Harry’s Place

Wouldn’t it be funny if this website went down again

I think it’s time to move on HP

I agree with Herman (and have my usual loathing of the RCP nutter).

The previous exposure of Delich was entirely called-for. She was an individual who used her state and union position to push revolting politics, and whose support from parts of the UCU reflected their moral corruption.

But this… just petty.

It’s an interesting footnote - a rejoinder to those who bought the line that she linked to the Duke site in all innocence.

But yes…let’s move on.

Isn’t that surprising? utterly shocking?

that someone who has a fixation with “Zionists”, and occasionally peruses David Duke’s web site, also reads the disgusting piffle about 9/11 from Counterpunch?

I wonder if the Pro-Boycotter lickspittles will be defending that too?

Where’s JohnG and Richard Seymour?

State and union *funded* position, that should be. Let’s just see how far through the grinder she’s put. If she survives, and is reinistated, this may be relevant. Until then…

oh i don’t know, this is just a smidgen of the relentless piling on she and hers do re: Israel/Zionists every single day. So it’s just a mild taste of her own medicine, a very low dose in fact.

Aye, Vildechaye, I have a stunning lack of sympathy for her in that respect. But, higher standards, and all that.

I think this proves that HP was right about her.

Why the calls to “move on”?

I think it’s time to demand apologies from everyone who’s been telling the stupid lie that HP is a far-right site that attacked her out of partisanship.

Alec,

I think it depends on what you understand as the purpose of the posts about UCU list content.

This isn’t a personal vendetta against Delich - although I think a blog is entitled to have a vendetta against those who tried to silence it - but about exposing the racist infestation of a discussion group for UK academics, many of whom are committed to a boycott of Israeli academics and institutions.

Are you saying that any reference to material on the UCU list from this point forward should be off-limits? If so, how is HP supposed to highlight the problem? Or are you just concerned that Delich is the subject of another post? Would you be okay with the policy of continuing to hold UCU to account if the opprobrium were shared around a little?

If HP just started ignoring UCU from this point forward, it would give credence to those who claimed the first series of posts were just an exercise in character assassination. That and give the impression that threats to close us down and/or take us to court had worked.

Let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture, here.

“But this… just petty.”

Pointing out the racist source for a racist academic that is fighting within a racist union to enact racist policy is not petty. Its the opposite of petty, actually.

Delich is probably a Muslim Bosnian who got influenced in the 1990s by radical Islamists sent there by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Saudi Arabia pro al-Qaeda Wahhabists who went to Bosnia to exploit the vulnerability of Bosnians.

Her distribution of conspiracy theories against jews, Israel and the USA, and pushing of essentialist and discredited postcolonial and orientalist theory just shows her affinity to Islamofascism.

Can she come clean and explain openly how she was influenced by Islamist activism? Of course that is her perogative to hide her background behind a veil of privacy. But if she is pushing baseless postcolonial and conspiracy theories on public forums, then it would just make sense for us to know where she is coming from.

I understand why Alec makes the point he does. And, despite all of this, I have a (very) mild degree of sympathy with Delich on a personal level re the publicity she has received. But a) she brought HP’s enmity on herself because of her/her supporters’ attempt to take down the blog, and I have no problem with an eye for an eye etc. And b) this post shows that HP was right about her in the first place. And c) this isn’t just about Delich - this is about a culture in a so-called “union” that tolerates this sort of garbage. So, perfectly fair, all in all, to my mind.

Dr. Polya is almost certifiable:

http://gpolya.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/23/1385481-easter-anti-semitic-us-zionist-crucifixion-of-muslim-kids-

“At Easter 2008 the anti-Semitic US and Zionist CRUCIFIXION of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan is CONTINUING.

The ANTI-CHRIST has certainly arrived and IT is Bush America and its racist, genocidal Anglo and Zionist allies. “

the anti-Christ?

This is not surprising at all. This type of mental illness has gone on for a while and goes back to blood libels.

When one is posting this type of material one has crossed from bigotry into mental illness. This is on a par with Holocaust Denial [EDITED]

Hamid,

let’s leave out speculating (cos that’s all it is) about Ms. Delich ethnic background, it is wrong and inappropriate

Dr. Polya has a blog
http://gideon.sulekha.com/blog/posts.htm

“These events are linked with each other and with the 9/11 atrocity – an event that is increasingly being seen as very likely due to US and Israel state terrorism (see “US military officers challenge “official Bush version” … “US responsible for 9/11?”

http://gideon.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/06/us-bush-ite-racist-zionist-responsibility-for-9-11.htm

Begad, he said “bigger picture”… sheesh!

There is a virtual given that Delich is currently suspended aloft a very great height on a very thin thread. I for one, shed no tears for her and stand by previous statements that those objecting to the very act of her being named - as opposed to elements of HP’s conduct, or comments from individual posters - are, at best, the good men who let evil continue and, in the case of TheIrie, an unpleasant freeloader with no personal morals. Or Newman trying desperately the save his soul after making a pact with HP.

I can see the sense behind the footnote argument, yet any internal investigation which ain’t swayed by the evidence already available is unlikely to have its mind changed by this.

Goodbye, Delich, wipe the tear from your eye, but this is a pointed campaign against one person, as opposed to discussing a number of pro-boycotters on the UCU list holding similarly repugnant views.

I think she has suffered enough.

The trouble is that throughout this whole saga her apologists have been arguing that she linked ‘in innocence’ and that she apologised immediately.

That explanation doesn’t really wash in the light of revelations like this.

Delich deserves no threats of intimidation and certainly no violence. Anyone who threatens her like this to the slightest degree should be arrested. HOWEVER, she *does* deserve that her reputation lie in utter tatters, and that her name be mud. If and when she next should apply for a job, her potential employer deserves to find the public record that reflects her toxic mindset. She has made it so; and now we see that it was not merely “naive” but willful.

Sadly, it’s probable that whatever conspiracy theories she believed in before, she will now feel them utterly validated. I am almost certain she gnashes her teeth in self-pity about how the Jews have poisoned her well, so to speak, never considering the myriad missteps she took to bring this upon herself, by herself. A UCU member in my acquaintance has already heard talk from a union brother on how what has happened to Delich’s “martyrdom” reveals “the true visciousness and power” of “the Zionists”.

RE: A UCU member in my acquaintance has already heard talk from a union brother on how what has happened to Delich’s “martyrdom” reveals “the true visciousness and power” of “the Zionists”.

The UCU brother is correct. Just ask Mel Gibson.

I haven’t been following vildechaye’s comments. I hope this is irony.

Now is not the time to turn off the heat.

Delich desperately needs some sunshine cast her way. Exposing the face of racism and hatred should be applauded and not dismissed as “petty.”

My Ode to Jenna (sung to the tune of, well, you’ll see)

This was never the way I planned
Not my intention
I got so brave, the mouse was in my hand
I lost all discretion
Those sites aren’t what I’m used to
Just had to try it on
I’m curious about Duke and Quinn
They caught my attention

I linked to Duke and I liked it
It wasn’t anti-semitic
I linked to Duke just to try it
I hope my union comrades don’t mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don’t mean I’m an anti-semite
I linked to Duke and I liked it
I liked it

No, I didn’t even know his name
It didn’t matter,
It was an error but just the same
Just a boycotter’s nature,
It’s not what,
Good Leftists do
Not how they should behave
Now I am so confused
cant tell what’s left or right

I linked to Duke and I liked it
It wasn’t anti-semitic
I linked to Duke just to try it
I hope my union comrades don’t mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don’t mean I’m an anti-semite
I linked to Duke and I liked it
I liked it

Quinn’s article was magical
Nothing in it was ever wrong
Hard to resist so readable
Too good to deny it
Ain’t no big deal, it was innocent

I linked to Duke and I liked it
It wasn’t anti-semitic
I linked to Duke just to try it
I hope my union comrades don’t mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don’t mean I’m an anti-semite
I linked to Duke and I liked it
I liked it

Of course Delich is not the only person that had a complaint lodged against them for their conduct on the activists list.

The UCU did nothing against her first time around. And they still haven’t done anything about this person.

From Modernity’s blog.
http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/yet-another-pro-boycott-ucu-activist/

i thought the caption of the fat employee on the “zany scientist” link to polya’s interview is pretty harsh:

Mery and Vino, students in Gideon’s group, discuss the issues above…or are they deciding where to go for lunch?

i worry that he seems to be involved in genetic engineering, not because i’m opposed to it per se, but because it’s a bit of a lethal cocktail when mixed with nazism…

“Good Jews” don’t shame antisemites.

The article is utterly insane.

However there is a further dimension to the human cost of Israel, namely the effect on excess death in its neighbours due to its war and occupation policies. Using UN Population Division data one can estimate that the 1950-2005 excess deaths in all countries partly occupied by the State of Israel in the last 60 years totalled 24 million….
It gets worse if one considers the 1950-2005 “excess deaths” and “under-5 infant deaths” in all countries actually militarily attacked by Israel (43 million and 29 million, respectively) as compared to 24 million and 17 million, respectively, for countries occupied by Israel at some point.
There is an even bigger picture of complicity in crimes against humanity. Thus Apartheid Israel (together with the US and UK) was a staunch supporter of anti-Asian, anti-African, neo-Nazi Apartheid South Africa… Israel has been involved in state and non-state terrorism around the World; Israel has been involved in the Western attacks on Iraq (it bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant, and allegedly participated with the US and UK in bombing Iraq during the Sanctions War period (1990-2003); and Israel has strongly supported all anti-Arab, anti-Muslim US war policies. Excess deaths in post-1950 US Asian Wars total 25 million.
However it gets even worse still when we consider the impact of Apartheid Israel on the post-war Third World Holocaust that has killed over 1.3 billion people. The racist, Apartheid State of Israel that obscenely claims “ownership” of the Jewish Holocaust has also so grossly distorted Western values and priorities that the First World has had a major complicity in a Third World Holocaust about 200 times greater than the Jewish Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Europe

Yet Another Pro-Boycott UCU Activist.

Monday, 1 September, 2008 by modernityblog

[Editor's note: I think that the racism and animus which has been exhibited on the UCU activists list should be exposed, so as a public service here's a guest post.

Just in case it wasn't clear enough, unlike HP, I can't be intimidated by libel or legal action, but should this blog be closed by aggressive threats then it will appears like a thousand buds, somewhere else. MB]

This is a guest post by anonymous.

From the distance of a few thousand miles I was amused to read recently on the aptly misnamed Socialist Unity site that the case for an academic boycott of Israel had been made and won. Apparently this was because posters on the activists’ list have ‘generally been patient, nuanced and well informed’. Some of these posters are said to have ‘long records of opposition to anti-Semitism, racism and fascism’. I’m sure that this must be true of several individuals. Indeed, I’m glad about that. But sadly it can not be true of all those who want to boycott Israeli academics.

I know that it is difficult to avoid mentioning Jenna Delich’s name, even after she turned litigious, emailing a reporter on the Jewish Chronicle: “If you or anyone else mention my name or anything to do with me anywhere in the media or a public place, I will sue.” What with Delich’s legal threats and Harry’s Place being temporarily taken down, it leaves the pro-boycott argument that the ‘Zionists’ shut down debate looking pretty thin. Not to mention that if the ‘Israelis’ supposedly control the media then they must be losing their touch.

Anyway, now that Delich is the internet equivalent of fish and chip paper (though she’ll find disposing of the stories a lot more difficult) it’s time to move on.

Enter Keith Hammond (Lecturer in Adult and Continuing Education at the University of Glasgow). Some of Hammond’s comments have appeared on Harry’s Place before. I would suggest that his contributions to the list have been neither patient, nuanced or well informed. Here’s some examples:

‘I am sooooo pro-Boycott’; ‘But here we gooooo’; ‘Pleaseeeeeeee …. Stop twisting my words in this hysterical way! It is obscene and completely OTT’; ‘Maybe a few walls around people who support the boycott or better still … herd us all into camps’; ‘I hope all this does not sound too Vanessa Redgrave’.

Hammond also specialises in personal attacks (no doubt his defenders will note the irony of this post). Here he is again.

‘This is a brilliant union and this online facility is brilliant – even if people like Eve do not like honest concerns being expressed’ [that's Eve Garrard, who has since resigned from the Union].

‘And then towards the end of your contribution [Eve] you really get a bit of wind behind your sails and say it is British academics you are thinking about because it “will drive Jewish members out of the union” … “which will no longer be a fit place or safe place for them”. Now that is downright false. Most people who battle for Palestine have outstanding anti-racist records AND YOU KNOW IT !!!!’

‘David’s concerns for equality are encouraging. But they are twisted - as so many of the contributions moving around his politics of denial … These people were clear; they did not twist things in this horrible way that has now become the standard for David’s statements.’

‘Lots of derangement on some of these postings. I just wonder what it is all about sometimes … Let the mad people rant on … The boycott just will not go away!’

‘Now doubt I am opening up a space for a whole battery of nutters to start writing to me or ringing me and leaving foul messages – which I am now getting used to’

‘Members might be interested in looking at the allegations made against the Union on Engage. The piece is headed: Why break UCU confidences now – David Hirsh.

See what you think? And this is what some people want to be admitted back onto Dan? Jenna [Delich]’s case is totally different to this sort of persistent and intentional rubbish … I keep wondering if some people are well’

It’s also worth pointing out that ‘of course’ Hammond thinks ‘there are arguments to be made and a lot of listening to be done … But the arguments have to be made on the basis that they are right’.

Here’s the substance.

1) Hammond equates Nazi treatment of Jews with Israeli treatment of Palestinians:

‘the conditions in the Aida camp square with the conditions of the Warsaw ghetto’ (22 September 2007)

2) Hammond compares Israel with South Africa under apartheid

‘what was fascinating about [Mark] Regev’s statement was that it showed the language of Israel is gradually working towards an open embrace of the Apartheid vocabulary … I find this fascinating about Israel, they do not go in for any of the crazy waffle that defenders of Israel spew out on the DAN. It was fascinating (as well as horrible) and quietly disturbing. The team that Regev represents do not care a hoot about law! It really was instructive. It reminded me of Keith Joseph and Thatcher and those people. These Zionists are of another time.’

3) Hammond regards Israel as a militaristic, undemocratic country

‘The whole Israeli education system - from nursery to university - is embedded in the Israeli obsession with war as some sort of ‘defence’ against who knows what … The minute I tried to probe the fears of the Israelis I met the conversation moved into something that I can only describe as a dreadful mix of possibly real and totally unreal anxieties about Europe in the past, Biblical history, contemporary Judaism, work, land and the American dream … These conversations were a gush of insecure and often irrational stuff that I tried to understand. But I could not’ (19 September 2007)

‘Israel’s academics are totally at one with the occupation’ (22 September 2007)

‘the whole HE system in Israel that supports the military occupation of Palestine.’ (26 September 2007)

4) Hammond opposes what he sees as the influence of a Zionist lobby

‘It is all about scoring points for Israel and not looking at the situation out there. It is racist right down to its core. It is the aim of those supporting Palestinian academics to expose this rotten Zionist. Why is that so difficult to understand?’ (2 October 2007)

‘Issues of Palestine are now determining tenure issues in the States. Can we expect the Zionist lobby to go the same way here … Bread and butter issues cannot be neatly compartmentalised so that we have separate arrangements for what is “safe” (and does not threaten Zionism) and “not safe” (in what actively opposes Zionism).’ (4 October 2007)

‘I still fail to see how boycotting the institutions of a racist state on the grounds that they are racist could be covered by the RRA. Sure that Act was all about protecting people from racism - just like the boycott - and so how could there a conflict?’ (8 October 2007)

‘This protection of Israel at all costs approach is about doing exactly what it is doing right now. There is no clarity. It is like a madness.’ (24 November 2007)

‘Israel is only able to get away with its atrocities because it claims to be this universal victim that is completely outside of international condemnation.’

5) Hammond believes antisemitism is little more than a ‘tactic’ used by “Zionists” in bad faith to silence debate

‘[Canadian academics have started to move towards a boycott position] and so have a tiny group in Germany – the Germans have been held back with a historical guilt that has really crippled debate.’ (23 September 2007)

‘What is interesting however is that the same old tactics are employed. Israel claims to be a Jewish state THEREFORE anyone who criticises Israel is anti-Jewish but there are more and more Jewish people who are revolted by Israel’s racism. These people of course are supposed to be self haters’ (1 October 2007)

‘Everything put forward in good faith gets distorted by David H. and his team and it is obscene. It is not just about different plays on words, it is a whole campaign of denial that started in 1948′ (2 October 2007)

‘I am not going to bore anyone by reviewing the various episodes of the current hysteria about anti-********. I am tired of these manic postings’; ‘So how about some education on Zionism Marian? But there I go again. I keep forgetting myself. Sorry. I had forgotten Mearsheimer and Walt tried that one.’ (26 November 2007)

6) Hammond thinks that ‘No one should be scared off by this “anti-Semitism” stuff”. ‘Let the anti-Semitism slurs fly - it is not as though the tactic is new or unexpected.’

So it really came as no surprise when Hammond recently posted:

‘What your contributions always add up to is that Israel and its denial of Palestine and the Palestinians is not a unique case. There are many other situations in the world just like Israel? So your strategy is to show there is suffering and injustice all over the place and we academics not there boycott poor old Israel elsewhere. But you never actually succeed in this argument. Why? Could it really be that Israel constitutes a unique case? So you pick some feature of the Israeli situation and then say the logic is that there should thus be many boycotts? Or better still no boycott proposal at all! You allude to something along the lines that like cases should be treated alike? But Zionism is completely unique. Its denials are unique – Israel even denies that it is about an occupation and therefore not compelled to follow international law as it applies to occupations. I think you jump the gun if you will excuse the phrase. Zionism is a completely different to so many other cases of injustice. Nothing comes near to it. I am not going to spell out the nuts and bolts of the case – just go through all the UN documents that detail the situation. There is no NGO that has a remotely good word for Israel. Its treatment of the Palestinians and strategy of squeezing the Palestinians off their land with settlements and now the wall is beyond anything we have experienced to date … thank goodness.’ [Ed: my emphasis]
…

‘I want to reiterate that Zionism is particular project that has to be stopped. It is poison. Do you think this poison is acceptable? I know … You think all of us who oppose Zionism are misunderstood huh? I cannot believe you are so confused …’ (26 August 2008)

I’m reminded of Hitler’s ‘merciless opposition to the world-poisoner of all peoples’. He, however, did not call it ‘Zionism’ but ‘International Jewry’.

Still, at least so far Hammond has not brought up the French Revolution, Bolsheviks, Freemasons or Rotary Clubs. Unlike these guys

as kramer would say: Oh, it’s irony

Has anyone even stopped to consider all the bad publicity David Duke has received on account of this “scandal”? Links to “Left antiracist unions” and the like. How embarrassing for him.

That is certainly sarcasm.

In fact, IMHO Vildechaye appears from cursory examination to be a Good Egg. But I’m quite wary about making these sort of assertions these days, as I seem to keep getting them wrong and having to change my mind. The world is a cruel, cruel, place.

Stop the crocodile tears. She put herself in this situation. The hate mail and threats, if true, are unfortunate, but she’s not a paedophile, and her punishment will be no worse than what happens to anyone who shames herself publicly.

However, this is mainly about the UCU’s overlooking antisemitism, and this additional post is relevant. From what I can make out, she was previously accused of peddling antisemitism with this 9/11 Mossad stuff, but the UCU rejected complaints. Having been publicly embarrassed by her continued antisemitic antics, she was removed from the activists list, and these sanctions were justified in part with reference to the earlier antisemitism that UCU had previously refused to acknowledge. UCU needs to explain why her previous antisemtism was no cause for sanctions against her, but were invoked retrospectively.

Well, we know why. What this shows is that UCU, and members on the activists’ list were prepared to tolerate, defend and even justify someone with an antisemitic worldview, until they were called on it publicly. This was no mistake. Regardless of the origins of the Quinn article, and putting aside that she apparently hadn’t heard of Duke or noticed the antisemitic motifs surrounding his website; Delich found David Duke’s site because she’s an antisemite and his antisemitic worldview is broadly consistent with hers.

The only pity I feel for her is because she’s a sacrificial lamb. Faced with evidence of her antisemitism, UCU refuses to act. Faced with her public shaming, UCU ditches her. The whistelblowers who are the cause of so much consternation on the activists’ list, are the only reason that UCU is dealing with this antisemitism at all. There are bound to be more cases of over antisemitism, and future exposes on HP and Engage are likely to be the only impetus for the taking of action. Anyone who thinks UCU’s disciplining of Delich is progress is kidding himself, and the only reason to remain a part of the union is to continue to expose the antisemitic filth it encourages.

Josh

What do you expect from a person who uses a screen name that means wild animal? His comments are more akin to rabid animal.

Lets see a second rate political hack blames the incineration of 2,900 of my fellow NYC residents on a Jewish cabal. She then posts material from
a well known racist site. Her minions try and cover up her malfeasance and silence her critics using legal extortion and is some type of victim.

Exactly how has she been victimized? She still has her job, but can no longer make her stupidity public knowledge. No doubt she will go on to write a book in crayon and get absurd speaking.

Modernity, the speculation is not on Delich’s ethnic background - who would care for that? It is on her religio-ideological background. Same as asking “Is Palin a Creationist?”. At least Palin is not a postcolonial anti-semite conspiracy monger.

Delich is not under any compulsion to indulge us here - but it says something about her sense of decency if she is unwilling to illuminate.

Josh: did someone get up on the wrong side of the bed. take a chill pill, man. mockery is more effective than arguing with racists. and by the way, vildechaye also is used as a term of endearment. I know this, as i am fluent in yiddish. zai gezint

Brownie

I very much agree.

This is a battle for hearts and minds stuff, or rather showing that the hearts and minds of many ‘pro-palestinian’ activists are heavy with anti-semitic obsessions of a virulent and irrational kind.

What we are dealing with is in this instance the UCU of which this person is unfortunately emblematic of a deeper sickness.

This jew hatred is the latent demonology of Mediaeval Europe given, as always, a new life by prosletysing puritans and millenarian radicals.

When so called scholars and intellectuals and ‘human rights’ activists believe in the existence of whitches we live in very dangerous times.

I would like to believe that this battle can be won solely in the arena of ideas and that personal attacks that will do harm to individuals can be avoided.

For example I linked to the website of Mike Napier of the SPSC in the thread below and my blood ran cold when I read the ancient blood libel triggering countless pogroms, stated as observed fact;

‘[jewish] settlers in Hebron poison the wells’.

Similarly in this case, i feel an increasing sense of horror at the sheer malevolence and barely contained violence expressed by this woman in a forum where;

irrespective of other members agreement on the specific details of the views one member holds, they share a world view that demands a denunciatory justification of the evils of the zionist enemy as a justification and prelude to their congruent aims and objectives to boycott, Israeli academics,

As individuals and as a group therefore the boycott activists in UCU actively seek to collectively punish, by word and deed, in a calculated and deliberate way the careers of individual scholars, not because they are known or thought or even imagined to be personally culpable for any word or deed considered to have actually harmed any palestinian, but solely because they are citizens of a state, Israel, that in the opinion of these UCU activists is legally and politically responsible for harm suffered by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.

This is an abomination and the fact that in their shared worldview they do not hold Israel uniquely responsible for the sufferings of Palestinians but hold the US as similarly to blame but seek only to punish Israeli academics only makes them craven and even more hypocritically and self-interestedly abominable.

Let us be quite clear that while there are clearly individuals who wield greater power and influence and responsibility for driving forward the boycott they seek, each and everyone of them is engaging in a course of action that they hope and expect will have a definite outcome.

They seek collectively and individually by joint venture to deprive people that they do not know, who are tertiary education workers like themselves, of the privileges and benefits of employment as academics in the UK that they enjoy and take for granted.

I do not wish to see anyone of them victimised but I do not believe that any of them deserve to keep their employment for attempting to engage in racial discrimination in employment an offence quite properly considered to be worthy of immediate dismissal for gross misconduct.

This is serious stuff and these censorious, ignorant, would be boycotting bullies need to understand that they have crossed a line from political rhetoric and well intentioned but wrongheaded activism to a place where not only do they find themselves in the company of racists and holocaust deniers and anti-semites but that they are actually quite possibly guilty of racial harassment.

more from Dr. Polya

“Analysis of Means, Opportunity and Motive makes US-Israeli State Terrorism a likely culprit for the Mumbai Bombing Atrocity.”

http://gideon.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/08/us-israeli-state-terrorism-mumbai-7-11.htm

more

http://gideon.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/08/us-state-terrorism-9-11-mumbai-7-11.htm

Gideon Polya is the Senior Poltical Editor at http://mwcnews.net/

http://mwcnews.net/index.php?option=com_akostaff&Itemid=147&func=fullview&staffid=5

with this disgust Zundel groupie, From Remembrance to Resistance By Paul Eisen

http://gideon.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/02/cnn-bbc-reported-9-11-collapse-before-it-happened.htm
so now, he blame the US-Israel for the Mumbai bombing?

he’s one sick puppy

more from Dr. Polya

“Analysis of Means, Opportunity and Motive makes US-Israeli State Terrorism a likely culprit for the Mumbai Bombing Atrocity.”

http://gideon.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/08/us-israeli-state-terrorism-mumbai-7-11.htm

more

http://gideon.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/08/us-state-terrorism-9-11-mumbai-7-11.htm

http://gideon.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/02/cnn-bbc-reported-9-11-collapse-before-it-happened.htm
so now, he blame the US-Israel for the Mumbai bombing?

Gideon Polya is the Senior Poltical Editor at http://mwcnews.net/

http://mwcnews.net/index.php?option=com_akostaff&Itemid=147&func=fullview&staffid=5

it also covers that disgusting Zundel groupie, Paul Eisen

he’s one sick puppy

Vildechaya

As someone who lived through 9-11, I find the conspiracy stuff to be extremely offensive on a personal level. However, one need not have been there to take offense at people making a mockery of the dead for political gain.

Any damage to the reputation of JD is a product of her own stupidity.
Have no fear, tenure protects even the most incompetent and mediocre
of hacks.

Beakerkin: I don’t take issue with anything you said but am at a bit of a loss as to why you addressed it to me. I am mocking jenna delich and find her remarks, views and the articles she links too as offensive as you do.

Vildechaya

I guess the sarcasm didn’t translate on this side of the pond. My apologies for being clueless. It is not easy to differentiate the nebishes from the mensches in cyberspace. Funny I do not recall vildechaya ever used in the manner you describe.

JD will no doubt parlay this into a book and speaking tours with Norman Finkelstein.

Dear me, dear Decents, you really have Delich on the brain.

What are the lessons to be learnt from the Delich affair?

Oh, that the world is full of unctuous types who sift through folks correspondence for material which is unsavoury and can be used to smear others. The usual jejune stuff.

Of course the material is unpleasant and wrong, but I am more relaxed about it being circulated. There are numerous websites that say this stuff and I don’t think they should be censored or taken down. I also think that folk can link to them in emails if they so wish without threat of sanction. Democracy is not one way; unfortunately it does involve the right to discuss these unpleasant things too.

The key point for Decents to the extent to which Delich’s ramblings can be linked to everyone else on the list (even HP published a selection of the correspondence, including for a time folk’s email addresses). But even this did not prove any of the broader assertions that HP is making.

The crucial sentence for Decents, uttered by the comfortably anonymous ‘Lucy Lips’, is this:

Thirdly, that Delich is accepted by many of those who are active in pushing the boycott of Israeli academics as a comrade: one of their own.

If there is evidence for this it would be apparent in the email list, which is not fully published - it is there for HP to cherry pick and then make those sort of generalisations.

Delich, as a “comrade” (crucial word to use that), would be fully active in campaigns, and an important influence.

This is key for HP’s ‘counter-conspiracy’. Antisemites peddle the conspiracy that Jews control the world; HP peddle the conspiracy that antisemites run the UCU.

But we do not access to the evidence that may prove that.

HP believes in trial by internet, innuendo and hearsay; unsurprising really, because as lawyers now, the standard of evidence for such unctuous generalisations would not suffice in court (indeed we don’t even have access to much of the evidence) - but the internet is a different beast indeed.

Of course, countering HP’s hyperbole is David Hirsh’s pleas to lay off Delich; he stated that he felt sorry for her, and that she was a minor player in the union and the boycott campaign.

Who shall I believe, David Hirsh or ‘Lucy Lips”?

Does anyone still remember the sunny days when Benji was banned?

What does ‘trial by internet’ even mean? I am such a tosser.

Joshua

It is not possible to ban me. Anyway, I have said nothing that deserves a ban.

I don’t know what trial by internet means. Maybe I mean that on serious matters people should not use the internet to discuss it? I don’t know. Wouldn’t that mean banning online newspapers? And wouldn’t it mean I am not allowed to attack Harry’s place through the internet? I am very confused about what I really mean.

Also, maybe it would help my credibility if I didn’t use the term Decent and didn’t refer to Harry’s place in the third person all the time. What do you think?

Its a just a different philosophical approach.

HP sift through emails and bangs the table for bans or actions, publishes (or re-publishes) personal details, personally castigates parties etc. Well, all very exciting.

However, my own view is that folk in the UCU should be allowed to post anything or link to anything (that is not actually illegal) without fear of official sanction. At some point, if indeed the UCU is the nest of antisemites that HP seems to think it is, this will all be revealed in due course.

At the moment though, although HP has highlighted the case of Delich, there is scant evidence that the UCU generally agrees with her views. Much defence of her is based a basic free speech argument, which is not an antisemitic position, whatever else you may think of it.

But this doesn’t answer my curious term ‘trial by internet’? What trial? Who is saying that they should not be allowed to post whatever they want? The point is they are a member of an organisation that has a set of rules, surely? HP should be allowed to post whatever it wants about people who are posting in a forum with a set or rules, or disagree with its content. I can’t believe I am opposing this.

Maybe it’s just that I haven’t thought this through. After all, I’ve never complained about a leaked email from a political party - many of which have appeared in newspapers over the years - and I laud dirt that is dug up in outlets like Private Eye.

I am starting to think that I am a big fat hypocrite who doesn’t have a bone of constituency or foresight. What do you think?

What you’ll actually find is that I did not support the legal action against this site. I am objecting to some of the broader generalisations made, and there are issues regarding personal privacy and personal attacks made on individuals through the internet. Of course, some may argue that all is fair in love and war, unless you get caught up in job by another website using similar methods - I can certainly see how this type of stuff can get very out of hand.

“At some point, if indeed the UCU is the nest of antisemites that HP seems to think it is, this will all be revealed in due course. ”

You really are quite incredibly stupid aren’t you. Who is going to reveal it you absolute nothing? People like you?

No, people like you have no views on anything. It is blogs like this that are revealing the fact NOW. And no amount of ‘nothing to see here’ from neanderthals like you changes that.

“I am starting to think that I am a big fat hypocrite who doesn’t have a bone of constituency or foresight. What do you think?”

Yes, and so much more. And you really do waste a lot of peoples time on this blog, which I assume is your intention.

Fabian said it a week or two back and it was so spot on it rather upset you. you are a Nazi’s wet dream, the type to just sit there telling everyone ‘all is well’ as they are being dragged out of their homes.

And I do believe in freedom of speech. But people who knowingly and intentionally clog these threads with no opinion on anything (Benjamin) should be banned.

You are a pathetic little boy. So do piss off, you are not even funny anymore.

Now, having dismissed that waste of space, back on topic.

This post is obviously important. Delich had form for trawling some pretty unpleasent sites and was obviously frequently attracted to the views of fascists, conspiracy theorists and all round loons. Her peers saw nothing wrong with this and defended it.

oh, and of course, the ‘anti-zionizm’ of the boycott movement is quite obviously ‘anti-semitism’. They have been rumbled and no amount of posturing and blabbering can change that. I’d have thought that quite a good thing.

I think she has a right to hold Antisemitic Zionist conspiracy views and HP has a right to expose her to demonstrate that the truth isn’t libel.

She should stand by what she thinks and we should stand by what we think of her.

UCU is a breeding culture for racism and some of them are just viruses that inhabit it.

RE: A UCU member in my acquaintance has already heard talk from a union brother on how what has happened to Delich’s “martyrdom” reveals “the true visciousness and power” of “the Zionists”.

Why, we hardly had to turn the dial up to “2″ for this one. Ours goes up to “11″, its one more than “10″.

Beakerkin: on reflection, perhaps it’s only me who uses “vildechaye” as a term of endearment with my children. :)

If there is a wider problem with anti-semitism within UCU then that’s a perfectly legitimate subject for debate but this does come across as a vendetta against one individual. We all know she was guilty of linking to some dubious material on a deeply unleasant website, showing that she has also linked to other dodgy material doesn’t tell us any more about her and it certainly doesn’t prove anything about the UCU as a whole.
She is an insignificant figure, her actions are only relevant to the extent that they are symptomatic of a wider problem, there is no need to dwell on her in particular.

I don’t even support the boycott of Israel, much less JD’s views. I am just suggesting that there are implications to this method of attack that may not be entirely wholesome. I also feel somewhat queasy about hounding folk for expressing opinions contrary to my own.

It seems the key here is HP’s notion that JD is indicative of the UCU as whole, and yet I have not seen evidence that this is the case. There are various forms of words use such as:

Delich is accepted by many of those who are active in pushing the boycott of Israeli academics as a comrade: one of their own

These assertions have not been backed by evidence. Hirsh has already stated she is minor figure with little influence, and is not very involved campaigns.

Moreover, the fact that these messages were posted does not mean the UCU agrees with them. Some, indeed, may strongly disagree with them whilst defending JD’s right to post them (my position).

I also think its somewhat patronising to assume that all these things must be banned. This need not be the case; folk can make up their own mind about these things without having stuff banned and people hounded to an extent which is unnecessary, possibly dangerous and probably counterproductive.

Benjamin: I also feel somewhat queasy about hounding folk for expressing opinions contrary to my own.

Don’t worry, Benjamin! You have no opinions. As for the hounding, you could just leave here and never come back. Just like that.

We have a good number of Delich’s posts, and they are in a similar vein. We could do a post on her every day. We could do loads of posts on Hammond, or Bresheeth, or Cushman, too. I agree, however, that there is no point in simply republishing everything on the Activists List on Harry’s Place. However, you have to see the traffic on the list to believe it. The Activists List is supposed to be a place where all activists can discuss their varied concerns, relating to the work of UCU. It is substantially given over to the campaign to push a boycott of Israeli academics.

Harry’s Place has carried two posts which reproduce Jenna Delich messages, in which she circulated articles by far Right Zionist conspiracy nuts.

The reason I posted the first one is that a number of complaints had been made to UCU about Delich, which highlighted her conduct on the UCU Academic List. The UCU dismissed those complaints as groundless. I thought that it was important to highlight UCU’s utter lack of concern about the conduct of the list, the activities of the fringe extremists who have been pushing for this boycott of Israeli academics.

After I had posted that article, it was argued by Delich’s defenders on the UCU List that Delich had made a one off mistake, and that the article (though on Duke’s website) was an uncontroversial one. Delich has been painted as a victim: not of her own vicious politics and the stupidity of whoever it was to took HP offline, but of the all-powerful Zionists.

Well, it wasn’t a one off “mistake”, was it? So now, if you hear somebody claiming that Delich made an isolated error, you’ve got another post to show that this wasn’t a one-off. Incidentally, if the Boycotters claim that Delich simply messed up twice, we’ve got more and more and more material from her, to show that this is consistently the way that she behaved on the Activist List. We’re not planning to publish it all, though. I think that the point has been made.

The more important point is this.

There is a convergence between extreme Left, extreme Right and Islamist anti-Zionism. Those on the extreme Left often do not challenge the extreme Right and Islamist thesis: that “Zionists” control the USA and Washington. As we’ve seen from the discussion around Quinn, there are some who don’t recognise him as a neo Nazi conspiracy theorist at all.

The way that the boundaries have been blurred is a direct result of the likes of Delich circulating material like this. Because they think she’s a good Left wing progressive, they’re utterly blind to the nature of the arguments she has been promoting.

It isn’t about Delich. It is about all the little Delichs on the many “anti-Zionist” fora around the web, who push racist crap like this, and are still welcoming into the great big happy anti-Zionist family.

When I wrote my own statement of solidarity with HP on my blog, I didn’t mention Jenna Delich by name. I’m glad I didn’t, as her ethnic background has apparently become the basis for a degree of racist speculation about her.

First there was Vildechaye’s highly offensive, racist statement from the earlier thread:

‘Also, if Ms. Delich is, in fact, Croatian, isn’t it possible that she has imbibed some of that longstanding Ustase type anti-semitism with her mother’s milk, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding?’

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2257040473367223667&postID=202189287732906397

Then there is Hamid’s equally offensive, stupid comment:

‘Delich is probably a Muslim Bosnian who got influenced in the 1990s by radical Islamists sent there by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Saudi Arabia pro al-Qaeda Wahhabists who went to Bosnia to exploit the vulnerability of Bosnians.’

The reason these comments are stupid as well as racist, is that, assuming Delich is indeed from the former Yugoslavia, then she obviously picked up her views about Israel and 9/11 here in the UK, and not in the former Yugoslavia.

It’s not exactly as if Anglo-Saxons and other Members of the Aryan Race who belong to the UCU are all innocent of anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli racism, or that all the people behind the pro-boycott campaign are South Slavic untermenschen.

If Mike Cushman has the same views about Israel and 9/11 as Jenna Delich, are we to suppose that he is also of South Slavic background ? Or that a South Slavic ethnic background has nothing to do with belonging to this political faction ?

To the best of my knowledge, academic unions in the former Yugoslavia are not boycotting Israeli academics. The pro-boycott campaign is very much a home-grown British phenomenon.

So could the anti-Croat/Bosniak racists please shut up ?

I agree.

I don’t think that anything can sensibly be deduced from Delich’s name at all.

What is important is what can be deduced from her conduct, and that of the other Boycotters.

Tim Allon, as a main instigator of criticism of this post, I can assure you that my lacrimal glands are dry.

The Grand Mufti

[blockquote]Delich desperately needs some sunshine cast her way. Exposing the face [of racism and hatred should be applauded and not dismissed as “petty.”[/blockquote]

and Hammond’s Organ

[blockquote]Of course Delich is not the only person that had a complaint lodged against them for their conduct on the activists list.[/blockquote]

say it without knowing it. No excuses, no exculpation should be offered for Delich, and the rottenness in the UCU should be pursued with all the furies of hell, but targetting one individual and not said squalid list is the pettyness.

I also feel somewhat queasy about hounding folk for expressing opinions contrary to my own.

Thank you, Benji.

Jenna Delich isn’t an antisemite. She just linked to some “dodgy material” on an “unpleasant” website. This seems to be a prevailing theme.

The implication is that David Duke’s site is an unfortunate source, but that doesn’t say anything of Quinn’s article in isolation.

So, HP shows highlights some more of Quinn’s articles and proves that the original article is indicative of his antisemitic worldview.

But, say Delich’s defenders, that doesn’t prove that Jenna is an antisemite. She’s only guilty of disseminating one “dodgy” article, which happened to be found on a neo-Nazi website, and was written by a consistent antisemite.

So, HP highlights some of the previous material Delich linked to, making the case that Jenna has a pattern of sourcing antisemitic material from antisemitic websites, written by antisemitic authors.

Stop hounding Jenna! shout her defenders, forgetting that most of the attention she’s gained has been due to her having Harry’s Place closed down.

Of course, all this should be wholly unnecessary. Anyone who has the slightest understanding of the antisemitism would have recognised the antisemitic nature of the very first article she distributed and would have taken action against her, killing this story from the get go. If people can’t spot a conspiracy theory with Jews at its heart as antisemitism, then it’s only matter of time before we go round this merry-go-round once more, and somehow, some people will manage to portray HP as the baddie, just for mentioning it.

By the way, does anyone else share my suspicion that much of the sympathy for Delich stems from her apparent stupidity, which makes her seem less culpable for her antisemitism than its more articulate advocates?

I thought that it was important to highlight UCU’s utter lack of concern about the conduct of the list, the activities of the fringe extremists who have been pushing for this boycott of Israeli academics.

That sounds dramatic, but lets face it, there is no particular reason why the UCU should closely monitor the email traffic of law abiding academics, anymore than the government should. There is light touch regulation.

It is only a list of folk corresponding with one another via email, a perfectly legal activity. Organising political action, and discussing stuff - however absurd - is not illegal. I think you may be confusing the UCU’s non-nanny state approach for something else.

I think there should be very little regulation of this sort of thing. If academics don’t like what is said, then they can stick their oar in.

It seems to me that if you advocate the monitoring email traffic of people you disagree with, indeed this is what HP is engaged in, including the threat of sanction, that has some interesting and not particularly savoury implications more generally.

“That sounds dramatic, but lets face it, there is no particular reason why the UCU should closely monitor the email traffic of law abiding academics”

As I understand it the list is monitored and moderated according to the UCU’s anti-discrimination and anti-racist policies. A consistent complaint against the UCU is that its moderaters seem immune to the the concerns of Jews and others that the list has become increasingly tolerant of extreme right-wing ideas about ‘zionism’.

Has David Hirsh been banned from the list? If that’s true that is unfortunate, I would like to know the reasons why.

However, I see that what motivates some folk to “SMASH THE LIST”, may be that they don’t like the opinions of the folk posting on it, and there team is excluded, unfairly or not.

The solution to this is not to “smash the list”, but actually quite the opposite - to broaden it. The list should not be ’smashed’ (an utterly pointless exercise), nor folk on it banned or hounded. It is simply a forum for folk to exchange their views etc., and it the fresh air of freedom of speech and democracy that will ameliorate these problems, not banning and hounding by either side.

I agree

The more free exchange of views the better.

That’s why I’m publishing material from the UCU Activist List. UCU Activists are welcome to post here.

“By the way, does anyone else share my suspicion that much of the sympathy for Delich stems from her apparent stupidity, which makes her seem less culpable for her antisemitism than its more articulate advocates?”

I think -and I have said so at “Socialist Unity” blog that the sympathy comes because she is a woman, and supposedly not as intelligent as a man. So not only she is stupid, her volition was erased: “she was prodded to shut down HP” , she was egged, she was not well advised, etc, etc etc.

Machismo in the left. Also here.

Benjamin, there are plenty of sources online describing, with extracts, how the list has been used virulently and nastily to persecute and, eventually, censor those who would dare criticise the ban, or even moot points that sway from the virulent anti “Zionist” party line. Delich happened frequently to be a party to this intimidation. So it was not as if the mailing list was not monitored by the UCU: it was, and its officials were happy to ban people like Hirsch. When people complained about this intidimating behaviour, the UCU always dismissed it out of hand, including when people complained about Delich.

Now, remember, this was an official discussion list, one of the primary ways for the members to discuss amidst themselves things like pay and conditions and so on. Instead, it became a place where, ever more frequently, people like Delich posted neo-Nazi and conspiracy-theory articles, which received mainly tacit or explicit assent. It was those who dared to complain who were persecuted.

Now, again, this is not simply a YouTube comment box filled with 12-year-olds and their epithets: it’s an official mailing list peopled by a union with a large public profile and who proposed nation-wide divisive anti-acamedic, discriminatory policies. Had Harry’s Place suddenly and arbitrarily become obsessed by a nobody called Jenna Delich who posted a nasty link from a YouTube video comment, I would agree with you that they had picked their targets oddly and pettily. However, this is a woman who was one of the keys in fomenting the hysteria and even hatred that led to the union’s proposed boycott. It is instructive to see the ethos and, more interestingly, the acknowledged IGNORANCE of those who nevertheless feel utterly justified in using their evidently baseless discriminatory zeal as tinder for an extremely divisive proposal. And when their ignorance is revealed, the hostility exhibited by those whom we pay to help to develop our country’s young minds is equally instructive. Again, save your insouciance to defend 12 year olds on YouTube. These are tenured people happy to spout racist nonsense on an official Union communication forum and then dash into the “ignorance” den every time this is pointed out, and try, actively, to silence their critics by vexatious legal bullying.

I hope this begins to explain why your nonchalance in this case is misplaced. Unlike others here, I’m not saying it always is, but in this case.

Fabian, guess who washes the dishes in the Red Brigade.

David,
You’re getting a telling off, here.

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2779

Fair enough Post. Unfortunately, you can’t stop folk from organising stuff or talking about stuff even if that stuff is undesirable. Yes, I know there are rules and regulations and all that jazz, but really the best solution is to all this malarkey is to join the debate; for other folk to join the UCU and sort out whatever problems there may be.

It is difficult to ascertain what exactly is going on since much of it is hearsay and based on incomplete evidence. I get the feeling that this is a tad overclocked - but if there is a problem that is the solution, chaps.

Just to make it clear, my lack of sympathy for Delich is so profound that I fear I am a psychopath. In fact, I once unwittingly attended an axe-murder which I thought was a rather earnest podiatry session.

Yes, as numbnuts like Wall are continuing to push the line she made one simple mistake which an immediate apology effaced, it is appropriate to make clear she is a consistent promotor of whacked-out and odious politics, but the problem goes beyond her.

“Unfortunately, you can’t stop folk from organising stuff or talking about stuff even if that stuff is undesirable”

I agree with you completely, Benjamin. I even think that legislation against “hate speech” is dangerous. I much prefer people to feel free to speak their minds. But the quid pro quo is that they face the dialectic consequences: they shouldn’t expect to be allowed to get away with weedly special pleading or repressive bullying when their minds are thus revealed as empty or cesspits.

Move on? What nonsense. There is nothing ‘petty’ in exposing a viciously antisemitic UCU activist.

The “move on” exhortations are to be expected. It seems instinctual to the “big tent” mind to want to move away from an unresolved area of tension rather than prod it further until it’s revealed in its full goriness. It reminds me of those people who said “move on” after Bush stole the 2000 election.

“At some point, if indeed the UCU is the nest of antisemites that HP seems to think it is, this will all be revealed in due course.”

It is being revealed now as a nest of antisemites, you silly appeaser, and HP is contributing to this. Bravo!

She claimed that she made a mistake in linking to David Duke and that this in itself was a one-off error. She has never disowned Quinn’s article (the opposite in fact) or claimed that linking to it was in itself a mistake, so personally I have no problem accepting that it is a fair reflection of her views.
Now David obviously thinks it neccessary to provide further evidence for those who defend Delich on the basis that the article was not in itself anti-semitic, but all that does is prove a point about Jenna Delich, a fairly insignificant individual. It doesn’t in itself prove anything about a wider problem within UCU, which is supposedly the issue here.

Sadly, it’s probable that whatever conspiracy theories she believed in before, she will now feel them utterly validated. I am almost certain she gnashes her teeth in self-pity about how the Jews have poisoned her well, so to speak, never considering the myriad missteps she took to bring this upon herself, by herself. A UCU member in my acquaintance has already heard talk from a union brother on how what has happened to Delich’s “martyrdom” reveals “the true visciousness and power” of “the Zionists”.

You may have a point there. That’s probably the tact they’ll take. Draping oneself in the mantle of victimhood and to then wallowing in self-pity as your fellow ‘anti-racists’ tell you it’s all the fault of Zionists will likely be the route they’ll take.

‘Also, if Ms. Delich is, in fact, Croatian, isn’t it possible that she has imbibed some of that longstanding Ustase type anti-semitism with her mother’s milk, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding?

It’s not a question of last names or ethnic origins.

Anti-semitism exists in Eurupe and elsewhere, and so can be picked up by anyone of any ethnic background, skin-colour or religion.

“Fabian, guess who washes the dishes in the Red Brigade.”

Palestinians?

It is being revealed now as a nest of antisemites, you silly appeaser, and HP is contributing to this. Bravo!

Not so fast. Whilst the signs are not good in respect of JD, I remained to be convinced about the whole list. I have not read it. Indeed, when I did read a selection of contributions that HP posted a few days ago, it did not suggest antisemitism per se. Rather a mixture of defences of JD on free speech grounds (which I regard as respectable even if you disagree), and naivete.

Again, I would need to read the entire list over 5 days or so, to get a real feeling of it.

As I say, I wouldn’t necessarily ban someone for linking to the DD website. Its reprehensible and wrong, but I wouldn’t necessarily ban someone for doing it.

Nearly and Post, stop talking bollocks.

Thanks again to HP for showing what the UCU has become under its current leadership.

Alec:

“Nearly and Post, stop talking bollocks”.

What specific bollocks do you have in mind? I’ve no desire to be a troll, so if you could let me know what you consider bollocks in what I’ve said, that would help.

The willingness to give Delich a pass differs little from those willing to give the Nazis a pass in the 1920s because of their vegan, progressive volk agenda.

To defend Delich is to defend racism and hatred.

The face of hate needs to be exposed for what it is.

HP keep the spotlight focused on these UCU activists.

Grand Mufti, not to mention Tweedledum and Tweedledee, aka Post and Nearly, can you please tell me who in this thread (apart from Benji, that is) is advocating giving Delich a free pass.

It’ll be nice.

Dear Mr. Macpherson

As you know I have condemned Delich on numerous occasions. I do not give her a free pass. I merely raise some concerns about some of the methods used, and some of the more general statements made.

Dear Mr. Slappie

Point taken (and you have no idea how odd that sounds). Underneath your normal folksie humour, which makes me want to punch you repeatedly, there is a disgust at her actions; even if you do believe saying please will make it go away, this disgust is greater than certain other posters. I guess I was distracted by your Benjifying the thread. Did I mention it makes me want to punch you repeatedly?

I don’t like feeding the trolls, but as I realise that Benji hasn’t fully worked out how to use a browser or google, I shall help him in his quest:

“Has David Hirsh been banned from the list? If that’s true that is unfortunate, I would like to know the reasons why.”

go to http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/

and read UCU’s exclusion of David Hirsh from the activists’ list

also, see Leave Jenna Delich alone - David Hirsh
Why break UCU confidences now? David Hirsh
UCU accepts no responsibility

there are many more articles on the UCU activists list, simply go to the top right of the screen and use the search facility

read Engage and keep up, old chap

harassed any innocent muslim swimmers recently Mr T.

Or changed the story between telling it to the Jewish Chronicle and the Daily Mail?

Modernity,

Yes, just scan read that bit about Hirsh’s exclusion. Not gotten to the bottom it, but it all seems rather rum.

Alec, I believe you gave something akin to a pass, albeit maybe just heavily discounted. You decided that the discovery and publication of evidence to refute Delich and others’ claim that this was a one-off naive error was “… just petty”.

“… just petty”

Well “good Jews” should be off “building bridges for peace” (or something), right?

Damn sticky those Jews/Zionists. Viscious, in fact. Is that not anti-semitic or not? At first I thought it was vicious, but on checking I percieved it was indeed, ‘viscious’, like a slug, or a jellyfish.

“It is being revealed now as a nest of antisemites, you silly appeaser, and HP is contributing to this. Bravo!”

Not so fast.

I know I’m going to regret letting myself be drawn in by you, Benjamin. Oh well.

HP’s first post on Delich showed her antisemitism. The second post proves it was no accident. The fact that the rest of the UCU activists’ list was unable to call her on it until public exposure forced their hand, and that many continued to defend her long afterwards, condemns them as fellow antisemites at worst, or unable to recognize the antisemitism in their own politics at best. If HP had a significant body of emails from the UCU list that showed otherwise, it would have said as much — and if you don’t know David T well enough by now to accept that that is true, you have wasted irreplaceable years of your life hanging around here.

“harassed any innocent muslim swimmers recently Mr T.”

I believe David T harrasses swimmers of all faiths.

Relax, Paul M.

Benjamin, that’s fucking rude.

Where I come from, that’s considered provocation.

Modernity,

I think one of the problems with Hirsh’s approach is that he believes that calls for a boycott are automatically antisemitic. I disagree, and agree with Martin Shaw on Demcratiya - I oppose the boycott, but do not think it is necessarily antisemitic.

Not in Yorkshire, Tim. I often say that while offering folk a drink.

Benji,

I will engage with you for once,

I have a BIG problem with you

you shout your mouth off

next you say “What is the ….?” or “Has …….I would like to know the reasons why.”

I can’t work out if you’re too thick to use the web, or just so lazy that it amounts to the same thing.

Benji, use the web and google, stop being an arse, do your own research, and try to read BEFORE you comment?

up your game, old chap

RE: First there was Vildechaye’s highly offensive, racist statement from the earlier thread: “‘Also, if Ms. Delich is, in fact, Croatian, isn’t it possible that she has imbibed some of that longstanding Ustase type anti-semitism with her mother’s milk, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding?’

Highly offensive? Racist? This list goes on and on –appropriately– about the long history of european anti-semitism and how anti-zionism for many is a cover for an inherited tradition. Well if European anti-semitism has a long history, a part of it is the particularly vicious Croatian anti-semitism that found form with the Ustase. If noting that is “racist,” then let’s stop all this chatter about euro anti-semitism altogether.

I will admit that perhaps I shouldn’t have speculated about her links to that specifically without evidence… that was a mistake, but not a “racist” one, given her predilection to views that are clearly anti-semitic.

To sum up, i don’t see how what I said was substantially different than an article linking British anti-zionism in academia to the long tradition of British anti-semitism. Less so, in fact, given that Croatian anti-semitism has been so much more virulent.

hang on vildechaye,

all of this is IDLE speculation, based on someone’s NAME

is that really rational?

what is the purpose?

to inform us about East European attitudes? (surely we can do without sweeping generalisations in that area? and who’s to say that we are all ignorant of that region’s history?)

change the name and see how that argument fails

Ms. Delich is just a symptom of a wider problem

I agree it was idle speculation and it was a mistake. However, that doesn’t make it racist. Nor do i see any “sweeping generalizations,” as the Ustase were well known as vicious and outspoken anti-semites.

That said, I concede it was wrong to hear “croatian” and automatically consider the possiibility — just the possibility, mind you — of ustase. For that I apologize.

“Nearly and Post, stop talking bollocks”

Look in the mirror and remove a huge beam from your own eye first, silly man.

“It reminds me of those people who said “move on” after Bush stole the 2000 election”

He did no such thing. Better read up on USA election law.

“this does come across as a vendetta against one individual”

The actions of the whole are revealed by those of one individual and how the whole treats them.

Well done to HP for exposing this and standing up to them. This is why your a top blog.

“I don’t even support the boycott of Israel”.

Even.

Amazing. He expects a medal for this.

“I know I’m going to regret letting myself be drawn in by you, Benjamin.”

“Relax, Paul M.”

Bingo! Most people would have to work to make their entire body of opinion so trivial, Benjamin (and no, I don’t mean just your one reply to me). It seems to come easily to you. No point in wasting more time on you; you’re not worth it.

Funny, no sign of Flanker. Where could be be?

You were quite right to draw attention to Ms Delich’s emails, but you really ought to call a halt to your attempt to smear an entire union of British Academics. These Academics are known throughout the world for their fairness, tolerance, and willingness to oppose injustice, and as a result your attempt to present them as antisemites is bound to fail. After all, it was British academics who introduced the boycott of South Africa, and it was the British middle class who played such an important role in freeing Nelson Mandela.

In Trafalgar square in 2005, Mandela said, “And I can never thank the people of Britain enough for their support through those days of the struggle against apartheid. Many stood in solidarity with us, just a few yards from this spot”. But what does he say concerning Israel? “Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality”. And here we come to the beam that is in the “Israel-Firsters” eye.

For if you want to see real racism, look to Israel, where, according to the poll below, 40 percent of those polled said that Arabs should not have the right to vote in the Knesset, more than fifty percent said that Arabs should be encouraged to emigrate, while 37 percent said that Arab culture was inferior. How many members of the UCU would have these racist attitudes to other groups? “None” is the answer. In point of fact, British academics are routinely mocked for their attempts to present other cultures in a favourable light. Unfortunately, I do not know what proportion of those questioned in the Israeli poll were academics, but it is plain that racism is a pervasive feature of Israeli life.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3381978,00.html

And if you want to see some of these racist attitudes translated into action, join the IDF for a spell. I’m sure there are IDF men who have done more damage in a day than Jenna Delich could do in her lifetime. It is on Israel’s doorstep, by the way, that the real humanitarian disaster is occurring, yet on this, as well as on the ubiquitous Israeli racism, HP is silent. You are drawing attention to a few emails, while ignoring an entire culture of racism, brutality, and oppression. Incidentally, I’m not underestimating the offensiveness of the articles; I am merely pointing out that you are deliberately drawing misleading conclusions from them. The British academic class could never be persuaded to feel any real animosity for some group on the basis of their race, religion, or nationality.

Thank you, Michael, for your ignorant, screeching screed.

vildechaye’s racism in regards to the Croats was of course plain wrong (imagine how we would feel if modern Germans had been singled out for the sins of the fathers.) His latest statement:

Nor do i see any “sweeping generalizations,” as the Ustase were well known as vicious and outspoken anti-semites.

Is also problematic as the Ustache were primarily anti-Serb and several of their leaders were married to Jewish women. It was their rather late accomodation with Hitler (after a much earlier flirtation with Mussolini) which turned them into opportunist anti-semites but even then the Germans became frustrated with the number of high-class Zagreb Jews who the Ustach declared to be “honorary Croatians” whilst the victims deported to the death camps were almost all from the lower stratas of Zagreb jews.

Do you think money changed hands in order to be designated a ‘honorary Croatian’?

The Ustasa and Frankist tradition it sprang from also considered Jewish identity as cultural with the racial aspect a later development. Indeed their ideas about Serb identity mixed both cultural and racial definitions too.

If I may link again to Nevenko Bartulin’s thesis :- http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/~thesis/adt-NUN/public/adt-NUN20070911.113128/index.html

It is on Israel’s doorstep, by the way, that the real humanitarian disaster is occurring, yet on this, as well as on the ubiquitous Israeli racism, HP is silent.

I used to think that too, until I realised that the humanitarian disaster is largely maintained by the surrounding Arab countries.

It is a scab they scratch, pick at, make bleed and then hold up for the world to see as being Israel’s fault.

Why has Egypt, for example, closed her border with the Gaza strip, depriving Gazans of supplies?

Why do Saudi Arabia and its billionaires give nothing to Palesitanians, some of whom, we are constantly reminded, live on less than a dollar a day?

Why is it that only western countries provide aid for these people while the emirs and sultans of cash-rich Gulf states spend millions on champagne, whores and lamborghinis, when they’re not spending millions to print and distribute wahabbi literature promoting a pious, frugal and austere lifestyle?

The Palestinain probleme is, in fact, on the Arab world’s doorstep; it is their sacrifical Lamb.

Baaa.

Michael D,

agreed, by and large, British academics are a fine lot, but a very very small minority of UCU members are a bit fixated with Israelis, “Zionists”, etc and it seems to lead them to post from KKK web sites, or read Joe Quinn’s racism without acknowledging it

and I’l sure you’d agreed that as racism is wrong, then such activities need highlighting, as does UCU poor attitude on this topic?

such anti-Jewish racism needs to be shown the clear light of day, and not hidden away

if you are ignorant of the racism in Quinn’s work, this thread may help http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/30/quinn-protests-im-talking-about-zionists-not-jews/#comment-222612

also, search HP, David T explains it several times.

oh excuse me graham. I guess my apology wasn’t enough (for suggesting that a croatian might have ustase links), so now i have to endure listening to how the ustase weren’t really all that anti-semitic because they protected their rich jews and only poor jews were sent to their deaths. perhaps you ought to do some apologizing as well.

vildechaye,

please don’t go there, there are many specialists on HP who could write 3000 words on the Balkans without breaking for tea (I am not one of them), so please don’t go there, it is not helpful to anyone

[if you’re in any doubt search google or HP archives for previous discussions on Ustache and fascism)

please.

Michael d: You might have considered the possibility that the endless suicide attacks and bombings, not to mention existential threats from inside and outside, might have colored the Israeli view somewhat. If a climate of peace prevailed, you’d have to find another reasons to tar the israelis unfairlly.

Michael, how many Qassams, Katyushas and Shahids will it take before Israelis love Palestinians?

Don’t they understand that every explosion is an explosion of love?

thanks for the update modernity. subject closed.

Modernity

You are being very charitable about Michael D’s comments.

I was thinking that he must be a spoof so shallow and self congratulatory were his assessments of British academic superiority unencumbered by rational thought or empirical observation.

But he is not a spoof but is clearly completely incapable of understanding why he, in his own words, has not only condoned anti-semitism within the UCU but actually holds an anti-semititic worldview, voluntarily with no sense of cognitive dissonance.

He supports and proposes anti-semitic acts targetting, uniquely Israeli (Jewish ) academics, while admitting that the survey he cites as justification for the boycott action has no way of indicating whether Israeli academics holds views he believes are racist, he is prepared to punish israeli, jewish, scholars for the attitudes of a polled minority taken as proof of the guilt of a nation, Israel.

The fact that he is not arguing in support of a boycott of Chinese academics because of Chinese government repression in, say, Tibet, should alert us to the singular logic used as justification for collective punishement of israeli academics in the case of Israeli actions in the OT.

We can examine his logic and see why it is in fact classically anti-semitic, under a thin contemporary veneer of politically correct anti-zionism,

and why the wider argument for special measures against Israel though in precise principle not anti-semitic in practice through the actual targetting of Jewish Israeli academics must be.

You see Michael D tells us of an Israeli poll, which presumably is of jewish citizens where 40% believe Arabs should not be entitled to vote for the Knesset (in fact of course according to the Israeli constitution they can) and 37% (of Jews) believe arab culture to be inferior.

The slippages are astonishing he holds in his mind the idea of bad, anti arab, jews while holding them responsible for the actions of the israeli state that does not discriminate against arab citizens in the way that an out of context poll of a minorities attitudes, implies that some might wish to but can’t.

Yet on the strength of this ‘evidence’ he feels able to be judge, jury and sentencer of israeli academics who are responsible for;

‘the ubiquitous Israeli racism……an entire culture of racism, brutality, and oppression.’

I really don’t have time for this kind of rubbish, it reminds me of the time a policeman at the airport in ushuaia, Argentina started accusing me of, personally being responsible for the sinking of the Belgrano, or the time i was thrown out of a Fenian pub for blighting the potatoes.

If Michael D does not grasp that according to his logic he is responsible for the sinking of the Belgrano and could be legitimately excluded, along with all other British academics, from Argentina.

In fact reading through the threads on this UCU fiasco, I would say that anti-semitic discourse posing as anti-zionism is not such a minority at all.

In fact all one really has to do is engage the boycotters in debate and the careful abstraction that can be maintained by the scrupulously non racist opponent of Israel’s actions is found to be rather rare in those who actually support this particular boycott.

The reason for this should be quite clear, and presumably is clear to thoughtful opponents of Israeli policies, that unlike a boycott of material goods and services produced by a nation, this boycott attempts to target the lives and livelihoods of actual individual people, who are employed in the same sector as the people proposing the boycott.

These persons are real people who will suffer harm, inflicted apparently impersonally (despite all the venom and invective) against them because of who they are, as a collective punishment upon their culture and nation becaue of what their nation of citizenship is alleged to have done.

I think it is a perfectly reasonable position in this case to question the motives, assumptions, behaviour and arguments of people who would support such a boycott (of all the possible things that one might do to protest a countries policies).

Far from being intimidated by denunciations of seeking to see anti-semitism behind all expressions of a principled anti-zionism, or any action that seeks to hold Israel directly accountable for its actions, I would say that the onus is on anyone supporting the proposed UCU boycott to disprove the heavy presumption of anti-semitism in this case.

Superb post, mettaculture.

However,

“the wider argument for special measures against Israel though in precise principle not anti-semitic”

It targets Jews directly and uniquely (while ignoring - as you say - China et al). That is antisemitic per definitio.

For a good idea of Gideon Polya’s ravings (and at the same time acquainting yourselves with great artist Ben Heine, a.k.a. Hubert Lebizay), see

1. This one is a cause célèbre: “The Daily Kos disputation”
http://benjaminheine.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-was-eating-daily-kos.html

2. Miscellaneous:
http://benjaminheine.blogspot.com/search?q=Polya

P.S. I don’t think that his book on Jane Austen ever got a proper publisher.

Do you think money changed hands in order to be designated a ‘honorary Croatian’?

Oh no doubt about it. Many leading Ustache were as mercenary as Himmler (as opposed to being as driven by hatred as Hitler.) The problem with investigating exactly how corrupt the regime was of course is that Tito destroyed many records after the war in an attempt to “unite” Yugoslavia. I should say as well that it would give a false impression to say that the Ustache protected “rich jews” as the situationw as further complicated by the fact that most Ustache leaders were of southern peasant stock and had enormous chips on their shoulders about the cosmopolitan citizens of places such as Zagreb (Jewish or otherwise.)

So what do those who consider a boycott to be neccessarily anti-semitic make of the exchange between David Hirsh and Martin Shaw in the latest Democratiya?

I consider the boycott, as it has been formulated by the UCU, to be necessarily antisemitic. Ockham, if nobody else, makes that easy.

So? Bill Ayers tried to blow up the Capitol Building and you don’t seem to give a crap about that.

David T says “The more important point is this. There is a convergence between extreme left, extreme right and Islamist anti-Zionism”. In my view this is completely untrue.

Here are a list of some of the groups for whom the UCU campaigns: Action for South Africa, Amnesty International, Love Music Hate Racism, Campaign Against Domestic Violence, Committee To Defend Asylum Seekers, Hands Off Venezuela, Jubilee Debt Campaign, Justice For Columbia, Stonewall, Unite Against Fascism. And in the last couple of months, they have encouraged their members to take part in an anti-fascist march, and a march in support of Zimbabwean trade unionists.

But are we now supposed to believe that, while in all the above cases they are motivated by sympathy for the underdog and a desire for equality, they are in the case of Israel motivated by simple antisemitism?

This is clearly absurd. If you look at the list you will see that the UCU does not campaign against groups on grounds of religion, or gender, or nationality; they campaign against them because they believe that these groups are oppressing others. It is for this reason that you have had to make so much of a few articles, links and emails, and conveniently ignored the bigger picture. After all, you can hardly say, “It is obvious that the UCU are antisemitic: look at who else they oppose – homophobes, wife beaters, despots, racists…”. And if the Israelis and Palestinians lived in perfect harmony, they would be as welcoming to Israeli academics as they are to other academics now.

In short, there is no convergence, and by saying that there is, David T misrepresents British academia.

We have gone from a few totally unacceptable emails to the implication that the UCU is deeply antisemitic - a “nest of antisemites” - which is simply not true.

I would be the first admit that my post did not give a fair account of the Israel-Palestinian situation. I did not mention, for example either the rocket attacks, the past history of conflict, or the Hamas declaration to destroy Israel. But it was not me who began the distortions. On this site, you hurl offensive generalisations around with abandon and then when someone returns the serve you immediately take offence. Even worse, you respond with the charge of antisemitism, even though you may have just made a racist statement yourself.

I generally regard a statement as racist only it asserts that a person or people are intrinsically inferior or in some way malevolent. I know you can extend the definition, but this is its core meaning. Yet on this site, the definition of “antisemitic” is so wide that it can used to describe a person who is merely suspected of being motivated by antisemitic feelings. And, to top it off, when the racist debate is over, you return to denouncing races, religions and nations as if the preceding discussion had never occurred.

“Right – We’ve decided that he’s antisemitic on the ground that, in mentioning the events of 1948, he has questioned, implicitly rather than explicitly, the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign nation. So that’s him sorted – those English are a bunch of racist twats, aren’t they?”

Michael wants to see Israelis collectively punished for a poll that shows a minority finds Arab culture inferior… I don’t suppose he wants to see Palestinians collectively punished for polls which showed a majority supports suicide bombs or the destruction of Israel. I wonder what percentage of Arabs would say “Israeli culture is inferior”?

sympathy for the underdog…

When probably half of 200 million Muslims in the middle east want to see 5 million Jews ethnically cleansed out of a state the size of Las Angles county, who is the underdog?

Actually the pew center for democracy did ask whether people liked Jews in the Arab countries they were allowed to poll, the negative results were in the 85%-%95 range in some countries, Saudi (where they’ve never allowed any Jews), Pakistan (same), Jordan…

I have a question for Michael D,

We can both agree that any policy of Israel that would actively render seek to expel her Arab population is racist, but I wonder, why is a uture Palestine free of Jews acceptable, but an Israel free of, shall we say, hostile Muslims unacceptable?

Let me put this proposal before you, as the IDF evacuates settlements from the future Palestine, Arab citizens of Israel should be transferred to the new Arab state. Why is one policy racist, but the alternative desirable?

Oh and by the way, population transfer has a long history in conflict resolution.

Here are a list of some of the groups for whom the UCU campaignsi>

Yet on this site, the definition of “antisemitic” is so wide that it can used to describe a person who is merely suspected of being motivated by antisemitic feelings.

Isn’t that so typical of minorities? A talks about B having ‘a natural sense of rhythm’ and people start calling A racist, when all they have is mere suspicions. Next they’ll be saying the best person to judge if something’s racist is the person who says they’re offended. Why do they have such a chip on their shoulder?!

Better still, try developing your sense of empathy.

Here are a list of some of the groups for whom the UCU campaigns

This would be the Unite Against Fascism that conducted a whispering campaign against Searchlight for being “Zionists”? That, and Love Music Hate Racism (see last month’s Searchlight), the Committee to Defend Asylum Seekers - are they the only SWP fronts yet signed up to by UCU? Oh, I forgot this one: as Cristina Fernández Kirchner has had to speak up for the plight of Jews in Venezuela, Hands Off Venezuela really lends credence to the UCU’s acceptance of Jews.

Given that ‘Justice for Colombia’s’ website offers absolutely no sympathy for the victims of FARC, and plenty of toleration of narco-terrorism, you wouldn’t think that millions of Colombians had protested against this gang, now hung up to dry by El Comandante.

Yet on this site, the definition of “antisemitic” is so wide that it can used to describe a person who is merely suspected of being motivated by antisemitic feelings.

Isn’t that so typical of minorities? A talks about B having ‘a natural sense of rhythm’ and people start calling A racist, when all they have is mere suspicions. Next they’ll be saying the best person to judge if something’s racist is the person who says they’re offended. Why do they have such a chip on their shoulder?!

Better still, try developing your sense of empathy.

Michael D wrote:

“This is clearly absurd. “

Perhaps I was too charitable to you, as you clearly don’t wish to engage with any of the points which had been put to you, rather you construct edifices of straw in the hope that we won’t knock them down.

Do I think that the pro boycott UCU activists are motivated by racism? no, I don’t

Do I think that the pro boycott UCU activists are oblivious to anti-Jewish racism? not if it comes from the extreme right, if, however, it is cloaked or uses indirect terminology then some of them seem receptive to it

Do I think that there is an unhealthy obsession with Israel? yes

Do I think that this unhealthy obsession helps the Palestinians? no, certainly not. It is gesture politics, posing, achieves nothing aggravates everyone.

It is you might say the last vestige of student politics, a grand gesture and what does it tell us about those backing it?

Well Michael, if you’re familiar with politics and I assume you are, then you’ll know that many of the SWP activists will never be happy with Israel, if tomorrow it were to turn into a paradise, they would still, ideologically, wish it destroyed.

Call it “the unresolved Jewish question”. And if you doubt me, read their statements talk to the SWP activists and then ask them why they host racists on their platforms (Atzmon, Tamimi, etc)?

The fact is that the constant stream of virulent “anti-Zionism” is opening the door to anti-Jewish racism, and every now and again it seeps out.

So if you support these actions don’t be surprised at the nasty company you find yourself in and petulant indignation is not an answer.

if you are a UCU member you might find my simple (non-academic) guide helpful:

http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/for-ucu-activists-how-to-avoid-re-posting-from-neo-nazi-ku-klux-klan-or-white-power-web-sites/

Andrew Adams

My view of the proposed UCU boycott of Israeli, Jewish, academics, is that it amounts to racial discrimination within the meaning of the law relating to employment and the provision of goods and services, entitlements and benefits within the meaning of the Race Relations Act 1976.

I would add that by its character of collective punishment of Jewish academics as an ethnic and national group held to be responsible for the actions of the nation of which they are citizens, not only violates the principles of international law as held by civilised nations but it also brings to bear ancient stereotypes and forms of discrimination that are a well documented aspect of anti-semitic activity through the ages.

What so many seem to fail to grasp, such as Michael D, is that we are not talking of attitudes or statements or views being racist or anti-semitic or whether intentionally or unintentionally but of intended actions that if carried out, will quite simply have the effect of disproportionately effecting Jewish academics in the UK in comparison to any other, racial or ethnic group or group of national origin.

Frankly attitudes, motivations, and the most impeccable credentials revealing a self sacrificing refusal to to have imbibed any vitamin C ever produced by the Apartheid regime, are irrelevant to whether these UCU boycott proponents will be culpable of racial discrimination on grounds of (jewish) ethnic origin.

If you, by measurable fact, as a result of a requirement, condition, provision, criterion or practice that disadvantage a worker and other members of their ethnic group, then you have treated them less favourably.

In this case the UCU boycotters seek to racially discriminate against jewish workers, not by their choice of words, or their intentions, but in employment law at least by their proposed actions by seeking to subjecting them to non equal treatment in the taking up of academic positions in the UK.

And if people who claim to be trade unionists and socialists don’t get this point, then they can take their faded badges and che t shirts and fair trade coffee and women’s refuge raffle tickets and their love of music and hatred of racism;

they can keep their hands off Venezuela and keep them on themselves for ever, in an endless jerk off circle of mutually admiring masturbation.

It targets Jews directly and uniquely (while ignoring - as you say - China et al). That is antisemitic per definitio.

Any proposed boycott (which I do not support) does target Israeli establishments. You are right to say that the proposers may not be proposing a boycott of other countries. However, the notion that necessarily makes them antisemitic is absurd.

There are many causes that people advocate that its possible to criticise by saying there are problems elsewhere and that’s what folks should be concentrating on. In fact, that may be a perfectly valid criticism. Some folk may concentrate on problems in Nigeria or Mozambique, or propose a boycott of Russia or China. Similar arguments can be made of numerous situations. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean that those proposing these action are racist in proposing action. Its an absurdly simplistic, almost childish argument. People criticise some of the practices inside the USA; that does not make them necessarily anti-american and they need not preface every remark by saying China is worse.

Of course a boycott can be supported by antisemites too, but such a strategy itself does not necessarily indicate antisemitism, even if it is discriminatory in the sense that boycotts target certain institutions.

Benjamin, does it smell where your head is?

As for teh Israel boycott, the suggestion that Israel is a special case, well really begs the question, “why is Israel a special case?”

Joe

Folk campaign on all sorts of issues, which other folk may feel are not so important in the broader scheme of things.

In the case of Israel and Palestine some folk may be interested in human rights issues which may be a motivation; in other cases support may be motivated by antisemitism - both are possibilities.

However, the mere fact that Israel is ’singled out’ as a concern or for a boycott does not necessarily mean that the folk supporting it are doing it because of antisemitic reasons.

Moreover, the general refrain I hear from some people - such as “oh, why don’t you talk about China” etc, is absurd. Clear human rights abuses in China do not ‘cancel out’ abuses - or alleged abuses - elsewhere. Of course, its perfectly possible to dispute the allegations against Israel, but to only accuse others of bad faith - antisemitism - as a blanket first line of defence is simply absurd.

There are many good arguments against a boycott - and I don’t support it. However, just simply saying it is antisemitic per se is not one of them. Israel deserves more sophisticated defenders.

Marko Hoare: Then there is Hamid’s equally offensive, stupid (and racist) comment

Heh - since when is it “racist” to question a person’s religious affinity - when that person is publicly spewing postcolonial and anti-semitic drivel which is sanctioned by a certain religion?

Since when is religion a race? You are quite confused. A person is born into a race while a person acquires certain religious beliefs. You bet I will question her religious beliefs to show the source of her idiocy. The criticism is not on the person but on the doctrine.

If you can’t tell the difference between the two very distinct categories of race and religion, then I must add that you have fallen into the same political correctness trap that many of the idiot left have.

Israel deserves more sophisticated defenders.

Go for it, it’s time you became a Zionist. Post your Zionist article, Benji, I await it with bated breath.

I can imagine Benji’s position. It must be that whenever Israelis are blown up, he supports their right to write letters condemning the action in the strongest possible words.

Josh

I am a Zionist. I just don’t agree with David Hirsh’s view that calling for a boycott is necessarily antisemitic or racist. There are other views on this, such as Martin Shaw at Democratiya.

Folk campaign on all sorts of issues, which other folk may feel are not so important in the broader scheme of things.

Yeah, and no-one likes standing next to the bloke on the tube who has his iPod too loud, but if you only ever complain when he’s black, then we’ll draw our conclusions thanks very much.

Hamid,

As you ought to be aware, the Bosnian Muslims or Bosniaks are a nationality, not a religious group. Many of them are atheists. You have absolutely no evidence that Jenna Delich is a Muslim in the religious sense; you are simply making assumptions about her religious background on the basis of her supposed ethnicity. And that is racist.

Quite apart from the fact that most of the activists responsible for the campaign to boycott Israeli academics are not Muslims anyway.

‘A person is born into a race while a person acquires certain religious beliefs.’

Totally untrue. A person is not ‘born into a race’ - except the human race. Dividing humans into imaginary ‘races’ is itself a racist enterprise.

“Dividing humans into imaginary ‘races’ is itself a racist enterprise.”

Yes, but let’s not go too far with wishful thinking. The fact that racially-targetted medicine is a growing and successful realm and that recent genome studies do show racial markers suggests, sadly, that the earlier empirical suggestions that race was just a figment are a bit off. I wish they weren’t, but there you go.

“Any proposed boycott (which I do not support) does target Israeli establishments. You are right to say that the proposers may not be proposing a boycott of other countries. However, the notion that necessarily makes them antisemitic is absurd.”

Shouting ‘absurd’ doesn’t make it so. Israel and the Jews are singled out. You can sell them as many indulgences as you like, or even give them away: it doesn’t absolve them from singling out one country and nation from all others, which is racist. In this case, the term is antisemitism.

“Clear human rights abuses in China do not ‘cancel out’ abuses - or alleged abuses - elsewhere. Of course, its perfectly possible to dispute the allegations against Israel, but to only accuse others of bad faith - antisemitism - as a blanket first line of defence is simply absurd”

I see that ‘absurd’ is the apologist’s flavour of the month.
Regardless of ‘disputing’ the allegations against Israel (are you going to ‘dispute’ the lunatic claim that ‘Israel has the USA in its pocket’? What about ‘Israel is worse than the Nazis’?), the obsessive focusing on Israel is clear evidence of bad faith, and it is so however much you try to pooh-pooh it. All you are really saying is that it’s an argument for which you have no answer.

mettaculture 3 September 2008, 12:51 am:

Superb!

it doesn’t absolve them from singling out one country and nation from all others, which is racist. In this case, the term is antisemitism.

Dear me. So if someone singles out say, South Africa, or Zimbabwe, or Algeria or Ethiopia over human rights concerns, does that make them racist too? It may be that they are, but it is not necessarily the case.

If folk criticise the US govt for human rights abuses, does that make them necessarily anti-American? If folk agitate for sanctions against Russia, does that mean, necessarily, that they have some sort of deep seated antipathy towards Russians?

One can quite agree that worse human rights abuses may exist elsewhere. But it doesn’t (and shouldn’t) stop human rights investigators, lawyers etc objecting when abuses, or alleged abuses, take place in any area of the world.

It is true that criticism of Israel, and support for a boycott, can be motivated by antisemitism. You can even make the argument, based on the view that antisemitism is rising, that it may be likely the case - one can argue about that, but at least the contention is not actually absurd.

So all I am saying is it not necessarily the case.

To say it is necessarily the case is simply a basic fallacy.

Since when is religion a race? You are quite confused. A person is born into a race while a person acquires certain religious beliefs. You bet I will question her religious beliefs to show the source of her idiocy. The criticism is not on the person but on the doctrine.

You may be an expert in many things, Hamid, but it is obvious that the Western Balkans is not one of them. Muslim, in the Bosnian context, has been used as an ethnic tag for most of the last century and was officially recognised as such for about half that time. Indeed, I remember being at a conference where a paper was given by someone who described himself as a Muslim of the Orthodox Christian faith.

As usual, Benjamin fails to understand the first thing about the subject, can’t draw conclusions from glaring evidence, and wriggles and twists to excuse the antisemites. Like Irie, he cannot understand anything from context, indeed he doesn’t grasp what context is.
Oh, dear.

>Indeed, I remember being at a conference where a paper was given by someone who described himself as a Muslim of the Orthodox Christian faith.

If I, a white man from America, call myself a black man with white skin, it doesn’t make me a black man. Nor does a Christian calling themselves a Muslim make them one. It just makes them look ignorant - did this person NOT KNOW WHAT COUNTRY AND CULTURE THEY WERE FROM?

#########

>Yes, but let’s not go too far with wishful thinking. The fact that racially-targetted medicine is a growing and successful realm and that recent genome studies do show racial markers suggests, sadly, that the earlier empirical suggestions that race was just a figment are a bit off. I wish they weren’t, but there you go.

Wow - something sensible was allowed to remain.

The sad truth about “racism” is that Europeans are mutts who have been mass-raped for 2500 years, and are probably the least-qualified people on earth to talk about races, real OR imaginary.

Perhaps, in fifty years, when we understand genetics a HELL of a lot better than we do now, we will understand complexes of genes like we now understand individual genes. Perhaps we might also know something about genetic determinants of behavior.

In that case, ALL human thought on “racism” will have to be re-thought.

Currently, the whole discussion reminds me of phlogiston chemists fighting with caloric chemists.