Oh dear. it was bound to come sooner or later. As soon as anybody sticks their head above the parapet to criticise Israel, an attempt is made to slur them as an anti-semite. I now have the notorious Zionist propagandist Jonathan Hoffman on my case.
Hoffman is the Zionists’ equivalent of the Witchfinder-General. In July 2008 he produced a report on “Anti-Semitism on The Guardian Comment is Free”, in which his definition of anti-semites included “Those who question the Zionist aim of a Jewish Homeland”.
http://www.zionismontheweb.org/CommentIsFree_ParliamentASCttee_July08.pdf
This blatant conflation of anti-Zionists with anti-Semites is typical of his methodology. It does not wash. There are a significant minority of anti-Zionist Jews, for one thing. My personal view is that all those now living in Israel and Palestine should be allowed to stay there, in a new secular and race-blind state. I do reject the state of Israel with its racially defined citizenship qualification. That is not an unusual position – Germany was only recently obliged by the EU to abandon citizenship laws based on race.
In 2004 Jonathan Hoffman made this laughable contribution as a submission in the consultation exercise on the BBC Charter:
I want to comment on the BBC’s persistent anti-Israel bias. They have
appointed Malcolm Balen as overall editor of programmes with a Mid-East
content but it has made no difference
.
www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/first_phase_responses/H/Hoffman_Jonathan.rtf
It is, incidentally, interesting that he appears to have the impression that the appointment of Malcolm Balen was supposed to help Israel. Anyone know anything about Mr Balen?
It is worth comparing Hoffman’s complaint about the BBC to the comment by OrwellianUK after the blog entry before this.
Anyway, Hoffman is now onto my case. I have just had the following email exchange with him:
Dear Mr Murray
Are you content that your site is being used to propagate anti-Semitism? :
I am a newcomer to your site. I found it because rense.com linked to your
recent colourfully titled piece on Gordon Brown (though they applied
asterisks where you did not).
I am delighted to find a former member of the British Establishment who holds
the views that you do and also that you clearly take an active interest in the comments left by your readers.
If you feel so inclined, I would be grateful if you might consider giving
your opinion on an issue regarding Israel that troubles me often: why is it that the European nations’ response to Israeli atrocities is so feeble and
half-hearted when, if it were a Muslim country doing the same thing, they would be down on it like a ton of bricks? Is it because, as respected Israeli historian and military adviser Martin van Creveld has revealed, a sizeable proportion of Israel’s nuclear weapons is trained on Europe? Is it because so much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Zionists? Is it because the Mossad has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment?
Jonathan Hoffman
Jonathan,
There are many comments on my site that I do not agree with, not only the anti-Jewish ones. There are some very rude comments about me, for example, some completely untrue. There are currently people defending the use of the word “Paki”. I disagree with them too. There have been a number of offensively worded pro-Israel comments, and I have not deleted them. But I tend to the view that freedom of speech is most important, so I almost never delete anything from comments. My own views are the bits of the blog which I have written.
I have only ever deleted, I believe, 36 comments from my site in four years; 2 because they were about children of politicians, and 34 for being anti-semitic. This post from five days ago explained my position:
“ I have not deleted a single pro-Israeli comment from discussion on these pages, though I disagree profoundly with many. I have deleted three anti-Jewish comments. I should make it plain that I am in profound disagreement with those commenters who conflate Israel with Jews in general. We have had commenters excusing anti-Jewish comments on the grounds Jews are not a race, and positing claims of a world conspiracy of Jews and freemasons. I have only deleted three of these, because in general I believe the suppression of any opinion to be an evil which requires major justification. I find it hard to define the exact line which leads to deletion.
The great John Stuart Mill said it was legitimate to express the opinion that all corn merchants are thieves of the people’s bread; but it was not legitimate to shout the same thing to a howling mob at night carrying torches outside a corn merchant’s house. He was, as ever, right.
So almost any opinion can be expressed here. But I would be grateful if those people who have a serious grudge against Jews in general, would go and express their views on their own websites.
UPDATE
Michael has overstepped the mark by a posting about “Jews with their Satanic Smirks” and then introducing the Protocols of Zion. All of his 31 comments have therefore been deleted.”
In addition I have added numerous comments in dialogue with commenters to the effect that one should not confuse anger at the killings by Israel, with racism against Jews in general.
It is an extraordinary and terribly sad and bad thing that anti-semitism still exists. It is to me genuinely incomprehensible.
But sadly any discussion forum on Israel attracts two kinds of malevolent people.
The first kind are anti-semites.
The second are those who seek to portray as anti-semites anyone who opposes Israel’s appalling actions in Gaza. I rather fear you may be one of that kind of malevolent people, Jonathan.
I have given a fair and full answer to your question. Let me now ask you, are you content with the murder by Israel of so many women, children and old people in Gaza?
Craig Murray
I'm not a great believer in the 'science' of racial catagories. I think it's highly problematic and deeply ideological. We all know where this kind of thing can lead when taken to extremes.
Perhaps Jews and Israelis should simply drop the term 'anti-Semetism' altogether as it's confusing, as what's happening in Gaza could be defined as an 'anti-Semetic' attack, because the Palestinians are a semetic people too, as are most Arabs.
So one could make an argument that this is a war/conflict between the same 'racial' group, or people. A form of civil war. Which, I would contend, on several levels, is what it really is. Up until the influx of tens of thousands of European Jews into Palestine, the actual 'racial' or cultural differences between the different semetic 'tribes' in the region were minimal.
Perhaps we should use the terms 'anti-Jewish' or 'anti-Israeli' instead? Wouldn't this be clearer and more precise? But perhaps that' the point. 'Anti-Semetic' is a vague term, with a useful elastic meaning that incorporates a variety of 'nuances' though they are all bad and negative when applied to someone or some attitude which is labelled 'anti-Semetic.'
It seems to be used somewhat frivolously, especially by Israeli politicians to describe anyone who criticises Israeli government policies or actions, and used like this it's clearly a very useful phrase. And if the criticism gets really bad one can always cynically resort to dragging up the Holocaust as a form of political rhetoric, which is highly problematic and rather shameful in my opinion.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Believe it or not, I actually strive for 'neutrality' in this whold debate and 'balance', but it's difficult to ignore that one side, the Palestinians, are very weak and have suffered and lost an awful lot compared to the Israelis, who clearly have 'triumphed' in the sixty year struggle over territory of Israel/Palestine.
Is that an 'anti-Semetic' statement, or simply a statement of fact? Israel has been successful and secured most of historic Palestine for itself. Israel is a vastly richer and militarily stronger country than any other in the region, aside from the Gulf, let alone compared to the Palestinians, who are some of the poorest people in the world. Really a people without a country, that's gone, wiped off the map.
So even if one strives for neutrality one can't ignore reality and the collosal differences between the two groups. What this means is that it's difficult to accept that Israel is the weaker party, under attack, in mortal danger, threatened with destruction, on the verge of being pushed into the sea, with its back to the wall… when it objectively and empirically, simply is not.
When a country as powerful as Israel is involved in a military conflict like the one in Gaza, which clearly is so one-sided, a modern army fighting a poorly armed militia, one cannot help but question and be sceptical of Israeli claims that they are fighting for survival and being 'invaded' when it's the Israelis who are pushing and shooting their way deep into Gaza. The massive differences in the relative military strengths of the two sides cannot be denied, surely?
Yet one gets the impression, more than that, one is told that one is 'anti-Semetic' if one dares to mention the above, objective, facts. Somehow we pressured, and are supposed to look away from reality, and accept the partisan Israeli version of 'reality' or be labelled 'anti-Semetic'! The phrase is used as a smear in a war for the hearts and minds of world public opinion, espcially in the United States, where the phrase can make or break a political career.
The label is even used against individuals with a Jewish background like me. I've been called anti-Semetic and anti-Jeswish and anti-Israeli, when I'm not. I've been called a 'self-hating Jew' which I certainly am not. I've been smeared with all kinds of shit, just because I don't support Israeli government policies and actions and I question the ideology of Zionism, and I don't have anytime for the growing theocratic/fascist movement in Israel. In a democracy one is allowed, in fact it's a kind of duty, that one criticises the government and its policies, even the very structure of the state, even the existance of the state itself, even the idea that certain groups rule that state in its present form. States, countries, peoples – are not absolutely static entities, frozen forever in time and space. They are continually changing and evolving, change is life's characteristic. If you don't believe me, and I'm stating the bloody obvious, look at the history of Europe over the last two centuries for Christsake!
Israel has a problem that many of its people seem to have bought into a highly problematic and dangerous myth. The myth of Zionist nationalism, which was successful as the ideology of conquest, but isn't as successful as the ideology of peace. Zionism, in its most extreme form, which seems to be growing, is a real danger to the character of Israeli democracy. I would argue that it's a threat to the Israeli version of democracy and arguably it's incompatible with democracy, freedom and human rights. I'm concerned that Isreal may be moving away from secular democracy and towards overt militarism and theocratic fascism, if one follows the logic of Zionism to its logical conclusion.
Is there any evidence for this? Yes, I believe there's lots of evidence. Military states tend to move more easily towards totalitarianism and fascism. The threat of permanent war makes fascims more likely. However the substantial Palestinian minority inside Israel, 20% of the population and growing, is the real test and challenge for Israeli democracy and Zionism.
Already Israelis are accutely aware of the 'demographic timebomb' which is inexorably ticking away in the heart of Israel. The 'racist' banning of two Palestinian political parties, regarded as 'terrorists' and 'traitors' because they are demanding equal civil rights and an end to segregation and subjugation, don't bode well for the future. That these parties are deemed a 'threat to the Jewish identity of Israel' is a telling reaction. What happens to the dream and ideology and Jewish character of Israel, to Israeli democracy itself, when the Palestinians become Israel's majority in a few decades time? What is the Zionist answer to this challenge?
As there are so many supporters of Israel coming to this site to attack Craig for merely stating the obvious, I'd be interested in their points of view, because I think that perhaps Zionism isn't just bullshit, it's arguably far more than that. It's probably racist as well, discuss. Zionism is racism.
"Sabretache"
As I said your suggestion that Zionists control the media comes straight out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the notorious Tsarist antisemitic forgery. You posted three links which tell us about the large media companies: Vivendi, ASL Time Warner, Disney, News Corp, Bertelsmann. None of your links in any way substantiates your allegation. Other readers will note that Bertelsmann was a printer to the Nazis.
So you have to base your case on 'argument by assertion': "The result is that criticism of Israel is permissable but within very very strict limits which must never be allowed to question its real intent vis-a-vis its Arab population, lands and neighbours or its fundamentally apartheid structure. It is assumed to be 'one of us'."
Says you. But those with an open mind will look at the incessant criticism of Israel in such media as The New York Times, Ha'aretz, BBC, Guardian, Independent and conclude that you have no case whatsoever. I have not read the book you mention "Guardians of Power". But I note that John Pilger says it is "the most important book about journalism I can remember". I wonder if that is the same John Pilger who wrote in the Guardian last year "Israel is high in an international league table for its murder of journalists" which The Guardian was forced to subsequently correct?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/…
Knowlegde is supposed to be power. The pen is mightier than the sword. The idea comes before the deed. We live in an information age. We're in a battle for hearts and minds. The truth is out there.
Lies, lies and propaganda.
I'm not really sure about all this, but I know that selling ones version of the truth in a war has never been more important than it is today.
Emperically there is no evidence that the media in Britain is unduly or especially critical of Israel, at leat not compared to the scale of Israel's actions in Gaza.
This is an important point I believe. Israel may well be a democracy fighting a vicious terrorist movement dedicated to its destruction, but that doesn't give it the right to a free pass for everything it chooses to do in Gaza.
Israel and it's supporters insist that the foreign press is biased against Israel compared to Hamas. Is this really true? No, it isn't. This is part of the propaganda war. If one examines the American press, telvision, radio etc. It is overwhelmingly slanted towards Israel. The situation is so glaringly obvious that one only needs to do a bit of quick mental arithmatic, and one comes to the conclusion that roughly 90% of US media coverage is pro-Israel and only a fraction, under 5% could be characterised as pro-Hamas.
But the magnitude, violence and disproportion between the two sides in the assault on Gaza, is so striking that even the usually staunchly pro-Israel US press cannot ignore reality completely. And this is a problem for the Israeli propaganda machine. The collosal disconect between its version of events and what's obviously happening.
Europe is different, more critical. Americans are usually amazed when they read European newspapers and watch European television. It's a real culture shock for them. Suddenly it's acceptable to criticise Israel! But still, statistically and emperically, Israel recieves preferential treatment and understanding. Here the media generally takes its lead from the politicans in framing the debate.
Look at Britain. There are a handful of famous journalists who are openly critical of Israel, but they are not representative of the vast majority of writers who are far more sympathetic to Israel.
Part of the problem for Israel is that it has simply gone too far this time. The glaring difference between the firepower of the Israeli army, navy and airforce. The massive difference in the casualty rates on both sides. The collosal differences in the level of destruction in Gaza compared to Israel, are so obvious, that it's hard, even for those sympathetic to the Israeli version of events to ignore how disproportionate this current struggle is. To do so would be to lose all credibility with their readers and viewers. Oviously this is frustrating for Israel. The old narrative of little David versus evil Goliath, is hard to maintain when one Israel is so clearly the giant Goliath and armed with nukes!
Propaganda is a useful tool in war, but one cannot press it too far, demand too much credulity, or the whole train goes off the rails and it loses its effectiveness. This is Israel's problem.
Also the longer the conflict, I have difficulty calling it a war, I believe one needs two armies for that, or at least comperable forces; anyway the longer the conflict continues the harder it is for the Israeli version to be accepted as factual and unbiased. This is why Israel prefers the Blitzkrieg strategy. Only recently the Palestinians have countered with their own Stalingrad strategy, which slows the Blitzkrieg down long enough for world opinion to see and realise what's really going on. Once again a problem for Israel.
Clearly Israel is losing its grip on the Western media, its ability to frame the outline of the debate, to say nothing of world public opinion which is shifting radically away from sympathy for Israel. This is a problem for Israel. Israel was a supremely effective military state, but this is changing, the enemy is learning how to fight back 'successfully' in the sense of not being defeated and humiliated, but surviving. Of course this means massive casualties on their side, but in a war of attrition inside 'Stalingrad' they can afford it, can Israel?
The way the wind blows…an ill wind…
http://tinyurl.com/8wr2q9
'argument by assertion' You sum up your own method perfectly, Mr Hoffman.
How predictable "George Dutton". You clearly have not read Ross' seminal book "The Missing Peace". If you ever do you will find this on page 11: "During the Bush administration of 1989-92 – especially given President Bush's very clear pressure on the Shamir government – I received hate mail labeling me a self-hating Jew."
page 8 not page 11
Obviously, Jonathan Hoffman discards all evidence threatening his world view and Zionist ideology, and attacks the messengers instead. Wake up, Jonathan, the cat is out of the bag, Mearsheimer and Walt have published The Israel Lobby, and other Jews like Joel Stein in the LATimes are proud that Jews control the big media companies. In Israel/Palestine the ruling Zionists are the Nazis now for all the world to see.
Jonathan
"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite"
Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970)
"Dennis Ross"…the chief Middle East peace negotiator in the presidential administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton…say's it all really…
You just keep believing Jonathan it's what you do best.
Not still using the "Iranian president wants Israel wiped from the map" mantra are you?
That is a blatant distortion of the truth
Either you know this, in which case you are a lying propagandist, or you don't in which case you're just a lousy journalist
See globalresearch.ca and informationclearinghouse.info for accurate facts
That is untrue, see New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11…
"But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say "wipe off" or "wipe away" is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive. The second translation issue concerns the word "map." Khomeini's words were abstract: "Sahneh roozgar." Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as "map," and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not "Sahneh roozgar" but "Safheh roozgar," meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word "map" again. "Ahmad Zeidabadi, a professor of political science in Tehran whose specialty is Iran-Israel relations, explained: "It seems that in the early days of the revolution the word 'map' was used because it appeared to be the best meaningful translation for what he said. The words 'sahneh roozgar' are metaphorical and do not refer to anything specific. Maybe it was interpreted as 'book of countries,' and the closest thing to that was a map. Since then, we have often heard 'Israel bayad az naghshe jographya mahv gardad' ?" Israel must be wiped off the geographical map. Hard-liners have used it in their speeches."
I know I'm a bit late off the mark here, having not checked in for a few days, but I have to say I'm vaguely flattered that this Hoffman fellow took such exception to my post about the European response – or lack of it – to the Gaza massacre.
I thought it was a simple enough question, supplemented by some obvious and demonstrable facts. It's a shame that Hoffman didn't quite get round to specifying what he found anti-Jewish about it, but if he reads this and wishes to correct his oversight I'd be most curious to know.
Jonathan wrote…
"which The Guardian was forced to subsequently correct?"
"As I said your suggestion that Zionists control the media"
Thanks for pointing that out Jonathan.
The Guardian the mouthpiece of New Labour…
http://tinyurl.com/7368jt
The BBC the mouthpiece of New Labour…
http://tinyurl.com/a5rcku
"The shadowy role of Labour Friends of Israel"…
http://tinyurl.com/7ezxje
That means New Labour the mouthpiece of Zionists.
Sabretache 1 Jonathan 0.
"Not still using the "Iranian president wants Israel wiped from the map" mantra are you?"
"That is a blatant distortion of the truth"
"Either you know this, in which case you are a lying propagandist, or you don't in which case you're just a lousy journalist"
OrwellianUK
And there I was I thinking he was both.
Oh hang on, he did specify what he objected to in my post, in a later comment that I've only just spotted. It was the phrase:
"Is it because so much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Zionists? Is it because the Mossad has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment?"
What on earth does he find anti-Jewish about that? The first point is a well-documented fact and I thought it just might have some bearing on the European (and American) response to the Gaza massacre. The second was simply a speculative question. Clearly Mr Hoffman is unaware of the measures Mossad takes to promote Israel's interests world-wide. Sorry to mention it.
Funnily enough, he doesn't appear to object to my comment about part of Israel's nuclear arsenal being targeted on Europe, perhaps because I quote an Israeli authority on this. In my view however it's the most telling and damning point that I made. With friends like that, who needs enemies? (As the saying goes).
NYTimes cites the UK Guardian newspaper: "The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that 'this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time'", then corrects that the persian word translated as 'vanish' is 'active and transitive', thus better translated as 'wiped off'. So Ahmadinejad is advocating active "regime change" in Israel, just like his fellow NWO puppets and warmongers in the US government advocate and instigate for many countries, especially since using their fabricated false flag attack of 9-11 as the current pretext. Colin Powell and Joe Biden (See his "Mark My Words") announced a new false flag attack on the West for this spring 2009. Look up "Iran Contra" to understand the secret collaboration of the apparent opposites in drumming up a war of the west against the east since 1980 (artificially inciting Christians, Jews and Moslems towards a premeditated ww3 against each other, while all three are based on similar and related mind-control fairy tales known as the Torah, Bible and Koran).
robins asked:
…is the following statement regarding Islamists (a political term) and the Arab League acceptable?
"Is the response to worldwide Islamist terrorism so feeble because so much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Islamists? Is it because the Arab League has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment?"
If the observations were factually correct then of course yes, it would be more than acceptable. Essential in fact. Am I missing something here?
To 'MJ', 'researcher' and 'Dutton' who get off on Jew-baiting: Try going forth and multiplying instead.
"And there I was I thinking he was both."
You're probably right George.
to nazi hunter:
You seem to get off on non-jew baiting
So what's the difference exactly?
OrwellianUK
Stay away from nazi hunter whoever they are they have just (I think)propositioned 'MJ', 'researcher' and me.
"….Other readers will note that Bertelsmann was a printer to the Nazis."
And how very convenient that is for Israeli apologists for whom research into TODAY's facts must be discouraged lest they show the Zionist State for what it is.
That was then. This is now; and the Bertelsmann Foundation (owner of @ 80% if Bertemsman Inc) are the largest venture capital providers in Israel http://tinyurl.com/9b8bt4 ; They have no interests whatsoever (that I can find) anywhere else in the Middle East. Do you seriously suppose that any of their myriad publications would be allowed to adopt an editorial position that advocated fundamental reform of the Israeli State or put their substantial investments there at risk? Yes their newspapers carry articles that can be showcased as 'critical of Israel' but, like I said, all such criticism remains within strict boundaries that are obvious to any researcher honest enough to remove his 'Washington Consensus' blinkers. The same applies in spades to all the other organisations I linked to.
But of course you know all this don't you? Your task is simply to obfuscate inconvenient facts in pursuit of the primary objective which is defence of the indefensible.
"That there is a Zionist lobby and that it is rich, potent and effective goes largely unquestioned on the left. Big Jewry, like big tobacco, is seen as one of life's givens. According to this view, Israel has the British media pretty well sewn up. Wealthy Jewish business leaders, acting in concert with establishment types and co-ordinated by the Israeli embassy, have supposedly nobbled newspaper editors and proprietors, and ensured that the pro-Palestinian position is marginalised both in news reporting and on the comment pages. As one well-known foreign affairs specialist puts it: "The sheer scale of the activity is awesome. It operates at every level. By comparison, the disparate, underfunded and shambolic pro-Palestinian organisations don't stand a chance." He insists that these words remain unattributable because, he claims, "the fact is that journalists put their careers in jeopardy by speaking up for the Palestinians. That's ultimately the Zionist lobby's most powerful weapon."…
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7tvyt7
Jonathan:
"Ahmadinejad in Iran is committed to wiping israel off the map."
A summery of those who disagree with the "wipe Israel off the map" translation can be found here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/the-impo…
In any case it is irrelevant: the Supreme Leader of Iran (Khamenei) has complete control over Iranian military matters, including the declaration of war, mobilisation of the military and acting as Commander in Chief. This is the relevant bit of the Constitution of Iran:
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/ir00000_.html#…
The President (Ahmadinejad) simply has no constitutional role.
The 'objective' Dennis Ross who puts the 'needs' of Israelis above the legal rights of Palestinians!!
LOL!!
US VP-designate Joe Biden stated that "You don't have to be Jewish to be a Zionist". Is he wrong? In which case what is Christian Zionism?
*Sally wrote:
"I don't understand how so many people, including those of the Jewish faith, living as they do outside Israel, owe their primary allegiance to Israel, and not to the countries that shelter them, of which they are citizens and residents?"
This matter was actually spotted at the time of the Balfour Declaration:
"[Zionism] has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom. If a Jewish Englishman sets his eyes on the Mount of Olives and longs for the day when he will shake British soil from his shoes and go back to agricultural pursuits in Palestine, he has always seemed to me to have acknowledged aims inconsistent with British citizenship and to have admitted that he is unfit for a share in public life in Great Britain, or to be treated as an Englishman."
Edwin Samuel Montagu (HM Secretary of State for India) 23 August 1917
(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Montagumemo.html)
Edwin Montagu was from one of the leading Sephardi families of the Empire, and thus arguably a Semite – unlike Chaim Weizmann who had been lobbying for the Balfour Declaration.
And Prof Shlomo Sand's recent book makes the claim that today's Palestinians are actually the descendants of the Judaeans of the 1st Century, and thus it is they who are the Semites being argued about as those to whom the land was promised.
I actually thought my point about the Palestinian 'demographic timebomb' would have elicited some comment from the allies and apologists for the Israeli war machine. But perhaps some subjects are just too hot to handle and too explosive to contemplate? Or, as I suspect, they are all working form a script with power-points to help them, unable as they are to really think for themselves, programmed and groomed to serve their country, right or wrong.
writerman
They are really rattled,"anti-semitism" it's the last card they always play trouble for them is it's worn so thin everyone can see through it…
http://tinyurl.com/9wfjbz
Craig, the fact that out of 36 deleted comments, 34 were what you categorised as 'anti-semitism' tells us a great deal abut you. Why is it that you only feel a need to censor perceived anti-semitic remarks? Why are you protecting the Jews – and, it would seem, only the Jews from criticism? What's your game?
Giordan,
It happens to be the only form of outright racism I have encountered on the site, that is all.
I would treat any other form of racism the same way: reasoned argument with the person in the comments, try to get them to examine what they have said and if it is what they really mean, or what can have misled them to think it, then if they persist with racial abuse – ban and redact.