Bright's Blog

77 comments from readers

Serosch
19 August 2008 at 15:58

Mr Bright, I believe it would be best for the New Statesman if you resigned your post. You have done a massive amount of damage to what was once a respected left-wing publication.

Your views are more suited to the Daily Mail or other such publications.

Morgan097
19 August 2008 at 16:16

And behold:

If Seroach comes, can afraslag be far behind?

Martin Bright
19 August 2008 at 16:35

Thanks for the suggestion, Serosch. What views might these be? Let me guess. My opposition to the Islamic radical right and my support for the right of the state if Israel to exist?

Serosch
19 August 2008 at 19:04

Bright – “My opposition to the Islamic radical right and my support for the right of the state if Israel to exist?”

No Bright / Morgan097, it’s your opposition to Muslims living in the UK, your support of the Zionist agenda, your links with Jewish organisations in the UK which raise funds for illegal Jewish settlements in Palestine, and your jumping on the anti-Iranian bandwagon.

Also why have you removed my previous post, jet left your own under the name of Morgan097?

Afrasiab
19 August 2008 at 19:40

Morgan097

19 August 2008 at 16:16

And behold:

"If Seroach comes, can afraslag be far behind?"

Superb what witty repartee, Bright you have surly outdone yourself.

Morgan097
19 August 2008 at 20:04

1. "If Seroach comes, can afraslag be far behind ?" - Morgan post, 19:04

2. afraslag sighting, 19:40

QED

Morgan097
19 August 2008 at 20:08

#1 was, of course, Seroach, not Morgan, post.

Morgan097
20 August 2008 at 01:52

Well, raggy, as Gen. Billy Sherman always said, "The only good Amalekite is a dead Amalekite!"

I'm told that rabbis, priests and (God help us) even ministers have indeed been known to make racist statements, though certainly not with the droning regularity of so many imams and mullahs.

But the Haaretz piece never claims that Rosen calls for the general killing of either Palestinians or Iranians. Rosen, in fact, is quite specific when he adds, "Amalek as a concept and as the object of our battle and our hostility exists in each and every generation," and "this does not refer to the ethnic Amalek, but to all those in whom there burns a deep and abiding hatred of Israel on a national or religious basis."

He was in fact calling for concerted government action against Palestinian terrorists, like the one who murdered the Yeshiva students one week prior to the article.

And for his Knesset representative, he's said to have voted for a cranky but Orthodox badger.

explodingbadger
20 August 2008 at 06:00

If there were nothing in those claims why did you feel the need to censor them ?

Morgan097
20 August 2008 at 09:15

explodingbastard:

Rommel instructs me to convey to you the message that you can't die fast enough to suit him.

raggedyman
20 August 2008 at 09:23

Well either rabid Rabbis are an endangered species or they don't have the 'oxygen' of publicity enjoyed by the mad Mullahs nowadays.

Did not Rabin succumb to the rabid Rabbis?

The Jewish God often seems a little extremist in his edicts to me - consider:

"2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:2-3).

King Saul was stripped of his kingship on the grounds that he had not followed the Lords ruling that the Amalekites be completely annihilated. How refreshing to have a God around who can give us a bit of clarity in these confusing times; God it seems does not make fine distinctions between extremist and non-extremist Amalekites - even among the Oxen. But I guess you can do that when you're God.

Worryingly the 'Association of Rabbis of the Land of Israel' still reside in the land of the Amalekites and interpret this stuff almost literally; that is if their recent pronouncements vis-a-vis Palestinians are to be taken seriously.

Morgan097
20 August 2008 at 09:35

The only organ that ought to concern afraslag is the one belonging to little fellow nazi Seroach, that remains permanently lodged between afraslag's drooling lips.

raggedyman
20 August 2008 at 09:44

Morg:

Did you have to do that last one? It's put me off my cornflakes.

Morgan097
20 August 2008 at 10:43

raggy,

R: "Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:2-3).

M: The little Amalekite sweethearts have so far used women, children, wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, the mentally and physically disabled, and probably chipmunks to murder Jewish civilians.

Samuel was obviously prescient in suggesting precautionary tactics for future Amelekite operations.

R: Worryingly the 'Association of Rabbis of the Land of Israel' still reside in the land of the Amalekites and interpret this stuff almost literally; that is if their recent pronouncements vis-a-vis Palestinians are to be taken seriously.

M: Ah, raggy, you fell for it. Legitimate websites that unwittingly reprinted the Al-Ahram fraud have since published apologetic retractions. [e.g. "... when we find, or are shown, that we have linked/quoted factual errors and or fabrications as is obviously the case in this post we admit it and take our lumps in public for doing so." stageleft, May 31st, 2008]

The Egyptian Ministry of Information which oversees Al Ahram made the mistake of crediting the original Haaretz article as their source. Inquiring minds went to the Haaretz piece and the fraud was discovered.

Avoid sloppy fact-checking, raggy. Someday, it might be important.

Morgan097
20 August 2008 at 10:44

Sorry about the cornflakes, raggy.

redharry
20 August 2008 at 12:53

Martin Bright fails to inform his readership that my last post asked why he had failed to include any Palestinian voices in his article about Israel. I'd like to know why he can't answer this very simple question.

Nor has he defended the source of his funding for his trip to Israel.

ps he has no problem with anonymous posters who

a. agree with him

b. write feeble parodies of me

Martin Bright
20 August 2008 at 14:26

This is not the first time you have asked the question you heroic man of mystery you. I agree that I should have included some Palestinian voices as they would have made my argument for a reassessment of the left's infantile attitude to Israel even stronger. I regret this bitterly.

I do not need to defend my trip to Israel. I was taken there by BICOM as I explained in my article. The organisation is not perfect but it serves a perfectly legitimate role.

I do have a problem with anoymous posters. There is already the risk that the NS pages become little better than a radio phone-in. The difference is that no respectable radio phone-in would allow people to come on air without giving their name.

And the parody of you, redharry, was absolutely brilliant. I'm sorry, but it was.

I have now given you far more time and publicity than you deserve. Your persistence is admirable and some of the points you make are sound, but the obsessiveness is just a wee bit scary. And remember, I am using my real name.

Morgan097
20 August 2008 at 21:09

And raggy,

Forget the cornflakes, and be grateful you weren't having bangers.

raggedyman
20 August 2008 at 23:26

Bright:

But if we were to give you our 'real' names how would you know they were our 'real' names. You could always get us to promise and hope to die I 'spose. Or perhaps retina-scanning...

respectable Radio phone-in...

You really haven't got the hang of this internet stuff have you Martin?

And remember, I am using my real name.

Now that is scary.

I am a bit green on this one but can BICOM be accurately described as a pro-Israeli advocacy group?

Morg:

Valiantly I strive to raise the tone of the debate only to be dragged remorselessly back into the mire of your diabolical ruminations.

You know as well as I that Rabbi Yisrael Rosen & Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu are absolute religious nutballs who have nightly conversations with Jehova on how to eradicate the curse of the modern Amalekite.

I have the links to Haaretz to prove it.

Don't make me do it damn you.

Morgan097
21 August 2008 at 00:13

raggy,

The badger has nightly conversations with me on how to eradicate the curse of the modern dachshund, but I've never once heard you complain about that.

raggedyman
21 August 2008 at 01:19

It's a matter of delicacy, Morg.

What a man has to say to his badger in the dark of night is his own affair; we must perforce look the other way.

Morgan097
21 August 2008 at 02:21

Thank you for your discretion, raggy.

Now, if you'd only return those negatives that Rommel gave you last year for safekeeping....

raggedyman
21 August 2008 at 10:32

It was said of Philip Rieff, the gloomy social critic, upon his demise by his son that:

I think what should be said is that what has characterized his career is a commitment to seriousness

Rieff increasingly believed in the rise of a new barbarism:

True barbarism has never existed before. We are witnesses to the first true barbarians

Rieff's work inspired philosopher's like Alasdair MacIntyre to consider that we may be entering a new 'dark age'.

What they set themselves to achieve—often not recognizing fully what they were doing—was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness. If my account of our moral condition is correct, we ought also to conclude that for some time now we too have reached that turning point. . . . This time, however, the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers, they have already been governing us for quite some time.

If the broad church of the left has become a touch incoherent as of late surely this and the accusation that it is at best dourly humourless may be the worst of its sins.

When MB uses language like 'infantile' to characterise those on the left who at least are earnest in their beliefs - well I can only express my dismay at such derogation.

It is difficult not to resist thinking of Mr Bright as the worst kind of Trojan Horse who may do more irreparable harm to the movement of the left than a whole host of shrill right-wing commentators. This may be all the more true of the upper echelons of the modern Labour Party - a party that Thatcher quite rightly preferred over her own.

The drift towards some vapid evisceration - a neutered centrism if you like - of their radical credentials for some purportedly left-wing pundits is a feature of these vacillating times. The world of the 21st century needs more radicalism not less.

By the way MB, my quote of BICOM as a 'pro-Israeli advocacy group' was lifted from the Jerusalem Post.

raggedyman
22 August 2008 at 00:26

'ere Morg re: your post at 01:52 - are you responding to me as I can't seem to find me, at least not before 01:52?

Do you think it's possible that MB has exercised his God-like powers and deleted me? Surely not. Me? Deletion? What kind of cockamammy impudence is this? This is outrageous - I demand an explanation. No, I demand a retraction and a full apology. Upon what weaselly basis was this infamous act perpetrated? I will take it to the highest levels. I demand nothing less than full reinstatement short of a reasoned and reasonable explanation. I will not let it rest.

This unprovoked aggression WILL not stand.

Geoffrey can I appeal to you - is this not defamation of the most arbitrary kind? How many more must MB slay before you intervene? This is a slaughterhouse. There is a madman on the loose.

I warn you MB you won't like me when I'm angry.

raggedyman
22 August 2008 at 01:24

Bright:

You have 24 hours to respond.

Morgan097
22 August 2008 at 06:10

Yes, raggy,

Sad but true.

Your brilliant, touching, heart-breakingly beautiful prose was indeed sent to oblivion by some callous philistine shielded behind a sinister cloak of anonymity, cackling wickedly. no doubt, as he committed the sacrilege.

You are accordingly reduced to no satisfactory alternative course of action other than an angry letter to The Times.

raggedyman
22 August 2008 at 09:55

Thanks Morg - you have inadvertently reminded me of the substance of that post. If I recall correctly I was drawing attention to the fact that MB's 'anonymity' argument was the daftest thing I've heard since the brother's last fiendishly clever 'invention' - solar-powered bicycle lamps.

Ah yes, it seems to make sense now. It is not you & I, Morg, who are hiding behind 'anonymity' but MB who is in hiding behind argumentum ad logicam - no doubt trembling like a journalistic version of the Wizard of OZ.

That being the case I think I can be big enough to make allowance for the fact that even MB is human and has feet of clay.

Perhaps I won't take it to the highest level after all; still questions remain concerning MB's fitness to rule.

I shall instead watch MB closely.

We anonymous posters have to stick together.

Ronnie
22 August 2008 at 10:34

I don't understand most of what is written about, its a bit 'in-house' for me.

The point is, Martin, it seems that your sponsor is an Israeli arms firm and you are a journalist. That sort of relationship is not popular among what remains of the British Left and it compromises the credibility of everything you write on the middle east. Period.

Morgan097
22 August 2008 at 13:36

Fear not, raggy.

They'll all rue the day they were hatched when we, the vanguard of New Raving Screaming Loonies, take power and at last govern the green and pleasant land with mercy, wisdom, and a chipmunk in every pot.

raggedyman
22 August 2008 at 17:50

Morg. for a Las Vegassian who maintains nocturnal relations with a small furry animal you seem remarkably well informed.

Speaking for myself it is, how can I put it?

Unexpected.

Morgan097
22 August 2008 at 19:01

raggy,

At various times, I've resided in Vegas, Palm Beach, Boston (Cambridge), Manhattan and Montreal.

If I had my druthers, I'd rotate between the Hotel du Cap and The Savoy.

Morgan097
22 August 2008 at 19:42

In the '50s, my father's offices were cluttered with tissue airmail versions of the Telegraph, Times, and (Manchester) Guardian, as well as The Spectator, NS and Punch. As a child, I read 'em all (including the NY Herald Tribune, NY Times, Daily News, Daily Mirror (for Winchell) and WSJ. The New Republic, Nation, Time and Newsweek were all essential. L'Express and Spiegel came later.

raggedyman
22 August 2008 at 20:00

Morg, be careful with the deployment of American colloquialisms - not everyone has my prodigious knowledge of the English Language which extends even to the American idiom and hence would probably be flummoxed by your use of 'druthers'.

Hell some of the folk hereabouts don't even know the difference between a metaphor and an idiom. As the poet has it:

O dear white children, casual as birds,

Playing amid the ruined languages

Morgan097
22 August 2008 at 20:01

And all I ever really wanted to do was to play middle linebacker for my beloved New York Football Giants.

Morgan097
22 August 2008 at 20:09

And the relationship of Britten to Pears could never approach the spirituality of Morgie to Rommel.

Morgan097
22 August 2008 at 20:17

I personally prefer Auden when he turns his attention to that low, dishonest decade. I love scary movies, too.

raggedyman
22 August 2008 at 20:49

I know I'm going to regret this and forgive me if it's a touch indelicate but:

who exactly is Rommel?

and:

does it require dressing up in uniforms?

No, don't answer that. At least not yet; not, that is, until I've had a noggin or two.

gnuneo
22 August 2008 at 20:58

MB: you delete the post, then you create a whole other page to discuss the post? Interesting way of "burying" something, i quite admire it.

whether however you should have done so is yet another matter. You as a journalist (of some repute and integrity) of all people should not take offence at someone's ferreting out of who pays your expense accounts etc, we the Public i am certain you would agree are not only at liberty to know such information about those who feed us our information, but also that such journalist activities are essential in a Democracy.

from previous articles it seems to me you are not particularly fond of Islam - in any version - and this is straightforwardly a bias of yours. There is nothing in that, everyone has biasses/likes & dislikes, just because you do not like Islam does not indicate you are necessarily a paid-up member of the neo-cons/Illuminati/freemasons/stormfront etc etc etc, despite what some others may think.

and yes, i think you take a lot of flak, much of it apparently unfair.

BUT - you are not above having your own connections revealed, can you imagine if politicians could also have the power to bury/delete such research upon them?

i would say you have to take your lumps like a man, especially when your own career path is based upon such spirited investigation and truth-telling.

RM: "O dear white children, casual as birds,

Playing amid the ruined languages"

everything is always getting worse, yet everything is always getting more interesting. Language evolves, get over it! :P

raggedyman
22 August 2008 at 21:14

And with regard to the question:

'why do the left hate Israel?'

Well I cannot speak for my fellow-travellers but in my case it's a simple matter. Ever since childhood I've had a thing about bullies - the fact is I 'ate 'em, I loathe 'em, I despise 'em. They're always big; they're always fat; and they're always ugly. And they're usually picking on me [probably because of those NHS spectacles I was forced to wear].

Since the whole gamut of self-styled post-Enlightenment nation-states have all had their programmes of systematically eradicating their indigenous populations [alas, where are the mournful bagpipes of Glen Calvie or Glen Cannich now?] it can hardly be because Israel has departed from the Enlightenment script. They are in this regard the very embodiment of the Enlightenment spirit - that is the spirit of integration through eradication long practiced in the name of modernisation and the march of progress - the twin pillars of the Enlightenment.

raggedyman
22 August 2008 at 23:41

Thanks gnuneo; I shall endeavour to 'get over it'.

But it won't be easy.

Morgan097
23 August 2008 at 00:07

raggy,

1. Rommel is my badger, of course.

2. Only an intellectual could believe that 4.5 million Jews (who share their tiny patch of ancestral turf with 1.5 ever-so-grateful Arabs), living in a flourishing western democracy could "bully" 1.2 billion homicidal Muslims living under military dictatorships and feudal monarchies, whose greatest expressed delight would derive from "driving the Jews into the sea."

Morgan097
23 August 2008 at 00:09

And raggy,

Please try to avoid addressing gnumbnuts directly.

It only encourages him to continue breathing.

Morgan097
23 August 2008 at 00:42

In the current Olympic spirit of universal brotherly love, allow me the liberty of explaining the annoying but persistent survival instinct of Jewish Israelis with the following brief anecdote.

In 1935, my dear papa (later to become an employee of an Oh So Secret appendage of the US war effort) visited Berlin just prior to the '36 games. There he recorded the words to a popular SA slogan for his files:

"Wenn die Olympischen Spiele vorbei, schlagen wir die Juden zu Brei."

or

"Once the Olympic Games are over, we'll beat the Jews to a pulp."

raggedyman
23 August 2008 at 00:48

Morg:

Rommel is my badger, of course.

Thank God for that; I can banish that vision from my mind now.

I take it that from your point of view that if there are any nice Muslims out there they're a very small minority - possibly just a handful.

You know when Olmert said this to Spiegel:

"Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level - when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons - as America, France, Israel, Russia?"

You have to wonder why Israel continues to keep Mordechai Vanunu locked up if their very own Prime Minister is going around openly admitting their Nuclear capability. Quite apart from the fact that it puts the US in a tricky position - they could not continue to supply Israel with its huge military aid package legally if Israel admitted what everyone knows - that it has got nukes.

Suicide bombing is the act of a desperate people who don't have bulldozers, tanks, helicopter gunships, jet fighters, modern shoulder-launched Thermobaric weapons, or Nuclear missiles. Bullies?

You betcha.

QED

Morgan097
23 August 2008 at 01:13

raggy,

R: You have to wonder why Israel continues to keep Mordechai Vanunu locked up if their very own Prime Minister is going around openly admitting their Nuclear capability.

M: Vanunu, if you haven't noticed, is a very strange character who violated his top secret security oath to sell his story to the Sunday Times. Any Arab country would have had him immediately executed for treason.

Olmert is an indicted nincompoop.

R: Quite apart from the fact that it puts the US in a tricky position - they could not continue to supply Israel with its huge military aid package legally if Israel admitted what everyone knows - that it has got nukes.

M: Oh, raggy. You mustn't disappoint me with such an immature notion. Were Israel to be found in open violation of US law, American legislators would alter or simply ignore the law, just as FDR did with regard to Britain and the Neutrality Acts.

R: Suicide bombing is the act of a desperate people who don't have bulldozers, tanks, helicopter gunships, jet fighters, modern shoulder-launched Thermobaric weapons, or Nuclear missiles. Bullies? You betcha. QED

M: The Jews suffered the greatest disaster to their people in recorded history, yet never resorted to the barbarism of deliberately targeting pregnant German women or children. QED

raggedyman
23 August 2008 at 01:44

By immature I think you mean naive.

Legality ain't the only issue. Not even the US can afford to ignore domestic or world opinion - the US & the Israelis play this 'emperor has no clothes' game because it remains crucial to much of their Middle Eastern geopolitical strategy. For example on Iran.

I don't think the problem is the British killing Arabs or the Germans killing Jews or the Jews killing Arabs. I think it is some kind of modern disease. Unlocked in some way by that industrial charnel house - the First World War. It shaped if not created the modern world disorder.

Interestingly I don't think Hitler was a so-called biological racist - he was a true modern. In order to fashion a strong German 'Volk' he quite calculatedly fashioned a religion of hate. He even chastised fellow Nazi party members for their crude biologic racism dismissing it as nonsense. For him it was a device. It wasn't only Jews but other groups who were singled out as part of this device for building a new strong German people - there were homosexuals, deviants, criminals, and gypsies.

Hitler saw something in human beings that ran true to their natures and exploited it in the service of building a nation. We need to understand this - there is no reason why the Israelis should be given a special privilege or a special exemption in this regard.

The Israelis cannot in like manner use their victimhood as a defense for their perfidy; they should not be untouchables in their actions. They remain strong and the Palestinians weak - we should not acquiesce in an injustice as we did in the 1930s. Or if we do we should at least be prepared for the consequences.

Morgan097
23 August 2008 at 03:26

Oh raggy, raggy,

R; Hitler saw something in human beings that ran true to their natures and exploited it in the service of building a nation. We need to understand this - there is no reason why the Israelis should be given a special privilege or a special exemption in this regard.

M: Israel, unlike the Palestinian Arabs whose terrorism has always been subsidized by the fearful oil sheiks (including Saddam), the gutless EU, the complicit UN, and even the clueless US taxpayer (UNIFIL) has been given sweet f**kall in the form of "special privilege" or "special exemption."

If Israel weren't the only Jewish state, it would be ignored exactly as were Indonesia with East Timor, China with Tibet, Russia with Chechnya, Australia with the Aborigines, Uganda with the East Asians, etc., etc., etc. America supports Israel because Israel is a tiny western democracy in a sea of dictatorships.

R: The Israelis cannot in like manner use their victimhood as a defense for their perfidy; they should not be untouchables in their actions. They remain strong and the Palestinians weak - we should not acquiesce in an injustice as we did in the 1930s.

M: "Perfidy"? The Grand Mufti's open collaboration with Himmler's "final solution" was perfidy. The pogrom of Iraqi Jews in '43 was perfidy. The forced expulsion of 800,000 to 1.2 million Jews from Arab lands their families had inhabited for millenia was perfidy.

Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

raggedyman
23 August 2008 at 11:54

I see, Morg, we are at the great divide once more.

But hotheads, militants and the pathologically belligerent abound in this grim story of land-grab, power politics, religious zealotry, and old-fashioned betrayal [Irgun? King David Hotel?].

Haj Amin was a militant Arab nationalist born out of British betrayal cynical even by the standards of the time. It was habit-forming for the British who had done much the same to the Greeks.

He led the ill-fated first Palestinian intifada [1936-39] that was brutally suppressed by the British with assistance from Zionist guerrilla forces. In defence of the action Churchill responded to the Peel Commission in 1937:

I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.

Haj Amin and the desperate, we now must realise hopeless, cause of the Palestinians was not helped by his appeal to the Nazis during WWII. Between a rock and a hard place the Palestinians were ever confronted with the grimmest of choices. Arafat's appeal to Saddam also. That the Arab leaders could believe that they would get what they wanted from such groups is a measure of their desperation. But it gave rise to that well-worn phrase 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'.

But this is a divide we shall likely never cross.

Hobsbawm aptly describes the twentieth century as the Age of Extremes. The Jewish-Arab conflict seems to perfectly embody this in microcosm. Perhaps the final word on this sorry saga in human history should be left to the historian George Antonius:

Zionist is active, highly organised and widespread; the world Press, at any rate in the democracies of the West, is largely amenable to it; it commands many of the available channels for the dissemination of news, and more particularly those of the English-speaking world. Arab propaganda is, in comparison, primitive and infinitely less successful: the Arabs have little of the skill, polyglottic ubiquity or financial resources which make Jewish propaganda so effective. The result is that for a score of years or so, the world has been looking at Palestine mainly through Zionist spectacles and has unconsciously acquired the habit of reasoning on Zionist premises.

Antonius said this in 1938; if anything it is more true today.

raggedyman
24 August 2008 at 00:28

Bright:

Your 24 hours is up - we are officially at war.

Riaz Ahmad
24 August 2008 at 12:43

Israel is surrounded by a sea of hostile, ignorant, corrupt and incompetent Arab world. Because of the suffering and legitimate rights of the Palistinians, the remaining Islamic world too is hostile to Israel. Under the circumstances, it is only natural that Israel will look for allies to strengthen its hand, it cannot do otherwise, it has no other choice. The west is after control of middle eastren oil, it will do anything legal or illegal, brutal or cunning, decent or indecent to maintain this control. Never mind westren prepoganda and lies, endless overt and covert double standards, hypocricy, violation of international norms and illegal wars are proof enough even for the blind of mind. Israel is compelled by necessity to tow the westren line, the west is inspired and motivated by its vested interest, the plunder of resourses belonging to the weak and less powerful. If Israel genuinely wants to solve the Palistinian problem, which I believe it does, it will become the next Palistine itself. Israel has no choice, it either sings from the westren hymn book or it will be destablised by the very same people who today are its friends. America and Europe will befriend and use the none oil Arab states to do the job. World politics is propelled soley by vested interest and not morals and ethics as one is lead to believe, the later are used as a convenient and effective prepoganda tool.

BegbiesEvilTwin
24 August 2008 at 16:09

Martin: Where exactly do you stand on the Israel/Palestine issue? If you clarified that it would probably go some way in defusing this flame war.

FTR: My own view is that it's impossible to undo the terrible wrongs each side has committed. The issue is where does each party go from here.

In saying that I concur with an old Cato Institute view that probably the only way it will end will be when each side fights to the point of exhaustion.

BegbiesEvilTwin
24 August 2008 at 16:10

This image sums up my feelings on this arguement: http://i37.tinypic.com/2hz73nr.jpg

James Dickins
24 August 2008 at 20:16

I am rather confused by Martin Bright's blog. In order to remove my confusion, please, someone, give me answers to the following questions:

1. Is Martin Bright claiming that Redharry's claims about Poju Zabludowicz are false?

2. Is Mr. Bright claiming that Poju Zabludowicz and BICOM did not fund his trip to Israel?

If the answers to one or both of these questions are yes, then Mr. Bright has a case to make against Redharry.

If the answers to one or both of these questions is no - and particularly if the answer to both of these questions is no - Mr. Bright has behaved in an extremely immoral manner, and should at the very least offer am unreserved apology to New Statesman readers.

Morgan097
25 August 2008 at 09:43

raggy,

I really don't feel like going into detail now, except to say that:

1. al-Husseini was a truly evil man.

2. Arabs are not the noble savages that you believe.

3. Jews don't control the MSM; board rooms do.

4. Antonius wasn't an impartial bystander, but a paid Arab propagandist.

Morgan097
25 August 2008 at 09:52

...who incidentally, revered the vile al-Husseini.

raggedyman
25 August 2008 at 12:15

Morg:

O I dunno', the Great Mufti had his good points.

He sought futilely to thwart the re-conquest of the Palestine by the Israelites. His chumminess with Himmler is described briefly by Arab nationalist historians as his 'German period'; it was not and would not be the first instance of 'poor judgment' by an Arab nationalist leader.

I believe Arab culture and history has contributed greatly to world knowledge and world civilisation. The looting and destruction of which in modern-day Mesopotamia remains the untold story of the Iraq War - and incidentally a reminder as to where we are most likely to find the true barbarians of the modern age.

Your use of the term 'noble savages' says far more about you than it does me.

Mammon controls the MSM; and the system that acts as its guarantor.

George had mainly British and American employers; during this period the Arabs and Arab nationalists were mostly skint.

Antonius marks an almost unique event in the inter-war period - an occasion when the Arab side of the story got an erudite and articulate spokesperson whose work lifted the lid on British perfidiousness towards the Arab people.

knave
28 August 2008 at 11:02

“It is difficult to know what to do about people visiting this site who hide behind their anonymity to make obsessive and personal comments. We do not have a policy on these so-called "trolls". “

This is coming from a journalist who constantly makes obsessive and personal comments. I believe you once called me an Islamist, which I must recall at my next marine reunion. Also your mate Cohen constantly calls individuals some very vicious names. He called the admirable Johann Hari a Maoist. So what is goose for the gander? Why not have anonymity? Your friend Cohen writes under the name Rat biter in Private eye. Is that his real name?

“Perhaps we should. Much of this comment would never have seen the light of day in the pre-internet age because there is only a certain amount of space on the letters page. Magazines and newspapers do their readers the courtesy of making a selection of the best letters to save them from the green-ink merchants.”

Yes and you can control the views and the questions. In the sixties, seventies and eighties the same so neo liberal economic and social conservative GOTCHA view of the world could never be questioned because opposition was never given a chance to argue their points.

“I have long believed that we insult our readers by allowing a free-for-all on the web. But it is extremely time-consuming to constantly moderate the trolls. “

So you can control the output. So the likes of Morgan, Tally Ho Jonty and Jonny mac get free reign and you are never questioned. You have a thin skin Martin if you cannot explain your views and political friendships.

“However, the New Statesman Investigates section is too important for this. I have decided it does decent readers of the website no favours for us to get involved in discussions about articles published several weeks ago.

I have therefore taken the unusual step of removing comments by "redharry" about The Great Betrayal article I wrote from Israel, which was published on 15 May 2008. The 168 comments the original article received discussed the issue in great detail. The article is still available for anyone to read.

There is no real obligation to engage with people who refuse to write under their real identity, but I do not want to stifle debate.

So here, once more, is "redharry" on his favourite subject:”

I don’t agree with much that Red Harry says, apart form his pertinent pints about you and Cohen but the personal abuse he gets from you and your conservative followers is far more cruel and abusive than his comments to you

BegbiesEvilTwin
28 August 2008 at 15:42

A few days ago I enquired on his views regarding Israel/Palestine and he hasn't replied. It's a pity really as it is virtually impossible to take the discussion further without understanding his underlying outlook.

knave
28 August 2008 at 16:37

BET

Martin seems like a nice guy but he is basically a weak man who is a follower of trends. The current trend is Cameronian conservatism and triangulation. You will never get a straight answer from him because he wants the best of both worlds. To be thought as leftie but act and think like right winger. Like many of his acolytes. As the distinguished political editor of the Spectator commented there is no difference in the political views between myself and Martin. Knowing, Fraser he is no leftie. Unfortunately this is the state of affairs of British politics. No political debate because what is the point. Political parties, newspapers and periodicals towing the same political line. Liberal economics, social conservatism and neo con pro US foreign policy. No wonder we don’t vote.

Morgan097
28 August 2008 at 20:31

knave,

They actually allow you to attend your marine reunion?

My own depraved, homicidal batch of fellow 1st Cav babykillers tossed me out of the coven over 20 years ago. Hell, they won't even let me past the doors of the Fort Hood museum.

Morgan097
28 August 2008 at 20:48

And you don't vote because there's no British consulate in Leiden to provide you with an absentee ballot.

Yoda
29 August 2008 at 09:51

It seems to an impartial observer that Martin and his alter ego Morgan097 are able to use obscene language, support Israeli terrorism, and call for the mass murder of Irainians without any censorship.

Yet when other respond in kind, comments are removed.

The NS should either remove all offensive comments or leave all comments on.

This pro - Martin/Morgan bias should end.

Afrasiab, you should know better than to engage with such people.

knave
29 August 2008 at 10:30

Thanks for the suggestion, Serosch. What views might these be? Let me guess. My opposition to the Islamic radical right and my support for the right of the state if Israel to exist?

no Martin i believe in those things it is the fact that you have the same views as the political right in every topic from economic, education and foriegn policy.

Self realization Brighty and a little honesty

knave
29 August 2008 at 13:08

Just 4 quick points Martin.

1. You claim to dislike the personal abuse on the net. Yet you allow anyone who challenges your view or political motives to be either threatened or abused by either yourself or one of your self appointed acolytes. For instance the very sad thread on the Johnny Mac comment, which had more of a hint of bullying and personal abuse.

2. So Martin you equate cowardice with anonymity. So logic dictates that those journalists who don’t print their name under their pieces are cowards. So those brave heroes of private eye, who don’t print their names such as yourself, Cohen and Wheen are cowards. Glad to clear that one up.

3. You claim I have ranted in the support radical Islam. If you could point out any comment in which I have supported the Mullahs I would appreciate that you point it out. In fact I have been warning about these lunatics even when your neo cons reaganite friends were arming and training them. Also I have made numerous comments in the support of the moderate left in Israel and its need to become secular state socially, educationally and politically.

4. Also unlike yourself, Jonny tory mac and tally ho Jonty I have served my country and don’t appreciate an ex leftie pro Cameron journo or his right wing followers telling me what I should write. If you don’t like critism, don’t run a blog. It goes with the terrority.

Like BET commented in a previous thread never give straight answers to simple questions, so I don’t expect my points to be answered.

If you or your right wing followers would not use personal abuse I would appreciate it.

Morgan097
29 August 2008 at 13:14

In fact, knave, upon closer examination, identical phraseology and typing strongly suggest that Afraslag and Miyagi are almost certainly one and the same. Devious little devil, isn't he?

Serosch
29 August 2008 at 14:16

Morgan your writing style is childish, your arguments weak, pack it in little man.

The sooner the right-wing zionist Bright is removed from his post the better for all concerned.

Serosch
29 August 2008 at 14:32

Morgan097, very very sad, was there really a need for quoting Thomas Pynchon.

And what about your ilk, stealing always stealing, murdering and torturing.

You lost the argument a long time ago, it's just that you're to stupid to realise it.

The US is in decline, dosen't bode well for that racist, iilegal colony in Palestine does it.

Morgan097
29 August 2008 at 14:46

Bhatti:

The duplicitous afrasiab is clearly posting under the second handle of Miyagibackagain, and I wouldn't know Bright were I to spill a Martini over him at the Harvard Club on W. 44th Street.

As an obvious afficionado of the latest pseudoscience of alter ego detection, you might care to investigate the curious sequential relationship between anti-Semitic posters Seroach and the aforementioned afraslag.

Serosch:

The sooner you detach yourself from your contemptible Third Reich rhetoric, the sooner I'll take anything you have to say even partially seriously.

Mo
29 August 2008 at 14:56

Morgan097

"Remember that when you cited the Muslim soldier who earned the VC, I replied that his wasn't the kind of Muslim that represented a threat to the western way of life? "

This soldier gave his life for the country he called home and the flag he saluted. How dare you use his memory in this way.

Also you are about as Western as those lunatics in Tel Aviv, if it's to your benefit then you are Western if anyone dares criticise you then you label the whole west as anti-semetic.

I have it on good authority that you are indeed Mr Martin 'not very' Bright.

Morgan097
29 August 2008 at 15:12

Mo:

"[A]nti-semetic"?

Try not to eat your mashed potatoes with your fingers.

Morgan097
29 August 2008 at 15:30

And Mo,

Don't give me that crap about anyone voluntarily giving his life for his country.

Had scumcong succeeded in making Morgie "give his life for his country," it sure as hell wouldn't have been because of any bullsh*t "patriotism" on Morgie's part.

Morgan097
29 August 2008 at 15:37

It would've been because Morgie's adored .50 cal Browning jammed or because his flak jacket didn't save his ass.

Morgan097
30 August 2008 at 00:20

raggy,

Inform Roach Boy that "we" (as in US military, naval and air forces) NEVER "lost" a significant encounter with either scumcong or nva. We were micromanaged to failure by LBJ, abandoned by a divided American public, and screwed by a Democratic congress.

Worse still, Harvard shut down ROTCY.

And the US never lost; RVN only fell once we'd left.

Morgan097
30 August 2008 at 00:31

And of course, it was the "aryan" heroes of Roach Boy, afraslag, redherring and gnumbnuts who lost WWII, scurrying to us to save their sorry asses from the avenging Soviets.

Morgan097
30 August 2008 at 00:45

In fact, except for our first incompetently led encounter with their "aryan" heroes at Kaserine Pass, we never lost a significant battle against the Germans, either.

Morgan097
30 August 2008 at 07:25

raggy,

Rommel stubbornly refuses to commit to a personal pro bono appearance at the upcoming afraslug benefit until I can definitively confirm that badgers are not halal.

BegbiesEvilTwin
02 September 2008 at 03:58

knave

The NS has had terrible trouble making itself web-friendly. The original website was even for it's time was naff. Now the NS has IMHO one of the best* web designs it's instincts are still based in traditional top-down journalism and it has yet to reconcile itself with the norms of online culture. For a whole myriad of reasons many UK journals will never achieve a large online presence and the only way of getting an edge is to engage with it's users. That means doing things like committing to an online discussion and shaping articles to encourage this rather than merely posting something online. In fairness to Martin, unlike many others, he has participated.

*For it's purchasing power it is by far one of the best.