Harry’s Place

[....]
Engage (the anti-racist…

Me thinks that statement needs further clarification.
It is an organisation with a singular purpose [nothing wrong with that of course] but using the all-encompassing ‘anti-racism’ term is rather disingenuous.

gotta wonder what happened to that woman to make her such a hater.

This is a totally consistent policy on Dr Blackwell’s part.

I have no reason to believe that she personally regards Holocaust denial as anything but odious, yet she is collaborating with individuals and organisations that deny the Holocaust. No platform for David Irving is inconsistent with a platform for Yasir Qadhi (HP passim) or Muslim Broterhood. (*)

Moreover, the entire purpose of the boycott movement is to delegitimise Israel and Israelis, to turn them from a collection of individuals, capable of good and evil like everybody else, liable to praise or criticism like everybody else, into pariahs, uniquely unspeakable and evil. Shimon Peres is not just an individual, he is the President of Israel. Delegitimising and demonising him, denying him his right for free speech, indeed denying him any right, is at the core of her project.

(*) One should be fair even to boycotters. Inasmuch as they (happily or not) collaborate with Holocaust deniers, they of course “acknowledge” the existence, indeed the sheer awfulness, of the Holocaust whenever they try to compare, say, the current situation in Gaza with the Warsaw Ghetto.

It is an organisation with a singular purpose

Singular indeed, perhaps even single. Yet, had you bothered to have a look at the Engage website, you would have seen that they are quick to publicise and criticise racist or wrongful acts by Israel, IDF and the settlers toward the Palestinians. Although this not not anti-racism in its most general sense, they take their anti-racist brief seriously in the context of the IP conflict.

Having said so, and taking a leaf from an old Jewish joke, I prefer so much more having a look at PACBI or MB websites. On Engage I read that Jews are persecuted, subjected to hatred and vitriol. How depressing… But on PACBI, SPSC, MB and suchlike websites I can read that Jews are powerful, infinitely rich, active everywhere, successful, and their conspiracies never fail.

Sue Blackwell. Because thinking you’re infallible means never having to admit you’re wrong.

A classic line!

Does Sue Blackwell have any dealings with Hamas?

They have gleefully admitted to the deliberate targetting and killing of hundreds of Israeli civilians. That in itself makes them self-confessed war criminals.

“Does Sue Blackwell have any dealings with Hamas?

They have gleefully admitted to the deliberate targetting and killing of hundreds of Israeli civilians. That in itself makes them self-confessed war criminals.”

Yes, but then I guess she must use Hamas’ own definition of civilians.

For Sue and Hamas, may G-d deliver the world from their wickedness, any Jew living in the Land of Israel, is a legitimate target, and hence not a civilian.

Shimon Peres is a war criminal.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles14.htm

I wouldn’t want to upset any stereotypes or interrupt any character assassinations but ought to point out that Sue Blackwell was quicker than many to oppose and expose Shamir and his lapdog, Atzmon’s antisemitism dressed up as anti-Zionism

Suck it Gene:

Barack Obama links Israel peace plan to 1967 borders deal

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5162537.ece

Obama working with Israeli doves in rolling back the ilegal 67 war and the start of all this mess.

She was indeed. Then he threatened to sue her. So she backed down.

The history of the Greenstein-aligned section of the extreme Left reads like the story of a lover rejected. Greenstein courted Atzmon. Atzmon laid into Greenstein. Greenstein laid into Atzmon. Blackwell rallied to Greenstein’s defence. Atzmon said ‘boo’ to her. She folded.

David Rosenberg: I don’t really believe that this is character assassination. Clearly, Sue Blackwell is aware of the existence of anti-Semitism, is not an anti-Semite herself and (to her credit) opposes Holocaust denial. (Didn’t she has had an article about it in an Egyptian newspaper?) But, equally clearly, she doesn’t pick-and-choose her allies, at least not within the Palestinian or Arab constituency. Her attitude to Holocaust denial (and, indeed, to war crimes) is selective to the point of hypocrisy.

She is committed to a point of view: the destruction of State of Israel and its replacement by Greater Palestine. The point is not whether you agree or disagree with this point of view (and I genuinely don’t know). The point is that she is using concepts like “free speech” or “war crimes” not as something embedded in principle, but as a selective tool. In this she is not unique: this is done in most conflicts, by individuals on most sides. This doesn’t make it more honest.

Blackwell objected to Atzmon because he queered her pitch, riding roughshod over the whole ‘anti-Zionism isn’t anti-Semitism’ drollery with all his boyish charm.

I think those who lend their support to groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas have assassinated quite a lot of their character already.

David R.: that was like five years ago. She changed and now antisemitism doesn’t upset her so much. See the way she reacted to Irving and compare with the way she reacted to Peres.

BTW, thanks for answering the other day to my question about how you were linked to Israel. I had to get out and couldn’t answer to you.

“having begun her academic career in 1983″

25 years in academia without a single publication? Is that some sort of record?

David Rosenberg wrote:

“that Sue Blackwell was quicker than many to oppose and expose Shamir and his lapdog, Atzmon’s antisemitism dressed up as anti-Zionism”

that being the case then why was Dr. Blackwell seemingly SO blind to anti-Jewish racism when she linked to racist sites or dodgy sites?

and THEN had to be told, by others, that they were racist?

surelyDavid, has she been “quicker than many” then she wouldn’t have linked to them in the first place? and would have seen the nature of that anti-Jewish racism?

she probably didn’t, because she was desensitized after years surrounded by borderline “anti-Zionism” and so when faced with vile anti-Jewish racism she found it hard to differentiate between the two?

so hardly “quicker than many”??

25 years in academia without a single publication? Is that some sort of record?

No, not really. Academe is full of individuals who are not research-active, for many reasons. (Creativity amd originality is not something you can summon by snapping a finger.) Some compensate by taking upon themselves more teaching and administrative responsibilities, others just take advantage of their colleagues.

Having been at the receiving end of exceedingly poor publications, though, my exhortation to academics is: in case of doubt, don’t publish!

Yes, but then I guess she must use Hamas’ own definition of civilians.

For Sue and Hamas, may G-d deliver the world from their wickedness, any Jew living in the Land of Israel, is a legitimate target, and hence not a civilian.

Really? Is this conjecture on your part or have you seen evidence of it?

Koppers,

Hamas have said many times, that they view all Jews in Israel as “settlers” guilty of the “crime” of “stealing” the land of the Arabs, and as such are not civilians. We have also seen them murder, with clear intention, many civilians.

So if this lady, does not regard Hamas as a group involved in war crimes, despite their intentional murder of innocent civilians, then presumably she holds to Hamas’ definition.

So if this lady, does not regard Hamas as a group involved in war crimes, despite their intentional murder of innocent civilians, then presumably she holds to Hamas’ definition.

YossiUK

That’s exactly what I am trying to ascertain here - whether she agrees with Hamas’ position, that there is no such thing as an innocent Israeli and whether she regards the Hamas leadership as war criminals/terrorists.

Koppers

Here is Al Qardawi, the cleric whose rulings determine for Hamas, what is lawful and what is forbidden in Islam.

A leading Muslim religious scholar in Qatar on Tuesday criticized Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, the highest authority in Sunni Islam, for his condemnation of “any attack on innocent civilians,” in the wake of weekend attacks that killed more than 26 Israelis.

“How can the head of Al-Azhar incriminate mujahideen [fighters] who fight against aggressors? How can he consider these aggressors as innocent civilians?” asked Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, quoted by Qatari newspapers.

Tantawi, Sheikh of Cairo’s al-Azhar University, the oldest university in the world, said Monday that Islamic Shari’ah law, “rejects all attempts on human life, and in the name of Shari’ah we condemn all attacks on civilians, whatever the community or state responsible for such an attack.”

Tantawi was referring to both Israel and the Palestinians in his statement.

“We disapprove of all whose who justify attacks against children by reasoning that the children will join the army when they grow up.”

These arguments “are odious. I reject them and they are contrary to the recommendations of the prophet Mohamed,” said Tantawi, who was appointed by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

“Has fighting colonizers become a criminal and terrorist act for some sheikhs?” Qaradawi asked. He added that “Israeli society was completely military in its make-up and did not include any civilians.”

In Israel, “men and women are soldiers,” added Qaradawi. “They are all occupying soldiers.”

This quote is from Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood’s own website, IslamOnline.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-12/05/article6.shtml

Koppers,

I am not so well acquainted with the views of Sue Blackwell to be able to offer a sufficiently accurate answer.

After a quick look at her website, it seems that she indeed does condemn Hamas’ suicide bombings. At the same time, she does seem to reserve her outrage to Israeli leaders, and as we have seen, calls for their arrest should they enter Britain. I don’t see that she has made similar calls, regarding the leadership of Hamas and other assorted terrorist groups.

It could be that she holds contradictory views.

Koppers if you have doubts watch Hamas TV

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1877wmv&ak=null

Transcription on:
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD208708

or choose one of this Videos
http://www.memritv.org/content/en/tv_channel_indiv.htm?id=175

What exactly is Shimon Peres accused of?

Promoting the Oslo accords?

It’s ironic that many Israeli ultra conservative would also like to Peres arrested for promoting Oslo.

Again, a left wing nutcase, like Sue Blackwell, holds views similar to those on the far right.

“Academe is full of individuals who are not research-active, for many reasons. (Creativity amd originality is not something you can summon by snapping a finger.) Some compensate by taking upon themselves more teaching and administrative responsibilities, others just take advantage of their colleagues.”

and many become “political activists” to make a name for themselves.

Subject: Re: Peres visit to Balliol
From: Haim Bresheeth
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:30:19 +0500

Dear XXX,

I am not sure if you meant your contribution to be ironic, but that is how it reads. If you are one of the few people still left who believe in what you wrote, than we probably should set up a charity to protect you as a near-extinct life-form…

Who but Peres is responsible for the failure of Oslo? While I never believed in the Oslo chances, it was Peres who made sure it never had a chance. There is no one who has done more than Peres to make sure that while the ‘peace talks’ and ‘talks about talks’ continue, so does the illegal settlement in the Occupied Territories of Palestine. It is heartening to realise that he has been able to pull the wool so well at his age… Peres is the best salesman of Israeli policy of ‘talk and settle’, and one has to give him credit for appearing to be a dove, at the same time as acting like the hawk he always was. For him to be invited after 41 years of illegal occupation, with a reduced responsibility - after all he was only a Minister, Prime Minister and President in this period, so what responsibility could he possible have for this occupation? He is cleaner than a baby’s bottom, surely?

If you did indeed mean this ironically, please ignore all the comments
above….
Haim

Hamibreshet again!

isn’t it funny that the same people who wouldn’t let peres _talk_ would be more than happy to give someone like arafat a kiss on the lips?

Who but Peres is responsible for the failure of Oslo?

The failure of Oslo has had many reasons, on both sides, and on the Israeli side Peres was probably less culpable than others. But this is not the point really. The point is that this is the reason given to denying Peres the right for free speech by an individual who himself was against Oslo, is against any compromise solution, against a two state solution and indeed against any outcome but the annihilation of the State of Israel.

Is this the world record in hypocrisy?

To paraphrase Golda Meir, better a strong secure Israel with the president banned from addressing a meeting at Balliol, than to be in favour with British academics but too weak to stand up to its enemies.

Here is Al Qardawi, the cleric whose rulings determine for Hamas, what is lawful and what is forbidden in Islam.

David T

I am well aware of the murderous (Israeli civilians, homosexuals etc) views of Qaradawi and the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood offshoot - Hamas.

We know that Sue Blackwell regards Israeli politians, such as Shimon Peres, as war criminals who should be arrested the minute they set foot on British soil. We also know she wears silly clothes.

I’m just trying to find out to what extent she endorses the views of the self-confessed war criminals that are Hamas.

Oh gosh, I don’t know.

The position of her allies appears to be that Fatah has betrayed the Palestinian people, and although they do not endorse everything that Hamas says and does, their position is one of solidarity with the Palestinian people, and that means that we must accept their choices, in what is a revolutionary liberation struggle that all right thinking people should support, and that… [cont., p 94]

It could be that she holds contradictory views.

YossiUK

Or haplessly biased ones. Perhaps, I have been playing the devil’s advocate on this but I think it exposes an important point with regards to her views and IMO credibilty.

Supporting the Palestinians is one thing but endorsing the views and ideology of a murderous strand of their politics is another. Incidentally, that label could be pinned on either Hamas or Fatah.

Do you see my point?

Koppers if you have doubts watch Hamas TV

Karl Pfeifer

I believe I addressed your post in replies to YossiUK and David T.

Koppers,

I absolutely see your point.

And I think you are right, about her holding biased views.

Her solidarity with the Palestinians, (or perhaps more accurately, her hatred of Israel) directs her vitriol only to Israel, while downplaying or ignoring the horrific views of the Palestinian leadership.

This is like some Muslims who scream and shout about their oppressed brothers in Palestine, while having no feelings for their brothers in Darfur.

If I might spoil the party… Sue Blackwell is exhibiting a trait typical to extreme protagonists on all sides in conflict. Her point of departure is partisanship: she supports one side – to the hilt – and consequently opposes the other. Thus, she is quick to notice (and subsequently multiply out of proportion) each and every transgression of “the other side”, while finding a way to justify and explain away (at the first instance, to herself) each objectionable act of “her” side. In that she is eerily similar to a supporter of a football club, who is always, but always sure that the ref is against them. Except that (with apologies to the spirit of Bill Shankley), the stakes are higher in the IP conflict.

In all that Sue Blackwell is not any different from many posters on this side, regardless of the flag they are waving. In essence, you can take two opposing points of departure when viewing this sort of a conflict. You can see it as a fight of good and evil, a zero-sum game of “your” side and “their” side, and use arguments like justice, human rights, war crimes etc. as verbal chips in a game. Alternatively, you can view it as a conflict between two sides which both have justice on their side, yet frequently commit acts of injustice, which – more often than not out of fear, ignorance, feelings of revenge and mass hysteria, not out of some innate evil – fall short of their obligations. And, inasmuch as it is important to hold individuals on both sides to account for their actions, even greater imperative is to help the two sides attain an accommodation.

Sadly, this is something that Sue Blackwell doesn’t understand. And she is not the only one.

s.o.Muffin

It is true, many people are biased in this conflict as well as other conflicts. I am biased towards “Israel”, as I love my fellow Jews and care deeply for their welfare.

It is, in my view, also foolish to pretend that each side is equally complicit. Clearly it is quite rational to realise that one or other side has greater legitimacy in their claims and in their actions. The “they are both as bad as each other” argument I often hear, is simplistic, and quite simply appeals to those who can’t be bothered to think deeply about the conflict.

It is true, I will go out of my way to try and find a decent explanation for the behaviour of Jews in Israel, and will try and judge my fellow Jews fairly, but will not ignore evidence to the contrary if it exists. I will not usually search so deeply for the rational behind the actions of the Palestinians, but will try and contextualise their actions and motivations. I try, also, not to attribute to them the worst possible motives, unless evidence supports that contention.

Either way, the attitude of Sue Blackwell, goes beyond all this. She is now firmly in the territory of demonisation. Of exaggerating beyond all reason the actions of Israel, and consistently attributing to them negative intentions.

This puts her discourse beyond reasoned debate.

YossiUK, my criticism was not directed to you. The cap (or the kippa) doesn’t fit :-)

Also, I never used the word “equally”. I don’t believe that both sides are “equally complicit” – and, for goodness sake, how do you measure this? Also, I definitely don’t believe that “they are both as bad as each other”. Au contraire, I believe that in the circumstances they occasionally (and too often to my liking) commit objectionable and immoral acts, but neither side is innately objectionable or immoral. It is in the nature of a conflict that people lose what you would call צלם אלהים, G-d’s image. It is our obligation to remind them of this and to create conditions in which they will rediscover their capacity to do good.

I have something positive to say in favour of Haim Beresheeth: His present conspiracy theory (that Peres has deliberately failed the Oslo process) is better than at least one of the previous conspiracies he believes in. Taken from a comment by Mikey on Engage ( http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/comment.php?id=1381) here is a review of a basic and introductory book Bresheeth co-authored on the Holocaust that was written for the School Library Journal by Jack Forman:

“Grade 9 Up-This strange and contradictory book is not an introduction to the Holocaust; it is a statement of the authors’ revisionist political beliefs about that dark period of history. Written and illustrated in a graphic-comic format, it promulgates the view that the Nazis did not intend “to destroy European Jewry physically” but rather, that “many forces within the German state as well as outside it helped to bring it [the Holocaust] about.” The authors do not deny that the Holocaust occurred, but assert that the Nazi policy of genocide evolved only after Hitler was unable to expel all the Jews. They indict Western nations for refusing to accept Jewish refugees and argue that Zionists worked to impede immigration to all countries other than British-controlled Palestine. They also postulate that middle-and upper-class European Jewish communities colluded with the Nazis instead of resisting them. The “Aftermath” presents the revisionist stance that Israel today has become the executioner instead of the victim, the colonial oppressor rather than the oppressed. In addition to the bizarre and unproven propaganda permeating the text, the authors’ account negates one of their primary assumptions; they demonstrate repeatedly that the killing fields and concentration camps were the results of Nazi policy initiated by Hitler and his henchmen. There is no reason why libraries serving young people should consider this highly politicized, inconsistently argued, and misleading title. Steer them instead to Milton Meltzer’s Never to Forget (HarperCollins, 1976), Barbara Rogasky’s Smoke and Ashes (Holiday, 1988), or Art Spiegelman’s “Maus” books (Pantheon).” [3]

S.O.Muffin,

I am very aware that you did not direct your comments to me, I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you had.

Also forgive me, if I gave the impression that I believe you thought both sides were equal or as bad as each other, I was making a general point, and not suggesting that you yourself held such views.

I agree with you that no side is innately immoral, but that both sides are capable of immorality.

And yes I am a great believer that conditions between the parties that engender goodwill, should be encouraged. Call me an optimist if you like, but I believe that it is more than possible for both sides to live in peace side by side, and there are examples of this throughout the Holy Land, but only a naive person believes that this will come easily.

I agree that a completely polarised view, which refuses to see the humanity of the opposing side brings nothing but misery.

Despite all this, I do believe that Palestinian society is infused with a culture, an aspect of which, glories in battle and rejoices at the destruction of Jews. This is not an inevitable part of the Palestinian soul, this is just a result of education, situation and other factors.

I am convinced this can be resolved. And I would hope, that the true friends of the Palestinian Arabs, would help them separate themselves from ideas, which only demean and damage them. This is why I believe that people like Sue Blackwell, are not true friends of the Palestinians, but are simply haters of Israel, who use the Palestinians as weapons against Israel who they hate for other reasons, in her case, her political views.

It seems to me, that the greatest tragedy to afflict the Arabs of Palestine, is that so many of their friends, be they fellow Arabs, or Western admirers, do not have their best interests at heart.

An indication of Blackwell’s position on Hamas might be gleaned from a link recently added to the articles page on her website to a CiF article called “Hamas condemns the holocaust”. I don’t normally read CiF because I don’t like cleaning puke off my computer but basically the article attempts to whitewash Hamas as and claims bizarrely that portraying Hamas as anti-Jewish is part of the plot to isolate them. (in which case the Hamas charter and TV channel are part of a zio conspiracy, presumably). Anyway no doubt stuff like this reinforces Blackwell’s anti-Zio cake-and-eat-it position of claiming to be free of any taint of bigotry whilst expressing sisterhood with racist murderers.

It seems to me, that the greatest tragedy to afflict the Arabs of Palestine, is that so many of their friends, be they fellow Arabs, or Western admirers, do not have their best interests at heart.

Well, I am not sure it is their greatest tragedy. But certainly it is a tragedy. Too many people wave a Palestinian flag and egg Palestinians on for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Palestinians.

Otherwise, it is a pleasure to agree.

resistor is a racist piece of shit.

I see that the cargo of the latest Gaza cruise just completed included Claire Short, Jenny Tonge and Lord Ahmed.

Suck it Gene:

Obama working with Israeli doves in rolling back the ilegal 67 war and the start of all this mess.

Fwanker, an article by Uzi Mahnaimi http://www.yourish.com/2007/06/17/3306

Fwanker, do you think this means that settlements in The West Bank must be dismantled? Why, aren’t Jews allowed to live in Palestine?

I think you will find that Israel won’t be accepting this self-genocide plan.

Why is Sue Blackwell’s opinions so important.

Does she have that much influence on the political life of GB?

Why is Sue Blackwell’s opinion so important.

Does she have that much influence on the political life of GB?

BidenMyTime,

Two weeks ago the Sunday Times ran a story about the Oct. 26 US cross-border helicopter raid, under the byline Marie Colvin and Uzi Mahnaimi. The Syrian regime’s alleged complicity is summed up in the second paragraph:

(Quote) “In the time-honoured tradition of covert US operations in the Middle East, this one seems to have gone spectacularly wrong. The Syrians, who had agreed to turn a blind eye to a supposedly quiet “snatch and grab” raid, could not keep the lid on a firefight in which so many people had died.”

In your view, is this a reliable account? Does it ring true?

Thanks
JC

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5062848.ece

BidenMyTime

Two weeks ago the Sunday Times ran a story about the Oct. 26 cross-border helicopter raid, bylined Marie Colvin and Uzi Mahnaimi. The Syrian regime’s alleged complicity is summed up in the second paragraph:

(Quote) “In the time-honoured tradition of covert US operations in the Middle East, this one seems to have gone spectacularly wrong. The Syrians, who had agreed to turn a blind eye to a supposedly quiet “snatch and grab” raid, could not keep the lid on a firefight in which so many people had died.”

In your view, is this account reliable? Does it ring true?

Thanks
JC

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5062848.ece

BidenMyTime

Two weeks ago the Sunday Times ran a story about the Oct. 26 cross-border helicopter raid, under the byline Marie Colvin and Uzi Mahnaimi. The Syrian regime’s alleged complicity is summed up in the second paragraph:

(Quote) “In the time-honoured tradition of covert US operations in the Middle East, this one seems to have gone spectacularly wrong. The Syrians, who had agreed to turn a blind eye to a supposedly quiet “snatch and grab” raid, could not keep the lid on a firefight in which so many people had died.”

How reliable is this account, in your view? Does it ring true?

Thanks
JC

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5062848.ece

Suck it Gene:

Barack Obama links Israel peace plan to 1967 borders deal

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5162537.ece

These Sunday Times stories about Israel tend to be highly unreliable. But this looks pretty much like what Israel offered (and Arafat rejected) in 2000. Why would I want to “suck it”?

(Quote) “In the time-honoured tradition of covert US operations in the Middle East, this one seems to have gone spectacularly wrong. The Syrians, who had agreed to turn a blind eye to a supposedly quiet “snatch and grab” raid, could not keep the lid on a firefight in which so many people had died.”

Thanks
JC

What am I, some security expert. As Gene says, reports about Israel in Sunday Times tend to be unreliable. Unreliable might imply ’some truth’ but not always literal truth or accuracy.

As long as West Bank Settlements remain in a Palestinian State with its citizens under dual nationality and security I happen to think a 1967 border solution can work. Although I happen to think it will be more Res 242 than just 1967 borders.

Any Palestinian State will surely welcome Jews as citizens

Shriber:

‘Why is Sue Blackwell’s opinions so important.’
- they’re not

Does she have that much influence on the political life of GB?
- no, but I’m willing to bet she wishes she did.

As I understand it, the point of this piece is to show up Blackwell as a self-important hypocrite. As someone only interested in promoting a particular point of view and silencing dissenting voices.

Shriber, looking at the post again, it appears I should add -

‘to show up Blackwell as a self-important, publicity seeking hypocrite who has seems to have spent most of her academic career engaged in political causes rather than doing research’

AND

‘As someone who is quite comfortable allying herself with murderous jew hating terrorists that seek the destruction of the state of Israel.’

Tells you pretty much all you need to know - if you didn’t know already - about the type of people promoting a boycott of Israeli academics.

Subject: content of postings on this list
From: Sue Blackwell
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 02:54:58 +0500

Dear all,

I am catching up with the last few days’ postings and
cannot believe I am the only member of this list who
finds XXX’s contributions profoundly offensive
for a whole range of reasons.

XXX I cannot understand why you joined a trade union,
let alone a list for activists, if you do not have any
concept of the most basic trade union principles like
solidarity with others.

I do not find it funny when you suggest that people in
the Middle East (of any race or religion) have spent too
long in the sun, and that it might make things simpler if
somebody nuked the region. (Especially since Israel does
have nuclear weapons and is quite likely to use them against
Iran, for instance).

I also do not find your frivolous remarks about abortion
funny. Can you not grasp the simple concept that while
the choice to actually have an abortion is a personal one,
the RIGHT for women to make that choice is a political one
and one moreover which is under threat at the moment? Trade
unions have been involved in the campaign for abortion rights
since at least 1979 when the TUC led the campaign against the
Corrie Bill - and rightly so as XXX has said.

And I could say something about your comments on the right
to carry guns as a defence against “criminals” too but it’s
3.50 am here so I won’t start on that. Suffice to say that if
you were to bring a motion on this to any UCU branch meeting you
wouldn’t get a whole lot of support. But then concepts of trade
union democracy seem to have eluded you too.

Free speech does not include the right to be gratuitously
offensive to fellow members of the union. Would you perhaps
like to make a serious and constructive contribution to this
list one of these days? Please tell us, did you join the list
just to wind us all up? You seem to be succeeding where even
members of Engage have failed.

yours,
Sue B

Too many people wave a Palestinian flag and egg Palestinians on for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Palestinians

The same unfortunately applies to Israelis; some of their “friends” include Christian fundamentalists (hoping to see Armageddon), and right-wing Loyalist paramilitaries.

P.

Absolutely, Paul. But, as the weaker side, Palestinians can afford less this hypocritical embrace of false friends.

“The same unfortunately applies to Israelis; some of their “friends” include Christian fundamentalists (hoping to see Armageddon), and right-wing Loyalist paramilitaries.”

Yeah, but how many of them are in UCU?

Can we at least get the name right? UCU stands for University and College Union, not University College Union.

‘a Brummidge alumna’.

Whoever you are.

Great expose.

‘More from the list’

Subject: content of postings on this list

I haven’t had such a good laugh since the short video of George Galloway interviewing the producer of ‘underground something or other’.

For someone like her to be awarded a PhD - someone who is so stupid that she believes that because she personally ‘thinks’ (using the term very elastically, of course - I don’t believe she can think rationally, at any rate no better than my cat) that Peres is a ‘war criminal’ he should be banned from speaking at an Oxford college and should be arrested in the UK - proves that Birmingham U is a joke, not an academic institution.

ST stories about Israel unreliable? No, really? Well, I never …

In recent times, ST seems to have developed a … how shall I put it … dislike of Jews. Just read Hastings’ barefaced lies about the history of Israel, full of the most openly expressed venomous contempt for Jews.

Furthermore, nobody of note is allowed to be referred to as Jewish. Einstein was a ‘German’. Milstein was a ‘Ukrainian’. Chagall was a ‘Russian’.

The BBC is following this trend, of course. Oistrakh was a ‘Ukrainian’ also.

I wouldn’t want to upset any stereotypes or interrupt any character assassinations

LOL. The woman is a racism-promoting shit. She assassinates her own character every time she opens her mouth.

41 years of illegal occupation

Blah blah fucking ignorant blah. Does this moron even know what the word ‘illegal’ means?

“I wouldn’t want to upset any stereotypes or interrupt any character assassinations but ought to point out that Sue Blackwell was quicker than many to oppose and expose Shamir and his lapdog, Atzmon’s antisemitism dressed up as anti-Zionism”

Was she?

I recall writing to her on a number of occasions, drawing her attention to the fact that her website linked to several sites that were explicitly antisemitic — though not necessarily anti-Zionist. Dr Blackwell delayed removing the links for a strangely long duration. This struck me as odd for someone who is so passionately anti-racist. Perhaps, like you, she didn’t want to upset any stereotypes.

Re: Sunday Times lies about Obama adopting the Arab Plan. As some of us predicted the story is absolute bollocks

A senior adviser to Barack Obama on Sunday denied reports that the U.S. president-elect plans to throw his weight behind the 2002 Arab peace plan, which calls for Israel to withdraw from all territories captured during the 1967 Six-Day War in exchange for normalized ties with the Arab world.

Dennis Ross, Obama’s adviser on Middle East policy, issued a statement Sunday, saying “I was in the meeting in Ramallah. Then-senator Obama did not say this, the story is false.”

Hence, Obama didn’t even make this offer as a Senator let alone a President, as the article implies. It implies that this acceptance of the Arab peace plan is a result of him becoming President Elect.

Obama should force the Palestinians to follow The Roadmap or fuck off into oblivion.

This morning’s Today appearance by the President of Israel was completely beyond parody.

We got “Sunnites”, who are “moderate”, despite including Osama Bin Laden.

We got “Muslims” and “Arabs” used interchangeably, with the implicit suggestion that the Iranian majority is Arab (there is a large Arab population in the oil-rich South West, but I digress).

And we got Iran’s enemies, “the moderate Arabs”, presumably including those in whose interests Hillary Clinton pledged to nuke Iran (thus despicably putting into people’s heads the idea that Iran might wish to attack them, on absolutely no basis whatever): Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, which first alone has given the Clintons eighteen million dollars and counting.

One expects this sort of thing from, say, Tony Blair. His whole appeal, to those (far fewer than is generally assumed) who were ever susceptible to it, was that he knew as little as they did, and was as disinclined as they were to find anything out.

But Shimon Peres? What is the world coming to?

Well, I just listened to Today and can confirm that, as usual, Lindsay spouts his customary nonsense.

The Anglo-Christian ignoramus who claims to be a Talmud expert tries to best the prime minster of Israel.

You can listen yourself, it’s at 2 hours 13 minutes in:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ffzwg/Today_18112008/

Zkharya: the President of Israel, not the PM.

David Lindsay a Talmud expert? Hahahaha…

’sorry, Fabian. ‘quite right.