Return to: Home | Blogs | Ben's Blog

74 comments from readers

Jenny Webb
11 November 2008 at 14:57

You shouldn't silence bigots - just give them enough rope to hang themselves with.

Digital Commuter
11 November 2008 at 15:31

"Equally I'm not interested in being a platform for extremist Zionists who scarcely conceal their racism towards their Arab neighbours and who belittle other victims of Hitler's vile regime."

I didn't see any "Zionist" extremists here.

I did see some far left extremists who excuses the Soviet inspired genocides against "kulaks" etc.

As for other victims of the Nazis they are real and no minimized their suffering nor did I see any anti-Arab sentiments expressed.

Your comment Ben is formulaic and does not capture what really happened on that blog. You can admit that the Jew hatred expressed was far more virulent than anything said about any one else. Oh, and if you admit Jew hatred you have to balance it by accusing someone who takes umbrage with an accusation of "extreme Zionists" attacking others.

In other words no Jew can defend himself or herself without being accused of holding "Zionist" views.

This tells me a lot about you, Ben.

However, I am not sorry the comment section was shut down.

Admin
11 November 2008 at 15:49

And your intemperate response, Digital Commuter, tells all the other readers what they need to know about you.

Pencils
11 November 2008 at 16:04

I'm not interested in continuing the argument here, but since DC has said her/his bit, I'll note that I'm not happy at my objection to the explanation of nazi behaviour, as a spontaneous eruption of ' age-old European anti-semitism', being characterised as ' revisionist views' which 'blame Jewish people for the climate from which National Socialism sprang.'

Please note also that I don't necessarily agree with everything said by all who agreed with me.

Digital Commuter
11 November 2008 at 16:08

" I'm not happy at my objection to the explanation of nazi behaviour, as a spontaneous eruption of ' age-old European anti-semitism', being characterised as ' revisionist views' "

But you did deny that the Soviets killed more than twenty million people for being enemies of the Soviet State and starved another five to seven millions "Kulaks."

Digital Commuter
11 November 2008 at 16:11

Admin

"And your intemperate response, Digital Commuter, tells all the other readers what they need to know about you."

I aid "a lot," Admin (Ben) I didn't say "all."

I would like to know what a "liberal" magazine like yours attracts so many antisemitic readers? Do they flock to your web site because of your anti-Zionism?

Pencils
11 November 2008 at 16:12

How did I know DC would be back? LOL, as they say. You said it was 50 million last time, DC! Enough's enough!

Admin
11 November 2008 at 16:18

If they flock in two or threes they do so to keep company with extremists like you Digital Commuter.

Pencils
11 November 2008 at 16:31

If Admin will indulge me, one last word to Digital Commuter. Here's a link to a handy introduction to the state of the art archival research into deaths in the penal system in Stalin's Russia:

" Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years:A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence "

J. ARCH GETTY, GABOR T. RITTERSPORN, and VIKTOR N. ZEMSKOV

http://tinyurl.com/nsqhn

Carl Jones
11 November 2008 at 17:30

What this CENSORSHIP boils down to, is the fact that there are so many perspectives, so many UNANSWERED QUESTIONS about the unrelenting NWO mantra, that the NS has little choice, but to close down the comments section, because it has outgrown the narrow brainwashing agenda setout in the said article.

However, once European denial laws are introduced into the UK, we will witness a TORRENT of Holocaust propaganda in the MSM and our schools. We should keep in mind that the elite constructed 2nd WW led to the creation of the EU and the Israeli state.

May 1941 and Roudolf Hess flew to Scotland on a peace mission. Hess had huge German military backing. Churchill wanted no peace, as the war was an elite design. Many millions were to die and alledgedly many millions of Jews...I say alledged, because the historical record shows wildly fluctuating numbers. The British government had the option to end the war. We also know the allies knew about crimes against Jews, although limited, why did they not assume this abuse was happening everywhere. Responsibility for these crimes lies at many doors, including 10 Downing Street.

Digital Commuter
11 November 2008 at 17:36

Admin

"If they flock in two or threes they do so to keep company with extremists like you Digital Commuter."

Any one can throw around the label extremist, Ben.

Nothing I said marks me as an extremist.

You, however, by your act of unilateral at of censorship could be seen by reasonable people as an extremist.

Extemist are afraid of free speech. I am not. I can answer ignorant posters like Pencil quite easily.

I guess as an American I am used to holding my own without the interference of a nanny State.

Digital Commuter
11 November 2008 at 17:41

Pencils

"How did I know DC would be back? LOL, as they say. You said it was 50 million last time, DC! Enough's enough!"

I doubt you know how to laugh, Pencils.

Anyway, the total number of victims of the Communists may be higher than fifty million if you include China and the other Communist countries.

I was refering to the number killed during the Ukrainian famine which was caused by Stalin to starve out the self sufficient Ukranian peasantry.

Too bad we don't also have Genocide remembrance day for the victims of Communism.

Unlike Pencils I am not afraid to include all victims of Genocide. I would just like that there be an accound of the differences between genocides: different causes, different victims, and above all different methods used to kill them.

Jews btw were also the victims of the Bolshevisks which is not often mentioned.

WestEndGirl
12 November 2008 at 01:07

I actually agree with Digitalcommuter when he(she?) criticises Ben Davies for using the phrase:

"extremist Zionists who scarcely conceal their racism towards their Arab neighbours"

This phrase is meaningless and at once offensive. "Extremist Zionists" whoever they are supposed to be in reference to the deleted comments thread, can only have "Arab neighbours" if they are Israelis, by definition.

So unless Ben Davies knows something about the posters he is referring to and that they are, in fact, Israelis, then he is either just sloppily referring to Zionists as short-hand for Jews generally (which is racist and just an altenative to referring to "you people" etc) or is referring to Christian Zionists (at which point Arabs are not "their neighbours") which doesn't make sense then either.

So Ben what exactly do you mean? Who do you think you are referring to in your criticism? It's just that it's very easy to refer to people using certain types of terminology and give away all sorts of underlying misapprehensions and predjudices.....

explodingbadger
12 November 2008 at 03:37

”Now moving on. Sarah Palin plans to allow god to guide her on her decision to run in 2012. Let's hope it's a different god to the bigoted, warmongering, morally deficient one that apparently guided Dubbya. ”

I am not sure if that's supposed to be ironic or your opinion but I think its quite rational to say that. He begged the UN to go to war. Surely no one believes the WOMD story, do they ? If its not Bush and Blair who are responsible for the death in Iraq then who ?

By the way to those who cant understand who "extremist Zionists who scarcely conceal their racism towards their Arab neighbours" are, you can tell by reading their posts! They dont need to be pointed out.

By the way carl. NWO LOL!

sweety
12 November 2008 at 03:46

Surely no one believes the WOMD story, do they ? .............

Quite right, no one believed, apart from most of Arab world, the UN, Nato, Potatoe, and Blix and and one or two others!

fairplay
12 November 2008 at 05:25

admin

why dont we debate why its against the law in some countries to do exactly that.........debate!

and now our stazi government is trying to bring out a law to disallow media outlets printing anything they deem threatens national security. what are we becoming? that means these monsters in power will have carte blanche to propogandarise everything

scary stuff

fairplay
12 November 2008 at 08:28

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article51...

todays news. im actually choking on it all now

Paul Evans
12 November 2008 at 09:10

The discussion on the Krystallnacht article was pretty sad. A momentous anniversary was being marked and the article called for an interesting discussion of ways that we can write racism out of British society through education – not a never ending rant about Israel peppered with the classical language of antisemitism. It’s a shame that Ben has had to switch off comments on the piece, but understandable.

Admin
12 November 2008 at 09:42

Westend girl/Digital Commuter ... FYI 'Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel', according to the definition on dictionary.com. So one might see extremist Zionism as the "hooligans" (Ehud Barak's words not mine) who attack their Palestinian neighbours. If you find the word difficult to engage with let's substitute the word socialist. Soviet Russia called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - does that make me a supporter of Stalin or Brezhnev because I call myself a Socialist? Actually no and you'd be an idiot to think that because I'm a democrat who believes in human rights.

My blog referred to two different articles - one was the Kristallnacht piece and other was this one: http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2008/11/palestinian-... about Palestinians being given video cameras by an Israeli Human Rights group which drew a particularly nasty couple of comments either in favour of the ethnic cleansing or, possibly, the extermination of Arabs in the disputed territories. The other piece, about Kristallnacht, had a comment which accused the Gypsies, who also suffered so grievously under the Nazis, of participating in their own genocide. A blood libel as one of our other commenters is often keen to say. The poster of that comment was Digital Commuter which is one of the reasons I called him an extremist. Another reason was his repeated use of intemperate language.

Finally, I have to say I think it's pathetic to hide behind a pseudonym to imply I'm an anti-semite. I'm not even going to bother with that one.

Ben Davies

Admin
12 November 2008 at 09:56

Exploding Badger:

”Now moving on. Sarah Palin plans to allow god to guide her on her decision to run in 2012. Let's hope it's a different god to the bigoted, warmongering, morally deficient one that apparently guided Dubbya. ”

"I am not sure if that's supposed to be ironic or your opinion but I think its quite rational to say that."

That's my opinion. I loathe fundos of all types - political, nationalist or religious.

mark gardner
12 November 2008 at 16:46

Not too sure if the magazine that brought us the "kosher conspiracy" cover (large golden star of david piercing supine union jack) is best placed to claim innocence in the matter of innocently attracting nutters from both sides to its blog. The worst example by far of antisemitic imagery in mainstream UK media in recent memory.

Still, as with Guardian 'Comment is Free', better late than never. CiF has made some good progress recently, you should contact them. Also, a bit of reflection on why NS and Guardian attract the nutters wouldn't go amiss. I suspect its rooted in both institutions anti-Israel hostility and blithe self assurance that you understand and reject antisemitism. (Despite meaningful exceptions to the rule, such as Martin Bright and Jonathan Freedland).

Admin
12 November 2008 at 17:02

Well I don't think you can throw the Kosher Conspiracy issue at me in fairness Mark - that happened under Peter Wilby, since then we've had three other editors of the magazine. Nor did I work at the New Statesman when Wilby was here.

Digital Commuter
12 November 2008 at 19:35

“….about Palestinians being given video cameras by an Israeli Human Rights group which drew a particularly nasty couple of comments either in favour of the ethnic cleansing or, possibly, the extermination of Arabs in the disputed territories. The other piece, about Kristallnacht, had a comment which accused the Gypsies, who also suffered so grievously under the Nazis, of participating in their own genocide. A blood libel as one of our other commenters is often keen to say. The poster of that comment was Digital Commuter which is one of the reasons I called him an extremist.”

I never said either of the comments you attributed to me.

I defy you to bring the comment section and let people see what and the context in which my comments were posted.

I support a two State solution to the Israeli Arab conflict. I would like nothing better than to see a Palestinian State set up side by side with Israel living in peace and thriving economically. I therefore find your attributing to me “ethnic cleansing” ideas loathsome beyond belief.

As the Gypsies being the target of Nazi genocide I never denied that. Again repost my comments and let people see what I said.

The Gypsies were murdered by the Nazis just as the Jews were. My point, and again I was answering antisemitic comments about the Holocaust was to point out that while both Jews and Gypsies were targets of the Nazis there were some differences which is important to keep in mind in order to understand the nature of antisemitic hatred.

If my language was intemperate that was because I was talking to people with strong antisemitic views. These people had already posted by the time I saw the article and I was shocked that none of the other posters had responded to the vile Jew hatred.

The New Statesman certainly didn’t respond. Moreover I see the same people (Carl and others posting on other articles and peddling the same antisemitic line.) I take it that Ben doesn’t care about antisemitic comments if they worded in polite terms.

As I said I am an uncouth American and I don’t take kindly to bigotry.

Finally, it is cowardly of you to say what I said without quoting me directly.

Digital Commuter
12 November 2008 at 19:40

”Now moving on. Sarah Palin plans to allow god to guide her on her decision to run in 2012. Let's hope it's a different god to the bigoted, warmongering, morally deficient one that apparently guided Dubbya. ”

What is your evidence for that, Ben?

Again, you got to get away from the idea that there all "fundies" have the same belief system.

You seem to generalize way too much about every group.

Liberals are supposed to think in terms of individuality and difference. If you don't you are closer to the extremists than you know.

writeon
12 November 2008 at 21:28

Ben,

Cheer up! That photo makes you look both tired and miserable. I suppose it's understandable given your role as unwilling cesor. It's both a dull and time-cosuming task.

Bigotry has, I believe, something to do with ones level of intelligence and education. I'm using those terms loosely. It's not meant to sound elitist.

I do believe, however, that a decent education, which is often extremely expensive, helps one to overcome bigotted and dogmatic attitudes.

The world is a very complex place, contradictory, fuzzy and often profoundly difficult to understand. Curiosity and a critical sense is required to navigate through the forest, especially the ability to see the wood for the trees.

In a highly complex and interconnected world, which can appear both frightening and chaotic, there seems to be a tendancy for people to seek refuge and comfort in partisanship, new-tribalism, race-myths, and ghastly, old-school, nationalism.

This afternoon I watched an old movie from 1930 - All Quite on the Western Front about the 1914 Great War. It was surprisingly effective in its anti-war message in my opinion. The best and worst, most horrific, battle-scene I've ever seen, remarkable really.

After seeing that film, made by ghosts, one can't help but think and question the ultimate form of bigotry - war. How terrible, how destructive, how wasteful, how false, how dehumanizing, how ignorant, how full of lies. Yet here we are again. Fighting and killing, and for what exactly? Are we really fighting for freedom, or for control of dwindling oil resources? Is the petrol in our cars mixed with blood? And is it all going to get far, far, worse as we scramble and fight over what's left of the planets bounty?

Probably the essence of an education designed to get one to think, is asking questions of oneself and of others, and attempting to examine the world and reality clearly and with dogma or prejudice, but how many people get that kind of education today?

fairplay
13 November 2008 at 05:22

DC

stop ranting. you are becoming pretty boring now.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Admin
13 November 2008 at 09:41

Tired and miserable is right writeon and can you blame me?

First of all it's the fact that people rant about what others have written without actually reading it first.

Take this example:

"about Palestinians being given video cameras by an Israeli Human Rights group which drew a particularly nasty couple of comments either in favour of the ethnic cleansing or, possibly, the extermination of Arabs in the disputed territories. The other piece, about Kristallnacht, had a comment which accused the Gypsies, who also suffered so grievously under the Nazis, of participating in their own genocide. A blood libel as one of our other commenters is often keen to say. The poster of that comment was Digital Commuter which is one of the reasons I called him an extremist.”

I never said either of the comments you attributed to me. - writes Digital Computer.

No well then read what I wrote again and you'll see that I didn't attribute the comments on the other article to you.

Second Digital Commuter asks me to reprint what he says about the gypsies:

"The difference between the Nazi’s persecution of Jews and of “gypsies, homosexuals, disabled etc etc” as you put it, is that Gypsies were not universally targeted. Nazi commanders had discretion on how to treat the Gypsies. Some sent to the gas chambers like Jews, while other were allowed to form brigades to fight for the Nazis."

To fight for the Nazis when your people are a target of their murderous racial policies would be equivalent to participating in your own genocide

Next, my opinion about religious and political fundamentalism isn't that they share the same beliefs - Islam and Christianity; Communism and Nazism but rather that they share the same mindset. No nuance - an unwillingness to see other perspectives.

Finally you accuse me of being a liberal. I'm not - I don't even like the soubriquet. I'm a libertarian socialist.

You seem to generalise way too much about every group. ...

writeon
13 November 2008 at 10:11

Ben,

One thing you should feel pleased about, is that you've still got a job, soon millions of people aren't going to be so fortunate!

Part of being literate is learning to understand what one reads. Printed letters and words on a page are deceptively simple things, yet the ammount of meaning they contain is virtually limitless. This also means there's infinite room for misunderstanding, and worse. People who are so full of sectarianism and prejudice that they deliberately set out to 'misunderstand' and twist ones words and attitudes to fit their contra-ideology.

The Middle East is a terrible example of this complex. It's tribalism taken to the extreme, on both sides. I truly dispair as some of the racist comments, apparently made by Arabs and others, relating to Jews and Israel. The bile, hatred and vicious anger, is shocking and disgusting. It's comparable to the worst kind of Nazi, racial filth.

Even moderate Arabs often use highly emotive language which sounds strange to our ears, but much of this is cultural, they don't use language in prescisely the same way we do.

But on the other side there are also rabid extremists who use language about Palestinians which is just as bad and profoundly rascist too. They want to force people to take sides in the conflict and see everything from their perspective. If one doesn't one is on the opposite side and therefore the enemy. They want to force complex reality into a crude, oversimplified ideological framework which makes the world 'understandable' to them and can be used to justify almost anything.

Moderate Israelies are deeply concerned about the growth of nationalist/religious extremism in Israel. This is a product of decades of war and the threat of war and terrorism directed against civilians.

There's a class of competing ligitimacies at work here. One of the central ones relates to the use of violence. As a state Israel regards its use of bombs and bullets as ligitimate acts of self-defence.

mark gardner
13 November 2008 at 10:22

Admin Ben - I hear what you say about your own non-culpability for the kosher conspiracy issue. Noted, and I didn't mean you any malice.

My main concern, however, remains what that infamous issue said about the New Statesman as an institution & what it revealed about NS (and wider mainstream left) ability to even identify antisemitism, never mind actually help to counter it.

NS and Guardian have very similar weight of anti-Israel sentiment, but Comment is Free has really been through the mill on trying to deal with its nutters. I think their experience ought to be one that you can learn a great deal from.

writeon
13 November 2008 at 10:29

However, Israel doesn't accept Palesinian attacks as ligitimate. The use of violence by an occupied people to attain 'freedom' and release their territory from 'occupation' isn't acceptable, and is defined as 'terror'. But what are an occupied people supposed to do faced with a occupying power that's so much richer and stronger militarily than they are? If it's ligitimate to take the land by force, why isn't it ligitimate to try to take it back by force? Would it be more acceptable if the world began to supply the Palestinians with jets, tanks and sophisticated weaponry, so they wouldn't need to use the tactics of 'terror'? Would this be 'fairer' and more 'right'? Imagine Palestinians dropping bombs on crowded streets in Tel Aviv from jets, would this make the killing any more moral or justified? Would the dead give a damn?

And soon one moves closer to weighing the dead on a scale and something close to an insane debate. Can one defend the killing because one didn't intend to kill people, one was 'forced' into it by circumstances, it was just collateral damage.

And the killing mentality drags us away from rational Enlightenment principles towards blood-feud barbarism and savagry. The dawn of the post-rational world. What unites us and defines us is our hate for others not of our tribe. The others can be murdered with impunity and a clear conscience because they are not us and not really human anymore. Our blood is better and more precious than yours and we can shed it until it becomes a roaring river of blood that drowns us all.

And in the end we become less than human ourselves as we destroy the less-than-human others, who threaten our land and our blood. This is what we risk when we embrace the culture of war and it enters every fibre of our being, like a burning fire in our minds, scorching the good and pure and leaving nothing but ashes.

fairplay
13 November 2008 at 12:23

NS and Guardian have very similar weight of anti-Israel sentiment

mark gardner, isnt this what this whole debate is about? maybe the readers of the NS and guardian are a little bit wiser as to what is really happening in the middle east as opposed to the more right wing pro zionism news outlets and their readers. then again, maybe they are not. but opinions are personal. the people who read these papers are generally people who trumpet the cause of the underdog

if this is not the case then so be it but lets go back to the times of this very event that is being talked about. surely there were anti hitler publications that were deemed anti patriotic for telling it how it was against the governments propoganda. they would have been hounded, ridiculed and called all sort of names by the majority. but the majority were hoodwinked. and only years later would they have realised this. maybe you are in that period now. maybe i am.

so who is right and how do we find out the truth. debating platforms such as this are a beacon of light. these are scary times. censorship is getting worse. we need to keep arguing our cases for what we think is right and when proved wrong hold our hands up and admit we were wrong. the problem these days is, as with the WMDs, nobody feels the need to provide any proof to print a headline

Digital Commuter
13 November 2008 at 15:00

“I never said either of the comments you attributed to me. - writes Digital Computer.

No well then read what I wrote again and you'll see that I didn't attribute the comments on the other article to you.”

Yes, but the second comment was attributed to me. When you mention two comments one by “some Poster” and the other to me, what are people supposed to think?

You need to stop commenting on anonymous comment and specify who and what you have in mind. This is basic good journalism.

“Second Digital Commuter asks me to reprint what he says about the gypsies:

"The difference between the Nazi’s persecution of Jews and of “gypsies, homosexuals, disabled etc etc” as you put it, is that Gypsies were not universally targeted. Nazi commanders had discretion on how to treat the Gypsies. Some sent to the gas chambers like Jews, while other were allowed to form brigades to fight for the Nazis."

To fight for the Nazis when your people are a target of their murderous racial policies would be equivalent to participating in your own genocide.”

The comment about how the Gypsies were treated is historically accurate and it doesn’t mean that they “participated in their own Holocaust.” This is an unwarranted assertion. They were victims of the Nazis weather in uniform or not.

Moreover, the Gypsies are today one of the most oppressed groups in Europe today and are being murdered daily in many countries. Why don’t you write about that sometime?

“Next, my opinion about religious and political fundamentalism isn't that they share the same beliefs - Islam and Christianity; Communism and Nazism but rather that they share the same mindset. No nuance - an unwillingness to see other perspectives.”

This is false. To associate Christian fundamentalist with Nazism is disgusting.

Natan Sharansky has written very eloquently about Baptists in the Soviet Union who were targeted by the regime there and were in prison with him.

You can read about it here:

“Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy”

http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Identity-Indispensable-Prote...

Among Christian fundamentalist there are Quakers and the Amish in the US who have never attacked anyone. There also Jewish Hassidim who are avowed pacifists. To equate these with Communists and Nazis is ignorant, Ben.

“Finally you accuse me of being a liberal. I'm not - I don't even like the soubriquet. I'm a libertarian socialist.”

Well that is a problem, isn’t it? Libertarianism is problematic as a social philosophy, especially Capitalist libertarians. I take socialist libertarianism to be an oxymoron, but I am willing go learn.

Digital Commuter
13 November 2008 at 15:05

About your first comment, Bem:

“about Palestinians being given video cameras by an Israeli Human Rights group…”

I will only say that the Israeli human rights group is also a Zionist group.

Too often people use Zionist in a negative sense associating it with those who attack Arabs as well as Jewish civil rights workers or even Israeli police on the West bank and not with the Jewish Israelis who oppose them.

I am a Zionist and I oppose settlements on the West Bank and would like to see a negotiated end to the occupation and so are most of the people in Israel who oppose the settlers there.

Admin
13 November 2008 at 15:25

And among communists there are devout believers who never attacked anyone. On being a libertarian socialist I suggest you read some books before passing judgement. On Zionism I carefully made the distinction about extremist versions and gave you an analogy of democratic socialism and Soviet communism. And finally can offer any evidence of your assertion that Gypsies were "allowed to form brigades to fight for the Nazis". Allowed implies they had a freedom of choice in the matter...

mark gardner
13 November 2008 at 16:40

fairplay - my comments were only in relation as to why NS and Guardian should attract some nutters. I apreciate 'nutters' is not an exact term, and that one person's 'nutter' is another's freedom fighter, but mainstream media spaces such as NS blog need to ensure they don't become overwhelmed with filth. Admin Ben is trying to sort that, and all I'm saying is that Comment is Free has already been down that path.

Admin Ben has tried hard to ensure he's distinguishing between Zionism per se and its extremist versions. I wish you'd done the same, rather than use a term like 'pro-Zionism news outlets'. Zionism is simply a belief in a Jewish homeland, and that has now existed for 60 years as a state called Israel. By that definition, I'd class NS and Guardian as pro-Zionist as I think neither one actually wants to see Israel somehow cease to exist.

Anyway, this is becoming cyclical and off-topic again, which wasn't my intention. Enough.

Digital Commuter
13 November 2008 at 17:14

"And finally can offer any evidence of your assertion that Gypsies were "allowed to form brigades to fight for the Nazis". Allowed implies they had a freedom of choice in the matter..."

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Digital Commuter
13 November 2008 at 17:19

"And among communists there are devout believers who never attacked anyone."

This isn't a good analogy because Communism is a political movement in which individuls pledge to follow the majority will.

Most famously Rosa Luxenberg who joined a rebellion in Germany in the 20's even though she knew it was hopeless.

You really need to learn more about the beliefs of what you call fundamentalists.

I say this as a non believer.

Digital Commuter
13 November 2008 at 17:21

" On being a libertarian socialist I suggest you read some books before passing judgement."

Which would you suggest?

I did read Karl Korsch got any others in mind?

Digital Commuter
13 November 2008 at 17:27

"On Zionism I carefully made the distinction about extremist versions and gave you an analogy of democratic socialism and Soviet communism."

That wasn't to the point since Zionism includes socialists, capitalists, liberals, egaitarians, fascists, pacifists and yes libertarians, etc....

Zionism is political liberation movement that fought for the establishment of a Jewish State.

Zionism doesn't tell you how the State is to be governed any more than the Irish or any other national liberaton movement could tell you how an independent Ireland (or any other State) was (or is) to be governed.

Socialism on the other hand is a mode of governance.

Admin
13 November 2008 at 17:30

"Communism is a political movement in which individuls pledge to follow the majority will"? Really digital commuter? I think you should stop digging now.

Digital Commuter
13 November 2008 at 18:12

"Really digital commuter? I think you should stop digging now."

Yes, really, Ben.

Show me one socialist State where the government owns all the means of production which tolerates individual liberty?

Venezuela? Cuba?

Don't confuse social democracy with socialism.

btw: show me one liberatarian socialist country. was there ever such a thing?

I want real examples, not pontifications, Ben.

writeon
14 November 2008 at 09:26

But there was nothing remotely racist or ant-Semetic in Pilger's recent piece. One is allowed to dissent. One is allowed to criticise Israel and Zionism as an ideology, surely? Joe Biden is pro'sund to call himself a Zionist and friend of Israel, Pilger didn't invent any of this.

Pilger isn't keen on elements in the Black, bourgeois, middle-class, who he believes have 'sold out to the system' like Powell and Rice, and probably Obama; but that doesn't make one a racist or anti-Black. Pilger's analysis is not racial-based, but class-based. For him, class trumps race! One can disagree with him, but labeling him as racist is absurd.

I think Colin Powell and Rice were disasters at their jobs, that doesn't make me a racist or anti-Black, such a smear would have surprised my first wife who was Nigerian!

It's very difficult to take these attacks on Pilger seriously as being the products of rational or even cogent thinking. They are not. They are designed to destroy debate and discussion of controversial ideas.

Personally I can't stand aspects of Israeli government policy both domestically and in relation to the Palestinians. Israel is developing into a really rotten society, where the gap between the rich and poor is widening all the time. A veritable aristocracy of super-rich families have taken over the state and our robbing it blind, robbing Jews and Arabs. They don't care who they steal from. They prostitute Israeli patriotism and Zionism for their own cynical ends, in order to frighten the population and retain power for themselves in permanent war-state.

I think Israel is moving closer to a right-wing, totalitarian system and more war. War against the Arabs and eventually against the opposition inside Israel to ultra-nationalist Zionism. One starts with the warfare of words and gradually moves onward to the real thing.

Toby
14 November 2008 at 13:57

"Personally I can't stand aspects of Israeli government policy both domestically and in relation to the Palestinians. Israel is developing into a really rotten society, where the gap between the rich and poor is widening all the time."

Making assertion like the above without offering facts and figures as well as sources is a sign of lazy mendacity.

How is the social imbalance in Israel dfiferent from that in say Egypt or Syria, or even Poland or Rumania.

What about Ireland or Portugal?

Do you have comments to back up your Leninist thesis?

I for one don't believe in your good will towards "poor Jews." Poor Jews were slaughtered during the Bolshevik revouliton and after just as much as rich Jews were.

writeon
14 November 2008 at 16:42

Toby,

I'm not actually a 'leftist' at all. I'm a conservative. I don't know why you think I'm a Leninist. You can't seriously expect me to begin your education about Israel in a comments section like this can you?

Where would I get the space and time?

If, if, I agree to your demands are you willing to pay me for your tuition? Normally, when I bother with consultant work, I charge £100 an hour minimum. Is that OK with you, please let me know and I'll send you my e-mail address and we can arrange a meeting and I can give you a book list, alright?

You've obviously never been to Israel. If one calmly and dispassionately examines how the Israeli economy has developed over the last thirty odd years the disparities between rich and poor are startling. Whilst at the beginning Israel was a very equal and egalitarian society, today the picture has radically altered and not for the better. In this respect Israel resembles the UK and the USA which have followed similar economic and social policies. None of my friends in Israel find any of this remotely controversial, in fact it's them who opened my eyes to the negative aspects of Israel's economic miracle. I'm surprised you don't know about this, but of course if you've never been to Israel and don't know anybody there, your at a disadvantage compared to me.

Once again you accuse me of 'mendacity' and 'laziness'. I wasn't aware I was saying anything that reasonably intelligent and educated people didn't know about Israel and it's social structure.

Then for some reason who start on about Egypt, Syria, Portugal, Rumania, Ireland and Portugal. How is this relevant to Israel? Are you saying that Israel is as 'good' or 'bad' as Eygypt and Syria, or slightly different, which one? In fact all the countries you mentioned do resemble Israel in some respects, as they have all followed the same disasterous economic and social policies.

Your comment about 'poor Jews' is bizarre and frankly beyond me. I simply don't understand it.

writeon
14 November 2008 at 18:42

Toby,

As I'm tired of being falsely called a liar by you, let's look at elemental concepts of justice for a moment shall we?

For thousands of years, if one calls someone a liar, accuses them of lying about something, it's been up to the accuser to prove that the accused is, in fact a liar, after all it's you who are attacking me, not the other way around.

As the injured party don't actually have to say a word in my defence, not even, no, I'm not lying. I don't have to prove my innocence to you, or anyone else. The emphasis is always on the 'prosecution' to prove its case. I don't have to prove that I not lying, because you demand that I do. This is elementary, natural justice.

Justice seems to interest you, as you accuse others of being unjust, especially if they have the temerity to criticise aspects of Israel, even though you apparently have never been there, know nothing about Israeli society, and you probably aren't even Jewish yourself.

I say this because the people I know, who are Jewish, are highly educated, intelligent and sophisticated individuals, who see nuances, complexity, contradictions in life, they have a sense of history and are engaged in the world around them.

In Israel I met lots of different types of people. Israel is a very diverse country with many cultures represented.

The debate in Israel about it's place in the Middle East is intense and polarized. There are lots of different views.

But, something that struck me, what serveral people said to me in conversation, was that they found it bizarre that many of the most extreme, nationalist, Zionists, don't even seem to live in Israel, but somewhere else, they're foreigners, yet their 'patriotism' and support for a 'mythical Israel' is more militant and without compromise than that of a great number of Israelies! But perhaps that's natural as they support a fantasy country that doesn't exist, and it's so easy to be a militant Zionist when you're living in safety in New York or London.

Toby
14 November 2008 at 18:47

writeon

“I'm not actually a 'leftist' at all. I'm a conservative.”

I don’t believe you. Conservatives don’t talk about class disparities.

In any case, you know nothing about the Israeli economy and are just bloviating anti-Israel nonsense:

Here are some facts:

“Economy of Israel”

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“The economy of Israel is diversified with substantial government ownership and a rapidly developing high-tech sector. Poor in natural resources, Israel depends on imports of petroleum, coal, food, uncut diamonds, other production inputs, and military equipment. In May 2007, Israel was invited to join the OECD.[3]

The country's GDP (Purchasing power parity) in 2006 reached $195 billion according to the International Monetary Fund or $179 billion according to the World Bank (see List of countries by GDP (PPP)). GDP per capita has been $31,767 according to the International Monetary Fund in 2007 or $26,200 in 2006 according to the CIA World Factbook. $31,767 is on par with most Western European countries like France or Italy, while $26,200 is lower than most Western European countries, except Portugal but higher than all Eastern European countries and close to the average for the European Union (see List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita). The economy grew by 8% in the last quarter of 2006, the fastest growth of any Western nation.[4]

The major industrial sectors include metal products, electronic and biomedical equipment, processed foods, chemicals, and transport equipment. Israel possesses a substantial service sector and the Israel diamond industry is one of the world's centers for diamond cutting and polishing. It is also a world leader in software development and is a major tourist destination. In 1998, Tel Aviv was named by Newsweek as one of the ten most technologically influential cities in the world.[5] American billionaires and business tycoons including Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Donald Trump have each praised Israel’s economic environment,[6] and the country was the destination for Berkshire Hathaway's first investment outside of the USA when it purchased ISCAR Metalworking, and the first R&D Centers outside the USA for companies including Intel and Microsoft. The country has now become known as Silicon Wadi.

Israel has signed free trade agreements with the European Union, the United States, the European Free Trade Association, Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Jordan, and Egypt, and on 18 December 2007, became the first non-Latin American country to sign a free trade agreement with Mercosur.[7][8]”

Toby
14 November 2008 at 18:49

Here are some fact about income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel#Income

Macro-economic trend

This is a chart of trend of gross domestic product of Israel at market prices estimated by the International Monetary Fund and EconStats with figures in millions of Israeli Shekels.

Year Gross Domestic Product

1985 28,437

1990 106,475

1995 269,718

2000 470,732

2005 553,970

2007 624,2981

Note 1: IMF Report

Average wages in 2007 hover around $109-133 per day.

Toby
14 November 2008 at 18:51

Finally Israeli income compared to some other nations:

Income

Comparing incomes of a median household in Israel vs. other countries.

"OECD, PPP conversion rates". Retrieved on 2006-01-20. "OECD, PPP conversion rates in Israel". Retrieved on 2007-01-25.

Country Median household income national currency units Year PPP rate (OECD) Median household income (PPP)

Switzerland[10] 95,184 CHF 2005 1.74 $55,000

California, US[11] US State $54,000

United States $48,000 USD 2006 1.00 $48,000

Canada [12] $53,634 CAD 2005 1.21 $44,000

New Zealand [13] $62,556 NZD 2007 1.54 $41,000

United Kingdom [14] £24,700 GBP 2004 0.632 $39,000

Australia[15] $53,404 AUD 2006 1.41 $38,000

Israel[16] ₪107,820 ILS 2006 2.90 $37,000

Ireland €35,410 EUR 2005 1.02 $35,000

Scotland,

United Kingdom[17] £21,892 GBP 2005 0.649 $34,000

West Virginia, US[18] US state $33,000

Hong Kong[19] $186,000 HKD 2005 5.96 $31,000

Singapore[20] $45,960 SGD 2005 1.55 $30,000

Annual data 2006 Historical averages (%) 2002-06

Population (m) - 7.1 Population growth - 1.8

GDP per head (US$; purchasing power parity) - 27,588 Real GDP growth - 3.1

Percent of unemployed persons (January 2007) - 7.6 Inflation - 1.9

Exchange rate (av) NIS:US$ - 4.2 Current-account balance (% of GDP) - 1.6

According to the data published by the Israeli central bank, 60% of the poor households in Israel are of the

You can also look at reports form the IMF:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/01/data/dbginim...

Toby
14 November 2008 at 19:06

“Then for some reason who start on about Egypt, Syria, Portugal, Rumania, Ireland and Portugal. How is this relevant to Israel? Are you saying that Israel is as 'good' or 'bad' as Eygypt and Syria, or slightly different, which one?”

Come on “writeon” You are not as smart as you think you are.

You can judge a country by some absolute standard or relative to other countries.

People like you judge Israel by absolute standards while judging other countries in relative terms.

Economists don’t judge countries by absolute standards as my above posts show.

Toby
14 November 2008 at 19:08

"But, something that struck me, what serveral people said to me in conversation, was that they found it bizarre that many of the most extreme, nationalist, Zionists, don't even seem to live in Israel, but somewhere else, they're foreigners, yet their 'patriotism' and support for a 'mythical Israel' is more militant and without compromise than that of a great number of Israelies!"

This is a fanciful story.

Most Israelis care about their country as their willingness to die in its defense shows. ]

You also don't know anything about me nor where I live and you suppotitions are all wrong.

I know Israel better than you do.

Ata medaber Yivrit?

writeon
14 November 2008 at 20:51

Toby,

I don't think your flourish with statistics shows very much at all, are they supposed to? I'm not sure why you think they are particularly relevant to my comments about Israel. You seem to confuse quantity with quality.

I wasn't and haven't talked to most Israelies. I was refering to a Israeli academics, teachers and intellectuals that I talked to when I was in Israel. Obviously these people are in a minority, but that doesn't mean their views can be dismissed out of hand like you do. You have contempt for me, and it appears for Israelies who don't share your views about the world.

I'm not judgeing Israel by some absolute standard, show me where specifically, I've done this. I don't even really know what you mean to be honest.

You use phrases like 'people like you' what does that means exactly? You seem to like putting people in boxes and defining them. You make generalisation about Israelies which don't apply to many, many, people in Israel. You seem to want to take out a 'patent' on what it means to be really Jewish. This is incredibly arrogant of you.

Then you smear me again, another trait that's typical of your brutal style. You contend that 'my vitriol is based on nothing but Jew hatred'. What utter rubbish, man. Where's the vitriol exactly, be specific? Is it because I have criticized Israel? Isn't one allowed to critize Israel? Look at Israel. Israel is full of people that criticize Israel for all sorts of reasons. Look at Israeli politics if you want to see real vitriol! You can not be serious!

Then you have the affrontary to make the outrageous statement that I'm a Jew Hater. How dare you malign me in this disgraceful fashion. I don't hate Jews or Israelies at all. Why would I be so stupid as to hate an entire people? Show me the evidence in what I've said that supports this vile slander, or shut up, or give me an apology.

Because I don't like aspects of Israeli government policy and developments inside Israel, doesn't make one a Jew Hater.

writeon
14 November 2008 at 21:15

Toby,

You clearly don't know much about the meaning of the word 'conservative' or the history of conservatism. Conservatives in Britain and elsewhere wrote about social classes long before the left even existed. Neither did the left invent the concept of social classes or start the study of differences between classes. Because 'conservatism' has been hi-jacked by right-wing extremists, who aren't, in my opinion, conservatives at all, doesn't mean that I don't consider myself conservative on whole range of issues. Once again you insist on giving people labels and catagorising them as types.

Further, you don't really seem to understand the avalanche of statistics you've thrown at me. They are irrelevant to my statements. They show that Israel has a thriving economy and econmic growth. Have I denied that, of course not. Israel has a diverse economy, once again that's obvious.

What I mentioned, almost in passing, was the distribution of wealth in Israeli society, which has become so concentrated over the last few decades, with a growing underclass and a growing super-rich class. Surely you don't seriously contend that Israel is a more equal, egalitarian, or fairer society than it thirty or forty years ago? It's far richer, but what about the growth of a powerful elite who have benefitted disproportionally from this growth? Don't you care about social justice and equal opportunities?

Then there's the vexed question of corruption in Israel, a massive problem, which concerns many people in Israel. But I suppose that's just more of my 'Jewhating' to even mention a problem which goes straight to the very heart of the political establishment and is rife?

I really resent being smeared with the label 'jewhater' when I am definitely not a jewhater and never have been, my great grandmother would turn in her grave at such an outrage. This is so juvinile and like a child in playground, only far more unpleasant, one can understand it in a child, but in an adult?

writeon
14 November 2008 at 21:33

Let's deal with my remark that Israel was rapidly become a vastly more unfair society than it once was, surely you don't seriously deny this? Have you ever even be to Israel and looked around and spoken to people? I find this very hard to believe quite frankly. It's not just many Palestinians who have been pushed down into poverty, there are Israelies too.

For example prices have risen dramatically in Israel and pensions have not kept pace with this development, the old and the poor are being left behind in the boom. House prices have rocketed which makes it increasingly difficult for young people to afford homes inside Israel proper.

Because one mentions income disparaties in Israel doesn't make one a Jewhater, how many Israelies who talk about these issues are Jewhaters then? Or the ones who dedicate themselves to fighting corruption in high places? How ridiculous!

The phrase about the 'families' who are increasingly taking over the Israeli economy isn't as radical or absurd as it sounds to you. It was said to me by a Jewish market trader in Haifa and I remembered it that's all. Granted he was a communist, or so I was told, but he wasn't that far off. Or maybe he was a Jewhater too? Does this apply to everyone who doesn't agree with you, Toby, or what you demand an Israeli or Jew act like?

It's a fact that wealth and therefore control over the Israeli economy is becoming concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Of course the economy is vibrant and diverse, but that doesn't preclude the kind of concentration that's occured in nearly all capitalist countries in recent history. And conservatives are allowed to use the word capitalism.

I must admit I didn't meet anyone like you in Israel. None of my friends seem to think like you at all, but then you appear to have taken out a patent on what it means to be Jewish, good luck with that!

Toby
14 November 2008 at 21:57

"writeon"

You keep writing. It seems as if you are addcited to scribbling and scribbling nonsense.

Almost everything that is not opinion and bad opinion at that is patently false.

You don't know Israel, you don't know Jews, and you don't know Hebrew.

You are obsessed with Jews and with Israel just as you are obsessed with writing.

Toby
15 November 2008 at 10:08

What the heck is a "cybertiger" a tiger without teeth or backbone?

this poster dreams of making a real noise in the world but can only bring himself to whimper into his computer, pathetic.

Pencils
15 November 2008 at 10:37

'toby' must be 'digital commuter' - I don't know why anyone argues with toby/DC since he/she is obviously under the age of 10 - quoting wikipedia as a source?

Well said Freedom Land. I doubt if anyone looks at this site for the articles, because they are usually completely insipid. There used to be slightly freer discussions here than elsewhere - this was NS only attraction.

" As for being either a censor or an editor... your self-righteous "ramblings" are typical of what is going wrong with NS these days."

EXACTLY!

writeon
15 November 2008 at 12:56

What I find deeply disturbing, perversely ironic and tragic; and we talked about this when I visited Israel for the second time; is how violent and dangerous the secular, ultra-nationalist, 'Zionists' are for Israel's future, should they ever attain real political power. Imagine them allied with rightist, religious fanatics, and with their fingers on the Israeli nuclear arsenal? It sends shivers down ones spine!

What's bizarre is how close they are in their use of language, intemperance, intollerance, contempt for others, violence rhetoric, gutter-talk, lack of education, sophistication, willingness to substitute abuse for rational discourse... to be honest they remind me of Nazi Brownshirts. Their use of language shows how they think, about themselves, as superior, as better, as unique; and at the same time how they regard other people. The contempt they have for other people. It's precisely this contempt for others that the source of racism and totalitarianism of the Brownshirt variety.

What characterizes these people isn't that they are 'Jews' or even 'Zionists', it's that they are totalitarian nationalists, and they are getting stronger and are ready to move from violent language to somethng worse, real violence, and this is threat to Israeli democracy, which is already enthreatened by them.

Recently there was an attempt on the life of prominant Israeli historian. An historian who has angered Israeli ultra-nationalists. He's recieved many foul death threats, yet he never believed they would place a bomb, designed to kill or maim him, by his garden gate! This is probably only the beginning of nationalist terrorism aimed at other Jews who refuse to bow to the myths and ideology of ultra-nationalism. To call these extremist fanatics - Zionists, is to insult and defame the meaning of the concept.

Carl Jones
15 November 2008 at 17:36

Toby, sounds like a name for a "goldfish", or one of those very little dogs that you end up killing, when you trip over them.....sorry, but I don`t believe I`m being nasty to Toby, because "Toby" isn`t his real name and this comment has only been about the name "Toby".

Maybe I should do a "Wikipedia" entry for "Toby", well "Toby on the Newstatesman". LOL

Carl Jones
15 November 2008 at 18:26

I put a comment on here the other day, but it was censored, like many other comments.

Over the past couple of weeks there have rubblings that a major terror plot is brewing. I noticed in todays Times that "New president is warned to beware of a HUGE THREAT from al-Qaeda"....this was on page 54!!

On page 3 (lol) we have "Hilary Clinton in secret talks with Obama over senior post".LOL

Thus we have a CLEAR illustration of the establishments priorties. The world has been plunged ito a DESIGNED economic crisis and you`d have thought the last thing we need nows is another major terror attack. But what the heck, both headlines are NWO constructs...

....anyway, I believe there is a seroius risk that the NWO elite will allow a false flag attack on Israel. This might be a partial attack and it could involve some sort of nuclear device. I think this will appear to be a nuke on a ship off the Israeli coast, but in fact will be dropped onto the ship. Such an attack is not designed to wipeout Isreal, but just enough to give the NWO a platform on which to further their sick plan for global domination.

Here I am trying to save Jews in Israel...now you know why Dame Shirley Porter moved to London`s Mayfair.LOL

By outing NWO plots, I hope to put then off. Isreal would be near the top of their list. To be honest, it could be anywhere. Pandemic, or something like could also be on the cards. But one thing is for sure, Obama needs a public distraction which will take the public focus away from his election spin and the economy.....

....Now why would the Newstatesman censor this?LOL

BTW , I hope I`m wrong but I`m big enough and thick skinned enough to stick my neck out and take it. lol

Jane Greene
17 November 2008 at 09:43

Toby and Digital Commuter - one and the same?

writeon
17 November 2008 at 19:40

Ben,

I understand how you must feel, having to wade through some of the comments aimed at specific NS writers. It rather obvious that John Pilger is singled out for attacks, not criticism, not for what he writes, but for who he is, what he is, a well-known journalist who is sympathetic to the Palestinians.

I think it obvious that the attacks on him are orchestrated and co-ordinated. The language used to discribe him is way over-the-top. He's a 'jewhater', an 'anti-Semite', a 'racist', a 'fool', a 'liar', an 'idiot', 'pathetic' and on and on.

Ben, it's so bloody tiresome reading these destructive attacks. It's not as if the posse that makes them are particularly origional in their attacks, entertaining, intelligent, or well-educated. There not even cogent or logical. They continually use words about him that they clearly don't understand the meaning of. It's almost like they are reading from a script.

I wouldn't mind if there was an attempt at rational, civilized debate, only there isn't. It's just Pilger is a liar! Pilger is this, he's that. Over and over again. I've tried to engage with these people in an attempt to reason with them, but it's futile, impossible. All they want to do is disrupt and destroy his reputation and the space he occupies.

What about a filter, that simply rejects certain perjorative terms and insults, forcing people to be civil and rational? I don't know if this could be decribed as censorhip or not, what do you think? Does the flood of attacks on Pilger add anything positive to the NS or the debate swirling around his pieces, I don't think so.

It's not as if I'm afraid or intimitadate by this posse, personally I think I could take them on, en masse, with one hand tied behind my back. They are second-rate intellects and third-rate propagandists, but they do waste a lot of space. Why not just cull them?

I'm almost in agreement with 'Carl Jones' that there's a conspiracy aimed at Pilger, lol!

writeon
17 November 2008 at 19:54

It's also strange that these posters are so coy about why they are so angry with Pilger. One get's the distinct impression that many of them have a strong personal and emotional affiliation with Israel. There is nothing wrong with that. I've got an attachment to Israel.

But I've asked a couple of them is they lived in Israel or were Israelis or even Jewish, none of this really matter to me. I volunteered that my great grandmother lived in Vienna and had a partially Jewish background, like my wife, yet I still get called a 'Jewhater', this is really irritating and unpleasant.

The reason I asked, is because many of Pilger's critics/attackers appear to be 'Zionists' whatever that means, Joe Biden's a declared 'Zionist'. For my sake they can believe in Martians, but their 'neutrality' is suspect, what have they to hide? None of the members of the apparent posse ever says openly, I'm from Israel and I think Pilger's a jerk. Why are they so shy? They have a right to anonymity in my opinion. I would hate people to know who I was, what I've written and where I live. My wife would be nervous.

It's only that there's a pattern to the attacks on Pilger which makes me think that things aren't quite what they seem.

Anyway, I'd be interseted to know what you think.

Michael

Viscount Firm
18 November 2008 at 16:57

Really I can't see what all the fuss is about. I routinely post really quite obscene things all around the internet. What Ben Davies needs is a dose of the army. Do him good.

bodek_tzitziyot
19 November 2008 at 01:26

"Equally I'm not interested in being a platform for extremist Zionists who scarcely conceal their racism towards their Arab neighbours and who belittle other victims of Hitler's vile regime."

You should not use the term "racist" to describe any and every expression of hostility or antipathy, or even hatred, that you encounter. The English language has many words that allow for a fastidious and nuanced differentiation between various kinds of feelings and opinion, and the word racist should be used only when it applies.

One definition of "racism" is "the belief in the existence of qualities of character and traits of behaviour, usually negative, that are innate, and prevalent or universal, among members of a race".

To describe the conduct of an Arab nation or an Arab country or Arab people negatively is not inherently racist. To believe that the Arab nation's culture or policy is criminal or cruel or unjust is not inherently racist. But to believe that Arabs as individuals or as a people have some inherently built-in negative character traits on account of their genetic makeup is racist.

As for "belittling other victims of Hitler's regime", it is a historical truth that the Jews are the group that suffered the greatest losses by far at the hands of the Nazis. Furthermore, among the peoples of Europe, the Jews are the only ones who have not restored their numbers since WW2, and are today a small and dying remnant in that continent. The complaint that Jews who ponder these facts "belittle" other victims is insulting.

writeon
19 November 2008 at 19:46

Ben,

I agree with you 100%

I too think it's wrong to give a platform for racists and their vile views.

I think that most, if not the vast, overwhelming majority, of civilized, reasonably intelligent and educated people, can agree that racism is simply wrong.

This attitude is of course the opposite to what many civilized people believed only a few decades ago. Racism has a long and inglorious history. It's often been cover for something else, a form of 'moral' justification or rationalisation for dominance and/or imperial conquest or colonization. Racism can be very convenient for a society. Arguably, racism as an ideology only really took off after slavery and colonialism became so important and so profitable.

Today 'racism' has in many ways become a more complex phenomenon than it ever was, when times were simpler and the rules were simply and more easily understood.

Ben, did you, or do, in fact use the term 'racist' to describe every expression of antipathy, hostility, or hatred that you encounter? I don't think you do. I think that is utterly false and close to an attempt to intimidate you, or make you think twice about using the term in relation to 'Zionist extremists', as if they are somehow excluded from this charge for some reason, it doesn't apply to them, even when they make openly racist remarks about Arabs!

You really must learn, Ben, and I hope this isn't too hard for you to understand, just watch my lips; be more careful, fastidious, nuanced; and do try to learn to differentiate between various grades of feeling and opinion, like open contempt and perfectly justified, acceptable, even praiseworthy shades of hatred. I hope this hasn't gone completely over your head? If it has, I could be pursuaded to send you a diagram with pictures, if that would help clarify things for you!

writeon
19 November 2008 at 20:25

The word 'racist' is a bit odd. It's become a very slippery word and is apparently open to wildly different interpretations and startling degrees of nuance, why is that, is this something new?

One hears the word 'racist' applied to John Pilger all the time, yet it used in a special way. Granted, the people who label him 'racist' aren't especially well-educated or spectacularly intelligent, but I'm not sure that gives them an excuse, or many it does?

Few people call Pilger a 'racialist', that is, someone who believes in the concept or theory of racialism, who thinks that other races are inferior specifially because of their race.

Not many, if any, allege he's a supporter of 'racialism' either. That he thinks people of a certain race are characterised by certain racial, almost genetic traits which put them on a lower level as human beings. Has Pilger ever written anything anywhere to support these allegations? Or expressed open hostility in his writings towards an entire racial group or country? Would the NS employ and give space to a man with such odious attitudes? Wouldn't the magazine open itself up to prosecution under the race relations act? Even for the sake of controversy and free publicity, wouldn't this be counter-productive and very damaging to the magazine's reputation?

Obviously these are rhetorical questions, because one has to stretch these concepts to breaking point and beyond, in the service of a higher cause, rather cynically, to 'prove' that Pilger is a filthy racist swine. Yet that's what people do time after time, almost automatically and without cause, rhyme or reason.

Interestingly, these words, which have solid meanings, are then rolled up into into the word 'racist' which is given a highly partisan and tendentious definition and meaning all of its own, which has very little to do with what it really means. In reality it's pure propaganda and a crude attempt at character assassination.

Carl Jones
19 November 2008 at 21:11

Its all rather strange, plenty of people cry racism, but never go to the police. Of course, a few cases of police investigaion, especially on the anti-semitism front would clear things up.

I agree with the last comment in principle and from my perspective, infers the NS to be racist.... this is not a reflection on the last comment, just my view. Several comments censored today, must be some sort of vendetta aganist me. I can`t even get the NS to explain their position. Thats assuming they are getting my emails

writeon
19 November 2008 at 21:14

what I find amusing, no not amusing, grotesque and rather disturbing, are pretentious and bumbling attempts to 'parse' and 'nuance' racism! Ye, Gods, it's hard to take seriously, but then one should, because these attitudes aren't really funny!

The level of arrogance and conceit involved is truly shocking. Let me see if I can get my head around this. Apparently hatred of a people, or nation, or culture, in this case - Arabs, is ok, and not inherently an expression of racialist attitudes, if this 'negativity' is applied to the collectivity, the generalty. However, these same views, including hatred etc. are racialist when applied to individuals, a people, if one believes it's because of something in their genetic and therefore permanent make up! Well that's a relief to get that cleared up so succinctly. I suddenly understand this profound difference!

So it's fine, and acceptable, to despise, have contempt for, and hate a vile, cruel, and violent people's culture embodied in their nation, but that isn't a form of racism because I don't hold it against them as individual Arabs or a people, as I don't beleive it's iherently controlled by their genes, it's only inherent in their culture! And the difference is what exactly? Is it really that easy to separate a people from their culture? And how many Jew and Arabs can really manage to balance on the head of a pin before they come to blows?!

Isn't this, in reality, an easily refuted, attempt to justify racialist attitudes towards Arabs, whilst at the same time 'cleverly' avoiding the charge of racialism, becuase one has re-defined racialism to suit one?

writeon
19 November 2008 at 21:56

Finally, and I'm wondering why I bother with the warped and conceited ideas of people who aren't the sharpest knives in the draw or the best schooled. I must be an idealist, the last person to believe in the ideals of the Enlightenment!

Is it just me, or is there something distasteful, and that's putting it mildly, with 'weighing' corpses on a scale? My pile of bodies is higher than yours is, so I suffered more and deserve special treatment and consideration, and furthermore, because my people have suffered so much injustice, that allows me to make another people suffer injustice at my hands.

This is, at heart, a truly terrible and unspoken argument, a hidden, rotten agenda. It's not even as cruel as, an eye for an eye, it's actually worse. It's autistic behaviour. Or something like an abused and brutalised child who goes on to abuse other children when he grows up! It leads one to despair.

And as the bodies are weighed, does it have any real meaning anymore? Isn't one innocent child murdered by a Nazi too many? A hundred thousand - unthinkable. A million - unimaginable. Millions and millions and one loses count and ones mind. Can one really say that 'only' murdering one million is 'less' than murdering three or four million? Is six really 'worse' than three million? How can one give any real meaning when talking about such horror? How can one compare the numbers of dead, death on such a gigantic scale, and then 'use' these deaths in a argument about justice and right, in relation to a cause? In a way I think that's a real insult to the memory of the dead.

gnuneo
20 November 2008 at 03:08

bodek_tzitziyot : "To believe that the Arab nation's culture or policy is criminal or cruel or unjust is not inherently racist."

i look forward to your equally spirited rebuttals of those who claim that criticising Israel is "anti-Semitic".

ben: i also can imagine what it has been like, and how much time/money must have been spent simply trying to keep the forums readable. In that sense, i can also understand why you have taken this decision.

yet, there are other concerns. Yes, there are general principles of free speech, however there are also - necessary - limits to free speech. Free speech logically implies that ALL parties concerned may speak, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that if some are trying to shout down the others, then Free Speech is not prevailing. It is not against Free Speech to require the shouters to allow the others to speak - nor to prevent shouters & abusers from engaging in other forms of verbal terrorism.

see 'Paralogy':

http://users.sfo.com/~rathbone/paralog2.htm

of course, this also is an Ideal, and intemperate Mankind can oft *temporarily* break such rules with a creative license, or to express strong emotion. But the point is that even under the conditions of full Free Speech, it MUST be logically permissible to limit Free Speech! (actually this is no paradox at all, it is just the aural equivalent of "Your Freedom ends at my Nose" for Freedom of Action.).

YET, as i said there ARE worries, and this is one: The NS, apparently somewhat alone amongst British media outlets, has a fairly good level of public discussion about Israel, and its activities. The discussions have been of tremendous knowledge and perception, and have by and large been extraordinarily good to read. Even the replies to the intemperates have often been filled with insight and compassion for both sides, and have added to the joy of reading.

gnuneo
20 November 2008 at 03:09

the concern is that if such discussions can be blocked/prevented/removed, essentially by a gang of thugs, then that gang of thugs will do the same elsewhere. Thuggery, of ANY kind should not be respected, nor should it ever succeed to prevent amicable exchange amongst non-thugs.

Ben, the previous Admin wrote to my email address, can you also get in touch, or else avail me of some method of contacting you? There is a possible way to circumvent this problem.

writeon
20 November 2008 at 07:27

Den,

I think there's a definite pattern that emerges in the comments, almost exclusively in relation to John Pilger.

It's almost as if there really is a 'posse' lying in wait for him and they literally flood the space for comments with ad hominem attacks on him and anyone would has the temerity to agree with him on some point.

It's a strategy, a destructive one, almost like a war of attrition. The idea is to wear down the 'opposition' and stiffle real debate. This is typical of totalitarian tactics and reminds one of the tactics employed by the Browshirts in Nazi Germany to shout down and shut down democracy.

I may be over-reacting or paranoid, but I get the distinct impression that they are working from a kind of script, as often the structure, arguments and language used follows a decernable pattern. I don't know if they are just 'honing' their debating 'skills', which are not particularly impressive to begin with, but it's irritating to have to wade through an 'obsticle course' every time Pilger writes something.

I wouldn't mind if there was a real, honest attempt at debate, only there isn't, not really. They want to strangle debate and severely limit what's allowed to be discussed and frame the argument around 'rules' they dictate. Once again, the totalitarian mind at work.

There is no real exchange of ideas, only a barrage of invective and abuse. Is this acceptable and fair?

I have a real aversion to totalitarian nationalism and nationalist mythology. I suppose it's because Europe as suffered so much from these dangerous forces over the years that's made me so sensitive, especially as so many members of my own extended family paid for these 'myths' with ther lives.

gnuneo
20 November 2008 at 21:04

writeon: on another forum, i experienced a concerted attack of precisely this sort for over 3yrs, entirely because of my support for an equitable resolution to the problem of Israel/Palestine, and also my support for non-Popperian defined Science. Such tactics, when used daily against you, across the field, do indeed start to drain your energy, and can even cause depressions. Interestingly, such people will actually exult in causing harm to their debating 'opponents', for them 'winning the debate', at any cost, is what it is all about.

that this is clear sociopathology, will probably be clear to you. The tactics are quite subtle, and it is only after a few exchanges that the patterns can be seen, unlike the simple intemperate 'angry young men' who just rage and rage. Usually it involves a very calm approach (similar in some respects to yours), which can be misleading, but the direction is clear - not to ever come to conclusions, but to pick up on one comment, make a claim that would require a long, well researched answer, and then follow with insults and slander, making it appear to those casual readers that they have scored some point. Even if they receive the long answer, they simply repeat the pattern again. This is because they are not attempting to 'find the truth' and thus come to a conclusion, they are just interested in preventing a coherent and cogent argument against them. They intend to 'win' through verbal thuggery and intimidation.

the interesting aspect of that of course, is that it reveals more than anything they could say, that they realise they cannot win in an honest debate.

the other aspect that is noticeable, is that they also clearly have an 'answer sheet', from which they pull out these non-claims they bombard with (such as "the Palestinians refused the peace offering in 2000, therefore they don't want peace"), another tactic used by totalitarians to gain control over open or uncertain minds.

gnuneo
20 November 2008 at 21:12

I have also seen this used before, by cults & their ilk, and it is very laborious to fight such tactics, unless one has an equivalent database from which to c/p. Even then, it is still a draining of energy, which is their entire point.

it is not "paranoid" to see such tactics in action, the difficulty is to know what can/should be done about them. It is ignoble, and frankly dishonourable, to allow such behaviour to shut up those who wish to engage in proper discussion about the topics these thugs wish to stifle, because that rewards such behaviour, which can only lead to more instances of it being used. The Internet has brought the possibility of Global Free Speech - these Dark-Age Brownshirts, these 'intellectual' proto-NightWatch members, must not be allowed to strangle it at birth.

too much is resting upon it, for the future of our entire civilisation - and possibly species.