"Controversial Fairfax columnist Paul Sheehan will be one of the more high-profile casualties of the publisher's latest redundancy round, Diary can reveal. Sheehan disgraced The Sydney Morning Herald with an unsubstantiated story about an alleged gang rape in March. He was stood down indefinitely by SMH editor-in-chief Darren Goodsir who said at the time a review of the incident had found 'unacceptable breaches of fundamental journalistic practice.' Perhaps the writing was on the wall for Sheehan, although the redundancy program was still in its 'voluntary' stage as of last week. That could change, given Fairfax editorial director Sean Aylmer told staff on Friday the program had not yielded enough 'suitable' job cuts." (Sheehan facing the axe, The Diary, Media, The Australian, 9/5/16)
So what's next for Paul? Surely not the dreaded scrapheap?
Wait a minute... I've got an idea! Now that ex-Australian Mark Regev has become Israel's ambassador to the UK, Netanyahu will be looking for a new foreign media spokesman. Sheehan should slot in nicely. After all, he's got it all down pat. For example:
"Women [in Gaza], living under sharia law, are used primarily as breeding stock." (See my 13/1/09 post Oriana Fallaci Meets Israeli PR at the SMH.)
"Most of the constrictive actions Israel has taken in the Palestinian territories - the walls, roadblocks, security restrictions - has been in reaction to an intransigent Palestinian political culture." (See my 21/11/14 post Paul Sheehan: Toeing the Likud Line.)
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Monday, May 9, 2016
Sadiq Khan: No Werewolf of Londonistan
It's April 2016. Deep in her bunker in the wilds of Londonistan, Melanie Phillips taps out her - to date - worst fears.
"If the opinion polls are correct, in under two weeks Labour's Sadiq Khan will be elected Mayor of London. This is extremely troubling. Despite his noisy denunciations of terrorism and the Jew-hatred infecting his party, questions about his attitude to extremism continue to mount." (Khan for Mayor? Beware, thejc.com, 21/4/16)
This weekend past, Mad Mel's worst fears were confirmed. The dreaded Sadiq Khan was indeed elected Mayor of London.
But Khan's no Islamist Werewolf of Londonistan in sheep's clothing; just another Labour Zionist pussycat really.
Listen to him purr:
On a visit to occupied Arab East Jerusalem in 2011, he's shocked, SHOCKED, to hear a Palestinian kid refer to Israeli settlers as Zionists:
"It was heartbreaking to meet a Palestinian boy... who lived in an area surrounded by the separation wall that cuts through Palestinian towns and cities, overlooked by Israeli settler houses. He told me about the regular incidents of abuse - verbal and physical - that his family suffered and he had nothing but hatred for those he called 'the Zionists'. I was shocked to hear someone so young use such a physically loaded word." (Enlightenment through play, Sadiq Khan, New Statesman, 9/1/12)
Nor can he understand why al-Aqsa Mosque is for Muslims only. Why can't it be like back home?:
"In my constituency of Tooting, south London, the local mosques perform a vital role in integrating our community. My daughters can bring their non-Muslim friends; schoolchildren visit to learn about Islam. By contrast, Israeli and Palestinian children don't play together or learn about each other's faith or culture."
After all, as he puts it, the Israelis are only "a perceived occupying force."
Anyway, if this doesn't mollify Mad Mel, nothing will:
"It is great that Tel Aviv, like other cities and countries around the world, is choosing London as its platform to promote its growing status as a cultural hub. It's another endorsement for London as the best global promotional venue." (Sadiq Khan, quoted in Zac Goldsmith & Sadiq Khan back Tel Aviv festival in London, Justin Cohen, jewishnews.timesofisrael.com, 1/2/16)
Hey, Mel, I think it's safe to come out now.
"If the opinion polls are correct, in under two weeks Labour's Sadiq Khan will be elected Mayor of London. This is extremely troubling. Despite his noisy denunciations of terrorism and the Jew-hatred infecting his party, questions about his attitude to extremism continue to mount." (Khan for Mayor? Beware, thejc.com, 21/4/16)
This weekend past, Mad Mel's worst fears were confirmed. The dreaded Sadiq Khan was indeed elected Mayor of London.
But Khan's no Islamist Werewolf of Londonistan in sheep's clothing; just another Labour Zionist pussycat really.
Listen to him purr:
On a visit to occupied Arab East Jerusalem in 2011, he's shocked, SHOCKED, to hear a Palestinian kid refer to Israeli settlers as Zionists:
"It was heartbreaking to meet a Palestinian boy... who lived in an area surrounded by the separation wall that cuts through Palestinian towns and cities, overlooked by Israeli settler houses. He told me about the regular incidents of abuse - verbal and physical - that his family suffered and he had nothing but hatred for those he called 'the Zionists'. I was shocked to hear someone so young use such a physically loaded word." (Enlightenment through play, Sadiq Khan, New Statesman, 9/1/12)
Nor can he understand why al-Aqsa Mosque is for Muslims only. Why can't it be like back home?:
"In my constituency of Tooting, south London, the local mosques perform a vital role in integrating our community. My daughters can bring their non-Muslim friends; schoolchildren visit to learn about Islam. By contrast, Israeli and Palestinian children don't play together or learn about each other's faith or culture."
After all, as he puts it, the Israelis are only "a perceived occupying force."
Anyway, if this doesn't mollify Mad Mel, nothing will:
"It is great that Tel Aviv, like other cities and countries around the world, is choosing London as its platform to promote its growing status as a cultural hub. It's another endorsement for London as the best global promotional venue." (Sadiq Khan, quoted in Zac Goldsmith & Sadiq Khan back Tel Aviv festival in London, Justin Cohen, jewishnews.timesofisrael.com, 1/2/16)
Hey, Mel, I think it's safe to come out now.
Sunday, May 8, 2016
From the Horse's Mouth
"If there's something that frightens me about Holocaust remembrance it's the recognition of the revolting processes that occurred in Europe in general, and particularly in Germany, back then - 70, 80 and 90 years ago - and finding signs of them here among us today in 2016." IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Yair Golan
Saturday, May 7, 2016
Fact-Checking Michael Danby
Here's a paragraph from an 'opinion' piece in yesterday's Australian by Labor ZIO, Michael Danby:
"Before that there was a front-page row over the Oxford University Labour Club, when its former chairman, who is Jewish, resigned live on the BBC, citing harassment by Corbynistas singing 'Rockets over Tel Aviv' and calling and disparaging their fellow Jewish undergraduates as 'Zios'." (Anti-Jewish bigotry set to bring down Corbyn and British Labour, 6/5/16)
Almost nothing in it, however, can withstand scrutiny.
As it happens, the gentleman concerned, Alex Chalmers, produced a resignation statement (telegraph.co.uk, 16/2/16), from which we can see that:
a) Chalmers was not a "former chairman" of the OULC, but a co-chair.
b) Chalmers may or may not be Jewish. More to the point, Danby omits to mention that he had worked for BICOM (British Israel Communication & Research Centre) - from which we may safely conclude he's a ZIO.
c) Chalmers "resigned live on the BBC"? Really? What an odd place to resign! Trouble is, I can find no evidence for this claim.
d) Chalmers did not resign because of "harassment by Corbynistas singing 'Rockets over Tel Aviv." Here is his reason for resigning:
"It is with greatest regret that I have decided to resign... This comes in the light of OULC's decision at this evening's general meeting to endorse Israel Apartheid Week."
e) Chalmers made no mention of "Corbynistas" (or Corbyn, for that matter) in his resignation statement.
f) Chalmers made no mention of "Rockets over Tel Aviv" (or any other song) in his resignation statement. In fact, there is no song called 'Rockets over Tel Aviv'.
g) Chalmers did not mention "harassment." His resignation statement merely accuses "members of the Executive" of "throwing around the term 'Zio' (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon," and then leaps to the conclusion that "a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews."
Quite why he chose to draw that particular conclusion from the use of the term tells us more about him than it does about the OULC. After all, that "large proportion of OULC," alleged to be using the term, could conceivably be referring to, well... ZIONISTS.
Which raises the questions:
Is calling Zionists Zionists (or ZIOS) now anti-Semitic? If so, Herzl, Weizmann and Ben-Gurion, to name but the leading lights of the ZIO-pantheon, are, ipso facto, anti-Semites.
Is Chalmers seriously suggesting that "members of the [OULC] Executive" get their cues from KKK websites?
Finally, if ZIOS is a disparaging term, what are we to make of 'Corbynistas'?
Enough already! Please don't ask me to fact-check Danby's other 28 ZIOgraphs.
"Before that there was a front-page row over the Oxford University Labour Club, when its former chairman, who is Jewish, resigned live on the BBC, citing harassment by Corbynistas singing 'Rockets over Tel Aviv' and calling and disparaging their fellow Jewish undergraduates as 'Zios'." (Anti-Jewish bigotry set to bring down Corbyn and British Labour, 6/5/16)
Almost nothing in it, however, can withstand scrutiny.
As it happens, the gentleman concerned, Alex Chalmers, produced a resignation statement (telegraph.co.uk, 16/2/16), from which we can see that:
a) Chalmers was not a "former chairman" of the OULC, but a co-chair.
b) Chalmers may or may not be Jewish. More to the point, Danby omits to mention that he had worked for BICOM (British Israel Communication & Research Centre) - from which we may safely conclude he's a ZIO.
c) Chalmers "resigned live on the BBC"? Really? What an odd place to resign! Trouble is, I can find no evidence for this claim.
d) Chalmers did not resign because of "harassment by Corbynistas singing 'Rockets over Tel Aviv." Here is his reason for resigning:
"It is with greatest regret that I have decided to resign... This comes in the light of OULC's decision at this evening's general meeting to endorse Israel Apartheid Week."
e) Chalmers made no mention of "Corbynistas" (or Corbyn, for that matter) in his resignation statement.
f) Chalmers made no mention of "Rockets over Tel Aviv" (or any other song) in his resignation statement. In fact, there is no song called 'Rockets over Tel Aviv'.
g) Chalmers did not mention "harassment." His resignation statement merely accuses "members of the Executive" of "throwing around the term 'Zio' (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon," and then leaps to the conclusion that "a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews."
Quite why he chose to draw that particular conclusion from the use of the term tells us more about him than it does about the OULC. After all, that "large proportion of OULC," alleged to be using the term, could conceivably be referring to, well... ZIONISTS.
Which raises the questions:
Is calling Zionists Zionists (or ZIOS) now anti-Semitic? If so, Herzl, Weizmann and Ben-Gurion, to name but the leading lights of the ZIO-pantheon, are, ipso facto, anti-Semites.
Is Chalmers seriously suggesting that "members of the [OULC] Executive" get their cues from KKK websites?
Finally, if ZIOS is a disparaging term, what are we to make of 'Corbynistas'?
Enough already! Please don't ask me to fact-check Danby's other 28 ZIOgraphs.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Vale John Kaye (1955-2016)
The ms media this week lists the many worthy causes championed by the late NSW Greens MLC John Kaye. All except one - Palestine.
You may, for example, read the former Greens' leader, Bob Brown's reference to Kaye as "a friend of the poor and dispossessed," but find yourself wondering to which poor and dispossessed Brown was referring.
You may read the assessment of John Macgowan, the former Liberal Party staffer responsible for shepherding government legislation through the NSW Upper House, in which he describes Kaye as "that rare breed of politician who could always be relied upon to do the right thing, to put common decency first," but find yourself wondering why, if this were so, only Kaye and fellow Green, David Shoebridge, saw fit to defend the pro-Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against its detractors in the NSW Upper House in September 2011, an occasion when even the other Greens in the House were found wanting. (See my 16/9/11 post A Cautionary Tale)
Here, in part, is what Kaye had to say at the time:
"I cannot support this motion [moved by the Liberal's David Clarke, and reading in part: '(c) 'notes that some of the rhetoric used by proponents of the BDS camp has descended into anti-Semitism'*] and will be voting against it. This motion is a cheap attempt to smear the BDS movement as anti-Jewish when it is not. It is an attempt to allege that there is anti-Semitism on the side of the BDS debate when there is no evidence of such anti-Semitism.
"There is direct evidence that the anti-BDS side is being supported by those with excellent fascist connections - the Australian Protectionist Party - and not just fascist connections, but connections to Holocaust deniers. This motion attempts to explain the real horror of anti-Semitism and its most appalling manifestation in the Holocaust to achieve cheap political points. It cheapens the memory of the six million people who died in the holocaust, and many more who suffered terribly under Nazism. As such, I cannot support the motion and will be voting against it.
"Lest it be said that voting against this motion in any way implies any lack of condemnation of anti-Semitism, I put on record again that The Greens moved a motion this morning to condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I did that in order to ensure that the wedge that was designed into this motion, for those who felt the need to vote against it, would not be used. There is, of course, a legitimate debate about advancing the rights of Palestinians who have been dispossessed by Israel, who have been left stateless, without human rights, and who have been left with a dysfunctional territory. As pointed out by the Hon. Trevor Khan, in October 2011 [sic: December 2010] the NSW Greens supported the BDS mechanism. It is on our website, despite the Government Whip saying that it is not. It is there, and if Trevor Khan could find it, surely anybody could find it.
"The Greens recognise it as a mechanism to address the appalling situation of the Palestinian people and the role that the policies of the Israeli government have played in promoting those conditions. Just as the consumer, trade and sporting boycotts against South Africa brought about change in that country, it is The Greens' belief that these boycotts can bring about change in Israel and Palestine. The Greens recognise that there are those who do not believe that Palestinians face a systemic denial of their rights and there are those who do not support BDS as a way of achieving an improvement in rights. It is their right to believe so.
"The Greens recognise that there were those during the campaign against apartheid in South Africa who thought that the blacks in South Africa got quite a good deal. Some felt that boycotts would not help the blacks in South Africa - the Liberal Party and The Nationals were full of such people. Who can forget Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a former Premier of Queensland, who fought vigorously against the boycotting of South African sporting events? History shows that those people were dead wrong. History shows that those people supported an unconscionable denial of human rights based on racial background. History shows that the boycotts were an important ingredient in bringing about change in that state and in bringing about a new era where human rights were no longer determined by the ethnic, religious or racial backgrounds of people who lived in that state.
"I have no doubt that history will show that those who oppose BDS, those who give Israel unqualified support, are doing no favours to the citizens of Israel and are ignoring the realities of the systematic denial of human rights to Palestinians. The BDS campaign is controversial and there are a range of opinions on it - as was the case with the boycotts against South Africa. Those who support BDS are not afraid of criticism and debate. There ought to be criticism and debate about a tactic that is highly controversial, but that criticism and debate should be founded on fact, not in a fantasy borne of ideology.
"The BDS campaign is no more anti-Semitic than are those which called for an end to the attacks on the front-line ethnic groups in Burma are anti-Burman...
"I cannot support the motion, just as my Greens colleagues Bob Brown and Christine Milne in the Senate, and other senators, voted against a similar motion moved by The Nationals member Senator Boswell. The motion before the House today is somewhat of a copy of Senator Boswell's motion. That motion was a nasty wedge and this motion is a nasty wedge. As an Australian Jew I find the exploitation of false accusations of anti-Semitism particularly obnoxious. Others of similar ethnic and religious backgrounds to me might disagree and say there is anti-Semitism; it is their right to do so. But let us be absolutely clear, the BDS campaign is not anti-Semitic. One might not like that it targets Israel or that it targets shops that are owned by Israelis, but it does not target shops that are owned by Jews. It has no connection to the appalling tactics implemented by the Nazis during the Holocaust."
[*See my 17/9/11 post Witches Brew 1.]
You may, for example, read the former Greens' leader, Bob Brown's reference to Kaye as "a friend of the poor and dispossessed," but find yourself wondering to which poor and dispossessed Brown was referring.
You may read the assessment of John Macgowan, the former Liberal Party staffer responsible for shepherding government legislation through the NSW Upper House, in which he describes Kaye as "that rare breed of politician who could always be relied upon to do the right thing, to put common decency first," but find yourself wondering why, if this were so, only Kaye and fellow Green, David Shoebridge, saw fit to defend the pro-Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against its detractors in the NSW Upper House in September 2011, an occasion when even the other Greens in the House were found wanting. (See my 16/9/11 post A Cautionary Tale)
Here, in part, is what Kaye had to say at the time:
"I cannot support this motion [moved by the Liberal's David Clarke, and reading in part: '(c) 'notes that some of the rhetoric used by proponents of the BDS camp has descended into anti-Semitism'*] and will be voting against it. This motion is a cheap attempt to smear the BDS movement as anti-Jewish when it is not. It is an attempt to allege that there is anti-Semitism on the side of the BDS debate when there is no evidence of such anti-Semitism.
"There is direct evidence that the anti-BDS side is being supported by those with excellent fascist connections - the Australian Protectionist Party - and not just fascist connections, but connections to Holocaust deniers. This motion attempts to explain the real horror of anti-Semitism and its most appalling manifestation in the Holocaust to achieve cheap political points. It cheapens the memory of the six million people who died in the holocaust, and many more who suffered terribly under Nazism. As such, I cannot support the motion and will be voting against it.
"Lest it be said that voting against this motion in any way implies any lack of condemnation of anti-Semitism, I put on record again that The Greens moved a motion this morning to condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I did that in order to ensure that the wedge that was designed into this motion, for those who felt the need to vote against it, would not be used. There is, of course, a legitimate debate about advancing the rights of Palestinians who have been dispossessed by Israel, who have been left stateless, without human rights, and who have been left with a dysfunctional territory. As pointed out by the Hon. Trevor Khan, in October 2011 [sic: December 2010] the NSW Greens supported the BDS mechanism. It is on our website, despite the Government Whip saying that it is not. It is there, and if Trevor Khan could find it, surely anybody could find it.
"The Greens recognise it as a mechanism to address the appalling situation of the Palestinian people and the role that the policies of the Israeli government have played in promoting those conditions. Just as the consumer, trade and sporting boycotts against South Africa brought about change in that country, it is The Greens' belief that these boycotts can bring about change in Israel and Palestine. The Greens recognise that there are those who do not believe that Palestinians face a systemic denial of their rights and there are those who do not support BDS as a way of achieving an improvement in rights. It is their right to believe so.
"The Greens recognise that there were those during the campaign against apartheid in South Africa who thought that the blacks in South Africa got quite a good deal. Some felt that boycotts would not help the blacks in South Africa - the Liberal Party and The Nationals were full of such people. Who can forget Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a former Premier of Queensland, who fought vigorously against the boycotting of South African sporting events? History shows that those people were dead wrong. History shows that those people supported an unconscionable denial of human rights based on racial background. History shows that the boycotts were an important ingredient in bringing about change in that state and in bringing about a new era where human rights were no longer determined by the ethnic, religious or racial backgrounds of people who lived in that state.
"I have no doubt that history will show that those who oppose BDS, those who give Israel unqualified support, are doing no favours to the citizens of Israel and are ignoring the realities of the systematic denial of human rights to Palestinians. The BDS campaign is controversial and there are a range of opinions on it - as was the case with the boycotts against South Africa. Those who support BDS are not afraid of criticism and debate. There ought to be criticism and debate about a tactic that is highly controversial, but that criticism and debate should be founded on fact, not in a fantasy borne of ideology.
"The BDS campaign is no more anti-Semitic than are those which called for an end to the attacks on the front-line ethnic groups in Burma are anti-Burman...
"I cannot support the motion, just as my Greens colleagues Bob Brown and Christine Milne in the Senate, and other senators, voted against a similar motion moved by The Nationals member Senator Boswell. The motion before the House today is somewhat of a copy of Senator Boswell's motion. That motion was a nasty wedge and this motion is a nasty wedge. As an Australian Jew I find the exploitation of false accusations of anti-Semitism particularly obnoxious. Others of similar ethnic and religious backgrounds to me might disagree and say there is anti-Semitism; it is their right to do so. But let us be absolutely clear, the BDS campaign is not anti-Semitic. One might not like that it targets Israel or that it targets shops that are owned by Israelis, but it does not target shops that are owned by Jews. It has no connection to the appalling tactics implemented by the Nazis during the Holocaust."
[*See my 17/9/11 post Witches Brew 1.]
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
'A Bacillus Which Every Gentile Carries With Him'
In case you didn't already know, there's a slomo coup currently underway in the UK against the leader of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, two of whose supporters, Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone, are being smeared by the usual suspects as anti-Semites.
For an overview of the anti-Corbyn campaign, see How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party's anti-Semitism crisis (Asa Winstanley, electronicintifada.net, 28/4/16), and Ken Livingstone: gobshite yes, antisemite no (Jamie Stern-Weiner, jaimiesternweiner.wordpress.com).
What is happening in the UK, it goes without saying, has nothing whatever to do with genuine anti-Semitism - hatred of Jews as Jews.
As the historic influence of the Zionist movement within Britain's Labour Party wanes, and particularly since the election of the pro-Palestinian Corbyn as its leader, Zionists, both inside and outside the Party, are increasingly resorting to false accusations of anti-Semitism to smear anyone in the Party who speaks out in fundamental opposition to political Zionism. Their aim is to sow discord, and, if possible, bring down Labour's most pro-Palestinian leader ever.
What should be understood, however, is that this smear tactic is integral to the ideology of political Zionism. Zionist logic dictates that a Jewish state in Palestine is necessary because Jews simply cannot live alongside non-Jews, who are, one and all, innately and incurably anti-Semitic.
As UK Labour's foremost Zionist dupe, Richard Crossman MP (1907-1974), recorded in his 1960 pen-portrait of Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader who secured the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and went on to become Israel's first president:
"Antisemitism, [Weizmann] used to say to me, is a bacillus which every Gentile carries with him, wherever he goes and however often he denies it. Like other bacilli, it may remain quiescent and harmless for years. But, once the right conditions are created, the bacilli multiply and the epidemic breaks out. The condition for an outbreak of overt antisemitism in any nation is that the number of Jews should rise beyond the safety level of that particular nation. Hence the only radical cure for antisemitism is the creation of the Jewish State. At our first meeting... Weizmann outlined this theory to me and asked me whether I was antisemitic. When I said, 'Of course', I felt that our friendship had begun. For, if a Gentile denied his latent antisemitism, Weizmann concluded that he must either be lying or, even worse, deceiving himself." (A Nation Reborn: The Israel of Weizmann, Bevin & Ben-Gurion, pp 21-22)
Mad, utterly mad, I know, but that's political Zionism for you.
The smear is therefore as predictable as night and day, and non-Jews should not be spooked by its use or take it too seriously. Instead of suspending Shah and Livingstone, pending an investigation, Corbyn should simply have used the opportunity to patiently explain the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism and charge the authors of the smear with cheapening the coin of anti-Semitism.
For an overview of the anti-Corbyn campaign, see How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party's anti-Semitism crisis (Asa Winstanley, electronicintifada.net, 28/4/16), and Ken Livingstone: gobshite yes, antisemite no (Jamie Stern-Weiner, jaimiesternweiner.wordpress.com).
What is happening in the UK, it goes without saying, has nothing whatever to do with genuine anti-Semitism - hatred of Jews as Jews.
As the historic influence of the Zionist movement within Britain's Labour Party wanes, and particularly since the election of the pro-Palestinian Corbyn as its leader, Zionists, both inside and outside the Party, are increasingly resorting to false accusations of anti-Semitism to smear anyone in the Party who speaks out in fundamental opposition to political Zionism. Their aim is to sow discord, and, if possible, bring down Labour's most pro-Palestinian leader ever.
What should be understood, however, is that this smear tactic is integral to the ideology of political Zionism. Zionist logic dictates that a Jewish state in Palestine is necessary because Jews simply cannot live alongside non-Jews, who are, one and all, innately and incurably anti-Semitic.
As UK Labour's foremost Zionist dupe, Richard Crossman MP (1907-1974), recorded in his 1960 pen-portrait of Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader who secured the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and went on to become Israel's first president:
"Antisemitism, [Weizmann] used to say to me, is a bacillus which every Gentile carries with him, wherever he goes and however often he denies it. Like other bacilli, it may remain quiescent and harmless for years. But, once the right conditions are created, the bacilli multiply and the epidemic breaks out. The condition for an outbreak of overt antisemitism in any nation is that the number of Jews should rise beyond the safety level of that particular nation. Hence the only radical cure for antisemitism is the creation of the Jewish State. At our first meeting... Weizmann outlined this theory to me and asked me whether I was antisemitic. When I said, 'Of course', I felt that our friendship had begun. For, if a Gentile denied his latent antisemitism, Weizmann concluded that he must either be lying or, even worse, deceiving himself." (A Nation Reborn: The Israel of Weizmann, Bevin & Ben-Gurion, pp 21-22)
Mad, utterly mad, I know, but that's political Zionism for you.
The smear is therefore as predictable as night and day, and non-Jews should not be spooked by its use or take it too seriously. Instead of suspending Shah and Livingstone, pending an investigation, Corbyn should simply have used the opportunity to patiently explain the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism and charge the authors of the smear with cheapening the coin of anti-Semitism.
Monday, May 2, 2016
A Work of Staggering Genius
Helen Elliott, "a Melbourne writer and journalist," reviews Israeli novelist Nir Baram's novel, Good People in The Australian of April 30.
She begins thus:
"How would I have behaved in Adolf Hitler's Germany or Joseph Stalin's Russia? It's the question we ask at some time in our lives. But can truth be involved? If we were not physically there within the intimate context of the time how could we have any idea if we would be one of the good or one of the evil? We would hope we would have the gravity and courage of a Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but maybe we would be, well, just ourselves. Israeli novelist Nir Baram is interested in good and evil in exceptional times when evil strides unchecked across the earth."
What I can't understand, though, is why Baram had to go back to Adolf and Uncle Joe for a novel on "evil striding unchecked across the land"?
Surely, any Israeli regime, from David Ben-Gurion's to Benjamin Netanyahu's, would have furnished ample scope for an Israeli writer to explore this subject?
Be that as it may, Elliott concludes her review with the following upbeat assessment... and one helluva silly question:
"This is not a flawless novel but it is tremendous. I read it in two sittings and I learned a lot. How does a man in his early 30s know how to write like this?"
Well, he is Israeli, isn't he?
She begins thus:
"How would I have behaved in Adolf Hitler's Germany or Joseph Stalin's Russia? It's the question we ask at some time in our lives. But can truth be involved? If we were not physically there within the intimate context of the time how could we have any idea if we would be one of the good or one of the evil? We would hope we would have the gravity and courage of a Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but maybe we would be, well, just ourselves. Israeli novelist Nir Baram is interested in good and evil in exceptional times when evil strides unchecked across the earth."
What I can't understand, though, is why Baram had to go back to Adolf and Uncle Joe for a novel on "evil striding unchecked across the land"?
Surely, any Israeli regime, from David Ben-Gurion's to Benjamin Netanyahu's, would have furnished ample scope for an Israeli writer to explore this subject?
Be that as it may, Elliott concludes her review with the following upbeat assessment... and one helluva silly question:
"This is not a flawless novel but it is tremendous. I read it in two sittings and I learned a lot. How does a man in his early 30s know how to write like this?"
Well, he is Israeli, isn't he?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)