Miles of prejudice

Adam B.

It's simple. Miles is a racist bigot.

gary ashton

let them all crawl out from under their rocks so we can see their true colours

Gerry

I'll bet Miles approved of Goldstone's "impartial" appointment and the Goldstone report.

boxermk

I actually prefer the honesty. Jew-haters who hide behind "NeoCon" and "Zionist" are so annoying. Their cowardice and pretension to serious intellectual discourse is even more grating than their insane hatred for Jews.

Terry, Eilat - Israel

Actually, who really expects better from Britain these days, or for that matter, anywhere in Eurabia? What is newsworthy are the few (very few) who are not a party to this mental disease of anti-Semitism and/or anti-Zionism. Like it or not, we're back to the 1930's.

Merlyn

Do we have no redress on behavior such as this?

Lee Jakeman

To be "prejudiced" means to "pre-judge". Miles is prejudiced because he has presumed prejudice on the part of two prominent Jews for no other reason other than their being Jews. This is pure anti-semitic prejudice of the worst kind.

solemnman

Does he mean that: Chomsky ,Finkelstein,Judt,Soros,Pappe,Gordon and inumerable others ,who support israel's enemies ,can not be trusted -because THEY are Jews too?

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Well, what do you expect of this country !

This further rams home the fact that the writing is on the wall for Jews in what Melanie has earlier referred to as "this sceptred isle".

Mladen Andrijasevic

Terry, what is really unfortunate is that the Brits are ignorant of their own history .
On would have assumed many had read Winston Churchill's "The Gathering Storm", but they are repeating the same mistakes as 70 years ago. They do not even seem to be aware they are in an anti-Semitic hypnotic trance.

PHIL

Did anyone expect anything different from this man ?his record goes before him

In April 2004, Miles initiated a controversial letter to Prime Minister, Tony Blair, signed by 52 retired ambassadors and calling for a new approach to policy in Palestine and Iraq.THE FOREIGN OFFICE PRODUCES THEM IN BAGLOADS

Andre

Oliver Miles is fairly typical of the pro-Arabist Foreign Office. Britain's dalliance with Araby dates back to the Great War - Lawrence of Arabia and all that - and the bid to raise Arab tribes against the Turkish empire which backed the Germans in 1914. However redeeming the scene is a list, albeit a small one - of Brits who backed Israel from Arthur Balfour to Winston Churchill and best of all Orde Wingate who went completely native and helped set up what is now the IDF. The pompous prats in the FO are not typical of the British people who despite years of anti-Semitic pro-Arab propaganda remain obdurately pro-Israel. Thousands of young Brits have worked on Israel's kibbutzim and moshavim and retain a deep affection for the place. It'll take more than Olly Miles and local fedayeen to roll up our support.

Terry, Eilat - Israel

Mladen.
Anti-Semitism has always been a great distraction from the real issues facing any country, it's the all-purpose evasion from reality for the irrational & cowardly, simplifies the complexity of reality, I mean, why bother to engage in honest intellectual activity when such a simple solution is available.
But, you know a strange thing about reality - it eventually comes knocking at your door & punches you in the face, just like in 1939.

Henry Sidgwick

"Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish..."

The Times is surely right that it is as outrageous as it is bizarre to suggest that this has any relevance.

It is less clear to me how it can be taken as evidence of general anti-Semitism in this country.

Israel was a strong advocate of the invasion of Iraq, for its own good reasons. If Profs. Gilbert and Freedman are supporters of Israel is there not a conflict of interest? (I know Prof. Gilbert is a supporter of Israel.Is Prof. Freedman?)

Prof. Freedman is an expert on international affairs and on US foreign policy. Prof. Gilbert's credentials for this particular job are less obvious. And two historians in a panel of five is surely too many, especially when there is a question whether the panel has sufficient legal expertise to come to a judgement on the important legal matters before it.

Jerry

The US is little better than the British. We live in a strange world.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/134635

Adam B.

Henry, you say that "Israel was a strong advocate for the invasion of Iraq."

Where do you get that information? Ariel Sharon actually warned President Bush against it, and Israel publicly declared, just days before the military action against Iraq began, that the WMD were no longer in Iraq, and had been moved to Syria. The US and UK immediately dismissed this outright.

I am amazed that no-one has looked further into this, nor is this ever mentioned.

How is that advocating an invasion?

Alex Bensky

On this issue--not to mention others--the United States is better, Jerry. We're hardly perfect but we're better.

On his way to the United States just before World War I my grandfather stopped in Paris to visit relatives who, of course, did not make it through World War II. He told me once he met a man who was going to England and suggested my grandfather come along. He considered it but decided that America was his dream.

One of my many regrets in life is that I never said to him, "Grandpa, thank you for making me an American."

temu

"Normally the ‘Jewish conspiracy’ theorists hide behind camouflage words such as ‘Zionist’ or ‘neo-con’ to disguise their prejudice."

Mccarthy-esque with the tainting tactics...
arguing against zionism, and certainly disagreeing with neo-con ideology, are in no way anti-Semitic. but just by asserting it your loyal serfs will no doubt swallow it whole and decide anyone 'on the left' is now some sort of racist... hang on, that would actually be quite like Miles line of thinking?!?

Mr Melrose

Here's the paragraph in context Mel seems to have missed the second bit.

Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media, but The Jewish Chronicle and the Israeli media have no such inhibitions, and the Arabic media both in London and in the region are usually not far behind.

All five members have outstanding reputations and records, but it is a pity that, 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.

phil

Henry ,what difference does this make--" If Profs. Gilbert and Freedman are supporters of Israel is there not a conflict of interest? (I know Prof. Gilbert is a supporter of Israel.Is Prof. Freedman?)""-------,either they are honourable and able men or they are not ,assuming they are then surely they can make a judgement on whether we should have gone to war or not .Their task is to decide what did happen ,not what they hoped might happen whatever that may have been .

It cannot with hindsight be hard to know we should not have taken on this task, but hindsight is a wonderful thing to have .saddam was threatening Israel with WMD and he had hoped the failed supergun in the pursuit of his ambition to be Emperor of all the Arabs ,if he had attacked Israel the whole ME would have erupted when Israel struck back ,but with this hindsight I do not believe he would have dared as he must have known in the immortal words "Baghdad would have ceased to exist"-I am sure he had been warned by the USA of exactly that.,but he never backed down and he definitely appeared to be a threat .

Of course you know he had already used his disgusting weapons on his own population ,so there was no moral brake on him --.9/11 was filling everyone's minds along with al Qaeda and had saddam not threatened us too ?.It does seem obvious now that we had no plans for the aftermath,nevertheless both Bush and Blair had a responsibility to protect our two nations and for me they went ahead for that reason ,I cannot imagine what so many would have said if we had been attacked and they had done nothing .

.As for the cry of OIL ,that was the most pathetic complaint of the "don't goers ".We did not steal it did we ? but we did keep it flowing ,is anybody sorry about that ?.We all saw the joy on the face of the Iraqis when it ended and I do recognise that some predicted the tribal conflicts ,but in the end I think the worst criticism is that there was such a poor lack of planning for the reconstruction of Iraq .

This world is a far better place without the monster and Iraq will be too when it becomes a prosperous and peaceful country again .

Linda Smith

Phil posted: “It does seem obvious now that we had no plans for the aftermath….and I do recognise that some predicted the tribal conflicts…”

Pity there weren’t more historians in powerful positions at the planning stage.

Brian Moshe

My last post on another of Melanie's threads earlier in the week did not appear. I don't know why, but as the moderator obviously will know, perhaps he would be kind enough to e-mail me privately and tell me.

Anyway, I have to say that it is really alarming to learn that Oliver Miles can publicly attack two exceptionaly able and honourable Jews for no other valid reason than that they are Jews.

Chillingly, he refers to:
" Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media, but The Jewish Chronicle and the Israeli media have no such inhibitions, and the Arabic media both in London and in the region are usually not far behind."

Does he really think that the British media needs to identify both men as 'Jews'? It is quite natural that the Jewish Chronicle and the Israeli media identify Jews as Jews simply because it is their job to report what news-making Jews do and say.

If I read US or British Jewish publications I expect to read about the doings of Jews and Jewish news. If I read about the same people in the mainstream media I don't expect to be told they are Jews unless it is strictly relevant to something integral in the story (e.g. the Chabad victims of the Mumbai terrorist atrocities)

Jewish publications that I have read recently have attacked Jews found guilty of crime, not only for moral reasons, but also because, as they point out correctly, all Jews suffer collectively (both in ourselves and in public perceptions) when anyone identifiable as a Jew is exposed for wrongdoing.

I am not an American citizen (although my wife and family are); I am a British citizen, and I used to think even five years ago I could never leave England permanently, but the louder and more naked the anti-semitism becomes and the more obvious and insidious the signposts, it is quite obvious that now is the time to plan your departure if you are Jewish.

Frequently posters come on Melanie's threads writing from the US and say British Jews ought to emigrate to America. Yes, every Jew who wants to leave and chooses the US ought to be able to come here, but unfortunately, unless you have some exceptional luck, it is very difficult to emigrate to the US from the UK - and I'm writing this on Thanksgiving afternoon with the smell of roasting turkey wafting in around the computer and I am truly thankful the USA exists.

My reading of the situation now in England (and I go back and forth regularly) is that Jews have perhaps seven to twelve years left in Britain at the most.

I know there is Israel now and that it wasn't there when Hitler came to power. But there is a new Hitler now and he lives in Iran and if he and his theocratic henchmen have nuclear weapons the future will be just as deadly for millions of Jews (and millions of non-Jews) as it was in the 1930s.

Yehuda

But, just a minute...Goldstone claims to be a Jew and a Zionist, and he has been lionised by the Jihadist-Leftist-right-wing axis universally for his criminally scurrilous "report", so when are Jews/Zionists OK, and when are they not? Duhh?

daniel maris

I think this is a bit overheated.

Gilbert certainly is a very much identified with the cause of Israel.

I'd be a bit surprised if a British citizen from an Arab background with a background of statements supportive of Palestinian demands were appointed to a similar position.

The fact that Martin Gilbert is Jewish is surely not unconnected with his interest in the Holocaust and the history of Israel.

I write as a supporter of Israel's right to exist and prosper as a fundamentally Jewish state and as someone who supported the Iraq war (if not the post war strategy).

The left-liberal media are writing a story at variance with the truth - as though Saddam never had any WMD and never used them; as if he had never invaded another country; as if Hans Blix didn't think Iraq had WMD (he did); as if Saddam was not acting in defiance of UN resolutions; as if Saddam's rule was stable (hundreds of thousands of dead citizens are not a sign of stability).

John.

And this while ignoring the fact that the security and welfare of the country are under constant threat from different and genuine Muslim conspiracies - which the media deliberately and conscientiously fail to mention!

J. Isaacs

At last we see the Arabist Foreign Office camel corps emerge onto the stand before the Chilcot inquiry these last three days.

Sir Peter Ricketts, Oxford graduate in English literature, looks a dead ringer for both Hilary Benn and Sir Christopher Meyer. The ever-so-humble sounding Tim Dowse could do a good pantomime Uriah Heep, contrasting well against the super-smug swearer Sir Christopher Meyer, known primarily for the comment in his memoirs on the tightness of Tony Blair's trousers in Washington. Then there was the avuncular recently-knighted Sir William Patey, graduate of the University of Dundee and head of the FO Middle East department. If this is the best the FO has to face off against Sir Martin Gilbert and Sir Lawrence Freedman, then to paraphrase Shania Twain - they don't impress me much.

John of Canberra

This is perversity at its best. In PC Britain it has been established over the last decade that you can say what you like about Christians without incurring any social wrath. So now the chatterati feel safe to openly come for the Jews. This is disgraceful. Thank you Melanie for exposing this bigot.

Elliott

There is no doubt that Israel is now the "Jew among Nations", for all the reasons pointed out in the excellent article by Isi Leibler in the November 25th Jerusalem Post ( "Why does so much of the world hate us?"). I would only add to his arguments the fact that the economic hardships of today provide fertile ground for the displacement of hatred onto the convenient scapegoat of Israel - "if only that shitty little country would kindly disappear, everything would be beautiful!!"

Perhaps lost in this Oliver Miles tempest is the fact that Britain now has to suffer through yet another exercise in political correctitude of revisiting the Iraq question - hasn't enough ink been spilled in this ongoing soap opera? I would only refer to Melanie's innumerable postings on the subject outlining the cogent reasons for ousting the murderous Saddam regime, and giving the Iraqi people a shot at freedom - unlike the total and utter lack of support the rudderless West is offering the brave Iranian freedom fighters today!

Skeptic

I disagree. Sometimes understatement, as the Times did here, is more appropriate. It is not "pulling one's punches" but simply saying the writer is beneath contempt.

As for him saying so openly -- good! Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots.

Joshua

"arguing against zionism, and certainly disagreeing with neo-con ideology, are in no way anti-Semitic."

I see absolutely no difference between those who wished to destroy the Jews of Europe in the 1930s and those today who want to destroy the Jews of Israel. "Anti-Zionism" is merely a euphemistic way of asking for "more genocide, please".

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.

"Israel was a strong advocate for the invasion of Iraq."

I was taken aback by your response.

I can see why Israel would distance itself once the invasion was inevitable (the US is solely responsible for its own policy); why Israel would play down expectations of WMD once they had served their purpose (especially if, as reported, the security services briefed the cabinet that the risk to Israel was minimal); why in the aftermath Israel would want to avoid being made the scapegoat for the folly of the US administration.

However, there was convergence between those who at the time were happy to be called "neocons" and long-standing Likudnik strategy. Both sought to cause civil strife within Israel's neighbours, to break them up into smaller units, to dominate them as the only nuclear power, to create a quasi-Ottoman "millet" system. 9/11 provided the opportunity to make strides with this strategy.

Israel made no secret of its lobbying for invasion. To the Knesset Sharon said, "Iraq...could be said to be the greatest danger...Strategic coordination between ISrael and the US has reached unprecedented dimensions." Republican senator Hagel reported back from a visit to Israel in December 2002 that Sharon left "no doubt that the greatest US assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam." Rana'an Gissin in August 2002, "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose. It will only give Saddam more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction." That great man of peace, Shimon Peres told an audience in Washington in October 2002 that postponing a strike on Iraq would be "taking maybe the same risk that was taken by Europe in 1939 in the face of the emergency of Hitler." It will require little effort on your part to unearth further quotes to the same effect.

This history is too recent to be re-written quite as easily as earlier episodes.

phil

Henry Sidgwick
November 28th, 2009 1:53pm
Henry
You seem to have reverted to your old role as agent provocateur . -I have no idea of who said what and I do not think I need to .Sadaam had already attacked Israel ,I am sure you can remember the scuds and had made no secret of his ambitions to annihilate them ,had tried to make a supergun and whether we found them or not,I have no doubt he was trying hard to get his weapons of MD----in these circumstances is it surprising that Israel might have wanted him unseated ? Wouldn't you ,wouldn't we ?,and do you really think UK/USA would go to war because of something an Israeli said ? I know you are not that naive .

So what is the point of what you are saying ,it is just stirring things up and I had hoped you had turned a new leaf and used your talents to make things more peaceable for all .I am too busy to do the research as to who said what,and I couldn't care less anyhow ,it is so irrelevant- so I will leave that to Adam B if he can be bothered ,but I would not waste my time on a futile exercise .

Henry Sidgwick

Phil,
"I am too busy to do the research as to who said what..." We have had this discussion before. If you are going to criticise other people (as you do with numbing regularity) you should at least be willing to put in some work to learn at least a few facts - you say you have no time, yet you have plenty of time to report the results of your lack of research.

Adam B. questioned whether I was correct in saying that Israel was an advocate of an invasion of Iraq. As I said in my original comment, Israel would have good reason. And I hope it is clear that lobbying by Israel does not in any way at all shift responsibility from the US and UK for their own decisions. I did not say that it did.

You appear to have missed the point again, and used as a defence your indefensible unwillingness to do the research on the subjects you hold forth about. Idleness is no defence for prejudice.

Daniel Bielak

The following are links to some information which is necessary to know and understand in order to understand the situation that Israel, Jewish people, and the whole world, is in.

“Hitler’s Legacy: Islamic antisemitism and the impact of the Muslim Brotherhood”, by Dr. Mathias Kuentzel
http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/hitlers-legacy-islamic-antisemitism-and-the-impact-of-the-muslim-brotherhood

“Western Culture, The Holocaust, and the Persistence of Antisemitism” by Dr. Catherine Chatterley
http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/chatterleypaper3509.pdf

“Worth a Thousand Words: Picturing the Antisemitic Imagination”, by Dr. Catherine Chatterley
(further down from the top of the page on: http://web.mac.com/catherinechatterley/Catherine_Chatterley/Publications.html)

“The Psychology of Populations under Chronic Siege”, by Dr. Kenneth Levin
http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-046-levin.htm

My political views are a balance between Social Liberalism (modern Liberalism) and Classical Liberalism (in my understanding, Classical Liberalism has aspects which are similar to aspects of ideal, so-called “non-ideological”, modern Conservatism).

My ethnic background is Jewish (Jewish-Ukrainian-Polish).

The existential view that I hold, and the existential practice that I strive to follow, is Theravada Buddhism.

I was born in Mexico.

I am a citizen of the United States.

“What we learned is that there is no Left and Right. There are the decent people, and there is the mob.”
-a quote I heard attributed to a Jewish witness of the 1920’s, the 1930’s, and the Holocaust.

Adam B.

Moderator, I wrote a reply to Henry Sidgwick this afternoon - can it be found please?

phil

Henry Sidgwick
November 28th, 2009 6:12pm I will not accuse you of missing the point ,just ignoring it .I do other things in my life other than reading ,certainly not reading learned tomes of nonsense .do me the courtesy please of reading what I said and not taking excerpts to quote ,you are getting like my pal wilhelm .

Henry Sidgwick

Phil,
I take it the points of substance you consider yourself to have made are that Israel surely had every right to want Saddam overthrown and that the US and UK did not need Israel's urging to persuade them to invade as they had their own interests to pursue.

As I made exactly those two points, I do not know what you believe you have contributed to the discussion, other than questioning my motives and again announcing that you can't be bothered trying to find out the truth. You say you are busy with other things. No doubt you are. I suggest you write less and study more: your contributions might then have some merit.

phil

Henry Sidgwick
November 29th, 2009 12:31pm --Henry you are losing your cool and becoming rude again ,its amusing but pointless.Tangents are what you go in for so perhaps maths is more your field ,

You always seem so obsessed with finding fault with any thing done by Israel or those that support it ,even Jews who may not support it ,for instance messrs Freedman and Gilbert,rather than applying balance you lose any sense of objectivity .I am sure that is apparent to all who come here .It is not that you have no ability it is just that you misuse it and you should reflect on that .Patronising? maybe but rather truthful too .

So please enough of these attempted put downs just stick to facts and we will all be happy .

Daniel Bielak

Correction:

"...The following are links to some information which is necessary to know and understand in order to understand the situation that Israel, Jewish people, and the whole world, is in..."

...The following are links to some information which is necessary to know and understand in order to understand the situation that Israel, Jewish people, and the whole world, are in...

Charles

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

The Office of Special Plans (OSP), which existed from September 2002 to June 2003, was a Pentagon unit created by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, and headed by Feith, as charged by then-U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence (unvetted by intelligence analysts, see Stovepiping) pertaining to Iraq.[1] An allegedly-similar unit, called the Iranian Directorate, was created several years later, in 2006, to deal with intelligence on Iran.[2]

Allegations of manipulation of intelligence

Indictment for espionage

Larry Franklin, an analyst and Iran expert in the Feith office, has been charged with espionage, as part of a larger FBI investigation (see Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal). The scandal involves passing information regarding United States policy towards Iran to Israel via the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Douglas Feith's role is also being investigated.[5]
According to The Guardian, Feith's office had an unconventional relationship with Israel's intelligence services:
The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.
"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.
The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship with Michael Grogan and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party. [6]
Allegations have also been made that Pentagon employees in the Feith office have been involved in plans for overthrowing the governments of Iran and Syria.[5]

Tracey

melanie philps said

"This would appear to be part of the ‘Jewish conspiracy’ theory so fashionable in the UK intelligentsia that the war in Iraq only occurred as a result of pressure from a trans-national Jewish conspiracy acting in the interests of Israel "

Whilst I don't agree that Freedman and Gilbert are to be blamed here, what Oliver Miles meant was that the American Neo Conservatives did fabricate the Iraq war evidence. Most of them were Likudniks, and OSP was part of PNAC

This belief is widespread in the USA too. Douglas feith and Paul Wolfowitz are neo-conservatives, who were part of the Project of New American Century

Adam B.

Henry, I wrote a longer reply to you, but apparently it's been lost. I'll sum up - I think you overstate "a strong advocate." Whilst it is true that many Israelis were happy at the prospect of the removal of Saddam (and why not - after all, he had attacked them with Scuds and supported endless suicide bombings against Israeli civilians), Gissin was merely a media advisor, Peres wasn't even in government at the time and Hagel is a longstanding Israel hater - so your quotes hardly prove very much. In addition, Israel did declare shortly before the war that there were no WMD in Iraq, and privately, Sharon warned Bush against it (as a real ally should - as opposed to the public castigations of supposed allies like France). Hardly adds up to "strong advocacy".

just Louise

The admirable Jonathan Hoffman sussed out Miles in a recent Jewish Chronicle blog entitled "Miles' Vile Bile", in which Hoffman reveals what Miles fails to disclose in that "Independent" article - that Miles is a senior members "of the Libyan-British Business Council, co-bankrolled by the UK and Libyan governments. Miles is the Chairman of the lobbying group MEC International, which has organised the most recent project of the LBBC, including producing a report for the EU offering very rosy prospects for EU trade with Libya."
Hoffman continues:
"Miles’ MEC International offers for sale the services of a range of ex-Ambassadors for all who seek influence and contracts in the Middle East. His most famous demonstration of what he can organise was the famous letter from 52 ex-Ambassadors which he organised from a Tripoli internet cafe, urging the then PM Tony Blair to change UK government policies on Iraq and on Israel."
Try to read the entire blog.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.,
Before we engage once more in tit for tat, I will repeat the main point. As Phil has pointed out, we are off on a tangent.

Profs. Gilbert and Freedman were strong advocates of the invasion. Profs' Gilbert and Freedman are friends of Israel (in itself a perfectly honourable thing). Israel was a strong advocate of the invasion. Is there not at least the perception of a conflict of interest in an enquiry into the justification and conduct of the invasion?

Now, back to our tit for tat.

Ariel Sharon was I believe Prime Minister of Israel. Shimon Peres was Foreign Minister, and in any even a figure of great authority within the Israeli establishment. Rana'an Gissin - you're being cute with me here - was a press spokesman for Sharon in very much the same way Alastair Campbell was for Blair. To say Chuck Hagel "hates" Israel is a nonsense promulgated by the organizations collectively dubbed the Israel lobby. It is the sort of smear they deal in when they wish to marginalise anyone who does not support them in everything without question. Hagen's is a contemporaneous report of a face to face conversation. The report you allude to is third hand and well after the events reported, when one of the interlocuters can no longer confirm its accuracy.

Anyway...I remember the barrage from the US, UK and Israel in 2002-3. So must you. This attempt to insist that Israel was not a strong advocate for war would be bizarre in its brazenness if it did not have an obvious propaganda purpose. I am surprised at you repeating it with a straight face. States and their supporters lobby all the time. Why so sheepish now about Israel's very public lobbying over Iraq?

Brian Barder

Could 'Just Louise' please explain precisely which of Oliver Miles's various activities described in her comment is in the smallest degree improper?

I should make it clear that I was one of those who signed the ex-diplomats' letter about the middle east which Oliver Miles organised, and I'm proud to have done so.

By the way, the posessive form of Miles is "Miles's", not "Miles'", unless Just Louise thinks there are several of him.

just Louise

Brian Barder, had you read my post carefully, you would have realised that I was quoting Mr Hoffman. That is what those quotation marks signify. So your grammar lesson to me is somewhat redundant. Mr Hoffman is not implying that Miles was doing anything illegal (after all, Mr Hoffman is not a gutter journalist who thrives on innuendo). He is merely pointing out that Miles has remunerated interests, a fact that Miles did not disclose in his rather grubby piece about Freedman and Gilbert.
If you go to the Jewish Chronicle website you will be able to read Mr Hoffman's entire blog (and others as well).

SHIM

Why all the hysteria? Of course Zionist sit on the enquiry. Who better to discipline it's final communique and protect Israel from any publicity that is harmful. God bless them.

Brian Barder

'Just Louise', if you accept that none of Oliver Miles's activities listed by the Jewish Chronicle and reproduced here by you was in any way improper, why did you bother to quote them at all? The worst thing you seem able to find to say against them is that Oliver Miles is paid for some of them. How disgraceful is that? Have you never done anything for money? The fact is that by listing these perfectly proper and unobjectionable activities in the context of this blog post, you seek to smear Mr Miles with the unspoken implication that the revelation of what he does disqualifies him from commenting on the composition of the Iraq Inquiry team. On the contrary: he is exceptionally well qualified to make the comment that he did, and the suggestion that what he wrote was bigoted, antisemitic, racist or otherwise taboo is not only libellous and shameful: it reveals a totalitarian mindset which is frankly alarming.

just Louise

Oh dear, Sir Brian, I have apparently touched a raw FO nerve.
Or, rather, the admirable Jonathan Hoffman seemingly has.
The point the latter was making, if I interpret his remarks correctly, is that Oliver Miles criticised the inclusion on the panel of two individuals who are Jews - at least one of whom, shock, horror, is identified with support for Israel - whereas Miles himself would appear to be less a disinterested person (as his unsuspecting readers would assume) but one with his own axe to grind.
Personally, apparently unlike your good self, I find the implication that two British citizens (or "British subjects" if you prefer) of the Jewish faith should be barred from the enquiry on account of their Jewishness to be "totalitarian" and "alarming". Equally so, indeed saturated with the stench of dinner-party antisemitism, is the implication that Jews have somehow manipulated Britain's policy regarding Iraq.
Do please read the Hoffman blog for yourself. Yours respectfully, Louise.

phil

Brian Barder .your dispute with Louise is becoming rather tedious and your remarks both smug and rude ,perhaps to shorten proceedings you can assure us that neither you nor Miles have the slightest antipathy to people of the Jewish faith and that particularly you have total confidence in the impartiality of both Gilbert and Freedman ,people of course who have earned during their distinguished careers excellent reputations for both scholarship and trustworthiness ,maybe then our fears that this has been just another in the shameful displays of bigotry that we have seen recently will be allayed .

just Louise

Good evening, Phil.
Incidentally, I posted my previous comment to Sir B. twice, since I suspected that it had not gone through on my old computer and I re-submitted it - with some variant wording -from my more reliable laptop.
So, should a version of the other one appear - I don't think it will now, given the time that has elapsed - please accept my apologies!

Brian Barder

Phil, Being Jewish myself (as I mentioned in an earlier attempted comment that has been suppressed), I have no difficulty in confirming that I have no antipathy to other Jews, even the members of my own family (your reference to 'faith' begs too many questions); you have no right to question Oliver Miles's freedom from anti-semitic sentiments unless you have evidence of such sentiments, and you have none whatever; neither Oliver Miles nor I have suggested for a moment any doubts whatever about the impartiality, integrity and distinction of Sir Lawrence Freedman or Sir Martin Gilbert and nothing written by Mr Miles or me implies any such doubts; and your threat to accuse me of 'bigotry' if I don't satisfy you in my answers to your inquisition is beneath contempt, although par for this particular course. And if you find my exchanges with 'Just Louise', whose courtesy seems to elude you, 'tedious', you have an easy remedy: don't read them.

Adam B.

Look up Miles on wikipedia, look at his history and look at his son as well. Now tell me that the establishment is in the thrall of an Israel lobby, and not an Arab lobby.

Will Oborne investigate these links to the Arab world? Of course not! What hypocrisy!

RR, Uninvited Columnist

Even in America, I heard well-educated Gentiles and a few self-doubting (if not self-loathing) Jews talk about Iraq in 2003 as if Congress and the White House were in thrall to Israel and well-connected Zionists.

just Louise

Tom Gross has a most revealing piece online about the statement by the 52 diplomats, apparently spearheaded, inter alia, by Oliver Miles. From the various newspaper reports and comments of 2004 gathered there by Gross, it would appear - it's not entirely clear - that the signatories expect[ed] Israel to give the right of return to 'Palestinian refugees', something no Israeli leader could contemplate without committing national suicide. There were many Arabists among the 52, including overt Arabists dubbed the "camel corps".

Disinterested Royal Subject

Just Louise/Jonathan Hoffman: 1
Sir Brian Barder/FCO: 0

wonderer

Louise, is "just" meant to be the adverb, the adjective or, very economically, both?

phil

Brian Barder
November 30th, 2009 10:43pm -Delighted to receive your assurances in spite of your outburst -----"and your threat to accuse me of 'bigotry' if I don't satisfy you in my answers to your inquisition is beneath contempt, although par for this particular course. And if you find my exchanges with 'Just Louise', whose courtesy seems to elude you, 'tedious', you have an easy remedy: don't read them."-

-It does sound like you have your thumb in your mouth.,when it was a simple request for confirmation of your and your friends intentions ,you will remember we are Brits and fully entitled to ask any questions we see fit ,the sad part is that we had too.

You may wish to clarify these discussions by explaining why your friend felt it necessary to point out the religion of messrs Freedman and Gilbert and perhaps more to the point why you did not object to it .You may reflect too that at a time when both Jews and Israel are under ceaseless attack by Arabists some of us are not too cowardly to stand up and be counted in defence of our reputations ,and that includes yours as you tell us you are Jewish ,surely you do not think that those that sneer at us are going to like you because you sign up alongside them.It did not work seventy years ago and it will not work now . I do of course admire loyalty to a friend although sometimes it might be better to tell him he is wrong , if you lose him you really didn't need him .

just Louise

wonderer, I used to post on here as Louise (which is my middle name). Then a Louise with a surname initial (I can't remember what that initial was) began to post, so I renamed myself "just Louise".
I now wish I'd posted under my less common first name, the reason for having not done so being the horrendous harassment I'd received over a very long period on a certain discussion forum from a very nasty and obsessed ferociously anti-Israel male. (In fact, so monstrous did he become that the police tracked him down and cautioned him with "racially aggravated harassment", though this did not completely stop him from posting obscene and spiteful comments about me on that and another site; he sussed out my not-very-common-[very-Jewish] full name and my whereabouts, and posted my address and telephone number on the forums to intimidate me). When I began to post here I chose Louise in order to evade him.
Incidentally, I wish I could take credit for being the Louise of CiF Watch, but I can't.
;~)

phil

just Louise
December 1st, 2009 4:13pm -do not worry you are an ashesh chayil here and those that matter love you xx

just Louise

I love you too, Phil - you're a mensch!

phil

just Louise
December 2nd, 2009 12:37pm
thank you so much ,that honestly has been a mission for me to achieve for so many years and if only one person thinks it that is fantastic too-I am sorry this is not private but I had to tell you how happy your post made me xx

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.
" "
Noted.

Adam B.

Henry, I have tried answering you more than once, it hasn't got through. Apparently what I wrote is unacceptable! I also wrote a reply to Tracey's terrible post, also not allowed through. Can't do much more!

wonderer

Adam B, perhaps you could try to route it through the moderator, as Peter Hoskin used to advise in the past, but I don't know whether he is still the moderator. Does anyone know?

David Blackburn

Adam B,

I've been through the system, searching for your missing posts, and I'm afraid I haven't received them. This can often happen, one of the curses of the Internet. Please re-submit if you have the time. I apologise for the inconvenience.

If you would like to contact me, I'm available at dblackburn @ spectator.co.uk

phil

wonderer
December 3rd, 2009 10:19am

try David Blackburn Pete has been away -If I think anything I write might need moderating I route it through them ,they are always most helpful and sometimes we do NEED moderation :)

Adam B.

David Blackburn, thank you very much for looking into this. I'll write another post.

Adam B.

OK Henry, I'll try again.

Firstly, your accusation that Israel was a "strong advocate" does not tally with the fact that Israel, on the eve of the invasion by the US and allies, publicly declared that there were no ready to go WMD in Iraq. Why would they do that Henry? Additionally, Sharon privately advised Bush against it, and warned of the bigger danger in Iran. I'm not saying that Israel was against it - why would they be - after all, the prospect of the removal of a dictator sworn to the destruction of Israel could only be positive. However, this does not add up to "strong advocacy" as you put it. Furthermore, Hagel is indeed an Israel hater of longstanding repute - and I'm not part of any lobby for saying so.

Henry, I'm a bit concerned that you wish so vehemently to lay the invasion of Iraq at Israel's door. It is a common canard of the antisemitic left that we went to war for the sake of the Jews - please tell me you don't think that.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.
I am disappointed: your response was not worth the wait. You simply repeat what you said before; and invite me to deny that I am perpetuating an anti-Semitic canard - which is tawdry on your part.

I do not recall saying that Iran was NOT Israel's main target. I DO recall saying that the actions of the US cannot be laid at the door of the Israelis.

I am intrigued that you follow Hagel's career so closely and do not just rely on the close monitoring of the various organizations collectively called the Israel lobby - they broadcast their findings extensively. I suppose it is some confirmation of their conclusion that your researches concur with theirs. Is Hagel so far beyond the pale that he cannot be trusted to come out of a meeting with Sharon and accurately summarize the content of their discussion, which the Israelis have not contested?

To repeat: the overthrow of Saddam was considered helpful by Israel. Israel lobbied for it. The invasion was the responsibility of the US. Israel had good reason to avoid being made the scapegoat for US failings.

It is silly to pretend there is no Israel lobby. Instead, to those who pretend it has excessive influence on the US, point out the hypocrisy of focussing on it while pretending the other lobbies do not exist (the oil lobby, the armaments lobby, finance and banking, medical insurance, tobacco...etc.)

I recall from my studies the contortions European Communists had to perform to stay in line with the ever-changing truth as promulgated by Moscow. Your denial of what is a matter of public record simply because the government of Israel now wishes it to be forgotten is reminiscent of those poor Communists.

phil

Henry Sidgwick
December 4th, 2009 11:39am

Henry I posted to you a number of times on this thread and so far have received only insulting remarks as has Adam B ,and yet no answers -You are a most confusing man,obviously educated but nevertheless unable to address questions that are put to you.You say I will not do the research and you are right on this subject because as I have told you it is irrelevant ,you have never addressed the reasons I gave you and yet you insist on writing ,, maybe some sort of CSD, and saying nothing of any consequence -in fact I have no idea what you are arguing about and I do not think Adam does either ,particularly as lobbies are ten a penny on all sorts of subjects ,so as we are the only two who respond to you is it not time you started writing a little sense to us, lest nobody bothers at all.

Henry Sidgwick

Phil,
"...unable to address questions that are put to you."

"...you have never addressed the reasons I gave you..."

What questions? what reasons?

phil

Henry Sidgwick
December 4th, 2009 7:06pm
For this thread try nov 26 at 5.07,nov 28 at 3.56 and nov29 at 3.11. and that is just on this thread there have been many others as you well know-you are down to your last two now I think and we are getting bored with it ,at least I am .

Adam B.

Henry, I repeat it because you haven't addressed it.

Perhaps you now will.

I don't think it is tawdry to question the motive of someone clinging to a narrative which correlates with every Jew hater around. Yes, you make the distinction between US responsibility and Israel's supposed "lobbying", but why are you so keen to prove your case on this rather insignificant point, when the best evidence you provide are two quotes from Israelis, neither of whom were instrumental in making Israeli policy at the time?

Why is it so important, Henry?

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.,
It was you who picked up on a comment which expressed what I thought was common knowledge. I quoted a small selection from the countless statements that corroborate what I said, one by the Prime Minister, one by the Foreign Minister, one by a close aide to the Prime Minister, and one reporting the Prime Minister's words. I am astonished that you profess ignorance of what was very public lobbying. I have been very careful to say precisely what I mean. A moderately conscientious reading of what I have said would show beyond question that what I say bears no relation whatsoever to the ravings of Jew-haters.

Phil, who is even more careless in reading what is addressed to him, is right that this conversation is going nowhere.

phil

Henry Sidgwick
December 5th, 2009 10:19am -goodbye Henry I have had enough of your careful selections and your lack of answers .I will leave it to Adam who probably will have similar thoughts -I really think your future is now behind you as far as writing is concerned .

Adam B.

Henry, you still haven't addressed it. Why would Israel say there were no ready WMD on the eve of the invasion, if it was such a "strong advocate"?

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.,
In my last comment I said something about carelessness in reading what is addressed to you. Your question was answered at the first opportunity. I note also that you pass remarks only on those of my comments where you think (mistakenly as it proves) that you can best me: you are prudently silent on all others. It is a curious way to conduct a debate, to ignore your opponent's points and resort instead to slander, but it has become very familiar to me since I first visited this blog. The resort to such tricks I think is telling.

Adam B.

And you stil haven't answered Henry, whilst I did out your "quotes" into context and address them. Anything but answer the point.

phil

Adam B.
December 5th, 2009 11:29pm -it is pointless as I have written ,and it just gives more fuel to fire him up ,answers are on ration. but supercilious remarks are at a discount ,may I suggest .you take my advice and leave him be .I have tried and I achieve nothing,now I am convinced we never will , and what is more I am past caring .