The debauching of the LSE

veracity

Hoist by their own petard and I for one will enjoy the spectacle and do my bit towards telling the alumni.....

Truthtriumphs

It's called reaping the whirlwind.
Events sometimes foil the best laid plans.

Oflife

Told you so. I have been commenting on this very forum for years (under various aliases) how oil money is behind most of the filth in this country. The reason the Jews are targeted (outside of the US which respects success) is because they are smart, funny and successful (without cheating) and losers cannot stand those who shine brighter. (This trait is very common in the UK, which is why our TV shows are full of rude, talentless people who put people down, and harmless funny comedians and intellectuals no longer populate our screens.) Today, you have to be pretty and dressed in designer clothes.

#sincerity

AY

Those who talk about stealth Islamization, are just plain wrong.
It is highly visible, respectable, and well paid business on both sides, - for which those on receiving end become more and more satisfied and proud.

Proud when bribed.
Proud when intimidated.
Proud when giving up heritage.
Proud when paying dhimmi taxes.
Proud when betraying allies.

Proudly Islam-compliant Britain.

gareth

You got it Oflife. Being shameless is the dominant characteristic of our comedians and celebrities on TV today, as well as not being funny.

edward r eddy

I must thank you Melanie for your position as a defender of Israel. Unfortunately here in Australia your voice is seldom heard. I have enjoyed your writings and look forward to future comments in light of the turmoil currently under way in the middle East and africa. Stay Safe.

Grumpy true Zionist

loved Nick Cohen's article - Our absurd obsession with Israel...especially the part relating to LSE relationship to the qadafi clan;

makes reference to some ponce called david held of LSE when receiving 1.5 mil (sterling) from an arab thug, saif al islam (prodgeny of muammar) and saying about this blood money:

'I've come to know Saif as someone who looks to democracy, civil society and deep liberal values, for the core of his inspiration.'

excuse me
have to go and toss my cookies....
there feel much better now

Derek BLADES

Universities that rely on private funding inevitably take money from dubious sources. Many of the people who are rich enough to fund a new faculty or university have pasts that do not bear close scrutiny. Think Ford, Oral Roberts, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Maxwell, …

Religious foundations built Britain’s oldest universities. That could rightly be seen as a "gross corruption of academic standards". But it has all worked out quite well in the end.

A storm in a tea-cup, Melanie.

Merlyn

Melanie, you made me laugh out loud with the absurdity of the British people, who just cant seem to see how stupid they are looking... and they want grants to go into universities?

YG

Sickness exposed.
The dirty oil money from dictators in the arab world have contaminated all the "Human Rights" organizations as well. Look at HRW who was caught raising money in Saudi Arabia.

Lynn Johnston

I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. It would be interesting to know the extent Middle Eastern funding in British Universities and also as a proportion of newspaper and media advertising revenue. I would also like to know what proportion of British Trade is with the Middle East in the construction and military industries as well as in the oil industry. He who pays the piper calls the tune. I think it is time for British Democracy to clean up its act.

hyperbolics

As the funding cuts take hold we can expect even more cash for honours (degrees).

Greg

It would be nice to think those institutions who take Arab blood money would be ashamed but they forwent shame a long time ago. They probably equate money from Jewish donors with Zionist blood money.

Greg

Why can't I post entries such as this one to Facebook or Twitter? You know, social media that folks actually read?

Edward in the USA

I wonder how much influence the LSE had on the "compassionate" early release of the convicted bomber of Pan Am 103.

For the LSE "compassion" is for those lucrative Libyan oil contracts that supported the 42 year Ghadaffi regime.

William Reid Boyd

Yes, entirely agree. Funnily enough I happen to be currently embroiled with a British university (nothing to do with Israel) over a matter involving a celebrity associate of the university misrepresenting himself as a 'professor' on professional networking sites and I can tell all here that the efforts of the university to protect the reputation of its associate is truly nauseating to behold.

If they cannot be depended upon to regulate satisfactorily their own standards of public life then I don't see but that an independent body should do it for them.

Jack R

As an LSE graduate, I am appalled by what a pro-Islam, anti-Israel institution the LSE has become.

LSE shocked me

Jack R,

They were not better before. Replace 'Islamic' by 'Soviet' and you get the same picture 30 years ago. I have been with not much exaggeration persecuted there for my unfriendly views of the USSR. Caught professor aiming at misleading students by making false statements about past events deliberately to serve his ideology, some other teaching staff displayed heavy ignorance. Bed eggs, enemies of truth, western civilization, collectively, with few exceptions.

CD

Derek BLADES
"Religious foundations built Britain’s oldest universities. That could rightly be seen as a "gross corruption of academic standards". But it has all worked out quite well in the end."

It worked out well because they were Christian. Even if the men behind it had feet of clay, the light of truth shines.

Gross corruption of standards? On the other hand one of the reasons Newton says he wrote Principia was the hope that people would see the order and turn to their Creator!

Kayson

And to think Gadaffi's son, Saif Al Islam, has a doctorate from the London School of Economics. Shame on the LSE. Having spent 25 years living and working as a teacher in the Arab world, it was common practice among teaching colleagues to prepare and write theses for Arab nationals undergoing postgraduate courses in the UK.

Rob-NY

The "progressive" left so supportive of recent
"pro-Democracy" uprisings have spent years trying to undermine the one strong Democracy in the Middle-East which is Israel and the fledgeling and fragile Democracy in Iraq.

blue_&_white_avenger

Jack R - wasn't Robert Mugabe, that genius of economic mismanagement also a product of LSE ?!

Edgar Davidson

The problems with the new Middle East Centre at the LSE, are a lot deeper than suggested in the Times' story. I first raised the alarm about this Centre when I discovered that its publicity material featured a map that eradicated the State of Israel:

http://edgar1981.blogspot.com/2010/12/lse-s-new-middle-east-centre-eradicates.html

Follow-ups to the story in chronological order:

http://edgar1981.blogspot.com/2011/01/lses-anti-israel-middle-east-centre.html

http://edgar1981.blogspot.com/2011/01/another-update-to-lse-middle-east.html

The lat contains a response from Howard Davies which defies belief.

Edgar Davidson

Truthtriumphs

Blades.

Once more, how dare you raise your head again on this thread, without giving an explanation for your defence of the BBC, whilst refusing to explain the latter's outrageous expenditure of some half a million pounds of licence-fee money, suppressing the findings of the Balen Report, which it commissioned to investigate anti-Israel bias within its organisation?
I shall remind readers of this blog on every thread, until you do.
Meanwhile, your silence on this issue is a testament to your own hypocrisy and disregard for the truth.

As to this post and your "storm in a tea-cup" jibe, interesting how you trivialise whatever does not fit your world view.

Stephen Rothbart

It seems strange to think that the denial of free speech and the boycotting of Israeli visitors to the university campuses around the UK and even in th US are considered by people like Derek Blades as being of no consequence and a "storm in a tea cup."

This from the man who constantly harps on about the Zionist plot to control the world's media, but seems blind to the flagrant removal of any Jewish narrative when it comes to discussions about the Holocaust, or the Palestinian question and the complete boycotting of anything from Israel, even if some of those Isrelis are aganst their own government.

Are the Saudi funded private schools that practice hate crimes with impunity, and help to radicalize these impressionable Muslim youth mere storms in a tea cup?

All over Europe we are seeing a pattern where Muslim sensitivities are taking precedence over the secular life of the host countries, and it seems to me to be pat of a strategy.

It is a form of censorship and it is coming from Libya, Saudi Arabia and Pakistani madrasses.

The connivance by the governors and teachers and administrators of the LSE and other Universiities in this is very worrying.

This is not just about Jews or Israel either.

Any public or private body that slants its behaviour to meet the sensitivities of its sponsor is acting against the tenets of our once free society.

It is wrong and unacceptable.

davod

The Islamists are getting plenty for their money out of US academia. Mind you, the academics were pretty much on board before the millions started rolling in afetr 9/11.

The money is used to openly institutionalize the teaching of Sharia in the universites.

EDDIE

London School of Filthy Economics?
Filthy london School of Economics?
London School of Economic Filth?
Look at it any way you like

Jennie Laurie

Melanie - keep speaking up - don't give up.

Roy

Indeed a disgusting spectacle. We all knew to some extent the debauched academia's standards when money swings their feeble minds. The ones who are supposed to possess a more noble instinct, are credited with a finer knowledge in all things. Yet betray their country and the cause of truth, are little more than venal cockroaches from the filthy sewers of depravity.

Derek BLADES

Stephen Rothfart makes two charges against me.

First, that I consider the "denial of free speech and the boycotting of Israeli visitors to the university campuses around the UK and even in th US" to be of no consequence.

And second, that I "constantly harp on about the Zionist plot to control the world's media".

Once again,the good Rothfart is confusing me with someone else. I have never commented on either matter. For the record I am strongly opposed to the denial of free speech and the boycotting of Israeli speakers. And I have never made the ridiculous suggestion that there is Zionst plot to control the world media. I rather tend to ridicule conspiracy theories of any persuasion.

Could I ask Stephen to supply chapter and verse for his allegations (which of course he cannot do) or apologise for making up slanderous lies about me.

Raymond Douglas

If the situation was not so tragic, you would have to laugh. The one stable democracy, with western -style standards in everything from education to civil rights, is treated with disdain. Whilst countries that are the complete opposite, are feted over and crawled to ! Truly, these so called clever Academics , are shown up as they really are ! Trouble is, we poor plebs have to live with the disastrous results of their "clever , clever" attitudes.

raymond

Blades. Answer Truth triumphs allegations regarding the Balen report and the BBC. Until you respond, you will never be taken half-way seriously !

Owen Morgan

Typically excellent piece, Melanie. Please keep them coming. The London colleges used to be among the best in the world. Imperial probably still is, but the rest are lost.

D. Druhl

"People of the West are so easily taken in, they are fools"... is a comment of an Arab acquaintance of mine from decades ago, as the West adheres to a set of values which are totally ignored in the Arab and Islamic culture. But trying to be "fair", "liberal", and "multicultural" the West ignores such observations to not only their own embarrassment, but endangering their safety as well.

One of the favourite stories is the attempt to get an Israeli boycott by a so-called Palestinian group meeting on the very weekend that a huge, glamorous, and luxurious shopping mall opened in Gaza. People in the west are lazy of mind and deserve to be taken in unless they wake up one of these years.

Andy Gill

The sight of British academics whoring themselves out to totalitarian murderers like Gadaffi and racists like Sheikh Zayed is sickening.

I do hope this affair is getting the publicity it deserves in America.

Augustus

I think that there might be two pathological and interconnected
reasons for this demonization of Israel. The first is simply in line with the cordon sanitaire of leftist elite thinking in wanting to please those of the Muslim faith who line their pockets with donations. The second, the slightly more noble wish to appease the increasing amount of
students who follow the Muslim faith. However, given that 'war
is the continuation of politics
by other means', those who refuse to counter a political ideology which is warlike, by opposing it, will only end up committing a suicidal form of cultural relativism. People who
do that might just as well, and especially in an age when the whole of the Arabic world and Iran is boiling over and bleeding, take a trip on a flotilla bound for Gaza, and once there, under the pretext of
helping the inhabitants of this
strip of land with the highest rate of population growth in the world, see how they can go about provoking the Israel armed
forces.

Ian C

" This gross corruption of academic standards, and with it the mindset of the intelligentsia, sits at the very heart of the British derangement over Israel. "

And much else besides.

Celato

Truthtriumphs/raymond:

I don't suppose Derek Blades will thank me for sticking my oar in when he's no doubt quite capable of looking after himself. But I think the nasty, harassing tone you both adopt here has wider implications than a personal quarrel with him.

Hundreds of questions and challenges go unanswered in these blogs and for hundreds of different reasons. OK, it can be frustrating - but more often than not it just raises a whoop because the other guy "lost" and that's an end to it.

Not in this case. You (and one or two others) seem to think you have a God-given right to DEMAND replies to particular questions, not just in the context of the discussion in which they were raised but every single time the contributor participates thereafter.

That is bullying. Worse, it smacks of an attempt to "shut down" people whose views you don't like. Some correspondents may be tough enough to shrug off constant barracking of this kind, but others will effectively be cowed into silence.

If you think this is a fair enough way to conduct debates, just bear one thing in mind: anyone can play the game - undermining everything YOU say on any subject under the sun by dredging up something you didn't answer two dozen threads ago. I sincerely hope this doesn't happen.

Quite apart from anything else, it's just plain boring for those of us who neither remember, know nor care what the original argument was.

Arnold Levan

The Haifa Technion has 20% Arab pupils. Enough said.

Shimon

Another example of a disgusting, corrupted moral and academic standards of some British Universities. These pseudo-intellectuals (or rather Useful Idiots) should be opposed by all academics around the world.

cityca

So it would not be unfair to say that when you hear a person of the left or of the academic left sound off on behalf of matters Arabic or Islamic, that it's more than likely that money or influence (but mainly money) has changed hands.

Perhaps when these people stand up in public, we should all be shouting out as loud as we can, 'follow the money'.

Derek BLADES

Celato.

Thank you for sticking your oar in with your comment addressed to Truthtriumphs/raymond

I did in fact reply to the question about the Balen report on the earlier thread where the question was originally raised. Apparently neither of them saw it but I think it is still there if they care to look.

"Please answer the question" - sometimes with the addition "A simple yes or no will suffice" - is one of the more pointless tactics used on this web-site. In reality, the people who ask don't actually want your answer. They want you to give them their answer, and when you don't they grumble that “You haven't answered the question.”

I did answer the question about the Balen report because I think it is a pretty straightforward issue, but I usually don't because it wastes everyone's time.

I am probably one of the more thick-skinned contributors to this blog and will not be bullied off it. But I do appreciate your kind thought.

Truthtriumphs

Celato.

So glad you posed the question---I shall attempt to answer you.

You may remember the WW11 slogan-- "careless talk costs lives".
In the case of Blades and many others, this is not so much careless talk as dangerous propaganda---part of a pre-determined strategy to destroy the Jewish state, dressed up in the fig leaf of moral rectitude.
You know very well that Israel is unlikely to be destroyed militarily, and so there is a systematic, worldwide, unrelenting strategy to de-legitimise it using every trick in the book.
Once the end game has been reached, heaven forfend, then its demise would be assured.
When Blades, and others, have no compunction in using falsehoods and trickery in the pursuit of this goal, then we have every right to hold him to account.
When he lies about the impartiality of the BBC, indeed praises it for its excellent service, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary, then it is no more than reasonable to ask him why he thinks that the BBC suppressed the results of the findings of a report into this question, that it itself
commissioned.
Either Blades will have the honesty to answer my question--doubtful--- or, he will evade answering, which he has until now.
In the latter case, he will be exposed for all to see, as a liar.
It is important to force a response, one way or another, as this blog, seemingly, has global reach.

Blades doesn't so much present an argument, as makes vile accusations which cost lives.

As an example, the case of the boy, Mohammed al Dura, supposedly killed by the IDF in cross fire, was proven to be a fake.
This little hoax set off an intifada, which cost more than 1,000 innocent lives.

So, no, I make no apologies, and unlike Blades, never lie in pursuit of an ideological goal.

If you are bored by this, I remind you that we still live in a free society, and you are not forced to read the comments here.
I always pass over those I find tedious and uninteresting.
I shall spare you embarrassment, and not name names.

David Sternlight

I am glad that my Ph.D. from LSE came at a time when the actual degree was issued by the University of London. If I had attended more recently and received an LSE degree, I would be forced to return it.

Truthtriumphs

Blades.

You cannot seriously expect anyone with a modicum of intelligence to accept that evasion as an answer, can you?

Here's the answer we all know to be correct:-- the BBC was embarrassed and shamefaced by the findings of the Balen Report, and so tried every trick in the book to prevent publication, including shamelessly, spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of our money keeping it secret.
What do they have to hide?
You know that's the reason, but you haven't the decency to admit it.

Doesn't it say something about you that you, uniquely, write your name in upper case letters?

Adam B.

Blades

You denied there was a problem with anti-Semitism in the Arab and wider Islamic worlds. I presented you with evidence to the contrary, which showed alarming rates of anti-Semitism in several such countries - specific examples. You haven't even acknowledged it.

Why?

Adam B.

Blades, you didn't answer the point about why public funds are used to keep the Balen report secret from...the public.

Why indeed would they wish for it to be secret? Is it not in the public interest - as a public body for which we pay?

Truthtriumphs

Celato. And one more thing.

"You (and one or two others) seem to think you have a God-given right to DEMAND replies to particular questions, not just in the context of the discussion in which they were raised but every single time the contributor participates thereafter.

That is bullying. Worse, it smacks of an attempt to "shut down" people whose views you don't like".

Aren't you forgetting something, Celato?
Just to remind you, it is Blades, you and others who are forever ATTACKING Israel, making false accusations, distorting the facts of the Mandate to question the legality of her re-creation, etc. etc.
I, together with Adam, Augustus and others, DEFEND Israel, and refute the falsehoods.
In that context, it is absurd and disingenuous to accuse us of shutting down the debate.
No, your real objection is that, far from shutting down debate, we expose your arguments for what they really are.
I'll leave it to others to decide who are the bullies in this scenario.

Paulson

Good article, Melanie.
Greate quote, Mr Blades "...apologise for making up slanderous lies about me"....Almost fell over laughing!

Rip Van Winkle

Don't know why you all keep yakking away; going back to sleep.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Augustus: "People who
do that might just as well, and especially in an age when the whole of the Arabic world and Iran is boiling over and bleeding, take a trip on a flotilla bound for Gaza, and once there, under the pretext of
helping the inhabitants of this
strip of land with the highest rate of population growth in the world, see how they can go about provoking the Israel armed
forces."

or..continue to use Facebook for the good of Arab and moslem liberation, blind to the fact that it was invented by a Jew who is currently the youngest billionaire in the world. I guess the irony is lost on those Jew-haters...

Celato

Derek Blades:

Your observation on Feb 28th, 7.09pm: 'They want you to give them their answer and when you don't they grumble that "You haven't answered the question".'

Truthtriumphs' post of Feb 28th, 9.35pm: 'Here's the answer we all know to be correct:-'

For one glorious moment I thought he/she was displaying a sense of humour and taking the mick. But then I read the rest...

Your analysis was spot-on.

Adam B.

Celato - what "analysis"?

So far, Blades made a baseless claim that anti-Semitism doesn't really exist in the Arab world. Presented with evidence to the contrary, showing that it runs as high as 97%, he goes quiet.

In the past, when discussing how aggressors have, habitually throughout history, lost territory as a result of aggression, he claimed, again baselessly, that this had only ever happened with Israel and the Arabs, and that the Axis powers ended the war with all their territory intact. When it was pointed out to him that this too was untrue (on a massive scale), he went quiet.

He has not explained how using public money to suppress the Balen report from the public is a good use of public funds (the BBc has wasted over £200,000 keeping it secret from us).

Seems it doesn't take much of an "analysis" (or historical knowledge) to impress you.

Celato

Adam B:

I was referring to analysis of a debating style, typically found in this blog, which goes something like this:

Person A: Why do you hate Israel?

Person B: I don't hate Israel.

Person A: Since you refuse to tell me why, I'll tell you - it's because you are an anti-Semite.

Truthtriumphs

Celato.

"Quite apart from anything else, it's just plain boring for those of us who neither remember, know nor care what the original argument was."

You, evidently, don't find it as boring as you would have us believe!

Adam B.

Celato - you're wrong. The debating style goes something like this:

- Israel is guilty of this and that.

- No it isn't, and here's the explanation, with evidence, refuting your claims. In addition, here is more evidence showing that what Israel is accused of, is indeed true of the entities hellebent on destroying her.

- (Ignoring the above), Israel is guilty of a different this and that.

(repeat ad nauseam).

Truthtriumphs

Celato.

Carry on digging.

Steve

Adam B,

Or there is the other line of debate which goes like this...

- Why do you obsess about arabs losing houses but have nothing to say about Jews thrown out of their homes throughout the Arab World?

- Silence.

- Can you explain why you obsess about every perceived injustice perpertrated by Israel whilst remaining silent about far worse attrocities committed by others?

- Silence.

- Could you explain why Israel is repeatedly berated by the UN who simultaneously has almost nothing to say about Darfur, Somalia, China, Libya, Syria etc. etc.?

- Tumbleweed.

- Could you at least acknowledge the issue of antisemetism in the Arab World which poisons all discourse and prevents the creation of any level of trust which would make peace possible?

- Nada.

Stephen Rothbart

Steve B 08.58 - Brilliant! Spot on, to the point and short.

Just like me! (DB for reference)

Celato

Adam B and Steve:

Perhaps the problem is that very few people participating here afford the slightest respect to views which conflict with their own.

Opponents are seen as having "hidden agendas", or "lacking integrity" and so are painted as destructive forces to be defeated. To concede even an inch would be unthinkable against such wily, vicious foes!

A perfect metaphor for the Middle East in fact ...

Look again at the debating scenarios you give (and mine too), substituting the word "Israel" for "Gaza", "Jews" for "Arabs", etc, and I think you will see what I mean.

No doubt you will accuse me of bias if I say that (on balance) there is a greater tendency among the "Israel can do no wrong" camp to demonise opponents in a bid to score points than the other way round. So maybe one of these days I will make a proper tally and re-evaluate.

Steve

Celato,

You are of course aware that thisis the blog site of a prominent Israel supporter aren't you? If you want to test your theory try looking at so-called neutral blog sies like the Guardians CiF pages and then try convincing yourself that it is only the pro-Israeli posters that are intransigent. Words like apartheid, occupation, land theft, disproportionate, sinister etc. are only EVER used by one group of people and it's not this camp.

Instead of producing more ad hominen attacks on the posters here, why not try answering some of the questions posed on my last post?

BTW, fyi I think it is reasonable to say that almost every pro-Israeli, including members of it's cabinet and armed forces, accepts that Israel makes mistakes and frequently could handle things better. Your thesis that pro-Isreali's will not hear a word said against Israel is utterly baseless. I ask again, if it is accepted that arabs have lost their homes as a result of the conflict and reparations should be paid why is it not also accepted that Jews (actually significantly more Jews) also lost their homes and should also receive compensation? I challenge you now to find me one single pro-Palestinian site or posting calling for reparations for Jews who have had their homes stolen by Arabs.

Celato

Steve:

I didn't realise you were addressing those questions to me personally.

Perhaps that's because: (a) I can't recall ever discussing the housing issue, let alone "obsessively"; (b) I don't keep a catalogue of Israeli injustices; (c) I've never written about UN resolutions; and (d) I haven't at any time claimed anti-Semitism was non-existent in the Arab world.

"Silence" in these circumstances is hardly surprising, then... is it?

Steve

Celato,

As you well know, I wasn't originally posing these questions to you or anybody else directly. I did however, in my last post offer you the chance to address them on behalf of the anti-Israel community that you have voluntarily offered yourself to represent.

As is typical in such circumstances, your response is to obfuscate, behave in a generally paranoid (why are you accusing poor me?) way and refuse even a modest attempt to address the issues, originally raised by you, about having a balanced debate.

Stephen Rothbart

Celato, it is a sad fact of life that when you make a comment of support for an opinion of Derek Blades as being "spot on" you will incur wrath.

Mr. Blades, who spends a lot of his time telling people they should learn to spell if they want to be taken seriously, also spends a lot of time deliberately misspelling my name in order to make a childish pun.

He also spends a lot of time making his point of view known, which is fine, but when challenged on a point prefers to attack the person rather than deal with the point.

This angers many here.

As Steve has said, most of us pro-Zionists, are, like Israelis themselves, critical of many things that Israel does.

The Labour Party in Israel and the newspaper Haaretz are even more critical of somethings Israel does than even Mr. Blades himself.

What I and many others here try to comment on is the relentless criticism of all things Israel from certain people, and so we try to question their motives.

For example we now see that the LSE where the Libyan government has invested so much money created a Middle East section that wanted to boycott Israel in a flagrant breach of free speech. Mr. Blades thinks this is a storm in a teacup.

Fortunately a move by the student union to organize a boycott at student level was voted out.

But neither of these august bodies ever thought that perhaps Libyas Human Rights record was a hundred times worse than Israels.

And as we see from the collapse of order in all the Arab countries, every one of them had evil and violent regimes that supressed their people.

Yet the only focus was Israel, Israel, Israel.

By the UN and by the EU and by our government.

So many of us question the legitimacy of such a bias and ask what drives it.

We think this is a fair question to ask of the anti-Zionists.

If the answer is simple and has no hidden agenda, then why be so shy to answer?

But they never do. They just shift to another question, as Steve has so eloquently pointed out.

So the question is directed not at you so much as to your opinion and what motivates a person to constantly choose Israel as the epitome of evil in the ME when there are so many better examples, and more extreme abuses of Human Rights exist elsewhere in the world that are ignored.

It is a fair question do you not think to question the motive behind this fixation, as it cannot just be an accident that the most criticised nation in the world today appears to be the only Jewish one.

And if anti-Semitism is not the reason, then it should be simple to explain what is.

Adam B.

Celato - you use the term "Israel can do no wrong camp" - thus exposing your own prejudices and lack of balance - whilst you are blind to what Blades writes. Look how many posts he has written criticizing the Arabs - not one, yet you don't call him "the Palestinians can do no wrong camp". You then have the nerve to say "on balance" Israel supportes "demonise" in order to score points.

Well, as Mandy (almost) said, "you would, wouldn't you"?

Derek BLADES

Stephen Rothbart asks "what motivates a person to constantly choose Israel as the epitome of evil in the ME when there are so many better examples, and more extreme abuses of Human Rights exist elsewhere in the world that are ignored." His question is addressed to Celato (who can certainly answer for himself) but I would like to give him my response.

First I know of no contributor who suggests that Israel is the "epitome of evil in the ME". I have criticised the Israeli government for the war on Lebanon, Cast Lead, the Gaza blockade, West Bank settlements and its present refusal to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians. In doing so I am following the orthodox line of the EU and the UN, the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States and, to their credit, most thoughtful Israelis and much of the Israeli media. That is a first point that Stephen Rothbart and his followers should understand. What they write about Israel really does represent an extreme fringe view. Trying to pin an extremist or, even more ridiculous, an anti-Semitic label on those with views similar to mine is absurd.

A second point Mr. Rothbart makes is that there are lots of nasty regimes in North Africa and the Middle East. I could not agree more and I have personally never written a word of support for the governments of any of these countries. What I do, however, is to insist that the people that have the misfortune to live in them are in their large majority ordinary people whose main concerns are those of any of us - earning a living, bringing up the kids, keeping reasonably healthy, looking after elderly parents and such-like. There is certainly antagonism towards Jews in North Africa and the Middle East – much of it promoted by Imans and governments - but this is not exactly surprising. Israel has done nothing to earn the respect of Arab people in neighbouring countries but, instead, seems to go out of its way to alienate as many Arabs and Moslems as possible and as often as possible.

It is quite true that I do not, on this blog, mention Darfur, Tibet, the central African wars and other atrocities world-wide. This is not the place for them. This place is about propagating extremist, right wing-view, conspiratorial views about Israel, religion, the BBC, climate change and the British education system. Those are the chosen topics of this blog and I will continue to provide what I believe to be commonsense views on the issues raised.

Stephen does not like me calling him Rothfart. If he promises to refer to me as: Derek Blades, Derek, or Mr. Blades, I promise not to do so in future.

I hope this answers your question, Stephen, but please get back to me if you need further information.

Stephen Rothbart

Derek, I really do not mind if you call me Rothfart. I just think it demeans you and thus your message.

As to your address to me, well at last and thank you for dealing with the issues at hand in the sort of response and tone that I have been waiting from you for some time now.

It is clear that your world view on Israel is based on the assumption that all this Arab animosity towards Jews and Israelis emanates from the fact that Israel exists and as it exists, it behaves badly towards its neighbours, and thus sort of deserves all the vitriol aimed against it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what comes out at me from your reply.

You seem to be happy to report that many Israelis share that view, and that fact is one of the reasons why Israel is a great country. It has many diverse points of view, and as a democracy, should the prevailing agenda of the country that Peace with the Palestinians, whoever their leaders are, is paramount, then that is what will happen.

In a democracy, there will always be a large number of people who oppose the government line. That is healthy and necessary. Israelis have that choice.

The Palestinians do not. Small demonstrations along the lines of what is happening all across the regions are actually happening in Gaza and the West Bank, but it is not in the interests of the status quo to report that Palestinians are also sick of their leaders, so it goes unmentioned in the main Presses of the world.

I will not waste your time on all the points you raised because you have your point of view and I know from past experience you do not like a long read!

Let me just use one exampe of why I think you are wrong.

Let's say you are watching a soccer game on TV. During the game you are distracted by something or someone. Suddenly you here a roar and when you look back you see the goalkeeper punch one of the opposing forwards in the face.

Along with the fans of the forward you are horrified at such an action and join in the demand for the goalkeeper to be sent off.

The referee agrees with you and them and the goalkeeper is dismissed.

Then in the replay, you see that the forward did something really dangerous in challenging for the ball that could have caused the golakeeper serious injury.

So your view is now that it was right the goalkeeper was sent off but that what he did was in retaliation for something that happened to him and suddenly he is not a thug, but someone who retaliated to something really dangerous for him.

That is how I see it, and thanks but I have no followers!

This is just my view, shared by some and not by others.

Anti-Semitic acts in Palestine are well documented from the late 1890's.

The spiritual leader of the Palestinian Arabs was a great supporter of Hitler and the Final Solution.

The Koran is full of violent things to do against Jews and infidels, again, long before Israel.

These pre-date Israel. They even pre-date the Balfour Declaration and the British Protectorate.

So to me, to put it once again in soccer terms, you not only missed the original foul on the goalkeeper, you also missed the replay.

Derek, I just think that your view is so set, you have no interest in even looking at the replay.

My view is that it is fair the goalkeeper is punished but the opposing forward should have been sent off too.

In the Israeli/Palestinian world, the opposing forward is NEVER set off.

Celato

Steve:

The issue I raised was - as you rightly say - about having a balanced debate. In your last post, however, you seem to be accusing me of "obfuscation" by declining to answer a specific set of questions you posed on topics I told you I had never participated in debating, let alone was "obsessional" about.

In what way would my rising to your challenge help to achieve "balance"?

All I would be doing is talking about matters outside the range of my knowledge/experience - necessarily on the "modest" level you propose - proving ... what?

That I'm not as well-versed in the housing issue or UN resolutions as you are? That I haven't made an in-depth study of Arab anti-Semitism?

I suspect what you're after (and you'll doubtless correct me if I'm wrong) is this:

By committing to writing some half-baked comments, hastily researched, on issues on which you personally have expertise but I don't, I expose how ill-equipped I am to comment on ANYTHING to do with Middle East affairs.

If that's what you're after, it's as much tosh as if I were to challenge you to make a "modest attempt" to address "media representations of terrorism" (something I DO know a lot about) and then dismiss everything you say about 9/11 on the basis that you clearly know little about journalistic imperatives.

The reason I raised the subject of balanced debate in the first place was not as a "representative of the anti-Israel community". It was in irritation at seeing ancient arguments repetitively dredged up in order to undermine a correspondent's authority on quite unrelated matters. I would have been just as irritated if something you said twenty threads ago about the UN was constantly nagged at during debates about multiculturalism or the dumbing down of GCSEs.

So pardon me if I don't rise to the bait of your questions only to provide ammunition for similar ambushes on myself.

Derek BLADES

In his reply to me of 3 March Stephen Rothbart starts with this. "It is clear that your world view on Israel is based on the assumption that all this Arab animosity towards Jews and Israelis emanates from the fact that Israel exists..."

Wrong. I think that much (not all) Arab animosity towards Jews arises from the way in which Israel was created - not from the fact that it exists. Leaders in the West Bank and Gaza, the parties immediately concerned, have made it clear that they realise that Israel is here to stay. And so do all other Arab countries in the Middle East. Israel’s existence is not in question – nor, fortunately, is it under threat.

The root cause of Arab antipathy towards Israelis and, by extension, towards Jews more generally, is that in order to create Israel Palestinians were kicked off their farms and land to make way for Jewish immigrants and that instead of making conciliatory gestures to these unfortunate people, the Israeli government harasses and assassinates their representatives and bombards the general population of Palestinian refugees with high explosives.

If you reply, please keep it to the size of a single screen or I shall feel obliged to refer to you again as the windy Rothfart.

Celato

Adam B:

My exact words were: '...there is a greater tendency (on balance) among the "the Israel can do no wrong" camp to demonise opponents THAN THE OTHER WAY ROUND'. (Capitals added here for emphasis.) How much clearer an acknowledgment do you want from me that some correspondents present a "Palestinians can do no wrong" view?

I stick to my guns, however, in saying that the latter seem to be far less prone to demonising Israelis than the former are to demonising Palestinians. Furthermore, I think you will find (if you can be bothered to make a precise count) that the number of pro-Palestinian correspondents who NEVER concede wrongdoing by Arabs is proportionally very small.

...

Steve (re your post of March 2nd, 1.40):

You suggested I look at the Guardian's CiF site for a contrasting picture of demonisation. Haven't had a chance to do so yet, but will do over the next couple of days.

Go-Go

My alma mater has links with Kuwait - what's your views about that ladies and gents? Any thoughts on the risks to the integrity of my degree from its links with the Kuwaiti chiefs?

Truthtriumphs

Blades.

The more you try to justify your comments, the more you reveal yourself as a man of repugnant, dishonest opinions.
You still cannot/will not satisfactorily explain what the BBC has to hide in its refusal to publish the Balen Report.

According to you, this blog promotes "extremist views", ie. those with which you disagree.

You cannot even argue your minority viewpoint from a basis of knowledge--- just prejudice and bigotry.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Celato: "I stick to my guns, however, in saying that the latter seem to be far less prone to demonising Israelis than the former are to demonising Palestinians"

Stick to your guns, Celato. Given the extent of your twaddle, and the lamentable malaise - political, social, moral - which is the culture those you support - the shooting wont stop.

Stephen Rothbart

Derek, you have I am afraid, totally misread history.

The Palestine that you speak of did not exist as a country. It was an area ruled by the Turks and then under the British protectorate was partitoned for a Jewish and an Arab community.

Jews and Arabs had lived alongside each other for centuries. Not always in peace however, as the massacre of Yeshiva Jews in Hebron around 1922, I think, testifies.

I am afraid your reading sources are the same as the BBC, Guardian school of thought.

You actually believe that when the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah say they will never recognize Israel's right to exist, they are just stating their "negotiating" position.

When Abbas tells his people in Arabic, we will never give up the struggle, teaches the children geography on the region with the map showing no Israel, and that Jews are dogs and monkies, he is just having a jolly wheeze.

Are you not aware that the rebels in Libya are now accusing Gadaffi of being a Jew, becasue that is the worst insult they can give him.

That the CNN reporter beaten up in Egypt by a mob was also labelled a Jew, even though she is not?

Are you aware that the polls throughout the Middle East consistently show hatred of Jews (not Israelis) in the high 90%'s?

Israel is constantly under threat and never more so than now as western influence fades.

The point is that nothng an Israeli government can do will ever persuade these people to accept a Jewish precense in the Middle East.

They are now ethnically cleansing the Christians and each other's Islamic faiths from the Middle East as we speak.

I am sorry Derek, but going back to my soccer analogy, not only did you not watch the replay, you don't even understand the rules of the game.

Celato

Stephen Rothbart:

You ask what motivates a person to choose Israel as the "epitome of evil", given that there are so many worse examples of human rights abuses in the world...

This may come as a surprise, but until I started reading Spectator blogs, it never occurred me for one moment that Israel was considered in such a light by anyone other than the following: Israel's immediate neighbours with whom she is in long-standing conflict; the allies of those countries; virulent white supemacists, most of whose utterances are confined to swastika-draped websites; and extreme Islamist preachers and their acolytes outside the ME whose activities are universally (and fiercely) reviled by western politicians and the mainstream media.

Most people I encounter in real life - i.e, western Europeans - actually don't care a whit about what's happening in the Middle East, regarding the whole saga much as they did Northern Ireland - a hopeless, endless, incomprehensible mess.

Then I started reading Melanie Phillips' take on the world...

Not only is Israel portrayed here as the victim of near-universal hatred, but INCOMPARABLY so. The only mention made of other world trouble-spots is by way of illustrating the unfairness of such (alleged) torrents of vilification.

In vain I searched for evidence that Israel is, indeed, cast in this "epitome of evil" light. But all I found were distinctly political arguments (on both sides of the fence), some of it very strongly critical of Israel, but in nothing like the fiery tones taken against Islamists. Most of the western world as far as I could see bent over backwards to "keep Israel sweet", even when appalled by some particular military action or sticking point in negotiation. Israel was the west's ALLY, dammit! - that was, and remains, the predominant position.

Yet who would believe this perception of mine if their only source of information was the Melanie Phillips blog...?

Not only she but dozens of correspondents here perceive quite a different picture: anti-Semites, self-hating Jews, brainwashed members of public, treacherous politicians and even misguided teachers in Orthodox schools - all conspiring to destroy Eretz Israel. Every critical word in a Jewish or Israeli newspaper is pounced upon as a betrayal; the BBC and Guardian are regarded as positively satanic in their destructive zeal.

So, as to your question: Why would anyone wish to paint Israel as the "epitome of evil"? I really don't believe this image is true. Or at least not in the frame I think you mean - i.e, in the minds of this blog's contributors who challenge the Melanie Phillips analysis.

There may be one or two who feel that way, but the vast majority - certainly those who take pains to argue at length and stay the course - are much more temperate in their criticisms than the backlashes against them belie.

I have often seen detailed, thoughtful arguments blasted to shreds simply on the grounds that they don't express unconditional support for Israel - frequently accusing the author of anti-Semitism when (as a Jew myself) I can discern not the faintest trace.

I'm afraid if the impression given is that Israel is the sole focus of critical opprobrium in a brutal world, it's simply because - in this particular context - that's precisely where the focus is placed by the themes and rhetoric of almost all its threads.

Andrew Green

Melanie Phillips hits the nail bang on, but on Israel she is a complete apologist for behaviour that one associates more with arab autocarats. Of course Howard Davies should resign and has done so tonight. UK universities have sold their souls to the devil in the rush to obtain funding. But this has nothing to do with Israel.

Jack R

A thread at 'Harry's Place'
(2 March):

"Hate Preacher Who Legitimises Rape To Talk In LSE Islamic Society ‘Celebration’"

Jack R

Change the LSE regime:-

visiting professor there, NIALL FERGUSON, for Director!

Adam B.

Celato - proportionally very small where - on this blog? Try Cif and do another count.

Interesting that the phrase "Israel can do no wrong" rolled right off your keyboard, whilst "Palestinians can do no wrong" didn't auite make its way to being expressed specifically. hardly surprising from one who has shown where his colours are. At least be honest about your sympathies.

Adam B.

Blades, still think that Jews bring anti-Semitism on themselves?

That was a classic.

Stephen Rothbart

Celato, I am delighted that you feel that Israel is not high on the agenda amongst your circle of friends ad acquaintances.

But I am afraid that you must live a very sheltered life as far as watching the news or paying attention to the political directions of such august bodies as the UN, or the EU or most of the news outlets.

The fact is that the UN has issued more condemnations against Israel in the Security Council than on any other country in the world. And I am not talking about by two or three times more, either.

The UN also called for a report by Richard Goldstone to condemn Israel for its response to its attack on Gaza. He ignored all the testimony that Israel and her friends and witnesses offered and issued a damning report. To say it was a kangeroo court would be an insult to kangeroos.

Students all over the world, teachers, Trades Union leaders, writers, actooors and musicians call on boycotts and bans on all things Israeli and people have been trying to boycott shops like Sainsburys if they sell Israeli produce.

After the Turkish flotilla and Operation Cast Lead thousands of people took to the street to burn flags and march to the Israeli embassy to complain, all over Europe.

How many of those are standing outside the Libyan embassies right now?

The rise in anti-Semitic acts of vandalism and even personal attacks has risen alarmingly all over Europe and the blame for it is always put on Israel.

If you really want to have an idea of what goes on in the world today in singling out Israel and Jews for all this, I suggest you take the time to log on to TomGrossmedia.com.

Tom is a friend of Melanie Phillips and of Israel, and as a former journalist, he focuses on much of the things that worry Jews about the way Israel is being demonised and used as an excuse to hound Jews.

He is always readable and fair minded and always interesting.

It was he who first exposed the fact that Gaza had a new shopping centre and luxury hotels and restaurants, which the world media had studiously ignored, preferring to keep up the pretense that Gaza was a prison camp full of starving and deprived people.

Simply said, there is ample evidence out there to show that Israel is excessively and undeservedly demonised, and some of us feel duty bound to try to redress this bias and challenge the motives behind it.

JohnW

"...what a pro-Islam, anti-Israel institution the LSE has become..."

"has become"? This is not a recent phenomena. The LSE has been a hotbed of radical leftists and student-anarchists since the 60s. They're famous for it. It's what they do.

JohnW

"...teaches the children geography on the region with the map showing no Israel..."

This indeed the case. when working in Iraq for three years in the 80s I saw such school maps with my own eyes. I was told by iraqi friends that these maps were used all over the Arab world.

What say you to this vile indoctrination of the young, Celato and Mr. Blades?

Steve

Celato,

You claim that you were not aware of criticism of Israel before you read Melanie Phillips column (the column of a very public and prominent Israel supporter) and then state that "...I have often seen detailed, thoughtful arguments blasted to shreds simply on the grounds that they don't express unconditional support for Israel..." So you often read these things whilst being unaware that this subject was discussed!

If you do indeed check the Guardian site, I suggest that you also check the Cif Watch site (http://cifwatch.com/). This was set up to counter the rampant anti-semetism of the Guardian, is intelligently written and provides am alternative take on the Guardian line.

If you still doubt that Israel is uniquely singled out, you might also consider this, breathtaking bit of information...

“...As of 2010, Israel had been condemned in 32 resolutions by the UN Human Rights Council since its creation in 2006. The 32 resolutions comprised 47.76% of all resolutions passed by the Council....” (The usual source)

If that does nothing for you then watch this clip which clearly illustrates the problem with the UN - one rule for Israel, one rule for the rest approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU

I am neither Jewish nor Israeli but the demonization, selective memory and historical revisionism of the likes of Blades truly appals me.

Jack R

The crisis at the London School of Economics, which manifests itself in the financial and political subservience to certain Islamic regimes, extends to mmany British universities.

Stephen Pollard has an excellent piece in the 'Telegraph' entitled:

"Libya and the LSE: Large Arab gifts to universities lead to 'hostile' teaching"

[Extract]:

"Between 1995 and 2008, eight universities – Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, University College London, the LSE, Exeter, Dundee and City – accepted more than £233.5 million from Muslim rulers and those closely connected to them.

"Much of the money has gone to Islamic study centres: the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies received £75 million from a dozen Middle Eastern rulers, including the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia; one of the current king’s nephews, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, gave £8 million each to Cambridge and Edinburgh. Then there was the LSE’s own Centre for Middle Eastern Studies, which got £9 million from the United Arab Emirates; this week, a majority of the centre’s board was revealed to be pushing for a boycott of Israel."

logdon

Last night on QT David Starkey played a blinder.

Mickey Mouse degrees for the sons of wealthy Arabs was just one of his masterly riposts to this disgrace.

Celato

Steve:

Either you did not read my post carefully or are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. Whichever is the case, you are wasting my time.

1. I did not say I was unaware of "criticism" of Israel - only of the "epitome of evil" image suggested by Stephen Rothbart.

2. The reference I made to arguments "blasted to shreds" was in the specific context of these blogs. You (somehow) manage to infer from this that I'd claimed to be "unaware" that "this subject" (Israel, presumably?) was a discussion point.

Joshua

Derek Blades writes: "I think that much (not all) Arab animosity towards Jews arises from the way in which Israel was created - not from the fact that it exists."

Wrong.

Animosity against the Jewish people was rampant a very long time before. Even in 1882, Jews were regularly debased as "awlad al-mawt" (children of death), "shayatin" (devils), or "siknag," a derogatory slang word equivalent to "kike."

In short, antisemitism in "Palestine" then related in no way whatever to the formation of Israel as a Jewish state. It was hatred of Jews, pure and simple. And the fact that these derogatory terms exist in the historical record does indeed testify to the continued Jewish population.

Israel's existence as an excuse for Arab hatred of Jews made by Israel's detractors, is just a continuation of that long repugnant tradition in that it clearly tries to cover up a sad fact.
However, not all Arabs hated Jews. On the contrary, many did get on and would have continued to get on if the Mufti and his ilk were kept out of it. The British in Mandated Palestine ensured that they were not kept out of it and many times openly encouraged it.

Where is my proof? Following the outbreak of WWll the Mufti left with his thugs of Nazi sympathisers and by all accounts the Jews and Arabs could give a sigh of relief and got on so well that formed trades unions, assembled together, socialised and made a go of businesses. But the Brits feared a working class threatened their Empire - that it would encourage others to rebel and seek better terms and work conditions. The Brits did all they could to stop social cohesion: banning joint Arab/Jewish Unions, forbade the ciculation of Jewish newspaprs in Arabic, banned assemblies and so on and promised Abdullah to be an Emir of Jerusalem. And so on.

Nothing but nothing to do with "the way Israel was created" as Derek says.

Celato

Stephen Rothbart:

I don't think I lead a sheltered life, just a fairly normal one! (The people I know are a very mixed bunch, some taking more interest in world affairs than others.)

Of course I was aware that Israel attracted a good deal of critical media attention before coming to these blogs. I was rather more acutely aware that Middle East news centred either on bloodshed or reactions to violent incidents. (A wholly typical pattern of reporting: domestic news takes priority, with foreign events having to be extremely "dramatic" - preferably lethal - to compete.)

The perception I didn't (and still don't) share with you was of Israel being uniquely singled out as "most brutal" or "most blameworthy" as far as the western world was concerned. The "epitome of evil" label was stuck most firmly, and most visibly, on Islamic terrorism - and, by extension, any Muslim state suspected of harbouring or encouraging (or being ruled by) Islamists, along with their peoples.

Certainly Israel is widely seen in the world beyond Spectator blogs as brutal. The sheer weight of casualties inflicted by its troops compared to the number it sustains makes this inevitable. And certainly Israel is seen as blameworthy when enormous levels of force are employed in retaliation for comparatively minor attacks.

Its image is not exactly enhanced either (for better-read members of the public at least) when condemnations issued by bodies such as the UN are routinely shrugged off. Fair enough maybe in one, two, ten cases, I don't know - but almost EVERY SINGLE time ...? And from no matter what quarter that condemnation comes?

So to the imagery of Israel I might add "arrogant" and "intransigent".

But we're still nowhere near the level of clamour against Islamists circulating in Europe and the US, who in most people's minds I'd suggest, deflect a good deal of heat from Israel, simply by being ethnically or culturally associated with Israel's enemy: "Gallant little Israel might be a bit OTT with those Palestinians, but what else can they do with so many loony Islamic terrorists rampaging about..."

Responses of this sort aren't just found among members of the public who shun the broadsheet papers or fail to watch late-night TV documentaries; they pervade much of the "knowledgeable" discourse of journalists and politicians, too - comprehensively trumping any criticism of Israel except (fleetingly) when a particularly gruesome massacre occurs.

According to a Pew Research Centre survey, perceptions of a security threat primarily drive western attitudes towards Muslims.

Yet crime figures produced in the USA and Europe strongly call such perceptions into question. A Europol report in 2009, for eg, typically revealed that "separatist" groups accounted for 84% of terrorist incidents in the EU, with Islamists registering at just 0.4%; the rest were committed by "Left-wing" and "other" groups.

Can you in all honesty say this is the IMPRESSION given in western reportage?

Fear of Muslims doesn't come "out of thin air" but from the overall weight, style, tone and persistence of media coverage.

What motivated me, then, to contribute to the Spectator blogs was not a wish to "knock Israel" but to challenge some of the more outrageous statements and stereotypical images being circulated about Muslims. Since such remarks (here) come almost entirely in the context of "embattled, betrayed Israel" articles, questions surrounding Israel's supposed moral superiority and legal status naturally arise more often than not.

I'm by no means blind to wrongdoings on the Palestinian side - but I do refuse to aid and abet those who hype them up to a misleading (and often malevolent) degree by reciting a "disclaimer" at every turn.

Adam B.

Joshua, quite right. Blades has made such baseless claims before, recently stating that there really is no anti-Semitism in Arab countries. I referred him to the Pew Research Center, who showed rates of anti-Semitism in many Arab countries running as high as 97%.

He has simply gone quiet on it - but I'm sure he'll repeat the same nonsense a few blogs down the line.

Adam B.

JohnW, interesting posts about your time working in Iraq. Thank you.

Sebastian Hayes

Excellent. Couldn't agree more. I suggest that no further public money be given to the LSE, apart from its venality, it is clearly utterly incompetent because all these pontificating experts couldn't foresee the biggest financial meltdown since 1929. The only business the LSE knows about is itw own.

galada

I believe the LSE should receive no more public money. Apart from its venality, it is totally incompetent. A parade of self-styled experts not only failed to predict the biggest financial shake up since 1929 but went out of their way to poohpooh anyone who did give warnings. The only business the LSE knows about is running its own : in that case let it do so without public support.

Stephen Rothbart

Celato, I am not saying you live a sheltered life, but that as someone without a "dog in the fight" your interest in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perhaps understandingly superficial, much as I suppose mine is about what is going on for example in Cote d'Ivoire right now.

But I think to say that the pro-Zionists in this blog spend too much time demonizing the Palestinians and paying scant attention to what the Israelis are doing is to show you are blissfully unaware what it is like to live in a the world as a Jew.

Despite your belief, and that of Derek Blades, that there is no institutional anti-Semitism amongst the Arab populations in the Middle East, there is an avalanche of evidence, even in Arab commissioned polls, to prove you wrong in that canard.

Secondly, there are some that say that the fact Israel is so often condemend in the UN by the Human Rights Council is proof of their evil.

This ignores the fact that until just a few days ago, Libya was actually one of the members of this useless body. So I hardly think anyone with any common sense would think that any motion coming from there is worth the ink, let alone the paper it is written on. Derek Blades excepting.

Your final point that Israel must be brutal because you compare their casualties to their enemies is hardly a sensible remark.

NATO troops using drones and advanced weaponry killed between 9-16 civilians the other day in Afghanistan.

What is the world's reaction to that? Flags being burned in the street. UN motions? Banning of produce from the countries involved in the operation?

But somehow, critics of Israel seem to suggest that if the Palestinians are only using rockets and rifles and machine guns, then it is only fair that the IDF go into battle using exactly the same weaponry. If they kill ten Palestinians, they should at least sacrifice, what...? 5 or 6 of their soldiers to make people like you think better of their behaviour.

It is such a stupid argument I a not even sure why I am debating it with you. But as you raised it, I am compelled to answer.

The fact is that Israel's actual army is tiny when compared to the armies opposed to her.

That she is able to defend herself is because her soldiers are much more motivated and for the moment better armed and trained, as they know losing is the end, not only of their war, but also every man woman and child in Israel.

Their enemies have hundreds of millions of people, Israel has 6 million. If Israel wins a war it wll not kill every man woman and child of Islamic faith.

If it makes you feel any better, if Israel loses 1 soldier it is the same as if her enemies lost 50.

So don't despair, the odds are pretty much in favour of the Arabs.

I know that is not your wish, you are obviously a decent man and wish only good for both sides.

But your naivete in believing there is absolutely any good will among the Palestinians towards making peace with Israel is what makes your argument rather weak.

There is an instilled hatred of Jews in the Middle East. They don't want any.

That is the entire starting point for any considerations between Israel and Palestine.

Very few people either understand or accept that.

But stillthe world condemns only Israel, which tolerates all other faiths in its society, like no other state in the Arab world.

So we Jews get pretty fed up with the demonization of Israel and Jews, and most of us believe there is a reason for this situation.

Perhaps to the casual observer such as you, we come over a bit shrill, but forgive us our paranoia. We have seen it all before, and we all know families who lost relatives as a result of this kind of singling out persecution.

Truthtriumphs

Blades...the Balen "denier".

In answer to your grotesque remark that the Jews have brought anti-semitism upon themselves, here is the observation of a real historian...or doesn't it count because he's a Jew?

Historian Robert Wistrich, Director of the International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism, has argued:

“The scale and extremism of the literature and commentary available in Arab or Muslim newspapers, journals, magazines, caricatures, on Islamist websites, on the Middle Eastern radio and TV news, in documentaries, films, and educational materials, is comparable only to that of Nazi Germany at its worst.”

Derek BLADES

Joshua tells me that "...antisemitism in 'Palestine' .....related in no way whatever to the formation of Israel as a Jewish state."

The proof he offers is that Palestinians were cross about the Zionist invasion even before the State of Israel was formally declared.

Hey Josh. There's this bridge I've got in Brooklyn. Interested? We can talk about the price.

Stephen Rothbart

Derek, I am sure Joshua can speak for himself, but you have entirely misquoted him. You put words in his mouth about a "Zionist invasion" that he did not use.

Joshua referred to the vocabulary of Palestinian Arab attitudes towards Jews in 1882, about 4 years before Zionism was even on the map as an "ism!"

I have a feeling that you have given up your job at the OECD to become a journalist at the Guardian.

Shoddy journalism indeed.

However, just to show I am a fair person, I inadvertently misuoted you once, accusing you of using the word "Naqba."

You challenged me about it and I looked it up, and it appeared in a response that had no name at the time. The style of writing was similar to yours as was the author's point of view, so I attributed it to you in error, for which I apologise.

Hopefully you will do the same to Joshua for attributing a statement that he never made.

Adam B.

Blades, why won't you acknowledge that anti-Semitism is rife in Arab societies - despite your claim to the contrary?

Do you disagree with the Pew Research Center's figures?

And there you go again - implying the Jews bring anti-Semitism on themselves.

Do you ever hear yourself?

Peter Wilson

Great work as always, Melanie, but aren't there two democracies in the Middle East--Israel and Iraq?