Jewish Conspiracy Theory on the Jewish Conspiracy Thread #3

Last week CiF Watch published Jewish Conspiracy on the Jewish Conspiracy Thread #3 – Day 1. In that post I wrote,

“The third article in the series covering the Oborne documentary on “Comment is Free” was an article by Jonathan Boyd that generated an astounding 509 comments before the “clean up crew” reduced the comment count to 472.

Because of the sheer volume of antisemitic commentary, we are splitting this post into two threads by “day 1″ and “day 2″.

This post covers day 2 of the thread.

Before we take a look at the comments, let me highlight this comment that caught my eye. Hope you’re taking note Daddy Rusbridger.

janny11

19 Nov 2009, 2:54

where do i begin, i am a very secular Jewish person who is also a zionist. Ido not feel persecuted by reading these comments, i just feel sick to my stomach, Most of the comments on here are borderline anti jew hatred. I would’nt even call it antisemitism, it goes deeper than that. It just makes me happy to think I don’t live in the UK anymore. My daughter who is studying in Manchester told me that she has never told anyone she is Jewish because she was scared to do so. The other day somebody remarked rather nastily when they overheard her saying her surname (which is typically Jewish), they asked her if she was a member of the Jewish Lobby to get rid of the Palestinians, she told them she had no idea what they were talking about. She did not see the programme about the Jewish Lobbyists. The two in question replied that she was a jewish whore and to go and f***** herself. Very nice, she wanted to report this, but was told it was’nt worth it and it would cause more trouble. She was really shocked because this was the first time this has ever happend to her, all she could say to me was she hated being Jewish. All i could do was cry.

And if that wasn’t bad enough. This is how one of the Guardinistas responded.

Matzpen

19 Nov 2009, 3:01

janny11

Rubbish. Utter, utter, rubbish. Operation Suzannah-lite.

Of course Matzpen had no basis at all to discount Janny11’s comment in such a manner but such is the level of discourse we have come to expect among the Guardinistas on “Comment is Free”.

Anyway, day number 2 of the Boyd thread kicked off with a comment from Guardian contributor, Ben White (the same Ben White that has flirted with Holocaust denial and claims to understand why some are antisemitic) engaging in some Jenin revisionism.

BenWhite

19 Nov 2009, 9:19AM

Contributor

In April 2002, at the height of the Palestinian intifada, media reports quickly began circulating that a massacre had been committed by the Israel Defence Forces in Jenin in the West Bank. Rumours circulated that hundreds of Palestinians had been killed. The BBC suggested 150. Saeb Erekat, interviewed on CNN, claimed 500. Yasser Abed Rabbo intimated 900…

In the final analysis, it was established that no such massacre took place in Jenin. The United Nations report into the fighting eventually concluded that, in actual fact, 52 Palestinians were killed, at least half of whom were militants.

During Israel’s invasion of Jenin in 2002 there was genuine confusion about the number of casualties (like in Gaza 2009, Israel restricted media access). On 9 April, the Israeli newspaper Ha?aretz published a story describing how Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was ?very worried? about the international reaction to events in Jenin, ?where more than 100 Palestinians have already been killed in fighting?, according to the newspaper. Peres was apparently referring to the battle ?as a ?massacre??.

The next day, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat appeared on CNN and estimated that the number of Palestinians killed since the start of Operation Defensive Shield across the West Bank ?could reach 500? (not in Jenin specifically). A BBC report the same day noted: ?Israel says 150 Palestinians died in Jenin?. On 12 April, an IDF spokesperson suggested ?hundreds of Palestinians? killed in Jenin, a figure later clarified to mean dead and injured.

Ironically, in citing the UN report on Jenin by way of some kind of vindication, you neglect to mention that the Israeli government obstructed and blocked that very same investigation.

Human Rights Watch published a report in May 2002, concluding that ?many of the civilian deaths? they documented ?amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF?, with some cases amounting ?to summary executions?. HRW said that the IDF used Palestinians as human shields and employed ?indiscriminate and excessive force?, and that from an estimated 52 Palestinian deaths, at least 22 were civilians ?including children, physically disabled, and elderly people?.

Physicians for Human Rights reported on 30 April 2002 that 38 percent of all reported fatalities in Jenin were ?children under 15 years, women and men over the age of 50?.

We have no problem calling half a dozen victims in a high school shooting a ?massacre?, or indeed suicide bombings inside Israel. But Palestinians cannot possibly be victims of a massacre; only ?collateral damage?.

From Ben White Jenin revisionism we go to this from guysheard and climberdave that equates Zionism with racism:

guysheard

19 Nov 2009, 10:48AM

One of the problems in this article is that you repeatedly refer to Israel. I think you will find it is the zionist administration of occupied Palestine. If you go from a starting point like that then you’re already engaging in anti-arab racism.

Please change the record about anti-semitism. It is a tired old argument and has no bearing on the issue of anti arab racism by a zionist government . Israel defines itself as a racist regime. Let’s go from that starting point before we start talking about racism going the other way in the form of anti-semitism

climberdave

19 Nov 2009, 3:10

@keeptofacts

So if you think “removing support” from Israel will create peace, when this is the true reality of the problem (only a fraction of it), then you need to reflect on that my friend.

I never said it would bring peace immediately but I believe it would force Israel in to a situation where it respected it neighbours and respected those Arabs that live on Israeli soil. That or it will be destroyed.

At present we’re moving towards a situation where the outcome is placed on hold due to Western support of Israel and it’s damaging our reputations. Remove the support and lets see how it plays out.

I have reflected on it. The support of Israel is damaging my countries reputation, I no longer wish my country to support a state whose prime goal is to be bascially ethnically pure.

Then we have the Livingstone formulation in action with this:

realsocialist

19 Nov 2009, 11:50AM

Jonathan Boyd is acting director of JPR, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in London. Well he would have an unbias view would’t he.

Same old, same old, defending the indefensible with the anti-semitisim card,
how original,

And here’s an insight into the truly alternate universe of the Guardianista:

dissidentstockbroker

19 Nov 2009, 12:02

Whatwasthat: “In the UK they (Jews) are persecuted by the media…”

Horseshit.

The media is disproportionately pro-Israel, and I would challenge you to find any mainstream media outlet that is not.

Errr. The Guardian and BBC spring to mind for starters.

Then we have another example of a Guardianista that engages in antisemitic discourse yet is at pains to deny that there is anything antisemitic in what he or she is saying.

JLEEGAM

19 Nov 2009, 12:28PM

Interesting what you are saying is that we should limit freedom of speech to ensure we do not say anything which in a worst case scenario may inspire some extremists to react violently even if what we say clearly doesn’t directly or indirectly call for this……..So are you advocating the banning of all religions? Particularly as I would say some religious texts directly call for violent action and certainly indirectly call for it. By your measure you are inferring that Judaism should be silenced…I think that is wrong- I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression, unfortunately that means we occasionally get extremists that take this too far, our role in society is to oppose them, this does not mean blindly supporting their opposition!

There are serious concerns about Israeli apartheid-esque foreign policy which make a great many people, myself included, Incredibly angry. There are also serious concerns about the strength of the highly influential Israeli lobby (how else would they get away with annexation, oppression and genocide). Our media is allowed, and I believe has an obligation, to raise these concerns only if it does so in an accurate and objective way which clarifies the line between aggressive Zionism and Judaism (one of which I vehemently oppose the other I have no objection to). I watched this show after reading this article and I was incredibly surprised by the balance and quality of the reporting. It was made abundantly clear that Judaism is incredibly split over this issue and opposing Israeli policies means just that and not opposing Judaism. I hope more programs like this get into the public eye!

And here’s some antisemitic revisionism from raymonddelauney.

raymonddelauney

19 Nov 2009, 12:33

BonniePrinceCharlie

They condemn Israel for seeking to defend itself but have no problem with other states trying to wipe it off the face of the earth – as they have been doing since the foundation of the state.

Actually Palestine is the only country

wiped from the map
redacted
erased
driven into the sea

And any other emotive language you care to regurgitate.

And we have yet more antisemitic revisionism from bebiking and realsocialist:

bebiking

19 Nov 2009, 12:37

the notion that Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people

that’s a zionist myth, one of the most extreme nationalistic myths there are: the palestinians are probably the real jews

http://mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel

Israel deliberately forgets its history
An Israeli historian suggests the diaspora was the consequence, not of the expulsion of the Hebrews from Palestine, but of proselytising across north Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East

realsocialist

19 Nov 2009, 12:54

Unknown Slodier.

“I didn’t know Palestine was a country? Who was their prime minister or president?”

Straight out of Hasbara quote book.

Israel was not a country in any moderen sense until The Leauge of Nations were
bullied, browbeat, bribed into establishing it. They gave away land that was not theirs to give.

This is then followed up with Nazi analogies from climberdave who again falls into the camp of those that freely expresses antisemitic sentiments while at the same time claiming not to be antisemitic.

climberdave

19 Nov 2009, 12:40

I do not like the policies of the Israeli state, I find them abhorant and frankly a form of ethnic cleansing and genocide. To base the premise of a state to be composed almost totally of one ethnic group and to effectively imprison another whole ethnic group and surround them by walls is akin to what was attempted by communism in Germany and on a smaller scale by Nazism towards the Jewish people and other groups.

To blockade a whole population into the situation that exists in the Gaza Strip and then to respond with over whelming force when the pressue builds and rockets fly and then to claim provication for that is not on. The provication comes from the Israeli side by building the walls and placing the road blocks to being with.

I do not however link Judism with the actions and policies state of Israel. I am anti-Israel…. so I just don’t see how such critisism and a review of the policies of Israel can be regarded or labelled as such. Its a word used that makes people stop. We have all been taught or remember the horrors of the holocaust and to use anti-semitism envokes that memory, to use it as a gag against legitamate concern of Israeli actions and policies is horrific.

And then we have some good old fashioned Israel demonization:

bailliegillies

19 Nov 2009, 12:45

And you wonder why, after the Arabs and Palestinians rejected Partition and said they would drive the Jews into the sea, that the Zionists decided to use force?

Keo2008

No Mr Keo, UN 181 needed ratification by the UN Security council, which the Americans knew it wasn’t going to get as the Russians would veto it and Britain and France would abstain, which is why they tok it back to the General Assembly, to renegotiate the conditions to make them more acceptable because at the end of the day what they were doing was stealing a country.

Which is why the government of Israel is so desperate to get the Palestinian administration/president to ackowledge and legitimise the state of Israel. Becuse until such times as the original people of the land accept that Israel is a de facto state it’s legitmacy will always be in question and it will remain a colony in another people’s land.

No such recognition is ever likely to be forthcoming as any Palestinian leader to do so would not survie the night as his life would be worthless.

Israel can attempt to rewrite history as much as it wants but the documents are there for all to see and in safe keeping, despite the many attempts by various Israeli governments to have them destroyed.

So Israel remains an illegal colony, just as Rhodesia, South Africa and all others in the past and it’s future will not be decide in the chancellories of the west but by the people of the Middle East. It won’t matter how much the politicians in Washington and London bend over and allow their countrties to be shafted for the greater glory of zionism, ultimately it will come down to Israel’s neighbours, whether or not they are prepared to accept and acknowledge the out of control and rogue colonial enterprise in their midst as legitimate.

Papalagi

19 Nov 2009, 1:08PM

Don`t forget the “Blood lible” of ,Mohammed al Durrah.The British media has form on this sort of thing.

This was no blood libel. The film about Al Durrah may not be true, a falsification, or it may be true. We just don’t know with certainty. But this is no blood libel. We also wouldn’t call Israeli propaganda or possible lies “blood libel”. You also have to consider that Israeli soldiers killed many Palestinian children. If you want to have an idea about how the media in Israel and in the ME functions, read the book by the Dutch journalist Joris Luyendijk who was a media correspondent in the region.

Joshuacohen2003

19 Nov 2009, 3:10

Jonathon Boyd – can you honestly not tell the difference between Jewish and Israeli and Zionist?
Why does showing the reaility of pro-israeli and pro-zionsit tactis make someone ant-semitic?
people like you are so pathetic…##oh no don’t say anything bad about the terrorist oppresive regime of Israel!!##

How how this?
http://bit.ly/27k0Q THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO KILLING NON-JEWS, by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira [link disabled]

Spoutwell

19 Nov 2009, 1:09PM

“There was no effort throughout the programme to contextualise Operation Cast Lead in Gaza”

‘Operation Cast Lead’? Shouldn’t that be Operation Phosphorus on innocent children?

And when epidermoid pointed out that Spoutwell’s comment was antisemitic, epidermoid’s comment got deleted. Spoutwell’s comment remains undeleted.

epidermoid

19 Nov 2009, 1:21PM

Spoutwell:

Operation Phosphorus on innocent children?

Vicious ignorant malice. Pure anti semitism.

And take a look at this comment. It seems that the commenter is advocating that the Jews of Israel be wiped out.

allsobrook

19 Nov 2009, 1:14PM

South Africa used to be a ‘Christian national state’ – something non-Christian South Africans found unpalatable, insulting and repressive.

All but one religious denomination proved instrumental in campaigning for change and, in the wake of appalling racial prejudice, recognized the utter lack of tolerance and mutual respect entailed in a political constitution rooted in religion division. Hence a secular constitution, and secular state.

Religious division produced the Holocaust. Religious division produced Israel.
What a brilliant solution to intolerance.

How did Jews in the USA feel when Bush went around insinuating that he was the leader of a Christian state?

Then we have a variation on the theme that the Jews are responsible for 9/11 with this:

ijcd36

19 Nov 2009, 2:15

There is a difference between anti-semitism and anti-zionism.

It was Zionist ‘terrorism’ in Palestine that ultimately radicalised Muslims and provoked the formation of Al Qaeda.

It is Zionism that lies at the root of the terrorist threat not Muslim extremists.

And take a look at this comment. Its sounds a bit like Ben White’s attempt to understand why some are antisemitic!

prebender

19 Nov 2009, 2:22PM

the idea of a shady, morally repugnant “cabal” of Jews seeking to control the world may be a myth but the idea that some morally suspect Jewish people who can never see anything wrong with the way the Israeli government behaves is not.
It would appear that there is always an agenda for some people – whether it is about trying to undermine others – case in point, UN, Goldstone, Human Rights Watch or any other organisation once cares to mention – yet as soon as someone even hints at some underhand tactics being employed some idiot jumps and down about antisemitism.
Read the Haaretz today and you will find that even as this clown accuses Channel 4 about antisemiticism, the Israelis are busy bulldozing the homes of others.
Is there any wonder that some people talk about Jewish conspiracy – they deny others the things that they seek for themselves = whether it is access to the EU, funding from the US, access to European Universities etc
why should there be one rule for one group and another for everyone else?

Then we have a rather Stormfrontesque comment.

Hantsboy

19 Nov 2009, 2:45PM

There are around 300,000 or so Jews in this country .

So why the song and dance about them.

Just treat them like any other minority.

After all they’re not breeding as fast as some of the others.

And check out the barely concealed racism in this comment:

shirl1234

19 Nov 2009, 3:04

On the contrary, critics of Israel tend to be decent, intelligent, thoughtful people.
People who relentlessly support Israel tend to have brutish sensibilities

Same old tired, dreary rhetoric – criticism of Israel equates to anti-semitism.

Then we return to the theme of antizionism with these two posts:

LittleRichardjohn

19 Nov 2009, 3:58PM

Constituent

18 Nov 2009, 4:41PM

Anti-semitism : opposition to people because of jewish ancestry or religion.
This is a form of racialism and completely unjustifiable.

Anti-zionism : opposition to the belief that people of jewish ancestry or religion are better than everyone else. This is a form of opposition to racialism and acceptable to all those who believe that all men are created equal.

Not only that, but some of Judaism’s most devoted and fundamentalist believers are opposed to the state of Israel on theological grounds, and oppose the miliatry and economic attacks on Gaza and Lebanon.
http://tinyurl.com/yatft3l

365days

19 Nov 2009, 5:54PM

The West’s support for everything Israel does to its Palestinian prison population is the black hole in our leaders claims to moral superiority, democratic values, enlightenment, defence of human rights, etc.

But if you fear you might be secretly anti-semitic, take comfort from Philip Weiss, an anti-zionist Jewish American who argues for a one-state solution:
http://mondoweiss.net/
also Muzzlewatch, Jewish Americans “tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy”.
http://www.muzzlewatch.com/

And what would a thread like this be without deleted pro-Israel comments.

unkonwnsoldier

19 Nov 2009, 12:19PM

gondwanaland said “The truth is the British media is very biased towards Israel and always has been. “

Really? Wow, then I guess the term war criminal must be a term of endearment.

Then you said “There are more than 60 million people in this country, and 90% couldn’t give a toss about Israel or Palestine. I imagine the Dispatches program was watched by very few people even if it’s a big story on CIF. “

Well considering that a half dozen professional unions across the UK if not more, including major academic unions, hospitals and more are all trying to boycott Israel. You may think that it is only a very small “minority” of people that couldn’t give a toss about Israel or Palestine,” but like it or not it has become a major issue in the UK media and daily life.

Then you said that “Jews are extremely well integrated into this country and shall continue to be so. There will be no Jewish exodus from Britain, and it’s hard to see why those who do wish to leave would go to Israel, which is already the most dangerous place for Jews to live in the world and is likely to get much worse in the future. “

Are you Jewish?

QuinceTree

19 Nov 2009, 12:54

Jonathan,
Good article – of course backed up by the wave of ‘nasty Joo’ comments that followed it!
One thing that I genuinely fail to understand is why Israel attracts so much ire from the Guardianistas camp. No sane person could really believe that (even if you believe Israel to be in the wrong) Israel is worse than Sudan, N.Korea, China etc in terms of abuse of mankind. (And btw, I’m not using the argument that others are worse so Israel should not be criticised, I’m wondering why, when others are so much worse, that Guardianistas choose to attack Israel rather than others.) My current working hypothesis: Guardianistas just don’t like Jews.

Lenski

19 Nov 2009, 2:10

@ Paplagi

You state ‘that the Zionists didn’t have hstorically the intention to share a country with the Palestinians’. Were this true, how do you account for the fact that as of 2008, Arab citizens of Israel comprise just over 20% of the country’s total population? The majority of these identify themselves as Palestinian by nationality and Israeli by citizenship.

In fact it is the other way round, the Palestinains won’t share land with the Jews, preferring their lands to be ‘judenrein’, an extremly well known (and notorious)German phrase that even so many readers of the Grauniad might understand and even more approve of, meaning as it does, ‘free of Jews’

Rich1

19 Nov 2009, 3:08

The anti-semitism as witnessed in the comments here is truly sickening and what makes it worse is that no doubt these anti-semites consider themselves “left wing” and “non-racist”. Genuine non-racists will be appalled that Jew hatred is now a default position amongst the hard left/Islamist alliance in addition to traditional far right Nazi views. If I was a British Jew I would be giving serious thought to moving to Israel or America or any country where anti-semitism isn’t so prevalent. Why can’t the far left see themselves for the bigoted racists they are??

drawnintoit

19 Nov 2009, 3:19PM

“On the contrary, critics of Israel tend to be decent, intelligent, thoughtful people.
People who relentlessly support Israel tend to have brutish sensibilities”

Well, here’s a few “decent” and “intelligent thoughtful” comments from those “critical” of Israel who apparently are so distinct from those who ever even think of buying into antisemitic rhetoric………

The Israel lobby in the US is well known. Its far too powerful for our own good. Even mentioning it exists can get you into trouble.

“Anti-semitism” is a gag, not a statement.”

“If all else fails, libel your critics.”

“And yes, there is certainly a Jewish lobby in the Netherlands.”

“that sibling child of the zionists lobby, neo conservativism.”

!Screaming “Anti – Semitic” at the top of your voice every time someone says something you don’t agree with will only work for so long.
Hasn’t anyone ever told you about the boy who cried wolf?”

“Why are British citizens lobbying on behalf of another country? If the lobbyists aren’t British citizens, why are our politicians listening to them? If they are British, shouldn’t they think about emigrating to the country they seem to prefer? “

freeyourwillie

19 Nov 2009, 6:05PM

leftwingorthodoxjew said “I haven’t had a chance to see the programme as yet but your article doesn’t seem to really address the issues and is danger of pandering to concepts of “new anti-semitism” which I think are pernicious. “

The new anti-semitism is alive and kicking right here in the Guardian.

It is perpetrated against any Jew who dares to voice their support his for Israel, and many that don’t in what is known as guilt by association.

This is further then all to often translated into the “jews are guilty of crimes committed by Israel,” and of course, most severly impacts any Jew that dares to voice their support for Israel.

For british publications, much like the Guardian, any Jew that dares to voice support their support for Israel is demonized, intimidated and accused of being an outside agitator, as we all saw in Channel 4’s Dispatches programme on Monday night.

And to think the comments above only represented a small snapshot of what went on in the thread.

Shameful. Utterly shameful.