Perhaps surprisingly, this article on perceived antisemitism at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies is good for a laugh, thanks to the author’s unique personal style.
My favourite bit is the one where:
a) the SOAS student union has a vote on whether to make Ken Livingstone their honorary president;
b) the author stands up and objects on the grounds because he dementedly believes Livingstone to be antisemitic;
c) people on the other side suggest that the author has been fooled by the Zionist conspiracy to damage the mayor;
d) the author laments the way that these terrible bigots have dragged Middle Eastern politics into a debate that was supposed to be about electing a local politician to the student union.
Self aware, this man isn’t.
Less humorously, he’s also been part of the group of lying bullshitters that led a Muslim student to be disciplined (and have a particularly halfwitted MP raise the possibility of an incitement to racial hatred charge) for writing an article on Palestinians’ right to violently resist Israeli occupation. (via)
Heh heh heh:
"The Director has effectively assisted Sharon’s side of the Middle East conflict and is unrepentant about this."
Yeah, that’s the big fight in the Middle East, all right: the Israelis and Palestinians just can’t agree about which papers should be published in British universities. Sharon must be thrilled at this latest victory.
Sure, Amin is also being a bit shrill and paranoid – on the other hand, since he’s at risk of being kicked out of uni and has had the idea of jailing him floated in Parliament, his paranoia would appear a little more grounded than Gross’s…
Actually, it strikes me that the reason that this case has been taken up by rightists and pro-Israelis is that they regard the ideological battle on campus as crucial. Israel has lost a huge amount of international support in recent years, and confluently its have attempted to undermine the possibilities for serious debate.
The contre-temps in Colombia University are a larger scale example of what is taking place. I suggest that the intimidation at Soas is precisely replicating the neo-McCarthyite hysteria that has been launched in the US by such groups as Campus Watch and its founder, the ignorant Orientalist, Daniel Pipes.
"confluently its have" should read "confluently its supporters have".
"Colombia University" also probably ought to read something else as well.
Anyone got a link to Amin’s paper?
Is this the Lenin who seems to think murdering Israeli settlers kids is OK because they’ll all grow up to be terrorists?
A real classy "via" you’ve got there john b, real classy.
Anyone got a link to Amin’s paper?
Lenin,
Yeah, when a cinderblock is chucked through the window of the Jewish chapel, the words "FUCK JEWS" are graffittied nearby, and Swatikas and the words "Die, Juden" are spray-painted in lecture halls, anyone who complains is a neo-McCarthyite.
How the Left have lost their way. Or possibly refound it.
Hang on a second, I have a dizzyingly familiar feeling that I’m being misrepresented.
Morgan – Irony, m’dear. I wasn’t actually suggesting that killing any kids is okay. It distinctly is not. It’s a very wicked and bad thing to do. I’m so sorry to have to waste time pointing out the obvious, but you’ve obviously just trickled in here from that ‘popinjay’ site.
Squander Two – Don’t be silly. Trying to stultify academic freedom has *nothing* to do with fighting anti-Semitism. Nasser Amin is not an anti-Semite, however much you may disagree with his views. He doesn’t deserve this treatment, and the way Joseph Massad has been treated is disgraceful.
Now, if you want to organise and act against the people desecrating Jewish cemeteries and buildings, then I’m with you. If, on the other hand, your main concern is to imply guilt by association, smear, insinuate, and make invidious claims about ‘the Left’, then I’ve got no sympathy for you.
> Nasser Amin is not an anti-Semite, however much you may disagree with his views.
I have no idea whether I disagree with his views or whether he’s a Jew-hater, because I’ve not read his paper; all I’ve read is a report that says it wasn’t antisemitic and provides zero quotes. I can find reports that say that David Irving’s writings aren’t antisemitic. Hence my asking for a link to the paper itself.
When someone disparages complaints about Jew-hatred in American universities and implies that it’s all hysteria being cooked up by pesky Zionists, I tend to assume that they’re talking about this sort of thing, because they usually are. If you’re not, then fair enough, and I apologise for my misunderstanding. However, I still notice the sequence: violence builds up against Jews in US universities; Campus Watch is formed to combat that violence; you complain that Campus Watch "launched" "hysteria", implying both that they caused the problem and that their fears are unreasonable. See, I happen to think that German laws banning Nazi speech and insignias may be misguided but are completely forgivable, considering why they arose. Until Campus Watch start beating people up, I’ll be on their side for the same reason.
"ubiquitous chant at European soccer matches — leveled at London and Rotterdam teams perceived as having Jewish roots — is "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas."
‘Ubiquitous’? They need either a dictionary or a fact checker. Or they are lying. I have no doubt that this has been chanted. That does not make it ubiquitous.
Campus Watch should not pretend that it is simply exposing bias in middle-eastern studies. It exposes a select few kinds of bias, that against Israel and/or the US, and it should say so. For a website that claims to be a champion for accuracy, do you really think that this is an accurate description of Campus Watch:
"CAMPUS WATCH, a project of the Middle East Forum, reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them. The project mainly addresses five problems: analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students. Campus Watch fully respects the freedom of speech of those it debates while insisting on its own freedom to comment on their words and deeds."
They do remind me of Accuracy in Academia:
http://www.academia.org/
These spend all their time moaning about the lack of conservative scholars in American universities. Unfortunately, their main patrons write pig-ignorant shit (and some has to be seen to be believed) at Newsmax and the like. Not the kind of people anyone should want inside the academy.
Ironically enough, the only European team that’s been documented making the Hamas chant is Feyenoord. Presumably the reporter deliberately missed this detail out because she knows that Feyenoord fans tend to be white and right-wing (the club’s chants also idolise Pim Fortujn for his anti-Muslim thuggery).
Not quite true: Den Haag , fans too, in a slightly different context.
Sqander Two – I doubt that Campus Watch is genuinely interested in combatting anti-Semitism. From what I can see, it seems to be a propaganda outfit devoted to intimidating pro-Palestinian academics.
However, I’ll leave that point to linger. I referred to two specific incidences of what might justly be called neo-McCarthyism. Against Nasser Amin and against Joseph Massad. Neither is an anti-Semite, and neither is guilty of the things they have been accused of. They have been picked on by Zionists – yes, actual Zionists, who may or may not be Jewish – because of their support for Palestine.
I didn’t imply anywhere that anti-Semitism should not be fought wherever it emerges. So yes, you did misunderstand, completely.
Not sure that the Haag one really counts – it’s not very pleasant to suggest one should gas the ref, but if he’s not Jewish then it’s hardly antisemitic.
Squander 2,
in your blog commenter Cruella recently said Does seem that all the right-wing blogs are up in arms about Zimbabwe. Would that be because the asylum seekers in this case are supporters of the exiled white community?
To which you replied: may I just respond to your implication that right-wing equals racist by (a) asking you to find a racist quote from me, from anywhere at all, and (b) accusing you of supporting North Korea in their righteous struggle against the imperialist South? After all, left-wing equals juche.
Now you say when a cinderblock is chucked through the window of the Jewish chapel, the words "FUCK JEWS" are graffittied nearby, and Swatikas and the words "Die, Juden" are spray-painted in lecture halls, anyone who complains is a neo-McCarthyite.
How the Left have lost their way. Or possibly refound it.
In the first generalisation ("left-wing equals juche") you were being ironic to make a (fair) point.
Are you (a) also being ironic in the second generalisation (the clear implication that "left-wing"="neo-Nazi-apologist")? If so, what is the point behind the irony? Or (b) am I (as a left-winger) entitled to ask you to provide me with a single example of neo-Nazi-apologism from my blog, and then to (ironically) accuse you of supporting, say, the National Alliance?
Just wondering.
> I doubt that Campus Watch is genuinely interested in combatting anti-Semitism.
Do you? Gosh.
> Neither is an anti-Semite, and neither is guilty of the things they have been accused of.
Oo, you’ve said it again. Go on, keep saying that he’s not an antisemite; the more you say it, the more convinced I become. Or you could provide a link to his paper.
> They have been picked on by Zionists – yes, actual Zionists, who may or may not be Jewish – because of their support for Palestine.
My God! Zionists! Actual Zionists! Run for the hills!
I see nothing wrong with Zionism. I’m with Martin Luther King on this one. Anti-Zionism is based on denying a right to Jews that you would never deny to any other race.
"Support for Palestine", I find, usually means "support for the killing of innocent Jewish civilians by Palestinians." Why on Earth would anyone in their right mind support Palestine? It’s a geographical region. Supporting Palestinians makes a lot more sense. And that’s an important distinction, because the PA fight for Palestine in the same way that the Kremlin fought for Czechoslovakia.
Larry,
I imagine Cruella’s capable of defending herself (or hope so, if she’s wanting a career in stand-up), but you have half a fair point. There is a difference.
Cruella’s comment was the first on my post, she made an implication about right-wing bloggers, so her comment was clearly aimed at me — if it wasn’t, what was her point? My comment clearly wasn’t aimed at you, so anything on your blog is irrelevant, really.
Mine was a glib throwaway line, and an overgeneralisation, and an insult, expressing my exasperation at the constant background Jew-hatred I witness on the Left these days. No matter what anti-Jew action you see these days, up to and including murder, someone on the Left will defend or justify it. Every. Bloody. Time. It’s pissing me off.
Cruella’s comment, on the other hand, demonstrated an underlying attitude. She expressed an inability to think of any reason why any right-winger might support Zimbabwean asylum-seekers except that Mugabe has also attacked whites.
Nasser Amin’s paper, according to the linked report, defended the "morality of Palestinian resistance", which is a popular euphemism for "killing all Israelis and any Jews we happen to bump into outside Israel, too." Until someone shows me the text of his paper so I can see some more detail, it looks like he wrote about how it’s OK to target innocent civilians, as long as they’re Jewish. Predictably enough, who are the Left criticising? Amin? No, he’s a victim of a Zionist conspiracy. For fuck’s sake.
"an inability to think of any reason why any right-winger might support Zimbabwean asylum-seekers except that Mugabe has also attacked whites."
I don’t think that this is the case. I imagine there a plenty of reasons why A right-winger might support Zimbabwean asylum-seekers except that Mugabe has also attacked whites. However, you are going to have to come up with a pretty sophisticated argument for why the right-wing establishment – the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Conservative Party, etc. – are supporting this group of asylum-seekers with such vigour, when refugees from Somalia, Congo, Algeria, Kosovo etc. tend to be on the receiving end of a ‘send the buggers back’ campaign of equal energy, if you are not to rely on the confication of white Zimbabwean’s land. Especially when these white Zimbabweans mix in the same upper-class social circles as members of this right-wing establishment.
"Support for Palestine", I find, usually means "support for the killing of innocent Jewish civilians by Palestinians." What utter shit. So Nasser Amin’s paper defended the morality of the Palestinian resistance. This does not necessarily mean the support of the deliberate killing of Jewish civilians. S2, are any resistance movements legitimate? Have any ever been? If you accept that a single one was legitimate, then you must concede the logical possibility of writing a paper defending the morality of the Palestinian resistance that is not in itself immoral. This is true even if, on examination, the paper turns out to be an incoherent argument. That does not make his paper anti-semitic. That makes is a poor paper.
I suppose, incidentally, that support for Israel will receive the same short shrift you reserve for support for Palestine?
> you are going to have to come up with a pretty sophisticated argument for why the right-wing establishment – the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Conservative Party, etc. – are supporting this group of asylum-seekers …
No, I don’t need to explain the opinions of people with whom I disagree and to whom I am not afilliated when I’m responding to an accusation aimed at me. Obviously.
> This does not necessarily mean the support of the deliberate killing of Jewish civilians.
No, not necessarily, but almost always. As I’ve repeatedly said, I’ve still not seen the paper, so can’t be sure.
> are any resistance movements legitimate?
Yes, of course, but they usually target the military. The Palestinian resistance organisations insist that there is absolutely no distinction between Israeli forces and Israeli civilians, and target the civilians accordingly (which, incidentally, is why it’d be big news to Palestinian fighters that supporting Palestinian resistance "does not necessarily mean the support of the deliberate killing of Jewish civilians"). Of course, there are lots of Arab Israeli civilians, but, puzzlingly, they’re not targeted. It’s almost as if the Palestinian resistance movements just want to kill Jews or somethihng.
> support for Israel will receive the same short shrift you reserve for support for Palestine?
Being a democracy, the Israeli Government represents (to as reasonable an extent as possible) its people, including its Arab population. No, it’s not perfectly representative, but it’s the best system anyone’s come up with yet. There is, therefore, a confluence of supporting Israel and supporting Israelis. It is true to say that one may support the British by defending British democracy, even that one may support British Tories by defending the democratic legitimacy of the current Labour Government. Same for Israel.
When Palestine has genuine internal political freedom, things will be different. The way to support Palestinians is to encourage that change, not to support the bloody PA.
Abbas was also elected (with 62% of the vote, I believe) – so it’s hard to claim he doesn’t represent the Palestinians.
I think his election was probably a lot fairer than Arafat’s, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call it democratic or him representative.
S2, the problem with talking about: the constant background Jew-hatred I witness on the Left these days. No matter what anti-Jew action you see these days, up to and including murder, someone on the Left will defend or justify it. Every. Bloody. Time. It’s pissing me off.
Is that by making such generalistions about "the Left" you are (a) entering USSNeverdock realms of paranoia and idiocy. Just as you say the Right includes lots of "people with whom I disagree and to whom I am not afilliated", the Left is similarly amorphous and ill-defined. (b) Being extremely counterproductive. I’d be happy to lend support to any serious campaign against anti-Semitism. But if that campaign includes people like you and Neverdock screeching about how "the Left" are all neo-Nazi-apologists, then amazingly enough, I’d feel less inclined to join in.
Similarly when it comes to home grown British racism, I’m sure you’re against anti-Arab violence. So we could join forces against that couldn’t we? Well maybe not if I went around talking about the constant background Arab-hatred I witness on the Right these days. No matter what anti-Arab action you see these days, up to and including murder, someone on the Right will defend or justify it. Every. Bloody. Time. It’s pissing me off.
Larry,
I don’t notice any left-wingers complaining about generalisations when faced with statements like "The Left have traditionally defended human rights," or "The Left stand up for freedom," despite both those statements, if you apply them to everyone on the Left, being utter bollocks. In fact, statements like that are constantly used by left-wingers as morally triumphant own-trumpet-blowing. Any time you switch to statements like "Well, some of us sometimes stand up for human rights, but loads of us supported the USSR and Mao’s China, lots of us complained about unwarranted imperialist American aggression against Serbia, and we have a nasty track record of issuing threats against the families of miners who go to work," then you can start complaining about the generalisations that come in the other direction. It wasn’t me that defined your group.
Apart from that, it’s always going to be a judgment call. I was born and brought up surrounded by the British Labour Party and it’s hangers-on. I’d love to say that I met lots of people who didn’t support the killing of Israeli Jewish and Northern Irish Protestant civilians, but I didn’t. I’ve come across a small handful of leftists on the Web, such as you, who appear to be a tad more humane than the mainstream. Good for you. Thirty years of experience tells me that you’re not representative, and, though I am supremely unlucky in many ways, I don’t think I’m so unlucky that I managed to meet every single one of a tiny minority of utter bastards on the otherwise lovely Left.
Your point about campaigns is a good one. Whenever I made that same point regarding the anti-war movement’s willingness to march with Jew-haters, gay-killers, and Eastern-Europe-oppressors, I was told either that I was a racist or that none of that was important compared to the big issue of fighting Bush and his evil warmongering neocons. Did you go on any of the anti-war marches, may I ask?
S2, if the mainstream Left is as Jew-hating as you say, then, as this website is frequented by Leftists of many different hues, I can only assume that the majority of them are anti-Semites. So you should have no difficulty in naming some names – who around these parts would you say is more representative of the Left, in terms of anti-Semitism, than I am?
I actually wanted to go on a pro-War march bt no-one wanted to play with me… Sob…..
Larry,
Firstly, I don’t think political views expressed on the Web are particularly representative of the public. Some other commenter here (I forget who) made a crack recently about libertarians without net connections being non-existent, and there’s a grain of truth to that, except that it doesn’t only apply to libertarians. Tam Dalyell’s a good example of the Labour Party’s traditional attitude to Israel and American Jews, and I doubt he blogs. Secondly, to answer your question, I’d need to trawl through the blogs and writing of every single commenter here, and I frankly can’t be bothered.
By the way, did you miss the bit where I said "Mine was a glib throwaway line, and an overgeneralisation"? You’re wanting a lot of rational analysis and specific examples for a glib throwaway overgeneralisation. In case you’re wondering, I’ve been known to generalise about all sorts of groups, frequently, for instance, calling the Tories "authoritarian bastards". Never noticed you complaining about that.
S2 says "Tam Dalyell’s a good example of the Labour Party’s traditional attitude to Israel and American Jews, and I doubt he blogs."
No. (I was going to say the Labour Party’s traditions weren’t typified by aristocratic Scotchmen but maybe they were).
Ernest Bevin is a good example of the Labour Party’s traditional attitude to Israel and American Jews.
As is Tony Crosland. Or even Tom Bloody Watson. Or the bloody Milibands.
Seems to me you’re falling into the same trap as the US rightists – finding a couple of people with affiliations but no power and suggesting they’re holders of traditional values. e.g. Ward Churchill & Michael Moore being typical Kerry-supporters. Except US rightists use the misattribution to make money.
> Seems to me you’re falling into the same trap as the US rightists – finding a couple of people with affiliations but no power and suggesting they’re holders of traditional values.
We may as well agree to disagree on the rightness or wrongness of my assertion, but that certainly isn’t the method I used to arrive at it. As I’ve said many times, I was born and brought up on the British Left. My assessment of their attitudes comes primarily from meeting them, going on rallies with them, and so on. Familiarty, contempt, etc.
Numbers 31:35-40 (New International Version)
35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.
=========) moshe pedo.
36 The half share of those who fought in the battle was:
337,500 sheep, 37 of which the tribute for the LORD was 675;
38 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the LORD was 72;
39 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the LORD was 61;
40 16,000 people, of which the tribute for the LORD was 32.
32 girls for dog ??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! : jehovah and sex
***
god is a homophobe, or at the very least, a bigot. Leviticus 20:13
Handicapped people must not approach the altar. Leviticus 21:16-23
Leviticus 26:30 “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shill ye eat.”
Leviticus 27:28-29 God ordered and allowed human sacrifices.
Numbers 16:27 God buries alive Korah and his family.
Numbers 16:35 God killed 250 Levite princes who disagreed with Moses’ leadership. He was so bloodthirsty that he wanted to slay more until he was talked out of it. Later he put a plague upon 14,700 Jews who thought there was something wrong in killing 250 princes.
Numbers 21:1-3 God utterly destroyed the Canaanites at Hormah as a favor to the Jews.
Numbers 21:27-35 God abetted Moses in utterly destroying the Amorites at Heshbon – “…the men, the women, and the little ones.”
Numbers 31:17-18 God commands Moses to kill all the Medianite people including children and women. To top it off he commands that the virgins be saved for later raping by Moses’ soldiers.
Deuteronomy 3:3-7 God ordered Moses’ army to “utterly destroy” 60 cities, killing all the women and children within!
Deuteronomy 7:12 God ordered the Israelites to kill all the people of seven nations. He even adds, “show no mercy unto them”.
Deuteronomy 20:16 God orders that we kill everything that breathes in the cities that he gives us for an inheritance