What the Palestine Solidarity Campaign unleashes

Michael

From the same blog that would seek to associate any anti-war protestors with the BNP.

Nice Mel, smooth.

Greg D

Dress up the language of ole John S a bit and his rant sounds a bit like one of your articles on Islam, Mel (not to mention the comments of most of your Israelite readers on that topic)! A happy Chanukah to you all!

Robin

Although one is tempted to think "unbelievable", sadly it isn't. The Baptist Church should be deeply ashamed.

Wilhelm

Thats nothing, get this, last night Celtic football team was playing an Israeli team Hapoel Tel Aviv. The Scottish Trade Uniontists ( a group of socialist children who still havent grown up yet, 1960s marxist hippies still wearing their Che Guervara t shirts and other assorted village idiots, simpletons, oafs, wombles and fruitcakes ) Decided that all Celtic fans should fly little PLO flags at the game to show solidarity to Palestine. They must be all on some lefty script. How tiresome.

99.9% of them couldnt point to Palestine or Israel on the map. It would be amusing if it wasnt soo sad and pathetic. Israel must be quaking in its boots.

Maximilian

Going off topic, if I may -- What about the bus bomb in Damascus that coincided with the arrival of Saeed Jalili, the head of the Iranian National Security Council? Some of his entourage may have been among the casualties of the bus bombing, Debka File says:

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6402

Arthur

With an eye on the "Green" agenda too, Melanie, you might want to consider The "Green" Party's position on Hamas and their support of Mr Bunglawala.

http://www.inminds.co.uk/sep27-03-2333a.jpg

Ask Caroline Lucas or Peter Tatchell. Both apparently enamoured of Harmans "past" proposals too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html

You may find John Sullivans views in sync too.

Lizzy

These people have no moral compass. I can understand people being sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but why do they allow themselves to descend into the despicable, irrational hatred of Jews? Are they still rebelling against their parents? Do they understand anything at all about life, history, humanity, or even themselves?

just Louise

"Israelite", Greg? What a quaint term to use. Have you been reading Edouard Drumont?You're absolutely wrong about Melanie: she scrupulously distinguishes between jihadist extremists and other members of the Muslim faith.
Old John sounds more like a continental neo-Nazi or an Islamofascist than an Englishman - and an avowed Christian at that! A CiF contributor, perhaps?!

david elder

Mel, as a practising Christian who currently attends a Baptist Church, I apologise for this odious piece of witch-hunting.

Ellien

Wilhelm, Apparently there were only about twenty Palestinian flags awaiving in Glasgow at the Celtic Football Ground when Hapoel Tel Aviv were here. Somehow, I guess, the fans are more interested in football than politicking. I hear the game was not very inspired on either side, and although Hapoel lost, they go through to the next round. A few hundred Israeli fans came to support their team and I hear there was a good feeling of camarederie among them and the local supporters, of which there are a handful.

Olaf Rye

This chap sounds as if he is still stuck in the Middle Ages, but alas, this is common to many of those that have a pathological dislike of Jews and, by implication, Israel. The indifference of the thought-police to this sort of hatred is the most notable aspect of the story. I work at an university and must confess that the level of vitriol towards Jews puzzles me. This is from ostensibly well educated people, too, and the usual suggestions of a Jewish conspiracy and control of the media, banks, and so forth is routine. People, of course, are entitled to their own perverse beliefs but the worst thing is that our public money goes to permitting this sort of splenetic drivel being disseminated through the BBC.

Adam B.

Do you think it may come as a shock to this John Sullivan to learn that Jesus was Jewish?

Adam B.

Greg D, your use of the term "Israelite" says a lot about you - your name isn't John Sullivan, is it?

Seriously, you've given yourself away.

Ruth

It seems unbelievable that attitudes like Mr Sullivan's still exist in this day and age. However, thanks to assimilation, who other than Sullivan and the charming Greg D do most Jews have to remind them that they are in fact Jews?

J. Isaacs

david elder - thanks for the apology to Melanie Phillips. The same sort of Israel-bashing propagandising cod-carol service is due to take place on 8 December at St. Paul's actors church in Covent Garden, central London. You may care to complain by email to the vicar there.

solemnman

Israelite was once,in the early days in America,a term of respect and an acknowledgement of the jew's biblical origins.

JD

Perhaps the term 'Israelist' is appropriate for those who offer their unquestioning support of Israel, whether Jewish or not.

phil

David Elder
December 3rd, 2009 10:18pm -- There is no reason to have to apologise for Baptists ,every religion has idiots amongst them and I am sure that lot did not represent the Church as a whole ,why we even saw that fool of a man is beyond me ,he might have been better off on a Saturday night outside the red lion after hours. You are amongst many decent Christians who post here regularly and leave honest opinions ,but thank you anyway .

phil

Greg D
December 3rd, 2009 6:45pm Just to bring you into this millennium what you refer to as Israelites were people from a bygone age ,we are Jews and most of us are British ,what in fact you are is more difficult to define,a buffoon definitely, and certainly a person out of touch with normal people ,but regardless of your sarcasm we will enjoy Chanukah and Christmas together with both ourselves and real Christians as usual .

Kiwi

JD @ "Perhaps the term 'Israelist' is appropriate for those who offer their unquestioning support of Israel, whether Jewish or not."
You mean, like Anglophile or Francophile, of course?

Adam B.

JD

Who is unquestioning?

I think it's the likes of Greg D and John Sullivan. Amazing that, on a thread about a truly nasty antisemite, you manage to turn it into an attack on Israel.

What a gift you have.

Philo

I am still not clear: is this John Sullivan in any way associated with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign?

Terry

Melanie, that does not represent the views of Christians like me and should be a source of shame to the church in general.

Keith

Not pretty. The poor man is obviously off his rocker.Its called Judeo Christianic society for a reason. Maybe this delusional lad would be happier in one of the madrasses.

Merlyn

Slightly off topic but, this is some info I received today;
The following was written by Bishop E.W. Jackson, June 16, 2009

THE SOURCE OF OBAMA'S ANTI-ISRAEL POLICY

E.W. Jackson Sr.

Like Obama, I am a graduate of Harvard Law School. I too have Muslims
in my family. I am black, and I was once a leftist Democrat. Since
our backgrounds are somewhat similar, I perceive something in Obama's
policy toward Israel which people without that background may not
see. All my life I have witnessed a strain of anti-Semitism in the
black community. It has been fueled by the rise of the Nation of Islam
and Louis Farrakhan, but it predates that organization.

We heard it inJesse Jackson's "HYMIE town"remark years ago during his
presidential campaign. We heard it most recently in Jeremiah Wright's
remark about "them Jews"not allowing Obama to speak with him. I hear
it from my own Muslim family members who see the problem in the Middle
East as a "Jew" problem.

Growing up in a small, predominantly black urban community in
Pennsylvania, I heard the comments about Jewish shop owners. They were
"greedy cheaters" who could not be trusted, according to my family and
others in the neighborhood. I was too young to understand what it
means to be Jewish, or know that I was hearing anti-Semitism. These
people seemed nice enough to me, but others said they were "evil".
Sadly, this bigotry has yet to be eradicated from the black community.

In Chicago, the anti-Jewish sentiment among black people is even more
pronounced because of the direct influence of Farrakhan and the Nation
of Islam. Most African Americans arenot followers of "The Nation", but
many have a quiet respect for its leader because, they say, "he speaks
the truth" and "stands up for the black man". What they mean of course
is that he viciously attacks the perceived "enemies" of the black
community - white people and Jews. Even some self-described Christians
buy into his demagoguery.

The question is whether Obama, given his Muslim roots and experience in
Farrakhan's Chicago, shares this antipathy for Israel and Jewish
people. Is there any evidence that he does? First, the President was
taught for twenty years by a virulent anti-Semite, the Reverend
Jeremiah Wright. In the black community it is called "sitting under".
You don't merely attend a church, you "sit under" a Pastor to be taught
and mentored by him. Obama "sat under" Wright for a very long time.
He was comfortable enough with Farrakhan - Wright's friend - to attend
and help organize his "Million Man March". I was on C-Span the morning
of the march arguing that we must never legitimize a racist and
anti-Semite, no matter what "good" he claims to be doing. Yet a future
President was in the crowd giving Farrakhan his enthusiastic support.

The classic left wing view is that Israel is the oppressive occupier,
and the Palestinians are Israel's victims. Obama is clearly sympathetic
to this view. In speaking to the "Muslim World,"he did not address the
widespread Islamic hatred of Jews. Instead he attacked Israel over the
growth of West Bank settlements. Surely he knows that settlements are
not the crux of the problem. The absolute refusal of the Palestinians
to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is the
insurmountable obstacle. That's where the pressure needs to be placed,
but this President sees it differently. He also made the preposterous
comparison of the Holocaust to Palestinian "dislocation".

Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel
from a Muslim perspective. His construct of "The Muslim World" is
unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim
Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that
concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world. It is rather
odd to hear an American President use it. In doing so he reveals more
about his thinking than he intends. The dramatic policy reversal of
joining the unrelentingly anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and pro-Islamic UN
Human Rights Council is in keeping with the President's truest - albeit
undeclared red - sensibilities

Those who are paying attention and thinking about these issues do not
find it unreasonable to consider that President Obama is influenced by
a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his
leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations and his long
period of mentor-ship under Jeremiah Wright. If this conclusion is
accurate, Israel has some dark days ahead. For the first time in her
history, she may find the President of the United States siding with
her enemies. Those who believe, as I do, that Israel must be protected
had better be ready for the fight. We are.

NEVER AGAIN!

E. W. Jackson is Bishop of Exodus Faith Ministries, an author and
retired attorney

gareth

Nice comment Michael, Smooth.

You smear well. Its what you do when you have no argument.

Greg D, Mel sounds like anyone if you dress up the language a bit, which is what smearing is all about. Why not take what she says at face value.

Hysteria

well - you gotta have a bit of sympathy for Mr JS I guess - poor deluded soul. Does he represent the majority? Who knows? But listening to the audio did you catch the number of car horns behind the folks waving the Israeli flag? Seemed to be quite a few and I think tooting your horn when passing a protest is generally considered a sign of support.

The guy with the scarf - he had the good grace to appear embarassed and answered the question on Hamas honestly.

Al Ramy

Those who have any memory of the ways in which British soldiers behaved in Palestine, know that there is a big gap between how they want to be known and how they really behave. Simply put, Jews are not their cup of tea. The day will come when most Jews living in Britain will have to leave, because this linked video clearly shows that it is not pretty for a Jew to be in England these days.

Philo

Moderator,
O would like to know the answer, so I will try to put this question again:

Is John Sullivan in any way associated with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign or the Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church?

Carl

Since when has it been in order for people to picket a British Church, waving Israeli flags and heckling people going to worship?

Imagine the squawks if the BNP tried such a stunt outside a Synagogue.

Keith W

Please, I want you to know that John Sullivan's rant does not represent the views of the majority of Christians in this country. I can only speak for myself, but I would hope that my love and support of the Jewish people, both here in the UK, and in Israel is shared by most Bible-believing Christians. Sullivan's hate filled monologue just makes me embarrassed and ashamed.

Elizabeth

How ironic!!!
Mr Sullivan was on his way to worship the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ or Yeshua HaMaschiach to give him his Hebrew name.Jesus was, is and always will be Jewish.

phil

Keith W
December 5th, 2009 11:58am
We know that Keith, but evil people make a lot of noise ,your support I know will be greatly appreciated as will that of all the decent Christian people who form the massive majority . Thank you .

Adam B.

Carl, the question you should be asking is when has it become acceptable that churches invite political activists to hijack a carol service, a group which has nothing to do with religion?

A "British" church? Aren't the people protesting British as well? Your use of the term British in this context says a lot about you.

Furthermore, if a synagogue service was about demonising someone, and had been hijacked by a political group like the PSC, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was a protest.

Since when has the right to protest been forbidden in the UK?

It is astonishing that people like you turn up on a thread which features a very nasty bigoted individual airing his ignorant and hateful views, and who do you criticize? The people who are his targets - not the bigot himself. Unbelievable!

Harvey

Carl
The reason why it is in order to " picket " Bloomsbury Babtist Church is because it has forgotten its founding status as a place of worship and has involved itself in politics.It has hosted an event involving the PSC which naturally has close links to Hamas ,a proscribed terrorist organisation which seeks the eradication of Israel and furthermore espouses the most visceral antisemitic ideology within its Charter.The Church by association with this group lays itself open to the charge that it is dismissive of antisemitism .
Furthermore the Church has seen fit not only to invite PSC but to allow Christian songs of worship and carols to be usurped ,to have their words changed in a monstrous distortion of the Christian message and prior to Christmas.
The Church has allowed its premises to be used in effect as a courtroom where there is no right of reply , no context or balance which suggests there may be another narrative .A narrative that has witnessed some 1500 Israelis murdered and maimed during the Intifada and which would still be happening if it were not for the defence barrier which this church sees fit to call an Apartheid wall.
In short why should this church ,having chosen to adopt a political stance remain immune to a lawful political protest .It cannot have it both ways and judging by the words of Mr Sullivan who may or may not be a member of that church it would appear that it is playing to a captive audience.

Paulus

Jesus was half Jewish remember

Den

So outside we have a right-wing,antedeluvean antisemite sounding off how "this is a christian country" (? has he not read Melanie's Londonistan?) "you Jews had better keep your heads down or else go back to Israel".

While inside we have a left-wing, twenty-first century antisemitic groupiscule singing of peace on earth (except in the Holy Land) and goodwill to all men (except to the Jews).

And all this takes place in a church. It is the Church that has been the fount and engine of antisemitism through the ages.

How iconic!

Henry Sidgwick

Disgusted-of-Tunbridge-Wells John Sullivan is deeply confused and ignorantly anti-Semitic therefore the Palestine Solidarity Campaign is at fault...The flaw in this is so obvious, why put it in a blog?

Adam B.

Outside you have a man who wants the Jews to "f*** off back to Israel" as he so eloquently puts it, yet inside the church the PSC thinks the Jews shouldn't be in Israel.

The next step for such people? Jews just shouldn't be...

Eliah W

Elizabeth

On what grounds do you classify Jesus as the "Jewish Messiah"? Judaism wholeheartedly rejects the idea of Jesus as saviour; for one, he has not brought peace and harmony to the earth.

Greg D

A buffoon, phil? I prefer 'clown', but thank you anway.

Act your namesake, Mr Elder. Jewish theology is not as benign as many would have you believe. From the horses' mouth:

www.noahide.com/minimum.htm

Mod, you allow Ms Phillips to post links to sites - why not me?

Please allow the commentators - and, hopefully, Melanie - to refresh us on their theological convictions in response.

Greg D

And I forgot:

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1101158.html

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.,
"The next step for such people? Jews just shouldn't be..."

Are you in all seriousness suggesting that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign would support the murder of Jews? Or is it just a rhetorical flourish gone comically awry?

Greg D

And no doubt Philo does not wish him or herself associated with such a nasty knuckledragger such as I, but his or her question stands: is Sullivan in any way associated with the PSC?

Melanie?

Skeptic

I suppose the man thinks Jews should go back to where they came from... er, Palestine... but wait, they're really European colonialists occupying Palestine... so they shouldn't be here and shouldn't be there... so I guess Jews should just disappear, which seems the real point behind most of the "anti-zionist" rhetoric.

Adam B.

I said no such thing Henry. You need to work on your comprehension skills. I was pointing out that outside this disgusting "service" a man was saying that the Jews should leave the UK, whilst inside the PSC proposes a Holy Land without Jews. Where, pray tell, are the Jews meant to go then?

Adam B.

Actually, Henry, I correct myself - that is precisely what I'm saying. Watch the video and the questions put to the Secretary of the church - that should explain. This group gives money to Hamas, which is committed to the extermination of all Jews. That's about as bad as it gets Henry - or do you find that acceptable?

Elizabeth

Dear Eliah W.
I believe that Yeshua was and still is the Jewish Messiah(and soon to come again) on the following grounds:-
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/messiah.htm
prophecies fulfilled

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/jewc70da.htm
A Jewish Calculation about the 70 weeks of Daniel

http://www.alliedservicesgroup.com/index.cfm?id=2&init_articleID=71
How Yeshua fulfilled the Spring feasts of Israel at his first coming.When he returns I believe he will fulfil the Autumn feasts(Feasts are a prophetic picture of Messiah)
I believe Yeshua will bring peace to all the earth on his second coming. On his first coming he provided the blood atonement for sin which opened up a way for believers to have close relationship with HaShem and receive salvation as Yeshua's name implied.Individuals can have inner peace and security in this knowledge.
I believe there are two manifestations of Messiah on the earth the first was the Maschiach ben Joseph (the suffering servant in Isaiah-ie Yeshua) and the Moschiach ben David (the king who will rule and reign from Jerusalem and bring peace to all the earth.)I believe they are/will be the same person twice.

I apologise for just replying with links, but the Scriptural material in these links is so vast, that it would not be possible to reproduce them here.
shalom
Elizabeth

Lupus Lungfish

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we sign something?

Wilhelm

''evil people make a lot of noise ''

So the musicians in say, the Berlin Philamornic are evil then. Where did you get that piece of insight from ? A Christmas cracker ?

phil

Wilhelm
December 6th, 2009 1:57am wilhelm by now I am sure you know I like to join in good humour ,but at times your choices as in the last instance are out of order ,Keith W sent a kind and sensitive message and I replied to acknowledge it -I do not think it needed you to make a silly joke about it ,I think an apology ,at least to Keith is in order .

phil

Greg D
December 5th, 2009 6:37pm --- No greg a clown has a purpose ,possibly I have flattered you with the description of buffoon ,that implies you may be a joker and that you are not ,the filth that you found in that book was utterly repudiated by the IDF and the person distributing it was disciplined . I am surprised that you are allowed to post hateful material like this but I suppose our moderators cannot check everything .I assume the readers will have divined your purpose here so I will leave them to decide on the value of people like you and sullivan.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.,

"The next step for such people? Jews just shouldn't be..."

The problem here is not with my powers of comprehension. What hope have I of understanding your intentions if you yourself do not know whether when you wrote these words you did or did not mean that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign would support the murder of Jews? Your first attempt at interpreting your own comment produces a meaning not contained in the words you used. Your second attempt confirms that your rhetorical flourish was indeed intended to convey that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign would support the murder of Jews. Assuming your second retrospective attempt to work out what you meant is the correct one, could you clarify further: Are they murderous in intent towards all Jews, or just some Jews? all Israeli Jews or just those bearing arms against Palestinians? do they, for example, support suicide bombing (as opposed to cluster bombing, perhaps, or the use of depleted uranium, or phosphorus, or DIME bombs, or flechettes, or just "precision" weaponry in general, or...)? and where do they say the Holy Land should be without Jews? I do not have your depth of knowledge about the opinions of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, but I find nothing in their literature to support whatever accusations you finally decide you are making.

All this noise appears to be part of an attempt to fob off any attempt to propose negotiation until Israel has achieved its ultimate goals. It is not a reasonable balanced response to the conflict.

Philo

It would appear then, would it not, that Mr. Sullivan, and the Secretary to the church, are not associated with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. The point of this blog is then - what?

phil

Adam B for goodness sake let him answer his own ridiculous questions ,he only seeks an audience ,cannot provide answers ,how many times do we need to try ?(see miles)

I do not think he knows himself what it is he seeks to achieve ,possibly just to annoy you or make you look foolish and that you are not !! Until he provides answers just leave him to it .I have tried to be pleasant to him and provide answers -what a waste of time !!!

Keith W

Henry S - Sorry, but am I missing something here? I may need to ask a few questions. Are you a member of the PSC? If so, are you happy they have given money to Hamas, as Adam B asserts? If it's part of the Hamas charter to kill or drive all Jews out of Israel, then by giving funds to Hamas, aren't the PSC indirectly supporting such efforts?
If your answers to the above questions are 'yes', then how can you choose to support/defend such an organisation, and attack people like Adam B on this site who seek to warn others about the PSC's efforts? Just because their literature doesn't publicise the fact, if the PSC give money to a terrorist organisation isn't that a big clue as to whether they support the murder of Jews or not? As I say, perhaps I'm missing something.
P.S. - what are 'Israel's ultimate goals' that you speak of?
Thanks.

Greg D

phil - how I am posting 'hateful material'? Are calling Haaretz and/or the Orthodox rabbinate hateful? Abe Foxman would not be happy with you, sir.

And, although I have no association with Mr Sidgwick ( nor him with I), how are his questions ridiculous? Adam B certainly has made a fool out of himself - he says one thing here, another there, and then something else again!

Adam B.

Greg D, I'm not going to engage with someone who uses the term "Israelite" or refers to "Elders" as in the Tsarist forgery. It says all we need to know about you - and yes, it is hateful. If only you were honest about your hate.

Adam B.

Henry, how interesting you make the distinction between killing all Jews, or just Israeli Jews - like one is more acceptable than the other.

The PSC is all about hatred and not about "solidarity." They turn up to yell abuse at Israeli footballers (several of whom are Arab) - like the conflict is their fault. They interrupt a concert by the Jerusalem string quartet to yell hatred and abuse - like the conflict is their fault. They propose boycotts of Israeli farmers who employ many Palestinians - even when the Palestinian trade union opposes such boycotts. They are silent about genocide in Darfur, Chechnya and Congo. Why? Because you can't blame the Jews for it. Last year they cynically perverted the words of their "carol" service into a hateful diatribe - and Caryl Churchill, who is part of this gang, wrote a play which can ony be described as an antisemitic rant (and I use the word advisedly and with care - as one should). Doesn't this tell you something Henry? Are you really so blind that you can't see?

Henry, these points strike me:
1. This thread is about a man spewing the most disgusting racism and bigotry. You say nothing about him.
2. Such a man is attracted to a so-called carol service, which is politically hijacked by far left activists. The church in question is happy to be used for this purpose. You say nothing.
3. The PSC hands over money to Hamas, a terrorist organization which openly declares its support for the extermination of the Jewish people. You say nothing.
4. When the above is pointed out - you leap to the defence of the PSC. Now Henry, you present yourself as some kind of impartial observer, but the focus of your arguments, whilst you completely disregard anything that may, just may, put Israel in a positive light, is systematically ignored. Henry, why don't you have the courage to admit what you believe, instead of pretending to be someone you're not?

phil

Greg D
December 6th, 2009 5:46pm the only good thing I can think about you is that you have the good grace to be hurt by what I said to you.The feelings engendered by your posts are despicable and I have no wish to engage with you other than to tell you so .Perhaps Henry will debate with you I think he is going to need someone now .

Greg D

Good evening, Adam B.

I was referring to David Elder, actually.

And have you noticed how I, as opposed to yourself and other critics, have never engaged in name-calling? Despite the abuse, I still patiently engage with those young gareth should be watching. A hint for the future: try to use some evidence when launching attacks, rather than baseless ad hominem smears - see gareth/'face value' and solemnman's comment.

I am the first to admit that there are many things in Jewish theology which I feel unsavoury. This, I believe, is a completely legitimate position: I feel the same way about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc., and express my views of these when and where appropriate. You do not criticise Melanie for criticising Islam, do you? So be fair.

But since you shall not be fair, I fear that it is you, dear commentpatriot, who is the one here dealing in dishonesty. I suspect that you are unable to adequately reconcile stories such as this

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126890.html

and this

www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_10_121/ai_n6159160/

and this

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058758.html

, as well as the ones I have previously posted, with the narrative of victimhood that JD-ean zealots such
as Melanie and yourself seek to portray to gullible imbeciles such as Mr Elder and Keith W.

At least phil gave refuting my suggestion/argument a shot (even if he had to resort to fabricational counters, as close reading of the haaretz link will show).

You, however, seem to have a quiver full of nothing more than blunt 'ecce homo anti-Semite' barbs; you argue like a Cossack.

Greg D

I apologise for that bitter parting. In all honesty, I wish you a very good week.

Elizabeth

Greg D
In your 'ad hominem' attacks(which earlier in your post you denounced as out of character for you) on Mr Elder and Keith W , you described them as 'gullible imbeciles'
How are they gullible for deploring hatred for Jewish people and for Israel??They are Christians with their eyes open, not gullible enough to be fooled by organisations which knowingly or gullibly empower anti-semites.

Adam B.

Greg D, J-Dean zealots? Pardon?! What are you on about?

I'm not Jewish, so I don't know where you're going with this. Furthermore, how are the things you have said (or rather not said... I mean, what is the point you are trying to make?) or the links you provide, related to anything to do with this thread?

Why DID you use the term "Israelite"?

And the "Elder" reference was obvious - now you try to cover your tracks and be all reasonable. You're utterly transparent.

Adam B.

Oh Greg D, I wish YOU a good week!

Wilhelm

Phil

I can see you are really upset about this, but just think how I feel, I posted 127 comments on Rod Liddles blog about nutty multiculuralism, every post a masterpiece and not one single comment got published. Do I have a resentment ? You bet Ive got a resentment.

Shoshana

The term "Israelite" in English is a dead giveaway. It is a staple of use by Neo-Nazis, and anyone who uses it proclaims his anti-Semitism. Res ipsa loquitur.

just Louise

Scintillatingly brilliant, utterly pertinent and devastating points made by you to the Israel-defamers as usual, Adam B.

Groovy Times

Henry S, you choose not to see the inconvenient truths that expose your own skewed narrative and prejudice on the Middle East conflict. Did you not read Harvey's post above yours explaining quite succinctly what 'all the noise' is about? Or is it just incomprehensible for a progressive Israel hater to join the dots and see the paradox between a church promoting 'good will to all', an Islamist organisation with an exterminationist policy towards Israel, and a rabid anti-Semite who stands in the shadow of the cross, confidently and sanctimoniously spouting his hatred as if it's the most natural thing in the world - or at least the most natural thing the UK.

And Adam B, to paraphrase George Galloway's sycophantic praise of Sadam Hussain, I admire your indefatigable spirit on this site. But not in a sycophantic way. Obviously. Keep em coming, and Happy Christmas Mr B!

phil

Wilhelm
December 7th, 2009 4:24am -Wilhelm I ache for you :)sorry couldn't help that one .

If you are being rejected you surely must have said something very unpleasant because some of the remarks on this thread are not very nice as I have referred too and they have got through .I doubt an apology to Keith has been rejected ,so where is it ?

I know you can be sensible at times but you can be compared to an old heavyweight of years gone by with a glass chin and a mighty punch ,we just never knew which one would turn up .

phil

I see that
"Greg D
December 6th, 2009 9:04pm " is managing to find every word written by a Jewish lunatic despite the fact that they are rejected by virtually all other Jews ,perhaps he will define we Brits by the words of jack the ripper or his copycat from Yorkshire -what a sad man .

Adam you continue to be a star despite your insistence on answering Henry

Truthtriumphs

Adam B.

I vote you the star commenter on Melanie's blog.

I wish that the Jewish organisations who are supposed to be fighting Israel's case would employ you.

Are you a writer?

With grateful thanks to you for taking the time to defend the truth.

Pip

Whilst watching the video, I couldn't believe what I was hearing. The ignorance and veiled hatred was disgusting, shameful, and painful to listen to. Supposedly, Holy men, spurting such vitriolic ignorance, it is just mind boggling.

Followed the link to Harrys Place w/site, and a pat on the back is due, well done to him and his posters, and all those who contacted this very sad man, Rev Perry.

mostly harmless

A bit late I know, but can we throw this in the mix?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/19/israel1

Greg D

Thankyou, Elizabeth, for a genuine and well-placed criticism. You are right about my inconsistency in regards to ad hominem attacks; an apology to David Elder and Keith W is in order. Gentlemen; I'm sorry for that outburst.

However, I think you have misinterpreted the dismissive attitude with which I treated their comments. You seem to be suggesting that I condone John Sullivan's rant; nowhere have I done such a thing. Rather, I believe that their apologies are highly unnecessary and symptomatic of post-WWII Christian guilt. As has been asked - where is the proof that Sullivan isaffiliated with the PSC or that he is a regular attendee of this or any other congregation?

It's like thanking English people for apologising to Muslims or immigrants for Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time. You might expect such hand-wringing from terminally liberal Guardinistas, but not from people in their right minds.

Now.

Adam B - Good evening, sir.

'JD-ean'; see JD's post. That, as well as solemnman's and phil's (early) comments/mudsling, will help to answer your Israelite question: for Wiki's sake, 'The Hebrew Bible is mainly concerned with the Israelites. According to it, the Land of Israel was promised to them by God. Jerusalem was their capital and the site of the temple at the center of their faith.' Unquestioning + promised Land + theology + activism... see where I'm going now? (Shoshana = 'ecce homo etc')

phil, you old fabricator, you! Again you make assertions in contradiction to the evidence. As Haaretz reports:

'Several prominent rabbis, including Rabbi Yithak Ginzburg and Rabbi Yaakov Yosef, have recommended the book [which commends Jews to kill any Gentiles, regardless of sex or age, who threaten Israel] to their students and followers.'

Furthermore, I am sure that you are aware of the Talmudic injuctions to prevent actions which may harm Jews elsewhere (by, for example, potentially inciting hostile reactions overseas). Hence the IDF's reaction to the 'sensitivity' of the content in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Rome' distributed to Israeli soldiers (see link provided December 5th, 2009 6:39pm). Distribution was halted, but (to my knowledge) nobody was reprimanded - do you have evidence for your claim that they were? And, further, do you really believe that the IDF does not screencheck the literature sent to its troops? Why have no J-Street pamphlets found their way to the front? You're talking bollocks, and you know it. Unlike Michael Walzer, you like dirty hands: hence the mudslinging. This is a tactic which our commentpatriots should know is no substitute for proper, evidence-backed argument.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B. You agree that what you meant to say is that the PSC wants Jews murdered. However, the scope of what you meant to say is not entirely clear. The PSC is an organization devoted to campaigning on matters specifically to do with Israel/Palestine. Did you mean just some Israeli Jews, all Israeli Jews, all Jews in the region, all Jews everywhere? Your comments preparatory to the final rhetorical flourish suggest absurdly enough that you meant all Jews everywhere. I sought clarification not because I think it any less heinous to kill an Israeli than it is to kill anyone else (as you seem to insinuate), but in the hope that further reflection might persuade you of the absurdity of what you had said. Apparently not.

Similarly, the PSC is “all about hatred not solidarity”. This is simply false, so I will set it aside. I well remember protesters in the middle of a recital shouting at David Oistrakh (the great Russian violinist) about the Soviet Union's refusal to allow its Jews to emigrate to Israel if they wished. I also know that the Israeli authorities and settlers have a short way with Palestinian protesters, which rather puts in the shade any PSC shouting at football matches (although I grant you the players were no doubt traumatised). Boycotts appear not to be very effective very quickly. A more effective way to promote a peaceful resolution would be to concentrate on persuading the US, but I do not know how realistic that is (I suspect not at all in the immediate future). As to the reason why the PSC as an organization does not comment on the civil war in Darfur etc, I think you will find a clue in the name of the organization. It would be a blessed relief if you were finally to use the accusation of anti-Semitism “advisedly and with care”.

As for the points that strike you: The thread is not about a man spewing racism and bigotry. It is about implying that the PSC is responsible for the man spewing racism and bigotry.

I see no reason why the church should not host the PSC, just as I see no reason why there should not be protests outside.

I have to confess I was not aware the PSC hands money to Hamas. I was only aware of its humanitarian aid and its protests. I would be interested to know who passed what money to whom. (I assume you refer to money donated by other than the bumptious Mr. Galloway.)

Your fourth point I take to be another example of you using the accusation of anti-Semitism “advisedly and with care”. In any forum where debate is encouraged, this would be not merely foolish, but counter-productive. It seems to work every time with the audience here.

As for Hamas, we have had this discussion before. Israelis deserve peace and security. Palestinians deserve a land they can call their own. Each will get what it wants only by negotiation (there are those on both sides who deny this premise, but I hope they will prove wrong). Negotiation is often between parties who find each other abhorrent. Get over it. Israel did not find Hamas so abhorrent when it first funded it as a means to weaken Fatah, nor when it negotiates ceasefires with it now (the terms of which Israel tends not to observe). To say that Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas because of its poisonous charter is wrong in fact, and seems to be merely a ploy to postpone serious negotiation until Israel has obtained all it wants.

As for “terrorist organizations”: Hamas came to office in elections the US insisted upon. As far as I can tell, the distinction you wish to draw between the violence of Hamas and of the Israeli government comes down to the fact that the Israelis say they do not intend to kill civilians when they fire shells at them. We are apparently to take them at their word despite their ferocious efficiency in killing civilians.

phil

Greg D
December 7th, 2009 6:45pm is boring the pants off me and by now will have sucked the end of his thumb off .Has this thread become comic cuts ?This last post was the greatest load of nonsense I have ever seen here -hopefully Wilhelm will tell him not to interrupt our jokes by offering third class ones again .Will someone have the good grace to ask him not to quote pantomime rabbis or refer to the protocols of any place other than Disneyland as it is most offensive .He could of course indulge in meaningful discussions with "mostly harmless " who has a similar skill of finding tosh for us all to read .I think I will go and watch the telly and get some education .

ahad ha'amoratsim

>All this noise appears to be part of an attempt to fob off any attempt to propose negotiation until Israel has achieved its ultimate goals. <

Yet it is the Palestinians and not Israel who refuse to negotiate, and who repeatedly set increasingly stringent preconditions to negotiations. But never let facts get in the way.

Adam B.

just Louise, Groovy Times, phil and Truthtrimphs, thank you!

Truthtriumphs, I think you're right - in my view, the Board of Deputies needs to present a much more robust defence of Israel. As demonstrated by the Secretary of the church in the video, many people are simply ignorant about the nature of these organizations, the racism and violence contained in Hamas' charter, or Hizbollah, and their apologists in the West as exemplified by the PSC (which actually supports such despicable terror organizations). We need to get such information out there (difficult when the mainstream media censor so much in order to present the hateful narrative so beloved of the BBC and others). Instead of discussing on the haters' terms, scrambling to refute the onslaught of lies and propaganda, we need to go on the offensive. Personally, I would love to do some work for an organization, Jewish or otherwise, which defended Israel from the garbage and propaganda machine arrayed against it. I hear there are the beginnings of an Israel Solidarity Movement. The Zionist Federation seems to be taking positive action too.

Adam B.

Henry, I really feel your excuses are wearing thin. You even attempt to portray the campaign to release Soviet Jews as akin to the "campaign" of the PSC. For what it's worth, heckling David Oistrakh, himself a Jew, about the position of Soviet Jews, is offensive to me. Yet you present this as some kind of defence for ruining a concert by the Jerusalem String Quartet, by PSC yobs shouting abuse. Do you think such yobbery, such an expression of pointless hatred is acceptable? These are the antics of the PSC, a group which is vilifying the Jewish state - not simply criticizing the government. For them, anything or anyone Israeli is fair game - this is pure antisemitism Henry. As you probably know, the EU's definition of antisemitism includes the singling out and exclusive demonisation of Israel as a manifestation of contemporary antisemitism. This is what the PSC engages in.

You say flippantly that the Israelis have a "short way" with protestors - as short as thewe saw the Iranians deal with their protestors, Henry? Anyway you dress it up, Israel is the ONLY country in the Middle East with the right to protest guaranteed by law, the right to free and fair elections, a free press and an independent judiciary. There is not one, Henry - not one single other nation in the Middle East which has these freedoms - you know this to be true. You may criticize Israeli policy, the government, but this isn't what the PSC does. It demonises - it vilifies, it singles out, even individuals like academics - surely you can see the agenda Henry? Yet does the PSC have any issues with how Hamas threw Fatah members to their deaths off the rooftops? No. Any worries about routine torture committed by the Palestinian authority? Do these leftwingers have any issues with the treatment of women or homosexuals in Gaza, or use of the death penalty? No. Don't you see the hypocrisy of the PSC Henry, don't you see it? What blinds you?

This is a hatefest - and it should be anathema to you. The fact that it is not is very worrying.

Wilhelm

'' Wheres my apology, damn it.''

Must have got moderated, who would have thunk it, what a shame, eh ?

Meanwhile back on planet Earth. I backed Rod Liddle to the hilt, 1000% in his devastating blitzkreig against multy culty ism and Diane Abbot

George

@Henry Sidgwick (December 7th, 2009 7:33pm) "As far as I can tell, the distinction you wish to draw between the violence of Hamas and of the Israeli government comes down to the fact that the Israelis say they do not intend to kill civilians when they fire shells at them. We are apparently to take them at their word despite their ferocious efficiency in killing civilians."

Obviously you don't understand that the difference between Hamas and Israel is that Hamas deliberately targets civilians and Israel doesn't. And yes, you should take the IDF at its word when it says this.
However, Israel is not going to be deterred from targeting legitimate military targets just because Hamas puts civilians in harms way. Also, if the IDF really was ferociously efficient at killing civilians, don't you think that the numbers killed would be much, much higher?

Henry Sidgwick

George,
Of course the IDF could kill more civilians. It does what it can get away with in defending what Israel has taken and in continuing to keep the Palestinians in their place, that is, in their reservations.

If the IDF is to be taken at its word it is probably unique amongst state organs the world over.

I seem to recall you maintained your faith in the IDF's purity in the face of detailed itemising of the munitions used.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B,
I think I was careful to address every point you made. You appear to have taken equal care to avoid most of mine.

Read your first paragraph again. I pointed out there have been yobs on both sides. In other words, your argument cannot be used against one side only. A very simple point, yet you attempt to side-step it by concentrating once more on one side only. I do not think shouting at individual citizens is a good way to protest against the behaviour of their government. I am in two minds about boycotts, as I said: they do seem to be an extension of shouting at individuals; yet there surely comes a point when playing sport with representatives of a country busy killing is unpalatable – of course, the list of countries boycotted would be long, starting with the US and UK, Russia, China, Sri Lanka, India, Sudan, Israel...

Your second paragraph resorts to the “others are worse” gambit. My reference to settlers was anything but flippant. Their notion of protesting at the presence of Palestinians on their own land, land the settlers want, is to beat them and if that proves ineffective to shoot them. The security forces contribute by looking the other way. This is somewhat more yobbish than shouting at footballers.

You go on simply to repeat the assertion that the PSC “demonises” and “vilifies” Israel. It criticizes Israel's behaviour towards Palestinians as oppressive and ethically indefensible. Is this “demonising”? You complain that the PSC singles out individuals. Where the individuals have influence, it is justifiable to criticize them. I am sure you as a follower of Melanie Phillips would agree. Do “left-wingers” have a problem with Hamas and its treatment of opponents and its attitudes to women and homosexuals? Yes. Does protest against Israel and humanitarian aid to Palestinians imply support for Hamas and all its works? No.

I agree there are some who hate Israel. I suspect Israel has become a fashionable cause for “left-wingers and that much of the hostility is unthinking. This does not make the PSC's work a “hatefest”. Israel is in the wrong in its treatment of the Palestinians. Israel could put this right. It does not put it right because it remains acquisitive.

just Louise

Adam B, you truly are awesome!

Funny you should mention the Board, because I've just received one of Isi Leibler's circulatory blogs, in which he says: "POSTSCRIPT to Perfidious Albion and Jewish Leaders.
Readers will recall my condemnation of the behavior of Anglo Jewish leaders in a recent article.
My concerns about the caliber [sic] of Anglo Jewish leaders were reinforced this week when I learned of an interview aired on the BBC Radio on Monday (Manchester Jewish program) with the treasurer of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a Mr. Lawrence Brass.
Brass welcomed the settlement freeze and added that he wished it had been extended to Jerusalem.
He also stated "We [The Board of Deputies] must not be seen to be an extension of the Israeli Embassy which I think previous regimes have been" ..
In most Jewish communities such outbursts by a purportedly mainstream communal leader would not be tolerated. His constituents would demand that he withdraw such remarks and apologize or resign forthwith.'

The words above are Leibler's. I reserve judgement, but thought I'd pass it on.

Henry Sidgwick

Keit W.,
I tried to answer your question, but it disappeared.

I think what Israel wants is to annexe all it feels it needs of the West Bank and to keep the Palestinians in their reservations, in exile, or i the care of the "international community" as a "humanitarian problem" (with no political rights). There is still a problem what to do with the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Other than that, Israel appears to be close to success. I suggested to another contributor that he look at a map of the West Bank to see what Israel has already taken and what is left for the Palestinians. He couldn't be bothered. He was certain without the facts that ISrael is right and the Palestinians wrong. I recommend that you do look at a map to see the effect of the eastward spread of Jerusalem, the "security" area that takes in most of the Jordan Valley, the expanding settlements, the Israeli only roads, the roadblocks, the Wall. Israel is taking land and resources and leaving the Palestinians in utter dependence on Israeli goodwill in ghettoes.

George

Henry,

Maybe if I shout louder, you will get the message:

THE IDF DOES NOT DELIBERATELY TARGET CIVILIANS.

mostly harmless

phil
December 7th, 2009 7:53pm

thanks for the 'big up'

Truthtriumphs

Henry Sidgwick.

As usual posting a comment that is ignorant and malevolant in equal proportions.

The actual amount of land "occupied" by the so-called settlements is exactly 1.7%. Yes, that's right.
I'll spell it out .
ONE.SEVEN PER CENT of the West Bank.
Land which actually was illegally occupied by Jordan until 1967 from which the Jordanians had ethnicly cleansed the Jews from the old city of Jerusalem in 1948, from where there had been a continuous Jewish presence for at least 2,000 years.

What you continue to shut your eyes to, is that the Arabs are the invaders and usurpers of the ancient Jewish homeland (they come from the Arabian peninsula, remember), an integral part of which was Judea and Samaria.
Indeed, if you were historically literate you would know that only the Jews had dominion in the Holy Land throughout the course of history, for more than 1000 years in their sovereign state, and that was more than 2000 years before Islam was even thought of.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.,
Some footnotes:

Of course I know David Oistrakh was Jewish, but this had no relevance to our discussion. What had more relevance was what shocked his anxious wife, namely, that he had a weak heart and they almost gave him a heart attack.

Your admirers here suggest you play a more prominent role as a propagandist for Israel. I do not know which ministry it is, probably the MFA, but the Israeli government's propaganda machine has a little project where employees impersonate members or the public around the world commenting on blogs such as this. Would your rigid and unquestioning discipline not ideally suit to this role?

Is there not, on reflection, a certain irony, to put it mildly, in you, as a frequent supporter of the views expressed on this blog, complaining of "demonisation" and the singling out of individuals? Perhaps it is just further confirmation of the rigid unquestioning discipline that so perfectly suits you for the role of propagandist.

Fianlly a little note on violence. Terrorism is the weapon of the weak. State terrorism is the weapon of the strong. States accord themselves the right of self-defence. The weak have the right to resistance (states themselves have reluctantly admitted as much). The wrongs committed by those resisting oppression do not justify the wrongs committed by those doing the oppressing. To concentrate on the crimes of Hamas while condoning or actively supporting the crimes of Israel is hypocrisy.

J. Isaacs

Just back from Khaled Abu Toameh, Israeli Arab correspondent of the Jerusalem Post speaking at a House of Commons committee room at lunchtime.

He gave a magnificent 15-minute talk and answered questions covering at least a dozen Middle-East and other countries' policies on Israel.

Apart from tearing a large strip out of foreign Israel-bashers as ignoramuses, he also crushed Israel boycotters by saying, "they should go over there and teach Palestinian children about democracy." He also added, "I could wear a keffiyeh 24 hours a day; what good does it do Palestinians in Gaza?" There was more, much more. Unquestionably, his articles and the Jerusalem Post are a "must have" on your RSS Feeds.

Henry Sidgwick

George,
I am sure you know that shouting it louder will not make it so.

The IDF drops explosives on cities, towns, and villages, and insists that it does not intend to kill civilians by so doing.

Greg D

'Greg D [...] is boring the pants off me' - I suspect, phil, that your pants have come off because you've soiled them. Still you give no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims; you should admit that you are afraid to engage me in earnest. Certainly, King David's blood does not course through your veins. 'Pantomime rabbis'? I'm sure you're aware of this, but I'll let everyone else know for the sake of argument: Rabbi Yaakov Yosef was a Knesset politician and is a leader of the Council of Rabbis on the Torah and Land, to which (as Yossi Sarid notes) the National Union pays allegiance. According to Motti Inbari, Rabbi Ginsburg "preaches Jewish supremacy, opposition to the secular Israeli government, and the importance of building the third temple. According to Inbari, "almost no notable [religious] authority has challenged Ginsburg's views." Furthermore, Ginsburg's yeshiva "has had a profound influence on the entire settlement movement." (www.newvoices.org/israel?id=0001)

Where were you educated, phil? Can you not read? Or, as I suspect, are you merely dishonest? Rhetoric aside: many PROMINENT rabbis advocate the killing of gentiles (even righteous ones – Noachide lions (e.g. Adam), take heed of Scar’s fate – see phil’s last post) who stand in Israel's way. It does not matter for them if their victims are men, women or even babies.

Put your pants in the wash, phil - and then I'll hang your pathetic 'arguments' out to dry.

HEY GEORGE! KEEP YOUR VOICE DOWN!

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058758.html

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180527966693&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Shmuel Eliyahu, in partnership with the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, helped with the distribution of a pamphlet sent to IDF troops which claimed that the Vatican organised tours to Auschwitz for Hezbellah to 'show them how to kill Jews'. According to one IDF soldier, "the book is distributed regularly and everyone reads it and believes it. It's filled with made-up details but is presented as a true story. A whole company of soldiers, adults, told me: 'Read this and you'll understand who the Arabs are.'" The IDF authorities halted distribution of this book due to what they called the 'sensitivity' of the content. And as for the charge that the IDF does not screen the literature sent to its troops? Bollocks. Find me a J-Street pamphlet at Mishmar HaNegev.

The hypocrisy and cheekiness of Melanie's guard-hyenas are astounding. Look at J. Isaacs post, for example. First he “accepts” an apology from David Elder – given to Melanie Phillips (!?) – and then suggests that Mr Elder ‘may care’ to complain to the vicar presiding over similar ‘cod-carolling’ tonight, for which he provides the date and location. Amazing that: on a post about a nasty anti-Semite, Mr Isaacs manages to turn it into a personal lobbying campaign – isn’t that a talent to crow about, Adam B!

Beware, Elizabeth et al. Some of your commentpatriots are not so much concerned with truth (where is their evidence? whither their argument?) as with something altogether less noble.

Mostly harmless, I tried to warn you to don your helmet after that hand-grenade was tossed; unfortunately the cry was lost in the darkness of moderated cyberspace. But don't worry; phil's rhetorical weapons aren't even sticks and stones.

phil

George
December 8th, 2009 1:37pm -The only thing sensible I have seen henry write in ages -you do not have to shout ,normal people do believe you :)

Groovy Times

Henry S. Your attempt to relativise the crimes of Hamas with those of Israel reflects a moral malaise on your part which in itself is a product of your ignorance and bigotry. When the executive arm of the Israeli state disposes of internal political rivals by throwing them off the roof, when it is written into the Israeli constitution that the Palestinians in particular and the Muslims in general are the source of all the region's and the world's problems and it is a religious obligation to eradicate them, and when the deaths of Palestinian women and children are celebrated on the streets of Israel, then you will have cause to call Adam B a hypocrite.

mostly harmless

Thanks for the heads up Greg, but I've dealt with the likes of phil and his lakeys before and their bully boy tactics won't stop me posting as I see fit ;)

phil

Adam and TT I have been warning you for ages what you will get if you continue to feed "our henry,s frenzy"-he does not want to hear the truth ,he has a CSD which entails telling untruths on any thread about Israel, which you both fall for by answering him .You will get nowhere as has been proven over a very long time .Why not use your undoubted talents on projects that will bring benefit rather than attempt to answer this crass nonsense that he brings in bucketloads .If Israel moved out to sea and vacated all the land he would say it has appropriated it illegally .

phil

Greg D
December 8th, 2009 6:59pm -I take it all back please do not stop because you are becoming the pantomime dame and are now most amusing -perhaps we can do a remake of blazing saddles with you as the star and the nutty rabbis doing their thing .You certainly have a better chance of being a comic than a writer ,unless it is of tall stories .oh and don't worry I am spotless even if that is difficult when I read your historical or should I say hysterical remakes ,definitely a firm grip is needed .

Did you ever watch H ,H ,HANCOCKS HALF HOUR ,you are better .

just Louise

Old John Sullivan re Rupert Murdoch and the Times as a Jewish conspiracy:
http://www.viddler.com/explore/chasnb/videos/1/
The Rev. Dr Simon Perry, Bloomsbury Baptist Church (host to the PSC carol concert):

"Of course, when we look at that land today, there exists a different people, a different set of refugees, a different people in exile in their own land. A new oppressor and a new oppressed. The modern state of Israel, which has to be distinguished from the Jewish people, has inflicted atrocities upon Palestinians. I heard on Radio 4 this morning, that in the three years preceding this conflict, Hamas had killed 11 Israeli people with rockets. In that same period, the Israeli Defence Forces have killed over 1100. Let me say that again, just in case we are tempted to see this as six of one, half a dozen of the other. Hamas rockets, that is, home made rockets, had killed 11 Israelis in three years, and in the same period the Israeli Defence forces killed over 1100. Now of course, statistics like that it is easy to lose sight of the real lives involved – but the law of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth does not feature in Israel’s ethical deliberations. But the Israeli propaganda machine is as effective as its military machine."

Sermons/Old Testament/Genesis 1 - http://simonperry.webeden.co.uk/

Adam B.

Henry, your last post doesn’t make sense; on one hand, you say such acts of hooliganism are unacceptable, but then you persist in defending the PSC, a group which engages in these very actions. Which is it Henry?

The PSC couldn’t give a hoot about the fate of homosexuals or women in Gaza, the torture by the racist Hamas or the PA, or the death penalty – it is completely dishonest to pretend they do. They never speak of it. I would go one further – they don’t even really care about Palestinians; they only care about hating Israel. Henry, where was the outrage of such leftist groups when 400,000 Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait at the end of the first Gulf War? Where were the howls of “apartheid” or “ethnic cleansing”? In fact, it was hardly even reported. Why is that Henry? Do you have an answer?

Where were the howls of outrage when “moderate” and friend of the West King Hussein killed 10,000 Palestinians in the space of a few days in the 1970’s? (That’s more than both intifadas and the Gaza conflict – think about that). What, no calls for war crimes trials? The hypocrisy is blatant. It is the same hypocrisy which shrugs its shoulders at the fate of the Kurds, the Tibetans, or the Baluchis? (who are they, I hear you ask. You won’t know – the leftist media doesn’t care about them – can’t blame the Jews, you see).

Now calling me an unquestioning propagandist is just plain silly. In a world where the Palestinian propaganda machine enjoys almost complete support across the mainstream media, I would argue that it is only those who question who can form a view which rejects the received wisdom, and sees beyond the slogans. I think for myself Henry, it is how I formed my views. I also think the tide is beginning to turn.

You say there are "yobs on both sides". Really? You think one is the same as the other? Ask yourself this: on the streets of the UK, how much anti-Semitic violence is carried out by Muslims, and how much anti-Muslim violence is carried out by Jews?

I well remember attending a solidarity with Israel rally in Trafalgar Square a few years back – I remember the crowd of counter-demonstrators, Muslim radicals and leftists, literally screaming hysterically with hatred and venom – even calling for the bombing of Downing Street. Now when you see a pro-Palestinian rally in Trafalgar Square, do you see a group a Jews screaming hysterically with venom and hatred, calling for the bombing of Downing Street? No, you don’t Henry. You don’t see any kind of counter demonstration at all, because it’s simply too dangerous. That’s the reality Henry. The two sides are not the same.

You go on to defend the boycott of individuals. The reality on the ground is that ordinary Israelis are being targeted, simply for being Israeli. Heard of the Israeli postgrad student who was told he wasn’t welcome to study on a particular course at Oxford, because his proposed tutor didn’t want to work with an Israeli? That’s bigotry, Henry, and it’s antisemitic. That’s the reality of these hateful boycotts.

And what on earth are you on about when you say there are Israeli agents posting on blogs? This is entering the conspiracy theory territory - Israelis and Jews everywhere, subverting the natural course of things argument - it is unworthy of you. Or are you insinuating that I am an Israeli agent?!

But my biggest bone of contention is this one, and this truly is a disease - you speak of "terror" being the weapon of the weak, and "state terror" the weapon of the strong. There are so many problems with this moral disaster, I don't even know where to start. Firstly, there is NO moral equivalnce to draw between the actions of Hamas, Fatah and Hizbollah, and the actions of Israel defending itself from a genocidal impulse. Hamas, Hizbollah and the Al Aqsa brigades deliberately target civilians. They rejoice and celebrate such killings. When the injured in hospital succumb to their wounds, celebrations are renewed. These ARE NOT the actions of the weak, they are the actions of the depraved. They are the actions of a mentality which celebrates death, a racist cult of evil.

Israel does not target civilians, nor does it rejoice when civilians are inadvertently but inevitably killed. War is lettered with mistakes and is a messy and imprecise business, try as one might to avoid civilian casualties. Mistakes are not war crimes, Henry, they are not terrorism. They are tragic – but they do not constitute terror. If conducting war in circumstances where a civilian may be hurt constitutes “war crimes”, then we have to redefine the term, and indeed, the logical conclusion from such a view is that you are not allowed to defend yourself militarily, because civilians may be hurt. That is a pacifist viewpoint, and one which I reject.

In addition, you work from the flawed supposition that the (militarily) weaker of the two sides must be the victim of a (stronger) aggressor. This is lazy thinking – does it not occur to you that an underdog can be the aggressor? That the underdog can be wrong?

You are being intellectually dishonest, and you suffer from the modern disease of moral relativism.

phil

Adam B.
December 8th, 2009 11:06pm another brilliant post but I bet by sun up our henry will be back with more nonsense -I am more than ever sure that he has nothing else to do and is driven by a compulsion to accuse Israel of anything that he can dream up -perhaps you are doing a mitzvah by allowing him something to respond to ,but I cannot see any other reason to respond to him .He definitely has a problem but I do not see either why we have to fuel his habit .he does nothing to deserve such kindness .

Wilhelm

Phil

I'll tell you what i'll do for you Phil. I'll send you a signed framed photograph of the one and only, yours truly Mr Nick Griffin for your Christmas. You can put it on your bedside tabe, so when you wake up, Nick Griffin is the first thing you see in the morning and when you go to bed , Nick Griffin is the last thing you see at night.

I think you'll agree phil that a photo of Nick makes a wonderful gift for all the family in this festive yuletide season.

David ben Duji

Truthtriumphs
There have been Arabs in the Jordan basin/Levant for over 2000 years. After all, where did Herod and the other Hashemite Arabs come from, and the Nabatean Arabs, who constructed Petra, as well?
If many of the Arabs west of the Jordan came after the seventh century AD-so what!
They are there and are not in any hurry to leave. Your arguments are horribly similar to those who told me the best way to solve Aparthied in South Africa and the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland are for the Afrikaaners and the Ulster Protestants, respectively, to be expelled en masse!
Greg D.
Your examples are interesting but what influence do these people have?
Are they just loud-mouthed bigots like the 'Siol Na Gael' who demonstrated in Scotland in the 1970s, rallying in tartan like a caricature of Gaelic fascists? That lot made a fuss but had no lasting influence. Even the SNP kept a healthy distance from them!
You failed to mention Rabbi Meir Kehane, described as 'Israel's Ayatollah' who advocated ferocious expulsion of all arabs & non-Jews and a theocratic goverment that crossed European clerical fascism with the worst of Islamism. His party was called 'Katch!' which literally meant 'thus!!!', the equivalent of a fist slammed down on the table.
The Israeli government banned his organisation.

Henry Sidgwick

George,
I checked my memory by scrolling back. You have a gift for eqivocation.

You scornfully corrected a contributor for suggesting that Israeli tanks shelled Gaza during the ceasefire. Tanks have quite specific roles in combat, you explained, which have nothing to do with stationary gun emplacements (or whatever). It turns out that it wasn't tanks, it was "self-propelled artillery" that can travel at speeds of 30mph (or whatever). Doh! How foolish of the other contributor.

You insist Israel did not break the ceasefire. After all, it is Hamas that formally announced that it would no longer honour it. - Israel only refused to implement most of the terms of the ceasefire agreement and engaged in the first hostile acts. But Hamas broke the ceasefire!

And now, the IDF does not target civilians. It only fires the munitions. It is the fault of those underneath them if they get hit!

By such means does Israel maintain its purity of arms.

phil

Wilhelm
December 9th, 2009 6:17am
I am obliged ! but sadly it would go on the first horse and cart passing by .

phil

David ben Duji
December 9th, 2009 7:33am You make valid points ,but the problem in the Israeli state is not the Arabs who live in peace there and as far as I know are integrated and happy to be so ,it is those Arabs outside who wish to destroy the state. Peace and respect between two peoples is what we need and any thought of apartheid is abhorrent to Jewish people as was demonstrated in South Africa .Those like meir kehane bring shame upon us but thankfully represent only the lunatic fringe ,sadly a fringe that most societies have ,as we can see here from time to time.

Your engaging with greg d is a little confusing as I assume you are from a long line of historical Jewish people ,and that man seems to have only one purpose here ,that is to find every quote from every lunatic we have ever produced ,I suppose it was tongue in cheek ,but as usual will generate more rabid nonsense .

phil

Adam B.
December 8th, 2009 11:06pm -I wish we could make bets here -I posted last night that our henry would be back before sun up and sure enough ,he has now transferred his" affections" to George -

You do realise of course that he is not Henry Sidgwick ---(Henry Sidgwick (May 31, 1838–August 28, 1900)-a renowned teacher and philosopher,who no doubt would be appalled if he saw what his name is being used for. You must know you will never get to grips with him ,he just wants to write , argue and accuse and you are providing him with fuel to do so -I do remember well that you told me a long time ago that these people must be answered but in" henry,s "case it is just counter productive-he never answers your probing questions but comes back with more bile every time .Your intellect and ethics can be used far more productively than continuing to engage with our man . You know that I have the highest regard for your thoughts and energy but this is a lost cause and a waste of your valuable time .

phil

Wilhelm
December 9th, 2009 6:17am I see you are an early riser and I am a lazy bugger ,half asleep when I rejected your Christmas present offer and very remiss in not wishing you a very happy Christmas for you and all your family .My wish for your New Year is that you will find a better way than that of nick ,old or new :)

Adam B.

Hnery, that's a very silly post addressed to George. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that civilians tragically being killed does not automatically mean they are deliberately targeted, and that there is a difference between setting out deliberately to kill civilians (as exemplified by Hamas and Hizbollah, who celebrate such deaths) and trying to avoid civilian casualties (as exemplified by the IDF).

What about my other points Henry?

Greg D

David ben Duji – a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

Although, like phil, I sense a subtle mockery in your words (e.g. the apparently sardonic ‘you failed to mention...’ phrase combined with the rhetorical language employed immediately prior to it) I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was not an attempt to portray me as a cherry-picker.

The question you ask is indeed a valid one: do the examples I have given represent a ‘lunatic fringe’ that has little to no influence on mainstream Israeli society? You do well to point out that the late Rabbi Kehane’s party and its offshoots were banned by the Israeli government. It was also banned in the USA. I’m glad that (unlike phil) you have provided evidence to support your implicit suggestion that the ideologies represented in the examples I provided have no real effect in Israel.

The knowledge, intelligence and temperament you displayed earlier in your post suggest that you are an honest and decent man. As such, I assume that the challenges you pose to me are grounded in the fact that you have not perused the links which I posted nor, dare I say, my posts themselves with enough time and care.

As for the Pope’s Protocols story: the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America is one of the oldest and largest Orthodox Jewish organisations in the United States. That it initiated such a horrible piece of propaganda, which (as the quote from the free-thinking Israeli trooper shows) had significant influence on many IDF soldiers, is deeply disturbing. It reflects very badly on the IDF that it allowed such an outrageous booklet to be distributed to its troops, and the term it used to describe the content of it – namely, as no more than ‘sensitive’ – is astonishing.

As for Rabbi Shapiro’s book, which gives permission to kill any Gentile (even babies and children; see 3rd link provided December 6th, 2009 9:04pm) who may threaten Israel, and the prominent Rabbis which recommended it. As I wrote in my post of December 8, 6.59pm, Rabbi Yosef is, unfortunately, not a fringe lunatic. He is a leader of a religious organisation which has great influence on the National Union, an alliance which in 2003 was included in the government led by Ariel Sharon. This alliance advocates the settlement of all the Land of Israel and extremely harsh retaliatory measures against Palestinian violence. Now, before the usual charge is pressed: legally, a response to harm is legitimate, but revenge (generally speaking) is not. Surely, we should move beyond ‘an eye for an eye – and a tooth and a nail and a child.’ Furthermore, remember that Rabbi Ginzburg’s yeshiva has had, as Motti Inbari says, “a profound influence on the entire settlement movement.”

Your suggestions do have some ground when it comes to Rabbi Eliyah. I will give you that he eats fruitcakes for breakfast. However, it is extremely sad that he is the Chief Rabbi of one of Judaism four holy cities.

Lastly, you should not forget that Michael ben Ari, a current member of the Knesset, is a self-declared disciple of Rabbi Meir Kehane. It is true that the IDF forces arrested this man for protesting the arrest of minor settlers, and this is a good sign. But it seems to me that this action was but a drop in the vast ocean of persecution, lies, hypocrisy and ignobility on which the IDF (and, more specifically, its masters in the Knesset) sails.

Adam B. – the comments made in your latest post are all addressed by the links and arguments that I have given and made. Nay, I retract that: Henry has rebutted your comments much more calmly, methodically and originally than have I. I recommend you read his comments (and in my case, links) again, after taking careful note of the advice Jonathan Sacerdoti (and by implication, Melanie Phillips) gave to Reverend Perry:

‘You seem to have strong opinions on this matter. Many do, of course, including me. So it seems strange that you do not have time to research and constantly challenge your views with additional information. Making time only to read supporting material of one's own opinions makes them self fulfilling and only reinforces them blindly. Your points may indeed be fairly simple, but applying them to a very complex situation and expecting them to work is never going to help.’

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.,
Adam, could I just say, Adam, how much I enjoy your rhetorical trick...Adam...of repeating my name to express your withering contempt. I remain unwithered, however.

There have been hooligans on both sides. Neither of us condones hooliganism. The hooligans add nothing to the argument one way or the other about the rights and wrongs in the respective campaigns (both of which as it happens I would have supported).

The PSC and other “left-wingers”, you say, do not give “two hoots” about women, gays, or torture. You are of course free to believe whatever nonsense you wish. The PSC does not care, you say, about Palestinians, they only care about “hating Israel”. At least you resisted the slur you usually apply “advisedly and with care”, which is some relief.

I am old enough to remember the protest not just at the expulsion of Palestinians during the Gulf War but also after Black September. As I recall, the protest came from “left-wingers”. These historical events have little bearing on our current debate about Israel and the Palestinians. As far as I can tell, your reasoning is that others have committed crimes against the Palestinians, so Israel can commit crimes against the Palestinians.

Your next sally is impossible to deflect. I know nothing about the Tibetans for the simple reason that they are not persecuted by Jews.

On your independence of thought, what struck me was how its results correspond so precisely to the official line in all its twists and turns.

How many attacks against Muslims on the West Bank are carried out by Israeli Jews? When the more extreme in Israel protest against Palestinians, they are not always measured and thoughtful in their rabid abuse. Again, we both deplore thugs. They do not affect the argument on the rights and wrongs one way or the other.

There is a comic character who contributes here very very frequently who is simply unable to understand the contributions of others. He is afflicted with a form of reader's malapropism that extends not just to words, but to sentences and whole paragraphs. He instinctively reaches for the wrong end of the stick. You are clearly not similarly afflicted – which makes it more troubling than amusing that you misread what I write. As just one example, I did not defend the boycott of individuals. I said I was in two minds about boycotts in general, as I suspect you would be if you thought about it.

I too found the story of the Israeli propaganda operation a hoot. The source was from within the Israeli public relations machine. It might just have been a cunning plan to baffle and bemuse or entertain. However, at the time of Cast Lead, the Israelis seemed quite proud of it.

Your final point about terror would benefit from more argument and less bare assertion. I find, on reflection, that I am similarly guilty. However, at least what I asserted as premises were what would generally be considered platitudes: that states insist on their right to self-defense, but have also acknowledged a right for peoples to resist oppression; that terrorism is the weapon of the weak (a commonplace among counter-terrorist experts the world over), but state terrorism is the weapon of the powerful (a fact denied by the powerful but evidenced the world over in slaughter without redress). You did manage one gem beyond price: “civilians are inadvertently but inevitably killed.” Thank you for that. For the rest, it is no argument simply to assert that there is no moral equivalence (that is the conclusion you have to argue for); that “they” target civilians but “we” do not (likewise); that “they” are the aggressors and “we” merely defending ourselves (likewise). The Zionists of old were more honest. Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky both said that were they in the position the “Arabs” found themselves in they too would fight to the death for their land.

Your diagnosis of my “disease” is wrong. I am no relativist in this regard. “Apply the same ethical standards to yourself as you do to others” is not relativism.

From my limited observations, all conflicts of this sort provide scope for depravity. On the Israeli side, the citizens picnicking while cheering the bombing of Gaza and the soldiers commissioning celebratory T-shirts are the least of it. But all our prating about who has committed the most atrocities and who has enjoyed them most is a distraction from what seems to me the most important question of how to resolve the conflict. I will repeat what I said: Israelis deserve peace and security. Palestinians deserve a land they can call their own. Each will get what it wants only by negotiation (there are those on both sides who deny this premise, but I hope they will be proved wrong quickly enough to avoid further needless slaughter). Negotiation is often between parties who find each other abhorrent. Get over it. Israel did not find Hamas so abhorrent when it first funded it as a means to weaken Fatah, nor when it negotiates ceasefires with it now (the terms of which Israel tends not to observe). To say that Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas because of its poisonous charter is wrong in fact, and seems to be merely a ploy to postpone serious negotiation until Israel has obtained all it wants.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.
December 9th, 2009 7:00pm

George is well able to reply on his own behalf if he so wishes.

I will only add that credulity is very useful to the believer.

Adam B.

Henry, I have given up with you. You have proven yourself to be indoctrinated to a point where you simply cannot accept facts. You again use moral relativism in your opening shot. The "protests" about Kuwait (what, maybe a couple of dozen showed up? Come on Henry, this is simply dishonest when compared to the hysteria during Cast Lead), the lie that Israelis celebrate death like the Palestinians, your ongoing defence of the thuggery of the PSC (tactics which you claim to oppose, yet simultaneously defend - interesting that), the claim I "usually" employ the antisemitic epithet - (give me an example when I used it unjustifiably please - if not , please retract it), your inability to understand the realities of war, of cause and effect, etc. So many flaws Henry - proof of your inability or unwillingness to understand is that I reject your notion that the Palestinians are oppressed, not that because others have, Israel can. That's called putting words in my mouth, and is the last resort of someone who has lost their case. I never said it Henry - so why do you claim I did? And your insinuation that I have an "official" line - is that your deranged accusation that I am an Israeli agent again?

That's truly pathetic.

Adam B.

Yes Greg D, I'll take notes from someone who is obsessed with fringe rabbis and uses the term "Israelite" for Jewish people.

When you have a point to make, let me know. So far, you're completely incoherent.

phil

the thoughts of "henry"

---There is a comic character who contributes here very very frequently who is simply unable to understand the contributions of others.---

Thank you "henry" at least you give me a role here,but believe me I do understand you and I think Adam is beginning to as well .

Both you and your pal greg rave rather than write ,cherry pick any iota of gossip and /or untruths you can find ,quote every lunatic that has ever been circumcised and then write tomes about them .You cannot insult me with your childish attacks because I am only ever hurt by those for whom I have respect -Adam and Louise could spoil my day because I have a high regard for all they try to do ,but they wouldn't would they ?

You have spent years here in your disguise and what have you achieved ?-nada ,apart from collecting a few nutters along the way to agree with you. Mostly they contribute the longest and most ridiculous posts here ,and of course we have another here today just as daft as yours -this one trying the old good policeman bad one again :---greg -Adam will never buy that .

Both of you try writing something nice about us or even a few jokes ,being a comic is not that bad .

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.
I am not at all sure you understand the term “moral relativism”.

When you asked if there were “howls of outrage” I did not understand you to restrict the howls to large public demonstrations on the streets. Were there howls of outrage? Yes. Were there large public demonstrations? No. The largest such demonstrations I have taken part in were protests against the Vietnam War and the Iraq war. The smallest, alas, was in support of the Tibetans. If you want to argue that the people of this country come out onto the streets only when there is an opportunity to attack Jews, it is going to be a stretch.

I am curious why you continue to misread what I write. I did not say that Israelis celebrate death “like the Palestinians”. Some Israelis certainly do celebrate death. I gave some examples. If you need more, I refer you to the apotheosis of Baruch Goldstein. I did not defend any “thuggery”. The PSC, it appears, shouts rude words in protest. Israeli settlers kill and maim in protest. I believe we both deplore such behaviour. I also believe that you will come to understand that this question of thuggery does not further your argument against me one jot. I am concerned that your recourse to the cry of anti-Semitism may be an unconscious reflex. Or are you insisting that, every time you hint at motives I am too hypocritical to reveal, you are not insinuating that I am anti-Semitic? I will leave you to scroll back and count the times you have accused others. “... not that because others have, Israel can ...” I may have committed a malapropism of my own here. If I have, I apologize. Did you mean that Jordan and Kuwait did harm to Palestinians, and Israel did, but “left-wingers” only protested about Israel – which is hypocritical; or that Jordan and Kuwait did harm, but Israel did not do harm, to Palestinians, and yet “left-wingers” still protested only about Israel – which would be irrational; or that Jordan did harm to Palestinians, but should not have, while Israel did harm, but had every right to, in a way that Jordan did not, and yet the “left-wingers” protested about Israel; or...what? Anyway, s far as I can see, you are repeating a point (“howls of outrage”) that did not work first time round. “Left-wingers” protested against Jordan, Kuwait and Israel, all three. Their protests against Jordan and Kuwait were feeble; their protests against Israel much stronger; - but their protests against the Iraq War were stronger still by far. Infer from that what you can about hypocrisy and hatred of Jews from this. “...And your insinuation that I have an "official" line - is that your deranged accusation that I am an Israeli agent again?” I pointed out a striking coincidence between what you say and the official line in all its twists and turns, a coincidence that surely is not random and therefore calls for some explanation. I did not accuse you of being an Israeli agent. I helpfully suggested, in deadly earnest of course, a job that would allow you to fulfil the ambition you told your admirers about.

You say that Palestinians have not been oppressed.. This is to stretch the pragmatic notion of truth too far: untrue but useful to believe.

Finally, you rebuke me for my incomprehension of cause and effect in war. The rebuke is no doubt warranted. However, I think I have grasped the basics: when a bomb is dropped on human beings (the cause?), they tend to die (the effect?).

Others have provided information on the Israeli way of war, which unsurprisingly is the US way: Israel relies on an overwhelming preponderance of force as a deterrent (very sensible). It assumes that, for the deterrence to work, its preponderance of force must be demonstrated. Once in a while, someone has to be made an example of. Lebanon in 2006 was one such. It was not wholly successful. Senior military men were moved to wonder aloud (and in public) whether deterrence had been weakened. Gaza was an opportunity to put this right. They were also clear about their immediate aims: to set Lebanon back by decades and to teach the people of Gaza a lesson. (As an aside, these are not legal war aims.) They were also clear about strategy: they expounded the doctrine of “zero casualties” (for the IDF, that is) and what they have dubbed the Dahiya doctrine, after a district they pulverized. In combination these result in a concentration of overwhelming firepower on whatever target they select. They have defined legitimate targets to include power stations, water and sewage works, transport systems, civil administration, medical facilities, food distribution etc. as well as cities, towns and villages. The world's biggest arms dealers have supplied plenty of munitions: cluster bombs (dropped in their millions in Lebanon after Israel knew a ceasefire was imminent), depleted uranium tipped shells (we know the consequences for health from our experiments in Iraq), phosphorus (allowed on “battlefields”), fleschettes, DIME bombs, and new munitions that cause burns and internal trauma that do not respond to treatment (the IDF nor the manufacturers have told the medical profession what on earth these munitions are). I can hear your response – but, no, this is not war. It is hardly even “counter-insurgency” (which is not the right word), or Bandenbekampfung (which is also not quite the right word). It is avowedly punitive action against civilian populations. You are rightly outraged at the killing of Israeli civilians. You are very accepting when Palestinian civilians are “inadvertently but inevitably killed.” “Inadvertently”!

I would repeat that the main point is surely how to resolve the conflict by negotiation, but you have been resolute in ignoring any such suggestion.

If you manage to make any substantive point I will happily consider it. But I think we are done.

Adam B.

Henry, I haven't bothered to read it. You aren't negotiating in good faith.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.,
An effective way to avoid facing arguments you have read but can't rebut, I suppose: it gets the awkwardness over with quickly. But pusillanimous. As I said, if you have any substantive points to make, I will happily discuss them. But I think we are done here.

phil

Adam B.
December 10th, 2009 11:34pm
Thank the lord !! let him go in peace.

Adam B.

No Henry, it's a way of refusing to engage with someone who accuses me of crying "antisemitism!" and then can't provide a single example, someone who accuses me of being an Israeli official becuase the concept of being supportive of Israel is just too incredulous, and someone from whom I am still awaiting an answer from our last thread!

phil

Wilhelm -what has happened to my esteemed sparring partner ?has wishing you and your family a happy Christmas felt like a left hook ?You appear to have been laying down in shock ever since,You could of course strike back strongly by wishing me a happy channukah and I will stagger back to my corner having learned a good lesson.:)

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.,
Wrong. Wrong. And wrong. But convenient. If you have any substantive points to make...

Henry Sidgwick

“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.

“I don't think it is tawdry to question the motive of someone clinging to a narrative which correlates with every Jew hater around.

“The accusation that Melanie always shouts "antisemitism" (where in fact it is these lefties who always go on about racism) is an invidious and itself antisemitic accusation (those Jews are always whining and crying wolf, you see...

“Much of the extremist and hateful language there is simply off the chart anti-semitism, disguised as anti-Zionism...

“the new anti-Semitism (obsessive anti-Zionism)”

And that took all of...oh, thirty seconds to find, going back just a week or two. Go back over the months and the quotes accumulate.

So what do we have? Misrepresents opponents. Ducks argument. Doesn't bother to look at the evidence under his nose...The qualities one looks for in an open and inquiring mind?

Adam B.

Henry, I stand by all those statements, because none falsely accuse anyone. You seem to be under the illusion that criticism of Israel is never anti-Semitic.

Not even you believe that.

Now about an answer to my other question...?

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.
What you said yesterday:
"No Henry, it's a way of refusing to engage with someone who accuses me of crying "antisemitism!" and then can't provide a single example"

I found several examples within seconds. I have read these blogs for several months now. A little longer, and I would have provided you with a plethora of examples. I am surprised you felt confident that none could be found.

Here's another recent one: "Greg D, your use of the term "Israelite" says a lot about you - your name isn't John Sullivan, is it? Seriously, you've given yourself away." (Just in case you can't remember what you intended by that comment, John Sullivan is the anti-Semitic idiot on YouTube.)

So now you find it expedient to shift your ground:

"You seem to be under the illusion that criticism of Israel is never anti-Semitic.
Not even you believe that." As you say, I do not believe that criticism of Israel is never made by anti-Semites. But then that was not the point at issue, was it?

You now say that, since excessive criticism of Israel can be a sign of anti-Semitism, then whenever you consider the criticism excessive, you can cry "anti-Semitism" with justification.

...remember?... yesterday?...you challenged me to find an any instance where you cried "anti-Semitism"?...and now you are arguing that you are perfectly justified in crying "anti-Semitism".

The only grounds you have now for righteously refusing to respond to the points I have made is that I didn't reply to one of your questions in a previous thread - and yet, as you were told at the time, I did respond, very early in that exchange. Your inability to read what is written has led you astray again.

I have overlooked the fact that you have addressed very few of the points and questions I have put to you here, and patiently tried to reply to everything you have said - so why flounce away when you (mistakenly) think I haven't answered one question in a previous thread? - running out of excuses to cover your retreat.

So now you are left with the righteousness but absolutely no justification for it.

If you have any substantive points...

phil

Adam .I am afraid you are getting what you deserve now ,I have tried my best, because I have great regard for you, to warn you off these discussions with your friend ,he is both stubborn and wrong on most occasions ,and that is without saying obsessed, which is obvious -if you walk in mud your shoes will get dirty and now you are up to your knees in his nonsense.You surely must see that he cannot help himself ,it is an addiction and you are fuelling it ,You will never achieve the truth from him and I am sure everyone else can see that too ,he is a sad case ,who wishes for admiration and praise ,its just a shame he cannot choose a subject where he might attain it .What a shame that the real Henry Sidgewick cannot speak from the grave and tell this man how abhorrent are his views and that he wants no part of them .

Adam B.

No Henry, I challenged you to find an unjustified accusation of anti-Semitism. I believe that Greg D's use of the term "Israelite" is indeed antisemitic. I stand by all those statements, as they expose real antisemitism. It's a pity that you can't distinguish between a false accusation and a justified one. Please try. Still waiting for your answer...

Adam B.

phil, I know you're right, of course you are. He will never change, because he is indoctrinated and obsessed. But you see, I just enjoy winding up Israel haters so much!

George

As I have been on holiday, I have thankfully missed much of the tedious repetition. However, I would like to answer one comment made by Henry. You seem unable to understand that when the IDF fires at legitimate military targets, there is no intention to cause civilian deaths. Unfortunately, Hamas seems to think that by using civilian buildings for military purposes, the IDF will be deterred from firing at them. Nothing could be further from the truth and the responsibility for all civilian deaths and injuries resulting from such legitimate and legal use of firepower is solely that of Hamas.
I have read the order of the day of the then commander of the IDF Paratroop Brigade given before his soldiers crossed into Gaza a year ago. He emphasises most strongly that his troops are to do everything to avoid civilian casualties. This order was carried out meticulously.

phil

:)
Adam B.
December 13th, 2009 12:51pm I think he will be even worse for wear if you ignored him.-the man needs customers .BTW GREG D never managed a translation :):)

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.,
I had been trying to explain to you how your frequent recourse to the cry of anti-Semitism obstructed rational debate. I should have gone with my instinct that you were not here for rational debate but merely because you "enjoy winding up" what you call "Israel-haters". I am no hater of Israel, but you have been wasting my time with such fatuities.

Henry Sidgwick

George,
I think the bit in the tedious repetition you pick up on was first set out by another contributor. When he made these same points to you a couple of months ago, you simply repeated to him that they were not so. Yet they come from Israeli sources. The doctrines expounded by the IDF in public, the aims they proclaim in public for their actions, and the munitions they are known to use appear to give substance to the argument that was put to you and which I have repeated here. Nothing you have said addresses any of this.

I should say (although my opinion is that of a layman) that I think that the IDF is probably one of the most professional armies in the world, as good as the US Army or the British Army (if not better), but that this does not preclude the deformation of good military practice that we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza, and in the policing of the West Bank. The IDF, like the US Army, is employed to ensure the security of the country (which is what an army is for), but the powers-that-be, as in the US, define security in terms that give unwarranted scope for offensive action and require of the armed forces what amounts to illegal aggression.

phil

George
December 13th, 2009 3:13pm
lucky you George we get it every day.:)

Adam B.

Henry, I see you have now retreated and accept that I have not use the term unjustifiably, but you claim that it stops debate. I think it is important to identify and expose antisemitism - iy seems you do not. Perhaps that is because so many of them agree with your anti-Israel position.

You say you are no hater, but you always have a bad word for Israel, never a good one, whilst the palestinians seem to be beyond criticism (at least not nearly what you heap on the Jewish state.) If that's not an irrational hater, what is?

Greg D

'BTW GREG D never managed a translation'

Are you referring to the term 'Israelite', Gerphil? If so, scroll back to my comment of December 7th, 2009 6:45pm. I know that the subtleties of my style are beyond your comprehensive capabilities, but that post should have made it quite clear that I was referring to theology/ideology, and not to race or ethnicity (the latter being concepts connotated by the term 'Semite'). There is therefore nothing 'anti-Semitic' about the language I employed. Adam, take note.

Quit the defamation, gentlemen. It's not nice.

Adam B.

Greg D, how disingenous!

Why else use the term - are Jewish people quaint to you?

Greg D

Adam -

Are Jewish people quaint to me? Well, if you mean by the term 'quaint' either 'strange in an interesting and pleasant way' or 'ancient' (as are the usual connotations), I would say yes - I do find the Jewish people quaint. Their history is a long and fascinating one. Rabbi Sack's book is an excellent one and very informative.

The matter of Jewish theology and in particular its normative dimensions, however, is an entirely different matter. I have said this before. You continue to ignore this fact and persist in misconstruing my position by painting me as a knuckle-dragging anti-Semite. I hope that the Spectators on this blog have seen through such a charade.

Philo

OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY:
"Israelite": one of the people of Israel; a Hebrew; a Jew; one of God's chosen people.

I hesitate to intervene in this spat, escpecially so late, but is a question of style being exploited to avoid a question of substance?

phil

Greg D
December 14th, 2009 5:11pm -of course not ,but perhaps I overtax your brain -try the yam stuff you will enjoy that when you work it out .You really are to easy greg at least henry shows he has been educated even though his facts get twisted in a similar way to your words -perhaps you both need a dose of UNWANESE .

Greg D

I don't believe so, Philo. Please note that the OED gives four synonyms for Israelite, only one of which is 'Jew'; 'one of God's chosen people' is another, and one which carries the theological connotations of which I have spoken.

phil

Philo
December 15th, 2009 9:19am and to whoever else it may concern including our man who only speaks UNWANESE-The term the chosen refers to the obligation to keep the laws handed to them on mount SINAI.It does not confer any other status upon the Jewish people nor send them in the direction of the oil rather than the oranges -I hope this is the last word we will hear on this subject especially from he who cannot speak clearly .

Adam B.

Greg D, I think you have managed to characterize yourself as such by your own hand.

WHY did you use the term? And as for ducking your "points" about Jewish theology, I see you are utterly ignorant of mainstream Jewish thoughts and beliefs. There is no discussion to be had, except to yourself.

Philo

Adam B.,
Can I ask whether you would think it legitimate to say that certain Talmudic scholars if given a fundamentalist interpretation can be taken to advocate beliefs and behaviours at variance with those generally considered acceptable in a liberal democracy; and that there are fundamentalists of this sort in Israel who arguably wield disproportionate influence as a result of Israel's particular form of democracy which allows small parties on occasion to hold the balance of power? Or would this too be anti-Semitism? I ask because I am no anti-Semite, but the bounds of what you consider allowable comment seem to be very narrow.

Greg D

'his facts get twisted in a similar way to your words' - phil

That is the truest thing you have ever written.

phil

Philo
December 16th, 2009 8:57am

I see you have changed your line of questioning and as Adam is probably at work I will tell you that ,yes of course there are looneys who are religious freaks and who advocate appalling behaviour ,but does Israel have to be condemned because of their nonsense when in fact it shows its disgust .Do we as a BRITISH NATION have to stand accused because of what Enoch Powell said ?,or what jack the ripper did ? I think my questions may answer yours, so I hope you will not continue so regularly to make what appears to be pointless innuendo ,and then say you are not anti -Semitic .You are the only one who knows the truth of that ,not us and frankly I do not care ,it seems to bother you more than me so just leave that subject be please .

phil

Greg D
December 16th, 2009 9:17am

-well at last we seem to have agreed on something even though your inability to express what you think has probably in fact said the opposite of what you meant to say -no problemo greg este es normal para ti .thats Spanish and my other earlier offering was Yiddish which you obviously do not understand either .:)

Philo

Phil,
"I hope you will not continue so regularly to make what appears to be pointless innuendo ,and then say you are not anti -Semitic..."

Are you talking to me? or talking past me at someone else?

Greg D

Philo, your assumption is correct, and your questions actually struck a cold sliver of shame into my own heart. The curtains parted with your words; I saw phil in my mind's eye, obviously very grey(as the beano et al references and the lack of work - read retirement - make clear) and slipping into senility at his screen: memory faltering, mixing up his enemies; vision blurred, struggling to find the right keys (hence the shoddy spelling).

I applaud you, old man, in trying to keep your mind sharp. Since it is no longer so, I will henceforth go easy on you. You see, I do hold the idea of compassion dear - and it is not restricted to just one people. To avoid further embarrassment, however, I recommend that you stick to less controversial topics.

phil

Philo
December 16th, 2009 4:09pm ------- was that a question or a supercilious remark -you are well aware of what I said and what I mean ,BUT IF YOU NEED IT CLEARER -STOP ASKING SILLY QUESTIONS AND THEN CRYING THAT YOU ARE NOT ANTI-SEMITIC.The very fact that you keep mentioning it implies that you think you may be perceived as such -I told you I do not give a damn what you are ,but you obviously do .

phil

Greg D
December 16th, 2009 4:54pm
Greg old bean apologies I never noticed your best post yet and your excellent pen portrait of me, my compliments ,all wrong of course, but well written .Now any complaints about my spelling must be sent to my spellchecker which is yankee you know so you might struggle ,possibly the late Stanley Unwin could have helped you ,ok perhaps not.

I do enjoy our comedy ,well mine anyway, and it does stretch my mind a little unlike the stuff that poor wilhelm sends which are just copy and paste of what I have written ,but he is Swiss you know and most of them are so bright he has had to leave

.May I suggest a date with the lovely philo where you can discuss so many fascinating subjects that you both enjoy so much ,she may in fact be a man ,but we will only know that when you meet and report back .Meanwhile I await with baited breath your next set of insults which give me great joy and of course your report on my spelling abilities ,so I must end now as I have much to say on the school issue and I thank you for your kind remark there :)

Adam B.

Greg D, you can add condescension and ageism to your many charming qualities.

What a winner you are.

Greg D

Thanks Adam! Jolly kind of you, sir!

P.S. When did conservatives ever believe in 'ageism'? Tut, tut, young man.

Adam B.

Greg D, the question is, when did you, as a liberal/lefty?

Korbin Dallis

The Christian church is the creator of the majority of Judeophobic bigotry. Implicit in the hollocaust particularly in Croatia where people were made to convert to Catholicism or were sent to death camps all with the full support of the pope. Religions are solely money making and exist in competition to one another of course they go to great lengths to disguise this, they have to or the game is up.