BBC One wanted to deal with the issue of antisemitism in the Labour party during their Sunday morning programme ‘The Big Questions‘. The show tends to touch on topical issues related to faith and ethics. The specific show from the 28th January will be available to view on the ‘BBC iPlayer’ for the next few weeks.

There is plenty of room for this type of discussion. I am someone who thinks there is clearly a major problem with antisemitism within Labour. If we are to deal with it, we need to open up intense debate on the subject.

In my view, Labour’s antisemitism is multi-faceted, with five primary drivers:

  1. A gross misrepresentation of Zionism
  2. Ignorance over the history of the Israel / Arab conflict. Distortion over events and the reality of the situation on the ground
  3. The racial and religious intolerance that exists in all parts of society
  4. Pockets of right-wing ‘white supremacist’ antisemitism that has latched onto Corbyn’s populist ‘revolutionary’ anti-establishment policies
  5. Left-wing Soviet style antisemitism

‘Tolerance’ is a traditional part of the moderate left. For this reason the real problem with antisemitism in Labour today exists mainly within one segment of the party. The downside is that it is this segment that has taken control of the party, and is growing in strength.

The skewed survey

This creates a problem of perception. Recently the institute of Jewish Policy Research (JPR) published a survey looking at antisemitism in the UK. I am extremely suspicious of social science surveys of this nature. I doubt the honesty of respondents to questions that they know are checking for negative attitudes. This is a known problem in dealing with sensitive questions, and in reality social science has no solution. ‘x’ amount of respondents in this survey are likely to have distorted their responses. Moreover, those that did are more likely those that found the question sensitive. Make of that what you will.

Because of my undercover work, I am also aware of an intense ‘educational program’, within anti-Israel activism. One that has taught many hard-core antisemites to use the word ‘Zionist’ instead of ‘Jew’. They teach an ‘I don’t have a problem with Jews but hate Zionists’ rhetoric. This would effect the outcome of any survey that somehow intended to differentiate between the two. Some of the most virulent antisemites we know from activism on the left, would simply not register as antisemitic in this survey.

The survey did find a ‘statistically significant’ correlation between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Something that reinforced the findings of my own research into anti-Israel groups in England and Scotland.

Then comes the distortion. When the survey was released, it suggested that ‘the level of antisemitism on the political left is consistent with the general population‘. There are three problems with this.

  1. Antisemites on the right are not treated to a barrage of anti-Zionist teaching that irons overt anti-Jewish racism out of the conversation.
  2. Those on the far-right are politically homeless, and there are signs some of them have even identified with Corbyn. Whilst those on the far-left control the major opposition party in the UK.
  3. There is a solid concentration of anti-Zionist, antisemites within the controlling segment of the Labour party. This is artificially diluted when the whole left-wing is taken into account.

This survey is often referenced (and was during the BBC programme) by anti-Zionists who use it to suggest Labour do not have a problem with antisemitism. In reality the survey utterly condemns the ‘Corbynite’ segment of the party.

Which is why major media outlets should be scrambling over each other in an attempt to seriously address the issue.

The BBC adopt the anti-Zionist Jew defence

But that simply is not what the BBC did. At the front of the denial as always, sat the anti-Zionist Jew. This cannot be by chance. Within the anti-Zionist movement they are as non-representative as they are amongst the Jews. You don’t scoop up a handful of anti-Zionists and always get a Jew. Their deliberate inclusion entirely distorts the discussion and stops any serious investigation into the antisemitism problem. The BBC chose to do this.

I have discussed these anti-Zionist Jews often. Despite their insignificance as part of the Jewish population, they have no problem being rewarded with prominent airtime every time antisemitism is discussed. Why on earth is that the case?

Somewhere around 93% of Jews are most certainly not ‘anti-Zionist’. The vast majority of Jews hold Israel as part of their own Jewish identity. This from research carried out two years ago into the question of the Jewish relationship with Israel. That leaves roughly 7% without that attachment.

That 7% is also split between religious anti-Zionist, secular anti-Zionist, and of course, Jews that no longer really identify as Jews. As you enter the area of Jews who have lost both religious and national identity, you are likely to find more total indifference. In other words, the number of Jews who maintain their secular Jewish identity and politically identify as anti-Zionist is almost certainly statistically insignificant.

So why, does a statistically insignificant demographic, have revolving door, first-class access, into media outlets such as the BBC and the Guardian? Why is it that every time someone who represents mainstream Jewish thought discusses antisemitism, another Jew from the 2 or 3% is called on to oppose him? Would they deliberately bait victims of racism, anti-Muslim hatred, sexism or homophobia in this fashion?

The new face of Soviet style antisemitism

To legitimise the denial of anti-Jewish racism in Labour, the BBC led with Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi. Naomi is part of the Corbyn cult’s modern day version of the ‘Yevsektsiya‘. A group designed in 1918 to carry the Communist Revolution to the Jewish masses. The Yevsektsiya  had the explicit mission of the ‘destruction of traditional Jewish life, the Zionist movement, and Hebrew culture’.

Wimborne-Idrissi is part of a small clan. Their names are all known to us, because they are so few, and because the same faces appear in the media so often. Memory is ‘repetition and reinforcement’. Basic weapons in a propaganda war. Whenever a media outlet produces one of these propaganda weapons, it reinforces the idea that the new antisemitism isn’t really racism. It all becomes a ‘Jew v Jew’ thing that nobody understands. Jew bashing becomes a circus event to public applause.

If antisemitism goes wherever anti-Israel activity does, and activists seek to strengthen anti-Israel activity, then a rising antisemitism is a cost that anti-Zionists believe is worth paying. Which is why these Jewish Marxists are so valuable a tool. When you use them in a discussion like the BBC did, you are not trying to have a debate on antisemitism, you are explicitly helping to avoid it.

Without a constituency

These people, the same people, are behind all the anti-Zionist Jewish movements. With names like ‘Free Speech on Israel’, ‘Jewish Voice for Labour’, ‘Jews for Boycotting Jewish goods’. There are more groups than people, with the same people in one order or another, sitting as Chair and Secretary of these groups. When an email or petition is written up, the same names appear on them time after time.

If their social media output is liked or shared at all, it is liked or shared by non-Jews using their material to attack other Jews. When you read the names underneath, they often appear as a ‘who’s who’ of the hard-core antisemitic activists. All being allowed to hide behind the cover of having this Jew as a friend. All of the groups, have far larger non-Jewish support, and only really exist, because the non-Jewish anti-Zionists need the cover.

The problem question

Which raises a problem. If Wimborne-Idrissi doesn’t represent a noticeable Jewish constituency, but rather is used, as the Yevsektsiya were used, to attack the legitimacy of the local Jewish community, WHY is the BBC (or the Guardian or LBC) lending a hand to this type of deceptive and harmful strategy? On the same issue, why did the Labour Party give Wimborne-Idrissi a platform TWICE during it’s conference? And why have ‘Hackney South and Shoreditch CLP‘, affiliated with them?

 

Mike Cushman BBC Hackney

The BBC show

Yes, the BBC allowed for difficult questions, yes they challenged the sides as they should. But the cards had already been stacked BEFORE the game was played. The show was never going to get past the problem of ‘a denial of racism’, because the BBC had played the ‘Jewish anti-Zionist card’. A strategy designed to avoid the discussion. So when it began, it followed a predictable and sickening pattern.

Saul Freeman from ‘Labour Against Antisemitism’ led the argument highlighting the problem of antisemitism in Labour. He did what anyone would do, brought examples of the social media activity of members. Because all anyone has to do if they want the question answered, is head to the Labour activist social media groups. You will see them littered with examples of members pushing explicit antisemitism. How can anyone say that is not a problem?

When Wimborne-Idrissi talks, her first comment is to suggest that other groups, mainly Muslims and Roma, have a far harder time. She then goes on to suggest the number of people in the UK who have antisemitic views is low. All of this is statistical manipulation and whataboutery. If she did this about any other minority she would instantly be identified as a right-wing fascist. And what does she bring as evidence? The skewed survey that I mentioned earlier.

The stupidity of Wimborne-Idrissi

Wimborne-Idrissi pushes one stupid idea after another. The more I see her in action, the more I realise we are not dealing with the brightest bulb in the box. This is her answer to the first question about whether questioning Israel’s right to exist is antisemitic:

‘It is not, because Israel is not a person, you can only be racist against an individual

This comment is foolishness on steroids. She falls into this trap because she is ideologically desperate for antisemitism to be seen just like any other racism. It also clearly shows that Wimborne-Idrissi doesn’t have the first clue about antisemitism at all. How about these:

  • The Holocaust never happened
  • Rothschild bank should be destroyed because it controls the economy
  • Mossad did 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo and runs America
  • Israel steals babies organs and sells them to buy weapons to kill more Palestinian children
  • Palestinian babies are taken by Israel to make Matzoh

These all fail Wimborne-Idrissi’s racism test because they are not against an individual, yet they are all clearly antisemitic. The very essence of antisemitism (and why it differs so much from other racisms) is the ideal of a global power unit, fed by the deviant nature of the Jew, that controls the world from the shadows. The enemy of the antisemite is NOT AN INDIVIDUAL, but the Global Jew. It is entirely logical that in the eyes of the antisemite, Israel represents the ‘Elders’. This is how Hitler saw it (take note Ken Livingstone):

“They have no thought of building up a Jewish State in Palestine, so that they might perhaps inhabit it, but they only want a central organization of their international world cheating, endowed with prerogatives, withdrawn from the seizure of others: a refuge for convicted rascals and a high school for future rogues.” – Mein Kampf.

So according to Wimborne-Idrissi, the dislike that Hitler had for the Zionist enterprise, simply cannot be classed as antisemitic, because it is not directed towards an individual. Yes, she really is that stupid.

It is very simple:

If the comments above are antisemitic, and the person who promotes them rejects Israel’s right to exist because of the imagined nature of that state, then how is that rejection not antisemitism?

Empty propaganda on the BBC

Every time Wimborne-Idrissi opened her mouth, only propaganda or another senseless remark came out:

When Freeman pointed out that Wimborne-Idrissi represented only a statistically insignificant group of Jewish thought , Naomi responded that he was saying ‘she is the wrong type of Jew’. A classic deflection away from the valid point being made.

When an audience member suggested that it is wrong to suggest Israel is an ‘Apartheid State’ because Israel’s 20% Arab minority are equal citizens, Wimborne-Idrissi responded:

‘That is not true, they cannot live in certain towns, they cannot drive on certain roads and their education system is segregated’

Which is 4% distortion and 96% pure poppycock. At this point she is not just playing down antisemitism, she is feeding false anti-Israel propaganda out on national TV.

But she wasn’t finished. Naomi referenced the anti-Zionist position of the pre-Holocaust Bund movement. This is what she said:

‘we had a choice at the end of the 19th century, were Jews going to adopt a new model, political Zionism, which was very much a minority ideology, or were we going to decide that we were going to fight alongside others who suffer injustice in society. And there was a split… but do people understand that there is an EXTENSIVE MOVEMENT in Jewry, a Socialist Bund movement, which was a mass party in Poland.’

It is true that there were different solutions put forward to answer Europe’s ‘Jewish problem’. It is also true that like all movements in history, Zionism started as a minority. But the question between Zionism and the Bundists was categorically answered in the 1940’s. The Bundists were tragically wrong, and that ‘mass party in Poland’ was completely annihilated. There is no ‘extensive movement’ today, Naomi is lying, and all that is left are a few foolish people who do not see or care that Zionism was clearly shown to be right.

There is little more nauseating that an anti-Zionist Jew using a movement that burnt in Auschwitz to defend antisemitic attacks on Israel.

Strange mutterings

There was also a moment of total confusion when Naomi said this:

‘Palestinians deserve a right to self-determination too’.

As well as who Naomi? Considering your entire position is to deny the Jews the right to self determination, it seems strange that you believe the Palestinians should have that right. In this comment, Wimborne-Idrissi’s ‘universalist’ mask slips for a moment. The two-state solution suggests self-determination for both. But that isn’t Naomi’s position, which makes her stance all the more anti-Jewish. To Wimborne-Idrissi, only the Jewish right to self determination is not a ‘right’.

The BBC show wraps up with ‘Palestine as Holocaust’

When host Nicky Campbell asked if anybody thought using the term Holocaust was an appropriate phrase to use when describing the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, the room went silent, nobody did. Except for Naomi.

Wimborne-Idrissi, became the only dissenting voice in the room. Campbell followed up and said it was a word we hear used far too often, Wimborne-Idrissi responded with a sarcastic ‘do we’, and when Anna Turley MP explained the antisemitic undercurrent of using Holocaust terminology against Israel, Idrissi became visibly agitated, suggesting it was all a calumny against people like her. As Turley suggested the Holocaust reference is antisemitic, the camera focused on Wimborne-Idrissi shaking her head, mouthing the question ‘why’.

Think about that. An entire room realised there was extreme discomfort with ‘Palestine as Holocaust’, and yet for whatever reason the BBC had chosen to deploy one of the very few people in the world who can enable this level of repulsive behaviour. Wimborne-Idrissi did her job to perfection.

The bad and the good

Wimborne-Idrissi wasn’t the only voice, but once she is on stage, the entire conversation is deflected. The propaganda machine against Israel can operate more freely. Ex-MP Chris Mullen suggested Israel is ‘in the process of setting up an Apartheid State’. Chadni Chopra, from PSC Newcastle called Israel’s policies ‘racist and Apartheid’, before producing a string of distorted nonsense. Chopra is from an organisation riddled itself with antisemitism.

There were better contributions. Author Jerry Barnett, who is ‘very much a supporter of the Palestinian cause’, pointed out that antisemitism has shifted leftwards. Dr Sheila Jeffreys, a former professor of political science at the University of Melbourne, brought up historical cases of left-wing antisemitism. Anti-Israel activist Gary Spedding even sided with the Zionists on this one. If Gary and I agree on anything, there is clearly a problem. Spedding suggested the left needs to step up and identify antisemitism as an in-house problem.

A sour ending

When Chris Mullen suggested that the cries of antisemitism were being used to bash Corbyn, Saul Freeman highlighted the inherent problem with this accusation.  The implication that when Jews speak out about racism, they are lying for political gain. Labour would not give this type of treatment to complaints of racism from any other minority group.

This left Wimborne-Idrissi to have the final word, as she responded ‘if it was happening with any other group we would’. It sums the whole show up. Only the Jews can be openly called devious, manipulating, controlling and have that argument placed in full view on the BBC.

If you cannot defend antisemitism in Labour, without hunting down Marxist Jews, then it isn’t a position you should want to defend. In itself, bringing those like Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi to every event is an absolute admission of guilt.

How many antisemitic tropes do we need to see posted by Labour party members? We need to move past the point of asking whether there is a problem. But we can’t for as long as organisations such as the BBC roll out Soviet style antisemitic propaganda to hold us all back.

Is that really what we are paying the license fee for?

 

———————————————–

Help support my research

I fight antisemitism and the revisionist narrative that demonises Israel. I was recently named as one of the J100 (‘top 100 people positively influencing Jewish life’) by The Algemeiner. My work is fully independent, and your support makes much of what I do possible. This research can and does make a difference. In the last two or three years, several key stories on antisemitism that received global coverage were uncovered by this research and originally broken on this site.

If you can, please consider making a donation. Either a single amount or a small monthly contribution.  Research such as this is intensive. We need to be there to expose the hatred and the lies. We have to shine a light into the shadows and show people what is happening. Every contribution is greatly appreciated.

Keep up to date, subscribe to the blog by using the link on the page. Follow the FB page for this blog: and follow me on Twitter.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

277 thoughts on “The BBC promote Soviet style antisemitism

  1. You forget there were Zionists on the programme too. And to clarify, JPR conducts proper research with proper peer reviewed research methods. Would that others could claim the same.

    1. Bit of a straw man there. I didn’t forget and specifically mention Zionists and I have no problem with JPR. As I am sure they will tell you if you phone them up to ask, there is a real problem with honesty when conducting research into sensitive areas.

        1. Yes of course Mike. Data is often used, as it was in the show to distort the actual findings to suggest the opposite of what the survey actually says. The larger problem however, remains the ‘x’ factor, the unknown number of those who have actually distorted the data itself. It is a given in a survey as sensitive in this that ‘x’ exists, it is accepted that number may well be significant, it is also a given that we have no way of knowing how large a number it is. Also true is the comment that of those being untruthful, it is more likely they were those that found the questions more sensitive. Exactly as mentioned in the blog

          1. Don’t the findings come from data which comes from hopefully sufficiently designed questions?

            1. Mike – You ask and ask and ask and never respond. I’ll answer this one, not because I want to answer you, but because I want the opportunity to expand on the problem.

              You miss the point entirely. If I ask what do you have for breakfast, you are likely to give me an honest answer. Some, who eat crisps, coke and chocolate for breakfast may be dishonest, but the possibility of a dishonest answer is reduced because the question isn’t that sensitive and the answers are all pretty similar.

              When you touch on sensitive questions, such as racism, people become inherently troubled. Also the more personal interaction there is, the more likely someone is to be influenced by the person asking the question. A pretty girl asking people what type of cars people drive, is likely to have a distorted view of how many guys drive flashy cars. Obviously today, most surveys are not face to face, but the example suggests one way data can become skewed.

              This survey touches on hating Jews, and clearly from the questions most people being asked would understand that. You cannot ask these questions in any way, however sufficiently you design them, where the respondents would not understand the outline. Are you a racist, the question asks. No says the racist. In fact, because an anti-racist like me might unknowingly hold casual racism leftovers from my childhood in the 1970’s, my responses could register more points because I wouldn’t view the questions as sensitive, than a full blown racist who would soon identify the trap and push an artificial anti racist position to every question. The more discomfort the person feels, the greater the chance he will lie. This means that it is the people you actually want to find that might be those deliberately avoiding. Or in other words the distortion could render the entire survey conservative to a frightening degree.

              You simply cannot do anything about this. It is a central failing of social science research. The data undoubtedly contains this problem. We simply do not know to what extent.

              1. Seems that ANY survey wouldn’t be valid to yourself, David.

                You wish me to respond to YOUR view of Sunday’s “Big Questions’ program?

                1. Mike, you don’t even understand the basic issues of research, and yet criticise others for their understanding. You have clearly failed to respond to any serious question I have asked over the last few days. You will carry on doing exactly what suits your agenda. I have moved from little interest, to very little interest, to zero interest.

                  1. You spent many words to reach your conclusion that ‘people you’re trying to catch’ prob. won’t answer truthfully however carefully the questions are designed to avoid that.
                    Given that false answers at that stage render subsequent stages invalid with your view you can’t possibly give any credence to the conclusions.

                    Re. the program. I don’t think the program was policed well at all. My memory was that the first speaker sought to have the whole program to himself. Very bad mannered. The balding chap to his rear was slighly better mannered but almost lost it. My view, which if different to your own, will be an incorrect one no doubt. The ‘debate’ produced no result.

                  2. “Mike, you don’t even understand the basic issues of research”?

                    That arrogance seeping out again, David?

                  3. Mike, I prefer to deal in facts. Its a fact all research is flawed. Why? Due to numerous confounding variables. Any serious academic understands that fact and mentions what these variables may be in their research report. Therefore, to an extent, even if survey methodology meets tests for “validity” [a research term] and the results turn out to be statistically significant, such results can only be suggested results and not absolutes. Definitely worth reading more on the subject of research so you don’t keep wasting time trying to discredit David. Best wishes, Amanda

                    1. Wow. Thanks Amanda. Learnt so much from your post. Surprised that you didn’t mention percentage confidence limts, that would have increased my little knowledge enormously. Suggest that you warn David that any statistics that HE uses in his blogs are ‘flawed’.

                      Thanks again.

              2. ‘You ask and ask and never respond’. Well if he’s doing the asking, it’s the askee who is asked to respond, not the asker.

      1. I have indeed spoken to JPR. Their response to what you do is not as you describe it. And, as they use proper methodologies, in their research, they take into account distortions.
        Beyond that, you were somewhat snide about JPR in your inimitable style.
        Naomi WI is totally wrong. But, to be honest, I see not much difference between her side and yours. Everything else is at best spin and (mis) interpretation.

        1. I am not snide about them at all. I even use their figures in the discussion because they are still important. And I had exchanges congratulating Daniel after the survey came out. Nor would they respond the way you suggest. The dishonest response is an ‘x’ factor. They may say they ‘try to take into account’ distortions, or have methods which attempt to catch or offset them, which they no doubt do, but academic surveys are fully aware of their own limitations and those with credibility would always use ‘if’s and but’s. Academics do not use absolutes. You did, so if you did speak to them, which would be surprising between 1am and 8am, you certainly haven’t represented them properly.

            1. It isn’t a criticism of academics Mike, it is a failing of the science. Don’t worry, they know about it all far better than I do.

              1. So, you place no store on surveys. Ok.

                Who wrote this for you then while you weren’t watching …. “Somewhere around 93% of Jews are most certainly not ‘anti-Zionist’. The vast majority of Jews hold Israel as part of their own Jewish identity. This from research carried out two years ago into the question of the Jewish relationship with Israel. That leaves roughly 7% without that attachment.”

  2. 30 second Youtube of a newsreel of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem meeting Socialist hitler.

    1. But Begin and other Jewish terrorists attempted a pact with Hitler, to attack the British in Palestine, Edward.

      1. Mikey, You got any newsreel footage of “Begin and other Jewish terrorists” and Socialist hitler meeting, shaking hands, sitting down, to support your ludicrous claim?

        1. Sorry, Edward, I haven’t. I do have teacups with their fingerprints on them, and the stool that Begin stood on to shake hands with Adolf. An antique fair bargain.

            1. Nobody wins a war, Edward. Some of the factions lose more things than others, as Israel which has never really fought a war may find out should it attack Iran or Lebanon. Many civilians would suffer, they would have lost lives, their families, their peace. You still at school?

              1. Nobody wins a war?

                Ever hear about WW2?

                Ever hear about the 1967 Arab/Israeli war?

                Tehran is much smaller than Israel. The ayatollahs and their hidden mahdi will learn a terrible lesson.

                1. Yes, I heard about WW2, the one where Britain stood alone against Nazis(real Nazis, not those who don’t like Zonism) until the US, against its will was dragged into it when Germany declared war on it.

                  Note that Tel Aviv is smaller than Lebanon.

                  I suggest that BOTH sides will learn a terrible lesson, but if aggression is in your blood …..

                  1. Fascist Iran is the aggressor – calling for death to America and Israel.

                    Fascist Iran is running to oblivion.

                    Israel is small, but punches above its weight. Fascist Iran can be destroyed – wiped off the pages of history.

                    The only hope for Iran is for the Persian people to rise up and topple the ayatollahs and their revolutionary gestapo.

                    Mikey, your arrogance will be the death of you.

              2. Mike – proportionally more Jews lost their life in the 1948 Arab Israeli conflict, than the UK lost people in the entirety of WW2. Is there no level of distortion you won’t cross?

                  1. what do you mean by distortion.
                    The Yishuv in 148/9 lost upward of 1% 0f its population, mostly working age adults of both sexes.
                    Very few countries can afford those types of losses.
                    The Soviet Union never really recovered from its WW2 losses, and eventually collapsed under the contradictions of its totalatarian regime and is losses from the war

              3. Mike

                I once asked Stephen if he was stupidm or just pretending to be due to the way he often asked questions. Stephens answer to me , and the way he writes proved that he was not stupid; just playing games.

                Reading your vacuous contributions to the general debate on Davids blog, one is left with the impresion that you have very fixed ideas that are inflexible, and to my mind, often border on the plain mindlessness of petty point nitpicking.

                Do try to develop a sustainable and intelligent argument that could exercise our minds and contribute to the networth of human knowledge.

                I am sure I will receive an answer that reinforces what I have said.
                Have a good day/night

                1. Hi Richard, I’m gutted by your OPINION of me. Sob.

                  I have noticed tha David (and his helpers on the blog) are free with accusations of ignorance and stupidity. not nice, ill-mannered.

                  When David in a wild fantasy described BDS as a cult I posted a list of how much Judaism mapped to his list of cult ‘attributes’. That was a contribution to the blog. Having made my point I joined in the fun and games that contributors engage in on the blog.

                  Several blogs ago David headed his piece with the word ‘hate’ included. It’s a term much used to give ‘antisemitism’ a more foul connotation, even to imply irrationality of thought. I asked him why he was using the term. I received no reply. See, I do try to engage.

                  Anyway, your assessment made me use a full box of tissues to dry the tears. I have to go and buy some more. Bye.

              4. “Israel which has never really fought a war” – more crap from the stupidest schmuck on the Internet.

      2. Mike. The real problem is that smug anti-Semites like you come to Jewish sites and swing there like turds in an Ice-hole. The best way is to ignore your types. I replied only because so many people bothered to start argument with you.

        1. smug?

          anti-Semites?

          argument?

          It’s a forum, Leon. David writes a blog, people question it. If anybody, Dave starts the ‘argument’.

          Put down your supplied script and see things for yourself. Think!

          1. Somewhere in 1900, the candidate for the mayor of Vienna run on a platform “Candidate anti-Semite.” These days nobody calls himself an anti-Semite and since anti-Semites did not disappear, others have to point them out.

            1. …. and to spread that there are an increasing number David expands the definition of antisemitism to include other than …..“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

      3. Mike, where do you get this data on apact with Fitler.
        There are so many theories floating around based on a ‘he said, she said’.
        Because Begin saw the Brits as enemy, fe may have voiced an opinion as to a common cause.
        All inteligent strategists explore every angle before discardinng the nonsense.
        That fools then hang onto every word said as gospel makes them even more fool.

        1. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock and the rest saw the British Empire as the enemy too.

        2. …. especially those that say ‘God’ loves them more than anyone else and gave tyhem the land.

  3. Properly?

    How about ““Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred
    toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities”

    But then YOU may have YOUR OWN definition.

    1. I will stick with the meaning of the expression arrived at via the sum force of the uses of the expression by1.5 billion speakers of the language. Scoffies ” definition” is ascribed to by a mere grain of sand on a very large beach.

    2. Antisemitism was a term ‘invented in the mid 1880s’ to try and define hatred of Jews as a people.
      Previously Jew hatred had been religously motivated.
      The person puported to have introduced the term was supposedly looking for a term so as to direct his hatred towards the Jews as people. That the term has become overused and its meaning sometimes blurred, does not detract from its original purpose.
      There are three types of Jew hate
      1) anti-Jewish hate against the Jews as a religion
      2) Antisemitism is hate against the Jews as a people
      3) anti-Zionism is the hate against a country because it is the country of the Jews

      1. 1) Are you claiming that ‘hating’?? a religion is antisemitism? Wonder if ‘hared’ of Isram is seen by yourself as being as serious an offence.

        2) I covered that in my quote ….. That is THE definition of antisemitism, always was, nothing more.

        3) Now you’re being sillier.

    1. I cannot remember exactly when Stephen, because my research follows the antisemitism that I find. I think I first encountered Labour with Kaufman’s Jewish money comment. I think I remember quite a quick demand for, and receipt of, a reprimand. Because of my undercover work, I began to encounter a lot of pro-Corbyn messages, so I suppose the connection began to grow in my mind. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say at the recruitment drive, when ‘join the party, vote for Corbyn’ campaigns began to appear on the timelines of the very people I was looking at. That certainly would have registered. I would then have expected Labour to react differently than they did to the growing ranks of antisemites, which would then have sent danger signals. At this point the idea of a problem would have entered my thinking. It was a process.

          1. I can’t answer this, because it is about the motives of others. I only know that I had not long been involved, and a friend asked me if I wanted to go to see the PRC event (with Kaufman). I hadn’t been to the HOC before, so I thought it would be a good experience. I took my recording equipment with me. Had no idea what to expect. Then he said what he said.

          2. Hi Stephen

            Who/what planted the seed (of what) in which people? You seem to be suggesting that it is all a scam. What is the scam?

            Thanks in advance for the clarification.

            Peach

            1. The seed of the wheeze that there was a particular problem of antisemitism in the LP, Peach. They had zilch success at nailing Corbyn directly, he just got stronger and stronger. Nobody cared. Kauffman gave the Israelist lobby the idea of switching the line to antisemitism in the party, and Corbyn being weak on it.Dave Rich and Mark Gardner are good bets if you want to be more precise. They are often behind the better ideas.

              Then the Oxford Labour Club scam was put together and this turbo charged the idea. Asa Winstanley is brilliant on this bit. He is often less than brilliant but on the OLC thing he is.

              It also explains why the NEC eventually took no action, against the two ” names”. One of them at least was well prepared for them evidentialy and in terms of legal representation. They knew the thing would be seen for the cynical scam it was, and they would then have had to take action against one of their own members. Action that would have upset the ” preposterous arrogant liar ” and would be union buster Jeremy Newmark. And the arsehole Lansman has made that Newmark must not be upset the bedrock of the part of the LP constitution that is unwritten. The Basic Law if you will.

              The rest, as they say, is history.

              1. But what is the aim of the wheeze, Stephen? Is it to oust JC or something to do with Israel, or something else? And who or what is behind this? The PLP, the Israelist lobby, Israel or A N Other organisation?

                So many questions, so thanks in advance for taking the time to respond.

                Peach

                  1. Nah Mike I have been moved around by the best.

                    I will answer any and every question Peach may have. Of course they will just be thumbnail sketches given the nature of the medium we are operating in.

                    1. Peach is trying to extract some ” antisemitic trop” or other from me. AS tropes of course is what they resort to when they can’t find any antisemitism

                      I don’t give a fuck about so called AS tropes.

                      No matter I’ll play

                    2. Hi Stephen

                      For some reason I cannot respond to your comment below, but this should follow your comment that I am trying to extract a trope from you. That sounds painful.

                      Just looking to better understand where you are coming from. This site is somewhat unique in that dissenting views are given a voice and a platform. Whilst you comment frequently, your views can be sometimes nuanced and when pressed often evasive. By asking you some questions, I was trying to join some of the dots to better see the picture. I set out the obvious options because I don’t really understand your position, not because I am trying to trap you into anything.

                      Take it as a measure of respect rather than what would be a crap attempt at cross examination.

                      Peach

                1. Keep thrm coming Peach I will address them all. In the meantime an expansion on my previous answer to your previous question.

                  Following the non action on the Oxford names the demented dim witted hasbarafia grass rooters, the likes of Scoffie and Klaff et al, jumped up and down screaming about how the LP was soft on its antisemitism ” problem!”. The smart guys who knew wot woz wot were more or less mute. They knew the NEC had done them a big favour. They knew that acting against the two names would blow the entire invoking of the nuclear option against the LP out of the water.

                  The explanation is not the NEC being sof on antisemitism, but the NEC being hopelessly corrupt and a bunch of cowards.

                  1. I mean they could hardly move against James Elliot and have Jasmine Becket sitting around their table could they ? Not with Newmark and his buddy Lansman looking over their shoulders.

                  2. Well in the beginning there was Tony Bliar. What I mean is in the Bliar and Brown days the hasbarafia weren’t interested in the LP. The leadership was sound on Irael. Then toxic Ed got the Party to recognise Palestine and things began to change. Jewish donors started cutting donations or threatening to.

                    Then along came Corbyn. This really freaked them because of his record on Israel. The idea of him being leader of a major party and potential PM was intolerable. .

                    The hasbarafia formed an unholy alliance with the LP hard right in an attempt to ” do for him”. This involved a goodly few of the PLP. Streeting was well to the for.

                    Corbyn got stronger and stronger. Then Kaufmann gave them the idea of switching emphasis

                    To their amazement Corbyn rolled over at the first wiff of grapeshot and they realised they could take over the entire Party so far as attitudes to Israel were concerned.

                    to be continued…….

                    1. At first I was puzzled about the motivations of those pulling Corbyns strings notably Lansman.I first put it down to inexperience in dealing the hasbarafia, thinking they really thought they could feed them a little and it would all be over. I have watching these people closely, in the minutest detail for close on ten years. They treat any moves in their direction like Danegeld. Pocket the ” concession ” without so much as a thank you and are back tomorrow for more.

                      But as their experience increased naivety became less credible. So then I was thinking it could only be about money. Fear of the loss of donations from Israelist donors.

                      It was some time before the penny dropped. For Lansman and Schneider it is ideological. They are both rabid Israelists themselves. It was personal. They shared the hasbarafia objective of making the LP entirely Israel friendly. Not so Corbyn could have some peace and quiet but because…..
                      Not sure this attempt to put what could be a very thick book into a few blog posts is helpful but I have started…

                      The point here is that the notion that Corbyn is surrounded by rabid anti Israel antisemites is laughable. The opposite is the case.

                      There is an ultimate objective. Deech and Jacobson tell us. But thats a story for another day.

                      To be continued…..

            2. In what passes for this idiot’s ‘brain’, a ‘scam’ is any fact he finds inconvenient.

                1. Left wing Antisemitism was in evidence in the 1980s’ when student unions were trying to ban Jewish Societies at university.
                  I still haven’t got my head around why they would ban a religous society to punish a country; but there you have it

      1. I will add, that my learning curve also coincides with the last three years. So until 2015 I knew very little about internal British politics (or British Jewish organisations for that matter) at all. An increased interest has come about as I have become more involved. I didn’t know what the JLC was until they stepped on my toes at Exeter and I criticised them.

        1. Well I think we could never debate the Southampton / Exeter things we would want to talk about entirely diffwerent issues. You would want to talk about the nature and content of the conferences, I would want to talk about how they were shut down

            1. I see. To be honest I wasn’t sure what you meant. You’re saying that your attentions are drawn to matters relating to Israel as they appear on your radar and you feel compelled to respond because of your convictions related to that subject. Phew, I had this vision of a couple of swarthy, heavy set lads with shwarma breath, disguised as comedy Brendan Gleason staking out your gaff 24/7 hacking your social media activity and intercepting your Domino’s deliveries. If it’s just the former then I reckon you may be in this for a while yet. Alternatively try setting up better blocking filters on your laptop and spend more time with your family.

                1. Bit busy for Name that Tune today Bellers. I’ll have to stick with the Gleason version. I like him.

          1. You are probably partially right, but perhaps not entirely. I learnt a lot from Southampton, and did not appreciate the way it unfolded. I had drastically changed my position before Exeter, and my attitude to Cork was far more evolved. My views on the conflict have long been pretty constant, but my understanding of the UK scene has been evolving for three years. You might be surprised by some of my positions.

  4. 93%? The 2-year old report actually record “only 59% of Jews call themselves a ‘Zionist’ “.
    And points out that’s quite a drop from 72% of a 2010 research (it means a 2-point fall per year, how many are they now?).
    It means, 61% (at least) *refuse* to call themselves “Zionist”. They are non-Zionists from their point of view.
    Now, I see that you and others may decide to embrace the widest possible definition of “Zionist” in a way that tries to include them, but apparently that is *your* point of view on Zionism, not theirs. Your definition, not theirs.
    I’d rather note their own words (I bet they know better what they mean when they say something, than you).

    1. Gabriel. Putting aside deficiencies in your basic maths, I cannot help that you seem to have a difficulty understanding surveys. The worst part of them, is that rather than read them, some people simply grab at whatever statistic suits their argument. It makes for a worthless slanging match where the true meaning is lost, and permits gross distortion of their findings.

      Your argument makes no sense. none at all. Between 90% -93% of those people recognise Israel’s right to exist and see Israel as an inherent part of their Jewish identity. I heard Hanna Weisfeld destroy Tony Greenstein when he pulled the same nonsense as you did, and she is hardly a political ally of mine.

      Your argument: (and I am not drawing parallels with Zionism, but showing how your argument about surveys is truly stupid)

      “Only 59% suggested they were addicts. 90% need to drink heavily every day. 93% start shaking if they do not drink, but I’d rather note their own words (I bet they know better what they mean when they say something, than you).”

      *cough*

      1. Sorry, David. I think we need to note and respect the meanings that people decide to give to words. How they use words is up to them. They have a right to define themselves and their own identity.
        I noticed already a kind of patronizing tendency of telling people about who or what “they really are” or what they “really think”. I see this assumption that people are ignorant and “don’t know facts” and need to be explained or told, for instance about how to use words. In this attitude I see a blindness about the concept of “point of view”.

        It is a fact that 41% of Jewish respondants refuse to define themselves as “Zionists”, and the figure is rising.
        It is not a datum that can be ignored.
        Yachad as a professional polling research group doesn’t ignore it:
        https://yachad.org.uk/fewer-british-jews-identifying-as-zionists-poll-shows/#.WnJRcHxG3cc
        I accept that data are to be interpreted, and multiple interpretations of this set are possible. It appears the survey is not detailed enough to highlight one precise interpretation.
        Yachad definitely disagree with your drawing conclusions, and says:
        “The report notes that this in contrast to the “more-or-less constant” level of attachment for Israel as a Jewish state and may be attributable to the increasingly negative connotations associated with Zionism, but that the issue warrants further investigation before any conclusions can be drawn”.

        1. Gabriel

          We need to note and respect everything Gabriel. Nobody said the 41% is to be ignored. No piece of stand alone data should be ignored. That, like every piece of data, is used in combination with others, to create information.
          Your follow on comment about self identity is absurd because it entirely negates social science.

          Onto your comments
          Yachad are a political group, with a political leaning. Not a professional polling research outfit. Your are confusing things here
          Yachad do not disagree with my conclusions. I have the leader of Yachad on camera, explicitly saying what I am saying. (Sussex conference in response to Tony Greenstein question)
          The research teams (not yachad who only paid for the survey) almost always place caveats. Almost every form of social science research will contain the ‘do not draw conclusions’ and ‘further research’ bit.
          Even the researchers lean towards the 59% being attributable to the negative use of the word Zionism

          But your errors do not address the central point and this really isn’t hard Gabriel.

          Do you describe yourself as vegetarian? Answer = NO
          Do you eat any meat? Answer = NO
          Do you eat any food vegetarians don’t eat? Answer = NO
          Is there any food vegetarians can eat that you cannot? Answer = NO
          (if answer to last question is yes – create question block that checks for allergy v ideological )
          ETC ETC

          The question raised is why are vegetarians not self-defining as vegetarian. To say, that the person who answered the question is therefore a meat eater, or anti-vegetarian, is to distort the findings.

          The survey is specifically designed to answer the questions it raises. Do they contain flaws – of course – down to the issues with human response, but beyond this, a professional research design will be there to catch most of the issues related to the questions it raises.

          What surveys are designed to do is to build a picture that people doing research can use to study further. Looking for correlations and so on. They also like to seek additional grants, so there is a lot of self promotion and the leaving of crumbs for other researchers to pick up (things needing additional study) inside. But the most important point is that they attempt to answer the questions as has already been mentioned, by carefully design. Asking outright if someone is something, is always supported by questions that will check to see if they possess all the characteristics of that something. As was done here.

          It means that people can pick out statistics which are interesting (such as the 59%) and twist them without any supporting information whatsoever. Like you have done. You say that 41% refuse to define themselves as Zionist. Which we do not know. We only know that 41% didn’t, which is not the same thing. (See how you already distort). All of the available statistics in that survey (for example, the Israel as Jewish state question and Israel with right to exist question) fully support the notion that between 90-93%% of respondents display the fundamental elements of Zionist thought and are explicitly not anti-Zionists.

          To answer the question – ‘do you consider yourself Zionist’?, carries the baggage of suggesting all people questioned understand all the arguments and all define Zionism the same – which is poppycock – why is why what you are doing is real poppycock.

          You are calling this constant repetition of mine ‘patronising’. I cannot help the situation. People who clearly have a problem understanding methods and research are using the results of research badly, grabbing at statistics, misrepresenting them and also failing to understand quite serious criticism of a particular element of the type of study referenced during the show. Based on their own ignorance, they then choose to try to attack me in really silly ways. If you can help me ‘nicely’ show that what you are spewing is poppycock, then tell me how to do it.

          You have zero academic support for this. Zero. So you can carry on with ‘self defining’ nonsense as much as you like, but it isn’t any more than worthless deflection. Wimborne-Idrissi is part of the 7%. That 7% is further split into separate groups, and her position is almost certainly statistically insignificant.

          1. All this is just not true.
            And if you say that I don’t understand social science, I may dare to say that you don’t know much of Anthropology – and bte I do have a degree in Cultural Anthropology, albeit that’s irrelevant to the point. You say: “The question raised is why are vegetarians not self-defining as vegetarian”.

            Well, actually the comparison is a bit less matching than you think. Instead, it includes questions of the kind of “how do you define ‘vegetarian’?”. Normally most people define vegatarian in a simple way, as a one-dimension issue. But when you ask people about more nouanced multi-dimensional ideologies or positions, like “do you define yourself a Marxist?”, or even “do you define yourself a Jew?”, things become quite more complicated and subjective definitions of the thing itself vary, and also the subjective perceptions.
            Yes there are some “definitions” that are most commonly perceived as negative, for example if you ask “do you define yourself a Fascist?”, probably only a small minority would say yes; but the number of people who are called “Fascists” by others, based on their own perceptions or definitions, is likey to be much bigger. In lables most commonly perceived as negative, you will have a large gap between those who call themselves that way (probably small) and those who are defined that way by the criteria of other observators (a much larger number).

            The 41% of respondants refused to call themselves “Zionists”, this is a fact not a distorsion. By “refused”, I mean that they certainly refused to do so in that poll. (it doesn’t tell *how much* they would resist the label if asked in other social contexts, but here the only context is that poll, and it’s where they declined to do so).

            Making examples of different interpretations. How definitions and perceptions having to do with ‘Zionist’ may vary, let’s make just some examples:

            1) Historicization. => some people may say that Zionism was a political movement of the past, that it may have achieved useful goals, but it is not a valid ideology or a set of values for today. This means to see Zionism as a political phenomenon related to a historical context (which may not be judged with today’s parameters) rather than an ideology or a set of values. An example of this attitude is frequent among Americans talking about the ideology of pioneers, the fronteer, the conquer of the West and the genocide of the American natives that all this caused: today many people maintain they reject te “moral” values that lead to the dispossession and genocide of Native American nations and even reject the celebration of Columbus – however, they do not intend to give back the stolen lands back to the native populations and they intend to go on taking advantage from that genocide. This way of putting distance from ourselves is called historicization or contextualization.

            2) Relatives and family links. => given that Israel has ben existing for a while, most Jews have family ties with Israel. Some people may just feel Zionism as an ideology alien to their values, but they have relatives and family members in Israel and therefore they have ties with Israel as a Jewish state as it is now. Jill Stein may be an example of this category: as a politician she stays away from all Zionist values and endorses the Palestinian narrative, but she has family links and takes in account this concern.

            3) Utility or necessity theories => Primo Levi is an example of a person who stated that Israel was a “historical necessity” meaning “unavoidable” because of the genocide, but does not consider it a moral enterprise and became reluctant calling himself a “Zionist”. It means to consider Israel a necessity but created only on coercion as a necessary evil, and refuse to identify oneself with its ideology.

            4) Fear => some European citizens who are Jews may just feel a creeping fear because of rising atmosphere of racism and anti-semitism in some European countries, and while they may feel dislike or skepticism for Zionism (like many people have for any ethnic-religious ideology), they feel some link with Israel since they see Israel a potential useful shore in the abstrace case that they need it. This is a type of utilitaristic approach connected to the contemporary world.

            Those are just examples.

            1. Well look. Leaving aside the positive claims of the JPR thing the fact is they failed to find any evidence that there is any more antisemitism in the LP than in the genereal population.

              The all party committee failed to find any either.

            2. The answers to, and the results, of all surveys are skewed by the questions asked, and the demographics of the respondees.
              The surveys can also be affected by the way the questions are asked, and the way the answers are recorded.
              Because of these vagaries, I either refuse to answer questions for surveys, or give wrong answers when I do.

  5. This from a contributor; “as Israel which has never really fought a war may find out”

    David, One day you may feel the need to review your protocols for moderation and set benchmark tests to determine the sincerity and honesty of contributors. At that time you may wish to refer back to this sort of remark as a useful measure of tactical mendacity.

    On topic I have nothing useful to contribute to the discussion about the programme in itself. Views on the Beeb will be subjective at best so I’ll leave you with this. A year or so ago I had a good contact that worked in the BBC complaints department and was responsible for all inbound calls in real time, email and on social channels. She had no particular axe to grind but was nonetheless surprised at the very casual disregard that the the organisation had for any form of audience response on any subject that was negative in tone. As someone that had journalistic experience in print media she was left with little doubt of the existence of a very apparent editorial agenda and an obvious flippancy and arrogance towards the counterpoint. She alleges that most printed materials ended up being filed under ‘waste’ long before they got to any level of supervisor or manager. Hardly empirical evidence of anything but probably indicative of motivations.

    1. Mmmm. Wondering just what is the more believable, a survey of many people or something posted said to you by a friend? i.e. Large sample vs sample of 1.
      Tricky.

    2. Ian Kay. I am not advising anyone about protocols for moderation, but I left this message for Mike. (And some others like him.)
      “The real problem is that smug anti-Semites like you come to Jewish sites and swing there like turds in an Ice-hole. The best way is to ignore your types. I replied only because so many people bothered to start argument with you.”

      1. It’s good that Eurotrash like Mike, Chris Rogers, Dumb Bellami come here. It’s good to see what Eurotrash Fascists have to say and here we have the opportunity to crap on them.

        1. Edward. that may be OK on sites like this. On Facebook replies are displayed in order of activities. One anti-Semitic response can generate many replies and keep it floating on the top after the main article. That is why I proposed to ignore them.

          On the subject of the discussion, I don’t see the need of the personal discussion with professional liars. That is the difference between “the legitimate criticism of Israel” and anti-Semitic propaganda. Mike is a good example. He picked some lies from the professional anti-Semitic sites and repeated them here. There had been serious books written on these subjects. What is the point to “discuss” it with people like Mike?

          It is funny that Mike who is regurgitating anti-Semitic propaganda replied to me: “Put down your supplied script and see things for yourself. Think!” He cannot imagine that other people have something to say on their own.

          1. I don’t visit anti-semitic sites. I google and search all sites to gain what I see as the probable truth of an event or situation.

    1. Richard, can I order them from Israel? They must use boxes and boxes of the things given that everybody picks on them, for no reason they say.

    1. I think it fair to say that this Blog entry by Mr Collier has really ‘jumped the shark’. I trust its not antisemitic to suggest this given I’ve no reason to believe the Fonz would object, particularly given we are referring to Happy Day’s & how the show ran out of steam, i.e., no where else really to go!

  6. Hey, the gangs all here. Good. It gives me a chance to ask a serious question in good faith and believe me I have absolutely no expectation of a proper answer….well maybe Bellers may skirt the fringes. How come you guys spend so much time here taking the piss out of a guy, seemingly for no other reason than he spends his time investigating what he suspects is antisemitic activity and then reports on it. Honestly, I’ve followed the style of all of your posts and its not real activism, its not countering, it’s not really anything other than piss taking. So that only leaves some sort of tactic that you’ve been shown how to use, but against what? What is so harmful to your own positions in all of this that you get so vexed. I get that it probably isn’t in the playbook to answer questions like this seriously but I promise you it is seriously asked.

    1. Ian, I don’t think David ‘investigates’ antisemitism. I think that he wishes to label everything that he sees as not painting a rosy picture of Zionism and Jews generally as ‘antisemitism’. He will try various methodoligies in that attempt to see if it works. No logic involved. Just suck-it-and-see. When challenged his arrogance surfaces and he insults the poster as not realising, being stupid etc.

      My opinion of him for what it’s worth, and my reason for posting.

      1. OK, you’ve given me your opinion of David which i didn’t seek. I’m simply interested in why you are drawn to his work, however you wish to label it and are prompted to react to it in the way that you do. Offering your opinion on him rather than his subject matter infers this is personal. I am absolutely not trying to lead the witness here and completely get that you cannot concede to real honesty for fear of the challenges that may result so just some words on why writing about antisemitism prompts so much rage in you. I’m not mucking around here, really.

        1. Ian, I see his ‘work’ as you call it as an attempt to deceive. An attempt to tell the world that antisemitism is rife everywhere even in the Labour party. I first saw his ‘work’ some blogs ago where I thought his blog and his reasoning surely couldn’t be from someone interested in truth. It was then that I thought it required a reply. Most on this site slip into little insults and slurs in our posts but David’s arrogance leads him to attempt to hoodwink the readers. Can’t let deliberate unthruths just walk on by.

          1. I see. David has presented dozens of articles here where he considers antisemitism in politics, academia, the media, NGOs, international interest groups and all sorts of other areas. He certainly seems to have a far wider focus than the Labour Party which you highlight. Again I ask you sincerely; you say he “attempts to tell the world that antisemitism is rife everywhere…” why does this provoke such a strong and seemingly disproportionate reaction from you when there must be loads of groups out there writing about their plights on social media.

            1. Also David is dealing with a specific issue which is apparent in certain sections of society.
              Most people are not interested in politics or world affairs, and hold views which are pertinant to their existance.
              Some of those views may be hateful, racist, homophobic and whatever else is popular at the current time.
              David is dealing with that small portion of the populace that hold opinions, and he tries to disect and understand those opinions that are relevant to his research.

              1. He already understands them …. David’s attempting to have them seen as ‘antisemitism’, his obsessive disorder.

      2. “I don’t think David ‘investigates’ antisemitism. I think that he wishes to label everything that he sees as not painting a rosy picture of Zionism and Jews generally as ‘antisemitism’.” – dumb beyond words.

        1. Yes, i think it is for him to do so, but at least he’s being ‘crowdfunded’ to do so.

    2. Ian Sir,

      I quite like the X-Files, indeed I enjoyed it when it first aired in the early 90’s and I’m enjoying the latest Series. However, the X-Files is just drama/fantasy, which, may, or may not have some hidden meanings. Unlike Fox Moulder, who was a ‘true believer’ originally in the serious, the character is now more cynical, which means a maturing with years as far as the script writers are concerned. Alas, David follows the trajectory of the US 50’s sit com Happy Days, which hit a nadir when the Fonz actually jumped a shark tank on a motor cycle, hence the term ‘Jump the Shark’. Perhaps David requires new script writers, or needs to get grip of himself, for if the level of anti-semitism was so high in the UK, as he believes, I’d be afraid to walk the streets. And I’m not even Jewish!!!!

        1. Mike,

          I’ve become a hermit, such is my fear of the extreme violence I witness daily globally, global warming & threats of Alien invasions from as yet unknown things from the great beyond. Of course, the level of anti-semitism also puts the fear of God in me, as does the thought of Palestinian supporters rampaging through my village looking for Israeli & US apologists. Such is my fear I only now read David’s Blog to bring back to earth lest I forget all the terrors lurking behind my curtains!

          1. When you really want to have a good laugh, look at “Islamophobia”.

            Especially in the wake of 9/11, London’s 7/7, Pan AM 103, beheading of British soldier Lee Rigby on the streets of London, Charlie Hebdo massacre, Bataclan massacre, Nice France Bastille Day truck jihad, Manchester bombing, 1993 truck bombing of the World Trade Center, NYC bike path attack, Boston Marathon bombing, failed sneaker and underwear bombers, open threats of 9/11 scale massacre on the UK and the rest of Eurabia,

            and many more examples of “Islamophobia”.

              1. Mikey, You ignorant dolt, the US put timothy mcveigh to death. Lethal injection.

                The UK and Scumbag Scotland RELEASED the convicted bomber of Pan Am 103 – on “humanitarian grounds” – oil drilling contracts in Lybia humanitarian grounds, thanks to expert British medical determination that the terrorist was dying of cancer, and had no more than 3 MONTHS to live.

                Strangely, he lived close to 3 YEARS – and was welcomed back to Lybia with a Hero’s Welcome at the airport, complete with a waving saltire (flag of scumbag scotand).

          2. Chris,
            Antisemitism led to the cold blooded murder of six million Jews in five years at the hands of a supposedly civilized people.
            So if you don’t mind I have a very real fear of Antisemitism and what it is caple of wreaking on the Jewish people

            1. Hitler is dead now. Countries have nuclear deterrents. The actions of countries are visible to all now. It won’t be the actions of the last century that frighten you. It’s something in your mind. Seek help.

      1. Thanks for the response but like the other one you’re just telling me that David writes about antisemitism and that he thinks the level is high. I know that. I was interested to know why you and others find this so objectionable. Talking about his writing style or alleged repetition is all well and good but it doesn’t answer the point. I have no right to press you and I am sure that a proper answer isn’t likely to happen but as I said earlier I’m not trying to goad or bait or anything else. If you’re not Jewish, why should someone who is and who chooses to write about antisemitism upset you so much?

        1. Ian,

          I live in a small ‘mixed’ community in the Far East for most of the year, this community has representatives from at least 50 nations, among them those in Africa, Europe, the Middle East (including Israel) and South America. Now, 50% of this community are immigrants, the other half Han Chinese. Guess what, and given the fact we have all religions represented? No anti-semitism, despite many holding strong views on Israel, be they positive or negative. Oh, and many of us are Brits. I wonder why this is the case, given many of my peers are either keen on Corbyn or the SNP. I also have yet to witness any type of anti-semitism in Wales, which is quite left-of-centre and according to David should be riddled with it, which it ain’t. Which is why I like calling out much of what he writes as hysteria and propaganda based upon my own day to day realities. Indeed man, lets be blunt, we have more to fear from global warning, and what do you lot discuss: FAUX anti-semitism in the UK!!!

          PS
          I’m 2 metres above sea level where my flat is based, so global warming and rising sea levels are real, as is an increased incidence of typhoons. But, lets stay distracted and discuss anti-semitism, much of which is in the authors mind I’m afraid.

          1. Look, I appreciate you breaking character and moving away from the stuff about the telly which was odd. If i take you at your word you get narked with David because of his primary focus on the subject of antisemitism rather than other issues upon which you are more focused. I guess you’d be peeved if someone came onto one of your social channels that talked up the risk of global warming and attempted to demean and discredit the author for his singular focus and dubious intentions. I’m sorry but it all seems too disproportionate a reaction to be plausible. We are total strangers to each other so i have no basis for calling you out but really. If you’re not Jewish why do you care so much about someone writing about the threats of antisemitism?

            1. Ian,

              I’m a lifelong Socialist, so do have a guess. But when idiots weaponise anti-semitism for political gain, I’m very much disgusted. Further, and because of all the faux anti-semitism, I’m now very much in the BDS camp and support the Palestinians fighting colonial aggression. And if you wish to discuss white colonialism, tell you what, come down to the Far East, where the Malay’s, Indonesians, Filipinos and many others can have a chat. I don’t hold Israel up to any higher standards that the UK, USA and many other Western Imperialist powers, all of whom are complete and utter bastards. Now sir, does that make me an anti-semite, or, do I expect certain standards from all?

              And I really do mean certain high standards, particularly from any nation that considers itself an enlightened, liberal democracy, one where all are treated equal regardless of religion or ethnicity – something you learn when you yourself are the bloody minority and an immigrant to boot!!!!

              1. > I’m a lifelong Socialist

                Just like National Socialist hitler and Soviet Socialist Stalin.

              2. “I’m now very much in the BDS camp and support the Palestinians fighting colonial aggression” – utter crap from the latest dumb creep. The Jews are indigenous.

                1. “The Jews are indigenous.”??!?

                  The Jews most certainly are NOT indigenous to the region. Suggest that you buy a Torah, read it and see how Jews invaded the region,

                  1. Brits are not indigenous to North America, (US, Canada), or Australia, New Zealand, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands, Caribbean, yet there they are, and there they’ll stay.

                    The Jews have a history in the Land of israel that predates your island nation in the North Atlantic.

                    1. Doesn’t make the Jews indigenous. They didn’t have ANY claim on the land intkl the Brits gave them a home there. The vast majority of Israel’s population has more Eastern European blood in their veinsthan middle Eastern.

                    2. Jews were in Israel BEFORE Brits left their island nation to build an Empire built on the blood of others.

                      FYI, the British Empire is NO MORE, yet the US, Canada, Australia, New Zeland AND Israel continue to exist and thrive.

                  2. “The vast majority of Israel’s population has more Eastern European blood in their veins than middle Eastern” –
                    ignorant drivel from an ignorant schmuck.

                    1. S’True. All that breeding with the population over 2000 years.

                  3. Arabs are certainly not indigenous to most of the Middle East and North Africa.
                    In fact they were a small tribe from Arabia that by war , conquest and colonisation established an empire stretching across vast areas of the globe

          2. “I also have yet to witness any type of anti-semitism in Wales” – I have seen plenty. Google for Welsh Labour MPs and relevant KWs.
            “Which is why I like calling out much of what he writes as hysteria and propaganda” – dumb nonsense.

            1. Leah,

              You’ve seen plenty have you? What, with your own eyes, or something you read about? Next you’ll be telling us its unsafe to walk the streets through fear of being attacked. Well, the fear may be real given crime statistics, but anti-semitism plays no part in it I’m afraid.

              1. Lee Rigby walked the streets of London – until an Islamofascist ran him over and cut his throat, and waved his hands covered with Lee Rigby’s blood to a camera.

                  1. We’ve seen many more killings by the “Religion of Peace” on our screens than that, Mikey.

                    See 9/11, London’s 7/7, Mumbai, Paris, Boston, Nairobi, Lee Rigby, Daniel Pearl, ISIS beheading videos, Westminster bridge ramming, Bali, Pan Am 103, …
                    .

                  2. Mike
                    The reason you have seen so much of the IDF in action is because of the media and the western obsession with Israel.
                    Far more people have been killed in Syria, Chechnya, Democratic Republic of Congo and the Congo, Iraq, Cambodia, Bolivia etc and the list goes on.
                    Reporters go to Israel where they can cover a war then relax at a five star hotel in comfort and safety.
                    Reporters in most other countries in the world report what they are told or end up dead or in Jail

    3. Ian I like David. There is a certain je ne sais quoi about him that I can’t help liking. My cat Gnasher has just jumped out the window in disgust. And it is cold out there.

      And I think this is an extremely valuable blog spot. It was only by looking at his old stuff and the timings that I fully understood how seminal the Oxford Labour Club thing is.
      Iam not so secure or so arrogant as to ” take the piss”.

      1. You do a little bit Bellers and I’m still not sure why. You’re not as transparent as some of the posters here…and I mean on both sides. I’ve just put that down to professionalism. UK politics isn’t really on my radar and I just assume the normal levels of antisemitism as much as there are normal levels of misogyny, racial and social prejudice and ragging on people with red hair. I don’t know anything about Lansman or Newmark or any of the others you talk about so I’ll steer well clear of all of that. I have said often that I admire the way that David goes about his work and the way that he presents it. I contribute to this site because his endeavours deserve some honest response from ‘civilians’. The thread below in which Mike and Chris participated was probably the first time I’ve grasped the way that they play their game and why it is so important for them to discredit David and his work by any means. You may be like them too. Who knows?

          1. Today there is no excuse for you to be so pig ignorant..

            Google English Hebrew translate.

      2. Stephen,
        Being critical of David with intelligent argument is one thing as you say.
        To some it is not intelligent argument that is levelled at David , but an endless stream of mindless vitrol.
        There is a world of difference between the two

  7. Sure, right-wing white supremacy is one of the 5 main drivers of antisemitism in Labour.
    LMAO.
    You couldn’t make it up.
    Meanwhile, the elephant is sitting quietly on the sofa …

    1. I’d trust an Elephant over any Laboor party Minister of Propaganda – like Jeremy Corbyn.

      1. You make a good double act with Mr Collier Edward. Just a shame its not a comedy one I’m afraid to say!

        1. As opposed to your triple threat of little old you, Mikey and Dumb Bellami?

          Who gets top billing?

    2. The only elephant in the room is yourself and your beliefs, which certainly are not those that inspired the French Revolution.

        1. I agree Leah, all that emanates from your keyboard strokes is indeed “utter drivel”. many thanks for reminding us.

          1. From the most ignorant schmuck here, Chris “most Israelis have more East European blood than Middle Eastern” Rogers,

      1. The successful American Revolution was one inspiration for the French Revolution.

        Maybe I shouldn’t bring up that sore point.

        But there’s always the bit about the US saving the UK in WW2.

        1. The US didn’t save the UK. THe US and Russia helped the UK and the other countries to defeat Hitler(begin didn’t help, he was doing terrorism in Palestine).

          THe US stood watching for years until Germany brought them into the war against their will by declaring war on America.

          1. Oooo. This is going to be fun.

            WHY did the US watch on the sidelines for years, and not confront National Socialist Germany BEFORE it declared War on the US on December 11, 1941???

              1. You must be thinking of the “Dr. Who Gives a Crap” series.

                Your FAUX “anti-war” movement then as today works to provide cover for Socialist and Islamofascist aggression all over the world.

        2. On that point Edward it was most fortuitous that the French freed Merryka from the British yoke. I can’t for the like of me understand why the Merrykan capital is not called Amiral de Grasse DC

            1. The French hate everybody who isn’t French.
              The British hate everybody. who isn’t British.
              The Germans hate everybody who isn’t German.

              They hate each other and fought wars with each other.

              So the French helped the Americans to stick it to the British who wanted to keep America as their colony.

              If it wasn’t for Winston Churchill and help from America, Britain would have surrendered to the nazis as France did.

              1. “If it wasn’t for Winston Churchill and help from America, Britain would have surrendered to the nazis as France did.”?

                Rubbish. Churchill was an asset of course, he was a statesman, forget Bibi etc. As I’ve told you, the US only joined the war because Hitler declared war on the US, they watched it happening for years!

                1. I repeat for an ignoramous like yourself, the US was prevented to entering WW2 due to “anti-war” activists whose activities aided the goals of National SOCIALIST Germany.

                  “anti-war” is a scam, like “antifa”.

  8. Interesting response Chris and I add no facetiousness to my unheard tone. I have no interest in UK politics and having been a card carrying member of the Tory party for decades regard almost all politicians as deceitful self serving opportunists. As an Israeli I hold the same view of the politicos on all sides here too with one or two exceptions. I get your concerns about the misuse of issues to make political points. I imagine you would feel aggrieved at the way that some charities like war on want and others do the same. What does feel incongruous though is that someone with your views would target someone railing against perceived prejudice as he sees it and do so with such aggression and write it off so easily as disingenuous.

    1. Ian, I’m more concerned about the poverty I witness in my neck of the woods, which is certainly not “perceived”, its bloody real, much as I’m narked at Western nations interfering in non-Western sovereign nations. Again, being an outsiders gives me some new experiences, like the fact I’m an immigrant, like the fact I’ve been a victim of racism, alas, I give as good as I take. However, one things for sure, my child is in an environment where all are treated equal, no special dispensation, no nothing. A case of sink or swim, and it applies to all, which is good in my humble opinion. Just a shame we may not have much of a planet for her to enjoy by the time she’s middle aged – still, faux anti-semitism and defending Israel, regardless of the crimes the nation state commits are important to some, to others, its just a case of calling them out and highlighting transgressions, which evidently means those with such opinions get accused of AS, which is a great way to deflect any, and all criticism is it not?

      1. What is as FAUX as IslamoFAUXbia?

        Think 9/11, London’s 7/7, Paris attacks, Nice attacks, Mumbai attacks, Nairobi attacks, Bali attacks, Boston marathon attack, Manchester attack, Pan Am 103 bombing, Lee Rigby beheading, Westminster bridge attack, Rotherham rape gangs, Orlando nightclub attack, Copenhagen coffee shop attack, ….

  9. Somewhere between a High school and University 50 years ago, I had an opportunity to read 1914 edition of History of the Jews by Simon Dubnov. One story really impressed me. Here is its English translation.
    “In that same year (1146) when the monks Peter Venerablis and Rudolf carried on their anti-Semitic propaganda on France and Germany, in the English city of Norwich an accusation flared that the Jews had kidnapped a Christian boy before Passover in order to martyr him in memory of the crucifixion of Christ. The local judge (sheriff) maintained that this accusation was so little substantiated that he did not even permit the Jews to answer the summons of the bishop, who himself discredited the ritual legend. However, several monks of the local monastery assiduously spread this fairytale, relying on the testimony of an apostate Jew named Theobald of Cambridge, who related that Jews of various cities of Europe gathered annually and cast lots as to which Christian child should be “offered as a sacrifice” before Passover.”

    I didn’t know what demons possessed this monk, but from that time, I learned that such monsters exist and that they appear among Jews in every generation.

    In the old days, they converted first before spreading their venom. In our secular times, they claim that they are Jews even if they really converted to Arafatism. We cannot understand them. We just have to recognize them.

  10. Again thank you for the detailed response. I respect your wide reaching concerns about poverty, racism, foreign interference etc. You then switch over so dramatically and ouroosefully to railing against antisemitism in a tone that really seems to differ from the other remarks. Why is it so offensive to you when a Jew talks about antisemitism? Why is it deemed less sincere than any other group identifying prejudice towards them?

    1. Because it’s so false and touted as having a special place in racism, a bigger crime, and worthy of special mention and publicity. I suggest it’s main aim to persuade the world to appease the actions of Israel which Zionists refer to as the Jewish State.

      1. The aim of the Laboor Party is to garner votes from hordes of Benefit refguees to appease their oxymoron “Religion of Peace”.

        Brexit is good for the UK and bad or Socialism.

      2. You seem to be saying that a Jew has less right to talk about prejudice towards them than any other group with similar fears simply because you believe it may make people more sympathetic to Israel. Can I summarise that you are repelled by David’s work because, whether he does or does not have a legitimate point, the fact that he raises it may affect people’s attitudes to Israel in a way that is more favourable than you would like?

        1. No, antisemitism is racism, as is islamaphobia, as is prejudice against Roma yet the lobbiers wish antisemitism to have a special place. It’s plain me, me, me dishonesty.

          1. That’s fine and we can assume that there will be those from the Islamic faith and from the Roma that deal with prejudice towards them. That is not really the scope of David’s work or this site. So to remain on topic I assume that we can now agree that antisemitism is a legitimate concern for those affected by it and those people are entitled to discuss it in public fora. Equally I will accept your fears and concerns that if the issue is amplified too much so that it is allowed to enter the wider public consciousness you fear that there is a risk that people will have greater sympathy for Israel. I appreciate your responses here and now have a better understanding of what you are doing here and why.

            1. That’s you happy then.

              I note that you continue to describe propaganda as ‘work’.

    2. Ian,

      Are you happy with “faux anti-semitism” and what can be rightly perceived as gross hysteria?

      As such, I wonder why you don’t object to the Headline that Mr Collier has used in this post, or many other posts, which are hysterical and more benefitting The Sun, rather than a serious forum discussing serious issues, amongst them racism, which of course includes racist/religious abuse of our Jewish community, or other Jewish communities where ever they may be. In a nutshell, if someone abused a Jewish person for the crime of being Jewish I’d have several words to say, however, if someone abused a Jewish person for a political belief they hold, well, that’s fair game. The same ethos applies to those who continually apologise on behalf of Israel for its sins against the Palestinian people, the same also applies to any Colonial nation/people who abuse the indigenous population of lands they have stolen, be it the French, Dutch, Belgians or bloody Americans. I can discuss numerous abuses perpetrated by the British against the Chinese in my neck of the woods, I can also slag ff China for its abuse of Tibet, Japan for its abuse of Korea & China or the Java elite for their crusades against East Timor. Again, does any of this make one a anti-semite, or, is Israel different and must be treated differently, which is BS I’m afraid.

      1. IslamoFAUXbia???

        NOT irrational.

        But justified due to 9/11, London’s 7/7 2005, Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan, Pan Am 103, sneaker and underwear bombers, Times Square SUV bomber, Chelsea bomber, bike path ramming attack, Nairobi Kenya, Mumbai India attacks, Empire State building observation deck attack, Lee Rigby, Westminster bridge ramming attack, attacks on Coptic Christians of Cairo Egypt, attacks on churches in Pakistan, attacks on Arabs/Muslims BY Arabs/Muslims in Syria (500,000 dead), Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Egypt, Lebanon, …

      2. Chris
        Seventy years ago the world perception of ‘faux antisemitism’ resulted in the cold blooded murder of six million Jews by the supposedly civilised Germans.
        Do excuse me if I disregard what I feel are your Antisemetic leanings as to the perceived dangers Jews in particular, face in this current state of world history today

    3. Funnily enough Ian I was thinking about just that yesterday. Would I question the sincerity of any other ethnicity claiming prejudice towards them ? If another ethnicity was accusing me of racism on account of an unwelcome attitude to a foreign power, I probabably would, yes. To the best of my knowledge, none are.

      1. That’s what I meant above Bellers; similar tactics, more professional approach.

        1. It was a straightforward answer to your question, a question admittedly addressed to someone else. You are turning into something of a conspiracy theorist Ian.

          1. It wasn’t though Bellers, as we both know. You may not have responded to a legitimate question about prejudice with the now anticipated “Yeah…but Israel…” but you may as well have done.

            Not conspiratorial, just prepared to acknowledge your more professional use of the same tactic.

            It’s a weird paradox for you guys isn’t it. On the one hand you’re all falling over yourselves to tell everyone that there is no antisemitism anywhere, that this blog is a bag of lies and that Israel is a bat shit basket case. But then you’re all shitting yourselves that David may actually convince people that you’re wrong. As I said earlier this is a tremendous compliment to him and his work.

            1. “you’re all shitting yourselves that David may actually convince people that you’re wrong.”. He can spin to folk but it’s unconvincing and illogical. He’s manufacturing a set of blogs hoping that people will buy.

  11. Chris you have presented responses in this exchange which have been thorough and detailed. They are also consistent and thematic. You express a broad view and then switch over to talk about the subject of antisemitism as if the purpose of the subject is no more than a means of shading people’s views about Israel. This is a position that you share with Mike who said things in pretty much the same terms. This consistency starts to inform a view on the reasons you come here and why you post in the tone that you do. I have indicated in previous posts that I am an Israeli a Zionist and as right wing in my views as can be. For this reason I imagine that any useful exchange on the subject of my country is impossible. Nonetheless I acknowledge imperfections and injustices where I see them and hope for a better way in any way that doesn’t end in my untimely death at the hands of my enemies. I disagree with your characterisation of David and admire his work which I judge to be compiled and presented honestly and sincerely. I now have a much better take on why people like you and Mike do not. Appreciate your time in setting it out.

    1. Ian,

      You mis-represent me, I’ll come here and post because I’m aghast at the view, presented by Mr Collier, that the Left is riddled with anti-semitism, which, I’m afraid to say is not the case & those that perpetrate this nonsense are my political enemies. This I state clearly due to the fact the marriage I’m in would be illegal in Israel if I were Jewish, my wife being Asian & a Catholic, whilst little old me is a Protestant. Basically, I’d never force, or indeed encourage, anyone to change any religious belief because of marriage, nor would I ban/prohibit anyone living in my own country because their creed/religion was not that of the majority. Perhaps when Israeli sees sense and accepts culpability for crimes committed in its founding, allows Palestinians to rightfully return to lands they toiled for multiple generations & relinquishes the Occupied Territories, namely returning to its pre-1967 borders, ones views may change. Again, I uphold international standards one expects of liberal democracies, and those that don’t respect them I’m critical of, be it the UK, Israeli, the USA and many others. In a nutshell, I’m opposed to hypocrisy, hence why I post a few times here just as a reminder that exaggerations must be challenged.

      1. I do appreciate the time you have given to our exchange Chris. I hope I’ve not been so conceited as to represent you in any way at all but merely tried to listen to your views as a way of understanding why you post here in the way that you do. It isn’t made any easier when you jump from declaring your enemies as those that accuse the Labour left of being antisemitic to linking this to the status of your marriage in Israel. I didn’t follow that at all. As I said we aren’t going to be able to have a reasonable exchange where my country is concerned. We are just too far apart on that. However I think I understand why you need to express scepticism about people that raise the volume on antisemitism. You hold strong views about my country for reasons of your own and are perusing a strategy that you believe will mitigate any risk of increased sympathy arising if people create an emotional link between Jews and Israelis. I can see how this would worry people like you and Mike and probably thwart the considerable effort you have made to prevent this conflation. You will understand that we will not have any common ground here but at least we have had an open and hopefully respectful exchange free of the infantile nonsense that seems to have crept into these threads.

        1. But it is Israel itself and its supporters that seek to have equivalence between Israeli and Jew. If Jews can garner sympathy for undeserved criticism then perhaps Israel will also garner sympathy. You yourself suggest this outcome and is my view of David’s blogs.

          As I’ve pointed out several times only a minority of Jews worldwide choose to live in Israel. It ‘s a Jewish majority state currently governed by Jews, not a Jewish state.

          1. Mike
            Nearly 40% of Jews live in Israel
            Nearly 40% 0f Jews live in the US
            The rest live scattered around the world
            At current rates, due to ageing and assimilation, the majority of Jews will soon live in Israel
            Put that in your pipe and smoke it

            1. But it still won’t be the Jewish state …. it will still be a Jewish majority home only.

      2. “the marriage I’m in would be illegal in Israel if I were Jewish, my wife being Asian & a Catholic” –
        a. Marriages performed legally outside Israel are legal in Israel.
        b. Irrelevant to the issue of the clearly demonstrable antisemitism in Labour.
        c. This site is currently infested by an unusual number of thick spittle-flecked schmucks (Bellend, Mike, Dick Muppet, Chris …).

        1. Being accused of being an anti-semite by someone of you stature is indeed a honour. Could you please give me a medal to display inscribed with your wonderful words. Here’s a favour love, in the UK we have a ‘Rule of Law’ and a legal system that does not discriminate on religious r racial grounds – of course it discriminates on income/wealth grounds, but its still fairly impartial. Or perhaps i can have a ‘show trial’ with your military via a military court, just like the Palestinians do. Check out Northern Island sweetie, and despite a military presence, UK civil/criminal code applied. Now bugger off and suck some eggs please, preferably with some bacon.

          1. > Now bugger off and suck some eggs please, preferably with some bacon.

            Islamphobe.

          2. Can anyone construe what the spittle-flecked thick schmuck is babbling about this time?

  12. Did you guys know that the biggest prob cat rescue charities have is re homimg black cats. I just don;t get this. Just like the first duty of any wine is to be red and the second duty is to be in excess of 13% , the first duty of any cat is to be black.

  13. Mike/Chris, I guess we can draw a line under this now and I appreciate your considered remarks that went beyond your more traditional posts. Before this thread I honestly didn’t understand why it was impossible to have a normal exchange with you. Now I think I understand this far better. Fair play to you for having the patience and focus to play this game. Spending days here churning out your stuff can’t be easy when the main motivation is the hope that when David writes about antisemitism in some Uni or other or on the Beeb, people won’t start to think ” Crickey those Jews have a hard time of it and Jews equals Israel so poor old Israel”. You may be surprised to know that for many Jews that’s a big step, so for non-Jews to make this assumption and act on it is really imaginative. But I guess you’re playing the marginal accounting game with all of this and it’s not for me to advise you on the best way to win at the internet. You’ve got your own ideas on this. I will say this though; now I get it, you have paid David a huge compliment by indicating the risk to your cause that his work poses.

    1. I note the self-assessment of your ‘work’. Happy for you, also noted also the change of style in the later posts. Infinite monkeys?

  14. A totally irrelevant and vacuous comment, as per your norn.

    Yes; the bible says that God gave us the land.
    Yes; the bible says he chose the Hebrews/Isralites/Jews.

    Just read any history of the Jewish people as a nation; the entire history is in ‘eretz ysrael and about the bnei ysrael’ or in your tonge ‘the land of Israel and the people of Israel’.

    The Jews history is about one place, and one place alone; the land of Israel and Jerusalem as the centre point of all that history.

    Therefore you can straw dog whatever idea that so grabs your imagination at whatever time; the point is that the entire history, the entire ethos of the Jewish people derives from that one point, that one area; Israel.

    And for at least five thousand years in time. (try counting five thousand on your fingers to get an idea of that number in years)

  15. Mike

    Are you not capable of reading and understanding plain English.

    I said the term ‘Antisemitism’ was introduced so that the user could differentiate between ‘hate of the Jews as a religion’ to ‘hate of the Jews as a people’.

    If you cannot understand that basic precept, then do let me know and I will try to guide you through the basics with a level of English that is appropriate to your level of understanding, that you may better comprehend the logic and nuance intrinsic in the use of the word ‘Antisemitism’

  16. Mike

    The US was to all intents and purposes involved in WW2 prior to Pearl Harbour as it was already supplying whatever the UK needed militarily on the ‘lend lease’.
    They were also helping to discreetly protect the convoys taking goods from the US to the UK
    The US involvement became official after Germany declared war on the it.

  17. Mike

    do you not know the difference between academic research and scientific researc
    I realise you are trying to be ‘clever’, but be a good laddy and try and follow a thread, difficult as that may be for you

  18. Mike,

    Most hatred of Israel is driven by plain old’ anti-Jew hatred’ and ‘Antisemitism’
    Israel is the perfect cover for this ancient hatred; new name but same hate

    1. Don’t agree. Israel is criticised(hate is too emotive , calm down dear.) because of its illegal, sod everybody else actions. and YOU know it!

      1. There is NOTHING ILLEGAL about Israel, especially when compared to how Arab/Muslim/European states have behaved.

  19. Mike

    So then lets all just get on with life.

    Those six million dead Jews; so passe’, so last century.
    So lets just forget about them; it won’t happen again they say (you say)

    I prefer to rely on my own judgement and perception; Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas are quite explicit and open about their desires and intentions (your bedfellows I gather from your posts)

    1. You told me that Israel is the Jewish state owing to religion. Doesn’t Jewish Bible tell how they invaded the land, butchered the inhabitants, man, woman and child to take the land for themselves?

      1. Didn’t the British invade lands, butcher the inhabitants, men, women and children to take the resources and land for themselves?

        See the history of the British Empire in Africa, Asia, Southern Hemisphere.

        1. So too did the Spanish and Portuguese invade and slaughter the indigenous people of Central, ‘Latin’ and South America, so too did the Dutch in the West Indies and Far East.

    1. Posted at 14.58 Israeli Time Sunday 4th February 2018

      Richard, anyone that has tried to get a sunbed and diet coke by the pool at the Hilton on Hayarkon in peak season would probably agree with this analysis. Those Hampstead gardens mum’s put our sayeret units to shame.

    2. The whole world is a combat zone thanks to “The Religion of Peace” – and that’s why there are checkpoints at every airport in the world to screen passengers and cargo.

  20. Mike

    Israel is the Jewish state because it follows Jewish religous holidays etc

    It differs from Muslim majority countries in that it does not force or punish minorities for practising their faiths

    I realise you will haqve some smarmy reply; but yor animus towards Israel is an opinion and the way Israel is a Jewish state is a fact

  21. Mike

    your point re Davids definition on antisemitism

    Bob Dylan had a line that said ‘your words aren’t clear, so spit out that gum’

    I am not sure if you believe what you say; but for whatever reason you say what you do, try to be coherent and try to offer some illumination to us ‘untermenchen’ that inhabit the nether regions of this world and are the subject of your mindless and vacuous commentary motivated by I know not what; perhaps hatred, perhaps boredom, perhaps ignorance

  22. Mike

    Your understanding of history seems to be as tenuous as your understanding of what Judaism and Israel are and how they impact Jews world wide

    The US did not enter WW2 until Germanys declaration because of both the ‘isolationist and the anti-war sentiment’ that dominated American politics until Pearl Harbour

  23. Mike

    Please read and understand this post before you flail about with some mindless comment that you try to offload as fact

    Illegal is a term relating to law
    Please show me what law Israel has transgressed to warrant the term illegal.
    Please refer to specific laws, where they are written, who has approved them etc.
    The UN General Assembly is not a law making body; ie: it has no legaslitive powers
    The Fourth Geneva Convention can in no way or form be said to be criminalising Israel
    International Laws are agreements between sovereign states

    Israel to the best of my knowledge has not transgressed any International law; which is why I would be grateful if you could highlight any laws you feel Israel has broken
    Not what you think; only fact, as law is fact based

    1. “The Fourth Geneva Convention can in no way or form be said to be criminalising Israel”

      Collective punishing of communities by demolishing of the homes of families.

      Movent of Israel’s citizens onto land that it is occupying.

  24. Mike

    Your grasp of the whole panalopy of world history appears to be very tenuous and weak.

    History, the history of all nations and peoples, is the story of conquest, colonisation, of war and savagery.
    Why should the history of the Jews be any different
    The actions of the ancient Hebrews/Isralites/Jews has to be viewed through the lens of that period of historical reality
    It is exercise in pointlessness to measure the actions of our ancestors through the lens of todays morality and legalesse
    The expanse of our ancestors worlds was limited by time and space and the rudimentary technology and educational knowledge available at the time.

    Only individuals and groups with a very narrow perception of time and space could ever even consider comparasons between then and now, between the past and present

        1. “But the invading Arabs are.”?

          No, Leah, neither are the Arabs. If the invading Jews weren’t indigenous, then the invading Arabs also weren’t. Are you drinking?

  25. Richard, we know Mike’s purpose here. He and others are fearful of David’s influence, specifically in his ability to inform the discussion on prejudice towards Jews and more directly in the way that this may promote greater sympathy for Israel. He and others aim to mitigate this risk, mainly by attempting to demean David, deflect comment threads and encourage contributors to talk about any old bollocks other than the serious issues on which David is focused. Like me and many other readers here you may see this as the ultimate endorsement of the site and take some pleasure in the panic and anxiety that it continues to cause Mike and his mates.

    1. You may fawn over David, Ian. I asked a question today and he just refused to answer. I don’t love him as you do.

  26. Ian

    There are different levels of commentary here

    Take Stephen Bellamy; given the opportunity or the desire he is capable of intelligent debate which adds to our knowledge and perceptions of life et al.

    Others such as Mike offer monosylibic, vacuous posts which are invariably devoid of fact.
    They tend to post their points of view as fact, and therefore offer no form of debate, and mostly resort to low level denouncement to disguise their lack of knowledge

    1. I think they’re two sides of the same coin Richard but are nonetheless helpful here. Setting the detail and content of David’s articles alongside the somewhat primitive and transparent tactics of his opponents can only make the reader conclude that they’re actually helping him to make the case against them.

  27. You have shown and said nothing
    you have made a statement that offers nothing, no proof, no facts, not even any ideas.
    Vacuous, mindless statements that puport to be fact tend to show their author for what he is; a person bereft of knowledge but intent on trying to sow discord
    Grow up Mike ,or climb back down into the rat hole where you can vegitate mindlessly and stare into a blank space

  28. You expose your self as a mindless idealogue Mike

    Israel does not move her population into other land

    Where Israel establishes villages, it population are free to buy and move or not; by their own choice.

    The last legal document that is relative to the area are the original Mandate regulations, which have not been replaced by any other form of legal title as of yet.
    And the Mandate stated in unequivicol terms that Jews were legally entitled to settle wherever if the land was legally acquired

    Please offer a realistic rebutal rather than your mindless commentary to the above if you are capable and able to do so. I am not holding my breath if your previous attemps at debate are anything to go by

    1. The Israeli Supreme Court (no less) has ruled that the Palestinian land is beligerently occupied by Israel.
      Fourth Geneva Convention forbidsthe moving of onesown citiizens onto that occupied land.

      Israel encourages, subsidises and protects that movement by use of its troops.

      Israel is a signatory to those Conventions.

      1. Ignorant bollocks. There is no ‘Palestinian’ high contracting party. The green line is not an international border. Israel is not transferring anyone.

  29. The use of the word transfer tells the story.
    Geneva 4th Convention refers to forcible transfer of population, it does not refer to voluntary movement of population. The word transfer requires external action by a third party, as opposed to voluntary movement which is by oneself.
    Subsidising the movement is not transfer, it ts encouragement; a big defference

    Reference to the Israeli Supreme Court is a straw dog as they have effectively disqualified themselves from relevance by claiming it is a ‘belligerent occupation’.
    If it is an occupation then the writ of the Supreme Court does not extend to the Area.
    If it is not an occupation, then the court is effective.
    The court is in effect contradicting itself
    That most Israelis have passively accepted the courts jurisdiction, does not mean that if the Government told the court to move over, the court would effectively fave to give over.

    The Military under Dayan gave the Jordanians control over the Temple Mount. That control is solely dependant on Israels permision. The Supreme Court jurisdiction for the same re4ason is totally dependant on the good will of the army, not vice versa

    So you see Mike if you put your mind to it , you are capable of offering a coherent though pattern.
    David will see you educated if you stop resisting his research based output.
    An open mind is all that is eventually required

    1. “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

      By encouraging, subsidising and then protecting the Israeli citizens on that occupied land of course 😉 Israel is transferring them.

      So, In Israel the gov. decides what’s lawful, not the courts? Spooky.

    2. There is no ‘Palestinian’ high contracting party. The green line is not an international border. Israel is not transferring anyone.

  30. Mike,
    ‘shall not deport or transfer’
    In law words are important, both their definition and meaning.
    And the term ‘shall not’ is unequivocal; it is a statement of fact leaving no room for interpretation.

    Only those with the most jaundiced view of Israel and Jews could interpret it in any other way.
    In law when there is doubt about the meaning of certain factors of legislation, it is permissable (even desireable/compulsory) to study the intent of the law. And Art 49 was conceived and written with German actions in WW2 in mind. The ICC and the Rome Statute have tried , with Arab pressure, to change this. Israel and the Palestinians (not a state) are not signatories to this. And law can never retrogressively.

    Geneva Convention Relative to the protection of Civilian Persons in Tme of War (12 August 1949)
    Art 49 uses term ‘forcible transfers, as well as deportations’ to refer to the civilian population. The last paragraph refers deportation and transfer of its own population.

    Israel has never forced its population to transfer to any territory; it has always been voluntary.
    Appropriation of land by legal method is a right possessed by every state in the world and is not included or affected by the Geneva Convention.

    Only those who would hold Jews and Israel to a standard (legal and moral) higher than the rest of the world, could dispute the above. And that is when we enter the area that is commonly called ‘Jew hate’ and Antisemitism’, which funnily enough is what this entire blog is all about

  31. Mike ‘ this comment of yours re indigenous Arabs is psycho babble of the lowest order.

    Jews claim their heritage from ‘Judea and Samaria’ which includes Jerusalem.

    Arabs claim their heritage from the Arabian peninsular which Mecca and Medina.

    You continuously display a level of historic and geographic ignorance that is truly breathtaking.

    Perhaps you should return to school, where hopefully the gaps in your education may been better informed with factually based information , rather than the politically motivated viewpoints of those with an anti-Jewish/Antisemetic bent.

    1. Richard, a quiz for you.

      Are both Jews and Arabs indigenous to the region?
      Are Jews indigenous to the region?
      Are Arabs indigenous to the region?
      Are neither of them indigenous to the region.

      Let’s see your knowledge in action.

      1. Did Judaism start before Islam?
        Are Jews and Christians and Muslims indigenous to the Middle East?

        1. A quiz is where you answer questions, Edward!!

          p.s. are you an American? It would explain.

          1. Now anti-American bigotry from the hate-dripping schmuck … how surprising.
            Plus the huge arrogance of expecting other posters to jump to attention and answer your silly ‘quiz’.
            Define ‘region’, thicko.

Leave a Reply