Harry’s Place

Brilliant.

60 years of of Ethnic Cleansing
Apartheid
Get out of here you Palestinian terrorist
Get off me you fascists.

Thats 1min 12 seconds jam packed full of mistakes.

“Fascists!” she yells at the police. Perhaps she should go to Gaza and demonstrate at the next Hamas rally? What expletive would she use as she’s thrown from the top of the nearest building?

Western liberal-left anti-Zionists are nothing but bigoted hypocrites, whether they’re Gentile or Jewish.

Hahaahaha wicked clip :-)

Poor Deborah Fink. Her antics are getting increasingly wild. What will she do next? Tune in to UnJust NoPeace UK and find out.

I suppose she could have hopped around hitting herseilf on the head with a shoe.

That would have made her seem a bit less mad.

Not only hooting in public; she is a woman of many talents:

Monday March 20, 2006

The following correction was printed in the Guardian’s Corrections and clarifications column, Wednesday March 22 2006

Just in case it needs any clarification, the cabaret artist Deborah Fink, referred to in the article below as performing “satirical songs about whining Palestinians” while dressed as the columnist Melanie Phillips, was not making fun of the Palestinians as such. This was perhaps clearer in the writer’s original piece. Ms Fink emphasises that the one relevant song, with words by Deborah Maccoby, was essentially a criticism of celebrities who go to Israel and ignore the plight of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

And:
Some of us know Debbie as a light-hearted humourist, never appearing to take herself too seriously, not even when recording her experiences on a trip to Occupied Palestine:

“More olive picking. I enjoyed climbing the trees - something I never did as a child! This was followed by a musical evening with a wonderful Palestinian ensemble. I ended up belly dancing in front of the group!”

http://www.olivecoop.com/review.html#debbie

http://randompottins.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html

Every time I hear a delivery truck reversing I shall think of Deborah Fink

“I’m ashamed to be a Jew” - Really Deborah? Blimey, who’d have thunk it.

This is the fickest person Ami’s ever met.

Hello, I’m Debbie Fink and I’m FOUR. I’m going to show you my botty. Look at me look at me look at me.

I’m not happy with the woman who shouted out “you Palestinian terrorist” in response. It’s akin to the crass, racist slurs anti-Zionists regularly regurgitate over Jews.. sorry, Zionists.

Do we really have to stoop to the level of such anti-Zionist thugs? It just gives further ammunition to the likes of FWanker et al.

Deborah Fink clearly has serious personality and/or mental problems - wouldn’t it be better to have ignored her completely - after all, the only reason she’s doing all this is to get attention - for herself, by the way, and not actually the Palestinians, who are merely the means to her perverse end.

What a hoot!!

Deborah Fink’s account in her own words:

I would also like to add to this, an action I undertook for which there will soon be footage.

Wearing my short grey, ‘Mad Mel’ wig, I waited on a traffic island, opposite the statue of Eros (as there were less Israel supporters on there), waiting for the parade to approach. As they did, in full operatic voice, I started singing a parody of ‘Happy Birthday’ down my megaphone:

‘Happy birthday to you
I’m ashamed, as a Jew
Ethnic cleansing, apartheid
Unhappy birthday to you’

I then shouted, ‘Shame on you, shame on you’ in front of the JC photographer, who may have recognised me. One or two supporters actually hit me, before I was quite harshly and unnecessarily bundled by the police. I struggled and screamed as they were grabbing me from front and behind. They then took me down the road and kept me waiting. One policeman took a few details from me, while also trying to put me down and belittle what I did. In the end, a more senior officer (?) came over and warned me, saying I should not go back to where I was, otherwise they might have to take me away again.

I heard that the offical actions, like the JfJfP vigil, were also very effective. Positioned on the route of the march, they dressed in black and carried placards of the 500 villages which had been destroyed.

So, we’ve all thrown cold water on the Zionist party! Well done!

Deborah Fink
mail e-mail: debopera.fink@btopenworld.com

She was clearly proud of her actions.

which achieved what?

Upsetting her mother?

Attention for Deborah Fick.

Albert, Palestinian terrorist ain’t a slur in itself: recall The Sun successfully arguing that about Arab pigs (even if it spoiled it by then saying pigs objected to being called Arab). Saying they’re terrorists because they’re Palestinian would be. Or owt that Morgoth says.

Ah, yes.

I’m sure that people like Deborah Fink do have a serious point to make, and are genuinely concerned at the miserable position that the Arab world in general and the Palestinian leadership specifically, has left the Palestinians in.

However, you can’t help feeling that Deborah is significantly motivated by the desire to wind up ordinary working class Jews, by engaging in acts of public theatre, which involve her baiting people who she knows will humiliate themselves by shouting “you terrorist bitch” and so on.

This is why Fink’s activities generally involve “mischevous” activities, like singing songs, or proposing to strip in public, and so on.

Children often like to wind their parents or siblings up like this.

It is essentially a psychodrama, where you get a little buzz by watching other people snap.

As I said, I think it is no bad thing that we are arguing against people who beclown themselves. If anything, I feel rather sorry for the likes of Fink, whose politics seems largely to be about themselves, rather than Israel/Palestine.

It is, however, quite funny to watch.

Thinking about it, that should be ‘What a hooting nanny!!’ (hootanany- hillbilly celebration). Where can I book her for my next kids’ party?

Alec Mac - I’m sorry, I thought it was pretty obvious my anger was directed at the anti-Palestinian slur - hence my description “racist slur” - cast by sticking the word “terrorist” next to Palestinian. I used to get called all sorts of things simply for being a Jew (Christ-killer, child sacrificer, Nazi, Arab-murderer etc.,) while at school and at college and during trips around the Arab world. For that reason, I really hate any sort of racist remarks. Jews should know better - not because we are better than anyone, but simply because we’re so often at the receiving end of such slurs ourselves. Of course some slurs are more “sophisticated” than others. Fwanker can supply you with more on that.

Oh, Albert, don’t get me wrong. It was inappropriate. Yet neither do I think, unlike the abuse you endurred, was it premeditated. It was an off-the-cuff response to Fick’s attempt at gratuitous offence: interupting a life-affirming event with a dose of moral deadly nightshade. Even then, the speaker was one individual in a crowd which didn’t follow suit. You may be able to analyise bigotry of Israelis/Jews, but they ain’t Hebrew prophets. Fick blanks out it on her side and demands ownership of Jewishness.

Deborah was repressed as a child from criticising Israel at home and has always been dominated by her mother. She calls herself a Zionist but does not see the bigger picture in the Middle East. Diagnosis: Narcissism due to repression. (note that she was also going to cycle in the buff…)

And she was arrested for what, exactly? Freedom of speech - don’t make me laugh - fascist isn’t that far off.

I remember when the cartoon row was blazing, people here were earnestly explaining to me that there should be a right to offend. Why doesn’t this apply in this case then? Why is David urging sympathy with the “ordinary working class Jews” who Fink knew would only “humiliate themselves” by responding in an intolerant manner. Why is this - because its one rule for us and another for them - as always.

Because I think that Fink is significantly motivated by the desire to wind people up, and then snigger with her mates about the response.

Put it this way. I would condem somebody who stood outside a Muslim cultural event singing a silly song about Mohammed being a mass murderer through a megaphone.

I would, however, have no problem about somebody making that argument in the context of a discussion about the extent to which religious texts are used by terrorists as an inspiration for their activities

The “cartoon row” clearly falls into the latter category. Its context was that a Danish book which was part of a series of books for children on religious figures could not be published, because the publishers feared - with good cause - that they would be murdered if they published such a work.

In response, a series of cartoons were published, some of which make the fair and obvious point that some religious fanatics are encouraged to murder by their interpretation of the Quran.

The resulting furore illustrated the truth of that observation.

There’s a very big difference between engaging in that sort of debate, and searching Muslims out, showing them pictures of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, and then sniggering about it when they complain.

Wouldn’t you love to introduce Deborah Fink to Abi Hassan?

I don’t see such a big difference. I see someone bending over backwards to contextualise the cartoons debacle and characterise their publication as part of a “reasoned debate”. Then bending over forwards to ignore any context for the song debacle, and characterise it as incitement. A silly cartoon versus a silly song. Its basically the same issue - you can’t say you have the right to one and not the other. That just makes you look like a hypocrite.

Now this is what you wrote “However, you can’t help feeling that Deborah is significantly motivated by the desire to wind up ordinary working class Jews, by engaging in acts of public theatre, which involve her baiting people who she knows will humiliate themselves by shouting “you terrorist bitch” and so on.” That is quite a fantastic sentence. Imagine if I wrote this: “However, you can’t help feeling that David T is significantly motivated by the desire to wind up ordinary working class Muslims, which involve him baiting people who he knows will humiliate themselves by shouting “you Zionist bastard” and so on.” Would you accept the argument that these poor working class Muslims were basically tricked into saying this? Of course you wouldn’t.

Fact is most people have more respect for themselves than to jump around purposely inflamming other people. Most people just want a quiet life. Let her do it, let people wave placards of Mohammed holding a bomb, and if some people over-react, most people know what is really important in life and just get on with things.

So you’d be absoultely fine about somebody seeking out an assembly of ordinary innoffensive Muslims, in order to serenade with a chorus of

“Mohammed was a paedophile, la la la la?”

The Irie,

I have been reading and contributing to this site for some time now and I disagree that “David T is significantly motivated by the desire to wind up ordinary working class Muslims” as you claim. I do see him motivated to expose the Muslim Council of Britain for what that organisation is and the links of the SWP and other parts of the left with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Deborah Fink’s actions seem less to do with supporting Palestinians as to do with winding up ordinary Jews. Volunteering to teach opera to Palestinian kids would be helping the Palestinians culturally, turning up at an event organised by the mainstream British Jewish community to sing songs denouncing Israel does nothing for the Palestinians. She simply likes the attention.

Of course not David - I’m not saying that. I’m saying we should have one standard and apply it fairly to everyone, which means you can’t complain about this if you defended the cartoons, and argued for a “right to offend”.

For another thing, your example is not a political statement - it has no purpose but to offend. Fink’s statement, whether or not offensive, was political in nature.

Mikey - can you honestly be that dim? Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say that was my view - I gave it as a hypothetical counter example to demonstrate the hypocrisy of his earlier sentence.

I don’t see such a big difference.

That doesn’t mean there ain’t one, just that you’re being deliberately obtuse. There’s a difference between not to venerating a 1,500 year old historical personage and accusing members of a certain nationality/ethnicty/religion of specfic crimes because of this identity. DF is free to show her botty, but to expect Zionists to meekly accept her histrionics is a breech of their free speech. Then again, they’re Zionists, so what do you care?

Really Alec - the right not to have to listen to someone is the right to free speech? Curious argument.

I’m always astonished when TheIrie makes such points, as for the particular instance, comparably (and given the nature of the strong feelings invoked) I thought Ms. Fink was treated rather well by passers by.

in other circumstances, suppose a day commemorating some British National hero had Ms. Fink seen fit to disrupt an event comprising thousands of British “patriots”, then the police would have picked up a rather bruised and bloody individual rather than someone who has just been called a nasty name, not that TheIrie would see that difference?

I’d recommend TheIrie (for the sake of freedom of speech) trying that stunt out in the Six counties near a Orange march and afterwards we’ll pick up the pieces.

So all in all Ms. Fink wasn’t treated too harshly by supporters of the Salute Israel event, probably better than others might.

Ms. Fink merely seems to be a provocative individual (not that TheIrie would even troubled to know that), hell bent on some personal form of salvation by venting at Israel and “Zionists”.

personally I think she’s a troubled individual who should be given as much care in the community as she can take, and not taken seriously politically for the obvious reason that she isn’t a serious person, rather one needing a lot of care.

I think she was stopped by police because they considered her behaviour in that place would cause disorder. In other words it was because of public safety, and not related to free speech. People who want to be rude about Israel are fully protected in this country. Calling the police fascist, whilst being protected by them from possible retaliation by those she was offending, shows that Deborah Fink is an obnoxious ignoramus.

jr - what are you saying - that she would have been lynched by the angry mob? That’s not very on message is it - perhaps you should re-think.

No I’m not saying that. You twat.

My bad. I thought that was exactly what you were saying.

The Irie,

In this instance I did take you out of context. I put my fingers to the keyboard before I had read your post properly. I have now re-read your post and seen the error of my ways.

For another thing, your example is not a political statement - it has no purpose but to offend. Fink’s statement, whether or not offensive, was political in nature.

It would be very easy to present a chant of

“Mohammed was a paedophile la la la la”

as a political statement. One would simply need to say that you were protesting child marriages in the Muslim world, which are specifically legislated for on the basis that theocrats believe that Mohammed had sex with Aisha when she was very young.

Now, I think I’d have little problem with a person demonstrating against child marriages at a meeting of Iranian diplomats, or outside the Saudi embassy. Similarly, I have little problem with somebody making the argument that that particular interpretation of the Quran/Hadiths is a ’cause’ of child marriages.

But there’s a world of difference between that sort of activity, and somebody seeking out a gathering of ordinary Muslims, in order to taunt them.

Surely you can see the difference between

- publishing cartoons about violent threats made by Islamists in a national newspaper and;

- searching out Muslims and shoving the cartoons in their faces, while shouting abuse at them?

I’d wholly support the former. The latter would be a disgusting thing to do.

Do you disagree?

The police separate demonstrators and counter demonstrators in the interests of public safety. That is all that happened here.

Yes it is free speech, you pillock, just as you’d quickly decide if I stood outside your office booing and hissing you.

Mikey - Sorry I was so rude. Its a bad habit.

David - I do disagree. “publishing cartoons about violent threats made by Islamists in a national newspaper” - that’s not the case. The cartoon’s were lampooning every single Muslim, that is follower of Mohammed, as terrorists. This is not a debate about Islamism. It makes no distinctions.

David T,
you’re working yourself into a corner here. The Danish cartoons were a provocation and certainly extremely offensive. You can’t deny that or justify it. TheIrie is actually right here to point out the double standards you use when apologising for the cartoons while criticising Deb Fink.

What theIrie neglects to mention is that, as offensive as those cartoons were, the violent responses to them in the Islamic world and among Muslim groups in the West were far more repulsive and unjustifiable. Westerners in the Middle East, especially Scandinavians, found themselves in real danger, all because of cartoons published in a small rag. Further to that, Iran then brought in the Holocaust-denial card, as if by deeply offending Jews worldwide it was redressing the harm done against the name of Islam by a small group of non-Jews.
As far as I know, no Jewish group has threatened to kill Debs nor has a Jewish fatwah been made by any Jewish leader against her.
What does that tell you TheIrie…?

Who was holding the camera saying, I think, “p’lice are terrible aren’t they!”? Sounded a bit like Johann Hari.

As for “Palestinian terrorist cow!”, it was a truly dumb thing to say nevermind all the dreaded “whataboutery” that is usually condemned here, if she had been at a Hamas meeting.

Whatever her ridiculous aspects, we should not underestimate the importance of Deborah Fink and others (including Neturei Karta) in refining and legitimising the ferocious “anti-Zionist” hatred of mainstream Jews and Jewish communities by really serious customers such as BMI (ie Brotherhood UK).

After all, an event like Sundays was not organised and attended by the UK branch of Kach or Likud: it was a straightforward mainstream Jewish community event celebrating the fact that 60 years ago Israel was established, and world Jewry would no longer have to crawl on its knees to beg the nations of the world to take in Jewish refugees from murderous antisemitism.

Fink etc have 2 options -
1. act as a bridge between mainstream UK Jewish Zionists and those for whom Israel’s establishment and survival is a personal and/or theological catastrophe.
2. demonise mainstream UK Jewish Zionists as murdering bastards on a par with the worst Boers and Nazis. (ie the type of people who need boycotting and physically smashed).

Tim,

‘Every time I hear a delivery truck reversing I shall think of Deborah Fink’

Classic.

‘Get out of here you Palestinian terrorist’

Perhaps a Freudian zlip, I sink?

“Mohammed was a paedophile la la la la”

That’s a statement of fact though.

I’m not suggesting that people shouldn’t be allowed to be offensive. People should be offensive, if there’s a point in doing it.

There’s a very great value in - for example - finding a group of Anglican bishops who are discussing establishing a breakaway Anglican church, which specifically encourages the vilification of gays, and accusing them of “crucifying” gays.
I’m sure those Bishops would find that very offensive. But this is a wholly appropriate context and forum within which to make that point.

Similarly, I’d happily publish an article here which criticised this schism within the Anglican church for vilifying gays.

What I wouldn’t do, or approve of, is searching out a group of ordinary christians, at a church fete, in order to shout at them through a megaphone about the wickedness of the conservative branch of their institution.

I wouldn’t regard this as a ‘free speech’ issue. I’d regard it as a “good manners” issue.

Somebody who behaved in this way obviously would be more interested in winding christians up, than acheiving anything else.

Ditto

“God Hates Fags” and the Westboro Baptist Church. Christians are perfectly at liberty to make this argument, and I’d stand up for their right to do so.

I wouldn’t support their demonstrations at the funerals of fallen soldiers, though.

Every time I hear a delivery truck reversing I shall think of Deborah Fink

I thought of Irene Papas on ∞ by Aphrodite’s Child.

“I’d regard it as a “good manners” issue.” Fine - so do you think the Police should have forcefully bundled her off for having bad manners?

People should be offensive, if there’s a point in doing it.

No. No and thrice no. People should be offensive, full stop.

reading this thread you could suppose that TheIrie is partially literate? because it’s obvious that he hasn’t read the points made by others

in those circumstances it is normal for the police to separate any antagonist from their prey, because it’s perfectly possible for a fracas to develop and Ms. Fink might have been assaulted by someone less charitable and thus for her own safety she might be moved away

TheIrie, not exactly hard to work out, for us nonscientists :)

The police should show restraint, when faced with a “hecklers veto” situation. They should do this by keeping counter demonstrators apart from the subject of their demonstrations.

That, by and large, is what the police do, and were doing here.

It is a very successful method of policing which allows people to go about their ordinary business, while preserving the right to protest.

I do think that it is acceptable to make the argument that Rachel Corrie was a pawn in the ISM’s strategy to put US college students into combat zones, in order to make political capital out of their injuries and deaths.

I don’t think that it would be acceptable for Morgoth to attend her High School reunion, with a sign which said:

“I think of Rachel Corrie and Pancakes, and smile.”

It’s about time ‘having bad manners’ was made an crime, it’s certainly offensive. I don’t know whether it should be a capital offence or not though. Bit harsh maybe.

Rachel Corrie was no pawn, David. She was a willing and fully coignescant terrorist-supporter.

And it would be my right to stand on the public footpath and hoist such a sign if I chose to do so.

morgoth,

please give it a rest eh? gloating over the death of others is a bit unseemly, and you’ll end up like a mirror copy of TheIrie

Morgoth is sick beyond belief. What a pathetic individual.

David - what do you think of people who heckle the Al-quds demo? I’m sure you support their right to free expression. How is this any different?

The Al Quds demo is a demonstration dedicated to the eradication of Israel

I would think it as appropriate to counter-demonstrate against that, as it would be to counter-demonstrate against a rally in favour which called for the crushing of Palestinian self determination in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Or indeed any other country.

I wouldn’t support a demonstration against, say, a Palestinian cultural event.

David T,

Please can I suggest (rather cheekily) that you adopt TheIrie, then you could sit him down daily, as an indulgent parent might, and explain these common sense notions to him, as it would save a tremendous amount of electrons and electricity in the process?

“I’m sure you support their right to free expression. How is this any different?”

For a start she did not have a permit for a demonstration, which she needs if using a megaphone. She was therefore breaking the law. The counter AlQuds Day demo did not break the law, since it had a permit.

David - right, now we hit it. What you do and do not accept, then, has nothing to do with any principle, it is about what you do and don’t support. Had Fink been speaking against the Al-Quds people you would salute her. As she was speaking against supporters of Israel, you condemn her. That is absolutely fine. But stop dressing it up as principled. You have your causes and you will support them, simple as.

See David T, only an indulgent father could explain to TheIrie that al Quds was a demonstration dedicated to the eradication of Israel, whereas salute Israel was a positive cultural event (band, music, etc) and not aimed at destroying anyone, not even Ms. Fink

not that TheIrie, could see the difference?

Mod - if you believe in the principle of free speech you would support the right of someone to heckle either demonstration equally. If you don’t, then you don’t believe in the principle of free speech. Geddit?

TheIrie

Well, there is a point here.

If you took the view that all Muslims were intrinsically wicked, and that all Muslim institutions were pernicious and needed to be destroyed, and that any gathering of Muslims was an appropriate venue for a demonstration, then it would be absolutely right to confront Muslims in the street and lambast them about their beliefs, and turn up at Muslim cultural events with megaphones and placards, in order to shout abuse, then you would certainly regard that as a brave and worthwhile thing to do.

I’d regard somebody who turned up at a Muslim cultural event in order to holler them down, as an extremist and probably a lunatic.

I’d take a different view of a person who demonstrated against a Hizb ut Tahrir rally which called for the attacks on Jews.

The reason that Ms Fink turned up at this event is because she takes the view that everything to do with Israel is pernicious, and that therefore all activities related in any way to Israel ought to be attacked.

She’d make no distinction between a rally by Kahaneists, calling for attacks on Palestinians on the one hand, and a display by an Israeli dance troupe on the other.

I would, and so I hope would you. That is because, I trust, you are not a lunatic. And she is.

TheIrie wrote:

“Mod - if you believe in the principle of free speech you would support the right of someone to heckle either demonstration equally. If you don’t, then you don’t believe in the principle of free speech. Geddit?”

that’s the point, they are not equal

one is a conscious political demonstration (al quds)

the other, salute Israel is a festival, a cultural event with a few floats

but you can’t see the difference, can you ?

ahh, and now I appreciate why, because you intrinsically see any activity by Jews as inherently political, and as such worthy of any scorn that is poured upon it?

so to you Al Quds (a whole negative demonstration) is the same as a few kids and old people going down the road waving Israeli flags?

your reasoning here is utterly bizarre

I don’t know how many letters a week Ms Fink writes to the press but she has an astonishing hit rate for publication in the national press and even more so in the Jewish press,that rivals Keith Flett. Why is that?

ops, could some admin fix that missing closing blockquote? thanks :)

please give it a rest eh? gloating over the death of others is a bit unseemly, and you’ll end up like a mirror copy of TheIrie

I only gloat over the deaths of those who have deserve ito rhave brought it about because of their own crass hatred and stupidity. Major difference, Modernity.

David,

Are you arranging a follow up demo against Al Quds this year?

“Get out of here you Palestinian terrorist cow”

Well, at least now we know what her opponents are thinking.

No, you fuckwit - that’s what one of her opponents thought. You’ll find other Fink’s opponents here, and the only opinion that has been expressed has been contempt.

Sunny, can we take it that you support Fink’s actions, and that you’re prepared to defend them? Until you find yourself out of your depth and run away again, or tell us that you were just joshing.

Sorry, that should have been “lightweight, Tory supporting, racist, mediawhorefuckwit”, and I omitted the exclamation mark. Moderators! Where’s Will when you need him?