Fighting ‘anti-semitic’ smears
Johann Hari, to his immense credit, has come out fighting. A few weeks ago he wrote this piece for the Independent criticising Israel’s record of behaving towards Palestinians on its 60th anniversary. And why not? There has been plenty of positive stuff about Israel’s 60th anniversary recently - it cannot escape criticism over its human rights record. (And if anyone says the west doesn’t criticise China enough they need their head checked).
In the article he said:
[Israel] has provided the one lonely spot in the Middle East where gay people are not hounded and hanged, and where women can approach equality.
But I can’t do it. Whenever I try to mouth these words, a remembered smell fills my nostrils. It is the smell of shit. Across the occupied West Bank, raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish settlements, along large metal pipes, straight onto Palestinian land. From there, it can enter the groundwater and the reservoirs, and become a poison.
Unsurprisingly, the nutjobs who shriek anytime anything negative is written about Israel started screaming that Hari must be anti-semitic because he said Israel smelled like shit.
Step forward Melanie Phillips and someone called Tom Gross, who also makes a habit of this apparently.
On Thursday Hari came out fighting in this article:
Ah, but wait. I have also reported from Gaza and the West Bank. Last week, I wrote an article that described how untreated sewage was being pumped from illegal Israeli settlements on to Palestinian land, contaminating their reservoirs. This isn’t controversial. It has been documented by Friends of the Earth, and I have seen it with my own eyes.
The response? There was little attempt to dispute the facts I offered. Instead, some of the most high profile “pro-Israel” writers and media monitoring groups – including Honest Reporting and Camera – said I an anti-Jewish bigot akin to Joseph Goebbels and Mahmoud Ahmadinejadh, while Melanie Phillips even linked the stabbing of two Jewish people in North London to articles like mine. Vast numbers of e-mails came flooding in calling for me to be sacked.
Any attempt to describe accurately the situation for Palestinians is met like this. If you recount the pumping of sewage onto Palestinian land, “Honest Reporting” claims you are reviving the anti-Semitic myth of Jews “poisoning the wells.” If you interview a woman whose baby died in 2002 because she was detained – in labour – by Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint within the West Bank, “Honest Reporting” will say you didn’t explain “the real cause”: the election of Hamas in, um, 2006. And on, and on.
All I can say is - well done to Hari for sticking to his guns.
The sad fact is, organisations like HR, Camera and nutjobs like Melanie Phillips only end up polarising people when it comes to this debate and in effect making real anti-semitism even harder to highlight because the phrase loses its meaning.
Its when people scream racism (or Islamophobia) at every opportunity that similarly puts people off. Its stupid and annoying. But I doubt Melanie Phillips will get it.
I agree that some of the Israeli lobby in the press can go over the top but there is a reason why they do so. Much of liberal opinion in this country, especially as it appears in print in the Guardian and the Independent, is stridently anti Israel to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish it from anti semitism.
Phillips does overreact on occasions but the subject is one of the most emotive in the world today. There are self hating jews, many of them to be found in the ranks of the SWP and the other wilder shores of the left, who argue for the destruction of the Israeli state itself.
I don’t think Hari is doing this and generally I enjoy his writing but the Israelists are in a permanent state of siege mentality. Given that the leadership of all of the Palestinian groups want to wipe the Jewish state of the map along with its inhabitants that is understandable.
I rarely read Mel but I remember her “Hari-smear” because it was linked from HP or somesuch, and actually as a result I linked to her too, because her charge (somewhat “mad” though it may have been) seemed to stand up:
While we’re on the subject of effluent, however, the Useful Idiot blog has noticed that, six days before Hari threw the waste products of the inhabitants of Gaza in Israel’s face, so to speak, the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen did exactly the same thing with this story about a Gazan baby drowning when a sewage system burst. And guess who he said was to blame? Yup, you got it. It was all because of Israeli restrictions which completely stopped the import of raw materials for construction like cement and piping.
Yet as the BBC itself reported more than a year ago after a number of Gazans were killed in a similar collapse, the UN was warning that more such flooding was inevitable unless a new waste treatment plant was constructed. Hamas said such sewage projects had been halted because of lack of foreign aid. But the UN had a different explanation:
Stuart Shepherd, the UN’s humanitarian aid officer in Gaza, said the Umm al-Naser plant had not been affected by the aid boycott, noting there had long been warnings about the plant. Mr Shepherd said foreign investment had been secured to build the treatment plant, but construction had not gone ahead because of security risks in the area.
In other words, nothing had been done because there was a war going on. And who was responsible for that war? Why, Hamas.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/645986/the-war-against-the-jews-19.thtml
keep blowing smoke up each other’s arses..
Much of liberal opinion in this country, especially as it appears in print in the Guardian and the Independent, is stridently anti Israel to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish it from anti semitism.
Erm, no its not. By the same measure, would you then accept that most right-wing opinion in this country is racist annd/or Islamophobic?
Phillips does overreact on occasions but the subject is one of the most emotive in the world today.
Sure, for the Palestinians too… for obvious reasons.
but the Israelists are in a permanent state of siege mentality
And Palestinians are actually in a permanent state of seige.
Much of liberal opinion in this country, especially as it appears in print in the Guardian and the Independent, is stridently anti Israel to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish it from anti semitism.
Yes, I like to temper my seething anti-semitism that I like to validate by reading the Guardian and the Independent with my seething hatred of gypsies, black and muslim people by reading the Sun and the Daily Mail.
What a stupid, brain-dead binary. What laughable ‘guilt by association’ bollocks we pass on to each other without impunity.
the thing about johann hari is that the only nice thing he has to say about israel at all is the fact that you don’t get murdered there for being gay, but there isn’t anything else he seems to find at all positive about the idea of a jewish state. the only israeli historian he seems prepared to read is the highly controversial (another description might be “so revisionist that only israel-bashers think he’s a historian at all”) ilan pappe.
i read the article and found it unpleasant in the extreme, to the point where i thought it did his actual point no good at all precisely *because* the likes of tom gross were immediately able to assume it was a modern updating of the “jews poison the wells” mediaeval libel.
in short, if people like johann hari ever expect to be taken seriously and be listened to by anyone pro-israeli they’re going to have to adopt a less hysterical tone. put it this way, the article might not have been “anti-semitic” per se, that was kind of where i ended up, but from where i sit i can’t see how much more unpleasant “anti-semitism” actually is. it certainly does nothing to lower the temperature and *everything* to contribute to the continued polarisation of debate.
b’shalom
bananabrain
This is ridiculous and absurd. Look, if any other country purporting to be a liberal democracy was occupying land illegally and kept the subject population under a permanent state of siege it would be quite right to be stridently critical. I don’t see why Israel should get the kid gloves treatment, as you appear to be pleading Bananabrain.
Sociologist - I think you’re mixing up your accusations a bit? Israelis occupy land illegally, yes, and they have closed the border with Hamas-controlled Gaza, from which, incidentally, hundreds of missiles have been fired at Israeli territory, but they’re not keeping the population of the land they are occupying illegally under siege, are they? As that would mean their own settlers?! Forgive me for being pedantic, but I would expect a little more rigour from a very public sociologist.
While we’re here I suppose it’s also worth pointing out that the UK and US, who purport to be liberal democracies, are in the process of concluding an illegal war which resulted in the murder (it being illegal) of at least 100,000 people, yet which now the conflict is drawing to a close appear to come in for considerably less stick than Israel which, for all its questionable acts, has a long way to go before killing 100,000 Palestinians.
What would sociology say about this seeming paradox?
And if anyone says the west doesn’t criticise China enough they need their head checked
This would really depend on what you mean by ‘the west’. You really have to strain to hear Western governments criticising China. You also tend not to get posturing pseudo-leftist academics calling for boycotts of China.
More generally, there’s two problems with Hari and the sort of stuff he writes on this subject and just about everything else for that matter:
1) He doesn’t deserve credit for ’sticking to his guns’ because he only ever does this if he thinks this’ll allow him to keep his soul unblemished, untainted from the stuff and filth of this world. If it doesn’t, as was the case regarding his support for the invasion of Iraq, he jumps ship. It’s a mixture of piety and show-business: it demands he strike a contrarian pose. It’s by no means the worst of human failings but it should be understood that this does make him intellectually unreliable.
2) We see the piety in his complaint that he is being persecuted for telling the truth and he uses this to lend authority to his argument. But what he, and you, fail to see is that just because he’s being attacked by people who are incapable of offering a rational argument in this case, that doesn’t mean he isn’t talking shite.
If it doesn’t, as was the case regarding his support for the invasion of Iraq, he jumps ship. It’s a mixture of piety and show-business
Or maybe he just has more integrity and honesty about the facing up to real intentions for going to war than your average doctrinaire pro-war supporter who can’t face up to the fuck-up in Iraq so blaming the “Stopper” will keep them in their comfort zones. Unfortunately support for a failed war is the HP legacy whether they like it or not. The suggestion that it’s “piety” to admit the war was an abortion from start to finish, and equating this piety as a means of discrediting Johann Hari is laughable.
The same paraphrased accusation (”It’s a mixture of piety and show-business”) is also made by many Muslims of ex-jihadis like Ed Husain, Shiraz Maher etc.
They disavow themselves of the shit they believed in and suddenly, they’re labelled pious show-business people by their former fellow travellers.
Shuggy,
Is Johann Hari right or wrong about the shit on the fields of the Palestinians? Answer this, instead of disappearing up your own agenda.
Specifically, can you refute what he said here:
If you can’t, then you really ought to take a look at yourself.
C’mon, your evidence that Johann Hari was talking through an orifice that the sun don’t shine?
Absolutely zero.
Frankly, when it comes down to it, you just claim the problem is with Johann Hari.
No sunbeam, the problem lies with you.
Accusing the messenger, rather than addressing the message, is cheapskate. Shuggy, I’d have expected better of you.
Pathetic.
If it doesn’t, as was the case regarding his support for the invasion of Iraq, he jumps ship.
Oh right, so people can’t change their minds once they’ve realised that the idiots who advocated for war had no clue or plan to keep the peace?
to see is that just because he’s being attacked by people who are incapable of offering a rational argument in this case, that doesn’t mean he isn’t talking shite.
Talking shite? Why? Because he’s factually wrong or you just don’t like what he writes?
The point is not whether he is talking shite. The point is why anyone should tolerate slurs of anti-semitism being thrown around so casually. And you have nothing to say about that?
I was going to go to bed, then I spotted yet another Shuggy inconsistency:
Well, Shuggy old man, you are not actually giving a rational arguement either, are you?
Ad Hominem does not a case make. Which is all you’ve tried to throw around here. Try taking that out of your ‘opinion’ and then come back.
“Or maybe he just has more integrity and honesty about the facing up to real intentions for going to war than your average doctrinaire pro-war supporter ”
The intentions for any action are unimportant, Sid. It is the consequences that matter.
I don’t have problem with Hari’s critcism of Israel, some of it is quite well desrved. But his description of Israel’s actions are one-sided. The Palestianians quite honestly were far more brutal in their behavoir in the 1940s the only difference is that they lost. I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
“The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, the Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. In 1940, he asked the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right, “to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy.” He spent the second half of WWII in Germany making radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies. In one of these broadcasts, he said, “Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.” In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti’s violently anti-Semitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a new “warrant for genocide.” “
digitalcntrl - Please at least try and keep this discussion in the current century?
What the speech of one grand mufti from the 1940s has to do with what the situation there now is beyond me. Else let’s just chuck everything and and kitchen sink into this discussion for the hell of it.
Regardless of what you think about the situation, the point here is about throwing around the word anti-semitic… or “like anti-semitic” or anything that implies smear by association, is becoming so regular its rather silly.
But seriously Sunny, on that point, if Mel’s rebuttal is accurate, then surely Hari’s (and Bowen’s) poison wells article is either biased or just bad journalism?
But seriously Sunny, on that point, if Mel’s rebuttal is accurate, then surely Hari’s (and Bowen’s) poison wells article is either biased or just bad journalism? Or perhaps Hari et al’s natural bias lead to bad journalism?
The intentions for any action are unimportant, Sid. It is the consequences that matter.
eek! Except the consequences are a lot f#cking worse. Most pro-war types attempt to assuage themselves of blame by maintaining that their intentions were good *at the very least*.
From the Melanie Phillips artilce linked to by Sunny.
‘In other words, nothing had been done because there was a war going on. And who was responsible for that war? Why, Hamas.’
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king….
If MP told me it was raining I would go to the window and check for myself. If she said, ‘good morning,’ to me, I would ask for a definition of ‘good’ and exactly what morning she was talking about. Melanie Phillips is a self parody, no one should take her too seriously. For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT in any way saying that MP is a vindictive, worthless, hack liar who makes money out of conflict. Certainly no suggestion I am saying anything like that - none at all whatsoever. Definitely not.
Consequences are unaffected by intentions. Intentioms do not assuage the actions that follow, whatever people may say and even believe.
On the original topic, i don’t know about this instance, but raw sewage is sometimes used as fertiliser. As for the collapse of Palestinian infrastructure the claims and counterclaims of “There’s a war and you started it” “No, you did.” and that’s why nothing happens go on for ever. Israel has the power to stop settlements and doesn’t which makes Palestinian fears look very justified.
i don’t think anyone actually read my response. it may or may not have been an anti-semitic article, i would tend to think not *providing*, of course, that the accusations are true. whether it is *biased* or not is an entirely different manner. i find hari quite biased personally (viz ilan pappe for a start) and the vast majority of jews will find the scatological nature of his accusations indistinguishable from anti-semitism, especially now it has been linked to the well-poisoning libel.
my point was only that the way he is addressing this issue does nothing to help the palestinians and only increases the amount of self-righteous posturing that this issue normally provokes.
b’shalom
bananabrain
“[Israel] has provided the one lonely spot in the Middle East where gay people are not hounded and hanged, and where women can approach equality.”
I think it’s really worth stressing that the situation is not actually all that rosy for LGBT and women’s rights in Israel. It may be an improvement on some of its neighbours, but really there are major, major issues, especially, but not only, if you consider the impact of Israel’s policy on Palestinian women and Muslim and Christian women living within Israel’s ‘borders’. But even ashkenazi Jewish women are not in such a fabulous position.
I actually was planning to write a post about this for The F Word, about Israel’s 60th anniversary, but haven’t managed it yet. But some of the many issues include: ‘family’ law, including marriage, is dealt with by the religious courts, and only the religious courts - there is still no civil marriage and no civil divorce. This means there is no equality under the law - there is not only one rule for Muslim women and one rule for Jewish women, but one rule for Orthodox women and another rule for more liberal/reform women. That is pretty major.
Women’s visiblity in the army, business and to an extent politics, actually invisibilises a whole host of problems shared by women in European countries, but also a whole other slice of problems particular to the situation there.
Not to say that Hari isn’t right to point out that it is difficult to talk about anything else when you consider the massive injustices being committed by the Israeli government/state against Palestinians every day, but I also think it is important to interrogate this idea of Israel as a more civilised haven when, in fact, it is not what I would call a model of women’s or LGBT rights.
I was going to try and stay out of this discussion. But for all those that keep harping on about pro-Israel etc. this is nonsense.
If something is wrong it is wrong.
What I am finding most impressive about the 60 Years Independance Celebrations in Israel is the fact that many many ardent Zionists are very reflective - hopfully genuinely - about the Palestinian issue.
To the point that questions are being asked about what is being done to the Palestinains and the behaviour of the Jewish people over the last 60 years in bringing about this situation. This is at leats a glimmer of hope that a wrong is being recognised.
Also the term self-hating Jew is being used to silence debate about the very role of Jewry in promoting peace.
The fact is that the same old names are up to their tricks in the media and here and even here there is the smears of it wouldn’t be so anti-semtic if.. Face it criticising Israel isn’t anti-semitic.
The simple fact is that if the diaspora won’t criticise Israel when it needs criticising and only willing to provide praise then the diaspora is more anti-Israel than those that are critical because in the long term all they are doing is killing Israel but not askign it to check its behaviour.
The fact really is that simple.
The hysterics when someone criticises Israel simply means that they want to keep the status quo and are happy with the squalor and pain on both sides whilst this madness continues.
What is worse is they don’t have to live through the pain that people have.
Equally those same people will attack the Palestinians on all issues thus having the mantra it is one rule for them and one for us.
The massive problems Israel and the Palestinains face are caused by the fact that people won’t admit when they are wrong and thus both sides think they can win. They can’t and they won’t.
Is Israel a success without peace - no.
Is Palestine a success without peace - no.
So it is obvious what is needed.
JH wrote a brave and enlightened piece as have many others. Even right wing papers such JP in Israel are starting to publish such pieces such as the excellent piece in JP many weeks ago “Their Terrorism and ours”.
I’d say that Melanie, Dershowitz et al are a greater danger to Israel than anyone else because they are stifling debate and removing from Israel the checks and balances so vital to the stability and prosperity of any nation.
Why are they not described as Self-Hating Jews when they are polar opposites of every ideal that Jews and Judaism stand for?
Every Jew who speaks for the rights of Palestinans and dignity for that people is more of a Jew than those that hide behind the mantra of Israel is Right no matter what and it is the Israel is always right who are destroying Judaism and not those that speak out for the basic huimanity which is essential to the faith.
I’d ask every Jew who stands up for the rights of Israel why they won’t do so for the rights of Palestinains?
I’d ask every Jew who rightfully asks for the release of Gilat Shalit why they stay quiet about the hostages held without charge by Israel?
Why do I ask this? Because tomorrow as the power and population of the Muslim world grows the tables will turn and we as a people may be asking why the world isn’t speaking up for us when decades earlier we refused to speak up for those whose fate we were responsible for now.
We should aspire to the standrad we want others to hold for us.
It is tough to speak out against the grain but for the good of Israel, Jews and Judaism this needs to happen.
“digitalcntrl - Please at least try and keep this discussion in the current century?
What the speech of one grand mufti from the 1940s has to do with what the situation there now is beyond me. Else let’s just chuck everything and and kitchen sink into this discussion for the hell of it.
Regardless of what you think about the situation, the point here is about throwing around the word anti-semitic… or “like anti-semitic” or anything that implies smear by association, is becoming so regular its rather silly.”
It maybe from the 20th century but a large chunk of Hari’s article tries to de-legitimizie Israel today by accussing it of some kind of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinans in 1948. However I see nothing in the article about the actions of Palestinians during that time to balance that view as they were as burtal if not more than their opponents. I don’t have a problem being critical of Israel, I don’t regard that as anti-semitism. However perpetually needling Israel while giving the Palestinans a free pass as some oppressed angelic minority does reek of anti-semitism.
Well, Shuggy old man, you are not actually giving a rational arguement either, are you?
It’s rational alright - what you mean is that you don’t agree with it. That’s fair enough but to simply denounce it as ‘pathetic’ is, well, pathetic - especially when you’ve obviously (deliberately?) misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Everyone understands that there are those who count all criticism of Israel as anti-semitic - but it doesn’t follow that he is right. So he gets hate-mail in his inbox. Big deal. All journalists do. Most bloggers do to. I get a pile any time I suggest that Israel just possibly might not be the most demonic regime on the planet. I think I’m right about this obviously - but not because I get hate mail. I don’t know how to make the point any clearer than that.
gosh avi, i think i’ve seen a post of yours which i’m not going to object to!
b’shalom
bananabrain
I wonder how much hate mail Johann gets in his inbox for “jumping ship” from gentle but incensed pro-war types.
I agree with sociologist 100%. I’ve been to Israel a few times and have had the opportunity to see what the country is like. I have to say I am quite disappointed.
It is far from being a model of liberal democracy. It is an ETHNOCRACY. No other country gets away so lightly about occupying land illegally and treating the indigenous population with humiliation in the way Israel does. Saddam Hussein did it in Kuwait and within days the US and UK declared war on him, but Israel has been occupying the West Bank since 1967. Unless Israel makes some serious compromises I doubt any viable Palestinian state is possible.
Radical Jewish settlers continue to buy land belonging to Muslims and Christians with the help of the state, continuing the grand scheme of Judaising the country. Opportunities for non-Jewish people are less and they face blatant institutional discrimination. Getting a good job is much harder if you are not Jewish, and Christian and Muslim businesses are put out of business through very unfair and often arbitrary taxes. If people think this is a model of liberal democracy I wonder what planet they are living on.
In 1922 the Christian population of the Old City of Jerusalem was 52% but today it is only 2%. Christians are generally better educated than Muslims, so they are able to emigrate far more easily than Muslims. Today there are more Jerusalem born Christians in Sydney than there are in Jerusalem.
Israel does deserve criticism for its many human rights violations just like any other country. Simply crying “anti-Semitism” is all too easy but not helpful.
Shuggy,
It was this that I objected to:
Sure, there are idiots on both sides, no arguement.
But you are the one concluding that doesn’t mean he isn’t talking shite . You are not getting away with that without being challenged on it.
Do you have evidence that Johann Harri is just making stuff up? If so, present it. If not then your post is only explicable as a knee jerk.
Shuggy, you say: “So he gets hate-mail in his inbox. Big deal. All journalists do. Most bloggers do to. I get a pile any time I suggest that Israel just possibly might not be the most demonic regime on the planet.”
That’s not what he’s complaining about. He obviously gets hate-mail after every article as well. He is complaining that respectable publications like The Spectator and National Review compared him to Ahmadniejadh and Goebbels, said he believes in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and called him an anti-Semite. That is straightforwardly a smear. (Presumably you agree that it is a smear to say he believes in the Protocols when he has worked undercover to expose people who believe in the Protocols?)
There is a qualitiative difference between hate mail and orchestrated campaigns to outrageously smear somebody and get them sacked. That’s what I believe you are ignoring. It is worth pointing out and trying to shame the people involved.
and the vast majority of jews will find the scatological nature of his accusations indistinguishable from anti-semitism, especially now it has been linked to the well-poisoning libel.
Look, many Muslims also think the coverage of the terrorist atrocities in Britain were an attempt to make them all sound like terrorists. Does that mean all of the coverage was Islamohpbic or that the coverage should not take place?
I’d be happier if you addressed this issue more consistently, and taking into account other issues too. Just because you think most Jews would equate this with anti-semitic literature is neither here nor there. A lot of the stuff the Spectator and Daily Mail have published around Muslims sounds blindly similar to what the BNP publishes. Are they all Nazis?
my point was only that the way he is addressing this issue does nothing to help the palestinians and only increases the amount of self-righteous posturing that this issue normally provokes.
Your ire then should surely also be equally directed at Jews in Britain who try and shut down any criticism of Israel? Because without an honest discussion of what is going on there, you only have polarisation and shouting matches. No?
of course not, that’s not what i’m saying. what i’m saying is that i don’t think he’s big and clever, i think in fact he’s a rather horrid little man and by the way he has raised this issue he has made 100% sure that it will be ignored and filed straight into the anti-semitism bucket. he’s an angry idiot. angry people are the last thing this needs.
look, i take your point but i think the way these people write about muslims is equally stupid, biased and counterproductive. is that consistent enough for you?
at what point was i not equally fed up with jews who do that? why do you think i’m so interested in promoting intra-communal discussion, sunny? are you expecting me to put a disclaimer at the bottom of every post to the effect that “oh, by the way, mel phillips is a rabble-rouser”? feck’s sake, man you should know me better by now. unfortunately, the discussion of this subject has its own stale smell of faeces as the same old toxic viewpoints get recycled and recycled and dumped all over again.
b’shalom
bananabrain
“my point was only that the way he is addressing this issue does nothing to help the palestinians”
Honestly and bluntly describing what is happening to them doesn’t help them? I think it does. And I think most Palestinians would agree with me.
Bananabrain on Johann Hari
12/05/08
“what i’m saying is that i don’t think he’s big and clever, i think in fact he’s a rather horrid little man and by the way he has raised this issue he has made 100% sure that it will be ignored and filed straight into the anti-semitism bucket.”
03/04/2008
“hehe, i do enjoy johann hari when he’s having a go at someone i dislike. he can be splendidly splenetic.”
Now if it were up to Shuggy, you’d be regarded as being “intellectually unreliable”.
look, i take your point but i think the way these people write about muslims is equally stupid, biased and counterproductive. is that consistent enough for you?
Its not consistent enough because you’re not taking it to its logical conclusion. Should people not write about Muslims? Shoudl every article about Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women or gays be accompanied by some glowing platitudes?
feck’s sake, man you should know me better by now.
I do, which is why I’m not questioning your motives but asking what others in the same situation should be doing.
You say you find Johann to be a nasty man. I’m assuming this is because of his previous writing. So I’m assuming you understand why Muslims are so hostile to the mainstream press and orgs because of their similar reception in the media?
Heh I like that term…
peter:
it does nothing to help the palestinians because it does nothing to engage the israelis and give them a stake in changing the situation - all it does is demonise them.
sid & leon:
it is not “intellectually unreliable” to enjoy a bit of invective now and again, particularly when you are not in the firing line. i enjoy dawkins and hitchens too when they’re being splenetic. however, i think dawkins is also a quixotic, blinkered bigot and i think hitchens is an overblown, bullying ignoramus. doesn’t stop me enjoying their prose. i think hari is a pompous, prating prima donna but he certainly raises a giggle from time to time. by the same token i enjoy the work of brian sewell, for example, without feeling that i have to agree with him about everything. i happen to like invective. didn’t you ever enjoy watching people getting their comeuppance?
sunny:
if you find me something about saudi arabia about which i can approve then i will approve of it. as yet nobody has provided anything. lovely weather, perhaps.
as for not writing about muslims, i am by no means arguing that offence should never be given, you should certainly know me better than that, but i just feel that this was a particularly hateful low blow at israel and i have just seen one too many of those recently.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Locating anti-racists in the Four Wars Theory
It’s getting so you can’t even point out that there’s antisemitism in the world without getting accused of conspiring to smear every critic of Israel with shit.
The sad fact is, organisations like HR, Camera and nutjobs like Melanie Phillips only end up polarising people when it comes to this debate and in effect making real anti-semitism even harder to highlight because the phrase loses its meaning.
No, Sunny, the sad fact is that you’re trying to disrupt any discussion of what is antisemitism. You don’t have the authority to tell anyone else what is or isn’t “real antisemitism.”
“No, Sunny, the sad fact is that you’re trying to disrupt any discussion of what is antisemitism. You don’t have the authority to tell anyone else what is or isn’t “real antisemitism.””
This is nonsense people do have a right to say what is and isn’t anti-semitism when it is stifling legitimate debate.
bananabrain, it wasn’t an attack on you or anything, I just liked the term. There’s a few people I know it’s perfectly suited for…:D
No, Avi. The problem is that debate is going the way you want it to because other people have other ideas of what’s important to discuss. So, to stifle the discussion other people want to have, you claim they’re stifling debate. In the linked article, I talked about something I think is a fundamental principle of anti-racism: You just plain don’t dismiss accusations of racism out of hand. That sort of dismissal is what you’re arguing for, to exclude certain people from the discussion because they have a different idea of antisemitism than you do. But if you pay attention rather than dismissing, funny things happen.
No you don’t get it you said that Sunny doesn’t have the authority to say what is and what isn’t real anti-semitism.
Hence by limiting who can decide you are limting the debate.
That is what I replied to when I said that people such as Sunny do have a right to say what is and what isn’t real antisemitism.
I am not the one excluding people - I said he has a right to say what he thinks is and isn’t anti-semitism.
I’ve had plenty of arguments with him and in this case I back his right to speak out.
You’re the one saying he doesn’t have that right.
I didn’t say anyone can’t participate in a discussion, Avi. But participating in a discussion is different from what’s happening here.
You said- “You don’t have the authority to tell anyone else what is or isn’t “real antisemitism.””
You’re talking about authority to state opinions which is limiting his right to discuss.
If you want to get the discussion back on track then possibly the best way is to address the issue at the start
Yes the disuccion is going another way but that happens in many discussions about other groups.
How do Jews and Muslims talk to each other and how do both sides contribute positively towards peace in the Middle East thus ending the pain and suffering on all sides.
How does the Jewish Diaspora deal with the disgraceful smearing of people who are critical of Israel but by no means antisemitic. It is a real and serious issue.
ignoblus,
I have looked at your blog.
I would like to ask you why Johann Hari’s comment about raw effluent being distributed willy nilly on the West Bank allegedly by settlers, is conflated with a collapsed sewer in Gaza? These, it seems to me, are two different stories.
In any event, I have a real difficulty understanding why Hari reporting what he had seen and it being discussed here in any way whatsoever limits debate.
Are we supposed to just ignore the issue? Pretend it isn’t happening, or what?
Avi, I think I addressed a lot of that already.
Douglas, see Hari’s first article for the bit about Gaza. There might be two separate issues around, but he conflates them. And I’m not saying that that earlier article limits debate. I’m complaining about the sort of dismissals we get here, in this post, and in Hari’s subsequent article. Especially when Hari starts talking about campaigns, as if it was an organized Jewish plot.
Are we supposed to just ignore the issue?
Which issue? If you’re talking about the conditions of the Palestinians, no I’m not saying anyone should ignore it. But I am saying we should be careful not to introduce antisemitic themes into our writing, and we should expect (even welcome) criticism that helps us to do that. More importantly, I am saying that stuff like this post in which Hundal attacks people for trying to address antisemitism (even if they’re bad at it) is entirely inappropriate. It doesn’t further debate, it stifles debate. And when he says ‘those other people are polarizing everything’ he needs to think about how he writes a little more.
ignoblus - that’s an interesting post but I have a few quibbles. You say:
For instance, the film Bruce Almighty followed in quite a tradition of using blacks in the role of the Magical, Mystical Negro: always the sidekick, present in the movie only to help the white protagonist.
The problem is you’re using broad strokes too. Some people might see that as a step up (blacks as presidents, blacks as god) and some might see it sterotypical. Similarly, if you’re then confronted with a black person as the main protagonist or the main villain, you can put them into stereotypical boxes too. There is a box for everyone. How do you avoid it?
Or to put it another way, as I said here recently. If a white girl says she fancies brown boys, is that a colonial attitude? And if a brown boy says he has a thing for white girls, is that reverse colonialism or simply his blood rushing to his penis?
How do you differentiate between the two?
How are you differentiating between real and ‘fake anti-semitism’ here? And if any criticism of Israel should be seen as possibly anti-semitic because it falls into previous narratives, then does that mean there should be no criticism at all?
Its like I asked bananabrain - who I have a lot of respect for - how does that line of thinking apply to other minorities who also feel they are being unfairly demonised in the media?
ignoblus,
Okay. I think. But, what about the anti anti semites? The folk Sunny lists:
HR,
Camera, and
Melanie Phillips.
Are they not also attempting to stifle debate, basically by not responding to the issue(s) at hand and attacking the messenger instead?
If the only response to what is, at the very least, a public health issue, is to shout anti-semite at anyone who raises it, is rational discussion not seriously debased?
Sunny,
The problem is you’re using broad strokes too. Some people might see that as a step up (blacks as presidents, blacks as god) and some might see it sterotypical… How do you avoid it?
I think you pay attention to how people affected by the portrayal see things. In the case of Bruce Almighty, I didn’t know any black people who liked it. On the other hand, I expect Morgan Freeman saw it differently. It’s okay that there’s more than one way to understand it. Nobody has to nail down a definitive answer -and a film is certainly capable of simultaneously containing contradicting ideas- that’s what discussion is all about.
But damned if I’m going to tell any black person that their offense is wrong or, worse, manufactured. I suppose I might have some pointed questions, but I’ll avoid any blanket dismissals. If someone tells me something feels like racism to them, I’m going to take them at their word that it affects them that way even if I think there’s a bit of slippage in their attributions. As best I can, which isn’t always quite on.
douglas,
There may be many, many problems with their work. It’s terrible and terribly common that I’ve seen that people try to fight antisemitism with Islamophobia. Certainly Phillips’ article engages in enough rabid ad hominem, that I can see why no one would want to engage with her. But there’s a real problem when the thing you criticize them for is, as it is here, attempting to criticize antisemitism. Especially recognizing that they might be sincerely upset about a lot of very real antisemitism around.
Maybe there are a few people out there who are truly disingenuous, but if you think that’s common, that probably says more about you than about them.
ignoblus,
You said:
I don’t think that that is necessarily true. I’d imagine that the vast majority of people on this planet don’t really care that much about the I/P issue. Strange as it may seem, no-one is obliged to “take sides” in this mess. It would, however, be good if those that have taken a side were able to discuss issues with their opposite numbers without it, almost inevitably it seems to me, degenerating into a slagging match.
On the issue of the potentially dangerous practice of just dumping shit on other folks land, with the possibility that it could poison their drinking water, would it not be more to the point to deal with the issue rather than run to the ‘blood libel’ handbook?
I think both sides have given too much scope to propogandists, and I see no easy way out of it. Sure, there are bad things, ridiculous things even, said by both sides about the other. But when the only response is to react in kind, I despair, I really do….
Whenever I try to mouth these words, a remembered smell fills my nostrils. It is the smell of shit. Across the occupied West Bank, raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish settlements, along large metal pipes, straight onto Palestinian land. From there, it can enter the groundwater and the reservoirs, and become a poison.
Unsurprisingly, the nutjobs who shriek anytime anything negative is written about Israel started screaming that Hari must be anti-semitic because he said Israel smelled like shit.
No, he didn’t: he said shit smelled like shit, with the implication that only in the privacy of our bathrooms or wherever we might change nappies do those of us in more civilized places get to smell shit, leading to the conclusion that raw sewage and indifference to its consequences outweigh women’s and gay rights.
I don’t think this is the red rag to the bulls. That I think is the citation of Plan Dalit and charge that Israel ‘ethnically cleansed’ nearly a million people.
Under the UN Partition Plan the Jews got 55% but not particularly the best bits. For what was arable and such like see Wikipedia. MidEast Web is a site the position of which is essentially ‘a plague on both your houses’ and which attempts at great and painstaking length to establish the facts: ‘Each side believes different versions of the same history. Each side views the conflict as wholly the fault of the other and expects an apology.’
Population of Ottoman and Mandate Palestine
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm
ignoblus:
But damned if I’m going to tell any black person that their offense is wrong or, worse, manufactured. I suppose I might have some pointed questions, but I’ll avoid any blanket dismissals. If someone tells me something feels like racism to them
I’m not disagreeing with you here but that wasn’t my question. Take another example - East is East. I have Pakistani friends who loved it and some who hated it. Who is to say what is the right portrayal of Pakistanis? I don’t. I disagree with my mate who hated but thats just me. There are other examples where people see Goodness Gracious Me as awful, and lots who liked it.
There are a few points to be made on this and I’d like to ask whether you agree or disagree:
1) Some people may find a piece of writing or portryal offensive, as is the case with East is East, Bruce Almighty, GGM and writing about Israel. They may see it as racist. Fine.
Do you then argue that because some find it racist, it should not be written?
2) Assuming you’re not arguing there should be censorship because some find it offensive. But those who find it offensive find that by constantly hurling the accusation of racist, they can ensure it goes into self-censorship or shut down debate.
Case in example - the portrayal of Muslims in the arts, or the case of Muslim paedophiles (which the media didn’t want to cover because of accusation of racism).
Do you then argue against those throwing those accusations of racism and argue for the piece of writing/ play/article be allowed to go ahead, or do you agree it should be shut down?
You also didn’t answer this question earlier:
“And if any criticism of Israel should be seen as possibly anti-semitic because it falls into previous narratives, then does that mean there should be no criticism at all?”
“It maybe from the 20th century but a large chunk of Hari’s article tries to de-legitimizie Israel today by accussing it of some kind of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinans in 1948. However I see nothing in the article about the actions of Palestinians during that time to balance that view as they were as burtal if not more than their opponents. I don’t have a problem being critical of Israel, I don’t regard that as anti-semitism. However perpetually needling Israel while giving the Palestinans a free pass as some oppressed angelic minority does reek of anti-semitism.”
Digitalcntrl takes back the last sentence in his previous post. I think anti-semitism is being used a little too freely these days. It should only mean hate/prejudice against Jews not criticism of Israel. However, in many parts of the muslim world the two are the same thing.
That being said. Although Hari’s article should not be considered anti-semitic it is certainly unbalanced. He accuses the Jewish leadership of planning and executing a ethnic cleansing (forced eviction) of the Palestinians while ignoring the Palestinan leaderships’ willingness to do alot worse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtNAcCXYK6M
To put the vid in comment 54 into context…
Mohammad Amin al-Husayni a Palestinian and Arab nationalist and a Muslim leader in the British Mandate of Palestine. Al-Husayni was also the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem over the period from 1921 to 1948.
Do you then argue that because some find it racist, it should not be written? I argue that one should try to be sensitive and respectful. Yes, that does often make writing some things a lot more effortful. And some things seem impossible to write that way. I’ve no problem with imposing that standard. Most of the things that are impossible to write while trying to be sensitive to minorities probably ought not to be written.
(Are Muslims paedophiles more often than others? What’s the reason some people want such an article written? If there’s a legitimate reason, there’s a way to write it. Anti-racism isn’t pretending that minorities are above reproach. That always backfires, anyway.)
More than that, though, we shouldn’t try to marginalize anti-racist criticism. The effect is to marginalize the groups that would criticize.
But those who find it offensive find that by constantly hurling the accusation of racist, they can ensure it goes into self-censorship or shut down debate. I wouldn’t suggest that there’s such an either/or. In fact, most of the people who claim to be silenced or stifled are anything but. I find the turning of a discussion of antisemitism into an interrogation of Jews to be offensive. There are other ways to have a discussion, even with someone who is upset and frustrated over racism.
You write that you don’t disagree with something I wrote above, about being careful to not overstep one’s authority. I think that taking that seriously, discussion has an entirely different feel. On the other hand, while you say you don’t disagree, this post takes an incompatible tack.
Most of the things that are impossible to write while trying to be sensitive to minorities probably ought not to be written.
So we can’t write about Muslim terrorists?
And also, if why can’t we write about Israel over the Palestinians? By that I mean, by taking the side of one over the other, you inevitably annoy a minority. How do you choose which minority you are willing to annoy and which one you don’t want to annoy through self-censorship?
Anti-racism isn’t pretending that minorities are above reproach. That always backfires, anyway.
Exactly my point.
Look I don’t disagree that we should write things sensitively to ensure that people aren’t annoyed. But there are certain things that will annoy people - that’s inevitable.
For example, Israelis say they are the victims of attacks by Hamas and other terrorist organisations, while Palestinians claim they are the victims of being being denied self-determination and having their movements severely restricted. Which is the victim and which is the aggressor? How would you write something that would not annoy either side?
digital - spare us the history lesson, please. Its getting boring.
bananabrain: “if you find me something about saudi arabia about which i can approve then i will approve of it. as yet nobody has provided anything. lovely weather, perhaps.”
Ummm… I’m not sure if you’re being facetious or not.
ignoblus: a few more points:
I’ve no problem with imposing that standard.
Who imposes that standard?
Most of the things that are impossible to write while trying to be sensitive to minorities probably ought not to be written.
What if a minority themselves is writing something of their own experience, or trying to expose something nasty from within their own community? And other minorities find that offensive? Still shouldn’t be written?
The key point about what Hariri said was that anyone writing a critical artical about Israel is accussed of anti-semitism by a minority of Jews who don’t like to see criticism of Israel. Equally many of those same Jews will call Jews who speak up for Palestinians Self-Hating Jews.
Many excelent articles have been written about this but only recently is this being taken seriously.
Thus some unsavoury tactics are being used to stop criticism of Israel.
As I said earlier this is actually going against what is starting to happen in Israel where some critical and acclaimed pieces are being written regarding how the Palestinians have been treated.
However for everyone arguing and it is only a few here that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic I would remind everyone that in Israel and amongst American Jewry there is also an opinion - gaining some ground - that peace won’t be achieved and Israel needs to manage the war thus keeping this mad situation going and building more settlements etc.
If Israel isn’t held to checks and balances by World Jewry then Israel is in the long term finished and any chance of becoming a participant in the region and world will disappear.
Why do I say this well any nation allowed to go down this road cannot possibly survive such excesses as the time will come when the world won’t turn a blind eye due to overwhelming pressure but at that point changing the mentality of people is much more difficult.
Thus World Jewry and people of the world have a role to play in checking the behaviour of nations and peoples. This concept applies as well to the Palestinians as they begin down the road of peace.
Thus smearing critics of Israel with accusations of anti-semitism harms World Jewry and Israel. It makes Judaism appear as an uncaring and bigoted religion which cares only about its own. With such a small population of Jews worldwide anyhow even amongst Jews this will cause followers to re-evaluate the human rights and dignity to their fellow man amongst Jews thus harming the future perception of Judaism. Judaism like other major faiths is also about the care and dignity of fellow humans - this is why Moses preached to the pharoah.
How is this situation to be addressed? World Jewry needs to reach out to other faiths especially Muslims and build bridges, Muslims need to do likewise.
Israelis and Palestinians need to build bridges and projects that bring about peace, harmony and co-existance. Improving the Palestinian economy brings benfits to Israel and Palestine. Joint business parks and ventures is a good way to begin. Israel needs to allow the Palestinian Economy to grow thus keeping people away from extremism.
Both sides need to begin programmes to share experiences and towrads mutual understanding.
Cultural exchanges need to begin and common values emphasised.
Humanity needs to return to both sets of people.
In this way we avoid going down the ever dangerous road both are heading down.
To do this requires recognition of rights and for the diaspora of both communities to provide checks and balances to ensure that bounds are not exceeded.
In order to do all this requires both sides to stop shrieking excessively when they are rightfully criticised.
In the case of Israel - Hariri was referring to the wild shrieks of anti-semitism which are put out whenever anyone exposes a wrong by Israel. Melanie shrieked at his article that because of him two Jews were assulted in the UK - the point she made was never proven but the accusation stuck. In order to work towards piece inthe region what Hariri and many Jewish voices are saying is this wild shrieking approach needs to stop and wrongs need to be highlighted.
This benefits Israel because it can work towards stopping this and it benefits World Jewry because it stops anti-semitism by halting linkage with events in the region.
It is simple enough and it isn’t something that Jews are afraid of but a small minority who are not interested in promoting reconciliation are driving people away from criticism.
self criticism is the one sign of a healthy society
“digital - spare us the history lesson, please. Its getting boring.”
So what, we should examine this issue in a vaccum? Our sensitivity to anti-semitism comes to us because of what happened in the 20th century, lest we forget.
digitalcntrl - It shouldn’t be discussed in a vacumn nor should all criticism be smeared with the label of anti-semitism to halt debate. That is unhealthy and doesn’t help Judaism.
What happened in terms of the holocaust shouldn’t be used to halt legitimate criticism of the actions of Israel not should it be used as a barrier to build community relations.
If Hariri or anyone writes a legitimate article criticising Israel or the Palestinians should either community hide behind smears?
No.
Further such discussions are taking place within Israel so why is there a need to allow Melanie to smear those who have those discussions here?
Equally what then gives Melanie Phillips and Alan Dershowitz the right to criticise the actions of the Palestinians?
Religion - any religion has to be a force for good for all and to contribute towards a just society. That is the ideals upon which religion is founded and upon which Judaism and Islam are founded. Yet the people aren’t living up to or indeed following those ideals.
Indeed whilst you point to the events of the 20th Century a fair number of the survivors of the holocaust campaign for rights of the Palestinians for the very ideal that they don’t want another people - their neighbours to suffer indignity and they want them to have full rights.
No community should be above having its actions checked and balanced by the wider community if those actions need criticising.
“digitalcntrl - It shouldn’t be discussed in a vacumn nor should all criticism be smeared with the label of anti-semitism to halt debate. That is unhealthy and doesn’t help Judaism.
What happened in terms of the holocaust shouldn’t be used to halt legitimate criticism of the actions of Israel not should it be used as a barrier to build community relations.
If Hariri or anyone writes a legitimate article criticising Israel or the Palestinians should either community hide behind smears?
No.”
/ agree
I have nothing against criticizing Israel. In fact our media (in the US) needs a lot more of it. But all I see among left wingers is constant diatribe against Israel while giving far more serious crimes little or no attention. What is pumping shit improperly compared to the genocide (a real one) in darfur? How many people protested/complained when the Taliban took Mazar-e-Sharif in 98 and went on a six day killing frenzy? Lets get our priorites straight.
So we can’t write about Muslim terrorists? I see no reason why it’s impossible to write about Muslim terrorism while trying to be sensitive to Muslims.
But we’re not even close to such a case are we? Are you claiming Hari’s column was an example of “trying to be sensitive”? No, it wasn’t. Not even close. At best, he was trying to be provocative.
You avoided most of my questions and points ignblus.
“But all I see among left wingers is constant diatribe against Israel while giving far more serious crimes little or no attention. What is pumping shit improperly compared to the genocide (a real one) in darfur? How many people protested/complained when the Taliban took Mazar-e-Sharif in 98 and went on a six day killing frenzy? Lets get our priorites straight.”
All of those issues are being addressed but saying that pumping sh*t isn’t the same as Darfur really ignores the reality of daily life for civilians in I/P and it is a situation that hasn’t been addressed for 50 years.
Pumping sh*t as you put it without control affects people’s lives by spreading disease, limiting safe water supply, destroying fertile land and so forth. It isn’t a straight forward issue.
Should the world ignore the issue of Israelis and Palestinian because Darfur is worse? Is resolution of suffering based upon a league table.
The world needs to be able to address issues including all of the ones you mentioned.
Has the Muslim World been found wanting on the issue of Darfur - hell yes but does that mean other issues should lose focus - hell no. The issues of Darfur and I/P are important issues and people need to courage to address them for the betterment of us all.
“All of those issues are being addressed but saying that pumping sh*t isn’t the same as Darfur really ignores the reality of daily life for civilians in I/P and it is a situation that hasn’t been addressed for 50 years.
Pumping sh*t as you put it without control affects people’s lives by spreading disease, limiting safe water supply, destroying fertile land and so forth. It isn’t a straight forward issue.
Should the world ignore the issue of Israelis and Palestinian because Darfur is worse? Is resolution of suffering based upon a league table.
The world needs to be able to address issues including all of the ones you mentioned.
Has the Muslim World been found wanting on the issue of Darfur - hell yes but does that mean other issues should lose focus - hell no. The issues of Darfur and I/P are important issues and people need to courage to address them for the betterment of us all.”
Thread is getting a bit intense for me : )…
Any case I will leave it that I have no problem criticising Israel. My gripe is only that too many of those who attack Israel view this conflict in the stereotypical Israel is the big bad wolf oppressing poor little Palestininas mold.
All of your questions and points, Sunny, seem to be based on the idea that what I’m calling for is more than it is. Like I said, I don’t think it’s impossible to write about Muslim terrorism while being sensitive to Muslim concerns. Your points seem to follow from the assumption that there are things of vital interest that can’t be written about with sensitivity. I don’t buy that.
“But all I see among left wingers is constant diatribe against Israel while giving far more serious crimes little or no attention. What is pumping shit improperly compared to the genocide (a real one) in darfur?”
Hari has been to Darfur to report on what is happening there. And to Congo, and the Central African Republic, and Iraq… I could go on. You can’t try that tactic; he criticises both. You should acknowledge here that was a bogus point.
“Hari has been to Darfur to report on what is happening there. And to Congo, and the Central African Republic, and Iraq… I could go on. You can’t try that tactic; he criticises both. You should acknowledge here that was a bogus point.”
Nice try but I never said that there wasn’t any support for Darfur, merely that given its far more serious situation its gets far less attention than it deserves compared to the I/P conflict. Its no secret that the I/P issue has been beaten to death for the past 60+ years, Darfur, as well numerous other similar problems around the globe, seem more like the flavor of the month. Does darfur, saddam’s gassing of the Kurds, the taliban’s sacking of Mazar-e-Sharif evoke the same level or even any outrage among the left compared to the I/P issue? As far as I know the IDF does not go around raping Palestinian women, slaughtering whole villages, and behaving the way Genghis Khan did in the 1300s.
Besides my comment you quoted was directed to the left in general not Hari specifically. My issues with his article are ones of balance in the diescription of both sides.