It's always instructive to go by what people say, rather than the perception of them that mainstream opinion holds. So here's a question to those who say that Hamas is moderating in office - that the reality of authority is leading to greater promise for peace: have you actually read what they say? Do you listen to their words?

Sheik Ahmad Bahr is the acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council. And here's what he said on Friday:

Ahmad Bahr began: "You will be victorious" on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] "you will be victorious," but only "if you are believers." Allah willing, "you will be victorious," while America and Israel will be annihilated. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.

Bahr continued and said that America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims "will be victorious, if you are believers." Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel.

The Hamas spokesperson concluded with a prayer, saying: "Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them."

The voice of peace: Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one.

(5)

So frequent, and so rabid, is the antisemitism which the Guardian allows on its Comment Is Free site that it often passes without further ado. But it shouldn't. The Guardian's comments section has become a shockingly blatant bulletin board of antisemitism.

Some of the comments after this piece are entirely unambiguous antisemitic rantings, and the Guardian hasn't lifted a finger to deal with them, despite being alterted to them hours ago. I'm going to print a lengthy sample just to show how relentless it is, and how incredible it is that the Guardian is allowing this sort of thing to be published under its auspices. It can't, as it has before, claim that the odd comment has snuck through. The entire comments section after this piece is suffused with it:

'Mr Cockburn, you are a courageous and an excellent writer who is absolutely spot on. Is it pure coincidence that both Perle and Wolfowitz plus others of their neocon cronies are Jews, some of them with Israeli passports? Could they have been doing Israel's bidding, diverting and corrupting US policy to suit Israel's murderous agenda? Perhaps acting to influence the simpletons Bush and Rumsfield and then turning against them as Perle did, when his mission was accomplished. Talk about rats abandoning ship! How has the same Jewish/Zionist manipulation through Lord Levy and his money raising efforts in the Jewish community influenced British policy? Is that why Blair and Brown always attend the Friends of Israel annual rally where they drink the Toast to the President of Israel? Can we now have another article Mr. Cockburn, on the Israeli/Jewish malign influence on British politics through the Jewish fifth columnists in the UK?'

'Wolfowitz is Jewish isn't he? Are you saying just because he is Jewish Andrew Cockburn shouldn't be allowed to write an article about him? I take it you belong to that camp who think anybody who is remotely critical of Israel or indeed any jewish person has to be a Jew hater.If you are really so distressed about the Guardian blogs perhaps you should start reading the Jewish chronicle, I'm sure the journalist on that newspaper will be able to confirm all your paranoid prejudices.'

'SarahLeah asks:
- "Is anyone else tired of all this Guardian obsession with Israel/Palestine and alleged Jewish power?"
No. It's THE key issue to be resolved in the world today and is a factor in what's happening in Iraq, Iran and internally in the US.
There are people who would like the rest of us to turn our attention away but we won't fall for the old ploy that it's boring and that we should all move on to something else.'

'Why can't we take it as a settled matter that Zionists had a huge hand in planning the Iraq War? Maybe the US would've attacked even if there were no Israel Lobby, no Wolfowitz at the number 2 spot at the Pentagon. Maybe it's pure coincidence that the US is so obsessed with the Middle East and the Arabs, JUST like Israel is. Maybe if Wolfowitz weren't there some non-Jew with no ties to Israel would've been up to the same mischief. But all these "maybes" are pure speculations (and, in my opinion, poor ones). The simple, unavoidable fact of the matter is that whether the US could've done without them or not, the Zionists were there with their hands on the levers of power.'

'The most interesting point in this first-rate piece is the link made between the military-industrial-congressional complex and the Israeli Lobby/Likuddists, especially the neocons. The pattern of imitation/cooperation is striking:
1. preemptive war
2. torture
3. walls
4. refusal to negotiate
5. demonizing enemy
6. exaggerated threats and responses
7. manipulation of public opinion
8. etc,etc,etc'

'Wolfowitz only answers to Israel. The point of the attack on Iraq was to eliminate one of Israels enemies and the Americans were useful idiots to do that. I am glad that they are beginning to see that and protest against it.'

'As heinous as Wolfowitz obviously is, he wasn't alone in plotting his pre-meditated crimes of state. He was part of a tightknit, sinister cabal of Likudniks who wormed their way into positions of power in Washington in order to further Israeli interests. The nefarious Richard Perle was a ruthless ringleader but their exacrable numbers include others past and present such as Doug Feith, Eliot Abrams, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Mark Grossman, et. al. that overlaps administrations but is united by their common fealty to Israel first. Not at all surprising that these cunning schemers should now try and "bite the hand that fed them" by using the hapless Rumsfeld to take the heat for the disastrous consequences of their insidious policies, while they scurry for cover. These sniveling little cowards have wreaked havoc with American foreign policy for years - and aren't done yet.'

'SarahLeah asks:
- "Is anyone else tired of all this Guardian obsession with Israel/Palestine and alleged Jewish power?"This 77 year old man as been waiting a long time for some one to stand up for the shmuckes of this world, As that is what we are to the rich Zionist doners who drive their foreign policy. Zionists have hijacked conservative christian opinion in both US and UK. being called an anti-semite, racist, is a big part of their head game, Keep repeating a lie over and over, And we all get a gilt trip ,we have the Jewish genocide constantly shoved down our throats and other genocides ignored, eg holocaust also should not be used as a cover for every human rights violation by the Israeli government. When the media and the US Congress begin to recognize that Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians aren't acceptable, we may have a chance for stability in the Mideast, Having said that, You can call me an anti-semite, That puts me in good company,
So to all you anti-semite out they ,keep the good work up, Remember The power and extent of the Israeli Money Lobby is all pervasive. This giant must be slain, And thank's Guardian ,Please don't let Murdoch by you out.'

(9)

Engage has an article on the entirely predictable use put by the Iranian state news agency to the NUJ boycott of Israel and that by "JBIG" (Jews for boycotting Israeli Goods).

The Iranian headline is: "British Jews welcome journalists joining Israeli boycott".

Here's what Engage reports:

The official Iranian news agency reports in glowing terms a letter which "JBIG" (Jews for boycotting Israeli Goods" had published in the guardian on Wednesday. The letter is signed by Deborah Fink, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, Mike Cushman, Sylvia Finzi, Tony Greenstein, Ruth Tenne, Deborah Maccoby, Prof Moshe Machover, Mike Marqusee.

All but one of these JBIG signatories are also signatories of "Independent Jewish Voices", a group which says that it is in favour of social justice and universal human rights.

Deborah Fink, who seems to speak for "JBIG" says that their aim is to kosherize the boycotting of Israeli goods. She has also described Israel as a "satanic state".

JBIG? IJV? More like Jews for the succour of murderers.

(2)

Oliver Kamm had an interesting piece on Saturday about Kurt Vonnegut. Knowing nothing about him, and never having read a word of his (to my shame), I have no view about Oliver's assertions about Vonnegut and his work.

There is, however, a typically disgusting afterthought to Oliver's piece from the holocaust denying liar and antisemite, David Irving. I've pondered at some length whether to provide a link to his site, and have concluded that it is necessary and that no normal person who looks at it would be other than disgusted by it. So...

Irving's assertions about Oliver's piece are of no interest. What is of interest, however, is the clear illustration of the way the man thinks.

Oliver's piece includes this reference to Irving:

Deadeye Dick (1982) depicts the accidental destruction of an Ohio town by a neutron bomb — a US one, so it was no big news story as it did not start WWIII.

The novel’s closing words are: “You want to know something? We are still in the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages — they haven’t ended yet.” To coin a Vonnegut-ism: so it goes. But ultimately the simplicity is not deceptive. Vonnegut’s philosophy and history are simplistic. Dresden was hellish — but there were not 135,000 deaths. The true figure was probably no more than a fifth of that. Vonnegut’s number came directly from the now discredited work of the Holocaust denier David Irving. (In Slaughterhouse-Five, Irving is cited by name, and a long passage, by a retired air marshal, from the foreword to Irving’s book The Destruction of Dresden is reproduced.)

Irving comments on this on his site. He introduces his comments thus:

Evidently yesterday the Board of Deputies of British Jews sent a literary fire-engine rushing down Pennington Street to the newspaper building, bell clanging and bile spewing.

In Irving's mind, any piece which takes issue with him must have been the result of an instruction from Jews. He goes on:

Kamm (like Coren) is Jewish and obsessively concerned with Jewish interests.

And there's more:

Oliver Kamm: I am informed that Kamm has a history of obsession with Noam Chomsky whom he believes to be a closet denier too, and he habitually defends the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He was made a Times columnist by Comment editor Daniel Finkelstein. Need we say more?

Irving is beyond parody in his peddling every antisemitic trope going. I wouldn't be surprised if he believes Jews drink the blood of Christian and Muslim babies. Not that one should be surprised that someone who habitually fakes source material makes entirely false assertions on his site, but Oliver Kamm is not Jewish. Not that it would make the slightest difference to his argument or his right to make whatever argument he chose, of course, if he was, but it's a fascinating glimpse into the mindset of a rabid Jew-hater such as Irving.

UPDATE: A couple of commenters make entirely valid criticisms of my decision to provide the link. I'm still not sure if I have done the right thing. But it has to be said that I have in the past provided a number of links to another writer whose views are, in my mind, similarly beyond the pale in their support of a genocidal murderer.

FURTHER UPDATE: Oliver Kamm has his own post on this here.

(4)

I don't usually publish correspondence about my pieces - especially when they disagree with me! - but I received this email about my Telegraph piece and I thought it made a numver of valid points and deserved an airing (my correspondemt was happy to let me publish it):

I've been reading your blog for several years and I basically agree with most of what you say.

But I'd like to make a comment about your article in the Telegraph on the Israel/England game.

I realise that anti-semitism is a problem, and that we have an obligation to identify and speak out against it wherever it arises. I realise also that sometimes people ask seemingly innocent questions which, consciously or not, betray deep-seated prejudices about Jews and their place in society.

Sometimes, though, those prejudices are not without foundation, and it is important to recognise that too.

I am a British Jew, a staunch supporter of the England football team and a long-standing West Ham season ticket holder.

But being Jewish does make me different - from other England fans, and indeed from other West Ham fans.

I've had a season ticket at West Ham for 15 years, but when the fans at Upton Park make hissing noises at Tottenham games and sing "Hitler was a Cockney", I actually want Spurs to win. Serves the neo-Nazi b*stards right, if you ask me.

And yes, when England plays Israel - a country created from the ashes of the Holocaust, a country which provides hope and the right of return to Jews across the world, a country whose existence would have prevented the deaths of millions of European Jews in the 1940s - I want Israel to win.

It's not because I'm not loyal to England - I am. I love this country and would not choose to live anywhere else.

But I'm loyal to Israel too, and I feel it needs my support more. Perhaps because I see it as more vulnerable, more isolated, less respected, less loved.

So back to the question you ask in your article ... why should anyone be in doubt as to which team you want to win?

Because of people like me, I guess. Because people realise that some groups, including British Jews, often have loyalties to two different countries.

That might cause anger among right-wing nationalists, and among unreconstructed Conservatives like Norman Tebbit, but let them be angry.
Let them rail against those who fail the "cricket test". Let them call me disloyal. I don't really care. Do you really think I should?

(3)

It's not just the Guardian which gets delightful comments on its site. These two are from the Telegraph today, in reaction to my article:

So where do you come from? ...No, no, I mean, where are you REALLY from? Ahem... Yes, that's nice but Where Are Your Parents From?
Posted by The Vulgarian on March 23, 2007 6:08 AM
Report this comment

Aww, poor Stephen! Poor hyper-sensitive little thing! He ought to get down on his knees and thank God he lives in Britain and that Britain had the spine to stand up to Nazism because if it hadn't where would he be now? Or rather what would he be now? A bar of soap?
Posted by Barry Ward on March 23, 2007 5:55 AM
Report this comment

(11)

Melanie Phillips has a superb post, wrapping up two examples of what passes today for BBC analysis (by Ed Stourton and - him again - Jeremy Bowen) and a vile piece in yesterday's Guardian by Geoffrey Wheatcroft:

Stourton assumed that Israel’s attempt to defend itself against that aggression was illegitimate — and that no reasonable person could disagree. He asked the former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, why the Americans and the British had not supported the international calls for an immediate cease-fire.

...ES: Your former UN colleague the Syrian ambassador said to us that America was deliberately frustrating diplomatic attempts during those last two weeks of July precisely so Israel could have its head. From what you have just said, that’s a fair analysis of what was happening.

JB: I was damn proud of what we did.

Bolton was reacting to this line of questioning just as any normal person with a sense of justice would react. Faced with the proposition that a country had finally attempted to defend itself against an enemy which had constantly waged war against it, and that it did so by trying to destroy that enemy, he asked: ‘What was wrong with that?’ And of course, to a normal person there’s not only nothing wrong with it but it is the right and moral thing to do, to protect one’s country against further attack by attempting to destroy the enemy.

But in the twisted world of BBC values, it appears, Israel has no right to defend itself. Because when Stourton says the US and UK refused to call for a ceasefire, that’s not quite correct. They actually called upon Hezbollah from the start to stop its aggression. What Stourton — and the UK media and Labour party — found so unacceptable was that Bush and Blair didn’t insist that Israel should stop defending itself. In other words, that they did not insist that Israel surrender. And surrender, what’s more, to an army of Iran which has declared not only its intention to wipe Israel off the map but also to destroy the west and conquer the Arab world too.

Which is why Stourton goes on to report — in apparent amazement — that the Arab world was secretly hoping that Israel would indeed crush Hezbollah. Because the Arab world has every interest in Iran being defeated —as does the west, as do Bush and Blair and as do all sane and sentient people. That’s why it was in everyone’s interests for Israel to be allowed to defend itself by destroying its Iranian enemy before that enemy destroyed it. That’s why the US and the Arab world were so put out when Israel failed to destroy it.

But astoundingly, the BBC and the British left and a considerable proportion of the rest of Britain thinks the real problem was not Iranian aggression but that Israel might actually have defeated the army of Iran. They find it simply unconscionable that Israel was not required to surrender. According to Stourton, it is apparently a scandal that the US supported Israel in its self-defence; indeed, he represents this as some kind of sinister conspiracy that he has now unearthed through his amazing journalistic acumen. Democratic allies supporting each other in the great fight against fascism! What an outrage!

As for Wheatcroft's rant: let's just say it trots out pretty much every classic antisemitic theme going. As Melanie puts it:

Wheatcroft’s final charge, that British foreign policy is based on the interest of ‘another country’ —by which he presumably meant Israel — is simply contemptible. Once again, it is astonishing that this kind of sub-Protocols of the Elders of Zion racial libel about the Jews being a sinister conspiracy to subvert the foreign policy of Britain against the national interest is published in a mainstream British newspaper.

Indeed, it more or less proves my point in my Telegpraph piece below, prompting comments such as this on the Guardian site:

Jews in the UK are not normal people, they are Anglo-Jewish, and their loyalty to the UK is in question. No matter how many generations or centuries they have been in England, they are still outsiders.

Do read Melanie's full piece.

(6)

The following piece of mine appears in today's Times:

Now I’ve heard everything. Richard Toye, a lecturer at Homerton College, Cambridge, claims to have unearthed an article written for Winston Churchill in 1937 (but not published) in which he — one of the men responsible for the creation of Israel — describes Jews as “Hebrew bloodsucker” moneylenders, says that they are “partly responsible for the antagonism for which they suffer” and argues that that “the Jew is different. He looks different. He thinks differently . . . He refuses to be absorbed.”

Mr Toye is careful not to label Churchill an antisemite, but he does everything bar that. There’s just one problem with the story of Mr Toye’s “discovery” — Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill’s biographer, referred to the article in a book more than 20 years ago, pointing out that it was ghosted by a member of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. Churchill took one look at it and refused to have it published because he disagreed with it. One wonders why Mr Toye failed to consult Sir Martin’s book, in which the historian clearly refers to the article.

This silly story is of little intrinsic interest. But it illustrates a wider issue about claims of antisemitism, neatly following days after a full-blown such accusation. On Newsnight last week the rabbi of Lord Levy’s synagogue, Yitzchak Schochet, was interviewed about his congregant’s involvement in the cash-for-honours affair. Quite rightly, the rabbi condemned the antisemitic tone of some of the coverage, such as the reports which have mentioned — nudge, nudge — that Lord Levy’s middle name is Abraham.

So far so sensible. But then, preposterously, Rabbi Schochet went on to argue that the very basis of the investigation into Lord Levy was antisemitic; as if he was somehow the victim of a plot against him by the gentile establishment because he is a Jew.

None of us has a clue if Lord Levy is a paragon of virtue or a crook. But the notion that the arrest of a Jew is ipso facto evidence of antisemitism is not merely risible, it is dangerous.

Antisemitism is real and is on the rise. The President of Iran has said proudly that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. Here in the UK, the Community Security Trust has recorded a 31 per cent rise (from 455 to 594) in anti-Semitic race hate incidents between 2005 and 2006 — the highest total since such reports began in 1984.

When the shout of “antisemitism” goes up every time a Jew is in trouble, it plays into the hands of the real antisemites. In classic cry-wolf fashion, people such as Rabbi Schochet make it all the more difficult to persuade people of the very real threat.

(3)

Ive just spent 10 wasted minutes composing a post about the comments on the BBC last night by Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet, who alleged that antisemitism is behind the treatment of Lord Levy. Wasted, because Daniel Finkelstein has said exactly what I want to say.

I screamed 'shut up' when I heard the Rabbi. Yes, there have been some traces of antisemitism in some of the coverage. But as for the idea that the underlying foundation of the whole affair is antisemitism - purrrleaze. The basis of the affair is (alleged) corruption and (alleged) interference with the investigation into that corruption. It happens that one of the people arrested is Jewish. If the Rabbi thinks Lord Levy would not have been arrested if he was an Anglican, or was only arrested because he is Jewish, then he is living in a parrallel universe.

As Daniel says, there's enough real antisemitism around to worry about, without gormless, unwarranted and totally self-defeating accusations of it. Believe me, I am in the front of the queue when it comes to identifying the real antisemites. But when people start thowing the label around without any basis in fact they play into the hands of those real antisemites.

UPDATE: On the other hand...!

(5)

Twentyfirst century France:

Jews in Nice who want to buy an apartment have to pay an added fee of €900-€7,000...The proprietary edict from the Vichy government stating that Jews are not allowed to own, or have joint ownership of, property is still embedded in the current legal system employed by the city council of Nice, situated on the French Riviera.

(5)

This week's Jewish Chronicle has this story about a new think tank, the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, with which I am involved. We are still in the process of dotting 'i's and crossing 't's, but when we are up and running - very soon I hope - I'll post details.

Oliver Kamm has a blistering post on Asghar Bukhari of the MPAC, who has been revealed as a funder and supporter of David Irving.

Like that comes as a shock.

(1)

Here's a sobering piece by David Gutmann on "The Anglo-Jewish Wars":

Robert Wistrich also examines the history of modern anti-Semitism in Britain, pointing out that "Great Britain is today second only to France in serious anti-Semitic incidents reported among European countries." Wistrich documents the persistence and wide reach of anti-Jewish mainstream prejudice, particularly among the media and the upper echelons of British society - "the same group that supported Hitler in the 1930s." Thus, the Muslim promotion of anti-Semitism in England has been very successful, perhaps because it has been able to graft onto longstanding, well-established British anti-Semitism. Most disturbing, "anti-Semitic sentiment is a part of mainstream discourse, continually resurfacing among the academic, political, and media elites," often taking the form of unsubstantiated, unreasoning criticism of Israel, while Arab terror is condoned or excused.

(9)

I'm listening to a rather good Five Live phone-in on whether Borat is offensive. I was lucky enough to go to the premiere last night and I have to say it is one of the funniest films I have ever seen. It doesn't just go near the edge - it goes way over it. But I barely stopped laughing from the first frame to the end, 81 minutes later.

As for the idea that some have put around, that it is in some way antisemitic: utter nonsense. Yes, the running theme of the film is that the Jews are nasty money-thieving killers who secretly rule the world - and it begins with the supposed annual Kazhak festival, the Running of the Jew, when a Jewish icon is chased and beaten by a crowd. But anyone who can't differentiate satire from propaganda has a serious comprehension problem.

A chap has just rung in to say it's like Nazi antisemitic propaganda. Regular readers of this blog know that I am hardly soft on antisemitism, but really. What rot.

It has nothing to do with the fact that Sacha Baron-Cohen is Jewish and so it's somehow ok for him to make such jokes; a Jew can certainly be antisemitic. It has every intention to do with the fact that the film is a clear satire on antisemitic attitudes, and I defy anyone with the ability to understand English to see the film and not to realise that.

But imagine if it had been a satire on Islam. There’d be outrage and all sorts of threats. We don’t need to imagine it, because the Danish cartoons row shows what happens, as did the Rushdie fatwah.

Free speech almost demands now that such a satire is produced, if we are to demonstrate that such illiberal attitudes do not set our cultural agenda. Or do they?

(2)

The Guardian has a report about President Ahmadinejad, who has again called for the end of Israel, and has threatened the UK because its support for Israel:

Ahmadinejad pokes fun at Zionist lobby

Yes, what a hoot he is with his wacky japes!

Astonishing.

(1)

Oliver Kamm has spent a lot of time on the case of Gilad Atzmon. He has, of course, written only about Atzmon's political beliefs (if political is the right word). Today, however, the Jerusalem Post reports that:

A popular and well known pizzeria and jazz music venue is hosting an alleged racist and anti-Semite musician which will be filmed by Al Jazeera.

I think we can do away with the 'alleged'. He is a racist and antisemite, and one who makes others of his ilk seem positively moderate.

From Wednesday, and for four nights, the Pizza on the Park in Knightsbridge, part of the Pizza Express restaurant chain, is hosting Jerusalem-born Gilad Atzmon, who is accused of racist and anti-Semitic statements and Holocaust denial.

A spokesperson for Pizza on the Park said, "Gilad Atzmon has been hired for his musical talents as an internationally recognized, respected and award-winning saxophonist and composer and who has performed to audiences all over the world, as well as London's premiere jazz venues. His performances at Pizza on the Park have attracted great interest."

Here's the reality. If Atzmon was indeed simply demonstrating his musical talents there might, perhaps, be a case for hiring him.

But he will not be.

Here's what Atzmon himself says (in the guise of one Artie Fishel) about the album he will be promoting:

I have now formed a Jewish band, the new home for Jewish music. It is called Artie Fishel and the Promised Band. You can all buy our album and merchandise (iBagel, T-shirts, Artie's Kugel) in every kosher deli around the world. You can judge for yourself. Our music is no doubt the best Jazz around. Our music is all about resistance. We resist civil rights.

The 'interview' goes on in much the same way.

The album has as deeply political a purpose as any of his writings or speeches. It just takes a different form, as one of Atzmon's supporters, Mary Rizzo, makes clear on the Al-Jazeerah site:

...[I]t is terribly entertaining, communicates an important message without being "overtly political" and it is different from anything most of us have seen up to now.

...There are very few truly political artistic projects around, and barely any that fearlessly fight the zionist brainwashing that we are subject to, so I think that efforts like this need the push they can get from those in activism, because the rest of the mass media does nothing whatsoever to point out the dissent that exists.

This is not just a concert. It is a political event, to be used by Atzmon for his own repugnant ends.

By way of service to Pizza Express, I'm happy to offer them a new marketing slogan which they might want to use:

PIZZA EXPRESS: happy to give a platform to a "truly political artistic project" to "fearlessly fight the zionist brainwashing".

(Oops - I orginally had written Pizza Hut in that last slogan by mistake.)

(3)

For your delectation, I reprint this correspondence (from Media Guardian):

On October 15, India Knight wrote in her column in the Sunday Times headline "Muslims are the new Jews" where she attacked the negative views of Jack Straw and feminists towards the Muslim veil. This email exchange followed shortly after:

To: letters@sunday-times.co.uk
From: Julie Burchill

Dear India Knight,
I dare you to walk into any mosque - after covering your filthy female head in the Islamist fashion, of course - and spread your glad tidings that "Muslims are the new Jews."
You'll be lucky if you get out alive.
Yours sincerely,
JB
PS: I see that your new book is a compilation of 'dirty bits' from novels. I'd love to know how this fits in with your new found love of feminine modesty and discretion.

To: Julie Burchill
From: India Knight

Oh, for fuck's sake. I don't have a "newfound love of modesty and discretion" - I just don't despise people on the basis of what they wear.
Regards,
IK

To: India Knight
From: Julie Burchill

What, not even the working class slags in crop tops you're forever slagging off, you hypocritical snob?

To: Julie Burchill
From: India Knight

I do NOT slag off working class people in crop tops, you fucking loon. Where? When? Why would I slag them off? I am many things but I am not a snob. God, you're driving me mad. Go away.

To: India Knight
From: Julie Burchill

I wrote to the letters page, not YOU, you stalking cretin. Why dont you fuck off and turn yet another of your husbands gay?

The more I think about India Knight's piece, the more I come to the conclusion that, even if she doesn't hate Jews, she has developed a remarkably good impression of someone who does.

(5)

Daniel Finkelstein links to a piece explaining the Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir's theory of why people think there is genocide in Darfur.

As Daniel puts it:

I thought it was because tragic, outrageous mass murder was happening every day.

But no. Apparently the whole thing was a lie spread by?

You've guessed it.

I cant see what the problem is with this story:

Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair has ordered an inquiry after a Muslim constable was excused from guarding the Israeli embassy in London.

Sir Ian says he wants an "urgent review of the situation and a full report".

...The officer, who has been named as Pc Alexander Omar Basha, is attached to the Scotland Yard's Diplomatic Protection Group.

He has a Syrian father and a Lebanese wife.

During the summer, when Israel was involved in a month-long conflict with Lebanese militants, the Association of Muslim Police Officers said Pc Basha had asked to be excused from his duties because he felt "uncomfortable and unsafe".

Of course the police should be able to pick and choose where they work and which cases they investigate. How could anyone reasonably expect a racist policeman to work on a crime against a black victim? Why should a Labour voting PC be forced to provide security at the Conservative Party conference? Why should misogynist policemen be forced to investigate sexual assaults on women? And why should Israeli-hating police officers be forced to prevent crimes against Israelis?

Policemen and women have rights. And it's surely every Muslim police officer's right to stand back and allow the murder of Jews.

Or have I perhaps missed something?

(4)

This is truly hilarious. It's a comment left on the ridiculous Lenin's Tomb blog.

Lenin

I support Hezbollah, of course.

However, I do not know whether I should be supporting Hamas or Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the civil war.

Both of them are liberation movements and we have always been supporters of liberation movements and both have been involved in actions of resistance against the occupiers (Israel). Fatah obviously used to be the best one because it had Yasser Arafat and he was the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Now he has died it is difficult to chose and I suppose it should be Hamas because they won the election.

Perhaps, as a socialist, I should support the one which is most socialist. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are quite socialist, but Hamas seems to be more socialist because it is more religious, and I have read in the Socialist Review that in the early days of the USSR Lenin was a very strong supporter of religion and was often cheered by Mullah's when he went to the more muslim parts of Russia.

I am quite happy to support either the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades or Hamas, or both of them. Or alternatively I could wait to see who wins. But I do not want to tell people that I am backing Hamas and then find out that they were the wrong ones and then have to tell my friends I made a mistake.

What do readers think?

The poor chap. What a dilemma. Which bunch of Jew killers should he suppport? I wish I could help him out, but I'm stumped. Choices, choices...

(thanks to Malachi)

(4)

The LibDem's fragrant antisemite peer, Baroness Tonge, had this to say yesterday:

The pro-Israeli lobby has got its grips on the western world, its financial grips. I think they have probably got a certain grip on our party.

Explain please the difference between her remark and anything contained within The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. (And explain also how a party led by one of the most anti-Israel MPs in recent years is in the 'grip' of 'the pro-Israel lobby'.)

The then plain Jenny Tonge was sacked from the LibDem front bench and then rewarded for her comment that if she was a Palestinian, she would consider becoming a suicide bomber, by being elevated by Charles Kennedy to a lifetime role as a legislator in the Lords.

At the time, she explained her comment thus:

I could understand and was trying to understand where [suicide bombers] were coming from.

Much as I would condemn anyone who decided to scream Antisemitic Bitch at her, I could understand and would try to understand where they were coming from.

(6)

Denis Leary is clearly a huge fan of Mel Gibson.

(4)

Engage has an excellent article by David Hirsh on what he calls 'The new conservatives':

The fire of 1968 has become a yearning to conform to those sections of the intelligentsia that understand Israel, and the Jews that ‘support’ it, as constituting a unique evil in the world and the greatest obstacle to world peace. It is a milieu that is increasingly ambivalent about the ‘legitimacy’ of Israel.

...When academics seek to blacklist Israeli colleagues, the new conservatives go silent. When a political test is proposed to weed out supporters of ‘Israel’s apartheid policies’ they sympathise. When Republican professors claim that ‘The Lobby’ forces America to go to war for Israel, they call for a serious discussion about Zionist influence over governments and the media. When the EU tries to find ways of funnelling aid to Palestine that by-pass Hamas, they claim this is undemocratic. When the straight-arm Jew-haters of Hezbollah pepper Israel with Iranian missiles they blame Olmert for provoking them. When the Independent prints the US flag with stars of David, when it portrays Sharon eating babies, when the Guardian pictures a pustuled Jewish fist smashing a child’s face or a huge Magen David dominating Europe, when the New Statesman talks about ‘Kosher conspiracy’, when Tam Dalyell blames Jewish influence for Tony Blair’s wrongs, when Jenny Tonge defends suicide bombing, when George Galloway glorifies Hassan Nasrallah, when Ken Livingstone fetes an antisemitic cleric, the new conservatives have nothing to say. Except to accuse Jews of paranoia and of faking concern over antisemitism in order to hide the crimes of Israel. They reply sagely, criticising Israeli policy is not antisemitic. As if anyone thought that it was. The pose is one of mature, measured and detached wisdom; they have themselves adopted the very pose that so embarrassed them in their own fathers.

The central message of the new conservatives is that if people are hostile to Jews, it is because they have good reason to be. If intellectuals stumble into antisemitism then it is an understandable over-reaction to their righteous hatred of Israel. If students, in the name of socialism or of jihad, come to loathe ‘Zionists’, who can blame them? It is Israel that claims to speak and act for all Jews, they say, so holding Jews collectively responsible for its ‘crimes against humanity’ is not unreasonable.

This is is a thoughtful piece by Janet Ellen Levy on the signal lack of outrage at increasing antisemitism.which takes the form of 'political' arguments.

(1)

The UN, don't you just love it?

(1)

Julie Birchill has a romp in Haaretz at the expense of the antisemtic British media:

...[M]ore than one night has seen me screaming at the TV/my husband "You don't understand! None of you English bastards understands!" before running into the bedroom, slamming the door and collapsing in a tearful heap with only Bibi to comfort me.

One of the most grotesque examples of the almost brainwashed level of bias can be seen on the official BBC Religions Web site, where that "peace be upon him" eyewash is going on like crazy, while other religions are coolly commented on in a strictly "objective" way.

The conflict has sent this tendency into overdrive, with not just the usual Masochist Hacks For Mohammed such as Robert Fisk (beaten up by Islamists, says they were right to do it) and Yvonne Ridley (kidnapped by Islamists, then became one) getting their chadors in a twist about big swarthy men with tea-towels on their heads treating the West mean and keeping it - in their case at least - keen.

(7)

Scott Burgess has a terrific post about the background and real beliefs of some of the organisers of Saturday's 'Let The Jews Die' march (which apparently went under the label of 'Ceasefire Now').

(2)

There are some vile pictures of the 'Let The Jews Die' demo which took place in London on Saturday at the awful Lenin's Tomb site.

But what stands out is the total lack self-awareness or hold on reality of whoever writes the site.

At one point he writes this, of the policemen at the march:

What, I had to wonder a few times, was the point of bullet-proof jackets? In the blazing heat, the same heat that turned my face, neck and arms into lobster shells, these morons were charging about, fully kitted up as if they confidently expected us to - I dunno - start pulling out guns or something. Their loss.

He also writes this, matter of factly, alongside obscene pictures of people wielding 'We Are All Hizbullah' placards:

Here are some Hezbollah members:

Well, yes. Have a think, Lenin. Given Hezbollah's love of murder and suicide bombings and the fact that, as you yourself write, the demo was stuffed with their supporters (even worse, as you put it, 'members') is it any wonder there were police in bullet proof vests?

(1)

...and here's Nick Cohen's take:

I can't help but feel sorry for Mel Gibson. If only he had joined the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah rather than an ultra-reactionary Catholic sect, his views on a world Jewish conspiracy would have done him no harm. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah declared that it if Jews 'all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide,' yet Channel 4 News bends over backwards to make excuses for him. Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, has a constitution which might have been written by Adolph Hitler, yet the Foreign Office gives the Brotherhood public money and the allegedly "left-wing" Ken Livingstone hugs its spiritual leader.

You picked the wrong type of fascism, Mel. If only you'd been cannier, there would be pieces in the Independent denouncing your critics as Islamophobes.

(via Norm.)

(2)

Mark Steyn:

The standard defense is that it’s not anti-Semitic to criticize Israeli policies, but, as Miss Campbell’s letter suggests, what’s being questioned is not Israel’s policies but the right of Israel to have policies, especially on national security.

If, say, some fellows in Mexico had kidnapped California State Troopers and were lobbing rockets randomly into residential areas of San Diego and Los Angeles, even La-La-Land libs would be demanding the US respond. It’s only the Israelis the world wishes to deny the conventional rights of sovereignty.

In other words, it’s the legitimacy of the state that’s at issue. In effect, Israel has become the geopolitical version of the European Jew who’s allowed to operate a store in the town but not to exercise full ownership rights: in the old days, Jews faced property restrictions; now they face sovereignty restrictions.

(2)

I've just been alerted this this piece of blatant antisemitism by Richard Stott in the Sunday Mirror last weekend:

The Jewish people have suffered many horrors. They have also given a great deal to the world in every area of human endeavour, the arts, sciences and everything in between.

Yet somehow when they are transformed into Israeli politicians and military men, they become something terrible. Blinkered, barbaric killers with little regard for the suffering of innocents who happen to be on the other side of the border.

So in Stott's mind, the people who defend their country and endanger their own safety by taking as much care as possible not to harm civilians are "Blinkered, barbaric killers with little regard for the suffering of innocents who happen to be on the other side of the border." Yet the Hezbollah killers, who target Israeli civilians and attempt to kill as many as possible - and who hide amongst Lebanese civilians - are...well, what? They don't even get nod of criticism.

Stott is either an antisemite or a moron. And possibly both.

(2)

The Mel Gibson story is interesting now only because of the reaction to his behaviour. But here's a further thought.

The following is from the Hamas charter:

There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it.

You'd have to be a BBC or Guardian reporter to think "the enemies" does not refer specifically to Jews.

I wonder if Mr Gibson's bedtime reading extended recently beyond film scripts.

A correspondent has made an interesting point to me:

What is the reason for referring to "Israelis" rather than to "Israel"? Imagine the following headlines: "Britons Renew Efforts to Control Southern Iraq"; "Russians Pound Chechnya"; "Frenchmen Invade Ivory Coast"; etc.

I suspect it is one or both of two possible reasons. The first is that, in avoiding reference to Israel as such, it a small but symbolic gesture of solidarity with those who refuse to accept and recognise the legitimacy of the State of Israel. The second is that it does away with the distinction between a state and its citizens, thus making all Israelis as Individuals responsible (and, of course, in the eyes of the press, guilty).

Given that this practice is, as far as I know, only used for reports about Israel, there is a basis (inconsistency, and thus lack of fairness) for making an issue of this.

It's a good point. Have a look at random headlines and you'll see many, if not most, are indeed along the lines of this one, from AP:

Israelis renew air strikes in Lebanon

By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer

(2)

Melanie Phillips is brilliant in her destruction of Andrew O'Jew Hater's column:

O’Hagan’s argument here is the classic argument of the Jew-hater. Insult the Jews by alleging — falsely — that they have the insufferable arrogance to claim that as the chosen people they exist ‘above the common miseries of man’, and then when they cry foul say that this proves that they claim that as the chosen people they exist above the common miseries of man.

Lebanese civilians are warned to leave their homes because the IDF cannot guarantee that they will be protected from attacks on Hezbollah. They ignore these warnings, are accidentally killed, and Israel is blamed.

Israeli civilians are given absolutely no warning by Hezbollah of attacks, the aim of which is to kill as many innocent Israelis as possible. They leave their homes and go to bomb shelters to protect themselves, and so relatively few die.

But because they are not dying in the same numbers as Lebanese it is Israel that is accused of war crimes and disproportionate attacks.

Go figure, as they say.

(1)

Here's a worrying sign of things to come, from the Edinburgh International Film Festival, which has returned sponsorship of an Israeli film for no other reason than that the money comes from Israel - indeed, despite the film in question lambasting the Israeli government:

The money provided by the Israeli Embassy comes from their Department of Culture. It is simply to facilitate cultural exchange - in this case, the visit of a filmmaker whose view of his own country, happens to be nuanced, non-partisan and documentary.

The funding is, in this sense, no different from the travel bursaries provided by Unifrance, for French filmmakers, or the Goethe Institute, for German ones. It is not in the strict sense "sponsorship" (we are no more "sponsored" by the government of Israel, than we are "sponsored" by the French, the Germans, et al), though I understand that it may appear as such to outsiders.

However, this funding was secured some three months ago, well before the commencement of current hostilities in Lebanon. Of course we acknowledge that the situation has altered dramatically since then, and with this in mind, took the decision early yesterday to decline any funding from the Israelis.

Should the Israeli director choose to attend the festival, then the festival shall pay for his visit out of its own budget. But regardless of whether he attends or not, the film screening will go ahead as planned. Please allow us to explain why:

The film in question, Five Days, is made by one Yoav Shamir - a filmmaker who has been a trenchant critic of his government's policies. His previous film, Checkpoint, screened at the festival in 2003, and was in fact an explicitly pro-Palestinian work: an observation of various intimidations and harassments suffered by ordinary Palestinian citizens at the hands of Israeli soldiers overseeing border checkpoints.

Indeed, a glance back at the programming of the Edinburgh International Film Festival, over the past decade, reveals that the vast majority of filmmaking from Israel has been from filmmakers opposed to their government's policies - and many of the films, indeed, have been Israel-Palestine co-productions.

We don't believe that is in the public interest to ban these films, just because they happen to be from a state with whose official policies one might not agree. Indeed, we do not believe in banning work from any country - particularly work which takes a critical or interrogatory stance on its government. This path leads only to censorship - for who is to say, that if we accede to the notion of Israel as a "rogue state" and refuse henceforth to show any Israeli films, that other such demands will not follow?

The Americans, for example, might declare the nation of Iran beyond the pale, an "axis of evil" (events certainly seem to be heading that way), and demand that we should ban all Iranian cinema. Would they be right? We would argue not. Or, conversely, if we considered America to be an evil imperialist empire, and chose to show no American films, what about a Michael Moore documentary? Or a Noam Chomsky portrait? What of the dissidents, the protesters, the public intellectuals? We would no more prevent a film from Israel from screening here, than we would agree to an Israeli demand to withdraw any Palestinian or Lebanese films from our programme.

The Edinburgh International Film Festival is dedicated at all times to the notion of an exchange of ideas, and to freedom of speech for all filmmakers. While we emphatically do not condone the recent actions of Israel, to reject the opportunity to allow this director to present his work to an audience, also rejects the possibility of dialogue between Israelis and the rest of the world - something the present situation would seem very much to require. No one learns anything from banning films, any more than we might from censoring books; it only cultivates ignorance and prejudice. When, on the contrary, what is needed is enlightenment and education.

The main argument is all well and good. Which makes it all the more lamentable that Mr Danielsen should see fit to return funding for the film's screening from the Israeli Embassy because Israeli money is tainted money, because Israel has chosen to defend the right of Jews to live free from terror attacks in Israel.

But then, as this piece argues eloquently, criticism of Israel's actions seems to based on the the fact that there are too few dead Jews.

(Hat tip: Malachi)

(3)

Vile piece on Mel Gibson and antisemitism in the Telegraph by Andrew O'Hagan:

Dangerously worded as it was, Gibson's drunken comment was, it could reasonably be argued, a statement against the arrogance of the Israeli military: "They started all the wars in the world." Isn't it that which is making America call for his head?

Of course it isn't even remotely true that Jews are behind most wars, but it is true that they are behind most movies, and pundits are saying that Gibson may never work again in Hollywood. But their response is overbearing and slightly hysterical: if black or Hispanic or Asian people sought action every time a ludicrous remark was made against them by a drunkard, the world would fall to pieces.

If Mr O'Hagan really thinks that if a well established actor was to start ranting about how ni**ers weren't fit to vote and the KKK had the right idea, there wouldn't then be a fuss, and that said actor wouldn't see his career collapse - all quite rightly - then he is as moronic as Mel Gibson.

Given the message of rest of his piece - we should all be able to have a bash at the Jews - it seems that he has something else in common with Mel Gibson. And it ain't acting ability.

(I'm now waiting for the first email from someone to say that my categorising this piece as antisemtitic proves his point.)

(7)

Mel Gibson asks for help from Jewish community

I'm happy to help him. With what is technically referred to as a kick in his kishkas.

(2)

Christopher Hitchens has a fabulous piece on Mel Gibson at Slate. (What I'd give to be able to write a tenth as well as he can!)

(1)

This is fascinating. I posted below the link to Mel Gibson's antisemitic rant. Visit any report on the incident in which he was arrested and you will see the quotes.

Correction. Visit almost any reports and you will see them. I am indebted to commenters on the original post who have shown that the BBC and the Guardian have reported his arrest, but have left out any reference to the remarks.

The BBC report is surreal. It refers to his apology for saying 'despicable' things but makes no reference to their nature. One could understand if the BBC decided it was inappropriate to repeat the remarks themselves, but not to refer to the fact that they were a torrent of antisemitism? At best that is bizarrely confuysing for the reader. At worst - and given the BBC's behaviour, perhaps the more likely explanantion - something far more disturbing.

UPDATE: One of my commenters makes a good point, that it is not just the BBC. Reuters and Sky have also left out the most salient fact in the story.

BTW, the argument that at the moment these are merely 'alleged' comments doesn't wash. Gibson has apologied for making them. If even the man himself admits making them, there is nothing 'alleged' about them.

(9)

I wonder if Mel Gibson and David Tredinnick are by any chance related?

http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/28/gibsons-anti-semitic-tirade-alleged-cover-up/

(I'm on a train as I post this so forgive me for the rough and readiness of it!)

(5)

Further to my post below about Sir Peter Tapsell, one of his Tory colleagues, David Tredinnick, a man who has a reputation of being seriously thick, confirms his stupidy with this contribution to yesterday's Adjournment Debate:

Why are we in such a mess? I have referred to the Foreign Secretary, but let me talk for a while about the Prime Minister's special envoy to the middle east, the noble Lord Levy. He has not visited a single Arab country—I have looked it up—but he has made copious visits to Israel, of which he is clearly a strong supporter, with a business and relations there. He is supposed to be impartial. Why did the Prime Minister not choose someone who is an old Arab hand and really knows his way around the middle east? If we go to the Spinwatch website, we find that apparently, when the noble Lord took on his other role to raise large sums of money for the Labour party, it was on the "tacit understanding that Labour would never again, while Blair was leader, be anti-Israel".

I have done a rough check on Library figures, and about a quarter to a third of all the money raised in loans for the Labour party since the noble Lord has been involved has come from pro-Israeli supporters. When we have thousands of our troops in Arab countries, is it possible that there is a link between the Labour party being short of money and British foreign policy in support of the Israeli position? Is it possible that the Government are conveniently ignoring our interests in the wider Arab world because of Labour's domestic difficulties? I hope that someone will investigate this important matter.

I hold no brief for Lord Levy, as anyone who has read my pieces in the Mail will know. But clearly Mr Treddinick is either a liar or an idiot, since he says he has looked up his claim that Lord Levy has not visited a single Arab country.

Yeah, right. In two seconds flat I found this parliamentary answer from 2000:

Mr. Maude: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he held discussions with Lord Levy about Lord Levy's visits to the Middle East dated (a) 9 to 10 April 1999, visit to Syria, (b) 5 to 7 June 1999, visit to Jordan, (c) 7 to 10 June 1999, visit to Syria, (d) 8 October 1999, visit to Egypt, (e) 9 to 11 October 1999, visit to Oman, (f) 11 and 12 October 1999, visit to Qatar, (g) 12 to 14 October 1999, visit to Bahrain, (h) 29 November to 1 December 1999, visit to Syria, (i) 2 and 3 February, visit to Syria, (j) 3 February, visit to Lebanon and (k) 3 February, visit to Egypt. [113877]

Mr. Hain [holding answer 7 March 2000]: Lord Levy's visits are reported to the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, in person by Lord Levy and by telegram from the Ambassador in the country concerned.

Or maybe there's a third explanation. As well as being a liar, or stupid, David Tredinnick is so rabid an antisemite that he doesn't even see the truth when it's out there in front of him. The prima facie evidence is there, when he talks about 'pro-Israeli supporters'. He can't possibly know the personal political views of Labour donors wooed by Lord Levy...unless, that is, by 'pro-Israeli supporters' he means what it's blindingly obvious he means: JEWS. He's looked up the proportion with Jewish names, hasn't he?

And he's saying that those bloody Jews have bought foreign policy with their lucre. Here we go again. I wonder if his pair used to be Tam Dalyell.

Actually I think it's much simpler than any of the above. He's a moronic tit.

(There. Personal abuse isn't that clever. But sometimes it just feels right.)

(2)

This is a huge oversimplification, but it used to be that, on the whole, Labour politicians were supportive of Israel and Conservatives tended to be Arabists. Why that switched is worthy of a whole book. But there remains a foul grouping within the Conservative Party, and its existence is brought home by this disgusting comment from Sir Peter Tapsell, one of those old-school Tory MPs who has long left a nasty stain on his party:

Sir Peter Tapsell, a Tory MP, said Tuesday that British Prime Minister Tony Blair was "colluding" with U.S. President George W. Bush in giving Israel the okay to wage "unlimited war" in Lebanon - a war crime he claimed was "gravely reminiscent of the Nazi atrocity on the Jewish quarter of Warsaw."

(1)

The Guardian provides a helpful clarification today of Martin Rowson's cartoon:

Yesterday's cartoon on page 29 (Comment) portrayed Israeli military action in Lebanon in the form of a mailed fist with Stars of David as knuckle-dusters. By failing to identify them in a specifically Israeli form - such as in the colours of the flag - the point the cartoon was making might have been interpreted as implicating Judaism rather than the Israeli government in the present conflict. That was not the intention, and we are sorry if anyone saw it that way.

Phew, what a relief to know that, in the Guardian's view, it's perfectly ok to use images which look antisemitic, and which many people take to be antisemitic, so long as you only meant to attack Israel than Jews generally.

So when I say that Guardian is a loathsome paper which is not fit to be used as toilet paper, whose reporting of the Middle East inflames hatred of Jews and which is staffed by raving antisemites masquerading as liberals, it's fine, because it's certainly not my intention to cause any offense by such a statement.

(12)

Today's Times has a letter from Lord Balfour, with sentiments entirely typical of the British establishment:

If Israel is to help put an end to this and soften attitudes towards it, perhaps it should put up with some pain without always fighting back instantly. This would allow a better background for forceful diplomacy involving Tehran, Damascus and others in the region. Israel is not going to disappear and nor is Arabia. They had better train their peoples to live with the fact.

Ah yes, best to let a few yids snuff it than upset diplomacy.

The new Canadian PM doesn't think Israeli lives are expendable in the face of terror:

We all want to encourage not just a ceasefire, but a resolution. And a resolution will only be achieved when everyone gets to the table and everyone admits that recognition of ea