I thought that an essay by Robert Solomon Wistrich writing at the Institite for Global Jewish Affairs has a very well expressed analysis of the vicious anti-Semitism that pervades much of BBC reporting…
“Since the Second Intifada, the BBC as well as some major British newspapers have reported daily on Israel in an often tendentious, biased, and one-sided fashion. Under no circumstances will the BBC refer to any act of Hamas or other Palestinian terrorist organizations as terrorism. These killers are always referred to as militants, which has trade-union connotations in Britain. It is the term used when, for instance, shop stewards advocate a factory strike. “Within the distorted BBC system, the reporting of Israeli civilian fatalities and Palestinian suicide attacks made them seem no more than minor pinpricks compared to the retaliations by Israel, the definitive rogue state.’ The BBC invariably disconnects jihadi terrorism from any notion that it is part of a hate culture and the result of ideological indoctrination. The explanation is that these murderous deeds are driven by the relentless, racist actions’ of the Israeli government. It is Palestinian misery and oppression that allegedly brings about suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks. I believe this is a false, simplistic, and one-sided account. Terrorism is mentioned without connection to an ideology and the issue of antisemitism in the Arab or Islamic world is virtually nonexistent.”
He has a point, doesn’t he?
A neat summary. I agree 100%
I can agree on some of his comments about the BBC but you should link to the entire article by Wistrich which amounts to nothing short of a full blown attack on the Britain, the British people and our entire history.
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=2214&TTL=Antisemitism_Embedded_in_British_Culture
And that puts his BBC remarks in a completely different context. He’s not just having a go at the left which he highlights many times but also the right and everyone in between. Not unlike Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (everyone’s a racist) he calls us all anti-Semites. Quite frankly he should take a long walk of a short cliff.
After learning about the Kensington Royal Garden Hotel AMW do no wonder they are in the Arab pocket
I’m not as sensitive as Doug to accusations that England has a history of anti-semitism. Who would or could disagree? The whole of European history – certainly from the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the spread of Christianity as the religion of Europe – has been suffused with, at least, suspicion and, from time to time, violent hatred of the Jews among us. The test is not that anti-semitism exists or has existed; the test is what effect this has had on the Jews.
Looked at from that viewpoint, England hasn’t done badly by English Jews – since the Jewish re-settlement under the Commonwealth anyway. After all, Disraeli was the first Jew (albeit a Christian convert – although Bismarck referred to him with respect as “der alte Jude”) to become the elected head of government (and a Conservative one at that) in a democracy: not bad for a start. Even so, I don’t think the position of Jews outside Israel is comfortable anywhere.
Even if his condemnation of Britain is polemical rather than a disinterested analysis, Wistrich’s point about the BBC is well-made. I am constantly amazed and appalled by the anti-semitism and virulent anti-Israeli opinion of my gentile friends and acquaintances expressed when no Jews are present. When challenged they always cite the BBC (or the Independent) in evidence of the “nazi” behaviour of Israel in Gaza or elsewhere. As an aside, the most hysterical of these anti-semites are also those who accuse me of climate change “denial” (a deliberate echo of “holocaust denial”) when I express scepticism of the warmist agenda: again, the BBC and the Independent are cited in support of this position.
Many of my Jewish friends believe – and I tend to agree with them – that anti-semitism is rather like a permanent psychological infection which mostly lies dormant but which becomes active from time to time. The constant barrage of anti-Jewish propaganda on the BBC thinly veiled as revelations of incorrigible Israeli wickedness perpetuates and provokes the infection.
Umbongo:
The whole of European history – certainly from the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the spread of Christianity as the religion of Europe – has been suffused with, at least, suspicion and, from time to time, violent hatred of the Jews among us.
———————————-
But that’s not what he is saying. He singles out Great Britain as the worst in Europe for anti-Jewishness, citing both long-ago history and more recent / contemporaneous times.
He has a point (doesn’t everyone?) but describing the reporting as vicious is simply an abuse of language.
This is nothing more than the usual special pleading and guilt-mongering in which Jews are so well practised.
“Galloway is an intellectual lightweight and rabble-rouser. He sees a revolutionary potential in the Muslim immigrants in Britain, a kind of ‘substitute proletariat’ that could help revive the lost dreams of international socialism. Being against Israel and America is what brings the far Left and radical Islamists together. They have very little in common on issues such as feminism, attitudes toward homosexuals, or secularism.”
Nice one!
“And that puts his BBC remarks in a completely different context. He’s not just having a go at the left which he highlights many times but also the right and everyone in between. Not unlike Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (everyone’s a racist) he calls us all anti-Semites. Quite frankly he should take a long walk of a short cliff.”
Doug | 30.03.09 – 10:20 am |
You are quite wrong. The article doesn’t put his remarks about the BBC in a different context at all. The article provides historical context. What are you so offened by?
Think about whether you are actually making his case.
Red Lepond | 30.03.09 – 1:11 pm |
Are you in the foreign office?
Millie Tant
You may be right but that’s not what I wrote or, at least, not what I meant. My point was that the whole of Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire was to a greater or lesser extent anti-Jewish so (a) no-one (including Wistrich) should be surprised that England also was anti-Jewish and (b) even if England was the “worst” (which is debatable), the test is how the Jews were actually treated and how they have fared in the UK (since the Commonwealth). My answer to (b) is “not bad”.
I agree though with Wistrich that the British establishment (which is now of the left and includes the BBC) have certainly been making the running on anti-semitism in the West since 2000. I would add that anti-semitism in the UK – in my experience – mostly masquerades as being anti-Israel although I assume there are die-hard critics of Israel who are not anti-Jewish (but I’ve yet to meet such a person).
I think the left has been manipulated over many years into a hard and anti Israeli, quasi antisemitic stance.
Much of the purpose is to divert attention from the stealth jihad, i.e. the gradual Islamization of Great Britain.
The demonisation of Israel also serves to excuse or dismiss the atrocities of radical Islam, who are then perceived as ‘victims. so their outrages can be described euphemistically as acts of militancy by the likes of the BBC.
yes there was once much antisemism amongst the British elites,but it is now no longer there, it has since migrated.
Are you in the foreign office?
Sue
Maybe the foreign office should just hire non British citizens to represent our interests abroad. They couldn’t do any worse.
However I was pissed off by the article in exactly the same way that Israelis are pissed off when people damn them all as racists, Islamophobes and warmongers.
Doug | 30.03.09 – 7:01 pm |
I completely understand why you were defensive.
When I went to Israel in my youth as an ignorant art student who thought everybody loved Brits, I was astonished at the rather negative response we got when we told people where we were from. Strangely everyone we met had assumed we (boyfriend and I) were French.
When I asked why they felt that way about the UK I was too stupid to hear what they were telling me. Britain is no friend of Israel, they said. I identified with Britain of course, and didn’t like to hear that.
When Umbongo says that in recent times British Jews have fared “not bad,” I would qualify that by saying they have when they appear as British as possible, admirable as far as assimilation is concerned, but not quite so good that some felt obliged to anglicise their names to gain acceptability and employment. As did my professional relatives a good few years ago.
Today I’m mostly clandestine.;)
Nowadays, most second or third generation AngloJews are as British as anyone, some of us even more than. We’re embedded so to speak. Maybe any success and acceptability is experienced in spite of being Jewish, rather than because it made no difference.
But the historical evidence of Britain’s behaviour is undeniable, let’s face it.
Wistrich has made quite a study of the subject. His scholarly work titled Anti-Semitism: The Longest Hatred was published in 1991.
I don’t know how many people know that Edward I expelled the Jews of his kingdom in 1290 and that, “The image of the money-lending Jew would, however, survive the four centuries when Jews were absent from British shores.” (p.27)
Doug | 30.03.09 – 10:20 am,
I read a fair amount of that article from your link. I don’t see how this is an attack on the entire country and everyone in it. He is simply highlighting the historical and current anti-Semitism. I noticed he a had a good word for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, separating them out from his criticism of the British government. He’s right. Those two are definitely not anti-Semitic. And of course Jews and Israel have had many friends among the British. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is a long and grim history of British anti-Semitism and it is currently widespread. I’m sure the bias is often unconscious, but it is no less powerful for being under the surface.
There is no doubt that the BBC is riddled with anti-Semitism. Practically that entire motley crew “reporting” on the Middle East is anti-Semitic. But much of it goes unnoticed and they are able to get away with it simply because there is nothing that remarkable about their anti-Semitism in a broader British context.
This is nothing more than the usual special pleading and guilt-mongering in which Jews are so well practised.
Red Lepond | 30.03.09 – 1:11 pm
Rubbish. If he is “pleading” who do you think the plea is directed at? And if he is “guilt-mongering” do you really imagine anti-Semites can be made to feel guilty?
You come across like quite an anti-Semite yourself with the ridiculous stereotypes you present here. As if Jews are in the business of attending practice sessions in making people feel guilty.
This whole thread is an exercise in Jewish special pleading and the charge of anti-semitism has become so debased through sheer common currency that it’s like water off a duck’s back.
The truth be told, the large majority of British Jews share the very same political views shared by your average BBC journalist; they only wish for a special exception to be made for Israel. Leftists/liberals who don’t like Israel are the consistent ones.
Red Lepond | 31.03.09 – 12:45 am
Water off a duck’s back? Your quackings are hilarious. The more you quack the less you can see how perfectly you’re making Robert Solomon Wistrich’s case.
Red,
I think you will find that Jews would prefer Israel to be treated the same as other nations…instead of being continually singled out for defending their own people from terrorism.
Mailman
Victor Sharpe. History lesson. Please at least read it.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/the_two_state_solution_is_87_y.html
That’s not a history lesson, it’s a pathetically blinkered diatrabe against the British. It’s possible to favour Israel on the basis that its a civilised, successful country defending itself against a bunch of backward philistines without subscribing to that sort of shit.
I am not Jewish but have worked with an antiracist NGO and can confirm that antisemitism is on the rise again – championed mainly by the Liberal Left. It’s called “antisemitic chic” and it’s very fashionable in Guardianista-BBC circles.
Red Lepond | 31.03.09 – 12:45 am | #
Would you apply the same case when discussing Islamophobia?
If the answer is a resounding no, then you know what you are.
Umbongo:
You may be right but that’s not what I wrote or, at least, not what I meant. My point was that the whole of Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire was to a greater or lesser extent anti-Jewish so (a) no-one (including Wistrich) should be surprised that England also was anti-Jewish and (b) even if England was the “worst” (which is debatable), the test is how the Jews were actually treated and how they have fared in the UK (since the Commonwealth). My answer to (b) is “not bad”. …
[cut]….
Umbongo | 30.03.09 – 3:46 pm | #
———————————–
Yes, I think it probably is debatable. Against England/ GB, he offers islanders’ xenophobia; Christian /Catholic persecution; 13th century expulsion of the Jews from England; English literature, including Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice and 19th century novelists (and not only Dickens); attitudes to 19th /early 20th century Jewish immigrants; blaming Jews for the Second World War and not wanting Jewish refugees in the forties; academic bias and boycotts, (dating from the 1970s, not just from the 2000s) and the more recent Islamic anti-Jewish influence in Britain.
He doesn’t really go into other countries’ histories – unless I’ve missed it when I blinked – and I wonder if one reason he might think England is the worst is that it is the one he knows best: he grew up and was educated in it. He knows English literature because he studied it at Cambridge.
Because he knows England so well, he makes some interesting observations which ring true to my ears, such as how antisemitism in England can be so understated that it is almost invisible, easy to miss or to believe that it doesn’t exist. However, I would say that that is not peculiar to antisemitism; it is just as true of other prejudices.
Related to that, he notes how a prejudice could endure for centuries even after the Jews were expelled – and thus not even here. That is another thing which to me is intriguig and baffling about prejudice as well – how enduring it can be.
Now whether you can say that is something peculiarly stubborn about and particular to England, I couldn’t say. I do know, though, that the word “ghetto” is not English, but Italian, and it is instructive to look at the history of the Roman ghetto and antisemitism, if only for purposes of comparison and perspective – see here: http://www.inforoma.it/feature.php?lookup=ghetto
Also here, from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Ghetto
It is hair-raising stuff. And not English.
While it is possible that he may have a case, it remains questionable because he hasn’t bothered to put the evidence from other countries.
PS: I am not branding Italy as some sort of “worst anti-Jewish country in Europe”, or anything of that kind but rather citing another example from another place, some time ago in history.
Cockney | 31.03.09 – 11:12 am | #
“It’s possible to favour Israel on the basis that its a civilised, successful country defending itself against a bunch of backward philistines”
So it is, but hardly any of the British do so.
“That’s not a history lesson, it’s a pathetically blinkered diatrabe against the British.”
If you think that you should substantiate it – otherwise methinks the cockerney doth protest too much.
I quite understand why you wouldn’t like it, but I’d love to know why you call it a load of sh*t.
Sue:
Victor Sharpe. History lesson. Please at least read it.
http://www.americanthinker.com/ 2…on_is_87_y.html
Sue | 31.03.09 – 9:16 am | #
————————————–
Please at least explain why!
Sue
My reason for calling that article a load of sh*t is that the Balfour declaration and subsequent mandate committed the Brits (who lest we forget had liberated the place from the Turks in the first place, a sacrifice without which nothing at all would have happened) to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine with due consideration for the rights and welfare of the existing non Jewish population.
Clearly this was a bit of a no win scenario from the start however subsequent actions were compliant with this goal.
Whilst I appreciate that there will be different opinions to how this best should have been carried out, in variously referring to “betrayals”, a “sorry record of appeasement”, “pro-Arab and anti-Jewish policies” and most laughably policy “at the expense of Jewish destiny” the writer makes clear that he thinks that a Jewish state should’ve been established on the entirety of Palestine with no consideration at all given to the rights and interest of existing non Jewish populations. This clearly wasn’t what was specified by the mandate. Which is why its a load of sh*t in my opinion and at the very least a long way from a “history lesson”.
Dear Cockney,
Thanks for answering. I appreciate that you did so.
I think anyone who discusses the subject should be familiar with various historical perspectives before deciding where their sympathies lie.
The article by Victor Sharpe presents a case from the Jewish perspective. Sympathetic to the Jewish cause. The article recounts chronological events, and, yes, he does use emotive language.
It may well seem partisan, polemical and one-sided to you, but pathetically blinkered or a diatribe? I regard it as more credible that the versions promulgated by the Arabs, which are mostly all of the above, and some.
What struck me is that your main objections seemed to concern his emotive language, but that pales in comparison to the many pro-Arab versions of history I’ve seen. They deserve to be dismissed as blinkered diatribes.
I disagree with your theory that the writer “makes clear that he thinks that a Jewish state should’ve been established on the entirety of Palestine with no consideration at all given to the rights and interest of existing non Jewish populations. ”
In my view he was not saying what the Jewish state should have been, he was pointing out just how much of what was originally intended had been given away, and how little of that was left for a Jewish state. Even that was accepted by Israel, while the Arabs were unwilling to accept anything less than the whole lot.
Unrelenting criticism of Israel and revisionist pro Arab rhetoric I am expected to accept gracefully, but past British failings you take as a personal slur. All I ask is that you read such things with understanding, and accept them for what they are, which is what you expect of me.
Millie Tant, does the above explain?
Cheers Sue, noted and appreciated.
Sue, Indeedy. I may read it later. Hope it is not as long as the other article – thought I would never get to the end of that one!
An anti-racist NGO concluding that anti-semitism (and, no doubt, racism) is on the rise (again). Quelle suprise!
Truth be told, the Guardian and BBC are basically philosemitic because they’re in step with the political and social views of the large majority of British Jews.
What needs to be eradicated here is the planted axiom that there’s anything essentially conservative about support for the state of Israel. Opposition to the Islamification of Europe should not, indeed does not equate to support for Zionism.
Fine. So you dont like Islam and you also hate Israel. Thanks for the clarification.
What “planted axiom”?
“The Guardian and the BBC are basically philosemetic because they are in step with the political and social views of the large majority of British Jews” Thanks for clarifying what 300,000 peoples political opinions are. Christ. Any evidence that backs up that breathtaking “fact” by any chance?
Thats a slightly spooky and very factually inadequate little post matey. In fact it is deeply anti semetic. At least be honest. Now repeat after me ” I hate Zionism, therefore I hate and reject the very idea of the Jewish peoples right of self determination” Doesnt that feel better?
Opposition to the Islamification of Europe should not, indeed does not equate to support for Zionism.
Red Lepond | 01.04.09 – 1:40 am
In what universe? It is difficult to think of any event that would give a greater boost to the Islamification of Europe than the fall of the Zionist State of Israel.
* It would be a huge moral boost to the Islamists and would be marketed, however inaccurately, as the defeat of the Crusaders (i.e. the West).
* It would threaten relatively pro-Western governments in Egypt and Jordan.
* This would also have economic effects as Egypt and Jordan control the Suez canal and the Iraq-Aqaba oil pipeline.
* The ‘Palestinian’ state that would arise would consider it an Islamic obligation to Jihad to supply, finance and train Islamists in Europe.
* Illegal immigrants to Europe would use the replacement state’s long coastline, as they now use Morocco and Libya as a jump-off point.
* The Eastern Mediterranean could easily be threatened by pirates or even Iran if Iran is given de-facto access.
* Christians would come under threat and major Christian religious sites would fall under the control of Muslims.
I fail to see an upside in this.
Red Lepond | 01.04.09 – 1:40 am
In the days when Tories were toffs and Labour represented the workers many Jews were left-leaning. Many probably still are. The same probably applies to Gentiles. Unless they are particularly suicidal, Jews part company with socialist lefties at the fork in the road that led so many down the pro-Islam path; if any have strayed in that direction it’s through blindly espousing tolerance. There’s no logic to your suggestion that this means the Guardian and the BBC are “philosemitic.”
Who planted this “axiom?” Who says there’s anything essentially conservative about support for the state of Israel?
You CAN both hate Israel and fear Islam. Join the BNP.
I see you are fond of the phrase “Truth be told” Make a start. Come out.
Cockney | 31.03.09 – 11:12 am |
My sentiments pretty much exactly.
Plus, if Israel goes down, Jews worldwide will suffer. Nothing equivalent can be said about any other country.
The dissolution of the state of Israel would be a very good thing if it took place in the context of my solution to the insoluble Middle East problem. The quid pro quo would be the cessation of Muslim immigration into Europe; actually I would support the forced emigration of Europe’s present Muslim population back to their native lands, but that might be asking a little too much.
I agree: there’s nothing essentially conservative about support for Zionism. Which is my most informed conservative opinion opposed the creation of Israel, seeing it as the doomed-to-failure, colonialist, nationalist experiment that it turned out to be.
The dissolution of the state of Israel would be a very good thing if it took place in the context of my solution to the insoluble Middle East problem.
Mr. Truth be Told, do tell how you would bring about your final solution? And don’t forget to tell exactly what it would solve?
I’ll bring it about by sheer force of argument and my winning personality.
Truth be told, there is no other solution but mine.
Red Lepond | 01.04.09 – 6:02 pm | #
Witty stuff, Red Man but I detect a wind up merchant.
You don’t happen to have a small black moustache and practise your speeches in front of the mirror in your bedsit, do you?
Surely not.
Here’s what Pope Pius presciently wrote to President Roosevelt in 1943 about the prospect of a Jewish state in Palestine:
‘It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew Race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity of a people returning to a country they left 19 centuries before,” the letter reads.
“If a ‘Hebrew Home’ is desired, it would not be too difficult to find a more fitting territory than Palestine. With an increase in the Jewish population there, grave, new international problems would arise.”
That fitting territory is none other than the USA, and, in particular, the state of Florida. And if the ethnic cleansing of Florida need be undertaken to achieve it, then so be it.
Alternatively, Jews could have the option of staying on in a post-Israel Palestine, or returning to ancestral lands such as Poland, Ukraine and Russia.
Red Lepond | 01.04.09 – 6:09 pm | #
Nice quote, Red Man.
It’s revealing that you seek support for your argument from the very Pope that notoriously collaborated with the Nazis.
Many of your arguments for the dismantling of the State of Israel will lead inevitably to wholesale slaughter and the exodus of millions of Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Druze, Anglicans, Maironites and liberal Muslims from Israel….to where might I ask? Many of whom, including the Jews have lived there for generations – some way back to the mid nineteenth century.
Many of your arguments can also be applied to the UK too (and most other modern nations). Few citizens in the UK are representive of the original nomadic stone age peoples that lived here before the Vikings, Normans, Romans, Celts, Anglo Saxons, Huegenots, Irish, West Indians, etc etc came and “took” the land.
Israel is here to stay. Get real. Once that is accepted then there might be a chance for peace.
I’ll bring it about by sheer force of argument and my winning personality.
Truth be told, there is no other solution but mine.
Red Lepond | 01.04.09 – 6:02 pm |
Oh dear. Your feeble argument has negligible force – Good luck that you won a personality though, eh. When will it take effect?
Meanwhile, stop taking the solution. I think it is giving you delusions of grandeur. Truth Be Told, you think you are Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket.
He’s just writing a bit of jewish whiney propaganda.
Nice of you to give him the blogspace though, I don’t expect Islamic whiney propaganda gets much houseroom in here.
“I don’t think the position of Jews outside Israel is comfortable anywhere.”
Post of the week IMO.
They’ll never be happy in any foreigners country so why bother worrying.
moan whinge gripe whine.
A jew now has Israel and if you REALLY don’t like where you’re at there’s always somewhere to call home.
ady | 02.04.09 – 9.14 +9:21 am | #
“Nice of you to give him the blogspace though,”
Even nicer to give you blogspace, don’t you think?
So far your snipes have been allowed to remain. No-one knows exactly what they mean, but the general drift is more than enough.
ady | 02.04.09 – 9:21 am |
A jew now has Israel and if you REALLY don’t like where you’re at there’s always somewhere to call home.
Yes, of course. But what happens to the Jew when Israel gets nuked? Just desserts, right, ady?
Well if you allowed some islamic whiney propagandaist stuff in here too…then I could confuse them as well.
I’m sure the big bad Brits have done a few things to them too.
Actually us Brits have been in conflicts with pretty much every country on planet earth at some point over the last 500 years.
lots of choice.
Knock yerself out and go for it, but I should warn ya, the queue of Brit hating axe grinders out there is a long one.
We should be hearing lots from the chinese over the next few years, UK school history lessons tended to avoid Britains involvement in China.
How did Pope Pius NOTORIOUSLY COLLABORATE (oh, scary) with the Nazis? Nothing so substantial as the Transfer Agreement, I’m sure.
And yes, the dismantling of Israel will see the exodus of millions of Jews (to join the even more millions of Jews already in the West), but the slaughter you envisage is only a product of your febrile imagination. A secular Palestine will be like Jordan or Lebanon.
People hating you is the price you pay for success, global success in the British case.
If we were Belzoogians instead of British, no-one would give a monkeys.
A lot of the hatred where the Jews are concerned is because they are so successful.
Comes with the territory.
The only way to avoid it is to be a loser.
ady | 02.04.09 – 6:04 pm | #
” if you allowed some islamic whiney propagandaist stuff in here too…”
1. The BBC provides most of the Islamic propaganist stuff, thanks. That’s why we’re here.
2. Strange you haven’t noticed we do allow almost all comments here. The only ones that get deleted are obscene/deliberately objectionable/very OT.
I’m well aware of Britain’s record re China, the opium wars etc. I’m not the one who got touchy and defensive about criticism of the UK and its treatment of Jews. We should face it.
British Jews are just that. British. And Jews. Yes if antisemitism makes it unbearable for them to live in Britain, Israel will welcome them. But this is their home old chap, and you have no more right to live here unpersecuted than they do. You don’t get it. We’re just like you but without the Christmas. Just you wait till the Caliphate proper comes here. Where will YOU go?
The Brits and the Jews are very similar. There is mutual repect, albeit grudging sometimes, and odd traces of a Israel – British connection to the time of Joseph of Aramathea, Glastonbury Abbey and all that. Its given us Blakes Jerusalem, and the Anglo – Israel movement of the 19th -20th Century.
Both peoples are widely misunderstood/disliked by the rest of the planet. Both are rather good at getting on with stuff. Shame the camel corps is in the ascendent at the F.O, otherwise they would make a good team.