Get real

Think of all those misguided causes that once seemed as cool as they now seem wrong. In retrospect we ask ourselves - how could we ever have gone along with that?

Anyway, we did go along with, for example, smoking. We bought into it. We were fooled by the combined efforts of the tobacco industry’s advertising campaigns and our own wishful thinking. Not only did we think smoking was cool, but we allowed ourselves to believe it was harmless. Now we know better. The one consolation is that the more we know about smoking - it causes cancer, folks - the less cool it looks. 

A regular defender of the BBC once humorously referred to me as “Biased-BBC’s correspondent for Tel Aviv.” It was supposed to be a joke. Yeah, it wasn’t exactly hilarious; just slightly amusing and at the same time, disparaging. 

However, today I make no apology for taking advantage of this relatively obscure platform to highlight the issue that is more important (to me) than the relatively transient and trivial Twitter in-fighting and gossip that sparks more interest below the line on ITBB than my ‘special subject’.

I’m aware that a website I often refer to isn’t everyone’s cup tea. Harry’s Place used to be a rather staunchly left-wing, Labour-supporting site with an equally staunch pro-Israel agenda. The recent turmoil in the Labour Party means holding those two principles at once does-not-compute. HP now takes more of a centrist and even a ‘right-leaning’ position. Well, it would, wouldn’t it, now that supporting Israel automatically makes one ‘right-wing’.

I’m going to be mean and admit that many of HP’s above-the-line pieces are of less interest to me than its below-the-line content. I’m jealous of the high level of engagement it engenders.  (The comments here are heroic and much appreciated - but to coin a phrase - never mind the quality, feel the width. That means I want more, more and more. 

Why am I talking about other websites when I could be sticking to the subject - what was it again? Oh yes, wrong-headed causes.  Sarah AB, formerly a major contributor to Harry’s Place, has commented about Lisa Nandy: 

“One thing I find very intriguing is how little the fact Lisa Nandy is Chair of Friends of Palestine and the Middle East seems a factor. It doesn't prevent her from being called a 'Zionist stooge', on the one hand, and it doesn't prevent several of the people who have deep concerns about and/or who left Labour over antisemitism thinking she'd be a good leader

I’ve been worried about Nandy ever since I saw that she was chair of Labour Friends Of Palestine and the Middle East.

On #HolocaustMemorialDay we remember those who lost their lives to prejudice, racism and intolerance. Today, on the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, we are reminded of the importance of working together for a better future. pic.twitter.com/4iAhIkR3LB

— Lisa Nandy (@lisanandy) January 27, 2020

We know that the pro-Palestinian lobby expends a huge amount of energy on promoting its cause and enticing political groups with its dishonest and fictitious propaganda. Lisa Nandy has been sucked in and hoodwinked by it.  

“I visited Palestine as a new MP and I was struck by the threats facing the next generation, the ferocity of the attacks they endure and the systematic denial of their rights. I met a three-year-old child whose house was surrounded by the Separation Wall and was growing up without daylight. I saw a 15-year-old shackled by the ankles, who had been held in administrative detention for months without any contact with his family, access to school or a lawyer. I saw families humiliated at checkpoints on a daily basis and the denial of basic medical care as a result.”

Sorry, but when an MP starts with “I visited Palestine” she is virtually bragging about having been duped by antisemitic propaganda.  (Don’t forget the reason why Islam rejects the fundamental concept of accepting any Jewish State in the Middle East)  

A few months ago, Nandy Tweeted:

“As someone who has fought for Palestinian rights, opposed settlements and wants a two-state solution I say Israel has an unequivocal right to exist. Why, on earth, is this so hard?”

It is hard because the stuff you’ve just stated you believe in is largely propagandistic baloney.  Palestinian ‘rights’? Settlements? Two-State Solution? Based on gullibility, fantasy and the wishful thinking of the ill-informed. 

I recommend two excellent pieces that have appeared in The Conservative Woman.

Why remembering the Holocaust is more important than ever.

As well as succinctly setting out the value of these anniversaries, Paul T Horgan’s article answers those resentful folk who claim that “We fought WWll to save the Jews” with particular clarity: 

“The British and French Empires declared war on the Third Reich not because of the persecution of the Jews by Nazi Germany. Instead, war was declared in response to Germany’s invasion of Poland. The prevention of the Holocaust was never a strategic objective of any Allied power, as any effort used in such a manner would detract from the effort to defeat Nazi Germany militarily and thus prolong the war.

This is a ‘must-read’.  On the subject of Lisa Nandy, though, another Paul has also written on that site. Paul Hurt ends with: 

“The failures of LFPME reflect badly on Lisa Nandy and have relevance, I think, to the election of the next leader of the Labour Party.”

Even so, it’s conceivable that Nandy is the ''least worst' of the remaining four candidates. At least she gives the appearance of someone who looks and sounds relatively normal. Sorry, but the other three are plain odd.

The only consolation is that the more we know about the part that gullible but earnest pro-Palestinian activism plays in the rising, worldwide tide of antisemitism, the less cool it looks. Give it up.

The ‘Islamist lobby’ has us on the back foot. Here’s why.

The ‘Islamist lobby’ has us on the back foot. Here’s why. I will be honest and admit I don’t really know why. But this has been allowed to happen somehow. All I can do is present a couple of examples.

On the Spectator website, Stephen Daisley brings us: Take it from this expert: Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite

“Yair Lapid is not mincing his words. One of the leaders of Israel’s main centre-left party broke with protocol this morning at a conference in Jerusalem to urge British voters not to elect Jeremy Corbyn.”

Many responses to this piece seem to agree that “interfering” in another country’s election is unbecoming, but more relevant to me is that there is also a disturbing assertion that whining about antisemitism is counterproductive. 

Yep. We mustn’t barge in and trample too heavily all over the Labour Party’s antisemitism problem because it will antagonise people! Oh, dear. Whose terms are we arguing on? 

That was number one. Now for number two:

Don't frighten the horses

On Sunday a rally against antisemitism took place in Parliament Square. Some celebrity speakers were invited, including Tracy Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley.  You might have read the post about this on Harry’s Place (you probably wouldn’t have heard about it elsewhere) but it’s not so much the rally itself that I’m interested in. (Did it do any good? I have no idea.) More worrying is the fact that one of the advertised speakers was dis-invited. His name is Col. Richard Kemp. 

I’m a fan of Col Kemp for several reasons - one being that his pro-Israel advocacy has the inbuilt advantage of (him) not-being-a-Jew.  This is the opposite of being an As-a-Jew. In the current climate of rampant Jew-bashing, any Jew who complains about antisemitism is automatically placed on a “they would say that, wouldn’t they” footing. (Whose terms are we on now?) 

Another good reason to admire Col Kemp and to accept the validity of his views is his formidable military experience, which gives him a unique understanding of Middle Eastern warfare and what drives it. He has huge respect for the moral and ethical standards of the IDF.

So why was he un-invited to speak at the rally? Because his outspoken views on Islam might ‘discredit’ the cause. Yes, suspend your disbelief - this really happened. Look at the video on Daphne Anson’s blog (and on YouTube) and weep. If you see this fearful timidity an insignificant example of ‘don’t frighten the horses’ I think you're mistaken. Tracy Ann and Rachel, admirable as they may be for speaking out, especially as they work alongside many lefty, anti-Zio luvvies, both still feel the need to tag “Islamophobia and all forms of racism” onto their campaigns against antisemitism. 

Whose terms are we on, again? If you look at the responses to the aforementioned article, you’ll find a mixed bunch of comments. Fancy having to argue over the no-platforming of a loyal ally, and all for the fear that he might offend someone by mentioning that a large chunk of the antisemitism they're rallying about emanates from within Islam. The ones who defend that awful decision are on the back foot - and there’s your embryonic blasphemy law for you. 

Half-hearted valedictory

fretting

Before I throw in the towel, (I haven’t quite made up my mind yet) I have to relieve myself of some of the things I’ve been fretting about.

First of all, a number of worrying articles have popped up recently concerning potential Labour Party candidates, which reveal depressing indications that the Islamisation of this country is inevitable

Although ‘racism’ is deemed a crime beyond the pale, and antisemitism (unfortunately for some) is universally accepted as racism in its purest form, I can’t understand how the BBC gets away with - not just turning blind eye to antisemitism, but actively promoting individuals with antisemitic views. Everyone colludes in this charade, all the time. Let’s pretend it isn’t there. Massive elephant.

*******

As regular readers will know, I enjoy reading the once-upon-a-time left-wing, pro-Israel website Harry’s Place. The current left-wing antisemitism issue has put the kibosh on HP’s default pro-Labour position, but this radical swing could be purely down to the Corbyn factor since enthusiasm for Conservative politics isn’t really there either. 

Personally, I believe the Labour Party’s antisemitism and Islamisation have already gone too far. It’s endemic, at least as fas as its outright and vote-winning opposition to Israel and Zionism is concerned, and the potential resignation or abdication of Jeremy Corbyn, with or without the shadow chancellor, will make very little difference. It’s irreversible - and it still will be even if the antisemitism factor itself manages to creep back under the stone for another while.  

If you follow the links on our sidebar you will have noticed these posts. 

“Labour’s Crank Candidates – Salma Yaqoob, Ali Milani, Jo Bird, Luke Cresswell” and the debate about Shaista Aziz, which is particularly interesting because she styles herself as a modern Muslim who “dabbles” in stand-up comedy. (Mind you, going by the clip I’ve seen my advice would be not to give up the day job) The fact is that any headscarf-wearing person has a lot to overcome before she can win me round. Is that bigotry?

There are several other 'openly anti-Jew' individuals standing (or who wish to be selected) in the forthcoming ‘generalection’ as it’s known, and you can quite easily find them by looking at various strands and sub-strands of Twitter.

******

A conundrum I’ve been wrestling with a bit is this piece in the Spectator by Qanta Ahmed. The terrifying reaction to a panel debate on Islamophobia. It’s a good article, and she’s bang-on about Sayeeda Warsi - but I’m struggling here with a question that seems pretty obvious to me. Why is Qanta Ahmed still a Muslim? 

******

There are some outstanding pieces online. I admire Stephen Daisley for his  brave and forthright piece in the Spectator “A Vote For Labour Is A Vote for Antisemitism”  but I always dread looking at the comments, as articles like this attract hostility from the same handful of right-wing antisemitic stalwarts that inhabit the btl ‘community’ that lurks around the conservative blogosphere, (including The Conservative Woman, the Spectator and The Times)

A link within that article takes you to a detailed and lengthy study by Ruth R Wisse; National Affairs. The Functions of Anti-Semitism was written in 2017,  and due to its length and depth it’s not for everyone, but for those of us who are interested in this topic, it’s well worth the effort. One sentence that seemed particularly apposite (for this blog as well as this post) is:

"What we require is less a law to punish discrimination than a commitment to foster awareness of the facts." (emphasis mine)

The steady stream of ahistorical and politically biased misinformation peddled by the BBC plays a huge part in fuelling the problem. 

*****

Oh yes, and before I sign off for the day, I’d like to recommend a sympathetic and sensitive review of a book I haven’t yet read, by Norman Lebrecht “a British commentator on music and cultural affairs, a novelist, and the author of the classical music blog Slipped Disc.” 

I used to look at that blog quite a lot, especially when alleged bullying and abuse, sexual and - I don’t know - coercive (?) at music colleges and conservatoires was topical. (We knew some of the individuals concerned.)

One of the things that struck me then, which I’d gleaned from the odd comment on the blog and from personal experience, is that on the whole, many musicians of the ‘millennial’ generation have been sucked into the anti-Jew animus that goes along with left-wing thinking. (Not that Norman Lebrecht went along with that, but he seemed to me to be ‘keeping out of it’ if you know what I mean) 

I was pleased to read about his book (a taster can be seen here) Genius & Anxiety; How Jews Changed the World 1847 -194J. The first review I read was in the Spectator, titled: Is there no field in which the Jewish mindset doesn’t excel? by David Crane, but the one that I wish especially to recommend is by Tanjil Rashid in The Times:

Jewish Makers of the Modern World   The review is generous and respectful and - go on, I’ll say it - tonally unIslamic.

*******

I can’t praise Margaret Ashworth enough for the fabulous series about Jewish composers that have been appearing in The Conservative Woman over recent weeks. The Melody Makers etc. Her enjoyable, readable posts about hymns and music are gems, packed with video clips and biographical information, they’re jewels in the www crown

******

 Incidentally, I see David Collier hasn’t updated his blog for a while and in the vacuum, a stubborn infestation of Jew-haters has taken hold. Now we’re on that subject, it seems that Collier’s tenacious approach has borne fruit. For those of you without access, I reproduce the Telegraph report by Camilla Turner, education editor (£) over the page in full

Am I the only one?

‘The moment Boris Johnson entered No. 10, there was no intention of getting a deal.’

The only way to avoid a no-deal Brexit is to remove the Conservatives from government, says this audience member. #bbcqt pic.twitter.com/6XTnZLQnyx

— BBC Question Time (@bbcquestiontime) October 10, 2019

People were amused and entertained by this young fellow. (Look at the comments below this tweet) I wonder if anyone at the Beeb reads below the line responses to its Q.T. Twitter thingy.

 “am I the only one who spots the youthful Momentum plants in BBCQT audiences most weeks? I love how confident they are of the dear leader's popularity with the masses, in the face of all the evidence. Nothing that a little strategic entryism into live telly broadcasts won't surmount”

says a commenter on H.P. (link to website temporarily unavailable)
No, I don’t think you are (the only one)

Update: Brendan O'Neill

"As soon as the Beeb announced that Hartley-Brewer, the journalist, broadcaster and fiery talkRADIO host, would be on QT tonight, the mob got into action. They said it was repulsive for the national broadcaster to ‘platform’ someone like Hartley-Brewer. They demanded that the BBC rethink – that is, it should throw this foul, Brexit-supporting woman off the panel."

Mid-week mixed bag

The Times online hits my inbox at various times of the morning - I’m not complaining - but it’s interesting (to me) that this morning, at about 6:45 am the number of comments below Hugo Rifkind’s piece (£) about Boris Johnson and Donald Trump had already reached three-figures, yet there were none at all below Melanie Phillips’s excellent article (£) about a sensitive topic - the siting of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre near the Houses of Parliament.

I’m about to make a superficial kind of statement, but here goes: I live hundreds of miles away from the capital and won’t experience the feeling of being visually assaulted by a grim-looking structure in the way that perhaps regular passers-by might - according to their architectural preferences. Nor will I be dismayed at the thought of a dramatic and unwanted change to my personal environment in the way I was when I first saw the hideous and incongruous plans for a carbuncle of a supermarket in my patch, yet I have to admit that now it’s real and it’s there, in yer face, I’m used to it and I have been known to pop in for a few bits of shopping without giving it a second thought. (I do have some second thoughts, but they are fleeting and getting fleetinger by the week)

What’s the point I was about to make? Oh yes, it was that the Times must have held back before publishing the comments - weeding out the virulently antisemitic ones presumably - but now they’re here. And largely supportive I’m pleased to see.

I think Melanie has nailed it again. Like her splendid analysis of President Trump’s remarks about US Jews who vote Democrat (loyalty and antisemitism) her sensitive response to the Holocaust Museum debacle is spot on. 

At the risk of feeding people who like to complain that any negative thoughts about Jews, Israel or anything remotely connected has become unsayable (because ‘antisemitism’) and that the whole antisemitism business has had a chilling effect on free speech, or that ‘you can’t say anything these days” - all of that - I can see that there is an element of truth in there. 

I can also see that it’s a lot easier to dismiss all negativity as prejudice at a time when it takes a huge effort to clarify any subtle and nuanced position, especially in consideration of the battle against intransigence and ideological resistance that comes with the territory.

However, handing ammunition to the enemy works both ways. The chilling effect is totally reversible like a coat you can wear inside out if you want. Now you can’t say anything is antisemitic just as you can’t say anything isn’t, without causing offence. It’s a shame that some commenters felt the need to call Melanie Phillips ‘brave’ for saying it what she said. 

There was one little segment that touches on an unpalatable truth, which loyalty to this country makes it hard to acknowledge. 

“Even fewer are prepared to acknowledge that, despite having stood alone against Hitler in 1940 and accepting 10,000 Jewish child refugees in the 1938 Kindertransport, Britain during the Holocaust barred Jews from pre-Israel Palestine. This flagrant denial of its legal undertaking to settle the Jews in the land caused untold numbers trapped in Europe to perish. 

The very mention of this tends to provoke frenzied outbursts about Jewish anti-British terrorism at that time, as if that negates the shocking British record.

The King David Hotel affair is something that sets off an internal conflict in many supporters or defenders of Israel who aren’t fully aware of the historical and political context in which it took place. To somehow reconcile the contradictions within their consciences they settle for supporting Israel’s right to exist ‘despite the King David Hotel affair’. 

This is about clarification, not about justifying violence or terrorism - and already we’re deep into the kind of mire you can see thrashed out everywhere and anywhere that Israel-related controversies crop up. 

  

 **********

I thought I’d recommend a comment I just read on Harry’s Place. I’m so jealous. I wish Anton Deque would notice ITBB. But never mind. 

My reaction to John Wall’s article was exactly the same, but it’s AD’s remarks about the BBC that gives his comment a good bit of relevance to this blog. If reproducing this transgresses blogging etiquette I apologise most sincerely.

“Another curious piece about Brexit on Harry's Place. Having read it I cannot decide what Mr Wall's point is apart from explaining the obvious long after it entered the realm of last weeks chip's wrapper. 

"I suggest anyone goes and looks at the quartet that the B.B.C., never neutral, put up on its web page this morning to show the 'party leaders' coming together to discuss how to avoid a 'no deal'. Look at these mediocrities and ask not why but how. How do such figures become the political leadership anywhere? I have thrown away brighter light bulbs. 

"Brexit was not about a deal. There was no mention of a deal at the time of the vote and no party has a mandate for any such deal. There was no mention of 'hard' or 'soft'. The tensile strength became an issue only when the side that lost insisted on a deal. Each and every variant of this deal, regardless, has been to devise a way in which the U.K. does not shake itself self free – not from Europe, but this apparatchik United States of Europe. 

"The likelihood is that Johnson will fudge and cobble something together to save his party – pro tem. We shall then see a swarming to Farage and his far right (©B.B.C. passim) Brexit Party. It is even possible the U.K. will then have a very strange Parliament indeed, Rump Tories, Brexit, Liberal-Labour and Nationalists. 

"I watched Johnson give us his "Hugh Grant in mop wig' from the G7 press conference. Having beautifully yorked* the truly appalling Robert Peston over an invented remark Peston attributed to Trump, Johnson was asked in passing to make a comment about England's latest 'Great Escape' from the jaws of an Aussie shark; Johnson made a joke about Ben Stokes' performance being worthy of a dukedom. The B.B.C. gave this obvious joke 'Breaking News' status on its strapline. There's a certain uniformity about that dying corporations reporting of all things Brexit.

*******

I know this has already been promoted on GF’s blog, but this piece by Douglas Murray resonates. It’s all about Channel 4, which is a good deal more biased than the BBC and getting worse with every passing moment. In this piece, he asks why Boris should trust Channel 4 in response to Dorothy Byrne’s  MacTaggart lecture in which she criticises the PM and the leader of the opposition for avoiding being interviewed by the likes of Jon Snow and Cathy Newman. They’re frit, she thinks, of being held to account.

If you listen to Dorothy Byrne - her speech is all over the interweb  - you might wonder how she got to where she is today, as Reginald Perrin used to say. The comments below the YouTube version of it are a mixed bag - it seems you either love her or loathe her, but the lack of self-awareness in her guff about honesty, integrity and ‘good faith’ is staggering. 

As Douglas Murray says: (and this equally applies, across the board, to the Beeb)

“Boris Johnson may or may not be correct in choosing to avoid being interviewed by Cathy Newman or Jon Snow on a regular basis. But he is certainly right if he presumes that such an interview would not be conducted in good faith. It would be conducted by an interviewer who is known to have particular political biases.

“It is almost certainly fair to say that ‘holding Boris Johnson to account’ would consist of haranguing him constantly, rarely allowing him to get more than a sentence out uninterrupted, accusing him of terrible things to his face, trying to embarrass him and – dream of dreams – getting him to say something embarrassing or wrong which could subsequently be reported across the world’s press as ‘Boris Johnson exposed as liar in Channel 4 News interview’. That is the story they want, and there is ever-less effort at Channel 4 and other channels to disguise that fact.

Exploiting Granny

Exploit your Granny. That sounds like something Billy Connolly might say, but it's no joke.

(Warning. This post has turned out longer than I intended. I’m no Mark Twain but I didn’t have time to write a shorter piece. 

The abundant press coverage of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib’s thwarted propaganda-finding trip to “Palestine” spans the whole gamut of opinion. On one side of the fence sit the indignant anti-Israel activists who insist that this pair of congresswomen is being singled out “only by those who decline to distinguish critiques of the Jewish state from attacks on Jews”. Squatting close beside them are the Trump-hating obsessives. Travel through various shades of opinion to find - at the opposite end - realists (like us) who see the entire fiasco as a grossly unpleasant publicity stunt.  One which, as time goes on, appears more and more to be back-firing. (hope so) 

Noah Rothman in Commentary Magazine, concludes: 

“The only thing that saves Reps. Omar Tlaib and Rashida Tlaib from the universal reproach they are due is the plausibility of the claim that their displays of anti-Semitism are unconscious. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that they know exactly what they are saying and why. Those who continue to defend them probably do, too.  

Bassam Tawil (Gatestone) recognises that Rashida Tlaib’s subsequent activities have exposed the whole exercise for the pantomime it was. 

"I would like to request admittance to Israel," she had written, "in order to visit my relatives, and specifically my grandmother, who is in her 90s and lives in Beit Ur al-Fouqa. This could be my last opportunity to see her. I will respect any restrictions and will not promote boycotts against Israel during my visit. Thank you, Rashida Tlaib.”

Wrong-footed by “permission to visit” unexpectedly being granted - immediately and exactly as requested - Tlaib wriggled her way out of it, announcing:

"Visiting my grandmother under these oppressive conditions meant to humiliate me would break my grandmother's heart.”

The BBC appears to favour the congresswomen, whitewashing their racism and taking their mission statements at face value, i.e. by accepting that this was a genuine fact-finding exercise, that Miftah, the organisation that was to host the pair is a peace-seeking organisation, and even describing Hanan Ashrawi as a peace activist. 

The fact is that Hanan Ashrawi is in favour of violence and supports Hamas. It has been said that "she is to Truth what Smoking is to Health”  The BBC overlooks evidence that shows her organisation Miftah to be deeply antisemitic in the truly traditional manner - blood libel and all,  yet she is regarded as a credible Palestinian spokesperson and is treated by the BBC with misplaced respect.

Tlaib’s grandmother-related misery has set off a spate of sentimental Palestinian-grandmother eulogising. The Guardian features a typically mawkish and nonsensical example by Arwa Mahdawi

"There are not many good news stories about Palestine so I was thrilled when, over the weekend, #MyPalestineSitty trended on Twitter. A tribute by congresswoman Rashida Tlaib to the “sitty” (Arabic for grandmother) she was not able to visit inspired thousands of people to post emotive memories of their own Palestinian grandmothers.

Of course, Tlaib's disingenuousness was exposed because she was able to visit. 

“I hesitated about writing this column. Talking about Palestine is always fraught; you can be accused of hating Israel simply for mentioning the P-word. Sometimes, it’s easier to say nothing because the trolls that inevitably hound you are just not worth it. But nobody should be afraid to remember their grandmother. Mine lived through decades of conflict; I hope she is finally resting in peace.

Which is blatant projection and reversal of the actualité. “Hesitated about writing this column”? Why? It ticks all the boxes. Trolls? On balance, the truth is that the trolls belong to you. I know we’re all entitled to our opinions, but that piece was utter Guardanista garbage.

The atmosphere is getting heavier all the time. Who’d have thought the antisemitism in Corbyn’s Labour Party would be a precursor, a forecast, of the direction in which the Democratic Party is heading, all the way across the pond? It's usually 'we' who follow 'them'. 

The ‘good Jew / bad Jew’ scenario, where the ‘good’ but rogue anti-Zionist Jew shields from exposure all the antisemites who cry “but some of my best friends are Jews”. 

Kathy Gyngell praises Dennis Prager over on The Conservative Woman. Prager on why anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism, and I ought to be delighted to see such a post on that site, especially at a time when Brexit occupies most of our focus. But the predictable responses came along to ruin it. The ignorance displayed by certain commenters is matched only by their refusal to budge. They know what they think and they’re sticking to it. They have their own 'truth'.

One commenter even said: “Who cares? I'm bored to death of hearing about Israel and Jews every 5 minutes.” Apart from the absurdity of taking the trouble to compose a completely unnecessary message, equal only in pointlessness to the notice in the middle of nowhere that simply says “do not throw stones at this notice,” here is a person whose comment is nothing more than an advert for his own arrogance and insouciance.

On a brighter note, many of the comments are positive. The link to Stephen Harper’s video goes some way towards redressing the balance, but as I write the comments field is filling up with old-style, right-wing bile. The relative obscurity of this site lets us off that particular hook.

Critics of President Trump have leapt on his remark about Jews who ‘still vote Democrat’ to accuse him of antisemitism. They conclude that any criticism of ‘Jews’ amounts to antisemitism no matter how much the Jews in question act like the proverbial turkeys and Christmas. It’s bonkers, but par for the course. 

Melanie Phillips absolutely nails it here. If you can’t be arsed to plough through my verbiage, read Melanie. The thread over on Harry’s Place on the same subject throws up some interesting links, (and that site has its fair share of Trumpophobes, lefties and Netanyahuophobes within its overall pro-Israel position) but having read it I'm even more impressed by Melanie Phillips’s eloquence.

By the way,  I understand my grandparents (both sets) fled from eastern European pogroms in the late 1800s and I didn’t know them, so your luck is in. I won’t be boring anyone with mawkish, saccharine eulogies about my granny. 

On the fence

Sarah AB is a regular ‘above the line’ contributor to one of my favourite pro-Israel blogs, Harry’s Place. I find the b.t.l. comments varied, mainly erudite, though often surprisingly combative and irascible.  Sarah AB, renowned for her champion-level fence-sitting, has gawn and done it again. She’s positively teetering on top of the most uncomfortable rung of the fence.

As far as the Israeli Palestinian conflict is concerned, all pre-1967 history is a big empty BBC void. The BBC is of the opinion that ‘it all started’ when Israel spontaneously decided to occupy Gaza and the West Bank.  The crucial evidence - that the six-day war was an intended war of annihilation - is routinely hidden or absent from the narrative. Israel’s neighbours had hoped to destroy it, but they miscalculated. 

Apparently unaware of the BBC’s promotion and amplification of Dr Allin-Khan’s agenda-laden fact-finding mission, and having avoided listening to the run-up to the current situation,  in a similarly context-lite manner Sarah AB has dived straight in at the middle of the Dr Rosena Allin-Khan saga.

 She must also have missed the Today Programme where Mishal Husain’s overbearing chairperson-ship pushed any potential reconciliation further away than ever.

In Sarah AB’s post, she seems to imply that Dr Allin-Khan had made a conciliatory gesture - almost a sacrifice - in accepting an invitation to the Israeli Embassy to continue the discussion face to face. Perhaps it was courageous to venture into enemy territory when you see the enemy as mad, bad and dangerous, but surely the magnanimity was on the part of the deputy Ambassador who was so unkindly disrespected by Husain. 

Issuing an invitation to an openly hostile adversary who, aided and abetted by the BBC, had been doing the rounds to promote a disingenuous, Israel-bashing agenda, shows considerable generosity of spirit. After being subjected to the Beeb’s infamous two-against-one scenario and forced to sit through a distorted account of one's own country's gratuitous malevolence, I doubt if many of us would be as generous with our hospitality. Especially when the chances of changing an implacable mindset were next to nil. But hey ho. 

In the end, (which is where Sarah AB came in) it was those disgustingly shocking antisemitic tweets that opened Allin-Khan’s eyes. She is simply experiencing the extreme end of the “No to Normalisation” phenomenon. There can never be peace while so many people are busily shoring up Palestinian intransigence, as the BBC is. 

It takes bare-faced hate to expose the antisemitism behind the ‘no normalisation’ campaign and to show the futility of encouraging the armies of useful idiots on the left who think they are helping the Palestinians. They mean well, as I’m sure does Sarah AB.

Well, Is Labour Antisemitic?

As ITBB’s resident antisemitism geek it’s a matter of duty for me to discuss the John Ware Panorama. 

The problem is where to start. A difficulty that constantly dogs my blogging life is the question of background; how much to include and how much to leave out.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, how can you make sense of what I write? Lacking the ability to summarise complicated and nuanced history succinctly yet fully, I’m left with a choice between laboriously reiterating material that becomes more meaningless with each repetition or just skipping it and assuming that it’s a simple matter of ‘any fule kno'.

For similar reasons, I found some of John Ware’s examples of antisemitism from Labour Party members rather tedious. The Ken Livingstone - John Mann shouty contretemps on the stairs, that mural, etc, seemed like a blast from the past. How many more times do we have to sit through that?

But I suppose they had to be in there to substantiate the existence of the antisemitism in question. (Even so, on the ‘day after the night-before’ edition of the Victoria Derbyshire show it was clear that denial of substantive evidence of antisemitism still thrives in Corbynista land.) 

“All one needs to do,” asserted audience member Salma Karmi-Ayyoub “Is to make an allegation of antisemitism, which then becomes the truth” she opined. And Ms Karmi-Aayyoub has apparently seen no compelling evidence of antisemitism whatsoever.  Yet we’re supposed to believe she watched the programme. 

As far as that viewer and her ilk are concerned Panorama needn’t have included evidence in the shape of Ken and his absurd interpretation of the Havaara agreement and his obsession with Hitler, or heard about the more recent activities of the NCC and various heavy-handed and autocratic individuals - or even the verbal insults and abuse of staff trying to do their jobs, because people see and hear only what they want to see and hear. The antisemitism evaporates into the air like a mist of particles from an aerosol can.

The revelations of the greatest significance in John Ware’s programme concerned interference with the disciplinary process and the testimony of young, ‘disaffected’ Labour members, which was riveting in terms of ‘televisual’ impact and for its political significance. The NDA hypocrisy, too.

(How strange that the media hasn’t yet managed to lure Seumas Milne into the studio for a good grilling. Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson were never off our screens back then. Why so shy?)

 Throughout this programme, and even more so throughout the subsequent forum within the Victoria Derbyshire programme - there was a gigantic mammoth squatting menacingly in the room. So massive that one dare not speak its name.

Victoria Derbyshire kept trying  to trip people up by asking “When did this institutional antisemitism arise and why?” ‘Where does it come from?” She was virtually begging for someone to commit ‘Islamophobia’, whilst the participants, panel and audience, stubbornly refused to do so. 

She asked the same thing over and over again, but they all kept schtum. But how can you, now that any negativity about of Islam is off limits? How mischievous of Ms Derbyshire to try that on.

The other elephantine but invisible presence in the room is this thing about Israel. The default position, thanks to years of partial reporting which keeps the majority of concerned citizens in a state of ignorance of 90% of the aggression directed at Israel, is that one has to state one’s abhorrence of “What Israel is doing to the Palestinians” before throwing in one’s twopence-worth of opinion on antisemitism. It’s related to the ‘bad Jew’ syndrome where the only good Jew is an anti-Zionist 

At one point in the programme, an audience member announced that he was a Palestinian whose people were ‘ethnically cleansed’ on the establishment of Israel. Predictably, Victoria Derbyshire let that pass unchallenged.

This post has turned out to be more concerned with Victoria Derbyshire’s de-briefing of the Panorama than the Panorama itself. That’s the way these things go. 

I must say that I’m not one of those who dismiss Ash Sarkar as stupid. She’s obviously sharp and bright, but her ideological principles force her to defend the indefensible. She and Owen Jones are passionately opposed to racism (they’ve been fighting it all their lives, you know) and their dogged anti-racism compels them to ignore the racism that emanates from the ‘race’ of people they’re so focused on protecting.  You can’t oppose antisemitism properly if you’re blind to the primary perpetrators of it.

I will also add onto the tail of this post that over on Harry’s Place Sarah AB has effectively equated Islamophobia with antisemitism.  I doubt that she reads this blog these days, but just in case, Sarah! No! You’re better than that.

Lost in translation

Forgive me for going back to One Day in Gaza. I’m no Mastermind, but this topic covers both my specialist subjects.

1) The BBC’s bias against Israel,
2) The psychological manipulation of emotions through film.

This is also covered on David Collier’s blog, in the Jewish press and over on Harry’s Place, where Marc Goldberg focuses on the controversial translation of the (audio) “Yehud” to “Israeli”. 

This is not the first time the BBC has sanctioned this translation. In Lyse Doucet’s Children of Gaza’ film,:

“Israel is massacring us” says a boy, according to the subtitles, but what we heard the boy actually saying was “yahud”  -  ‘Jews,’ not Israel.

Lyse was persuaded that when the people of Gaza say “yahud” they really mean Israelis; the truth is being disingenuously massaged to make the message more acceptable.

What did I mean?

Lyse defended this practice because she says that when Palestinians use the term “Yehud” they effectively mean “Israelis”. 

Why is this even an issue?

Because it exposes the inherent Jew-hate behind the religion-based rejection of the Jewish state. It is, after all, enshrined in their holy book, and is the very thing that fuelled the original war against Israel, which according to the BBC “Broke Out” when Israel was established in 1948 The BBC is loath to confront even that, and even more loath to admit that Islam-rooted Jew-hate is the real obstacle to “peace” in the Middle East.

The three stages of the current topsy-turvy practice of Gaslighting. Definition: manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity. Not sanity, exactly, but doubting their own decency and integrity.

The Israel /Palestinian version of Gaslighting goes something like this:

1) Islamic Arab world rejects the establishment of the Jewish state: immediately declares war of annihilation.

2) Jewish state defends itself; defeats Arabs.

3) Arab states employ massive Gaslighting; blame victim, persuade world that “Israel is to blame”.

That’s it. The mother of all Gaslighting.

Lyse Doucet was right. The waters have been well and truly muddied and the decidedly shaky claim that criticism of Israel - criticism of Israel’s policies - of its government etc., etc - is not antisemitic is thus cemented with just about enough shifty disingenuousness to set it off - hard and permanent.

I stand by my instinctive response to the psychological devices in the film, which I cited in my previous post. These are tell-tale signs of the BBC’s not so subtle anti-Jew approach. Their sentimental, quasi-romantic, emotional relationship with “the most hospitable people on earth” versus their Shylock, Fagin, Brian Sewell perception of the greedy Jew.

Epitomised by poignant portraits of traditionally dressed bereaved mothers, movingly, nay, heartrendingly filmed as they talk of their departed loved ones in the past tense, contrasted with the Israeli military spokesmen’s cold, dispassionate, hard-hearted rationalisation of the fog-of-war accident. 

The filmmaker’s tacit innuendo appeared to be that these shootings were carried out ‘accidentally on purpose’,  accentuated by the “straight to camera” filming  technique with its distancing effect and its between-the-lines message, roughly, that the Palestinian ‘David’ (armed only with ramshackle, homemade slingshots) was (and always is) hopelessly pitted against a heavily armed ‘Goliath’ that delights in taking indiscriminate pot-shots at random women and children.

Of course, this has resonance with the current issue that the BBC mentioned this morning.

“The definition from the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims is: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

It’s a typical example of the drive to apply (false) equivalence to antisemitism and Islamophobia. 

I very much doubt that the Labour Party’s antisemitism is connected in any way to their intimate knowledge of the Jewish religion. No, I’m afraid it’s simply “Jewishness” that offends them. In other words “It’s racism, stupid.” 

Islamophobia, to coin a phrase, is largely based on the fear of the ideology of Islam, and “Muslimness" is one signal that the practitioner, or the wearer of the Islamic uniform, adheres to those principles. 

“It’s the ideology, stupid."

Update:
For a detailed and substantive account of the film's bias, go the BBC Watch.

Here is a rather generous analysis of the film. The problem (as I see it) with Honest Reporting’s generosity is that the plus points he cites would resonate with open-minded audiences who happen to be viewing the film in an informed and objective environment.

But for the audience in Britain, hostile, ill-informed and already in no mood to empathise with Israel’s position, many viewers will have made their minds up already, and despite the film (at long last) acknowledging the violence, people believe it’s justified by “What Israel is doing to the Palestinians”.

As for the ‘gassing’, leaving the innuendo in the air, without any clarification was a grave misjudgement by the filmmakers. 

Incendiary affair

I watched  “The Satanic Verses: 30 years on”   t’other night. 

Before sitting down to comment on the actual programme, I was curious to see what other reviewers had made of it. The Independent’s review by Sean O’Grady was a shocker, even for that publication, and it was a pleasant surprise to see several below the line comments that reflected that view. 

The Telegraph’s review was better, but not a lot. Collective tiptoeing around Islam is safer than committing a hateful thought-crime these days. 

Over on Harry’s Place, as we used to say quite a lot, Sarah AB has also tackled the tightrope of reviewing a programme-that-shows-Muslims-in-a-bad-light, and as she took an interest in Maryam Namazie at one time Sarah AB might have the measure of Mobeen Azhar. 

Do look through some of our brilliant pieces on Mobeen Azhar to set the scene. I’m going to steal a chunk from Sarah's article.

“In last night’s programme The Satanic Verses: Thirty Years On, Mobeen Azhar reported on the novel’s legacy, and its role as a catalyst in the conflict between radical Islam and the West. Azhar had never read The Satanic Verses before and it was interesting to hear him articulate the discomfort it made him feel.  He went on to make it clear that he does not question Rushdie’s right to write or publish the novel. 

He began by reminding us of the context to this controversy – the racism and discrimination facing immigrants and the reasonable perception of unfairness in a blasphemy law (now of course thankfully abolished) which only protected one religion – Christianity. 

Azhar went on to interview several of those caught in the events of 30 years ago. Some of these seemed disturbingly adamant that they still see nothing wrong in their actions. Chillingly, Mohammad Siddique said he thought the response to the novel had been useful in stopping others write similar books. (By contrast Shahid Butt said he’d no longer resort to violence – but he would call Rushdie a ‘fucking dickhead’.)”

That gives you an idea of what we watched. The next section of her review featured a contributor from Hope not Hate - a portly chap called

“Matthew Collins, formerly a NF activist, now with Hope Not Hate, gave an interesting account of his (largely ignorant) views at the time. However it was a little unsettling – though he may simply have phrased the point unfortunately – that he almost seemed to blame Salman Rushdie for writing the novel rather than simply noting that it could be exploited by the far right.”

There was the obligatory shot of “far-right” ex-EDL persona non grata formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, a completely gratuitous and unhelpful inclusion, very BBC, in my objective opinion.  

Having outlined the plot so to speak, Sarah AB drifted off to express her characteristically benign opinion of our presenter so I'll take up the narrative. Mobeen was dressed in a fetching, three-quarter length trench-coat, belted and cinched in at the waist, which made its full peplum-style skirt flap as he pursued the angry Muslim man who had snatched his precious copy of The Satanic Verses out of his hand.  

Our presenter looked decidedly urbane and camp with his trademark quiff, which always makes him look like like a displaying cockatoo. Was it the gay look that triggered the incendiary Muslim Uncle and the man in the (Arab) dress and the baseball cap? Or was it simply the effrontery of anyone holding offensive literature in a “Muslim Public Area”? 

Either way, it provided plenty of fuel for the likes of the far right - who are obviously not far wrong when they talk about ‘no-go areas”. 

The urbane Mobeen was suitably taken aback by this unexpectedly dramatic and absurdly comical encounter, but he also confessed that he himself religiously made sure his own copy of the Koran remained in an elevated position (on a high shelf) in compliance with superstitious Islamic rules and regs.

The most significant moments for me, however, were conversations with some elderly British Muslims who had no intention of conforming in any way shape or form to British values and customs, and frankly didn’t see why anyone might expect them to. 

 Here’s a funny distillation by   “Veedu Viz” (whatever that is.)

Systematic Reporting Failures

Notorious Israel-haters “Noam Chomsky, Yanis Varoufakis, Ken Loach, Brian Eno, Prof Greg Philo, Jenny Manson, Lindsey German, Mike Cushman,” (these are just the ones I’ve actually heard of) and numerous others have signed a piece in the Guardian complaining that the media has been less than impartial in reporting “allegations of antisemitism against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party. “  The phrase they use is “systematic reporting failures”.  

The alleged motive for such “systematic reporting failures” is “to weaken the Labour leadership and to bolster its opponents within and outside of the party.”

Naturally, as staunch, lifelong opponents of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms, they concede that:

“It is of course entirely appropriate and necessary for our major news outlets to report on the horrors of antisemitism, but wrong to present it as an issue specific to the Labour party.” 

They conclude:

“We believe that significant parts of the UK media have failed their audiences by producing flawed reports that have contributed to an undeserved witch-hunt against the Labour leader and misdirected public attention away from antisemitism elsewhere, including on the far right, which is ascendant in much of Europe.”

As Eve Gerard points out in her piece on Harry’s Place,  What’s good for the Goose …

“I trust that the signatories to this letter also object to the production of flawed reports about Israel’s conduct, reports which contain inaccuracies, clear distortions, and revealing omissions that have contributed to an undeserved witch-hunt against the Jewish state”. 

Everyone can agree it would be hypocritical of them not to. Of course, there is a small flaw in that logic. The media hasn’t, in fact,  been backward in coming forward about the Corbynistas’ interpretation of the whole business of antisemitism in the Labour Party. It has been widely reported that Corbyn’s acolytes and apostles see the accusation of antisemitism in the Labour Party as nothing but a smear. “to weaken the Labour leadership and to bolster its opponents within and outside of the party” The media has faithfully reported this all along; countless times.

Whereas throughout the BBC’s Israel-related reporting - the omissions and distortions are quite real, and have been (and are still being) regularly and painstakingly recorded on relatively low-key websites such as BBC Watch (and this one.)

Top of the agenda ..."Palestine"

Apparently, somewhere in the Telegraph, it says: “When submitting motions/discussions for conference CLP's voted Palestine top of the agenda above any domestic problems the UK may be having.”

Indeed, the first thing the ‘Labour gov’ment’ will do, announced the Grand Wizard of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to Israel -- is “recognise the State of Palestine”.

Standing ovation. 

That was further evidenced by the BBC’s Vicky Young who was stationed outside the auditorium to question people as they streamed out, after Jeremy Corbyn’s conference speech.

“What impressed you most about what dear leader said in his speech?” she asked (not verbatim)

“Palestine!” came the reply from several ecstatic Corbynites. 

If she had further enquired “Why?”  I suppose the answer  would be something like “Because of what Israel is doing.”  

Here’s a comment from Harry’s Place regular “Anton Deque” which captures the mood.

(I do hope Mr Deque doesn’t mind me stealing the whole thing)

“It is emblematic and damning that the issue of Israel and Palestine obsessing Labour (sic) has absolutely no daily impact on the lives of millions in the United Kingdom who are in the tenth year of Austerity. Dramatic rises in rough sleepers, street begging, 'hot sofa' homeless young people and the impact of economic migration mean less than casting pointless votes on matters outside the competence of any likely future government. But it also illustrates better than any other fact the absolute chasm that now exists between Corbyn's Troto-Labour and its enthusiasm to exploit Islamic detestation of Jews and the real and pressing daily problems affecting the working class the Labour Party was founded to defend. 

Nothing could be more explicit nor irrelevant to the lives of no wage and low wage people here who need hope. It is, however, utterly defining of the theocracy of the far left: World Revolution, continuous, begins, unsurprisingly to students of the far left, with the destruction of the Jews.”

Free Speech

It seems ironic that none of the mainstream press reported Tommy Robinson’s march yesterday (Sunday, May 6th). 

I err. One did, and you’ll never guess which one. The actual Guardian. 

Not the BBC, Sky, ITV, the Times - in fact, it would be much easier to just say the only other paper that mentioned it was the Evening Standard. (I say this only after a somewhat perfunctory search so do please correct me, etc.)

Why is that ironic? Because the protest was all about “Free Speech,” which the protesters (mainly critics of Islam) see as currently under threat from the increasingly totalitarian ‘hostile atmosphere’ they sense. Twitter accounts closed down, scary knocks on the door by representatives of the law and suchlike. Well, we all sense it.  And the fact that a considerable number of people were moved to rally in central London wasn’t reported by the BBC seems kinda careless of the most respected news organ in the world.

One particular feature of this event attracted my attention because it showed me how easily one’s sensibilities can turn one into a massive hypocrite. (That’s me.) 

By a strange coincidence, this matter is also related to a dog. It concerns the man who was recently fined £800 for training his dog, a pug, to raise its paw in the gesture of a Nazi salute on the command: “Gas the Jews”. 

He undertook this training, into which, I imagine, must have taken considerable time and effort, in order to annoy his girlfriend. (Why, was she Jewish or something? ) Sorry. Facetious thought.

Again, he made the unwise decision to put this feat of canine obedience into the public domain. On Youtube, I understand. Bad decision.

The ensuing pursuit by the police, the courts, and the press appear to be quite horrendous. Now, let’s look at the offence itself.  Was it a joke? Supposedly. Not a very good one in terms of wit. Was it a hate crime? Hmm. Perhaps posting it on Youtube amounted to inspiring similar Nazi-related ‘jokes’ and therefore could be said, potentially to be at risk of inciting hate. 

Now I couldn’t see any humour at all in using the phrase “Gas the Jews” as a command. It showed crass insensitivity. However, the speech made by this man at the rally went beyond the issue of the dog to make some significant points on the danger of the “totalitarian” threat to freedom of speech. What if the power was in the hands of a different political ideology? 

So my own hypocrisy is exposed. I’m all for free speech but I don’t like people training their dogs to behave like Nazis and I certainly don’t find “Gas the Jews’ remotely excusable as a command to a dog. Neither do I think this stunt had wit on its side. But I do see his point and I do understand now, having listened to his speech, why Tommy Robinson supported the principles he cites and uses to defend his actions. (Before I heard it I did think Tommy Robinson had made a big mistake aligning himself with this individual)

Now, there are lots of Hitler-related ‘jokes’ out there. There are cats that look like Hitler. There’s even a house that looks remarkably like Hitler. They’re not exactly funny, but it is a bit weird that these images resonate so vividly. It verges on ‘the piece of toast that looks like Jesus’ territory.

So I’m more offended by Hitler-saluting-dog-gate than by the racist joke I wrote about yesterday, (and by the way it disappoints me to reiterate that I said in that post: I'm not justifying the tweet, the joke or the lady, by the way. Just pointing out the way it has been, to use a fashionable term, ‘weaponised', which I fear might have been overlooked) So, if that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.

We hypocrites must stick together, especially when we’re forced to hang our coats on shoogly pegs.

It’s always risky to try to make a nuanced point, which can all too easily be misconstrued, but I have to trust (hope) that most readers out there have sophisticated comprehension abilities, which they engage to the full whenever I do risk it.  Very interesting thread on Harry’s Place  (H/T for the vid) do catch it before the comments evaporate.

Must go, someone’s knocking at the door.

Out of Office-ish

This is a kind of ‘out of office message’ but in the meantime, here are two brilliant ‘long(ish) reads’ relating to the new, ‘left’ antisemitism. Harry’s Place "Labour's problem is not antisemitism" (Catch it before the comments disappear) and Brendan O’Neill / Spiked"Why do you hate Israel?"  (Beware of the comments) 

If I’m not mistaken, both these articles explain that the fanatical anti-imperialist / anti western/ anti-capitalist ideology of the devout Corbynista outweighs or overrides the anti-semitism within its inherent anti-Zionism. In other words, followers of the far-left cult, including Jewish members and those who are not necessarily antisemitic, will deflect accusations of racism (antisemitism) with: a.) whataboutery; b.) ‘bad apples’ ; c.) ‘smear’; d.) turning a blind eye.  

One small observation. Jews, on the whole are loath to forget their gratitude to countries that took them in in their hour of need and feel it would be hypocritical to turn away any kind of refugee, ever. That might account for the concept (if true) that the Jews are encouraging , if not actually facilitating, multiculturalism and mass immigration. However, it has to be said. Muslim immigration - much too much, much too soon - plays a huge part in this. 

P.S. Last might’s QT. Barry Gardiner surprised me; he looked genuinely ashamed, but still, in the end he deflected. Kate Andrews was excellent. Dimbles changed the subject with an air of boredom just as it got into its stride. As soon as that lout in the audience mentioned Boris Johnson I knew it. I knew Watermelon  and Piccaninnies  would come up, but i didn’t think the idiot who would come up with it would be Jonathan Freedland. Spiteful, out of context and gratuitous. Oh dear.