Stephen Pollard, editor of the UK’s Jewish Chronicle has levelled his first volley against journalists and bloggers who criticized the newspaper for hosting a blog by Carlos Cortiglia, a white supremacist leader of the British National Party. He’s threatened Jews for Justice for Palestinians with “remedial action” for republishing Hugh Muir’s Guardian story and my own first blog post about the controversy:
I’m disappointed but not remotely surprised that you should choose to post an entirely misleading account of the JC blog written by Carlos Cortiglia and should not bother to check a word of it with anyone at the JC.
…I said that when we were alerted to the man’s BNP membership we barred access to our site. I did not give a specific date – I said last autumn – and I did not say we removed all trace because, patently, we didn’t. It remained in our archive.
Unless you remove the accusation of lying and issue a correction you will leave me with no alternative but to take remedial action.
There are a number of interesting things about this threatening message. First, Pollard acknowledges “a JC blog written by Carlos Cortiglia.” In other words, he’s not, as some other apologists are trying to do, claim that JC had no agency in the matter. Second, Pollard concedes that even after he knew a white supremacist national leader was blogging at JC, he maintained public access to the blogs he wrote. In Muir’s article, the editor claims he did so because the content was “completely innocuous.” Which is rather beside the point. There are passages that Adolf Hitler wrote that were undoubtedly “innocuous.” But would you allow them to see the light of day on your own website once you discovered who the author was? I think not.
The Guardian reporter further states that:
Pollard’s account [is] that he became aware of Cortiglia’s blog and deleted all trace of it “last September”.
Yet in his message demanding a retraction he claims he never said this to Muir. Which leaves one wondering who to believe: an Islamophobic pro-Israel ultranationalist or a reporter for one of England’s most distinguished newspapers. Of course, English libel laws let just about any stinker sue, and standards of proof are much different than here. Which may leave Pollard’s critics in a tough spot if he’s willing to get one of his fellow pro-Israel solicitor friends to take on the case for him. If you’re a UK reader please keep me informed of any developments on that front. I’m especially curious to know how far he takes the legal threat against the Guardian, which is always in the sights of the pro-Israel crowd.
Personally, though I don’t wish a libel lawsuit on anyone, I hope Pollard will sue because it will further expose him and his editorial judgment to ridicule. For example, solicitors will be able to ask him why he felt it was acceptable to allow just about anyone on the internet to read BNP swill on the JC website for eight months. They might also ask why the JC offered an unfettered right to a blog to all takers at the newspaper’s site. And why they did so poor a job of monitoring the identity of these bloggers, allowing them to exploit the JC for their own political advantage.
Pollard has also fired some grapeshot my way as well. But he hasn’t done his homework, as he’s accused me of lying about him and refusing to correct the lies. Besides not understanding the difference between a lie and an error, the JC editor hasn’t even bothered to read my first post in which I note that I made judgments about Cortiglia’s status as a JC blogger based on the fact that the link to Cortiglia’s user page didn’t actually resolve to his own page, but to the main page for the JC’s official bloggers. This led me to believe that Cortiglia was a designated JC blogger. I noted in that post every instance in which I later discovered facts that were discrepant with my initial reporting and I reported those facts as I learned them.
I’ll let you be the judge of what this guy is made of:
…You simply made up a story, that the JC had announced a new columnist – the BNP candidate for mayor. Quite why you would choose to post a lie, which you must have known was a lie – since you made it up – is your problem, not mine.
Your latest post is similarly made up. At no point have I told anyone that we removed the BNP man’s posts in September. You must know this since you will find no record anywhere of me making such a claim. I said that the moment we were alerted to his BNP membership (not by you – I was unaware of your existence until this week), we barred him from posting, which is what happened.
His posts remained in our archive.
I suggest that you preface any posts about me and the JC with the words: “This post is made up and has no basis in fact.”
I won’t preface my posts about him with anything. I’ll just readers see his own words and they can be the judge for themselves of who’s a liar and who’s not.
A further irony of all this is that Pollard and the JC have smeared Rev. Stephen Sizer for posting on his Facebook page a link to an article published at an anti-Semitic site. A UK organization has even filed a formal police complaint against Sizer for doing so. Yet all the while Pollard himself was harboring a white supremacist on the website of the national newspaper of UK Jewry. How do you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?
UPDATE: To put Stephen Pollard and his credibility in perspective, I’ve just learned that he was sued for libel by a UK Muslim organization which he’d accused of supporting genocide in a column he wrote for The Spectator. As a result of the court case, Pollard and The Spectator published an unreserved apology, paid a penalty, and the court costs of the complainants. This is a guy who calls me a liar!
Reform of England’s Libel Laws are actually in hand (much as proposed by George Orwell shortly before WW2) and the Lord Chancellor (Kenenth Clarke QC MP) intends that “truth” shall be an absolute defence.
Two past Tory Cabinet members (Archer and Aitken) having been jailed for perverting the course of Justice after winning libel claims that later turned out to be completely true, he didn’t really have a lot of choice, though the Blair/Brown government chose to do nothing for thirteen years.
Mr Aitken thinks that what he did was wrong and that being jailed has changed him. There’s no particular sign of any equivalent realization or reform on Lord Archer’s part.
The Archer and Aitken cases caused the judiciary to rein in the amounts of libel damages on their own account, as it was pretty clear that they’d been motivated to launch spurious claims backed by lies in order to win large chunks of money.
The new meal ticket for lawyers are “privacy” laws, whereby we are not supposed to know when someone rich and powerful has done something utterly disgraceful. Lifting of some of the injunctions obtained under these “laws” had an immediate effect on the composition of the England Football team, for example.
(Parliament passed no legislation: specialist solicitors, staring a loss of libel case income in the face, invited a suspiciously-compliant judge (Mr Justice Eady) to interpret European Human Rights Legislation in such a way as to effectively outlaw free speech, and he even attempted to impose injunctions on Parliamentary proceedings. Strictly speaking, Eady should have been tried at the bar of the House for contempt, but the Speaker wimped it.)
I note the lead-link in your Apr20.2012 article “Hugh Muir gives first MSM coverage” has gone 404.
Maybe someone is tucking tail in response to the threats of remedial action? UK defamatory law is pretty draconian, and I believe there have been cases where rat-bag plaintiffs’ lawyers have reached beyond UK borders to sue foreign bloggers under UK law.
We don’t like black-listing when it attacks us and should not do it to others.
As to denying press-space to anybody, even to Hitler, this seems to me rather McCarthyite. If Hitler had written a decent essay on quantum-mechanics, why not print it? Black-Listing is hideous.
It is the message that should determine non-publishability (or complaint about prior publication), not the identity of the author, or editor, or printer, or manufacturer of the paper, or of any of their relatives or friends.
How many supporters of human rights (e.g., for Palestinians) have had experiences with black-listing? Consider the case of MJR recently.
MJR is now running his own website and he is prolific. Luckily for MJR, he was around for long enough that he says has enough money to survive. This is not true for the younger people that are being blacklisted. MJR’s website is here: http://mjayrosenberg.com/
I didn’t get that message here at all. It’s a different question: if you knew that a very interesting article was written by Hitler, would you allow it to be posted it on YOUR site?
It’s not about denying anybody their rights of free press, since the internet is a very large place with plenty of space for everyone. It’s about your own space, and how you police it.
Fascists and whatnot can find their own .com soapbox somewhere else, as i would never tolerate them on my websites.
pabelmont,
many thanks to your comment.
lifelong,
“blacklisting” is a rather complicated ethical matter. On the whole, you, i or other people personally might use different moral principles w.r.t our own websites. But we certainly ought not to create a general climate in which whole categories of people are outlawed and third partys are intimidated into denying those people press space.
If you don’t accept the McCarthy comparison, you may take another example, namely the “listes noires” of the French Communists after WWII (which made the non-communists break with their former allies).
Actually, the last of the blog posts, titled “When things go wrong, we need common sense” isn’t as innocuous as it seems. “Common sense” seems to be a BNP euphemism for racism. They have an event called “Common sense” and they are often quoted as advocating “common sense” policies. Try googling BNP “common sense” and see what happens.
If the mods or eds at the JC were more sincere in their opposition to all forms of racism, they might have spotted their BNP guest a little sooner.
I have no idea who the involved folks are, i just want to point out that Amazon sells Mein Kampf
in this link : http://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037
and since you expressed in your passage the Idea in defiance of freedom of speech that Adolf’s statements shouldn’t see light, i expect you to start a petition, write to Amazon and ask them to remove Hitler’s book.
after all you said “There are passages that Adolf Hitler wrote that were undoubtedly “innocuous.” But would you allow them to see the light of day on your own website once you discovered who the author was? I think not.”
Let’s see how strict in following your own values and statements you really are.
I do not think they should prohibit the selling of this book, people of true values would be able to read it and live, and confront the ideas expressed in it.
A bookseller is a different business than a newspaper. A bookseller’s business isn’t to promote ideas, it’s to sell books. A newspaper offers to its readers news, interpretations and commentary. It therefore has a duty to its readers to ensure those who are using the newspaper’s website to disseminate such ideas aren’t deeply offensive to their Jewish readers.
BTW, would you submit an op ed to the JC arguing that they should’ve retained Carlos Cortiglia’s blog? Then let me know after publication what sort of reception you get fr the JC readership. After you do, can you send it to me so I can publish it here?
All hot air and bluster by Pollard.
He hasn’t a leg to stand on. Who fires an Editor?
Good riddance, to bad rubbish. He and Melanie Philips should start an ultra Israel nationalist/Islamophobic blog.
Michael Weiss, Petra Van Marquandt & Jonathan Hoffman can join them.
Don’t dis Melanie Phillips: she has a blind spot about Israel, but her analysis of what was wrong with New Labour was usually pretty accurate.
Now that there is a police investigation into New Labour’s illegal renditions of Libyan dissidents, I am thinking of a campaign to support bringing Anthony Charles Lynton Blair to justice. “Weld it Shut” seems a catchy little title to me.
Regarding the blacklisting debate above between Pablemount, Stogumber and lifelong,
Whilst the argument may stand if it was just a blog on it’s own representing the owners view, then yes, it shouldn’t be blacklisted,
However the blogs here are not independent, they are affilated to the JC and ultimately, the Editor is responsible. It isn’t too much bother to appoint even a part time blog editor for a few hours a day to see that the blogs are complying with the journalistic standards.
The Guardian blogs do have an editor as do all the mainstream news affilated blogs.
RE: “How do you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?” ~ R.S.
ONE SPELLING: C-H-U-T-Z-P-A-H ! ! !
“There are passages that Adolf Hitler wrote that were undoubtedly “innocuous.” But would you allow them to see the light of day on your own website once you discovered who the author was? I think not.”
Maybe not Adolf Hitler, but Richard your attention was called to the floridly antisemitic website of Joachim Martillo and still you went on allowing him to comment on your own website.
Joachim posts a very occasional comment at this site & hasn’t in a couple of years. Do you understand the difference between 20 comments published over the course of 10 yrs at a site and an actual white supremacist blog hosted by a Jewish newspaper? Also, unlike the JC, I monitor Martillo’s comments & refuse to publish one’s that I deem unsuitable. Stephen Pollard never exercised that sort of due diligence over his reader blogs.
Are you denying that Martillo uses his website to publish his decidedly antisemitic babbling about the Jewish people, and that you have allowed him to link to that website, while you will not allow anyone to post links here to websites you find objectionable?
I don’t visit his website & don’t approve of much of the views he publishes there. Generally, I don’t allow anyone to link to their own websites except in the URL field for comments. I don’t know whether he’s added a link to his own blog there. Other than that, once again he doesn’t blog here & I don’t offer him such a blogging platform as JC has done for Carlos Cortiglia. Writing a blog & posting there is different than publishing a comment at someone else’s blog. Hell, I’d even allow Carlos Cortiglia to publish a comment here as long as it adhered to my comment rules. But again, I’d never let him write a blog post here unless it was to renounce his former views and become a progressive Zionist. Even then I wouldn’t trust him.
“There are passages that (Joachim Martillo) wrote that were undoubtedly ‘innocuous.’ But would you allow them to see the light of day on your own website once you discovered who the author was? I think not.”
Joachim Martillo doesn’t measure up to Adolf Hitler as an antisemite, but then who does. Martillo is an antisemite as his website proves, and you don’t deny. (You don’t visit his website, but you know that you don’t “approve of much of the views he publishes there.”?!) You have allowed Martillo to include links to his website in comments posted on your website, which promotes traffic his direction, whereas you regularly strip out links that commenters have tried to post to what you disdain as “hasbarist” websites. QED.
You’re confused. I don’t strip out links in the URL field above the comment box from anyone including Joachim Martillo. I strip links out of the actual comment text when they’re from propaganda sites, & I make clear in the comment rules that I will do that & list most of the sites that will not pass muster. Martillo has never added a link to his site in the comment text (but he has entered his blog URL in the URL field). For anyone to visit his site from this one, they’d have to know to click on the name “Joachim Martillo” associated with the comment, which would resolve to his blog. I doubt anyone has ever done that at this blog.
So a link to his website promotes traffic to his site? Let’s do a test: OK readers, how many of you have visited Joachim Martillo’s site by clicking a link at this site? Don’t be shy now…I want to see hands…Still waiting…No one…Hmm.
You’re done in this commment thread. Do NOT publish another comment in it. If you do, you will be moderated. You may publish comments in other threads & I suggest that you do so if you wish. But not in this one.
I clicked on a link to Martillo’s website years ago, but that was when he commented on Mondoweiss, I think.
He has incredible historical knowledge, some of the names he presents are interesting (Slezkine for exemple), but he’s an extremist and sounds like a machine when he starts off. Is he an antisemite ? It’s not for me to say.
Gilad Aztmon made me unconfortable too with some of his articles, talking about his “inner Jew” or whatever, not to talk about his accusing the Jews of being responsible for the economical crisis 😀 and when I see antizionists like the guys from “Jews Sans Frontières” calling him an antisemite, then I trust them.
People also accuse Phil Weiss of being a antisemite – which is just ridiculous – because he talks about “Jewish power” in America.
And I guess Richard would be a billionnaire if he had a dollar for every “antisemite”-label he has received.
A billionaire at LEAST!
“Martillo has never added a link to his site in the comment text…”
Well, a Google search on “Martillo” specifying the domain “richardsilverstein.com” brings up among the first several hits the July ’09 Tikun Olam thread below. It may be seen that in the body of his comment, Martillo included a link to his unabashedly antisemitic website, “Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel,” which at the top of the page invites visiters to donate in support of the fight against “Judonia.”
https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2009/07/09/seattle-muslim-woman-attacked-by-neo-nazi/comment-page-1/
“…the JC have smeared Rev. Stephen Sizer for posting on his Facebook page a link to an article published at an anti-Semitic site…”
“Smeared” Sizer how, by calling him an antisemite? Sizer is an unmitigated antisemite, but you don’t allow the possibility of such among “progressives,” do you.
You’d call Ahad HaAm an anti-Semite for being critical of contemporary political Zionism. Of course you offer no proof of yr claim. That’s SOP for bullies like you.
Why do you bring up this Ahad HaAm person? I don’t know who he/she is, and more importantly don’t know how he/she pertains to the charge that Sizer is an antisemite.
As for “proof of (my) claim,” do you actually allow the presentation of evidence that contradicts you? You so regularly cut short or ban altogether those who would disagree with you, refusing to hear them out. But
if you will entertain evidence, you can start with this statement of the case against Sizer by a fellow Anglican cleric, we can start with this :
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/12/27/rev-nick-howard-the-church-of-england-must-take-action-against-rev-stephen-sizer/
You visit a site written by a progressive Zionist and offer arguments that appear to show you are a Zionist & don’t know who Ahad HaAm is? Go & learn as the rabbis used to say.
NOTHING published at Harry’s Place has any credibility here or anywhere else but in Hasbaraland. Try a more credible site.
“…arguments that appear to show you are a Zionist & don’t know who Ahad HaAm is”? I have made no Zionist or other case here, and in any event such a case (and who Ahad HaAm is and what he/she may have said) would have no bearing on the question of whether or not Sizer is or isn’t an antisemite. But you’re always about the personal aren’t you Richard. Can’t you forego the ad hominem and address the evidence presented you?
The Reverend Nick Howard, the Anglican cleric who makes the case that Sizer is an antisemite, is an entirely credible person, and it may be seen what evidence he relies on to support that charge. http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2011/12/27/rev-nick-howard-publicly-accuses-rev-stephen-sizer-antisemitism/
But if you are going to reject out of hand that which contradicts you, dismissing it all as from “Hasbaraland,” any attempt to discourse with you is a waste of time.
I don’t reject arguments or credible websites that contradict me. I reject garbage websites full of lies & pro Israel hasbara like Harry’s Place.
Of course you’re a Zionist. You’re pro-Israel aren’t you? Or do you just hate Stephen Sizer and Joachim Martillo but don’t give a rat’s ass about Israel? On 2nd thought, if you don’t know who Ahad HaAm you’re either a very bad Zionist, or else someone who has an anti-Semitism fetish. BTW, Stephen Sizer is a critic of the policies of the State of Israel. Last I checked that wasn’t anti-Semitic.
I just checked out yr link concerning Sizer. So get this: you offer a link not to a credible site that accuses Sizer of anti-Semitism, but to a site which links back to Howard’s attack against Sizer at…Harry’s Place, which I’ve already told you has the credibility of a $3 bill. What’s more, the Howard in question is none other than the son of former Tory leader, Michael Howard. What a shock that a Tory leader’s son would hate a someone as progressive as Stephen Sizer and call him an anti-Semite. Further, I have an allergic reaction when Christians go around calling each other anti-Semites. Frankly, I’d rather myself make that determination. Christianity has such a rich history of anti-Semitism I’d rather allow sensible, non-histrionic Jews to determine who is, and isn’t one. By sensible & non-histrionic I automatically exclude Stephen Pollard, the JC, & the Board of Deputies.
I just tried to read Howard’s tripe at Harry’s Place and stopped reading after the first thousand words or so. It’s mindless, endless babbling which confuses criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. It manages to accuse him of Holocaust denial not because he actually denies the Holocaust, but because he used the word “Holocaust” to describe Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. I don’t mind someone criticizing another for using such terms, but it’s flat out NOT Holocaust denial & betrays nonsensical reasoning. This simply can’t be taken seriously by anyone other than a Sizer-hater or pro-Israel ranter.
Some other sites where other Anglicans have called out Sizer as an antisemite. (And if you would ever throttle back on the ad hominem, I’d make the case here myself.)
http://www.cmj.org.uk/home/articles/66
http://www.calvinlsmith.com/2011/12/former-tory-leaders-son-on-anglican.html
“Of course you’re a Zionist. You’re pro-Israel aren’t you? Or do you just hate Stephen Sizer and Joachim Martillo but don’t give a rat’s ass about Israel?”
If one hates antisemites along with other rank bigots, then they must be a Zionist? Can’t anti-Zionists hate antisemites too?
You’re being coy which I don’t appreciate. If you’re an anti-Zionist or whatever you claim to be then say so & prove it. If not, stop wasting our time with Yr rhetorical posing.
Richard,
REgarding your comment about Michael HOward, the Tory minister,
Michael Howard is not Christian, he is Jewish, in fact when he was Secretary of State, he denied British Citizenship to Mohammed al Fayyed, the then owner of Harrods, whose son Dodi died with Princess Diana later, but at the time, Fayyed blamed his own anti Israel and anti semitic stance on Howards decision. The two were at loggerheads, and had a long history of animosity.
Later on when Dodi died, Howard wrote him a letter of remorse and they both made up.
Howard is of Jewish Romanian background…
That said, i’m not sure if his wife was Jewish, so his son, the one you mentioned above, may or may not be so.
I think his son is Rev. Howard,so I’m guessing he’s Anglican. Possibly converted or the elder Howard is married to an Anglican & the son was raised in the Church.
radamsey
Is Rev. Nick Howard, Michael Howards son? Or is it a mistake in the link you posted?
Recall the Fayyed /Howard battle, where Fayyed (not a credible character himself and yes he is an anti semite) accused him of being Zionist due to his Jewish background.
In fairness, it must be said Fayyed himself is a crank.
Surprise! Birds of a supremacist feather flock together.
Richard you should have been a politician. You Hold a Masters of Art in demagoguery. What nonsense.
A bookseller promotes the ideas expressed in the books it decides to sell. Not every book in the world finds it’s way to Amazon. Respect your own statement and disconnect the links to Amazon because they help distributing Hitler’s word.
Amazon will sell any book it thinks it can sell. If it doesn’t sell a particular title it’s only because it believes it can’t make money from it or because no one’s tried to sell a copy using Amazon Marketplace for used books. There are very few books Amazon will not sell & it never refuses to do so because of a book’s political ideas. Once again, Amazon is an entirely diff. story than a newspaper or the JC. Nice try, but you’re a flop.
If you don’t stop acting like such a twit, you’ll be gone from here.
The one thing to remember, above all:
A threatened lawsuit never hurt anyone.
People with a presentable case tend to file lawsuits and not threaten them.
England’s libel courts are no longer the casino they once were, so it’s probably quite safe to ignore Mr Pollard’s threats completely until a writ arrives.
It is unlikely that he will actually sue, less likely still that he will win. What he may do, is engage a solicitor with an intimidating track record which they gained before the system was overhauled:they’ve been starved of easy pickings since), such as the firm of Carter-Ruck, to write you a threatening letter. Just keep your nerve and politely express pleasure at the opportunity they offer for you to call witnesses and evidence, whose testimony is protected by qualified privilege and may be widely published, to support your defence that your article was fair, honest and in the public interest.
You have no objection whatsoever to Pollard’s solicitor taking his house and life savings whilst you establish, definitively and for the record, that he was responsible for giving a racist a platform.
There are various strategies for not having to pay the plaintiff’s legal costs, and the amounts of damages in libel cases are now CAPPED at a figure calculated to deter gold-diggers. So, even in the unlikely event that Mr Pollard were to win, he’d probably still end up shelling out a great deal more than you.
As long as we’re on the topic of Nazis and speech, I encourage one and all to reflect on the Hermann Goering quote below, which is one of the most important/insightful political statements ever made and is highly relevant to America’s current posture of endless war:
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. …voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Goering#Quotations
Thanks for the update, Richard. It would be interesting to see how this liar, sues you.
As a sidednote, does anyone know who owns the JC?
If they kept on Pollard after he was sued, it says much about the owner.
I meant to ask, who runs the JC Trust, as the JC website describes itself thus:
The Jewish Chronicle was founded in 1841, The Jewish Chronicle – often known as the JC – has no proprietor nor commercial shareholders, and its editorial independence is guaranteed by the Jewish Chronicle Trust. It is based in London, with reporters around the world.
It’s essentially the official mouthpiece of the organized UK Jewish community. The notion that it is “independent” is curious since it is very closely tied to the interests & policies of the Board of Deputies, Zionist pro-Israel leadership, & other organs of the community.
The Kessler foundation has control of the newspaper. It’s also in pretty significant decline. Lost about half its readership in ten years.
I wonder why. With editors like Pollard the decline can only continue.
That’s why i’m curious to know who is behind the Trust at the moment.
British Jewry don’t share Pollards hard line views. Melanie Philips is regarded as a cranky extremist by most British Jews.
British Jewish leadership & British Jewry are two different things, far different.
From MJ Rosenberg. The reality in the apartheid is starting to come out:
How long will Bob Simon keep his job with 60 Minutes?
Tonight, the Jewish American CBS correspondent, exposed the exodus of Christians from Israel (a once dominant community is now a shell) and laid it at the door of Israel’s policies toward all Palestinians, Christians and Muslims. The report shown on one of the biggest shows on U.S. television will be seen by millions of Americans.
But the best part was not the report itself. The best part, unprecedented, was when Bob Simon confronted a flummoxed Ambassador Michael Oren and asked why he had called the producer of 60 Minutes and the president of CBS to get them stop the story before it had even been produced.
Oren lost it. No media outlook ever asks an Israeli official, in public, why do you use ypur influence to stop the truth. Oren said he had to because Israel is “battling for survival.” As for the oppression of Christians, he blamed it on…Muslims.
It was an amazing moment. I have never seen Israeli media tactics exposed like this. Bob Simon deserves an Emmy and a Pulitzer. But he’ll be lucky not to get fired.
@ Michael
Yeah, since Michael Oren’s Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal in March where he described the “wondeful life of Christians under Israeli protection”, he’s been under heavy fire.
Here are some reactions from Christian Palestinians:
1. A letter signed by ALL Christian Palestinian leaders:
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=471921
2. A reaction from Faysal Hijazeen
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=467896
3. A reaction from Fida Jiryis from the prominent Jiryis-family in the Galilee (cf Sabri Jiryis: “To Be an Arab in Israel”, bestseller from the ’70, translated into many languages). I think Fida’s reaction was printed in the WSJ too, or maybe I’m dreaming.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=468381
I’m sure people like Azmi Bishara, Ameer Makhoul, Mazin Qumsiyeh, the people of Al-Walaja, Bayt Jala, Bayt Sahour appreciate Oren’s concern for their well-being. Especially the Wall that has been very destructive for the Christian communities around and in Bayt Lahem.
And thanks for letting us know about the 60 Minutes on the Christian Palestinians. I hope it’s on the net and available here in Europe too.
Deir
Christians of the Holy Land
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7406228n
Thank you. I already found it….and seen it, twice. I hope others will see it to. Great mement of joy when Bob Simon is insisting on Oren calling the direction complaining about a documentary that he hasn’t seen.
Haha, he just knew that nothing good could come out of a decent documentary on Christian Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, on both sides of the Green Line.
There’s a written extract of the high-lights on Mondoweiss, and MJRosenberg – that Michael mentioned – calls it “Israel’s worst hasbara moment ever”
http://mjayrosenberg.com/2012/04/22/israels-worst-hasbara-moment-ever-2/
And apparently the Israelis are shocked (didn’t Bibi say in that settlement-interview when he thought the camera was off that he had the Americans in his pocket):
http://mjayrosenberg.com/2012/04/23/israel-shocked-by-60-minutes-pushback-on-heavy-handed-tactics/
More on the “60 Minutes” documentary on Christian Palestinians.
Barak Ravid on what he calls “Israel’s Christians” as if it were Scandinavian Protestants or French Catholics in the Holy Land. Is this the new way of not saying neither “Arab” nor Palestinian” ?
It seems that Bibi followed the topic closely, and even met with Oren about the documentary.
Extracts:
“Israel’s embassy in Washington met with “60 Minutes” several times….In one of the meetings with the investigative reporters, an Israeli diplomat presented an issue of Newsweek with a cover story about the persecution of Christian communities in Arab States.
The “60 Minutes” reporters said that this was not the subject of their article so it was not relevant”
Hasbara never changes: look elsewhere. By the way, Larry Derfner has an article today where he states that Israel isn’t that bad compared with other Western democracies. I kid you not.
Ravid states that Oren’s Op-Ed in WSJ and Bibi’s speech to “Christians for Israel” in Jerusalem last month were meant to foil the broadcast of this documentary, but according to a senior Israeli official, the attemp to twart the broadcast has brought up the issue of Israel’s treatment of it’s Christian community all the more forcefully. He said “We awakened the dead….”
That’ll leave Israel with the Gay Pride 🙂
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/netanyahu-was-briefed-on-efforts-to-stop-60-minutes-report-on-israel-s-christians-1.426118
I think we have a new doctrine: preemptive hasbara.
Michael,
Yes, the tide is turning, not just the CBN documentary which had Oren flustered, but Christ at The Checkpoint is making inroads too…They should team up with J Street
Christians for Palestine
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/97155/christians-for-palestine/
A vocal majority of evangelical Christians are zealous supporters of Israel. But a growing movement seeks to align them with the Palestinian cause.
By Lee Smith|April 18, 2012
Indeed, the name of the conference, Christ at the Checkpoint, is indicative of the different direction this segment of the evangelical movement is heading toward. The idea is that evangelicals should rethink their support for a state that occupies another people and oppresses them. Once they get the full story, conference organizers hope, Western evangelicals may find they have more in common with the downtrodden Palestinians than with the Israelis.
To pro-Israel evangelicals and Zionists who were paying attention, Christ at the Checkpoint was a wake-up call. The larger trend, which for want of a better phrase might be called the pro-Palestinian evangelical movement and is indeed spearheaded by Palestinian Christians, is already changing minds. Giving them momentum are money raised in the United States, theology, and perhaps most important of all, a movie. The documentary film With God on Our Side is leaving many former pro-Israel evangelicals wondering why they never heard the Palestinian side of the story.
from
http://www.thejc.com/blogs/stephen-pollard/the-guardian-backs-down
“Mr Pollard has asked us to point out that this was
not meant to imply that all traces of the blogs had been deleted in September – in fact the measure he took at that time was to block Cortiglia’s access. He ordered the blogs to be deleted more recently.”
So Pollard claims he blocked Cortiglia, failed to apologise or even mention the facts to the readers of the JC, but left Cortiglia’s posts online and viewable until they were spotted by anti-fascists. Only then did he delete them,
He’s digging a bigger hole for himself.
“You’re being coy which I don’t appreciate. If you’re an anti-Zionist or whatever you claim to be then say so & prove it. If not, stop wasting our time with Yr rhetorical posing.”
Zionist, anti-Zionist, or neither; Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist or whatever; how does it bear on the question of whether I am justified in calling someone out, in this case Sizer, as an antisemite? You want me to categorize myself so you can can tailor the ad hominem which is your standard response to those who would challenge your pronouncements?. Why don’t you engage with the substance, and refrain from going wildly OT with something about Ahad HaAm? (Again, if you will say how Ahad HaAm pertains here, I will inform myself about him/her so I can respond.)
“Further, I have an allergic reaction when Christians go around calling each other anti-Semites. Frankly, I’d rather myself make that determination. Christianity has such a rich history of anti-Semitism I’d rather allow sensible, non-histrionic Jews to determine who is, and isn’t one.”
Is it OK with you if “anti-Zionist” Jews call out antisemites, or you would only allow “Zionist” Jews to do so? Did you abreact when William Buckley so publicly called out Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran as antisemites because he was a Christian and as such not privileged to do so? Again, why not go with the evidence in support of the charge rather than focusing on the religion of the person making it or the person accused of it? Are you OK with Caucasians accusing other Caucasians of racism when the evidence supports it?
Blah blah blah. Sorry, boring beyond belief. If you can’t answer a simple question you can’t be taken seriously.
“Is Rev. Nick Howard, Michael Howards son? Or is it a mistake in the link you posted?”
Yes, but of what relevance is that to this conversation? Do you, like Richard, think that bears directly on whether or not the fellow Anglican cleric he labeled an antisemite, that is Sizer, is one or not? If you think it does, can you explain how?
Do you think, like Richard, that it is somehow wrong, unseemly, or otherwise inappropriate for Christians to call out other Christians as antisemites because of the role Christianity has played in fostering antisemitism, and that only Jews should pronounce on whether a Christian (or other Jew, e.g., Gilad Atzmon) is an antisemite?
Yes, I’m Muslim and just as I believe only Muslims can define what is Islamophobia, I agree with Richard that only Jews can define what is Anti Jewish sentiment or Anti Semitism. Christians too, should define what is Christian phobia.
That is not to say, that well meaning friends and allies, should not speeak out when they think someone else is facing bigotry, for fear that it may not be bigotry as defined by the group he/she is defending.
I have NEVER heard a Jew object to a non-Jew call out bigotry directed at Jews; nor have I ever heard a Muslim object to a non-Muslim call out bigotry direct at Muslims. Indeed, what I have heard is expressions of gratitude when it is done and bitterness when it isn’t. So I am at a loss to understand how anyone would say after Richard, “I have an allergic reaction when (non-Jews/non-Muslims) go around
calling each other (Jew/Muslim haters).”
No interfaith efforts to call out and combat bigotry because it is the exclusive province of Xs to determine who is, and isn’t anti-X, those Xs being only the Xs judged “sensible, non-histrionic” by an arbiter of who is and isn’t “sensible, non-histrionic” like Richard? (BTW, which Jewish/Muslim communal organizations would Richard rely upon to make the determination?)
radamsey1
Well you are meeting one such person now. I have come across people who defend Muslims, or think they are, but their ulterior motive is not a genuine concern but are using the cause to vent their hate for another people. They think they can distort our teachings and we should remain silent because they ‘support’ us.
No more wars for Israel isn’t just a refrain of the white supremacists anymore, it’s going mainstream. You know you have a problem when a left-wing German artist that’s spent his entire life apologizing for he Holocaust suddenly begins to criticize you.
It should be understood that when the Guardian issued its clarification, this was based on further information supplied by Pollard, that is inaccurate. That is, he said that in September, when he discovered that a BNP activist was posting, he banned him and changed the whole system. In fact the “whole system” was not changed until March 2012.
What he means by changing the whole system was abandoning the policy of free access to a policy of access to a number of “invited bloggers”. Numbered among these invited bloggers is one, Jonathan Hoffman whose links to the neo-Nazi EDL is well established.
Another of these invited bloggers is one Melchett Mike who, it is clear from the blogging activity on the JC today, has stated “I’d have no problem standing with the EDL”.
http://www.thejc.com/blogs/melchett-mike/john-mccarthy-now-wheres-radiator
see comments
It should be understood that when the Guardian issued its clarification, this was based on further information supplied by Pollard, that is inaccurate. That is, he said that in September, when he discovered that a BNP activist was posting, he banned him and changed the whole system. In fact the “whole system” was not changed until March 2012.
What he means by changing the whole system was abandoning the policy of free access to a policy of access to a number of “invited bloggers”. Numbered among these invited bloggers is one, Jonathan Hoffman whose links to the neo-Nazi EDL is well established.
Another of these invited bloggers is one Melchett Mike who, it is clear from the blogging activity on the JC today, has stated “I’d have no problem standing with the EDL”.
http://www.thejc.com/blogs/melchett-mike/john-mccarthy-now-wheres-radiator
see comments