s, told the truth in 2012 when he said:
“we [Palestinian Christians] worship with freedom and exercise rights like all Palestinians.”
At Christ at the Checkpoint 2014, Munir Kakish, head of the Council of Evangelical Churches says:
“As a religious group, we are still unable to practice our basic civil rights to issue marriage certificates, register our church properties in the name of the church, or even open bank accounts to manage our churches’ financial affairs”.
Van Zile sees this as a contradiction and that someone must be lying. What Van Zile does not take into account, is that Isaac is talking about personal freedom of worship, which Palestinians do have, and the continuing fight for full official recognition of the Evangelical church by the Palestinian Authority, which Kakish is addressing. There’s a big difference. This is a fight that Evangelicals in Israel also are fighting and which Geoff Tunnicliffe, Director of the World Evangelical Alliance called for at CATC 2014, and brought to a meeting with Israeli officials that same week for churches in Israel. Do Palestinian and Israeli Christians have freedom of worship? Yes. Do Evangelical Churches have full recognition? No. So rather on diving deeper into these details and the full picture, Van Zile tries a lame attempt at alleging ‘conflicting stories’. Is the Palestinian Authority so repressive against Palestinian Christians that an International Christian Conference where Palestinian Christians, Jews and Internationals come together publicaly and online, in which Palestinian officials attend and the Prime Minister has spoken at in the past, is allowed and supported? What Van Zile is attempting by making accusations of anti-Semitism, conflicting stories, etc., is to cast Palestinian Christians as people you can’t trust, that their narrative is tainted by fear of the Palestinian Authority. We expect, in the coming days, more from Van Zile on these ‘issues’. He is struggling to come up with something, but so far, can’t climb out of the cesspool of tabloid reporting, which is what he has become infamous for.
CAMERA has a dilemma in Dexter Van Zile. The new surge in the Evangelical church, especially amongst young people, has them desperately searching for relevancy. Van Zile, their “Christian Media Analyst” has admitted to being an outsider here, and this is glaringly obvious. At a time when many pro-Israeli hasbara organizations are adjusting, and trying to find and highlight young voices of their own, CAMERA is stuck with Van Zile. And as I have said, it’s hard to know who is listening to him.
Editor’s comment: As Burkhardt has pointed out, a current favorite target is Munther Isaac on account of the talk that he gave at CATC2014. Anyone familiar with this talk will immediately recognise the ludicrous and desperate dissembling by Van Zile:
Munther chastises all faiths equally for their violence against each other.
Munther acknowledges that being Palestinian isn’t easy, given the reputation for violence Palestinian extremists have acquired.
Munther chastises all faiths equally for their exclusivity instead of their inclusivity.
In the telling of the alleged anti-Semitic joke that Van Zile is staking his reputation on, Munther makes no reference to Jews whatsoever. In fact, his punchline was clearly a further chastisment of Christians for their lack of attention to their Christian duty. How Dexter came away from that thinking he could sell this as anti-Semitism tells you as much about Dexter Van Zile as you will ever need to know. It’s make your mind up time, folks. See here.
It is clear from social media activity and other sources that CAMERA is gearing up for a major campaign against Bethlehem Bible College and Christ at the Checkpoint. Their efforts will be made to effectively label Christ at the Checkpoint organisers as anti-Semites and liars, and to derail the 2016 Christ at the Checkpoint Conference. Obviously this will be led by the obsessive hand wringer, Dexter Van Zile and the rather smarter Gilead Ini, one time Twitter imposter of Gidon Shaviv.
Here is Dexter in a posed trash picking photo-op to go with the other 3 times he’s been seen at international events picking up trash. Maybe there is a career for him after CAMERA?
Here is Gilead Ini, a man of more identities than morals. Just ask Wikipedia.
and here is Gidon Shaviv, whose Twitter profile was “borrowed by” Gilead Ini for a few days.
Watch this space for an account of just how unscrupulous and amoral these guys are.
A heated debate took place into the wee hours at Harriet’s Place as to whether we should ascribe to them the word “evil”. We decided for the moment to table that. In the meantime, we would repeat our previous advice to anyone being targeted by these freaks not to engage with them in any way, shape, or form. They are not people who can be sensibly dealt with, given their proclivity for untruth and a lack of any moral compass.
A guest post by Burkhardt
CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) is a non-partisan organization that according to their website is “devoted to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East” and “CAMERA takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues”. Although CAMERA says they promote “Accuracy in Middle East Reporting”, the truth is they are a hotbed of Israeli propagandists in the media.
Dexter Van Zile, the Christian Media Analyst for CAMERA is known for his propensity for picking out a detail and running it into the ground as a falsehood, while ignoring the context in which it should be presented. Not seeing the forest for the trees defines Van Zile’s work.
A recent example of this can be found in his reporting from the “Christ at the Checkpoint Conference” which took place in Bethlehem in March 2014. Van Zile’s first article from his fact-finding mission was entitled “Stop Lying About Israel and Bethlehem”. In this article, Van Zile highlights 3 examples from the conference where local Palestinians or conference speakers referred to the Israeli Separation Barrier as “surrounding Bethlehem”. This seems like a crusade that Van Zile can’t let go of. He spent months trying to get CBS’s 60 Minutes to “correct” a segment they did on Christians in Palestine, when one of their interviewees said that Bethlehem was surrounded by the wall. Van Zile’s reaction was nothing less than obsessive including writing to 60 minutes’ Bob Simon, stalking CBS President Jeff Fagor and challenging him to a $5,000 bet to a charity if he could prove Bethlehem was ‘completely surrounded’. As is so often the case when challenged by hacks, Van Zile was ignored. He insists that the wall does not literally enclose Bethlehem so therefore it is a lie to say a wall ‘surrounds Bethlehem’. This is classic Van Zile, throwing context out the window. The term “surrounded by” is used in a variety of ways in everyday life. When someone says “I am surrounded by a group of friends”, do they mean literally that they have friends on all sides in a circle around them? Is this a lie? But let’s go to the Bible since Van Zile is the “Christian Media Analyst”. In Psalm 125:2 it reads: “As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the LORD surrounds his people both now and forevermore.” As anyone who has been to Jerusalem knows, it is not covered on all sides by mountains. It is not literally surrounded. I am wondering if CAMERA will tweet out a ‘correction needed’ to King David or claim “that is a LIE”! History shows that armies who attacked Jerusalem, attacked the city from the North, where it was most vulnerable and did not have a steep valley.
Many who visit Bethlehem and more so, those who live there, rightly describe the wall as “surrounding Bethlehem”. But what this type of dishonest reporting from Van Zile does, is take away from the fact that the Israeli Occupation surrounds Bethlehem. Bethlehem, as a designated “Area A” is in fact, an island in the West Bank, which can be isolated at anytime by the Israelis. The Wall, Checkpoints, Roads, Settlements, Travel Restrictions create a ‘Matrix of Control’ which Van Zile ignores. CAMERA’s hope is that the America public will remain ignorant of the bigger issues surrounding the Israeli Occupation, and that those who speak about the realities on the ground cannot be trusted. To ask questions could mean you say the wrong thing and be accused of “lying”.
Most recently, Van Zile accused the Christ at the Checkpoint Conference Director, Munther Isaac of telling an “anti-Semitic” joke during his lecture. Isaac, the man whose entire talk was about not dividing into ‘us and them’ and loving our enemies, referring to the parable of the Good Samaritan. When referring to the two religious leaders who passed by the man who had been robbed, Isaac told a story of a Sunday school boy who said the two religious figures did not stop because the man who had been robbed did not have any money left. Well, Van Zile, who does not take context into account and has an agenda, promoted this as an “anti-Semitic” joke from Munther Isaac (associating Jews with greed and money). This is a new low for Van Zile, who makes a serious public accusation against Isaac, knowing full well that this is not what he meant. The joke in context is about religious people, not Jews. It was a joke about “US”. If he did think it was about Jews, he did not listen to the whole lecture, as Isaac’s point was that a person’s identity should not be an issue when asking the question, “who is my neighbor?” Van Zile represents it as being the exact opposite, by isolating every comment as being “against” Jews for political and propaganda purposes. It is shameful that Van Zile uses the pain and suffering of Jewish people in such ways. Here again, context is not important to CAMERA’s Van Zile, nor is the truth.
After the previous Christ at the Checkpoint Conference in 2012 Van Zile went on another similar, but much more personal crusade against the Awad family. The Awad family, in Van Zile’s words are considered “pillars” of the Evangelical Christian community in Palestine. Van Zile took issue with differing accounts of the death of Elias Awad, the father of Bishara and Alex Awad, and grandfather of Sami Awad. Elias Awad was shot and killed in the 1948 war. The family has repeatedly said that it is not clear who he was shot by. There are differing accounts, some highlighting the possibility that the shots came from the Zionist army side, others being less certain. Van Zile, as a hired propagandist for Israel, does not allow the possibility that Elias Awad’s death could be blamed on the Israelis. While the idea that it may have come from the Arab armies will not be placed under scrutiny from CAMERA, any suggestion of it coming from the Israels is. The bigger picture of the Awad family story of reconciliation, pain through loss in war, and understanding the “other” is lost on Van Zile. Again, CAMERA and Van Zile are not promoting accuracy in Middle East reporting, they are being paid to circulate propaganda to promote the Israeli narrative. If questioning the story of a family in pain and suffering from the loss of a loved one will help promote the cause of CAMERA, then “let the baby go with the bathwater”. We could go back to the Bible for an example that just because a story may have different perspectives and details, it does not mean the story is not true, or that people are lying. Van Zile looks to discredit and demonize peoples’ motivations. Whether or not Elias Awad was shot by an Israeli or an Arab, the Awad family remembers the story to promote reconciliation and understanding of the pain on both sides, by telling their story. What is Van Zile afraid of?
Van Zile lives in an echo chamber of hate and bitterness. His frustration is that deep down, he knows he is not keeping people to account, but rather, he is using the media as a propaganda tool to advance the nationalist aspirations of the Zionist State. He is not the first person to do so.
Last night (25 March) the University of London college, Kings voted by 348-252 to support the BDS campaign. The resolution was as follows:
This Union Resolves:
1. To carry out thorough research into KCL investments, partnerships, and contracted companies, including subcontractors, that may be implicated in violating Palestinian human rights as stated by the BDS movement
2. Pressure King’s College London to divest from Israel and from companies directly or indirectly supporting the Israeli occupation and apartheid policies;
3. To have a plaque in all KCLSU student centres acknowledging that KCLSU formally supported the BDS call, as was done when KCLSU showed solidarity to our sisters and brothers in their struggle against Apartheid South Africa with the following text: “KCLSU officially endorses the 2005 Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions of Israel until it abides by international law and ends it illegal occupation of Palestine. KCLSU is proud to follow the example of a similar call in the 1980’s, which successfully led to the end of apartheid in South Africa.
“Naturally, this has reduced the Board of Deputies, Jonathan Arkush in particular, to their familiar state of self-pitying and tearful hand wringing. See here.
You will note Arkush’s typical dissembling when he tells us that the motion was immediately disavowed “by the academic leadership of King’s College London”, thereby creating the impression that the college had made a statement opposing the resolution. In fact, they merely pointed out that the Student’s Union was independent of the college.
Arkush is particularly upset that there was some chanting of “from the river to the sea”. This, he says “sent a message of hate to Israel and once again demonstrated that the true agenda of BDS is not to influence Israel, but to destroy it”. “He undoubtedly hopes that the current Methodist
leadership is reading this”.
He finds this “hateful”.
Arkush is perfectly ok with the present de facto one state from the river to the sea because it is an Israeli controlled apartheid state. What he finds hateful is the idea that it might become a democracy.
What we would say to Mr. Arkush is that racist soldiers breaking down your door in the middle of the night, abducting your children and transporting them to a foreign country, in gross violation of the Geneva Convention is pretty hateful too.
Originally posted on harrietsplace1:
There was once a jewish vegan (http://www.chabad.org/news/article_cdo/aid/903001/jewish/Meat-Free-at-UK-Campus-Center.htm) who lives in Brighton. Robin Bagon studied english at Birmingham university. Sue Blackwell was his personal tutor. Blackwell had linked to sites praizing terrorism against israelis. These sites were comparing Israel to nazis.The guardian newspaper (http://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/oct/25/internationaleducationnews.highereducation) said the board of Deputies was upset with Blackwell, which then upset Bagon in turn, who resented the board for speaking on behalf of students like himself who supported Blackwell. Bagon wrote to the board, and said that Blackwell was a “leading anti-racist.” (See the emails here – http://www.sue.be/pal/press/robin_to_bod.html) Blackwell left a sour taste in Bagon’s mouth. In his mind the board was trying to say what could & couldn’t be published, and his noble cause was born.
He felt this political difference with the board of Deputies over the Blackwell CONTROVERSY would justify his behavior in future online clashes with figures from the board. Bagon’s writing became…
View original 673 more words
All this criticism of Russia and
Netanyahu, sorry we mean Putin has got nothing whatsoever to do with the way that Russia is behaving. It is anti-Slav racism, pure and simple.
It is an obscene farrago of anti-Slav tropes.
Whether you call it anti-Slavism, new anti-Slavism, border line anti-Slavism, alibi anti-Slavism, or causal anti-Slavism, it sucks.