Comments on: War on Want: Chasing Demons

By: Nearly Oxfordian

Nearly Oxfordian — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:13:45 +0000

What hot air. What self-delusion. And to imagine that this is proved because some Israeli blogger said so …

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:22:14 +0000

“Maybe not. The far-left judges states that are close US allies differently from those who are its enemies, because of its opposition to US political power. As such, criticising Israel more harshly than Iran from a left-wing perspective is not necessarily anti-semitism, it is based in anti-Americanism.”

Dan is spot on. The Israeli blogger Benjamin Kerstein understands this point.

By: Nearly Oxfordian

Nearly Oxfordian — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:36:27 +0000

The above refers to editorial content in the printed newspaper, if I didn’t make that sufficiently clear.

By: Nearly Oxfordian

Nearly Oxfordian — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:39:54 +0000

You can pooh-pooh the link between demented, psychotic, obsessive demonisation of Israel, indeed obsession with Israel and Jews generally, and antisemitism, all you like. When Al Guardian devotes 25% as much space to venomous and mendacious attacks on Syria or Sudan or China or Iran as it does to such attacks on Israel and has been doing for decades, I’ll concede that it’s just stupidity and not antisemitism. Until such time, my position remains as it has been.

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:09:37 +0000

OK. I didn’t make it clear who I was responding to.

By: Jonathan Hoffman

Jonathan Hoffman — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:06:09 +0000

Ok, sorry I thought you were accusing me.
Dan, let’s agree to disagree.

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:04:14 +0000

“One, I did not “insinuate that you are anti-semitic””

I wasn’t responding to you, but Nearly Oxfordian’s comment at 4:42 pm: “Surely this is not the usual reason that we can all recognise easily enough by the way it quacks? Naaah …”

“advocates of Israel arbitrarily call their opponents ‘antisemitic’.”

No, I didn’t say that all advocates of Israel call opponents anti-semitic, but certainly you are using the term too loosely. You’ve made a causal link between the supposed prejudices of Guardian editors, based mainly on the failure to apply stated moderation policy, with racist violence against Jews. For instance, according to your report, criticism of Israeli policy is just one small step from anti-semitism and, as such, encourages violence against Jewish students. I just don’t think this argument stands up.

By: Jonathan Hoffman

Jonathan Hoffman — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:42:02 +0000

http://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

This is the most widely accepted definition of antisemitism by the way – as used by the UK Parliamentary Committee on AS and the US State Department, for example.

By: Nearly Oxfordian

Nearly Oxfordian — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:38:28 +0000

Yup, that ‘arbitrary’ accusation is either the product of intellectual bankruptcy or a deliberate lie. I wonder which one it is.

By: Jonathan Hoffman

Jonathan Hoffman — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:28:02 +0000

Dan, for heaven’s sake.

One, I did not “insinuate that you are anti-semitic”

Two, I have given you incontrovertible evidence of antisemitic content in both the comments and the articles on CIF. You don’t agree.

But to then accuse me of ‘insinuating that you are antisemitic’, and to suggest that that is a term I might arbitrarily use to denigrate perceived opponents, is simply gross intellectual laziness on your part.

You are using the same ridiculous argument as Ken Livingstone, see Jeremy’s post above (16 August 2008, 8:36 am) – that advocates of Israel arbitrarily call their opponents ‘antisemitic’.

That’s just facile, insulting and a lie.