Harry's Place

Great piece Jonathan, thanks. He tried to throw me out four times I think. Well see if those bits get edited out.

He emailed me before the event: “PS: Mild curiosity. I notice that the address of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland is the same as the publisher Faber and Faber. I know nothing about it, but find myself wondering – does Zionism have a stake in Faber and Faber?”

He had looked on the ZF website where it says that in the 1920s, the office was at 77 Great Russell Street – where Faber and Faber is now. Of course the ZF moved from there maybe 40 years ago. But in his jaundiced mind (which is still seething because he could not find a publisher for his ridiculous book “Zionism: The Enemy of the Jews”) that was more than enough to trigger the “Jews control the media” switch.

Great post, Jonathan. It was indeed a poisonous atmosphere and the hatred of many of the audience members was all too palpable to those of us there.

Hart’s an extraordinarily strange man and you sum up his modus operandi well. He regularly seems to imply that his modern-day obscurity is because mainstream television and book publishers can’t handle “the truth”. Having seen him first-hand in action I think we can both see what the real problem is!

Oh and PS – Hoffman and Gould were fantastic. A beacon of sanity and dignity in a room full of darkness and hate.

as he accused the Jews of stealing the word “antisemitism” from the Arabs

Doesn’t this P of S know that the word was first coined in pre-Nazi Germany (start of 19th century from memory) to mean hatred towards Jews and no other people.

Is “Alan Hart” the same Alan Hart who DSD exposed as an outright anti-semite about two years ago?

Alan Hart, David Icke. When TV egos are tarnished, they will find any outlet to let whatever is left to glow. Even if madness is the new gig, the show must go on I suppose.

Gotta love those Zionist Lizard men ….

So have Galloway and Livingstone come out yet to congratulate Armed DerangedandMad?

Morgoth – yes

Comment on Oy Va Goy:

‘Hart’s wrap-up closing comment was something like “If only there had been more disussion of antisemitism before the Holocaust, then it might not have happened.”

This is obscene on many levels. First – the suggestion that the perpetrators of the most vile antisemitism in history would have been receptive to the truth about antisemitism. Second, the suggestion that biased non-debates (such as that which took place on Friday) would have helped to save any of those exterminated by the Nazis is revolting. This is the man who dismisses the truth as ‘propaganda’ and threatens to remove those who speak the truth.’

As Bibi just said “If only Israel had existed then the Holocaust might not have happened’

That show sounds like everything on Arab TV.
http://www.mideastweb.org/onenarrative.htm

A large group of Arab intellectuals, reflecting the whole spectrum of Arab intelligentsia, was presented in a talk show program broadcast on one of the Arab satellite channels. The subject was the Arab Israeli conflict, Intifada and the suicide bombing. The guests included Marxist, Nasserist, Nationalist, Islamist, and right wing intellectuals. One, thus, should expect a variety of conflicting ideas, a heated debate and an exciting show. One should, at least, expect an exchange of strong arguments, a reflection of different sources and a presentation of multiple analyses. Different ideologies, paradigms and historical, economic, political and cultural grounding of the subject must be displayed in a show like this, with guests like those discussing an issue like that!

The surprise, which is not really surprising to an Arab audience, was the absolute consensus prevailing on the stage. Israel is evil, peace is a big deception, the Israelis are monsters, Israel lives on extending its borders, and those who favor peace are daydreamers, not to mention betrayers and collaborators. There were some differences though. For instance the Nasserist representative said a suicide bomb is more effective than an atomic bomb. The Marxist representative objected, not to say it is immoral, Heaven forbid, but rather to say it is an exaggeration. Of course an atomic bomb is more effective; we should be objective and scientific, the Marxist said. The Nasserist, however, challenged him by saying that he is not exaggerating anything. An atomic bomb could be expected, but no one can know exactly when and where the suicide bomber will blow him/herself, he proudly commented. When the question of the victims being civilians was raised, the guests all murmured and waved their hands. There is not a single Israeli civilian; all of them are a part of the military establishment. The Nationalist frankly said that a one-day old baby living in Tel Aviv is an occupier who is naturally a legitimate target of suicide bombing.

This two-hour show is a drop in the Arab media ocean. But the other drops are no different. The same boring song has been chanted day and night for years in the Arab World. Western commentators are usually amazed and sometimes panicked by this propaganda, wondering how peace would be possible in such a context. My point, however, is not the content of the song, but rather, that it is the only song one can hear. The single narrative is not just the only view of Israel and the Arabs. It dominates the entire program of Arab national life. A conflict with a tiny country in a small corner of the Arab world has pushed almost all other issues off the stage for over half a century. Crazy people do say crazy things all the time, but we might expect to see and hear some other voices too.. Some other reasonable people should be also presented. Why are those reasonable people muted, and why is the crazy discourse flourishing? …

I’d say that your experiences were horrifying and shocking but sadly they’re not. These are sad times we live in.

What baffles me is this: Why invite two people to a debate and then do your level best to ensure they do not have a fair say and threaten to throw them out when they say exactly what you knew they would say? We might have been fig leaves (as Jonathan S writes) but were we ever going to be silent fig leaves?

It defies all logic!

Great post – anyone know when it will be available to watch?

Seismic

I don’t know when it will be broadcast. If I find out I’ll post it here.

“as he accused the Jews of stealing the word “antisemitism” from the Arabs”

Yes, because languages are not fluid and evolving, they stay in the same exact form forever. This argument about anti-semitism is aweful…by which, of course I mean “full of awe”.

@Jonathan Hoffman,

The Faber and Faber story is a classic!

Very amusing.

Alan Hart speculating that the Israeli’s were responsible for the “false flag” murder of BBC journalist, Alan Johnston. You’ll be relieved to discover that Johnston is very much alive.

Clearly a nut.

Nothing in their archive yet, http://www.presstv.ir/programs/archive/#

I suppose that Alan Hart will blame the existence of David Duke on Zionism too?

Maybe Hart could explain away why the Iranian Prez. decided to invite a pile of neo-nazis to Tehran in 2006?

I wonder, who will he try to blame that on?

I salute Jonathan Hoffman and Carol Gould for having the stomach and the patience to attend such a farce.

Good heavens. He sounds like Our President’s pastor:

This President, perhaps the most informed, the most eloquent and the most enlightened occupant of the White House in his country’s history (God Bless Americans for electing him), knows exactly what he’s got to do and how to do it. Above all, he knows that if he is to have a chance of obliging Israel to make peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept, he’s got to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on Congress (on matters relating to U.S. policy for the Middle East).

“..Why invite two people to a debate and then do your level best to ensure they do not have a fair say and threaten to throw them out when they say exactly what you knew they would say?

This goes to the utter lack of insight and theory of mind of such people. At some murky level, this joker probably thought that he could shame you publicly (he judged you by his standards, such a thing would be deeply humiliating and shaming for him, and would be unbearable) and he assumed that you would cave in. I am glad that you and Carol gave him the verbal equivalent of a bloody nose.

Standby for his version, though, about how he bested you in debate. Again, the lack of the theory of mind is an immense handicap, and would have him believing the equivalent of sixteen impossible things before breakfast and insisting they were true, rather than admitting to himself that you and Carol got the better of him.

I shall look forward to the link to the video.

I salute you all for defending Israel in such circumstances. I never ceased to be amazed that any time an anti-Israel debater is winning a debate (normally by shouting louder than all other parties involved,) he is dubbed the voice of reason, and when pro-Israel debaters manage to come out on top, all their sources and logic are nothing but “propaganda.”

Vive la propaganda, gents :)

Mitganged I don’t know who Alan Hart is, but why would he have a different sort of psychology than any average Brit? You’re talking about shame and humiliation, but he’s not from a shame-culture.

He’s this guy, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Hart_(writer)

I think that, for a regular Press TV contract, one has to show results. The bad guys can never seem to win or have a fair point that contradicts the underlying Iranian/Khomeini/Ahmadinejad/whatever agenda. Hence resorting to shouting down or threats when desperate.

That’s what I think, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Hart_(writer)

Josh Scholar – You have the wrong ‘Alan Hart’

And I speak as a veteran of Alan Hart “debates” (well, one anyway):

http://forum.mpacuk.org/archive/index.php/t-4645.html

@Josh S

Sorry that is still the wrong link, you need to go into that link and click here:

“For the writer and former BBC Panorama presenter, see Alan Hart (writer).”

Having seen Galloway in action on Press TV trying to force a prewritten script down the throat of a guest who said none of what he was accused of saying and who was just laughing at him, I agree with zkharya.

Press TV is a place for blatant propagandists who don’t mind being handed a script by a dictator’s lackeys and simply reading the script.

I suppose it feels naughty to some sort of immature idiot to be that blatantly corrupt. It’s a unique service they offer, you can’t play at being an aparatchik anywhere else.

@Josh S

Maybe you knew that – the page is confusing

Jonathan H we both pasted the right link, but harry’s place’s software cuts the “(writer)” off the URL and so it goes to the wrong page on wikipedia.

http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/waterstones-recommends-the-brothers-grimm-lydia-and-dear-deidre/

This Alan Hart….

Good heavens.

A magnificent article, Jonathan. Here is my correspondence with Alan Hart about Faber & Faber being in the same buildign (horror of horrors!) as the Zionist Federation:

May 31, 2009
3:40PM
Dear Alan,
Amazing: as a Zionist I am truly astonished that anyone is terrified of offending us. When was the last time a Jew blew up a tube station or bus anywhere in the West, or held up placards calling for the next 9/11 or for a worldwide Jewish State (I have seen numerous Muslim groups in Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square holding up placards about re-establishing the worldwide Caliphate )?
I would be much more frightened of Islam if I were a British Christian.
Interesting..
Enjoy the sun
Carol
—– Original Message —–
From: Alan Hart
To: Carol Gould
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: Your comment about Faber & Faber

Dear Carol,

Many thanks. I did not presume anything sinister. I am merely curious about everything. (I also know, as a matter of absolute fact, that all mainstream publishers – and even many minors – are frightened, no terrified, of offending Zionism too much).

I’ll update you during the coming week.

Regards

Alan
—– Original Message —–
From: Carol Gould
To: Alan Hart
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 2:43 PM
Subject: Your comment about Faber & Faber

Dear Alan,
Some time ago you asked Jonathan Hoffman about Faber & Faber having their HQ in the same building as the Zionist Federation. I have been doing some research, as F&F have been sponsoring my favourite Military Channel series about WWII and about NASA. They were and are about as non-Jewish as one can get, and TS Eliot, not exactly a friend of the Jews, — to put it mildly ! — was their literary consultant.
http://www.faber.co.uk/about/

Incidentally, were I a business I would be honoured to be in a building with a creed of people who gave the world the polio vaccine, the Pentium chip, 90% of West End shows, the TIME magazine Man of the Century Albert Einstein and the TIMES playwright of the century Arthur Miller, plus scores of Nobel Prize winners..

Why do you think it is something sinister for a business to be in the same premises as the Zionist Federation? I am around the block from about 200 Muslim establishments and would have no hesitation in renting an office space with them if one within my budget came up.
Regards,
Carol

@Hello

Do try to keep up old chap!

Re Carol’s email correspondence with Hart:

I am particularly amused by his knowing “as a matter of absolute fact, that all mainstream publishers – and even many minors – are frightened, no terrified, of offending Zionism too much”.

For a man who was so clear from the word go that he wouldn’t put up with *any* ‘assertions’ without hard evidence, he is very quick to state his own opinions as “absolute fact”, whilst providing no evidence at all.

I assume the closest he has to evidence of this ZIonist stranglehold over the publishing industry might be a string of rejection letters from publishers concerning his books. But of course that’s more likely to be evidence that they simply thought the books weren’t any good, not that they were worried about ‘offending Zionism’!

Indeed – despite being “terrified of offending Zionism” those publishers seem to have published Ilan Pappe’s books.

Jonathan wrote

We might have been fig leaves

True – bringing to mind two responses:

(1) As native New Yorkers might say, “figgedabaoutit”. (That is, let Hart & his audience of anti-Semitic rotters rot.)

(2) I myself should be glad of the Israeli electorate and government telling the increasingly anti-Semitic European opinion elite to fig off.

Dear Hello,

Go fuck yourself, but please do it badly, so that it is both painful and unsatisfying.

Your friend,

The Chief Elder

“Hello” does a fair job of answering his own stupid question by his use of the phrase “Waffen IDF”.

Why do you think that every debate about anti-semitism become a debate about Israeli government policy? It’s such an obvious derailing tactic.

If you claim to want to keep anti-semitism out of debates on Israeli policy, you might do well to practice as you preach. Otherwise it might be thought that you’re just a hypocritical anti-semitic bigot.

Is he any relation to Derek Hart?

Anat – Dear Hello,

Maz – “Hello” does a fair job of …

I’ll have to assume that ‘Hello’ has said something that would make me blush. (cough).

Jonathan. Sounds like you handled that very well. Will be really interesting to view the video. I myself, would be very apprehensive about going voluntarily into the ‘Lion’s den’. I have to admire your courage.

At least when I threaten to evict Jews I see it through!

Regarding Hart’s conspiracy theory about publishers and Zionism, I suggest he visit a bookshop and look at the Politics and Middle Eastern History shelves, which are always straining with anti-Israel titles.

Could it be, one ‘asserts’, that his book wasn’t taken up by a serious publisher not because of a Zionist conspiracy but simply because it’s, well, shit?

@Chas, I will have to have you evicted for that suggestion!

I happen to know as a matter of absolute fact that my books are excellent. I also happen to know as a matter of absolute fact that your book ‘Not In My Name’ was only published because the Zionist publisher Virgin Paperbacks liked its chapter on Israel.

Richard Branson is a well-known Zionist. His second cousin eats in Sollys in Golders Green all the time. His office is in the same building where the Chief Rabbi’s office was 275 years ago. I know nothing about it, but find myself wondering – does the Chief Rabbi have a stake in Virgin?”

Haha! Not Alan Hart – one wonders whether Richard Branson has a signed photograph of Golda Meir. “Could one make a case” that he does not?

Not Alan Hart

Richard Branson is a well-known Zionist. His second cousin eats in Sollys in Golders Green all the time. His office is in the same building where the Chief Rabbi’s office was 275 years ago. I know nothing about it, but find myself wondering – does the Chief Rabbi have a stake in Virgin?”

Great response.

One of the reasons that I always return to HP is that kind of discourse rather than the heavily protected revisionism on CI(F).

Pappe ranted about how Diaspora Synagogues had been turned into ‘Israeli Embassies’ because some of them displayed Israeli flags, as if that somehow made attacking them acceptable.

Pappe has said this sort of thing before:

Professor Ilan Pappe, of the University of Exeter talked about the ‘conscription’ of Israeli academics by the Israeli Armed forces. Of Israeli academia and their tacit support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine, he said: ‘When a synagogue becomes an embassy and when academics become ambassadors they should be treated as ambassadors of a rogue criminal state.’

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/383529.html

Josh Scholar, to feel shame is as much an aspect of personality as it is of culture. It is an essential component of our make-up so as to help us to be social beings. Shame cultures use it to keep people in line however – the threat of being shamed and/or cast out means that they are phobic of it and that it is much more keenly felt.

Because Hart is not a part of a shame culture does not mean that he is immune from being shamed.

Hart may well believe that he has to make his bones on Press TV and has invested a lot in his image for it. How might it look for guests, who have been set up as the equivalent of Aunt Sallys, suddenly fight back? Publicly shaming? I think so. My belief is that he will have gone away and told himself a fairytale about Jonathan Hoffman’s and Carol Gould’s reactions which will be self-serving and divorced from actual reality, so as to protect himself from the discomfort of having been publicly shamed.

At some level, of course, he must not have been sure of his ground, otherwise there would not have been an audience weighted against fair debate, or alternatively the audience might have been forced upon him. They had come expecting to witness the equivalent of a public execution of Gould and Hoffman. They, too, were subsequently shocked out of their socks (or off his chair, in one case).

I believe that Hart will be not be a happy or comfortable soul because of that. It may, and indeed I hope it will have, adversely affected his career on Press TV.

“or alternatively the audience might have been forced upon him.”

I can help there. He personally invited the audience members.

Have you seen his website? Priceless.

For instance:

http://www.alanhart.net/hart-of-the-matter-1-alan-hart-introduction/

He is interviewed – by his son – for the first episode of his Press TV series. He again uses his laughable ‘Golda Meir signed photo’ defence. (If you have to rely on a deceased Jew who cannot answer back in order to prove you are not antisemitic – while numerous live Jews insist you are – you are on rather weak ground.) He also says “we come out of our mothers’ wombs programmed to believe the Zionist narrative”. Finally, he claims he is under multiple threats of assassination.

It was left to Carol and me to nominate supportive audience members. If we had not given him names, I presume there would have been none at all. As it was there were about 15 supportive people in an audience of about 60. I have never seen so many known Israel-bashers in one room. (It should be said that he did not veto any name we suggested).

** Here is an email he sent to an Israel opponent: **

“Here are the venue details for our Friday June 12 debate. (I’ve got you down plus three, could be four if you wish). Numbers of those on the side of truth for justice and peace are important because Zionism is well represented. No doubt they’ll try with their mouths to limit the debate”

Danny:
That’s scary: the man believes there is some sort of secret, in-utero Zionist brainwashing programme. Or maybe he’s suggesting that it is a natural biological tendency to support Israel that one ‘ought’ to work hard *against* to come round to his view.

MITNAGED:
unfortunately I think you are wrong. I don’t think it dents these sorts of people at all when they get trampled on by reason. They play to their own crowd (both in the studio audience and at home), and simply laugh in the face of reason and debate. Or they shout it down and feel big for doing so. When a prejudice is so engrained in someone’s makeup, they don’t even hear reason proving them wrong. And that is what Press TV thrives on.

The bit that bothers me is that their aim (and they do fairly well with it) is to dress up that sort of nastiness and bile as the kind of TV a UK audience might be used to, where things are ‘balanced’ and ‘fair’ (let’s not discuss UK mainstream media bias here; in comparison to Press TV it’s not so bad after all). Press TV broadcasts hours of one-sided hatred, as is standard fare for domestic Arab television (see any of the invaluable clips translated by MEMRI), but they attempt to disguise for their target Western audience by making it look a bit like Question Time, say. This is the danger: just as with the ‘elections’ in Iran, the appearance of fairness must not be allowed to hide the truth of the total opposite that lies beneath.

See also ‘civilian nuclear electricity’ activities: apparently ‘intelligent’ people are easily taken in by a simple lie that seems obvious to many, but which is in fact designed to hide a very sinister reality. For example, Obama–often celebrated for his reported intelligence–says that he “support[s] Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy”.

Jonathan H – that email you quote that Hart sent to an Israel opponent shows again how utterly unprofessional he is. (And presumably if the Israel opponent forwarded it to you then even he/she was horrified.)

Jonathan H:
That email is extraordinary. I thought the passive/aggressive PS he sent me was unprofessional, but that one lays it bare for everyone to see his true colours.

Also, I love how he wrote to pro-Israel audience members insisting that “numbers [are] tight”, but he wrote to his cronies that he he’d put them down “plus three, could be four if you wish”!

spectrum
14 June 2009, 6:30 pm

as he accused the Jews of stealing the word “antisemitism” from the Arabs

Doesn’t this P of S know that the word was first coined in pre-Nazi Germany (start of 19th century from memory) to mean hatred towards Jews and no other people.

C’mon Spectrum. When it comes to cultural appropriation (and land for that matter), the Muslim Bros have to be the biggest pikers in the world.

Here we have an adherent to a monotheistic faith that although many centuries more recent in its vintage than Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity, claims with no embarassment, to pre-exist all, that all persons are born Muslim, and “revert” rather than convert to Islam when they chant the creed. And so what about driving all the Jews out of the Hejaz that they didn’t massacre, or all the bloody incursions into Europe, the Indian sub-continent, Africa etc.

spectrum
14 June 2009, 6:30 pm

as he accused the Jews of stealing the word “antisemitism” from the Arabs

Doesn’t this P of S know that the word was first coined in pre-Nazi Germany (start of 19th century from memory) to mean hatred towards Jews and no other people.

C’mon Spectrum. When it comes to cultural appropriation (and land for that matter), the Muslim Bros have to be the biggest pikers in the world.

Here we have an adherent to a monotheistic faith that although many centuries more recent in its vintage than Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity, claims with no embarassment, to pre-exist all, that all persons are born Muslim, and “revert” rather than convert to Islam when they chant the creed. And so what about driving all the Jews out of the Hejaz that they didn’t massacre, or all the bloody incursions into Europe, the Indian sub-continent, Africa etc.

I know how Hart feels. The BBC is run by queers and Jews.

You forgot the Bilderberg Group …

“All right I’ll admit it there’s been some sort of conspiracy to deprive me of viewers.”

http://www.alanhart.net/hart-of-the-matter-1-alan-hart-introduction/

He is interviewed by his son, Chris Hart. Hard to tell if the son believes the father’s conspiracy theories to end all conspiracy theories.

Highlights:

* Hart goes STRAIGHT in with his “I’ve got a signed picture from Golda Meir, so I can’t be antisemitic” line.

* His son saying: “Me and you have discussed history for hours and hours.” More like a monologue surely …

* Hart says: “In the West we come out of our mothers’ wombs programmed to believe the Zionist narrative.” Zionists under the bed, in the bed, and more!

* He then drones on about how he is under threat of assasination.

Where are the men in white coats?

That interview with his son (speaking in Alan’s words throughout) is really laughable. Hart is a lunatic!

Do you think they noticed that the camera was in shot for the entire interview?!

Imagine having him for a father

Jonathan Sacks on the new anti-Semitism:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6540466.ece