Harry's Place

The Miliband family trust also funds the odious – and, frankly, barking – Medialens.

Miliband has to walk a tightrope.

I don’t envy him.

If he didn’t say it, then he didn’t say it.

End of story.

have you guys seen this (off topic)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3660349,00.html

This blog is on fire today with lots of comedy value. David Miliband wasn’t a “Marxist intellectual, but rather a Marxist intellectual. The fact you have to explain this to your readers speaks volumes.

Ralph Miliband did not “railed against the ousting of Pol Pot and Idi Amin” at all, but rather made his own intellectual position on military intervention *by socialist states* clear when discussing intervention in Cambodia or Uganda. He was against military intervention by socialist states (and of course the west). He opposed intervention in te abovementioned states, because he believed the comparison to, say, Nazi Germany didn’t stick (due to differences in imperialist ambitions) and because the security argument was used to justify e.g. the 1956 intervention in Hungary.

So it had nothing to do with ‘defending’ Idi Amin or Pol Pot – as you insinuate – but a discussion on military intervention by socialist countries at the time. If you’re going to exclusively get your information from arseholes like Oliver Kamm on this issues, make sure to doublecheck that info before posting, because you and OK usually get it wrong.

“Marxist intellectual” – forgot to close the ironic quotation marks used by your esteemed blog.

But there’s an interesting lesson here nonetheless.

That people who post stuff that turns out don’t apologise for posting stuff that isn’t true – instead they claim, “there’s an interesting lesson here nonetheless”? File under WTF?

that turns out

not to be true, that is…

“Marxist intellectual,” the very definition of an oxymoron.

So, how come one of the “group of senior Jewish community figures” has not come forward either to confirm or deny the story?

David Miliband didn’t say it. That is the position.

The various people who thought they heard him say it may well be old and therefore will be more likely to be hard of hearing.

And yes…what interesting lesson? Fatty Stephen Pollard invents a story and wonders why the FO don’t comment on it?

Not just Pollard.

A number of people must either have decided to lie, or more probably, misheard what David Milliband said

They must now be too ashamed to admit their error.

Or Pollard has invented it all.

Were it true, the best explanation for the ’senior figures’ not going on the record, I suppose, is that they don’t want to fight with the Government.

It’s always amusing to see Trots like olching defend New Labour ministers, a very rare occurence it must be said – except when doing so can paint Jews in a bad light.

Milliband criticises the Israeli state. Pollard smears him, David T repeats the smear, all under the guise of “explanation”. The smear stays googleable. Job done.

That’s a lot of J’s and F’s. I recommend Paroxitine for that OCD condition.

Milliband criticises the Israeli state. Of course Pollard will smear him and of course, in the guise of being helpful, David T will explain the smear. The smear stays googleable. Job done.

Does trots mean the same thing in UK slang that it does in US slang?

Sea Kitten, mate, not defending David Milliband (though he’s manifestly innocent on this particular charge) but rather his father after the abomination of a summary in the article above.

But not bad, 13 posts in before someone on this blog groundlessly accuses a dissenting voice of anti-Semitism yet again.

I am prepared to believe Milliband said this. He has form of upsetting countries with thoughtless remarks. I choose a football analogy. He reminds me of an average footballer who’s manager has said he couldn’t tackle a wet paper bag. So, he’s decided he has to toughen up otherwise he is stuck with a “Kid Milliband” label. I don’t think he has ANY diplomatic skills at all.

As an example is his recent visit to India http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1126282/Insensitive-Foreign-Secretary-upsets-Indian-hosts.html after which complaints were registered about his remarks.

Milliband is little better than Kaufman in his attitude to Israel.

What I am sure of is that he isn’t going to last very long up against Clinton. If he says anything that screws the relationship with Israel I am 100% sure the Americans will get him sacked for being a loose cannon and actually a damp squib.

Miliband maintains that the settlements are ‘illegal’ but fails to prove it. The US has not regarded them as illegal since Reagan. On Thursday in the House of Lords the Foreign Office Minister said that Israel ought to show “contrition”.

Miliband ain’t so great a friend.

Yes Clap he is on a tightrope.

The objection Pollard makes to Miliband’s non-existent statement is an odd one. Sure, it’s a ‘canard’ that all Jews ‘owe allegiance’ to the State of Israel. Still, many Jews do /feel/ (how do you do italics?) such an allegiance – much as, say, many British people of Turkish origin feel an allegiance to Turkey.

There is a far more glaringly silly assumption in the imaginary outburst, which is that the Israeli government bases its strategic decisions on what groups of ’senior Jewish community figures’. If Mr. Miliband /really/ doesn’t think that, let alone doesn’t say it, then he hasn’t got a lot to learn about hop international relations don’t work.

lol

In opinion polls Spain comes out as the most antisemitic of all europrean countries

’senior Jewish community figures’ *tell it to do*, I mean…

And *how* rather than ‘hop’

Bugger

Lol – the Simon Wiesental centre has sent a letter to Barcelona city council (or whatever) telling them that there is indeed no need for European dignitaries to stand a minute’s silence for dead Jews if they care so little for live ones.
Full message on SWC website.

“WIESENTHAL CENTER TO CATALUNYA GOVERNMENT: HOLOCAUST VICTIMS HAVE NO NEED FOR MOMENTS OF SILENCE FOR DEAD JEWS FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO RESPECT FOR LIVE JEWS

The Simon Wiesenthal Center denounced the government of the Spain’s Catalunya region for cancelling its public commemoration of International Holocaust Day on January 27th as a way to protest Israel’s operations in Gaza. An official from the city of Barcelona, where they memorial was to be held, was quoted as saying, “Marking the Jewish Holocaust while a Palestinian holocaust is taking place is not right.”

“The Wiesenthal Center denounces this perverted inversion of truth and memory by officials in Barcelona. Holocaust survivors have no need for moments of silence for dead Jews from people who have no respect for live Jews,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Center. “In dealing a telling blow against Hamas in Gaza, Israel ensures that the terrorist organization’s open goal of making the Holy Land ‘Judenrein’ (free of Jews) will never happen,” he added.

“The Catalunya government would do well to learn the moral difference between a terrorist group targeting civilians who protected themselves by using their women and children as human shields and a member state of the United Nations doing what any government, including Spain would do: eliminate such a threat against her civilian population. Israel should be rightfully proud of the extraordinary steps her military took to minimize casualties among civilians, cynically put in harm’s way by Hamas,” Cooper concluded.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is one of the largest international Jewish human rights organizations with over 400,000 member families in the United States. It is an NGO at international agencies including the United Nations, UNESCO, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe.”

http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=6640849

Daft of the SWC to write such a partial letter. You don’t have to approve so heartily of the very destructive Gaza operation to call the Catalonian government on this absurd decision.

The argument needs to be made in its own terms: if you’re serious about commemorating the holocaust, you don’t make that commemoration dependent on the actions of the modern day State of Israel. That should be true whether Israel is legally defending itself, illegally expanding its borders, using gentile blood in matze, or staying at home watching telly.

To make the logic of the condemnation dependent on stridently supporting the latest military action ensures the debate remains framed within the Catalonians’ ridiculous terms.

S’funny. Barcelona used to have a thriving Jewish population until they were all expelled in 1492. The buildings were all torn down and so on. There’s a plaque commemorating this tragic history, but I can’t find a picture of it.

I may have mentioned before that last time I was there (er… 2006), charmingly, the plaque had been defaced with the graffito “Libre Palestina!!!!” There’s not a lot of logic or self-awareness going on there, is there?

“Fatty Stephen Pollard”

Hmm, apparently olching thinks being overweight is sufficiently reactionary to be worthy of note.

And the idea that Jews owe allegiance to a foreign power is one of the worst of the many traditional antisemitic canards.

A bit disingenuous. Clearly there are many Jews who have duel loyalties with Israel, just as there are many people who have ancestry in another country do. Just look at the unconditional support that Israel gets from many British and American Jews around here. It’s not anti semitic to point this out.

Spain is a country that is always 40-50 years behind most other Western countries in terms of political expression. After all it was a dictatorship for 36 years. About 4 summers ago we were touring round north-west Spain and stopped in Santiago de Compostela ( St James the Apostle ). Standing in the sun in the great Plaza do Obradoiro my wife saw a street actor wearing medieval costume and wearing a false hook nose. He had a small sign around his neck that said “ Tome su foto con El Judio” ( have your photo taken with The Jew). Borat come alive. Tourists were paying 2 Euros to have a photo taken with El Judio. I offered to stand in for him so at least they could have their photographs taken with an authentic Jew in shorts and sunhat but my gesture was rejected.

Like Lewis Hamilton being mocked by those Spanish kids who blackened their faces at the Spanish Grand Prix last year. They thought it was really funny.

Zorro: It appears Spain is now fully modern, at least concerning its hatred of Jews.

I’m proud to say that Dave’s a member of our ‘network’. Naturally, in the interests of Gram…er…social justice, attack dogs were set on those who misreported Milly’s remarks.

Wasn’t future British PM David Lindsey claiming Miliband was a secret dual British and Israeli passport holder? And that this made Miliband a hidden arch-Zionist?

Mike says:

“A bit disingenuous. Clearly there are many Jews who have duel loyalties with Israel, just as there are many people who have ancestry in another country do. Just look at the unconditional support that Israel gets from many British and American Jews around here. It’s not anti semitic to point this out.”

Common sense. I agree. I support Israel’s right to exist and right to defend itself against genocidal Hamas. But that doesn’t mean that we have to go along with this fantasy that Jewish people in Britain have no more and no less interest or feelings of affinity towards Israel than the rest of the UK citizen population. It’s pretty clear from this site that British people who are Jewish tend to have a special interest in Israel and its survival. That’s no surprise.

As long as UK and Israel’s interest are roughly in alignment it’s no big issue, anymore than say the case with people of Australian background.

Pollard: “And the idea that Jews owe allegiance to a foreign power is one of the worst of the many traditional antisemitic canards.”

Oh, I thought this blog was a celebration of the fact that most of the non-Israeli Jews who post here do just that. And I’ve heard that Pollard even twitches in his sleep if someone a few streets away whispers something critical of Israel. And how would Stephen describe the little blue and white box thingy that my zionist friends used to rattle at me, when I was a kid? Ok not the box itself, I mean the process of rattling it. And I remember reading in a North London Jewish community paper, I picked up on a bus in Hendon, a statement from a Rabbi referring (not literally) to ‘our cousins in Israel’ and he went on to call on his readers to do what we could for them. Isn’t all this about ‘allegiance’?

And I seem to remember that the reason why the Board of Deputies was non- or even anti-zionist before the Second World War was precisely because they feared the accusation of dual loyalty. (see First World War and numbers of Jews who either came from the enemies’ countries or had relatives in the enemies’ armies and even ended up in opposite armies.) Presumably, then the BoD decided to be zionist, it either decided that the dual loyalty business didn’t apply, the accusation that it was antisemitic to express allegiance to another country could be lived with…or that it wasn’t antisemitic after all.

Mike – the EU appears to differ:
from the EUMC working definition of antisemitism-
“Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.”

Thanks Israelinurse, but Pollard’s phrase was ‘owe allegiance’ and the EU wording is ‘being more loyal’. As far as I know, SP and most zionists owe some kind of allegiance with Israel or they wouldn’t be…er…zionists. The EU is suggesting that if such people are accused of turning that loyalty into a state of mind that makes them more loyal to Israel THAN THE COUNTRY THEY LIVE IN, this would be an antisemitic accusation. But that isn’t what Pollard said.

owe ‘allegiance TO Israel’ not owe ‘allegiance with Israel’

What a bunch of… absolutely nothing. Stephen Pollard hears a rumour, has nothing else to substantiate it with, but nevertheless it’s sufficient grounds to partially smear Miliband as anti-semite with, because the FCO press office… didn’t return his phone call quickly enough.

Might one suggest that with a new US Government taking office, and a crisis in the middle east, the FCO might have larger fish to fry?

Meanwhile Miliband is guilty by association because the writings of his dead father can be safely misrepresented. Miliband can be said to have “railed” against the overthrow of Pol Pot in somewhat less vociferous terms than guest poster Mikey the other week.

All we need now to finish the job is for that veritable Gagool of anti-semitism Inspector Modernity to deliver his verdict…

“…and most zionists owe some kind of allegiance with Israel or they wouldn’t be…er…zionists. The EU is suggesting that if such people are” Michael Rosen

This is wrong.

I am an American and a Zionist, just as Justice Brandeis was a Zionist and a very loyal American.

There is more than one kind of Zionism and on one definitions can encompass all of them.

I am also pro Irish independence and were that county at risk of losing its independence I would support the Irish.

I am also pro Palestinian independence as a State alongside Israel.

Hence to say that by believing in the rights of Jewish people to a sovereign State doesn’t diminish my allegiance to my own.

Rather it enhances it since I strongly believe in the independence of my own country as well.

You Michael Rosen are as an internationalist are less loyal to your country than am I as an American to mine.

a statement from a Rabbi referring (not literally) to ‘our cousins in Israel’ and he went on to call on his readers to do what we could for them. Isn’t all this about ‘allegiance’?

It’s all about family, Michael. It’s nice being part of a big Jewish family, isn’t it?

I think your English fails you again, Michael. “Allegiance’ means

1. Loyalty or the obligation of loyalty, as to a nation, sovereign, or cause. See synonyms at fidelity.

2. The obligations of a vassal to a lord.

I think it means “primary loyalty”.

You also confuse “Zionist” with “pro-” or “sympathetic with Zionism”. That is not entirely your fault, since “Zionist” is often used that way by those for and against. But someone who presents radio programs on the many meanings of words, and how they mean different things to different people, should be sensitive to such nuances.

I wonder what a Word of Mouth edition would sound like if you ranted and raved how the terms “Zionist” and “Zionism” essentialized those with whom you enciphered them as those whose “allegiance” is to another country or state. Actually, unfortunately, it might be rather popular, though not in a good sense.

The BoD changed its view because

a) in the lead up to, during and after the war a Jewish national home appeared both more necessary and more likely.

b) from 1947 it became a reality. And like many realia, it was possible to sympathize with it, as grass-roots popular Jewish opinion did.

’sorry for not getting back to you on the other matter: I had to make a long expedition by Greyhound to the other side of Ohio, to see an orthopedic specialist. Very cold and white Ohio, at this time of year.

Israelinurse,

please, don’t mention the EUMC working definition of antisemitism to Mike Rosen, as I remember, he spent some time rubbishing it in the SWP’s Socialist Workers as an attack on “Anti-Zionists”, unless, of course, Mike’s changed his view?

just in case, Mike forgets what he wrote:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=9667

Worryingly, this is part of a working definition of antisemitism proposed by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. The writers of this parliamentary report recommend that this definition is “adopted and promoted by the government and law enforcement agencies”.

The message is clear – anti-Zionists beware. Criticism of Israeli government policies will be permitted, but if you attack the core creed of Zionism, then we’ll call in the law.“

so Mike, have you changed your views? have any “Anti-Zionists” been prosecuted or locked up, so far??

There is another problem with the accusatino of double loyalty of Jews in Britain.

If you can question the loyalty of Jews why not the loyalty of Muslims? Are not British Muslims who attack Jews in support of Palestinians more loyal to their brethren than to Britain?

The same can be said of every other minority in England. If England is going to claim that is is a multicultural society then they have to accept double and triple loyalties. This is what MULTI-culturalism is all about.

Robbins, go back to what Stephen Pollard wrote. His exact phrase was:
“And the idea that Jews owe allegiance to a foreign power”

He didn’t say anything about that allegiance diminishing one’s allegiance to one’s own country. He made the claim that if I or you or anyone else said of a given Jew that he or she ‘owed allegiance to a foreign power’ (meaning in context here, Israel) that would be an antisemitic accusation. If he had said ‘more allegiance than to one’s own country’ then we’d be having a different conversation.
Until Pollard chooses to clarify his sentence by saying eg he meant ‘allegiance to Israel greater than to the UK’ or some such, then I’m assuming he meant some degree of allegiance – period/full stop.

bissli, are you asking me if I owe more allegiance to someone who is Jewish simply because they are Jewish? If so, then the answer is no. (I suspect you don’t need me to repeat the reason for that statement). I suggest your answer to that question would be a ‘no’ too, as I notice on this site a fair degree of fury is directed at eg N.Korta, Chomsky, Finkelstein, Pappe, Machover, Laor, Shlaim, Cushman, Atzmon or indeed, me and that nice familial feel you refer to seems to evaporate.

It’s also a bit annoying that a story like this can be written up without it being mentioned in passing that David Miliband is Jewish himself, as if this has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to anything.

This, of course, is a sort of unwritten rule – Jews who don’t toe the line on Israel can be just as anti semitic as anyone else, is the message, if not more so, so don’t think you can play that card, sunny Jim.

Well actually it is a little bit relevant if we’re honest. As a Jewish person Miliband shouldn’t have to jump through as many hoops to prove he is not anti semitic. The chances of him being so are vastly reduced, just as the chances of a moderate Muslim who speaks out against Islamism is far less likelu to be speaking out just because they hate Muslims.

Luckily Miliband doesn’t seem the type to be intimidated by such gossip; I’m sure he will continue to push for UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire if such a circumstance rose again – whether it gets up the likes of Pollard’s nose or not.

“Robbins, go back to what Stephen Pollard wrote. His exact phrase was:
“And the idea that Jews owe allegiance to a foreign power””

Michael,

These kinds of accusations have been hurled at Jews for ever. Even before Israel Jews had been accused of double and triple loyalties.

This is what the Dreyfus case was all about.

In the Soviet Union and elsewhere Jews had been accused of dual loyalties. That an assmimilated British Jew should use the same kind of language is a sign of the desperation people like him feel. His sentiments don’t come out of nowhere.

Milband is a fool if he thinks he won’t escape the same kinds of accusations by his opponents in the future. Antisemites don’t usually make nice distinctions between assimilated Jews and Zionists, or even between Zionists and Socialists.

Z., thanks for the clarification. If you think the word ‘allegiance’ means what you say it means ie ‘prime loyalty’ – therefore, by implication, over and above other loyalties, so be it. I note from the EU phrasing that they clearly thought that they had to insert a ‘comparative’ into their analysis, ie ‘being more loyal’ in order to be absolutely clear.

If you think the word ‘zionist’ should be discussed on Word of Mouth, all you have to do is write to the programme. A fair percentage of our items come from listeners’ suggestions. Contact address on the BBC website.

mod., thanks for quoting me. I know you’re a stickler for the facts, but you seem to have missed out of your quote the reason why I made the point you quote.

Here:
The parliamentary report… in one key area…has blurred the distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Here it is:

“Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include… denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour.”

So if I should write that the Jews have every right to self-determination, but not if it is at the expense of others (as is the case with Israel), it would seem that now I, a Jew who is utterly opposed to antisemitism, am guilty of antisemitism.”

Yes, I absolutely stand by that statement that suggested the report would have identified me as anti-semitic and therefore liable to prosecution.

You then asked me why antizionists (like me) hadn’t been prosecuted.

Correct me if I’m wrong – firstly I don’t think that the Report was turned into law. If it has, I missed it. If it hasn’t, then I suspect that the lawmakers and their advisers thought it was cack.

bissli, are you asking me if I owe more allegiance to someone who is Jewish simply because they are Jewish?

Did I say allegiance, Michael? I think I said ‘family’, didn’t I?

I suggest your answer to that question would be a ‘no’ too, as I notice on this site a fair degree of fury is directed at eg N.Korta, Chomsky, Finkelstein, Pappe, Machover, Laor, Shlaim, Cushman, Atzmon or indeed, me and that nice familial feel you refer to seems to evaporate.

Yeah, they’re shits but they’re family. I don’t feel responsible for what these people say or do. I don’t feel I should be punished because of something one of these people does. What makes other people think that just because I have a kinship with other Jews, that I am therefore responsible for their actions? That I am therefore loyal to another country? Why can’t you seem to differentiate between kinship and allegiance?

“I notice on this site a fair degree of fury is directed at eg N.Korta, Chomsky, Finkelstein, Pappe, Machover, Laor, Shlaim, Cushman, Atzmon or indeed, me and that nice familial feel you refer to seems to evaporate.”

Nice company you keep, Michael.

I don’t know all the names on the list but I do know Finkelstein personally and the man is demented. What does one say about the son of Holocaust survivors who worries about Swiss bankers being sued by Holocaust survivors?

Atzmon is a fascist and he weren’t an anti-Zionist you would never have mentioned him. This is what anti-Zionism does it drives people mad.

“So if I should write that the Jews have every right to self-determination, but not if it is at the expense of others (as is the case with Israel), it would seem that now I, a Jew who is utterly opposed to antisemitism, am guilty of antisemitism.””

Save me your sanctimonious nonsense.

Now, how if you don’t support Jewish sovereignty (and it is you right not to do so, but not as a Jew only as an individual Jew—there is huge difference between the two) because it is at the expense of others do you also oppose Turkish sovereignty because it is at the expense of the Kurds?

Most sovereign States in the world are at the expense of one or another nationality within their borders. When was the last time you demonstrated for the Kurds and against the Turks or any other minority?

Robbins, times change. The foreign powers that Jews were accused of expressing allegiance to, were the countries they had come from. Sadly, Jews got so nervous about this, they happily enlisted in the most worthless war of all time on opposite sides and proceeded to actually or metaphorically kill each other or at the very least attempt to (this happened to some of my forbears on my father’s side.)

Then there came a moment in the forties when Jews in the Mandate fought British soldiers. As you seem so expert on history, perhaps you could fill me in on allegiances at that precise moment. Feel free to allude to the King David Hotel.

And then came the next moment 1948. So now, references to Dreyfus or really irrelevant. There is a Jewish nation state. It carries out internal and external policies. The Jewish press in this country and the official institutions of Judaism make constant, weekly statements about Israel. Z. doesn’t want me to use the word ‘allegiance’ to describe these articles, or the fundraising, or the exhortations to support Israel that I know I heard many times when I was a teenager and older. Presumably I shouldn’t use the phrase ‘prime loyalty’ either. I’ll leave it to you folks to describe it more accurately, in such a way that you can be sure that if I were to accuse you of it, (as opposed to you being proud of it) you could say I was being antisemitic.

Lookslike Michael Rosen just lost the argument, bissli.

“Nice company you keep, Michael. ”

Do I? I made a list of the Jews many posters here don’t like. I didn’t say I like them. The list is united by what I discerned are attitudes here, not my own opinions. Der.

“Robbins, times change.”

This is a cliche.

However, Michael times don’t change once, they are always changing. And if they can change one way they can change another way.

Do you think Europe will stay the same liberal multicultural cocoon forever? This is a delusion.

“The Jewish press in this country and the official institutions of Judaism make constant, weekly statements about Israel.”

So what Michael? So does the Arab press, in this country, not to mention the Socialist press. Did you notice that?

Everyone is obsessed with Israel and so are you.

Mike R,

in that article there was typically too much political hyperbole, on your part, and with the passage of time it shows :)

but will you be writing more for Socialist Worker?

are they covering the rise in anti-Jewish racial attacks in Britain?

Or has that topic fallen off their agenda? too radical?

The far right use the issue of Islamism all over the place as a way of attacking Asians. Does that mean that Islamism doesn’t exist and that Harry’s place, for example, should never talk about it, ever, because the BNP do? Of course not.

The honest reality is there are British Jews who have slight loyalty to Israel, duel loyalty, and there are doubtless some who have more loyalty, just as there are Irish people born in the UK that have an array of stances on their nationality, and so on. To deny reality because racists use this fact, or because it has historical baggage, is not intellectuallly coherent. It defies logic and is counterproductive because people can see straight through the hypocrisy.

It’s perfectly acceptable to talk about how the Muslim vote in certain Labour constituencies effects some Labour MPs. Do you not think it infuriates Muslims that it’s okay to talk about this but any talk of how Jewish people disproportionately support Israel is anti semtic?

Treating people like they’ve got shit for brains is not an effective long term strategy.

bissli, the reason why I asked you this question:

bissli, are you asking me if I owe more allegiance to someone who is Jewish simply because they are Jewish?

was because I wanted you to clarify what you meant. It was a question I didn’t know the answer to. That’s why I asked you. Now you’ve clarified it that you make a distinction between your feelings of ‘family’ that apparently mean that in some circumstances you have no responsibility for your ‘family’ members and ‘allegiance’ which is, you say, another thing altogether. All I can say, is that throughout my teens zionists appealed to me to express loyalty and indeed ’some kind of allegiance’ to Israel. I’ll be very interested to see that if Obama (and therefore the UK) helps in the foundation of a Palestinian state, whether this will entail some Jews in the UK and the US in particular finding it rather difficult to be ‘loyal’ to their respective governments.

Michael, if that rabbi in North London had been calling on Jews to help Jews in Libya, and in doing do saying “our cousins in Libya”, would the rabbi then be showing allegiance to Libya?

…or indeed, countries – which is what I should have written.

bissli, I think you’ll know that your question was silly. Allegiance to Israel (if that’s what it is) is to the nation state. Allegiance to Libya’s Jews s ‘cousins’ was to a minority within a nation state. This whole discussion is about nation states.

Robbins: Do you think Europe will stay the same liberal multicultural cocoon forever? This is a delusion.

I’ve no idea. You seem to know that it’s a delusion. What’s going to happen, Cassandra?

mod., interesting questions re Socialist Worker editorial policy. Do you know, I’m not on the editorial board. I think if you’ve got a question to ask SW, why not write, email or phone them? You can do it online with just about the same energy you’ve just expended in asking me :-)

Can you spot the man of double allegiance here?

“A right-wing writer has been banned from chairing a debate on Islam at the London School of Economics today amid security fears, the Standard has learned.

Douglas Murray, a self-confessed “neo conservative”, was due to chair “Islam or Liberalism: Which is the Way Forward?” at the university tonight — 24 hours after the end of a week-long sit in at LSE in protest at Israel’s attacks on Gaza.

The commentator and author, who is the director of conservative think-tank the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “This is back to the bad old days of the LSE — where the most violent get to dictate people’s education. It is worse than censorship — it’s intimidation.” The debate, which is set to go ahead, is between Dr Alan Sked, a senior lecturer in international history at the university, and Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, a Muslim writer and lecturer.

The LSE asked Mr Murray not to attend in the interest of public safety as his presence could provoke further unrest. A spokesman added: “He has spoken at LSE in the past and will be welcome to do so again in the future.””

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23626820-details/Right-wing+author+is+banned+from+Islam+talk/article.do

Take Melanie Phillips for example. She is generally a patriotic Brit who sincerely cares about this country. However a few years back, Will Self confronted her on BBC Question time about her writings on Muslims having more loyalty to Islam than the UK. He demanded to know if she had a duel loyalty with Israel. After some back and forth, she said that, in the unlikely event that Britain was at war with Israel, she would go to Israel.

Now, it may not be PC to say it, but there’s no real logical way around concluding that, if push came to show, she has more loyalty to Israel than the UK. That’s fine – I don’t begrudge her that – but according to some, she is being anti semitic for admitting it.

“Robbins: Do you think Europe will stay the same liberal multicultural cocoon forever? This is a delusion.

I’ve no idea. You seem to know that it’s a delusion.”

You said “times change” so you figure it out, soothsayer!

Mike R,

what about asking Socialist Worker to commission you to write a series of articles on Soviet “Anti-Zionism”? that way you could explore these themes anew?

nah, too revolutionary for them!

Hey guys, Mike is trying to take part in this conversation. It’s rude to ignore him.

*push came to shove*

“Hey guys, Mike is trying to take part in this conversation. It’s rude to ignore him.”

I don’t mind being ignored as you may have noted from lenny’s tomb; I’m on my own planet most of the time.

bissli, I think you’ll know that your question was silly.

I don’t see why it is silly. You used that rabbi as an example of “allegiance” because he was using the term “cousins” to describe Jewish Israelis:

“a statement from a Rabbi referring (not literally) to ‘our cousins in Israel’ and he went on to call on his readers to do what we could for them. Isn’t all this about ‘allegiance’?”

But it’s too late for all this now. Goodnight cousin Michael!

robbins, I said ‘times change’ as a very general statement whilst looking back. Soothsayers look back in order to make specific predictions: ‘Beware the Ides of March’. YOu said that a belief in the status quo was a delusion. I didn’t. You did. All I asked, open-endedly , was for you to explain why it’s a delusion. What’s going to happen?

“Now, it may not be PC to say it, but there’s no real logical way around concluding that, if push came to show, she has more loyalty to Israel than the UK. That’s fine – I don’t begrudge her that – but according to some, she is being anti semitic for admitting it.”

Mike, I don’t know Ms. Phillips, however, I think you are wrong to interpret it as a case of double loyalty.

From her point of view if Britain and Israel were at war do you think Jews would be safe there? Get real. The only way Britain would declare war on Israel is if some Fascist party took over, or an Islamist one.

There were times in 1947 when Jews were not safe either.

Before I go to bed, just a though..

After some back and forth, she said that, in the unlikely event that Britain was at war with Israel, she would go to Israel.

Considering Jews are being blamed by some in this country for a war going on in another country which has nothing whatsoever to do with this country, I can’t imagine how bad it would get for Jews here if Britain ever did go to war with Israel! Sorry guys, I love you all and I’m as British as the next person, but I’d probably go with Melanie!

Night!

Israeli Jewish ‘cousins’ are in ‘their own country’. Libyan Jews weren’t in ‘their own country’. To express allegiances in these very different circumstances are very different in kind. The problem I can see here from this conversation is that some Jews can’t see why it’s different. Repeat: Israel is a nation state. A Jewish minority, persecuted or otherwise, is not a nation state.

“robbins, I said ‘times change’ as a very general statement whilst looking back. Soothsayers look back in order to make specific predictions: ‘Beware the Ides of March’. YOu said that a belief in the status quo was a delusion. I didn’t. You did. All I asked, open-endedly , was for you to explain why it’s a delusion. What’s going to happen?”

I have no crystal ball. However, if I were to guess I would argue that Europe will move to the right and not the center right, but the hard right. It’s already happening in Russia and Austria. This is just a guess.

All I know is that the post war liberal regime has run its course. Britain may escape that fate, but who knows.

Toby, try this scenario: Obama plus UK succeed in helping to create a Palestinian state which includes the West Bank. The settlers say 1) they won’t move and 2) will not accept any Palestinian jurisdiction over them. 3) Israel supports the settlers in this stance. The US and UK oppose Israel in this.

No one is going to war, but there is a clear stand-off. At this point, if many Jews in the US and the UK support Israel and not Obama/UK on this, wouldn’t people feel that the issue here was ‘allegiance’ to Israel by Jews? And would it be ‘antisemitic’ to say so? I don’t think so for a moment.

And Robbins, when the hard right come in, it’s going to be ‘bad for the Jews’?

Arghh, I need to sleep Michael!

Israel is a nation state. A Jewish minority, persecuted or otherwise, is not a nation state.

The Jews in Israel are not the state. I do not have to have allegiance to Israel to help Jews in Israel. I help them because I consider them my kin. That’s why I totally understand Muslims demonstrating when people they consider to be their kin are attacked. What I do not understand about all that is that they do not seem to demonstrate when their kin are killed by fellow kin, but whatever.

Night!

Michael Rosen
“Israeli Jewish ‘cousins’ are in ‘their own country’. Libyan Jews weren’t in ‘their own country’. To express allegiances in these very different circumstances are very different in kind. The problem I can see here from this conversation is that some Jews can’t see why it’s different. Repeat: Israel is a nation state. A Jewish minority, persecuted or otherwise, is not a nation state.”

This is very revelatory, Michael.

Libyan Jews like Jews in Yemen have been there for thousands of years living as dhimmis, or “protected minority.” Yet you say, and rightly so, though I would never have expected that you would admit it, that “Libyan Jews weren’t in ‘their own country..”

If this is true, and it is, and you oppose Jewish sovereignty then you are condemning Jews to live as tiny minorities with all that that means, for ever.

My mother is Irish and growing up I did feel a sense of duel loyalty. Today I don’t feel particularly Irish at all and am very much British, but I could have easily gone the other way and been one of these London accent Irish people who go around wearing the Irish football kit and make several trips a year to ‘the home land’. If I had, I don’t think it would have been racist for someone to point out I had a duel loyalty or even that I cared more about Ireland than Britain.

Michael Rosen

“And Robbins, when the hard right come in, it’s going to be ‘bad for the Jews’?”

Don’t be a clown, Michael. It’s going to be bad for socialists (see no quotes).

btw: Michael, if that day comes you had better be on good terms with Americans since you may need to ask for asylum there unless of course if you prefer to go to the socialist paradise in North Korea.

I put ‘in their own country’ in inverted commas by way of indicating something that I didn’t think I needed to indicate. Clearly I do. Jews in Israel are in a qualitively different relationship to the nation state they live in than the relationship that Jews elsewhere have with their nation states. That’s why I don’t live in Israel.

If I had, I don’t think it would have been racist for someone to point out I had a duel loyalty or even that I cared more about Ireland than Britain.

I am half-Irish and half-English and I do have dual loyalty. Yes, it is a problem when they play each other at football.

Robbins, I think you should take a comfort break. Why should it be more likely that the UK would go ‘hard right’ than the US? Why would I think that N.Korea is a ’socialist paradise’? Why would I want to live there?

“Why should it be more likely that the UK would go ‘hard right’ than the US?”

I said Europe; I also said the UK may or may not escape this fate.

As to the US, our right wingers tend to love the Constitutions which is a liberal document. Even our right of center Supreme Court had rebuked Bush on issues of civil liberties.

David Miliband – middle of the road politician, nothing particularly exciting can be said about the guy – is in the sights of some of the Decents, and certainly the neocons, for his less than effusive embrace of the Gaza carnage. They have marked his card. That’s all this Pollard nonsense is about.

By the way, you’ve heard of scary Muslims celebrating war etc?

Now look at the Isrealis dancing a merry jig as the bombs blow people to bits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys3nzGGGwsg

The absurd and grotesque – definitely universal human traits.

Muslims, Jews, Hindus, take your pick – people can be unpleasant and disgusting whichever silly tribe they belong too.

“Jews in Israel are in a qualitively different relationship to the nation state they live in than the relationship that Jews elsewhere have with their nation states.”

So do the Irish in Ireland than those who live elsewhere, or the Turks, or the Chinese.

“That’s why I don’t live in Israel.”

Yes, you are the eternal ‘wandering Jew’ even though you do all your wandering with your mouth.

Michael Rosen is sensible and spot on as usual.

“Yes, you are the eternal ‘wandering Jew’ even though you do all your wandering with your mouth.”

A statement that manages to be mystic, personally offensive and racist all in one! Well done. Let me present you with the golden chazze babkes for your efforts.

I’m not eternal. Nothing is eternal. I’m not wandering. I live in the UK. I’m not estranged from anywhere. I write. What’s wonderful about writing is that it’s a worldwide republic of letters. It belongs everywhere. Why should that be something I should be ashamed of, or despise? I’m not a self-hating writer. I’m not a self-hating Jew. I’m not a self-hating Jewish writer.

Do you live in Israel, Robbins?

Benjamin you are full of shit, as usual.

Your video is fake! It juxtaposes images of Jews dancing and then cuts to images of missiles.

There is no indication that the montage is in real time.

The dancers would have had to have been watching a screen to see the missiles.

This is pretty crude attempt at manipulating reality.

“Why should it be more likely that the UK would go ‘hard right’ than the US?”

because you said I would need to come hunting for asylum in the US – where, by implication, there would’nt be what you called a ‘hard right’ government. QED – UK will go ‘hard right’. US won’t.

Do try to keep up.

Last comment directed to Robbins.

Give it a rest, Michael Rosen. Like most socialists you have no sense of humor and not much of a sense of reality either.

I live in the US. I visited Israel and love the country, but family and work keeps me in the US. I have many Israeli friends and am very proud of them.

I’m not eternal. Nothing is eternal. I’m not wandering. I live in the UK. I’m not estranged from anywhere. I write. What’s wonderful about writing is that it’s a worldwide republic of letters. It belongs everywhere. Why should that be something I should be ashamed of, or despise? I’m not a self-hating writer. I’m not a self-hating Jew. I’m not a self-hating Jewish writer.

Are you a slightly pompous Jewish writer though?

Michael Rosen

I was quoting you when I said this:
“Why should it be more likely that the UK would go ‘hard right’ than the US?”

Youa re getting sleepy, aren’t you? Go take a nap or something. Better still go get laid.

Hi Robbins, I was just checking if you were an eternal wandering Jew or not. Now that you’ve pointed out your dual loyalty, (oh not ‘allegiance’) I think I have the picture. You just wander between the US and Israel. So wandering but not ‘wandering’.

Zech. Great critical faculty at work there. 1. Highlight a passage. 2. Call it slightly pompous. 3. Congralate oneself for brilliant wit.

Gets a ‘fail’ in essays that kind of stuff.

“Are you a slightly pompous Jewish writer though?”

he’s the very image of pomposity; don’t know about Jewish though?

Does he speak Hebrew, or Yiddish, or Ladino, or Mizrachi?

Robbins

There are two shots of jets dropping their deadly load. On one of them, the camera angle zooms out, to clearly see the celebrating Israelis. So its all in real time, in situ, no fakery.

Robbins wrote:

“Why should it be more likely that the UK would go ‘hard right’ than the US?”

I said Europe; I also said the UK may or may not escape this fate. ”

I know you said ‘Europe’. YOu suggested that if a hard right govt came in I would seek asylum in the US. QED, no hard right govt in US. That’s why I asked you the above question. Which I know I asked. You must be dreaming of vacation in Eilat.

If I sleep early in the evening. I can’t sleep at night. It’s what happens when a guy gets old.

Michael Rosen

“Hi Robbins, I was just checking if you were an eternal wandering Jew or not. Now that you’ve pointed out your dual loyalty, (oh not ‘allegiance’) I think I have the picture. ” You just wander between the US and Israel. So wandering but not ‘wandering’.”

Wrong, I have triple an quadruple loyalties. I have lived in France as well as Israel and Mexico.

You see Michael here in the US most people have triple or quadruple loyalties. We just elected an American who also has Kenyan loyalites.

And Kennedy, he had American and Irish loyalties, and Bush, he had American and Israeli loyalties.

We are not Europe, Michael

Robbins

This is absurd. I am not a Jew. But assuming that other people are Jewish in this thread, and Michael Rosen is, do Jews normally cast aspersions on other Jews for criticising Israel? This is clearly how Michael Rosen is being treated here. I think you lot should apologise immediately.

Benjamin

“Robbins

There are two shots of jets dropping their deadly load. On one of them, the camera angle zooms out, to clearly see the celebrating Israelis. So its all in real time, in situ, no fakery.”

You are seeing things, Benjamin.

Great critical faculty at work there. 1. Highlight a passage. 2. Call it slightly pompous. 3. Congralate oneself for brilliant wit.
Gets a ‘fail’ in essays that kind of stuff.

The answer seems to be yes.

To be fair, it’s taken me all evening to work out how to do the highlighting. Anything else is a bonus.

‘he is the very image of pomposity’….hmmm can we unpack that little phrase? A live human being is an ‘image’. Whose image of pomposity? Rembrandt’s? Warhol’s? Robbins goes from mystic to aesthete in a matter of moments. Tel Aviv?

To be fair, I haven’t worked out how to do the highlighting.

Michael Rosen: ” You must be dreaming of vacation in Eilat.”

NOt a bad idea, that, Michael. It’s ten degrees here and it’s been snowing all day.

This is absurd. I am not a Jew. But assuming that other people are Jewish in this thread, and Michael Rosen is, do Jews normally cast aspersions on other Jews for criticising Israel? This is clearly how Michael Rosen is being treated here. I think you lot should apologise immediately.

I’m not sure any of us disagree on much in this thread… general consensus among most seems to be that Pollard’s off on one with his ‘dual allegiance’ argument, and that the whole blog is rather weak.

But yes, you are correct insofar as standard procedure among Jews is to quarrel incessantly for no real reason but the fun of it.

I’m delighted you have all those loyalties. If I refer to the Israel one, I just don’t want to be told by Stephen Pollard (see head post), that I’m being antisemitic.

Benjamin, for someone who can’t tell the difference between an authentic image and a fake montage, you do make a lot of noise here.

As to your not being Jewish who gives a fuck. Many of my closest Zionist friends are not religious or even Jewish.

Benjamin, for half a second I read your supportive post as: “This is absurd: I am not a Jew.” Given that many writers in the past have tried to say ‘This is absurd: I am a Jew’, I thought you were working on a whole new theory: the absurdity of not being Jewish.

Now that you can highlight, Zech, you might try that as your essay. 4000 words by next Friday please.

Robbins

There are two aircraft, possibly helicopters, with ordnance. The first shot clearly widens to show the celebrating Israelis.

Michael Rosen
“I’m delighted you have all those loyalties. If I refer to the Israel one, I just don’t want to be told by Stephen Pollard (see head post), that I’m being antisemitic.”

I know you do. You are obsessed with Israel.

There is an old Yiddish saying: if one guy tells you are dead, laugh. If two oe three people tell you are dead you better check you pulse.

As I pointed out above, the absurdity in the apparently non-existent Miliband outburst was not the dual allegiance implication, but the notion that a bunch of ’senior Jewish community figures’ in London could stop the war in Gaza.

That would have been a ridiculous thing to say, had he said it, which seemingly he didn’t.

I suppose going to bed is the obvious next move at this point.

There’s another Yiddishism about Harry. He was dying. He called out to his three children.
Is Harvey there?
Yes father.
Is Michael there?
Yes father.
Is Ruth there?
Yes father.
So who’s minding the shop?

Benjamin

“There are two aircraft, possibly helicopters, with ordnance. The first shot clearly widens to show the celebrating Israelis.”

God you are pathetic.

How far away were the air crafts? How could the dancing men see the planes and be dancing at the same time.

How do you know what they were dancing about? Were they celebrating some festival? There is no inidication in the video if there is a connection between the dancing and the aircrafts.

Who took the video? Why did they post it no youtube with a voice over in Spanish without interviewing any of the dancers?

Lots of questions, few answers.

The video is meant to arouse hatred for Jews.

Michael Rosen

“There’s another Yiddishism about Harry. He was dying. He called out to his three children.
Is Harvey there?
Yes father.
Is Michael there?
Yes father.
Is Ruth there?
Yes father.
So who’s minding the shop?”

There is also a Greek version of the same joke here.

However, can you say it in Yiddish?

Robbins, I don’t think it will take you long to find out that many Israelis were delighted with this three week carnage.

Benjamin is absurd. I am in the past, a whole new absurdity.

Edited highlights.

stop now!

everyone is having a go at Mike Rosen for his ignorance and sneering

stop.

how else is Mike Rosen going to get a political education without asking questions on HP??

I mean, he could hardly ask an SWPer or 2? if it can’t be summed up into a 5 word slogan they won’t know.

and posing such questions at Lenin’s Tomb would probably be met with incredulity or just plain anti-Jewish racism

so let’s be nice to Mike Rosen, HPers are helping him to understand antisemitic tropes, which is a public service

hopefully we can provide him with a reading list too?

Not sure he’d read it tho?

:)

I thought you were working on a whole new theory: the absurdity of not being Jewish.

It’s very absurd, I can tell you. :-)

It’s very absurd, I can tell you. :-)

Jesus

The joke about minding the shop is supposed to be about twenty-five times longer than that.

“Hannah…what about my little Hannele…”
“She’s here, zayde. She’s right here.”
“Is she… ah… and that husband of hers, with the muscles and no kishkes?”
“Arnold’s here too, yes dad… we’re all here.”
“And Hymie? Out playing cards with his communists no doubt…”

Three lines and then Who’s minding the shop? Christ.

Robbins,

Okay Robbins, fair enough. There is possibility that they were not celebrating the war.

However, we have established that it was happening in situ; previously you denied it, saying the tape was spliced.

At the moment we just don’t know whether they were celebrating something else while ordnace fell from aircraft. Its a possibility – we just don’t know.

Jesus

Yes?

Michael Rosen

“Robbins, I don’t think it will take you long to find out that many Israelis were delighted with this three week carnage.”

Many more were delighted that Hamas will not be able to fire rockets at Israeli villages and towns.

many fatah people would have even more delighted if Israel had been allowed to vanquish Hamas:

“PA official: Israel made ‘big mistake’

Jan. 23, 2009
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST

“Israel made a “big mistake” by ending Operation Cast Lead without overthrowing the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian Authority official in Ramallah said on Thursday.

His remarks came as the PA security forces intensified their crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank.

“It was a big mistake to end the war this way,” the official said. “The fact that Hamas is still in power is bad for all.”

The PA leadership had decided to take draconian measures to thwart any attempt by Hamas to stir unrest in the West Bank, the official also said….”

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232643727590&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Zech, what are you doing using the computer?

ver derleydik’ d’ geshef’?

oh and mod, whoops. Mouth. Yours. Open. Foot. In it. I think you’ll find that it’s not just me that thinks that Pollard’s got in wrong here. Just scroll up the thread…Pop over to the BBC Word of mouth messageboard and hit the thread called ‘BBC’ and read what I wrote to ‘Coryscan’ before you lecture me about antisemitic tropes.

This is what most Israelis want:

“Poll: 55% of Israelis want deal with PA”

“Over half of the Israeli population, some 55 percent, supports holding negotiations with Palestinians with the aim of reaching a permanent agreement, according to a ‘New Wave’ poll commissioned by the Geneva Institute. Sixteen percent disagreed with talks aiming for such a deal, saying that only an interim, or limited agreement should be sought, while 68% of respondents said they supported increasing US involvement in such talks.

The findings of the survey, released on Thursday, showed that 23% felt that the selection of Barack Obama for the US Presidency increased the chances of reaching permanent agreement in the Middle East, while 16% believed the likelihood of a deal was lessened by the choice. 39% said the choice of US president would make no different to a Middle East peace agreement.”

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292939014&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Jesus

Yes?

I thought you said you weren’t Jewish.

Zech, what are you doing using the computer?

I’m participating in the worldwide republic of letters. It belongs everywhere.

The only thing that will stop Hamas firing rockets is a fair and just settlement. There was a ceasefire until Bush thought he’d do caca in Obama’s bed.

Zech. Fukkit, you’re funny. How irritating is that!

People have started saying ‘tropes’ a lot now. This can’t end well.

mod started the trope thing. Not me. Really. Promise. It was him. Not me. Ever.

I’m participating in the worldwide republic of letters.

Then who’s minding the shop?

Many more were delighted that Hamas will not be able to fire rockets at Israeli villages and towns.

Except they can. As I said, in practical terms, Israel cannot beat Hamas militarily. They can only kill civilians, destroy infrastructure, and ruin ordinary Palestinians’ lives. This is a dead end and a moral crisis.

The only way Israel could beat Hamas, at least temporarily, is to commit what would be close to genocide in Gaza.

Quite rightly, the current political leadership in Israel won’t do that. Lieberman might, and then watch the world gasp as Israel moves a few more notches to the right.

Robbins is. Unless he’s in Mexico.

Benjamin
24 January 2009, 2:59 am

Robbins,

“Okay Robbins, fair enough. There is possibility that they were not celebrating the war.

However, we have established that it was happening in situ; previously you denied it, saying the tape was spliced. ”

Sorry Benjamin, what I said holds.

I know lots about splicing films and the whole scene doesn’t look integral to me.

All we know is some scenes of people dancing and some planes flying overhead firing something somewhere.

I also know that a woman was reading a script telling me that it was a scene of Israeli soldiers celebrating.

Not enough to draw any conclusions, yet.

Still, assume the worst, it’s also likely that these soldiers were under bombardment and the planes were targeting the thise bombarding them. Lot’s of room for speculations. I’d rather wait till someone offers me a more detailed scene and explantion of the events.

Robbins

The camera does pull back. But anyway, fair enough, I understand it may have been misconstrued. We will leave it at that.

Benjamin

“As I said, in practical terms, Israel cannot beat Hamas militarily. They can only kill civilians, destroy infrastructure, and ruin ordinary Palestinians’ lives. This is a dead end and a moral crisis.

The only way Israel could beat Hamas, at least temporarily, is to commit what would be close to genocide in Gaza.”

Don’t be an ass, Benji.

There is no need to commit “genocide” to stop Hamas.

The people in Gaza will do that themselves.

Lieberman is an stupid ass, but he is not going to commit genocide.

You socialists are really nuts. You talk yourselves into believing something and then you decide that it must be true.

You are not ready for prime time, as we say here or for civilized company.

Mike R, you wrote:

“before you lecture me about antisemitic tropes.”

me lecture you? never, I think it is good that you come here and discuss such topics

I am a great believer in self education, you must try it one day :)

so how’s about you do something on Soviet “anti-Zionism”, that would surely be educational??

go on be daring, be a bit radical!

Michael Rosen

“Robbins is. Unless he’s in Mexico.”

robbins is what? unless its ten degrees and it snows in Mexico I am not in Mexico.

I am told that Obama is on TV. See you guys later.

There is no need to commit “genocide” to stop Hamas.

Genocide is never justified. Period.

My contention is that is why Hamas cannot be defeated militarily. The civilian cost is too high for a democracy in the 21st century.

The people of Gaza will not throw Hamas out – either because they support them or are too scared of going against them.

Anyway, nice chatting to you folk. Catch you later.

This is such a coincidence – just the other night, I was driving my taxi and who should get in but Tzipi Livni, and you know what she said to me?

That’s right – completely out of the blue, she announced a wild desire to commit genocide against kittens, and handed me plans for the strategic bombing of the Wide-Eyed-Kitten Sanctuary of Gaza City.

I promised her I’d keep it under my hat, but needs must when the Devil farts in your kettle.

Michael Rosen,

You say

The only thing that will stop Hamas firing rockets is a fair and just settlement.

But in that regard Michael – you probably agree with Hamas, that a “fair and just settlement” means that Israel must be wiped off the map. You are of course an anti-Zionist and that is what anti-Zionists believe to be fair isn’t it?

I think “allegiance” means “duty or loyalty to your liege lord”, and it usually implies a duty of service, military or other. It is a much more political term than “loyal”.

’sorry, can’t write as much as Michael but:

a) anyone who reads Gideon Levy on a regular basis will know his latest is simply the logical conclusion to what he has written for years. My “feeble” critique was as strong as I thought it needed to be.

b) the poet was not accusing you of snobbery against Ashkenazi culture, Michael, rather, contempt, if not hatred, for the second or largest community of eastern Jews in the world. Israel’s being the largest community of “Ost-Juden” in the world, whither most Eastern Jews ended up, for better or worse, regardless of how many have allegedly left. You define yourself against them, Michael, for the same reason as those to whom the poet alludes: fear of their rocking your boat.

I should have added

“whither most Eastern Jews ended up, for better or worse, post 1914″.

But even that addendum, in my view, hardly matters. I don’t think Israel has to be the majority of Jews, or the largest Jewish community, to qualify for sympathy. That is a wholly artificial criterion created by her detractors who will always “fail” her in any case.

Also

“Britain more pro-Israel than pro-Arab?”.

Hmmm, hard to make that case on the basis of trade and arms sales.

Let’s see, if “Zionist” for Michael is the same as “pro-Zionist”, then “pro-Israel” sounds as lot like “accepting Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and not actively seeking her dissolution”, kind of like how Britain treats most states.

Of course, one suspects with characters like George Galloway “Zionist” also means “not actively seeking Israel’s dissolution”, which would make most of the world “pro-Israel”, and would fit Michael’s criteria perfectly. Poetic license, I suppose.

This is an excellent critique of Michael Rosen,

“b) the poet was not accusing you of snobbery against Ashkenazi culture, Michael, rather, contempt, if not hatred, for the second or largest community of eastern Jews in the world. Israel’s being the largest community of “Ost-Juden” in the world, whither most Eastern Jews ended up, for better or worse, regardless of how many have allegedly left. You define yourself against them, Michael, for the same reason as those to whom the poet alludes: fear of their rocking your boat.” zkharya

Even Michael’s jokes drip with contempt for Jews:

Michael Rosen

“There’s another Yiddishism about Harry. He was dying. He called out to his three children.
Is Harvey there?
Yes father.
Is Michael there?
Yes father.
Is Ruth there?
Yes father.
So who’s minding the shop?” Michael Rosen

The only joke he can tell about Jews is an antisemitic one.

The charge of double loyalty was already at play in the 19th century.

About Disraeli:

“Most cartoons gave him an immense nose and curly black hair; he was represented as “our modern Shylock.” Many of the illustrations related him to the Devil (“the most authentic incarnation of the Evil One”). At least two portrayed him in the act of ritually murdering the infant Britannia, and in one of these his great adversary, the liberal politician Gladstone, is the distressed mother, arriving perhaps too late to save her child. And there was a note sounded for the first time, but to be repeated many times thereafter: the Jews want war, against the national interest.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/books/review/Julius-t.html?ref=review&pagewanted=print

does the witch hunter general sleep?

Miliband maintains that the settlements are ‘illegal’ but fails to prove it.

Please refer to international and Israeli judgments too. The British government uses these judgments as the basis of its opinions on the matter.

International law is clear on the matter of the illegality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank:

* Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states in the first paragraph: “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”

And in the sixth paragraph: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

* According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), this sub-article was intended “… to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.”

* United Nations Security Council Resolution 446, on March 22, 1979, determined “that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

* An advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice in 2004, addressing the West Bank barrier in particular and the West Bank itself in general, concluded “that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.”

Israel
As early as 1979, the Israeli Supreme Court stated: “This is a situation of belligerency and the status of [Israel] with respect to the occupied territory is that of an Occupying Power.”[9] In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court held yet again that the West Bank and Gaza Strip “are subject to a belligerent occupation by the State of Israel.”

In June, 2004, the Israeli Supreme Court reaffirmed that “since 1967, Israel has been holding [the West Bank] in belligerent occupation.”

The International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

78. The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

120. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

US
“Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago. He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop.” Mr. Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing

There is bit of playing around with words in the US, particularly in the media, but the law is crystal clear.

I know that Gene will confirm this:-

In the synagogue I visited in the USA they carry the American and Israeli flag on the bima (where the service takes place). The congregation first sing the American National anthem, with hand on heart, and then sing the Israeli anthem.

In the UK, every synagogue carries a plaque with a prayer for the Royal Family and Govt of the day and they prayer is said at the end of the service.

Jews are loyal citizens of their host country as evidenced by the election of Jews to Parliament and USA governmental Houses and legislature. They wouldn’t get a vote if they weren’t part of the fabric of UK and USA society.

Jews want Israel to do well but that doesn’t mean they want to live there or support every action of Israel.

Jews are related to each other by race/culture/religion, unlike Asian Muslims who want to go to Israel to explode a suicide bomb to help Arab Muslims. When asked, many Muslims will declare that their binding by religion to other Muslims is stronger than their national identity. I use this as a relevant comparison and not to beat up on Muslims.

Perhaps David T can tell me what is wrong with JFJP? It supports a two state solution, which is a position that he nominally supports I presume.

I say nominally, of course, because there is barely a complaint from HP about Israel’s daily rejection of the Road Map, including its commitments to the US about dismantling settlements and freezing new construction.

The Israeli Labour Party lied to the electorate saying it would start dismantling settlements, in particular leftist Amir Peretz who was caught authorizing a settlement.

JFJP:
“In mid 2008, our over thirteen hundred and fifty signatories included five rabbis; 99 professors (including five Fellows of the Royal Society and two fellows of the British Association); 126 medical and academic doctors; several OBEs, CBEs and MBEs, five knights and one Member of Parliament.

The list includes Helen Bamber,Geoffrey Bindman, Anthony Caro, Jenny Diski, Stephen Fry, Eric Hobsbawm, Nicholas Hytner, Miriam Karlin, Nicolas Kent, Mike Leigh, Miriam Margolyes, Jonathan Miller, Susie Orbach, Harold Pinter, Jacqueline Rose, Alexei Sayle, Antony Sher, Avi Shlaim, Gillian Slovo, Tom Stoppard, Janel Suzman and Zoë Wanamaker.”

The first time I saw Michael Rosen on here a few months back I was quite excited. I thought it would be good to argue with him, debate etc.

But then I found, to my dissappointment, that once you engage him, apart from a handful of lame 6th form/SWP type slogans….he doesn’t really have a lot to say.

I engaged him in other threads, gave counter arguments to the things he said….and he ran away.

Its a pattern I see repeated whenever I see him engaged by others here. It seems that in ‘Beeboid Luvvieland’ Michael is told how wonderful he is and can spout whatever nonsense he wants to smiling Mathilda’s from Crouch End.

On here…faced with people with passion (as well as brain cells) he looks exactly what he is.

I was out last night, but in truth even had I been here I doubt now if I would have bothered. I would be arguing with him ‘because’ he was Michael Rosen.

Now, I ignore him for that very reason. He comes here trying to be smart…then slumps away with his tail between his legs.

Its boring.

Back on topic…. I think its quite possible Milliband said what he was quoted as saying. But Im pretty indifferent. My own feeling is that Milliband won’t be too long in his current position. By all accounts he is none to popular (with anyone, not jews specifically).

As for jews and Israelis….I suspect they just ignore him.

MattG

In the synagogue I visited in the USA they carry the American and Israeli flag on the bima (where the service takes place). The congregation first sing the American National anthem, with hand on heart, and then sing the Israeli anthem.

That’s too many anthems, too many flags! I better solution would be just to get on with the religious stuff without any ridiculous flags and national anthems. One does of absurdity is surely enough?

In the UK, every synagogue carries a plaque with a prayer for the Royal Family and Govt of the day and they prayer is said at the end of the service.

Q: Do the Royal Family need folk to pray for them? I have not heard that at said at other church services. How very odd – can’t they just pray for all the folk of the UK, or does that mean there is less of the magic spell to go around?

Benjamin

I cannot speak for DavidT. Personally speaking if JFJP are for the two-state solution thats good. In truth I know little about them. Ive seen the Christmas carol stunts from D Fink (and her rather embarassing appearances here) so I would venture that I find her specifically, laughable and insincere.

Alexie Sayle is also rather dislikeable and sanctimonious. But Id agree that I cannot go through its list of members and find a personal gripe as a reason to dismiss the whole group (if for no other reason than I haven’t actually heard of most of them). Nor would it be fair.

What I do feel (albeit not particularly strongly) is uncomfortable with their brand of sanctimonious posturing, their crying out to the non-jewish world that they are the ‘good jews’.

Im always a little wary of people constantly shouting ‘not in my name’ as they seem to do. In a personal capacity I feel that Israel is existing and fighting for its survival in order to protect its citizens and jews worldwide. The type of jews in JFJP are not, in my experience, the type of jews that Israel exists and fights for. Nor are they, by any measurement, very representative of diaspora jews.

Again, in a personal capacity, I look at the Finks of this world and see jews who 65 years ago were sitting in little ghetto rooms pontificating on how jews were getting what they deserved. How jews rocked the boat too much. They were pontificating whilst braver souls were chucking molotov cocktails at tanks. Either that or they were wearing little kapo hats suggesting to the Nazis or local militia better ways of clearing the ghettos.

Thats what I see when I see the Finks of this world. Sad, melodramatic maybe, …but truly the way I feel. And again, just a personal feeling/opinion.

MattG

Jews are related to each other by race/culture/religion, unlike Asian Muslims who want to go to Israel to explode a suicide bomb to help Arab Muslims.

I use this as a relevant comparison and not to beat up on Muslims.

On no, not at all. I mean casting aspersions on millions of people, suggesting they want to be suicide bombers, is not beating up on Muslims at all. Oh no!

Again, in a personal capacity, I look at the Finks of this world and see jews who 65 years ago were sitting in little ghetto rooms pontificating on how jews were getting what they deserved. How jews rocked the boat too much. They were pontificating whilst braver souls were chucking molotov cocktails at tanks. Either that or they were wearing little kapo hats suggesting to the Nazis or local militia better ways of clearing the ghettos.

Of course. Jews who want a two state solution, and speak up for that (shock, horror, is that not what you are supposed to do in a democracy), are like Nazi collaborators. Well, of course. How could I not see it?

The only thing that will stop Hamas firing rockets is a fair and just settlement.

Yep, that’s what Hamas chants at rallies, “We demand a fair and just settlement!”. All that stuff about destroying Israel, the rockets, the anti-Semitism, their charter, wanting to establish a totalitarian Islamic state etc. – all made up by the Zionazis!

Rosen – wake up and smell the coffee; nothing will stop Hamas from being a violent militia acting as proxy for Iran, least of all the destruction of Israel. In fact your comment has to be the stupidest thing I have read on this blog in months. What facts, statements or occurances could possibly lead you to that conclusion?

(see First World War and numbers of Jews who either came from the enemies’ countries or had relatives in the enemies’ armies and even ended up in opposite armies.)

Rosen, go to the archives of a museum that records Jews fighting in the British Army and other forces. Its somewhere in London and I happened to have seen them do a presentation in Brent Cross (a rare visit).

There you will find a pamphlet written by a Rabbi in Yiddish and English and addressed to the Jews of the East End. at the time of WW1. It stated that Jews should honour and defend the country that gave them sanctuary by joining the Army and fighting for King and Country.

Factor THAT into your consciousness!

Thanks Israelinurse, but Pollard’s phrase was ‘owe allegiance’ and the EU wording is ‘being more loyal’. As far as I know, SP and most zionists owe some kind of allegiance with Israel or they wouldn’t be…er…zionists. The EU is suggesting that if such people are accused of turning that loyalty into a state of mind that makes them more loyal to Israel THAN THE COUNTRY THEY LIVE IN, this would be an antisemitic accusation. But that isn’t what Pollard said.

Rosen loses BIG TIME!

Obviously you have translated “Zionist” into “Jew”.

Joe Biden: “Israel has no greater friend that Joe Biden”

Obama: “We support the security of Israel and its right to exist” (paraphrase of many things Obama said)

When do you think the USA will be impeaching these two for dual loyalty (and for secretly being Jews!)

Maven @ 23 January 2009, 7:43 pm

“As an example is his recent visit to India http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1126282/Insensitive-Foreign-Secretary-upsets-Indian-hosts.html after which complaints were registered about his remarks.”

I think you’ll find that’s how the media in India reacts to anyone mentioning Kashmir.

Michael Rosen @ 23 January 2009, 11:55 pm

“a statement from a Rabbi referring (not literally) to ‘our cousins in Israel’ and he went on to call on his readers to do what we could for them.”

What is unusual about anyone having cousins (meaning descendants of the same grandparents) in another country? And why need it have any connection with loyalties or citizenship?

I have read “Parliamentary Socialism” by Ralph Miliband. I found its line of argument very static, and lacking in international comparisons and any sense of historical change. And it was very boring….

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states in the first paragraph: “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”
And in the sixth paragraph: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Any sources for when the Israeli government FORCED a mass or individual transfer or DEPORTED Jewish Israeli citizens into the WB & Gaza, Benjamin? No? It seems then that the first and sixth par. of the Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War doesn’t apply, does it Benjamin?

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), this sub-article was intended “… to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.

When Jewish Israeli citizens returned on their own volition (as opposed to being forcibly transferred or deported by their government as was the case in WW2) to live in the WB and Gaza 17 years after those territories were occupied by Jordan and Egypt following the outcome of the 1967 war and the rejection of UNSC 242 by the Arab League in Khartum, can you provide any evidence whatsoever that their return to the WB & Gaza either worsened the economic situation of the Arab population or endangered their separate existence as a race, Benjamin? No? I didn’t think you could because in point of fact, the economic situation for Arabs in the WB & Gaza improved considerably after Jordan & Egypt lost land to Israel following the 1967 war. So the ICRC’s comment on Article 49 doesn’t apply in this case does it Benjamin?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 446, on March 22, 1979, determined “that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

Does UNSC 446 fall under Chapter 7 making it binding International Law Benjamin? No? Then UNSC 446 must be an advisory opinion and not a legal requirement or a breach of International Law, isn’t that right Benjamin?

An advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice in 2004, addressing the West Bank barrier in particular and the West Bank itself in general, concluded “that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.”

Is Israel a signatory to the ICJ Benjamin? Is an advisory opinion a breach of International Law Benjamin?

As early as 1979, the Israeli Supreme Court stated: “This is a situation of belligerency and the status of [Israel] with respect to the occupied territory is that of an Occupying Power.”[9] In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court held yet again that the West Bank and Gaza Strip “are subject to a belligerent occupation by the State of Israel.”

Is having the status of being an occupying power an automatic breach of International Law or Israeli law for that matter Benjamin?

There is bit of playing around with words in the US, particularly in the media, but the law is crystal clear.

There isn’t even a bit of playing around with words in the Dept. of State Press Briefing you cut and pasted and you know it Benjamin. And where is there a playing around with words in the US media Benjamin? Is it most of the US media that is playing around with words Benjamin? Any sources for your conjecture here that like most of the conjectures you offer you always try to pass off as fact Benjamin?

And as for asserting that the law is crystal clear, how could you possibly know whether it is or not when your comment clearly demonstrates that you don’t even know the difference between advisory opinions and binding International Law?

Regarding Jewish Settlements in the Occupied Territories and as per BINDING UNSC Resolution 242:

If and when negotiations between a sole representative of the entire Palestinian polity and the Israeli government can lead to a mutually agreed land for peace deal in which all irredentist claims and all belligerent hostilities and violence serving those irredentist claims are terminated and borders between Israel and its Palestinian neighbor state-to-be are defined and mutually respected, whatever, if any, Jewish settlements remaining outside the mutually agreed Israeli border will be subject to Palestinian, not Israeli sovereignty.

“Of course. Jews who want a two state solution, and speak up for that (shock, horror, is that not what you are supposed to do in a democracy), are like Nazi collaborators. Well, of course. How could I not see it?”

Okay Benjamin, I gave you the benefit of the doubt so broke my own rule and actually engaged with you.

I am a jew. I stick up for the two state solution. I would not consider myself a ‘nazi collaborator’.

But I don’t to sing ludicrous carols at church services designed to wind up my own jewish community and incite non jews to anti-semitism. I don’t turn up at Pro-Israel marches shouting protests through a loud hailer and I certainly don’t share a platform with the likes of Galloway and Tamimi who I would consider at the very least, not proponents the ‘two-state solution’.

I could go on. But frankly I couldn’t give a monkeys whether you genuinely don’t understand the difference (ie are stupid) or are pretending not to (ie are bored/sad/lonely).

I dont give a fuck. As I say. I engaged you the once. I shan’t rush to do so again.

MattG

Greg

I rather think Ephraim Halevy, ex-head of Mossad, has a better insight into Hamas then anybody on this blog. He simply states that Hamas has to be included in negotiations. Israel occupies territory andsomeone is sure to fire rockets.

Now, if Palestine is constituted on 67 lines, rockets may continue, but there would be massively more pressure from both within and outside Palestine for it to stop, and Israel’s position against such attacks will be strengthened.

Whatever can be said about Palestinian rejectionism, Israel’s rejectionism is daily and continual, written in the concrete, roads, checkpoints and buildings of the settlements and network of the West Bank. Settlements condemned by every virtually nation on earth, including the US, against international law, condemned by the Israeli Supreme Court, and in direct contravention of the Road Map.

Benjamin, why did Sharon split from Likud then?

International Law

Well done, you have established that Israel ignores international law, and therefore it is advisory. Of course, at international level, there is no effective, consistent force to enforce the law, or consistent sanctions or pressure harnessed for it, which is why Israel ignores it.

Benjamin, why did Sharon split from Likud then?

He did, because of the Gaza disengagement, and attempts keep to the Road Map. Now its back to building settlements.

International Law, you make some great points!

Until 1967 West Bank and Gaza were occupied by a foreign power (against The Mandate for Palestine) by Jordan and Egypt.

Israel liberated that land back into the Mandate for Palestine 1922, at which point the right to settle is disputed.

Do the Royal Family need folk to pray for them? I have not heard that at said at other church services. How very odd

Prayers from The Book of Common Prayer

A Prayer for the Queen’s Majesty

O Lord our heavenly Father,
high and mighty, King of kings, Lord of lords, the only Ruler of princes,
who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth;
most heartily we beseech thee with thy favour
to behold our most gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth;
and so replenish her with the grace of thy Holy Spirit,
that she may alway incline to thy will, and walk in thy way:
endue her plenteously with heavenly gifts;
grant her in health and wealth long to live;
strengthen her that she may vanquish and overcome all her enemies;
and finally, after this life, she may attain everlasting joy and felicity;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
All
Amen.

A Collect for the Queen

Almighty and everlasting God,
we are taught by thy holy Word,
that the hearts of kings are in thy rule and governance,
and that thou dost dispose and turn them
as it seemeth best to thy godly wisdom:
we humbly beseech thee so to dispose and govern the heart of
Elizabeth thy Servant, our Queen and Governor,
that, in all her thoughts, words, and works,
she may ever seek thy honour and glory,
and study to preserve thy people committed to her charge,
in wealth, peace, and godliness:
grant this, O merciful Father, for thy dear Son’s sake,
Jesus Christ our Lord.
All
Amen.

A Prayer for the Royal Family

Almighty God, the fountain of all goodness,
we humbly beseech thee to bless,
Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Charles Prince of Wales,
and all the Royal Family.
Endue them with thy Holy Spirit;
enrich them with thy heavenly grace;
prosper them with all happiness;
and bring them to thine everlasting kingdom;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
All
Amen.

A Prayer for the Clergy and People

Almighty and everlasting God,
who alone workest great marvels,
send down upon our bishops and curates,
and all congregations committed to their charge,
the healthful spirit of thy grace;
and that they may truly please thee,
pour upon them the continual dew of thy blessing.
Grant this, O Lord,
for the honour of our advocate and mediator, Jesus Christ.
All
Amen.

A Prayer of St Chrysostom

Almighty God,
who hast given us grace at this time
with one accord to make our common supplications unto thee;
and dost promise
that when two or three are gathered together in thy Name
thou wilt grant their requests:
fulfil now, O Lord, the desires and petitions of thy servants,
as may be most expedient for them;
granting us in this world knowledge of thy truth,
and in the world to come life everlasting.
All
Amen.

A General Thanksgiving

Almighty God, Father of all mercies,
we thine unworthy servants
do give thee most humble and hearty thanks
for all thy goodness and loving-kindness to us and to all men;
* [particularly to those who desire now to offer up their praises
and thanksgivings for thy late mercies vouchsafed unto them.]
We bless thee for our creation, preservation,
and all the blessings of this life;
but above all for thine inestimable love
in the redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ,
for the means of grace, and for the hope of glory.
And we beseech thee, give us that due sense of all thy mercies,
that our hearts may be unfeignedly thankful,
and that we shew forth thy praise, not only with our lips,
but in our lives;
by giving up ourselves to thy service,
and by walking before thee in holiness and righteousness
all our days;
through Jesus Christ our Lord,
to whom with thee and the Holy Ghost
be all honour and glory, world without end.
All
Amen.

* This to be said when any that have been prayed for desire
to return praise.

Copyright © The Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England, 2000-2006
All of the official Common Worship publications are being published by Church House Publishing.

Of course. Jews who want a two state solution, and speak up for that (shock, horror, is that not what you are supposed to do in a democracy), are like Nazi collaborators. Well, of course. How could I not see it?

The need for a two-state solution is the accepted position of virtually every Jew in this country and beyond. You need to sort yourself out if you don’t already know this. Perhaps living out in HK has made you a bit out of touch with what’s going on elsewhere on the planet, Benj.

International Law:Well done, you have established that Israel ignores international law, and therefore it is advisory.

No I did not. I established that you don’t know what International Law is.

What is unusual about anyone having cousins (meaning descendants of the same grandparents) in another country? And why need it have any connection with loyalties or citizenship?

This is what I was trying to find out, Alan. Apparently, according to Michael, there’s a difference between helping cousins in Israel and helping cousins in another country. If you help cousins in Israel, you are showing allegiance to Israel, apparently. Totally baffling. No, totally barking.

Now its back to building settlements.

Benjamin, what does this actually mean? The most significant change in the Israeli political landscape happened when Sharon engaged with the peace process and took the majority of Likud with him. Gaza was intended to be the first step in disengagement. Hamas response: rockets, rockets, rockets. Look at the actual facts rather than making everything fit your preconceptions. Peace depends on these Likudniks who changed sides. They are the people who will make peace, not shalom achshav. Hamas terrorism is designed to prevent this. The entire international community was behind the action against Hamas with the sole exception of Iran. This is the process. There isn’t another one.

Okay, so I don’t know much about the C of E!

Why anybody would want to pray for the Royal Family escapes me.

JR

Okay, we’ll have to continue this discussion later. I have a tedious Chinese New Year dinner to sit through.

re Hamas – in the end, if there’s to be a settlement it will have to include Hamas.

re – anti-semitic joke?! I was told it by a rabbi.

re – ‘cousins’ – the rabbi wasn’t talking literally. (as i pointed out at the time)

re MattG – no one makes you talk to me, but you feel under same strange compunction to go into a confessional to explain why you did talk to me, why didn’t want to talk to me and now why you aren’t talking to me. Your prob not mine.

z., I see your revisiting the poem. I had forgotten it. I have forgotten the words of the poem. So sorry, I can’t remember what you’re referring to. I remember it was hilarious and you had pointed out that the use of a word to describe my kind of Jew with the equivalent of ‘nigger’ , was in fact a brilliant expose of me as an establishment figure with my nose up the arse of the british establishment. This was so in touch with my real situation that I concede all ground to you on this matter. I also love your repeated faux naif, humble style.

I repeat re allegiance – a hypothetical situation: a two state solution is agreed. The West Bank settlers don’t agree. Israel govt of the day backs the settlers. UK govt opposes Israel re settlers. Peace-keeping force goes in including 400 British troops in blue berets. Allegiances anyone?

This is the all-new, ethical Harry’s Place regime is it?

Pollard’s line is that “it’s appropriate to say it is without foundation.”

But that doesn’t stop David nudge-nudging, attacking the man’s family, and then repeating the allegations under a protective veil of heavy sarcasm.

What a brave and upstanding way way to fight for the soul of the left.

Michael,

actually, Michael, I didn’t introduce the word “establishment” into the conversation, someone else did, and that was a mistake. I have never used it in “that” sense before, since those who define themselves against the “establishment” tend to use to mean whatever they want it to mean.

I have read Wood Allen is an establishment figure, as well Steven Spielberg or Poets Laureate, merely by virtue of the fact. So, it was a mistake on my part. For which I apologise.

I wasn’t trying to describe “your” kind of Jew, Michael. I was describing Israeli Jews, but I was attempting illuminate a parallel of contempt for a similar set of Jews, by alluding to the views of Karl Marx, among others, in fact.

OK, it wasn’t well put, perhaps, badly even, and I can see why it was or would be offensive. For which fact I apologise. I shan’t do it again, if I can help it.

I knew ‘ost-Juden’ were regarded with contempt by some, but didn’t know it was innately contemptuous, since all it means, in German, is “eastern Jews”.

As for “flea”, as demonstrated, it was an allusion to a statement by Karl Marx, who was himself of “ost-Juden” extraction. I know you are Ashkenazi in background, and I know you have no racist feelings about Ashkenazi culture. What I wrote was clumsy. I’m sorry.

Michael Rosen, the Gaza withdrawal was a try-out for the West Bank. Israel is a democracy and so the rockets from Gaza make a WB pullout less likely. This is Hamas’ strategy: to use terror to push the Israeli electorate to the right. So when you say

The only thing that will stop Hamas firing rockets is a fair and just settlement.

your statement is contradicted by what Hamas says and by what Hamas does. Like most people who comment on I/P you are engaged in a dialogue that is completely disconnected from the actual situation. For Jews it is a dialogue about something else altogether: diaspora identity and assimilation. For non-Jews it is about scapegoating Western neo-colonialism.

” I know you are Ashkenazi in background, and I know you have no racist feelings about Ashkenazi culture. What I wrote was clumsy. I’m sorry.”

Zkharya, you are giving Michael Rosen too much credit.

“re Hamas – in the end, if there’s to be a settlement it will have to include Hamas.

re – anti-semitic joke?! I was told it by a rabbi.

re – ‘cousins’ – the rabbi wasn’t talking literally. (as i pointed out at the time)” Michael Rosen

” I know you are Ashkenazi in background, and I know you have no racist feelings about Ashkenazi culture. What I wrote was clumsy. I’m sorry.” Zkharya

Zkharya, you are giving Michael Rosen too much credit.

Michael says he is not an antisemite yet he does and says antisemitic things from, as was pointed out above, making antisemitic jokes, to taking away the right of Jews to sovereignty. His claim that one can exercise that only on condition that it not oppress other is laughable since many countries he doesn’t protest are worse offenders than Israel.

He says that a “Rabbi” told him the “joke.” He should name the Rabbi Michael.

As to Hamas being included in a settlement, that debatable and no one has appointed him as either a negotiator for Israel or a representative of the Palestinian Arabs and everything he says about the conflict is his opinion held as a private person. As we say in the US opinions are like ass holes everyone has one and they all stink.

He likes to speak “as a Jew” yet is connection to Jewishness or Judaism is tenuous at best.
He knows no language spoken by Jews be it Yiddish (the language of the Ashkenazim, Ladino, the language of Spharad, Mizrachi, the language of middle eastern Jews, of Hebrew, the language of modern Israel), he shows no extensive knowledge of Jewish history and culture. What then makes him a Jew?

Is he connected to the Jewish community in England? His mention of the Jewish press was critical as if they too had no right to exist unless they followed his Trotskyite views.

Michael is a self declared Jew who uses this label in order to justify his attacks on other Jews. Having Jewish parents does not automatically make one a Jews otherwise the former Bishop of Paris whose parents were also Jewish would have died a Jew, which he didn’t.

Jr: “ Like most people who comment on I/P you are engaged in a dialogue that is completely disconnected from the actual situation. For Jews it is a dialogue about something else altogether: diaspora identity and assimilation. For non-Jews it is about scapegoating Western neo-colonialism.”

For mostly leftist non Jews in Europe it’s about carrying the war against Jewish identity started by people such as Voltaire and carried since then by different political groups some overtly antisemitic some not.

Mnay Europeans still have trouble accepting the exsitence of Jews as Jews living and exercizing sovereignty in the world.

Benjamin

“Why anybody would want to pray for the Royal Family escapes me”

Give it a rest, Benjamin. I assume that like many people here, me included, you are not religious. If so, you have no say in how and for whom people pray.

Unless you have an authoritarian personality or a Leninist (Trotskyite, Stalinist) complex, you don’t need to take sides in every debate.

Why anybody would want to pray for the Royal Family escapes me

The orthodox service always includes a prayer for the government or head of state. It’s quite sensible if you think about it. I mean if they prayed that the government all dropped dead or caught the pox then that wouldn’t be so clever, would it?

Sorry the blockquotes went awol

“I put ‘in their own country’ in inverted commas by way of indicating something that I didn’t think I needed to indicate. Clearly I do. Jews in Israel are in a qualitively different relationship to the nation state they live in than the relationship that Jews elsewhere have with their nation states. That’s why I don’t live in Israel.”

You don’t live in Israel, Michael, because you don’t need to. For whatever reason. Your ancestors came here and ensured you wouldn’t need to make a choice to live there, whether compelled or not.

“I repeat re allegiance – a hypothetical situation: a two state solution is agreed. The West Bank settlers don’t agree. Israel govt of the day backs the settlers. UK govt opposes Israel re settlers. Peace-keeping force goes in including 400 British troops in blue berets. Allegiances anyone?” Michael Rosen

Michael loves hypotheticals. Too bad he himself doesn’t believe in this hypothetical.

Offer me a hypothetical you yourself believe in and then we can talk.

Michael,

such a situation could arise (except, I thought, the British government was already agin the settlements, officially, and, in that sense, such a situation already exists, in terms of views and opinions).

Lots of people demonstrated against the Iraq war: allegiances, anyone?

Lots of people opposed British policy in northern Ireland: does that mean such Anglo-Irish were more loyal to, or had allegiance to, either the Eire Republic or the I.R.A?

You seem to paint things in extremely unsubtle, unnuanced and ultimately un-illuminating black or white.

And “allegiance” does suggest, or imply, I think, a duty of vassal-service.

“And I remember reading in a North London Jewish community paper, I picked up on a bus in Hendon, a statement from a Rabbi referring (not literally) to ‘our cousins in Israel’ and he went on to call on his readers to do what we could for them. Isn’t all this about ‘allegiance’?”

Not in the sense of an axis of allegiance that transcends that to the UK. Lots of groups express or play on a sense of kinship to extra-British groups, whether literal or ‘figurative’. Do they all now hold a debt of allegiance that transcends that to their own state?

Lots of Muslims object to allegedly anti-Palestinian British policies, they describe themselves as ‘kin’ to Palestinian Muslims, yet also claim to be loyal British citizens.

Lots of Muslims object to allegedly anti-Palestinian British policies, they describe themselves as ‘kin’ to Palestinian Muslims, yet also claim to be loyal British citizens.

Michael believes there is one rule for British Jews and one for everyone else. Jews are to him the eternal dhimmis in this world.

One thing I have learned over the past 3-4 weeks is that Mike’s statement to the effect that there is less chance of a Jew being anti-Semitic than a non-Jew is fallacy.
It bothers me a lot when I see the likes of Alexei Sayle participating in anti-Israeli protests with a clear anti-Semitic theme.
These people are, of course, entitled to their opinions, but I seriously wonder if they understand the full implications of their words and actions.
I would, for example, have a lot more respect for JFJFP if they called themselves ‘Jews for justice in Palestine and Israel’. Like most Israelis I too support a 2 state solution, but I would like to think that those purporting to want peace in the ME would want it for all peoples there – not just the Palestinians.
I believe that whilst diaspora Jews have no obligations to Israel, Israel has obligations to the diaspora Jews.
If ever, heaven forbid, another wave of anti-Semitism makes life for Jews anywhere in the world unbearable again, I know that Israel will provide refuge to the Chomskys, Pappes, Sayles and Rosens of this world despite anything they may have said or done in the past.
That is the reason Israel exists and must continue to exist.

Michael Rosen, the Gaza withdrawal was a try-out for the West Bank.

The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that’s necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”

Dov Weisglass, top adviser to Sharon during disengagement.

Benjamin

See Israelinurse’ss post above yours. Here she says that most Israelis support a two state solution. Assuming there is no reason to disbelieve her and that you accept at least, that as a democracy the Israeli people can make their views clear through the ballot box, why should there be any need for formaldehyde at all?

Answer rather why at every point at which there has looked like being any hope of peace between Israel and the Arabs the answer of the Islamist extremists in particular has been to intensify terrorism?

I have to say that watching Miliband answer mainly rabidly anti Israeli speakers in the Gaza adjournment debate the other day, he did hold the line against the boycotters and derecognisers though it must be said with little passion. they needed more of a put down and didn’t get it. But yes, it is below the belt to hold against him what his father wrote or did – especially as David is clearly NOT a Marxist at all – as Michael Rosen and his ilk will no doubt confirm!

Ramell’s comment on the BBC (non – so far) Gaza appeal is more worrying especially as there was absolutely no evidence of any intervention by Israel or pro Israelis whatsoever.

Robbins, if you’re going to have dig at me, then at least sort some things out about me and any other Jews you disagree with or don’t like.

You wrote: (my replies in caps in between)

He likes to speak “as a Jew” yet is connection to Jewishness or Judaism is tenuous at best.
He knows no language spoken by Jews be it Yiddish (the language of the Ashkenazim,

MY MOTHER WAS BROUGHT UP SPEAKING YIDDISH, MY FATHER’S GRANDFATHER WHO HELPED BRING UP ONLY SPOKE YIDDISH. AS A RESULT, MY PARENTS BOTH SPOKE PLENTY OF YIDDISH AT HOME IN THE 1950s AND I KNOW MANY WORDS AND PHRASES.
Ladino, the language of Spharad, Mizrachi, the language of middle eastern Jews, of Hebrew, the language of modern Israel), he shows no extensive knowledge of Jewish history and culture. What then makes him a Jew?
YOU CAN WRITE HERE WHAT YOU THINK ‘MAKES’ SOMEONE A JEW. I HAD NO IDEA THAT WHAT WAS REQUIRED WAS AN ‘EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF JEWISH HISTORY AND CULTURE’, AS IF YOU NEEDED SOME KIND OF QUALIFICATION OR DEGREE IN JEWISH HISTORY TO BECOME A JEW! HOW ABSURD. AS IT HAPPENS, I’VE IMMERSED MYSELF SEVERAL TIMES IN MY LIFE IN VARIOUS ASPECTS OF JEWISH HISTORY AND CULTURE BUT SO WHAT?

Is he connected to the Jewish community in England? His mention of the Jewish press was critical as if they too had no right to exist unless they followed his Trotskyite views.

THERE ISN’T ONE ‘JEWISH COMMUNITY’ IN ENGLAND. THERE ARE MANY. I AM SOMETIMES CONNECTED TO SOME OF THEM.

Michael is a self declared Jew who uses this label in order to justify his attacks on other Jews. Having Jewish parents does not automatically make one a Jews otherwise the former Bishop of Paris whose parents were also Jewish would have died a Jew, which he didn’t.

YOU ARE NOW GETTING BOTH CARRIED AWAY AND OFFENSIVE. PLENTY OF JEWS WHO HAD CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY OR TO NO RELIGION WERE HUNTED AND DOWN AND PERISHED DURING THE THIRD REICH. I DO PLENTY OF THINGS THAT I DON’T NEED TO SPECIFY TO YOU WHICH AREN’T PREDICATED ON THE IDEA OF ‘AS A JEW’. THIS IS JUST A FEEBLE INSULT THAT CIRCULATES AMONGST THOSE WHO LOATHE ANTI-ZIONIST JEWS IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN US AWAY. IT’S LIKE A FOLK MEME THAT YOU KEEP REPEATING. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO NEED WHATSOEVER TO READ ANYTHING I HAVE WRITTEN, BUT THERE ARE PLENTY OF ASPECTS IN MY WRITING FOR CHILDREN WHICH ARE ABOUT, OR USE, OR DRAW UPON THE SPECIFIC KIND OF JEWISH CULTURE THAT I WAS BROUGHT UP IN. IT’S A ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA, YOU KNOW, TO SHARE KNOWLEDGE, BUT KEEP YOUR IGNORANCE TO YOURSELF. I, FOR ONE, WILL NEVER, EVER BLAME PEOPLE FOR IGNORANCE, BUT IF YOU DISPLAY YOUR IGNORANCE AS A VIRTUE, AND USE IGNORNANCE TO HIT PEOPLE OVER THE HEAD WITH IT, I SAY POLITELY AND NICELY GO FUCK YOURSELF OR AS MY FATHER WOULD SAY, ‘CHALIERA ZOLSTE NIMMEN’ OR ‘CHAPP ‘N CHALIERA’ OR ‘OISS GERISSEN ZOLSTE VEREN’ OR ”CH’A’ DICH IM LOCH’. TAKE YOUR PICK.