Yachad's Search For Themselves

The left-wing, supposedly "pro-Israel, pro-peace" group Yachad have professed a disclaimer on their blog that "the views of the bloggers do not necessarily represent the views of the organisation", presumably hoping that with all the criticism they have had so far, at least they won't have to take responsibility for the content of their blog.

Regardless, the last two blog posts very accurately do reflect Yachad's confused, contradictory viewpoint. Which is fair enough, it's their blog. 

Darren Cohen starts off by mocking the "3 Ds", delegitimisation, double standards, and demonisation "that have become the archetypal regurgitation of many within the higher echelons of many Zionist institutions". Then, after acknowledging "the hypocrisy of much of the criticism and indeed hatred Israel receives", he compares the treatment of Israel by its enemies to Yachad's plight, applying the 3 Ds to Yachad, as though no criticism of them can be legitimate!

Cohen states that: 

"To safeguard the future of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State, it needs to act urgently to ensure that a viable two state solution is actualized and that the dream of peace can become a reality. This line of thought is now widely accepted by the mainstream and is nothing new. In spite of this, Hannah [Weisfeld] and the organisation she represents are still demonised as naïve at best and anti-Zionists at worse."  

Despite what Cohen may think, Yachad's critics are not anti-peace, or against the two state solution. We're just against what Yachad thinks is the right way to achieve this. Cohen has very shrewdly observed our concerns about Yachad - are they naive or are they anti-Zionist? It's hard to tell, and similar to the question we ask of a lot of Israel-bashers: are they ignorant, or are they antisemitic? There's another possibility, which I think applies to many Jewish critics of Israel - cowardice. Understandably many Jews are overcome by a need to fit in with society's majority to avoid being a target, and if that means having to be critical of Israel, so be it.

Cohen is offended by the accusation of 972 Magazine (who are strongly endorsed by Yachad) being pro-Hamas, "a slanderous and unsupported accusation", but he's obviously not done his research. 

On 972, Palestinian Aziz Abu Sarah wrote that Hamas’ “decision to reconcile with Fatah indicates their support of the PLO’s new approach [the bid for statehood]. Hamas has no better ideas to offer the Palestinian people on how to end the occupation. It had to make a choice between the status quo or actively working with Fatah and the other Palestinian factions on creating a Palestinian state.” Then he criticised that “The Israeli government ignored that Hamas had been giving clear signs of its willingness to accept to the two-state solution.” Israeli-American writer Mairav Zonszein, seemingly forgetting that Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organisation found it "perplexing" that they would condemn the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and wondered why they didn’t suggest instead that he should have been tried. (as though they privilege their own people with trials!) And it’s not only Hamas they support. Another writer, Roee Ruttenberg expressed support for last year’s flotilla, and the Turkish ‘charity’ who backed it, the IHH, who have links to terror.

Cohen then makes an extraordinarily absurd statement, that the double standards of Yachad’s critics were:

“highlighted by the fact that a leading member of the American Zionist Organisation wrote a piece criticising Israel’s government for allowing the Gilad Shalit prison exchange and yet no one bat an eye lid. Apparently, it is unacceptable to criticise Israel for being too ‘right-wing’, but to criticise the government for a ‘left-wing’ deal that the vast majority of Israelis supported is deemed acceptable.”

Gilad Shalit’s release was one of the most jubilant yet painful, emotionally charged events in Israel’s recent history. I have never in my life felt so torn in my emotions, so unbelievably relieved and happy that an Israeli soldier’s life was saved after five years of torture, but at the same time so grief-stricken for the families of terror victims who had to relive their horror all over again, sickened at the celebrations of terrorists with no remorse for their actions, and fearful for the future, for the safety of Israel’s citizens and soldiers, my family and friends in Israel, from Haifa to Jerusalem to Be’er Sheva. So I can understand those who were against the deal, even though, as I’ve explained, I supported it. I don’t look at it as a matter of politics, left or right wing; to me it was simply about taking the opportunity to save a life.

As for Yachad having “proven over and over again that it is a vociferous pro-Israel voice” and that “it is not acting to demonise or attack Israel”… where have they proven that? Because if I was ignorant of the conflict and got all my links from their Facebook and Twitter, I’d be worse than ignorant - I’d only know one half of the story.

Cohen’s second blog post again mentions the 3 DS, this time in describing how the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is harmful and counterproductive.  Despite this, he commends boycotts as “non-violent resistance to oppression”. Yachad’s official line is that they do not support boycotts, but they were also very much opposed to Israel’s proposed anti-boycott law.

Yachad would do well to clear up their own confusion and contradictions, and save their critics the trouble. 

The Promise: "Die, Evil Jews!"

The fourth and final part of The Promise, if possible, was even worse than the previous three put together in it’s demonisation of the Jews.

Anyone who defends the programme as “balanced” and really believes that all Jews are as evil as they are portrayed in it, must either be a. ignorant, or b. antisemitic.

This is just beyond anti-Zionism and any defence of it as such, as opposed to antisemitic, is just laughable.

I am not at all saying that some of what the Israelis and Jews did in The Promise didn’t happen; it did, and I would not defend the actions of the Irgun, some of what they did was disgusting.

But looking at The Promise from the perspective of someone who has no knowledge of Israel now or then, what they would think is that the Jews are totally evil.

In modern-day Israel, the Israeli brother tells Erin that “you can do anything you want to the Palestinians” with no consequences, and we see Israeli soldiers stand by as Jews scream abuse and throw glass and rocks at defenceless Palestinians - and this is portrayed as the norm – whilst the Palestinians in The Promise never do anything like this.

The reality is very different, not least because much as people like to pretend it isn’t, Israel is a democracy and Jews, just like Arabs will face the consequences if they are involved in violent behaviour. And that includes Israeli soldiers who are punished if they act against the IDF's strict code of conduct.

Meanwhile in The Promise’s version of the late 1940s the Jews are not only murderers but traitors as well – Clara, the Jewish woman who Erin’s grandfather was involved with, and his British-Jewish soldier friend both betrayed him leading to the deaths of British soldiers and Arabs.

The Promise completely ignores the other side to all this: that a. the majority of the Jews condemned these attacks – and not only condemned, but the Haganah, the original Israeli Defence Forces who worked alongside the British, captured and turned in Irgun members to the British; and b. at that time the Arabs attacked and killed hundreds of unarmed Jewish civilians.

The Promise fails to mention that the UN proposed the partition plan to create a Jewish state and a Palestinian state, and that the Jews accepted this but the Arabs rejected it.

It also throws in a large dose of sympathy to a Palestinian family whose daughter was a suicide bomber, and whose brother, a member of Hamas “says it’s his job to protect the family” – as though that’s in their charter and not to kill all the Jews or anything like that.

Finally, at the end of the programme, the director dictates to the viewers exactly what he aimed for them to think:

- About the creation of the state of Israel, Erin’s grandfather: “embarrassed and ashamed”.

- About present day Israel, Erin on the idea of returning: “Why, what’s the point?”

I have never seen such an obvious attack of delegitimisation of Israel on every level like this. With it's sympathy of Palestinian terrorists, and deliberate distortions and omissions of Israelis' and Jews' actions, The Promise is against both Israel’s right to existence and it’s right to self-defence, without both of which all the Jews would die. If that’s not antisemitism I don’t know what is.

The Promise: Demonising Jews And Israel Since The 1940s

Most people reading this will be aware of Channel 4’s 4-part drama The Promise, of which two episodes have been aired so far. The programme is set in two eras: it follows a British teen who spends the summer in Israel in 2005, whilst reading her grandfather’s diary who was a soldier in the Palestinian Mandate in the 1940s.

As a drama, it’s effective, yet it will be hard for some people to remember that although it is based on true events, it’s actually fiction – and of course, biased against Israel and full of distortions and omissions.

And I’m not going to not say that just because there’s a risk I might be told I’m imagining it, there is no anti-Israel bias, Israel really is all-evil.

Which seems to be the view of the New Statesman’s Laurie Penny, who mocks Julie Burchill’s criticism of The Promise as “bonkers”, exaggerating and at the same time condensing her concerns as accusing the programme of “foaming anti-Semitism, borne out of Gentile resentment that Jewish people are good at science”.

There is no known reason for antisemitism but now that Burchill mentions it, it’s hardly implausible that antisemites would feel resentment that the Jews as “such a small, persecuted tribe can keep surviving, thriving and achieving”.

Penny throws in an “as a Jew I’m offended” remark, calls the programme “a reflective and excruciatingly well-researched series”, and then gives her laughable defence of why this is the case and it can’t possibly be biased: because it “opens with five gruelling minutes set in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, cutting in segments of real footage from the mass graves”.

Done with the Jews-as-victims part, Penny finally reveals her true agenda as she turns to the Palestinians and describes the IDF “penning your family behind gun-bristling checkpoints, cramming your friends and neighbors behind apartheid walls, bombing your home, machine-gunning your grandchildren.”

Because Israel does that all the time of course, and all just for fun with no reason. Because even though the Jews were victims in the Holocaust, now they’re not allowed to defend themselves.

And that pretty much sums up the message of The Promise. Jews are no longer victims, in fact Jews are the oppressors, and any time you might think a Jew is a victim, it’s their own fault.

For example, at the end of Part 1, Lefty-Israeli-Brother tells impressionable British girl Erin that the fence is not to prevent terrorism; it’s just to humiliate the Palestinians. Two minutes later there is a suicide bombing, the implication being that the brother is right. But there is no counter-argument that suicide bombings decreased by over 90% after the fence was built.

In Part 2 the brother (who was injured in the bombing) discovers that Erin’s grandfather was in the 1946 bombing of the King David hotel by the Irgun. He states that the two cases are “exactly the same; people blowing up buildings because they can’t make their point any other way”. It’s amazing that he can call it exactly the same, yet on the one hand the programme seems to defend suicide bombings and blame them on Israel; and at the same time leave out all the context of the King David hotel bombing – such as that the Irgun gave three warnings for the hotel to be evacuated, which were ignored, and that Jewish groups condemned the Irgun, Ben Gurion calling them “the enemy of the Jewish people”. Suicide bombers, on the other hand, don’t give warnings because their aim is to cause maximum civilian casualties, and in the Arab world, rather than condemnation, people who kill Israeli civilians are usually considered heroes.

It is made clear in The Promise by the exaggerations and lack of context of the Irgun that it is not just what they did but also why they did it that is the director’s problem. As the Israeli grandfather explained, after the horrors of the Holocaust in which his whole family had been killed, the Irgun aimed to ensure nothing like that would ever happen again by securing Israel as the Jewish homeland. The means were wrong, but that does not take away the right of Jews and Israel to self-defence.

Still Relevant...

A few months before I started this blog, I did a couple of pieces that were featured on Elder of Ziyon. Now that I do have this blog, I thought I may as well add them to my collection here. Even though they're from February 2009, they are still relevant as Israel is continuously, disproportionately blamed for that winter's war (and pretty much the whole Middle East conflict in general).

• The first piece is a spoof news story:

"UN: It's OK To Be Antisemitic... But Not Anti-Zionist

After many months of debate the UN has finally announced that it is acceptable to be openly antisemitic, but at the cost of being openly anti-Zionist.

A poll showed the majority of voters were in favour of sacrificing the ability to insult Israel for the sake of being to say what they really feel with regards to Jews.

"It was really tiring venting all my Jew-hate on Israel" one voter said. "Always having to say some sh** about Israel putting 10 million Palestinians in phosphorous chambers and causing a holocaust."

The ruling means that it is permissible, upon seeing a Jew, to shout insults such as "big nose" or "greedy f***er", and in some cases violence may also be acceptable, for example when the nose is extra large or the Jew is dressed very religiously.

However none of that applies to Israeli Jews, and the UN has warned of harsh consequences for those who say anything negative and untruthful about Israel, such as that Israel made up that it is fighting terrorists, Israelis are ugly, or that Israelis didn't invent falafel and hummus.

A UN spokesman said:

"For too long people have been holding the urge to express their disgust at the Jews' ugly conks and the fact that they're the ones who caused the recession, and that they control the media. We feel this is a positive move in giving people the freedom to express themselves in a healthy, honest way instead of always hiding behind the 'I'm not antisemitic, I'm anti-Zionist' defence.""

• My second item was a satirical poster for the now infamous antisemitic play, Seven Jewish Children (view large version here, thanks to EoZ).

Fight The Media? BE The Media!

I’ve always been a proud supporter of Israel and interested in media and journalism, so it was inevitable that I eventually started this blog in June 2009 – just about the time I’d finally had enough of the continuous and absurdly biased and inaccurate coverage of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.

My main motivation for this blog was as an outlet for myself, to record the media’s hypocrisy and express my feelings on the subject. This was after spending much time getting into pointless and frustrating online arguments with Israel-hating lefties and terrorist supporters who repeatedly accuse Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing and Naziism, and ignore all the facts, logic, and evidence you throw at them.

It feels like the media and internet are so vast, how can we possibly counter all the hate and lies? - but it works to our advantage as well. There are so many outlets for expression that anyone and everyone can get involved in fighting Israel’s media war, and make a difference even by doing something as small as clicking ‘play’ on a YouTube video. Within a day of the notorious flotilla incident in May, Israel’s footage of their soldiers being stabbed and attacked on the Mavi Marmara was on the front page of YouTube, which then generated hundreds of thousands more views. The footage was later used in a BBC documentary of the incident, so informative and balanced that Israel’s critics were incensed. All of this was achieved simply by people watching the video and sharing it online.

Some of the most powerful online videos are only 30 seconds long, such as those by Free Middle East, or “What makes a hero?” by YouTube member aussievideodude. The IDF itself records footage and posts clips on its YouTube channel, and Honest Reporting do educational videos and podcasts. Just as effective – if not more so – is the use of humour in videos, such as No Laughing Matter’s mock interviews, Latma’s satirical news channel, and Elder of Ziyon’s ironic videos, like “The Humanitarian Crisis of the Gaza Mall”. Sometimes ridicule is the only way to get people to take another look at themselves.

Twitter is a great website for posting information as it happens and sharing it fast. When Israel was helping in Haiti after the earthquake there, they used Twitter not only to update followers of their efforts, but also to communicate with people who required aid. And last year on the third anniversary of Gilad Shalit’s capture, there was a campaign to create awareness of his plight that succeeded in getting his name as one of the top trends that day (until Michael Jackson died). If you have an important link related to Israel, post it with a related tag like #Israel or #IDF so it can be found easily. On the other hand, Twitter can also be used to directly fight back against anti-Israel bias. Chas Newkey-Burden has described how on his blog he fisked an article that a journalist had tweeted, and then sent his post to the journalists’ followers – succeeding in getting some of them to rethink and even retweet his blog.

On Facebook you can share news stories and videos, and discuss the Middle East conflict with other members – on both pro and anti-Israel groups. In one of my more enjoyable exchanges on a Facebook group, I simply responded to my opposition’s ranting with links to pictures and videos clearly in Israel’s favour; I didn’t even have to write anything, and he was so livid he could barely type (or maybe he just had a bad education). The key is not to emote, but to remain calm and polite (however painful it is). Remember that it is the Palestinian leadership who act against the interests of both sides, and so demonizing and boycotting Israel does nothing to help the Palestinian people.

Another essential way to fight Israel’s media war is to submit complaints and letters in instances of media bias or inaccuracy – you are likely to find plenty of cases yourself, or just follow media monitoring sites like Honest Reporting, Just Journalism, CiF Watch and Reuters-Middle East Watch.

And finally, there are the blogs, where you can choose to either get into heated debates with leftist, Israel-bashing bloggers, or else keep up to date on the latest news from Israel and the Middle East that you’d never otherwise find in the mainstream media, and share your own thoughts and frustrations with fellow Zionists and bloggers.

My blog is not in the league of must-reads like Elder of Ziyon, Chas Newkey-Burden’s Oy Va Goy, Robin Shepherd, Honest Reporting and CiF Watch, but I recently had a reader post this very humbling comment that makes it all worthwhile:

“I just found your blog during an angry debate with my viciously anti-Semitic, pro-Palestine aunt, during which she called me a Zionist and sneered that I might have Jewish blood. I just wanted to let you know you're doing a bang up job and I'm glad there are people like you out there. Sometimes I swear it feels like I'm the only pro-Israel person in the world.”

So whilst I started the blog for myself, never thinking it would have an impact on anyone else, it was extremely rewarding to find that it is actually making a bit of a difference, at least for one person in their fight for Israel.

Everyone can do something. And even when you feel like banging your head against a wall – maybe the brick wall that’s ignoring you – don’t give up. You are definitely making a difference.

For more advice and ways to fight Israel's media war, join http://www.facebook.com/israelonline.

The New, New Antisemitism

People don't like being called antisemites - especially those people who work so hard to disguise their antisemitism as anti-Zionism (as though denying Israel it's right to self defence and existence is better than accusing Jews of taking over the world or whatever). People also don't like being accused of "new antisemitism", which is the term for the demonisation of, and disproportionate hatred directed towards Israel because of its Jewish nature.

So for those Israel-bashers who protest their innocence of antisemitism (old or new), in an excellent article on the CST blog, Dave Rich proposes another term:

"There is much in the anti-Israel discourse in this country that smacks of an emotional reaction to Israel, up to and including hatred, which goes beyond its government and encompasses the country and people as a whole. I would call it anti-Israel racism; if you don’t like that term, use bigotry or prejudice instead...

for those opponents of Israel who do not want to consider the possibility that their attitudes may be polluted with antisemitism, they could instead consider whether they are susceptible to racist ideas or feelings about Israel and Israelis."

So, Israelophobia, or anti-Israelism. A racism that is so obvious in so many leftists, even when they use that exhausted defence of "my best friend is... Neturei Karta".

Rich concludes the article with these unanswered questions:

"if it is possible to hold racist views about Israelis, then there is a follow-up question: what if these racist views about Israel and Israelis are similar, to a greater or lesser extent, to things that antisemites believe about Jews? Would this mean that, after all, anti-Israel racism is the same as antisemitism? or does anti-Israel racism exist separately from, but sometimes influenced by, antisemitism? And does it make a difference, morally or politically, which prejudice is in play?"

Well for what my opinion is worth, I believe anti-Israel and anti-Jewish racism are inherently linked in most cases, although obviously in some a person will be one and not the other. 

(Just to be clear, when I talk about anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism, I am talking about disproportionate hate and not legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies.)

More significantly though, I strongly believe that both are as bad as each other. And perhaps that's why some Jews and Israel-supporters are quick to call anti-Zionists antisemites: it's the only way to get their disgusting prejudices noticed. Because for some reason the denial of Israel's right to self-defence and existence is acceptable, as long as it's called anti-Zionism. The key is to talk about "Israelis" and not "Jews", then it's ok.

But then the question arises: when these leftists and anti-Zionists talk about Israel and Israeli citizens and the Israeli army and the Israeli government... where do all the Israeli Arabs come into this? You know, the Israeli Arabs who are MKs, who fight in the IDF, and who live among Jewish Israelis (whether in settlements or not).

Are the anti-Zionists talking about all Israelis, or just the Jewish Israelis? If it's just the Jewish Israelis who they deny self defence, then that's pure antisemitism, isn't it.

Another blogger takes the viewpoint that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are indeed the same thing, particularly the kind that calls Israel a Nazi state and Palestinians the victims of genocide.

This all brings to mind what happened at the beginning of this month, when the Telegraph accused Israeli president Shimon Peres of claiming that the English are antisemitic. In fact he was talking about Britain's relations with Israel and with Arabs. When prompted by the interviewer, he did concede that "yes, there is also antisemitism", something no one could deny. There's antisemitism everywhere.

Melanie Phillips observed that it is: "likely that the Daily Telegraph writers elided anti-Israel feeling with Jew-hatred because they themselves think that each flows into the other"

Which Phillips points out is extremely hypocritical:

"it is a favourite device of the Israel-bashers to fend off criticism by falsely accusing all those who defend Israel of claiming in turn that its accusers are all 'antisemites'...

the Israel-bashers tell us ad nauseam that to be anti-Israel is not the same as being anti-Jew. Yet when the Israeli president talks about anti-Israel hatred, he is said to be talking about anti-Jewish hatred pure and simple, with no other factors acknowledged."

JC editor Stephen Pollard, in a TImes column, reinforces this point: 

"Too often, those of us who criticise campaigners against Israel, or who argue that there is an anti-Israel bias in much of the media, are accused of calling our opponents antisemites... That is specious nonsense - with the poisonous aim of trying to delegitimise friends of Israel from the debate."

The vast majority of Israel supporters are fully aware of the point at which criticism of Israel crosses the line into antisemitic territory, and it very often does. Examples:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation...

• ...Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

We shouldn't have to be afraid of calling someone out as an antisemite if they are, only to have them feel "offended" and sigh that everything is overly Politically Correct now, and why can't they criticise Israel without being called antisemitic.

But until anti-Zionism is seen as the vile racism it truly is - or Israelophobia/anti-Israelism - then it is still imperative to keep exposing antisemites for what they are, even if it means just watching and waiting for them to let slip a "Jew" instead of "Israel".

The Psycho-Analysis Of Self-Hating Jews

There is a not unusual, but extremely dangerous and harmful psychological (and some suspect, genetic) disorder among some members of the Jewish faith, known as Self-Hating Syndrome. Adam Levick at CifWatch has written a comprehensive piece looking into this phenomenon; the nature and causes of this disorder.

I'm not even being tongue-in-cheek here. Having now read a few articles about the phenomenon, I've seen just how fascinating it is to really look at it as a psychological disorder, and see how obvious it is that these self-hating Jews have serious issues. I've always just dismissed them as a bunch of weirdos, cowards who want to "fit in" with the West's majority leftist ideology, but there's so much more to it than that. I would love to see a qualified psychologist's take on it. And then watch a self-hating Jew's face as the psychologist gravely informs him of his disorder.

Levick observes, referring specifically to the Guardian's resident self-hating Jews, that:

"These Jewish writers don’t merely critique Israeli policy, but routinely engage in hyperbole, vitriol, and gross distortions.  Their rhetoric is often spewed with hate towards the Jewish state, all but ignoring the behavior of her enemies - the terrorist and reactionary movements who openly seek her annihilation.  Such commentators often infer that the democratic Jewish state (the most progressive nation, by far, in the region) is almost always in the wrong, is usually motivated by a hideous malevolence, and represents a national  movement which they, as Jews, are ashamed to be associated with."

Obviously these Jews are a very different breed to those who criticise Israel's mistakes out of care for the country. Similarly, whilst many people do give legitimate criticism of Israel, antisemites (and self-hating Jews) will express disproportionate hate towards Israel, whilst calling themselves anti-Zionists. They'll accuse Israel of crimes it didn't commit, whilst ignoring those crimes that have been done on larger scales by other nations. They'll deny Israel it's right to self-defence and existence, when every other nation has that right.

These are antisemitic Jews, though Levick finds the term "self-hating" misleading, because they actually "seem to possess a belief that they are indeed 'better Jews' for being hyper-critical of Israel, opposing their own community, and rejecting the very idea of a Jewish nation-state." Their desire to be seen as "progressive" means they move further away from identification with Israel and with the Jewish community. Levick then refers to a piece by Anthony Julius on Z Word, observing that these Jews possess "moral vanity", to assure the rest of the world of their righteousness:

"A moraliser has a good conscience and is satisfied by his own self-righteousness. He is not a self-hater; he is enfolded in self-admiration."

This is expanded on by Barry Rubin, who explains that the root of these Jews' desire to assimilate - by removing themselves from the communal interests of Israel and the Jewish religion - and to be seen as "alturistic", is plain and simple: fear. "While antisemites charge that all or almost all Jews in positions of power pursue a distinctively Jewish interest, the exact opposite is the truth". Which is why so many left-wing Jews try to prove themselves by "championing the causes of other groups even - sometimes especially - those in conflict with Jewish interests... [whilst] they hold the exact opposite attitude towards their own people, whom they are determined to show are not their own people".

It's a defence mechanism, as commenter Mitnaged puts it: 

"he is stuck in the paranoid-schizoid phase as described by Melanie Klein and is psychologically split. This stems from persecutory anxiety and the only way he can feel good about himself is by splitting off the parts of himself he sees as 'bad' and disowning them, and projecting them onto others at whom he can then point and believe himself to be 'all good'."

So really, self-hating is an accurate term to define them, in that they don't literally hate themselves, but hate the religion, Israel which is associated with it, and Jews who hold different views to them. Afraid of who they are; ashamed of their religion, people and country, self-hating Jews are proud to distance themselves from it, seeking acceptance from the Jews' enemies. Self-hating Jews will only ever be open about their Jewish status when in the same breath they distance themselves from all things Jewish.

Levick's final explanation for the phenomenon is that these Jews are really just overgrown adolescents, going through an intellectual and existential crisis; questioning the knowledge they've been taught growing up, believing themselves to be wiser than those who taught them. Julius at Z Word explains:

"He holds that the truth is to be arrived at by inverting the 'us = good' and 'other = bad' binarism. He finds virtue in opposing his own community; he takes the other point of view. He writes counter-histories of his own people. It is not enough for him to disagree, or even refute; he must expose the worst bad faith, the most ignoble motives, the grossest crimes. He must discredit."

Canadian writer David Solway, also on CifWatch compares today's self-hating Jews to century-old antisemitism, accusing Israel of "indiscriminately shedding [Palestinian] blood to feed its appetite for conquest and spoliation" as opposed to the ancient antisemitic blood libels, fabricating that Jews murdered Christian or Muslim children for religious rituals.

Solway explains that the self-hating phenomenon is a result of antisemitism, which causes "the insecure and self-doubting Jewish soul to turn about and attack itself, like an immune system gone awry." Solway depicts "a scorpion, trapped in a ring of fire, [which] coils up with the heat and appears to sting itself with its own lethal tail." This is a metaphor for self-haters:

"surrounded by the flames of enmity, misprision and commination, the self-reviling Jew shrivels back upon himself, the autonomic convulsion of an ailing and enervated soul."

Most tragically of all, Solway observes how the self-hating Jew ends up:

"doing the work of his tormentors as if in agreement with their salvos of defilement and vilification... [he] becomes the antisemite's loyal deputy, assuming liability for the world's mortal caricature of him and willing his own eclipse."

So to sum up, self-hating Jews are cowardly but smug, childish and stupid, hypocritical traitors. With psychological disorders.

On the subject of leftism and Israel, about a month ago there was an article on why leftists should be pro-Israel. Of course most leftists are actually very anti-Israel, most of them hypocrites who hold double standards when it comes to Israel.

More Proof That "Pro-Palestinians" Aren't Really Pro-Palestinian

How does supporting Hamas help the Palestinians? Why does it appear to be only Zionists who try to expose Hamas' corruption, thereby benefitting the moderate Palestinians who don't want to be drawn into Hamas' war games? In an op-ed in November, Khaled Abu Toameh wrote:

"If anyone is entitled to be called 'pro-Palestinian,' it is those who are publicly campaigning against financial corruption and abuse of human rights by Fatah and Hamas. Those who are trying to change the system from within belong to the real 'pro-Palestinian' camp.

These are the brave people who are standing up to both Fatah and Hamas and calling on them to stop killing each other and start doing something that would improve the living conditions of their constituents...

...The 'pro-Palestinian' activists in the West clearly do not care about reforms and good government in the Palestinian territories. As far as these activists are concerned, delegitimizing Israel and inciting against 'Zionists' are much more important that pushing for an end to financial corruption and violence in Palestinian society."

An incident that recently occurred at Toronto's York University is exactly the problem Toameh is citing.

A Hasbara student group was running a campaign at the university called "Free Palestinians from Hamas", where they were also creating awareness of Gilad Shalit. Inevitably a group of around 50 anti-Zionists gathered there, chanting anti-Israel and antisemitic slurs. Whilst pushing away cameras that were filming their abuse and aggression, they hit two of the Hasbara students. Another time when the Israel activists were campaigning, an 'Israeli Apartheid Week' activist told them "you should be ashamed of youselves".

"Free Palestinians from Hamas", and the Israel-haters still couldn't see past their hate that there is more to the Palestinians' suffering than just getting caught in the war between Israel and Hamas, but that their leaders are the direct cause of much of their suffering. Again and again the Palestinians' leaders get away with murder, literally, because people are so focused on painting Israel as the villain. They're so blinded by their hatred that when someone tries to expose Palestinian corruption, instead of listening or doing something about it, they just dismiss it as Zionist propaganda. Maybe deep down they do care a little bit about the Palestinians, but obviously not nearly as much as they hate Israel and... dare I say it... Jews.

Open Letter To Self-Hating Lefty "Jewish" Organisations

In Tuesday's Times there was a full page letter/advert written by a number of Jewish organisations: Independent Jewish Voices, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights, Jewish Socialists' Group, Jewish Writers Against the Occupation, and Scottish Jews for a Just Peace.

What do all these groups have in common? Well, I have a hunch that they don't care about justice and human rights for Israel. They also represent a very small minority of Jews. People who only call themselves Jewish when it's Israel-bashing time. I don't know why they do it, but anyway.

Here's the letter, with my thoughts:

OPEN LETTER TO GORDON BROWN ON THE GOLDSTONE REPORT:
BRITISH JEWS DO NOT SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE

Dear Prime Minister,

We appreciate your Government's stated intention to build bridges with the Jewish community in the light of responses to the Goldstone report. To achieve this, it is vital for you to recognise that British Jews do not speak with one voice on this matter.

Of course British Jews don’t speak with one voice, but if you are going to try to “buildbridges” with the Jewish community, wouldn’t it makes sense to try to do it with the MAJORITY of British Jews. i.e. the ones who actually identify with their Jewish status, and Israel’s role in that; not the ones who only call themselves Jews when they want to criticize Israel.

What are they even saying in this paragraph? That Brown can't "build bridges" with the Zionist British Jews? That the self-hating Jews are the more important and they're the ones that Brown should please?

We welcome the Goldstone Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict as a key document in the upholding of international law in situations of violent conflict, and regret your Government's failure to endorse the Report and its recommendations at the United Nations General Assembly.

The Goldstone report was less about fact finding and more about vilifying Israel and excusing Hamas terrorism.

We condemn the vilification of Richard Goldstone, an internationally acclaimed jurist who has made a substantial contribution worldwide to the development and maintenance of international humanitarian law, and his distinguished co-authors.

Did they even watch this video, where an Israeli terrorism victim asks Goldstone why he left her story out of the report?

Did they know he sent a 13 year old boy to prison for protesting apartheid in South Africa? Do they still condemn the "vilification" of Goldstone after this?

We note that the preparation of the Report was severely hampered by the refusal of the Israeli authorities to respond to reasonable enquiries or to facilitate access by the mission to Gaza or the West Bank and that it was only Egypt's assistance which eventually allowed the Mission to gain access to Gaza.

Why should Israel respond to the enquiries when they’ve already presented the evidence? Is it their fault that Goldstone and his team completely ignored the evidence that was there for everyone to see?

We further note that the Report unequivocally condemns not just Israel's devastation of Gaza but also Hamas's indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli neighbourhoods and does not in any way deny Israel its right to legitimate self-defence.

Well, they noted wrong. The Goldstone report did not condemn Hamas even once. And by not condemning Hamas and only singling out Israel for condemnation, the implication is that terrorism is acceptable and therefore Israel cannot defend itself against it.

We fully support its recommendation that both parties conduct full investigations into the allegations of war crimes in the Report.

We believe Israel cannot afford, nor should it wish, to exempt itself from the scrutiny of the international community on these matters. We consider that it is the attempt to do so, rather than the Goldstone Report, that is damaging Israel. We therefore urge you to endorse the Report at the next available opportunity.

Wrong again. Israel rejects the report because it’s a load of lies. It is the lies that damage Israel, not Israel’s attempt to prevent the spreading of those lies. And it doesn't help when a bunch of self-hating Jews stick their noses in.

Fatah And Violence

An interesting comment piece on the Guardian site. Yes! Interesting! About Palestinians and NOT anti-Israel! It’s about Palestinians and womens’ rights. Unfortunately, just before I found the piece, which says things might be better if Palestinian women were allowed on the Fatah committee, I came across this article, about women in Gaza getting military training to “resist the occupiers”. Somehow, I doubt that the endorsement of women in the Palestinian governments will bring much more of a diplomatic attitude to things. As it is, Fatah say they “maintain the right of resistance… by all means possible”, and “the call to ‘liquidate the Zionist entity’” remains. Also, they say they “will continue to sacrifice victims [themselves] until Jerusalem will be returned to the Palestinians” – the whole of Jerusalem. Which just reconfirms my doubts of there ever being peace with the Palestinians, because we will never give up Jerusalem. And the peacefulness continues on the side of the Palestinians as two Israeli civilians were shot at in the West Bank yesterday, both only injured lightly.

Self-Hating-Seth Was In NW London!

The thought makes me simultaneously shudder in disgust, and wish I had met him so I could tell him to his face what I think of him. So what's he written in the Guardian this time? Well, that the "blind spot" when it comes to the Good Jews Of Britain, is their support for Israel. He's another one that complains about "dissenters" being called self-haters and traitors. I'm sorry, if you're an Israeli who hates Israel, then, yes, you are a self-hater and a traitor. He criticises those (like me) who accuse Israel's haters of, well, hating Israel, and who love it when someone is sympathetic to Israel. Wow, so observant. Of course I freaking love it when someone stands up for Israel, it's such a rarity I want to throw a party for everyone who says nice things about Israel. I love you, Chas Newkey-Burden! G-d bless you, Colonel Richard Kemp! (who, by the way, Self-Hating-Seth, has fought in wars and knows what he's talking about when he says the IDF is the most moral army. And, yes, I know SHS, that you've also fought in the Israeli army but somehow you've proven that if you're already a liberal-lefty sychophantic self-hating Jewish Israeli then fighting in the IDF isn't going to change your mind.) SHS goes on:

"While there is never an excuse for antisemitic violence or rhetoric, we must do everything in our power to put ourselves above reproach so that the racists cannot find any hook for their bilious attacks."

And there you have it. The reason why Self-Hating-Seth is self hating. He's scared. A coward. Well you know what, Seth? The rest of British Jewry isn't like you. We're not scared. We're proud, proud to be Jewish, proud of Israel, and proud to support Israel. Even if it means we suffer anti-Zionism and antisemitism. It isn't going to make us think that Israel is all wrong. It's not perfect, but I'd like to see how any other country would deal better with the challenges that Israel is faced with. People have always hated Jews, always hated Israel, but unlike SHS, we can take it.

Pepsi Is A Zionist Plot!

Egyptian cleric Hazem Abu Ismail has called for a Muslim boycott of the second-rate Coke flavoured drink because, he says, PEPSI stands for Pay Every Penny to Save Israel. Speaking on a religious Muslim TV channel in Egypt, in February he said:

"When you pay [to buy Pepsi], you are saving Israel. I am not talking about Pepsi, but about Coca Cola and all of them. I don't want to specify the products. See for yourselves. You are Muslims. You can tell me. I don't know. My little son knows more about the boycott than me. When we go shopping, he says to me: "Buy this, don't buy that." He knows them by heart. He has become an expert in this."

Now I'm glad to hear that buying Coke also saves Israel because I love Coke. Pepsi, not so much. The other interesting thing is that the cleric's son is brainwashing his father, not the other way around. You have to feel sorry for some Muslims though; as well as having to suffer being treated with Israeli-developed cures and treatments, and using Israeli-developed technology that they just can't live without, they also can never have the pleasure of an ice-cold, fizzy Coke on a hot summer day without the guilt of saving the Zionists. So, what are you waiting for! Go out and buy some Coke (or Pepsi if that's your preference). And if it turns out that it doesn't save Israel, at least you can still enjoy your refreshing drink.

All Jews Are Extremists, Hate Obama, And Play The Antisemite Card

Well, that's what you might think judging by the widely publicised reactions of Jews to Obama's Cairo speech. 'Widely publicised' being the operative phrase. You might also thing that all Jews are drunk, ignorant and racist. In today's Times, the headline reads "No you can't, Israeli hawks tell the President". The Times loves the word 'hawk'. Lieberman is a hawk. Netanyahu is a hawk. Right-wing Israelis are hawks.

Whilst you can't blame Israelis for making that (photoshopped) poster of Obama wearing a kafiyah (after all, he is very fond of Muslims and reportedly has connections to Islam himself), calling him an antisemite is a bit much. No wonder people don't take accusations of antisemitism seriously.

Obama visited a concentration camp, he wants Ahmadinejad The Holocaust Denier to go there. Maybe Obama dislikes Israeli Jews, (he doesn't seem very concerned about Iran's threat to them), but in other ways he has demonstrated that he is not antisemitic. So I don't think Obama's an antisemite but I also don't think he cares enough about what's best for Israel. I don't hate him but I don't like his ideas. I'm not a drunk idiot so I won't wish harm on him although I'd prefer the US had a different president. And I don't particularly want a Palestinian state but that doesn't mean that I want the IDF to kill all the Palestinians for fun either (which they don't, but sometimes the way it's reported it sounds like they do), so I'm not an extremist even though I am a Zionist. Is there something wrong with that? I'm sure there are many others who share my views, so why does the media only find the drunks and extemists?