Harry's Place

“We must be on the side of those who suffer most.”

Bring on the suffering scale to measure who suffers most, who says that they suffer most, who subjects themselves to suffering..
Being on the side of those who are right, moral or justified is old hat I see.

Now we just make indpendent judgements about who suffers most and BDS the rest. Funny old world

“We must be on the side of those who suffer most.”

…because suffering sells papers. Being on the side of the right or the minority or the less popular does not.

I am a member of the NUJ and I don’t recall being asked to elect a delegate to represent me.

Being on the side of the right or the minority or the less popular does not…

… even show on the radar of leftwing fascists.

Now we just make indpendent judgements about who suffers most and BDS the rest. Thanks for sharing the stuff. Keep going…

Well if, as the execrable Oliver Miles claims, the Iraq War Inquiry will be a whitewash because the panel contains two Jews then ergo no member of the NUJ can be trusted to write about either Israel or Palestine since their union has chosen to take sides in the conflict.

It is actually an absolute disgrace that any journalist should imagine that they can set aside their obligation to report truthfully and objectively in pursuit of a plainly biased and racist political objective.

SHAME ON ALL MEMBERS OF THE NUJ FOR ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN!

Well if, as the execrable Oliver Miles claims, the Iraq War Inquiry will be a whitewash because the panel contains two Jews then ergo no member of the NUJ can be trusted to write about either Israel or Palestine since their union has chosen to take sides in the conflict.

You do realise that Miles is not a journalist and, as such, it is highly unlikely that he is a member of the NUJ?

You might question the wisdom of allowing him to air his views but the NUJ doesn’t get to determine editorial policy – and a good thing too.

As the rather more sensible author of the piece notes, most NUJ members aren’t that bothered with the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians because it is not their business and, frankly, the sort of issue that attracts bores, bigots and lunatics from across the world.

The trouble is, the bores, bigots and lunatics are precisely the type of person to highjack trade unions which have no business inferring in the matter. That it does nothing to help people in the Middle East is obvious; it is also does nothing to help the union’s members.

“We must be on the side of those who suffer most.”

That’s a classic. Some poor crazy who walks through town yelling about Jeebus and the aliens in his head probably suffers more than the people he yells at but when he finally snaps and stabs someone we don’t automatically take his “side”.

BTW, I know Tony Gosloid – he really is as nutty as a fruitcake, and every bit as obnoxious as his reputation implies.

These journalists really are Jew-obsessed (even if it is in the guise of hating Israel, as if that was ok).

Would it be “whataboutery” to ask why they are not more concerned-or at all concerned-just in terms of sheer numbers of dead and injured with the recent war in Sri Lanka, ongoing killings in several parts of Sudan (not just Darfur), rape, murder and a stolen election in Iran, Islamic oppression, terrorism and murder of varying types in Southern Thailand, the Phillipines, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Saudi? No? Only Israel? I am pretty loathe to call people anti-semites but the evidence all points in one direction.

It is not enough that the majority of NUJ members may not give a toss either way-their apathy allows the foamy-mouthed bigots to take charge.

B

“The good news from our inky-fingered brothers and sisters is that the gap between the loonie fringe and the mainstream mass of working journalists has been shown up decisively by the (relatively) high turnout of in the election for the NUJ’s house magazine, The Journalist.”

And yet the motion against Israel ‘passed overwhelmingly’. Evidently that’s the mainstream NUJ.

This is why it’s hard to do anything but laugh when British journalists are kidnapped or killed.

One minute they are complaining that Israel barred them from a War Zone and the next minute they are self-selecting themselves NOT to go to Israel or report from there.

What a good idea. Boycott any reporting that requires the use of the word “Israel”.

I remember the NUJ proposal to ban Israeli goods and products. “So when I get assigned to Israel I can’t stay in a hotel or buy a sandwich for lunch” Doh!

And despite the backing of his PCS boss Mark Serwotka, NUJ Left’s candidate Richard Simcox came a dismal seventh

Let’s hope it rubs off on Serwotka who’s up for re-election at the moment. Insh’allah.

And yet the motion against Israel ‘passed overwhelmingly’. Evidently that’s the mainstream NUJ.

Was this election on OMOV or a Block Vote? Details, details, details! Don’t they teach journos anythink these days? If the members are booting out the nutters at the top, it will take a couple of years until this is recognised by the usual dinosaurs on conference floor (generally saddos who’ve nothing better to do with their lives than go to a cold and miserable off-season seaside resort for a week).

The NUJ leadership is sensible, committed and spends its time dealing with practical industrial relations issues and the like. It has a proper concern for the wider world of journalism that is reflected in eg assistance to and solidarity with journalists in places like Zimbabwe.

The freaks who dominate the ADM are not representative of either the leadership or the membership and all they do, year after year, is give the union a bad name.

The union has a very simple solution to this alleged sullying of its hypothetical good name: vote against the antisemites and the other assorted scum.

Here’s an instance of some good work done by the NUJ. It’s actually far more typical than the empty posturing singled out in the post.

http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=1422

Why do some people in this place react to a few lunatics mouthing off as if hoards of barbarians were massing outside the gates of the City of the Enlightenment?

The NUJ Left is a small, noisy activist faction within a large and pretty staid trade union. I guess that the rest of us could do with being a little more active to counter the shenanigans of this group, but sometimes, you know, life is just too short to get hot under the collar about the antics of a few gobshites with poor dress sense and personal hygiene problems.

One positive development within the NUJ is a move to lessen the influence of conference-obsessed activists’ by holding fewer conferences. This sounds like a splendid idea to me. I attend my branch meetings to discuss issues of importance to members. By and large that is exactly what we do, and long may it continue.

Even if the NUJ Left manages to bulldoze through an anti-Israel motion at an ADM, this does not mean that the NUJ as a whole is going to boycott Israel. Get real, people.

“This is why it’s hard to do anything but laugh when British journalists are kidnapped or killed.”

Does being a cunt come naturally to you, Stanislaw, or do you have to work at it?

Unfortunately, Gordon, ordinary members don’t have a vote on motions before the conference.

Placed second was freelance Michael Cross, who had stated explicitly that The Journalist under his editorship would have less space for political campaigns of only marginal relevance to journalism.
Quite right.This is a progressive blog for people who care about issues of mainstream relevance to journalism,such as Will Katie And Peter Get Back Together?

Francis Sedgemore, you are a member of the organisation, and that is the policy it has voted for – yet again. As Gordon Bennet points out, if the supposed silent majority of the NUJ doesn’t like the criticism that inevitably comes from that, then you should change your organisation or resign. You are an anti-semitic organisation. Until you change that, then you and all other NUJ members all deserve all the contempt that goes in the direction of the anti-semitic NUJ. Get off your high horse, get your house in order and stop whining about the deserved criticism and justified hatred of Nazi cunts that goes your way.

‎אױ װײ, Stanislaw, what are you now, a comedian or a hyperbola?

It’s quite simple, Francis Sedgememore, explain just what is it about the supposed majority of supposedly decent NUJ members that prevents them from voting for non-antisemitic representatives. You can’t do that, can you?

Either the supposed silent decent majority of the NUJ actually tacitly supports its anti-semitic delegates (why do you idiots keep voting for those creeps in the first place?) or they just don’t care about the reputation of their organisation. This isn’t the first time this has happened, so your ongoing failure as a group to address this problem deserves criticism and disdain. Why don’t you resign from the anti-semitic NUJ, Francis Sedgemore? Do you have any principles?

You shouldn’t be whining about those who revile your anti-semitic organisation, you should be changing it. Come on, there are supposedly a lot of you. Chop chop.

I’ve had a look on your site, Francis, and your defensiveness here becomes clearer. No wonder you take umbrage at the criticism of the NUJ regarding its singling out of Israel – you do the same thing similar yourself when you make the claim:

“We demand a higher standard of Israel as it is a righteous nation.”

That’s just lazy and illogical. People ‘demand a higher standard’ of Israel because they like complaining about Israel and they like letting others off the hook. Same with the USA. All nations and people should be held to the same standards of behaviour, or you are objectively providing excuses for those regimes which most abuse human rights. It just gives them a licence to continue. There is no egalitarian, liberal, logical or non-racist reason for having different standards of behaviour for different nations. Israelis are not inherently better or worse than their neighbours, and they shouldn’t be held to more exacting or less exacting standards, they should be held to the same ones.

So you’re saying that the State of Israel is morally equivalent to, say, North Korea.

O.K.

Will one of the HP regulars kindly inform me whether I’m debating here with a grown adult, or one of the various Benjamins that frequent this weblodge.

In the meantime I’m off to bed. Night night all!

“So you’re saying that the State of Israel is morally equivalent to, say, North Korea.

O.K.”

Strawman. I have said no such thing, though it’s not even clear what you mean by countries being ‘morally equivalent’. I have said the same standards of behaviour should be expected of all countries – i.e. it’s not more or less acceptable for North Korea, to, for instance, torture people than it is for Israel to do so. What’s difficult to understand about that? You seem to be unable to explain why you hold different countries to different standards or what exactly holding one country to a higher standard than an another means beyond comparatively ignoring the greater offences of the worse offender to concentrate on the lesser offences of the lesser offender. You may as well argue that it is more important for public health to concentrate on improving the quality of fairly clean water than on lifting the standards of dangerously polluted water.

The more practical and logical attitude is to expect and demand that North Korea improve its abysmal human rights situation than to keep your attention on Israel due to the bizarre reasoning that more civilized countries are more in need of mending their ways than less civilized ones are. You may as well argue that a relatively fit person should work harder on their fitness than a very unfit one should. Logic and fairness dictates that if anything it should be the other way round.

Now I’ve given my reasoning and you or one of your friends here is welcome to offer a reasoned counter-argument. So far all you’ve offered is an illogical slogan and a strawman of what I have said. That won’t cut it. I don’t believe you or those who share it have ever thought through the logical implications of your double-standard. You sure as hell can’t argue it through. You may as well have got “We demand a higher standard of Israel as it is a righteous nation” out of a Christmas cracker.

“We demand a higher standard of Israel as it is a righteous nation.”

That’s just lazy and illogical.

No it isn’t. It’s racist and antisemitic. Singling out Jews for stricter criteria and stricter criticism meets all the definitions of antisemitism.

Stanislaw,
He offered more than an illogical slogan and a strawman: he offered personal abuse, which is hardly surprising given that he also excuses antisemitism.

Simonh,
Thanks for the clarification.
In that case, any claim they may have that they are a democratic organisation is nonsensical.

Gordon,

“He offered more than an illogical slogan and a strawman: he offered personal abuse, which is hardly surprising given that he also excuses antisemitism.”

I know, but in fairness I wasn’t entirely polite either. I agree with your other points. I focused on the faulty logic because I don’t want to be accused of simply and solely using the anti-semitism tag.

I don’t know if Francis is anti-semitic – I suspect the opposite – but whether intentionally or not, he is, as you say, using a racist and anti-semitic frame of logic which is identical to that used by those who simply hate Jews and want to criticise Israel all the time. And in practice it amounts to the same thing – more criticism for Israel, and by corollary less for some of the world’s most repressive regimes.

If I could offer a third opinion on the lively discussion here:

http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2009/11/confession-i-am-anti-semite.html

Yeah, and HP could do with some moderation indeed: this re Stanislaw’s brilliant sentiment. Bleh…

Given that Israel has consistently held itself to a high and self-critical standard relative to the undemocratic regimes surrounding it, and which yearn for its annihilation, it beggars belief that anyone in this place can refer to mild censure of specific Israeli policies as involving a “racist and anti-semitic frame of logic”. This own-goal plays straight into the hands of Israel demonisers, who would also shut off constructive debate about the future of the Levant and wider Middle East.

It is also laughable to be accused of antisemitism, or at the very least anti-Israel bias, when in an online piece for the Guardian some years ago I argued that Israel’s bombing of the Gaza City power plant could be justified on humanitarian as well as military grounds. I’ve since resigned from that once august organ’s roster of shit-stirring opinionistas, on the grounds that the experience was simply more trouble than it was worth, and always seemed to leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

I plead guilty to being an arsey polemicist. But an antisemite? Well, I leave that for others who can read my words in more than scan-and-react mode to comment on. For example, I am well aware that my friend the esteemed Elder Snoopus the Goon does not agree in full with the “righteous nation” standard. But that’s fine, as neither do I, entirely. I was at the time making a rhetorical point, and there is seemingly little space for nuance in contemporary political discourse.

Given that Israel has consistently held itself to a high and self-critical standard relative to the undemocratic regimes surrounding it, and which yearn for its annihilation, it beggars belief that anyone in this place can refer to mild censure of specific Israeli policies as involving a “racist and anti-semitic frame of logic”.

What a pile of manure. My three-year old can argue more rationally than that.
(a) What Israel allegedly “holds itself up to” is irrelevant. We are talking about YOU having double standards. See (c).
(b) The whole concept of Israel “holding itself up to” anything is nonsense. Various politicians have said various things. They do not affect the way that Israelis ARE.
(c) What you are being criticised for is not ‘mild censure’ but applying different standards to different nations. It’s called hypocrisy and racism.

I leave that for others who can read my words in more than scan-and-react mode

In other words, you can’t address the arguments so you throw your toys out of the pram. Pathetic.

I believe Snoopy has a pretty good common sense answer for this wildly out of control name calling mess this thread has become. I propose everybody take a break, run, swim, get drunk, get laid whatever you like to do to blow off steam and then come back to HP when you are feeling a lot less tense.

Stanislaw,

Sorry, man (woman/whatever): you have already proved conclusively that you are a cunt. Now you are trying to out-logic Francis on the quite complex matter of applying moral standards to nations with a lot of hooey, while committing a logical fallacy at the start of the discussion:

“Israelis are not inherently better or worse than their neighbours…”

What kind of freaking defense of Israel is it? Who is applying different standards? Now you have seriously pissed me off, and me an Israeli…

Watch out, Stanislaw.

“while committing a logical fallacy at the start of the discussion:

“Israelis are not inherently better or worse than their neighbours…””

Where is the logical fallacy there? There is none.

“What kind of freaking defense of Israel is it?”

It isn’t a defence of Israel, it’s a statement of fact. If you disagree, demonstrate why it’s wrong.

“Who is applying different standards?

Not me. Only a racist who believes Israelis to be inherently better or worse than their neighbours.

You are perhaps drunk. You are certainly incoherent. Go and have a good rest, you stupid incarticulate cunt.

So I am an “incarticulate” cunt?

A moron that doesn’t have enough mojo to invent an original insult and enough integrity to retract (or apologize for) his atrocious statement is looking for an excuse by attacking others?

Anal lice has more gumption and smells better too…

Begone, you sorry excuse for a sick amoeba.

I see you are as void of the ability to argue your point as before.

And I’ll stay here and post as I like when I like, so tough shit ;-)