Many thnaks to David for his very perceptive comment on The Guardian peice. As I read it this morning, I did wonder whether I was living in world of my own where Israel was just a small country in the Middle East. Its nuclear weapons it should be added were supplied by France and since then India and Pakistan have obtained nuclear weapons - and South Africa, North Korea and Libya. But of course Israel is apparently a case on its own.

The FCO document and witness statement is highly instructive on the poor grasp of international law on the part of the FCO. There are no United Nations Security Council resolutions requiring Israel to dismantle its nuclear weapons unlike Iraq where repeated resolutions from 687 (1991) onwards adopted under Chapter VII did require this of Iraq. The marginal note is just plain wrong - As The Guardian cannot take its eyes off Israel it thus misses the fact that the maginal note is inaccurate.  

Very good piece. I have to note that the Jewish Chronicle seems to have also jumped on the same band wagon of engineering a big diplomatic crisis - then that would be a story.

'Seth Freedman didn't get it.'

If that piece is anything to go by, Freedman seems to be actually part of the problem.

This sort of liberal-leftist conspiracy-theorising regarding Israel and the "lobby" (often segueing into stuff about the "lobby"'s alleged links with the neo-cons) is becoming increasingly common, and the Graun is at the forefront of promulgating it. It's not classic anti-semitism and it doesn't even imply hostility to Jews per se. But it's still poisonous stuff and david's done an excellent job of debunking this latest example. Why not send it to the Graun's "Response" column? You never know, they might just publish it.

What a moving piece by David. It is true. Haifa, where I live is very small, innocent and naive, compared to Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool. Jews and Arabs mix freely in all work spaces. My daughter's boss is an Arab.

I have invited members of the press and BBC to visit Haifa. For some reason they think it is too far to go, even from Jerusalem, and even though Israel's public transport system is excellent.

The only reason this is a story is how wrong The Guardian, the JC, Seth Freedman etc have gone with it.

In the JC: Israel's "alleged nuclear arsenal merited comparison with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq" as an "explosive allegation". Not at all - it's an allegation people make openly and ad nauseam. And as John Strawson points out above it's a bad comparison and Israel could (though there's no evidence that it did) reasonably have objected to being misrepresented by a senior Foreign Office official.

Relations *are* sensitive, as is Israel's international standing. Neil Wigan (the FO official who made the case for getting 'Israel' redacted) told the tribunal that there was an impression that 'parts of the FCO are prejudiced about the country' and also that 'Any news in relation to Israel is high profile at present, and in particular, and (sic) criticism of Israel receives a huge amount of media coverage. This would give the comments high profile.' (http://tinyurl.com/2wllah).

That is an important point - this is how things are at the moment and I think that a lot of the blame should be laid at the feet of boycotting anti-Zionists who use trumped-up, exaggerated and often outright false accusations to whip up not criticism of Israel but blind rage. Notables like Pilger, Fisk, and also the lesser but very shouty hobbyists e.g. Elf, Greenstein and Wight. Not surprising the FO decided to expunge the word - although the - what - tippexing? rather than blacking out - is misleading. But looking at the scribbles and dangling lines which are left on the doc it seems like the whole thing is at best a matter of interpretation - Neil Wigan says as much.

Why exactly is this redaction of the word 'Israel' a story? Because The Guardian saw the opportunity for some more of its revolting signature Israel bashing.

Great post David. How much lower can the Guardian now sink?

When I read things like this in the Guardian I just want to sigh. I don't understand Seth's response - I wouldn't have thought he would fall so easily for what, in my eyes, is an implicit reference to age-old anti-semitic tactics of suggesting Zionists in some way control the actions of the governments of nation-states. Israel is NOT a rogue state - they are a country like any other who have done bad things and good things in the name of their nationalistic beliefs.

Hi, David

Excellently and succinctly put.

The press should not feed conspiracy theories which are the products of overactive, feverish imaginations - nothing more. It falls to people like you and the rest of us who want to hear the truth, rather than distinctly unsavoury opinions presented as facts, to shine the light on these people and counter their lies and lunacies with out-there, objective reality.

Every time you do this, every time all of us name the lies for what they really are, the people who promulgate them lose their power to make mischief.

More power to you.

Seth's a little bit rattled with this piece. However give him a break , he's a budding jorunalist and he's trying to carve a following for himself. He's not the brightest of writers but he's clever enough to play to the "antizionist" crowd on CIF.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/seth_freedman/2008/02/whose_side_is_britain_on.html#comment-1150197

"david hirsh seems to have been elevated to the level of shabbatai zvi in some of your minds - that, or pied piper, with you all dancing along merrily in his wake

he says that mentioning israel's influence over other nations means that the speaker is by definition anti-semitic and guilty of spreading modern day blood-libels? well, God forbid any of you should think for yourselves - hirsh has spoken, and woe betide anyone who takes an opposing view.

all well and good, as long as you're happy to hide behind a comfort blanket embroidered with the words "if you don't like us, you must wanna load us all up on trains to the camps". each to their own - just forgive me if i don't indulge your hyper-defensive, batten-down-the-hatches fantasies.

and finally, for the record (even though i'm wasting breath even saying this, cos if it hasn't sunk in by now it never will), having a go at the israeli government is vastly different from antisemitism. if i have a go at my girlfriend does that mean i hate all women just because she is one herself? get over yourselves.

shabbat shalom""

David,

You have written a very good article.

It is also worth noting that the US press, so far as I have seen (e.g. The New York Times), does not appear to view the story as even meriting coverage, much less the coverage given it in The Guardian.

I don't think as a budding journalist you should have to pander to a crowd: your writing should be able to support your arguments alone. Anyway, Seth is wrong on this front. I agree with David - the idea that Israel somehow has the British government quaking in its boots is ridiculous. This is not simply "having a go at Israel," it has far more sinister undertones than that, and I think you have to be blind not to see them.

Zoe,

I think you highlight an important point about what papers like The Guardian do when you write: "your writing should be able to support your arguments alone."

That, it would seem, is basically what the Guardian did. Hence, you have a fact - which is that the word "Israel" is mentioned in the margins of a draft of a government document but not in its final version. That fact - if it is worth mentioning in a story in a newspaper to begin with - is analyzed and interpreted to, in your words, "support your arguments alone."

The fact itself, which may but probably does not have some importance in some context - and, of course, the context may be entirely different than what anyone of us, including The Guardian asserts -, slithers to the background, with the analysis provided substituting itself for the fact - which is what appears to have occurred. Something similar occurred with respect to stories about people in Gaza starving, with the actual facts showing something quite different - and which became crystal clear when Egypt allowed people to enter its territory and alleged starving people were returning to Gaza with sofas and other such items en masse.  

While the fact that the word "Israel" appears in the margin of a draft of a document is sufficiently sourced, the interpretation thereof is not. In the US, that is called yellow journalism.

In any event, what is the remote qualification of journalists, without the benefit of some time for reflection in order to look back and ponder the fact in context, to make serious arguments tied to this fact that appear in The Guardian? None that I can see. It is all pretty disgusting and transparently bigoted.

Slightly off-topic, but still: has anyone noticed that our old friend Tony Greenstein has been banned from Indymedia...for daring to call Atzmon an anti-semite!

Critical but unconditional support, etc...

I wonder whetehr Seth Freedman was commissioned to write his piece by Georgina ?

Less war, less fighting and more talking for peace, Israel is here to stay whether it was right or wrong it's now here, and all need to get around a dam table and make peace a peace which is able to allow all people freedom.

Hi David,
Thanks. On my last day in London, I asked my wife if I should buy Guardian. She said, don't buy it you will only regret it. And right she was. But in Heathrow before boarding our Austrian Airlines plane I got Guardian for free. When reading it, I was glad; I did not waste 80 Pence on it. No daily in Austria is so unfair to Israel, so Guardian has achieved something.
On one of our 4 nights in London we saw on TV a documentary on Palestine/Israel, I did not even noticed, which channel it was, if it was BBC or channel 4 and there Tom Segev declared pompously, that war between Arabs and Jews was after the partition decision 1947 inevitable. It is the very old determinist way of thinking: It happened therefore it was inevitable. But of course in history there are Hundred thousand alternatives.
The reason why a great part of the left-liberal public in the UK is so much against Israel is in my opinion not the fact, that Israel has won the war in 1967 and has occupied territories densely populated by Arabs, but rather the fact, that its enemies are countries, where women have less rights than men, where homosexuals are persecuted or even condemned to death, where there is no such thing as free media.  Many of the British intelligentsia seem to think: When in doubt always with the dictators and the bloodier the better. Already George Orwell was aware of this characteristic of so many British left-liberal intellectuals. King Salomon was right: Nothing new under the sun.

Good article, David. A strong, clear, and important response to the Guardian's unbelievable exercise in manufactured scandal.  

I agree that it would be nice to see David's article given greater exposure. I think CiF would be a total waste; the paper pages of the Groan are where it would be nice to see it appear.

Not entirely to the point, but not entirely unrelated either, this:
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10717849

"Either they are genuinely fearful of Israeli reprisals against the UK (like what - a boycott? A ground invasion?), or they have in fact been deep in Israel's pockets all along, and just prefer to feign innocence rather than admit to where their loyalties lie. It doesn't take a genius to work out the answer."

Not only is Freedman wrong, very, very wrong - his ad hominem attack on Hirsh is symptomatic of his own shortcomings - but as the above quote shows, he does not even have the "honesty" to spell out what he means. Instead, he utilises the language of innuendo and, in so doing, refuses the responsibility for his own conclusions.

I don't know what's going on with Seth Freedman, he used to write relatively interesting stories from a centre-left perspective, but emboldened by the CiF crowd he's become ever more extreme and aggressive in his writings and responses.
In a piece just recently he referred to the 'Zionist state', Seth knows full well the types of people who employ such language and for what reasons. Perhaps he's had a full blown blown conversion to anti-zionism but i doubt so, more likely he's been swayed somewhat by the cultish atmosphere on CiF. This is the language of Azzam Tamimi not a N.W London Jew who made aliyah.

rysk - "I don't know what's going on with Seth Freedman..." - well, don't let that stop you playing the wannabe freud, darling. your amateur psychoanalysis is, whilst no doubt written for an easy-to-please crowd, clearly based on no more than a keen sense of impotence and outrage that someone refuses to toe the engage/simplyjews/etc party line, and instead says it how he sees it from within israel (i assume you don't live here, but correct me if i'm wrong). contrary to the hysterical conclusions you draw, i'm not swayed by the "cultish atmosphere" you describe - i am swayed only by what i see day in, day out, and by the first hand evidence i uncover. see below for details.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/seth_freedman/2008/02/now_the_blinkers_are_off.html

"This is the language of Azzam Tamimi not a N.W London Jew who made aliyah" - what a revealing little sign off that is - who dictates the "language of a N.W. London Jew"? you? the b.o.d.? or just the consensus opinion on the j.c. letters page?

This is purely speculative, but I wonder whether Seth Freedman isn't at the start of the same process that led Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Gilad Atzmon, Tony Judt, and similar others to the becoming the clowinish figures they are today -- first a dawning that a more radical stance garners more attention; then a pursuit of this logic ad absurdum. A Jew fighting anti-Semitism is a case of dog bites man. A Jew fighting Zionism, on the other hand, has got a good shot at being lionised by the Guardian in particular and the British blabbering classes in general.

A side comment regarding Paul Miller's comment:   I have nothing favorable to
say regarding Atzmon, but as far as Chomsky,Finkelstein,Judt, if you disagree with
them, fine, but there is no point in saying that they were in a process in which
"a more radical stance garners more attention".  There is also the possibility that
a consideration of the facts led them to different conclusions than you have reached,
and I don't see the point of making such comments about their motives instead of
their arguments.

As far as Tony Judt in particular, I find
the reactions to his writings pretty interesting.  I thought his article in The
New York Review of Books "Israel: The Alternative", and  his responses to the
letters about it, were well-written and thought-out comments on, among other
things, the  contradictions between Israel being a democratic state and
a state "in which
one community - Jews - is set above others".  

But look at the characterization of Judt's views in David Hirsh's comments
on Judt's "anti-zionism", first made on Engage and then in
his recent book:

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1488
"In fact Judt's anti-Zionism comes from the political tradition of those who did remain silent about the gulag on the grounds that to speak up would play into the hands of the imperialists. It is a political tradition which currently remains overwhelmingly silent about the crimes of any political movement or state which embraces anti-Zionist or anti-imperialist rhetoric."

There is no basis whatsoever for this characterization of Judt's
"anti-Zionism".  ("In fact"?) As is made clear in his articles, his comments
regarding Israel are motivated by basic democratic principles, and I don't
see any evidence that Judt's position derives from the political
tradition that Hirsh refers to, nor does Hirsh present any such evidence.

Hirsh's response to somebody making a comment about this in the comments to the
linked article is also kind of amazing:
"Contemporary left-wing anti-Zionism has a Soviet, Stalinist heritage.  That it has been
taken up more recently by people who come out of an anti-Stalinist tradition is an interesting fact."

So if somebody discusses the contradictions in being a "Jewish democratic state",
then it's an argument that has a Soviet, Stalinist heritage", even if the argument
being made has no reference, nor reliance, on that heritage?

I actually agree with Hirsh and others on Engage about the way
"Zionist" is used as a term of abuse by some on the left.  But then Engage
is often sometimes just the mirror image of this, throwing around
"anti-Zionist" in a similar way.  What is the point?

''but emboldened by the CiF crowd he's become ever more extreme and aggressive in his writings and responses.''
See above.

@ Rysk
"I don't know what's going on..."; "emboldened by the CiF crowd"; "Seth knows full well"; "Perhaps he's had a full blown conversion..."

@ Paul Miller
"This is purely speculative..."

When choosing whether to attribute a person's "extreme" (ahem) views on Israel to a variety of "speculative" psychological motivations or to the fact that the person has actually seen what goes on for themselves, Engagers know what to pick every time.

Seth must have thought he was writing for the News Of The World.

Seth wrote "david hirsh seems to have been elevated to the level of shabbatai zvi in some of your minds - that, or pied piper, with you all dancing along merrily in his wake

he says that mentioning israel's influence over other nations means that the speaker is by definition anti-semitic and guilty of spreading modern day blood-libels? well, God forbid any of you should think for yourselves - hirsh has spoken, and woe betide anyone who takes an opposing view.

all well and good, as long as you're happy to hide behind a comfort blanket embroidered with the words "if you don't like us, you must wanna load us all up on trains to the camps". each to their own - just forgive me if i don't indulge your hyper-defensive, batten-down-the-hatches fantasies.

and finally, for the record (even though i'm wasting breath even saying this, cos if it hasn't sunk in by now it never will), having a go at the israeli government is vastly different from antisemitism. if i have a go at my girlfriend does that mean i hate all women just because she is one herself? get over yourselves.

shabbat shalom"


Cathpal (obviously a Guardian Reader) wrote

"Seth i think you have got this one wrong..."he says that mentioning israel's influence over other nations means that the speaker is by definition anti-semitic and guilty of spreading modern day blood-libels?"It isn't what was said and it doesn't do justice to the detailed analysis given and the concerns identified based on linkages with conspiracy theorizing."

I'm certainly not going to answer for Seth, who can speak for himself, but it is an observable phenomenon that those who spend much time, as Seth has, on the West Bank, talking to both settlers (he spent the whole of last summer doing so) and Palestinians, tend to become somewhat critical of the Israeli government and its policies than they were at the outset. Perhaps this is attributable to them getting the measure of the real impact of the occupation on the real lives of real people.

'This is purely speculative, but I wonder whether Seth Freedman isn't at the start of the same process that led Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Gilad Atzmon, Tony Judt, and similar others to the becoming the clowinish figures they are today'

I think it's part of human nature. Going over to what is considered the dark side induces an emotional high. In order to sustain that high stronger and stronger doses of that dark side are necessary. Coupled with this is the fact that the process is not just exceedingly pleasurable but also extremely addictive, no less so than cigarettes or heroin.

Not -- I would wish to add lest I be misunderstood -- that there is any obvious reason to believe that Seth Freedman is an intellect of the same calibre as Tony Judt, not to mention Chomsky. Judt, in addition to having become an increasingly strident (and thereby increasingly well-known) Israel-hater, is also a scholar of some standing in the field of European history. Chomsky, of course, before profiling himself as the intellectual champion of the America-hating Left, was an undisputed and indisputable giant in the field of linguistics (and entirely deserving of his reputation in that field, too, it is worth noting).

Paul - I think that's extreme. Seth has explained the origin of the change in his POV convincingly. I also think that Israel's settlement policy, and the fact that the barrier has been built with a fairly explicit aim of annexing some Palestinian land with little regard to existing villages is nothing to be proud of. However I think he should be careful to remember that Israel is not alone in adding to the miseries of the Palestinians. I think it was Clive James who said that if the Saudis wanted to they could afford to put every Palestinian family into a 5 star suite for the rest of their lives. The fact is, most of their Arab and Muslim brethren have not only ignored their plight but exploit them on a daily basis for their own means: namely, the eventual destruction of Israel.

Paul Miller:

How much difference do you think there is between the Chomskys, Finkelsteins, Atzmons, Judts, Roses, et al, from the more-righteous-Jews-than-thous of the Natura Kuerti or the Satmars, who attended Ahmadinejad's festival of Holocaust denial? They all seem to be motivated by screwed up egos that need to believe that they are the righteous critics and only defenders of the faith/non-faith.

Are you lot talking about the same Seth Freedman I've been reading for over a year?

Have you read his peices? All of them? Even the ones about Sderot? Even the one about the not-so-peaceful protesters of Bil'in? Even Glasshouses of Gaza? Even the one criticising Bedouins for accusing the Israeli govt of failing them? Even 'Kicking off' where he defends Israel from what he feels is undeserved criticism? Even Just Visiting?- Did you read his responses defending the IDF from what he believed was castigation based on guesswork re Corrie et al? Did any of you read his piece asking readers to give equal attention to other trouble spots in the world as oppose to just shining the spotlight on Israel? Did you read 'Hope for the future' where he paints for the benefit of his readers the human face of settlers and explains how they aren't all an indistinguishable bunch of thugs?

Seth Freedman and people like him are a credit to Israel and if you lot weren't so blinded by emotion and rhetoric, you'd be able to see this for yourselves.

Linda "I'm certainly not going to answer for Seth, who can speak for himself, but it is an observable phenomenon that those who spend much time, as Seth has, on the West Bank, talking to both settlers (he spent the whole of last summer doing so) and Palestinians, tend to become somewhat critical of the Israeli government and its policies than they were at the outset. Perhaps this is attributable to them getting the measure of the real impact of the occupation on the real lives of real people."

Seth's piece on CIF , Hirsh's piece and Seth's attacks are about what The Guardian wrote about the Foreign Office. It's nothing to do with the wrongs of the occupation and the wrongs of the Israeli government.

Oh, and if the Guardian and CIF are pushing an anti-Israel agenda and force their writers to toe the party line, why did Georgina Henry give Hirsh a platform on CIF?

Ruby "Are you lot talking about the same Seth Freedman I've been reading for over a year?

Have you read his peices? All of them?"

I'm not sure what this has to do with what you're saying. Hirsh said Seth got it wrong on one piece he wrote. Each piece has to be judged on it's merits and what it says. This time Seth got it wrong. He also got it wrong in his criticisms of what Hirsh wrote.

Ruby "Oh, and if the Guardian and CIF are pushing an anti-Israel agenda and force their writers to toe the party line, why did Georgina Henry give Hirsh a platform on CIF?"

Ruby - you're using a strawman argument. This is about one edition of The Guardian and what Hirsh and Seth wrote about it. Please keep to the relevant subject. This isn't Comment is Free.

'Oh, and if the Guardian and CIF are pushing an anti-Israel agenda and force their writers to toe the party line, why did Georgina Henry give Hirsh a platform on CIF?'

Tokenism.

Shachtman- sorry, i should have been clearer. I wasn't addressing my comment to Hirsh but to the majority of commenters here who are having a go at Freedman accusing him of self-promoting, playing to the gallery etc.

It's as if it's impossible that he could just mean what he says. Instead, most here seem to think that Seth is trying to make a name for himself and the guardian are giving him a platform cos he's willing to toe their supposed anti-Israel line. I think that's ridiculous.

Ruby - well sometimes on Engage there's a multitude ot views. Sometimes hardcore antizionists and hardcore right wing zionists complain that their comments have not been allowed by the moderator. Let's also remmber that there have also been comments by John STrawson , Jum Denham and others , and as i'm sure your aware if you have read all of Seth's pieces that i have often complimented Steh on hiw writings , and infact have been accused of being a cheerleader for Seth on CIF. But i'm interested in what you think of Hirsh's piece , and also Seth's criticisms. I think that's the important thing. I think Hirsh is bang on in what he says. What do you think ?

David, good comments. I wish to add one point:

The margin notation mentioning Israel was not necessarily (as the Guardian has assumed) criticism of Israel. Rather than short-hand for "Israel is like Iraq/Iran/etc" it may have been short-hand for "Israel may be different, but we need to be sure why we think it so." Or "we have justifiably not mentioned Israel in the text, but we need to be able to reply cogently to those who will bring it up." Or "Concerning UN resolutions, what is our position if Israel is raised as an issue"

Ben White:
"When choosing whether to attribute a person's "extreme" (ahem) views on Israel to a variety of "speculative" psychological motivations or to the fact that the person has actually seen what goes on for themselves, Engagers know what to pick every time."
a) There is an outside possibility that Seth Freedman isn't the only person who has "has actually seen what goes on".
b) So from the intimate vantage point of Buenos Aires, what IS going on in the West Bank these days?
c) You are referring to a comment from a reader of Engage (moi), which says nothing about "Engagers", whatever/whoever that term may denote.

Linda Grant:
"... those who spend much time ... talking to both settlers ... and Palestinians tend to become somewhat critical of the Israeli government and its policies than they were at the outset. Perhaps this is attributable to them getting the measure of the real impact of the occupation on the real lives of real people."
- No shit. Et alors? I thought this post was about the Guardian's manufactured scandal over redacted marginalia, not about Israeli policies in the West Bank.

Seth Freedman:
"I don't see the point of making such comments about their motives instead of their arguments"
The point is precisely that it is conventional wisdom that we should all focus only and always on arguments and never speculate as to motivations, and that's just a silly pretence that it doesn't occur to enough people to question. We are all human beings, not computers; we don't operate in some purely logical computational vacuum devoid of complex human psychological interests. When the same set of circumstances are perceived (or supposedly perceived) in such radically different ways by different people, then it is not only completely natural to begin to wonder about motivations; it can also be useful and instructive to do so. No, it's not politically, diplomatically, or academically correct. But it IS, in fact, a rational thing to do.
All of which said: IF my speculation was genuinely off the mark and hence unfair to you -- which is something only you can know -- then I apologise unreservedly.

Ruby, there's a simpler explanation for Freedman's behaviour - Stockholm syndrome.

"the guardian are giving him a platform cos he's willing to toe their supposed anti-Israel line."

How many articles have you seen in The Guardian (or in British press for that matter) talking about:

1) Israel's cultural and ethnic diversity;
2) About Yafa Books (where Jews and Arabs meets)
3) About how Israel's taking on the electric car (to see if "refueling stations" for it are doable)
4) Modu (an israeli cell phone the size of a credit card)

You would think that given how much space The Guardian devotes to a country that's smaller than New Jersey, at least one of these and similar news items would have made the Guardian, even if it were buried in the back pages somewhere. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes about The Guardian's editorial bent.

Regards,

Inna

paul miller - "All of which said: IF my speculation was genuinely off the mark and hence unfair to you -- which is something only you can know -- then I apologise unreservedly."

that comment you're referring to (ie the one by "seth") wasn't written by me - i've only posted once so far on this thread, using the name "seth freedman". there's no way i'd have spent as long as the other seth did in trying to make a point to all of you self-righteous, pompous armchair psychologists who genuinely believe they know what makes me (or anyone else for that matter) tick.

as far as i'm concerned, you're welcome to think/assert/preach whatever you like about me and my motivations - i won't lose too much sleep over it. that said, if you ever deign to descend from your ivory towers to see what life is like behind the security wall, let me know, and maybe i'll pay more attention to your expert analysis then.

Shactman- I thought Seth's piece was sound apart from the the fact that I don't think Britain's quaking in its boots out of fear of Israel or anything to do with any zionist conspiracy; rather, I think it's acting out of its devotion to American foreign policy. I don't think the British govt is pro-zionist, but Washington is, and that I think explains the British govt's reluctance to be seen to be criticising Israel.

I thought David Hirsh's article was typically a David Hirsh piece- clutching at straws. I find it difficult to believe the said Guardian Edition was inspired from anti-semitism or the guardian's inherent anti-zionist line. Saying that Israel might have more influence than some other countries in some fields isn't anti-semitic or anti-zionist. The Guardian highlighted what it saw as duplicity on the part of the UK govt re it's positions on Iraq and Israel. The FO, it appears, went out of its way to conceal something that might damage its relationship with Israel not cos it's scared of the Zionists or cos it has any innate zionist sympathies but cos of its decision to throw its lot in with the US on foreign policy, I think. I honestly don't believe the Guardian 'sexed up' the story or that it saw the story as a chance to release its pent-up anti-israel sentiments.

"if you ever deign to descend from your ivory towers to see what life is like behind the security wall, let me know, and maybe i'll pay more attention to your expert analysis then."

Apparently Seth Freedman, Ben White and Linda Grant are the only people who have ever been to the West Bank.

But that of course is not the case. The REAL difference between them and some other people is that other people aren't as preachy about it.

I would add to my earlier comment that I think that it is of note that, in this post and its comments thread, where the topic is the Guardian's manufactured scandal and its institutional hostility to Israel, Linda Grant, who has consistently refused to accept that there is any such problem at the Guardian, does chime in -- not, however, to address the question at hand, but rather to make a completely off-topic observation about people's relative knowledge or ignorance of the West Bank. That, presumably, is because Linda has already, in a previous discussion at Engage, established beyond all reasonable doubt that the Guardian cannot possibly have such a problem because – look! – some of its best friends are Jewish!

THIS -- the Guardian's institutional hostility toward Israel -- is what the discussion should be about in this thread, not who is the most knowledgeable and experienced expert on the suffering of Palestinians in the West Bank (which suffering, I would hasten to add, I do not mean to mitigate; if there is a note of sarcasm in my language it is not directed at the Palestinians and their suffering but rather at those who never miss an opportunity to trumpet their own creds even where such creds are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand).

"..if you ever deign to descend from your ivory towers to see what life is like behind the security wall, let me know, and maybe I’ll pay more attention to your expert analysis then."

Do you ever take a second's pause to consider what life would be like for Israelis, WITHOUT the security wall? Have you done the math? Are you willing to share it with us? How many Israelis are sacrificeable so that ordinary Palestinians can get to school and their fields smoothly? Yes, even Israeli settlers have a right, a fundamental right, to a secure life and protection from exploding human bombs and other killing contraptions. There is a hierarchy of human rights, whether you like to admit it or not, and the right to LIVE comes before the right to live free of hassle.

And please don't tell me that the Fence is not on the Green Line. This fact alone does not justify, legally or morally, Palestinian targeting of innocent Israelis for killing.

When Palestinians become aware of the fact that their choices for violence over compromise is the source of their difficulties, when they act upon that realization, the wall will crumble like a piece of overdry clay. Until they do, Israelis will be protected.

What is the meaning of this death wish for Israelis, so long as the Palestinians get what they want? And if we are there, what is it they want? Does anybody know?

The Guardian is indeed run through and through with anti-Semitism, with a barely cocnealed zeal for terrorist groups which have as their primary objective genocide against Mideast Jews.

On these grounds, I am led to wonder whether the Guardian should be subject to legal action both in Europe and in the USA, as a de facto agent of terrorism.

I also suggest the world-wide Jewish community treat the Guardian as it would any other anti-Semitic organisation. If Memri and PMW can monitor material in the Arab press, why not analogous organisations to monitor menacing anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in the remaining world press - of which the Guardian would be a prime example of an institution dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state.

The Guardian blogs frequently contain rants about GIYUS. Perhaps a more effective Jewish organisation is indeed needed to force a bit of balance into the Guardian, or at least to expose the Guardian's hypocritical policy of moderating, editing, or banning posters who question the Guardian's own anti-Semitism.

Despite his attempts to come over as otherwise, the (real?) Seth Freedman (as opposed to whoever posts as just "Seth"), does appear to be exceedingly self-righteous. _He_ has been and seen on the other side of the security wall, so only he knows what it's really like there; only he knows that DH and the rest of us have got it wrong in our interpretations of The Guardian coverage (or our acceptance of, in this case, DH's interpretation of it). He also appears to think that only those who have had _his_ experience can possibly be allowed to question and/or disagree with him: so much for the intellectual tradition of and for the idea of interpreting evidence. He also appears to assert that his experiences and his lofty status as a journalist(?) allows him to be aggressively rude to those who dare to dispute with him.

If personal experience is the only thing that counts, then how does he _know_, beyond a peradventure, that Israel, or the Israel Lobby, or the Jewish lobby, or any other hidden agency that comes to his conspiratorial mind, is behind the deletion of the word "Israel" from the FCO document? Frankly he can't, and whether he likes it or not, that means that those he arrogantly dismisses as armchair psychologists (self-righteous and pompous ones, at that) have every reason to question his writings and his motivation for writing it, _unless_ and _until_ he can come up with better evidence than his assertion that the British Government gave into some shadowy Lobby or other.

The main problem with conspiracy theories (and the reason I try and avoid them like the plague) is that they relieve of us the need to think through the evidence and come up with an answer that will stand up to rigorous scrutiny. This makes it inevitable that believers in conspiracy (without evidence) will get rude, aggressive and downright angry with those who dare to point out the flaws in their little, comforting, closed world (and mind) answers.

Separately, Linda Grant wants us to make allowance, or bear in mind, that Seth Freedman has spent much time on the West Bank, as though this explains his various stances on the issues at hand. Loath as I am to disagree with her, I would point out that much of what he has to say about the ills and wrongs of the occupation is said, with the similar force but without the same conclusions being drawn, by, among others, David Hirsh, Jon Pike, Robert Fine, among other writers and posters here. I am more impressed that John Strawson, who spends much time "behind the security fence", is the first to comment and the first to back David Hirsh's interpretation of The Guardian's coverage of this issue.

It's interesting that Seth Freedman doesn't take on John Strawson's take on this matter.

Seth Freedman,

Sorry, I should have indicated in my posting that I was a
different Seth.  That way you would have been spared Paul
Miller's justification for arguments that are the
"rational thing to do" but "not politically, diplomatically,
or academically correct."  

Seth

I find it interesting -- and telling -- to observe that the post that this comments thread is attached to was about the Guardian's manufacture of scandal over the word "Israel" deleted from the margin of a Foreign Office doc and the problem of the Guardian's institutional hostility towards Israel, yet some people seem to think that it's an opportunity to preach about who is most qualified to talk about the West Bank (and to blow their own trumpets while they're at it).

Here we have one of Britain's -- and indeed one of the world's -- most respected (whether justifiedly or not) papers making a HUGE scandal because someone removed the word "Israel" from some document, yet barely noticing that Iran has, once again, called for the annihilation of Israel (read: the Jews). This -- this blinkered, obsessed, irrational, dangerous, and unfortunately extremely influential behaviour of this major paper -- is a very serious problem. So David Hirsh writes a post about it. And what do the journalists (used loosely) among us do? They get on their high horses about who has spent time in the West Bank and who hasn't.

GentileZionist: "Perhaps a more effective Jewish organisation is indeed needed to force a bit of balance into the Guardian."

GentileZionist, balance in the media is in everybody's interest - so why does it have to be a 'Jewish organisation' which advocates either for balance or for fair respresentation of and reporting about Jews? (Engage isn't a Jewish organisation - it's anti-antisemitism).

It shouldn't be left to disabled people to advocate for disabled people, or Muslims to advocate for Muslims - bias against a group for the way they are defined and/or self-define is a threat to everybody.

Ruby  "I thought David Hirsh's article was typically a David Hirsh piece- clutching at straws."

Ruby - I think we've chatted before , and i therefore understand why your defending Seth and thus attacking Hirsh. Hirsh writes many pieces on the subject with examples analysis , reasons to back up what he says ,and his pieces have been peer reviewed. So for you to say that he clutches at straws is ridiculous.

Ruby - Do you think John Strawson is clutching at straws ? Or Jim Denham ? Or Cathpal ?

"if you ever deign to descend from your ivory towers to see what life is like behind the security wall, let me know, and maybe i'll pay more attention to your expert analysis then."

- perhaps you'll pay more attention to John Strawson who has actualy taught at BirZeit University , and has often worked on the West Bank with Palestinians. Here's what he posted earlier on :

"Many thnaks to David for his very perceptive comment on The Guardian peice. As I read it this morning, I did wonder whether I was living in world of my own where Israel was just a small country in the Middle East. Its nuclear weapons it should be added were supplied by France and since then India and Pakistan have obtained nuclear weapons - and South Africa, North Korea and Libya. But of course Israel is apparently a case on its own.

The FCO document and witness statement is highly instructive on the poor grasp of international law on the part of the FCO. There are no United Nations Security Council resolutions requiring Israel to dismantle its nuclear weapons unlike Iraq where repeated resolutions from 687 (1991) onwards adopted under Chapter VII did require this of Iraq. The marginal note is just plain wrong - As The Guardian cannot take its eyes off Israel it thus misses the fact that the maginal note is inaccurate."

Seth Freedman, where are you? It's 11.25pm as I write and submit this, and you have been severely attacked in the intervening hours since your last posting. Or are you like so many others who are pro-boycott, anti-Zionist, etc - when evidence is demanded of you, evidence that can be subjected to the usual scrutiny, and not mere assertion masquerading as evidence, you go all quiet.

You really should try to live up to the standards we demand of ourselves, and not just vilify us.

unlike you, brian, i don't play on engage all day long, so don't get too excited that i didn't reply quickly enough to suit you. i am neither pro-boycott nor anti-zionist, whatever you would like to believe, but - more importantly - i've said what i had to say on this thread, and have nothing else to add. what do you want me to do - bow down and worship at your collective altar just because a few wannabe-experts had a go at me on here?

i say my piece three times a week on cif, and anyone who is serious about wanting to understand my motivations (as opposed to just trying to silence me because they believe they know it all from their vantage point a couple of thousand miles away from the maelstrom) is more than welcome to read what i write and respond in kind.

but that would require a bit of effort on your/their part - whereas it's much safer and cosier to bury your heads in the sand that engage provides, rather than taking off the blinkers and hearing what people other than the b.o.d. clones have to say. your choice - as i've said, it makes little difference to me - but please don't think my choosing to stay away from these hallowed threads has anything to do with failing to live up to your lofty "standards". it doesn't - you've never seen me on engage threads before, and are unlikely to again - ennui has put paid to that. the only reason i joined in on this one in the first place was cos it was flagged to me by so many people that i wanted to see for myself how paranoid and hyper-defensive the lion's share of commenters here actually are. and now i know.

Seth again resorts to abuse because he is unable to discuss any of the points raised. Wihtout Comment Is Free i doubt that he would have any chance in succeeding in journalism. Mindyou he's not as much as a [... removed by mv - unsubstatiated charge ...]. Deluded with grandeur.

I read carefully Seth Freedman’s comment and had to pick carefully among the thorns and bile in order to find anything (69 words) worth having from his 303 word post.

It was this:

“i am neither pro-boycott nor anti-zionist,”

And this:

“i say my piece three times a week on cif, and anyone who is serious about wanting to understand my motivations (as opposed to just trying to silence me because they believe they know it all from their vantage point a couple of thousand miles away from the maelstrom) is more than welcome to read what i write and respond in kind”

After some consideration, this is what I understood Seth to be saying:

He is a prolific and desirable writer of superior ethics and knowledge, who finds a good and welcoming platform on CiF.  Those who disagree with his views, (i.e., Engageniks and ilk), are intellectually-inferior people who are “just trying to silence” him.

Which is why he never comes to Engage, never reads Engage, and never comments on Engage, except when beset by great “ennui”.

I agree entirely with Linda's comments above, with one exception. Seth was not talking about the occupation or the real effects of its constant, grinding brutality (and anyone who argues against that reality know not of what they speak). The problem is that Seth made the jump from that reality to to that of the status of myth - that "Jews/Israel" control the actions of another state (in this instance the failure to confront Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal). It is that point of his thinking that is in need of reflection, and not his (or anyone else's for that matter )views on Israel's occupation of what will become a free and sovereign Palestinian state.

Seth Freedman's arrogance is breathtaking - and highly revealing. We are not worth his attention, because we are little people who don't have his knowledge of "the situation"; after all, he's been there and seen it, and we haven't. He clearly has never come across the phenomenon of a set of eye-witness statements, all telling different stories of exactly the same event. Furthermore, whereas I (Brian Goldfarb) spend all day huddled over my screen (rabbinically?) examing the entrails of the entries on Engage comments threads, he is out there, on the other side of the security wall, seeing  (and telling) it like it is. Notice the subtle jibe that I must be a stereotypical nebbish, bookish, presumably ghettoised, Jew? Actually, last night I was engaging in a far more worthwhile activity than being rude to anyone who criticised me: I was listening to a highly intelligent discussion between Benny Morris and Colin Shindler on "1948" - Morris's new book.

Seth Freedman's further references to his thrice-weekly outings on CiF are also revealing: I'm so important that I publish there _that_ often. But not so certain of his arguments that he deigns to reply to direct criticism and direct requests for the evidence on which he bases his claims, note. So let me make the point again (heavens, _this_ is boring, not _not_ replying, but having to repeat myself to stress the lack of a response): Seth Freedman offers us a conspiracy theory as to why the word "Israel" was removed from the FCO document that started the Guardian off on its rampage. He states, unequivocally, in his CiF column that has been linked to, that this marginal comment was removed because the Lobby forced the British Government to do so. He offers no evidence, and does not even produce any sort of rational, logical argument to support this assertion.

Holding on to a conspiracy theory may be very comforting ("they" are _always_ to blame for anything - just like the Jews - now _that_ sounds very familiar), but it avoids the necessity for _thought_, evidence and argument - just like SF's CiF column and his ramblings on this thread.

Harry S. Truman had it to rights: "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Or to put it even more forcefully, not to say crudely, "put up or shut up".

And I notice that he hasn't responded, directly or indirectly, to the very first comment on this particular thread, by John Strawson, who has spent at least as much, and probably more, time on the West Bank than Seth. Let us see you refute _his_ support for David Hirsh's take on the Guardian articles. Or is he also part of the Israel/Jewish conspiracy that you see everywhere?

May I add that the small article and, above all, the comments in the New Statesman seem even worse than what was in the Guardian. See http://newstatesman.com/200802210057. It is disturbing to see such material in 2 outlets.

What I objected to in Seth's Whose side is Britain on? was his saying that, over the Amnon affair, Israeli government officials 'were laughing behind their backs' and have Britain 'in their pockets'. I also objected to his describing Israel's defence budget as 'coffers' into which the Americans were pouring money.

The first is pure speculation, and imputes a kind of viciousness to people, who happen to be Jews, on the base of no evidence whatsoever. While Seth reccounts general Israeli opinion that the El Al security guards would have been entitled to defend Amnon forcibly, he merely dismisses it, without even discussing why his fellow Israelis feel that way. Seth is a former soldier, like Amnon's guards. Why does Seth describe their willingness to fight, and perhaps die, defending their superior officer as 'bullying'? One senses an estrangement, on Seth's part. But, believe me, this is not an argument I want to win.

The second is redolent of all kinds of nasty tropes.

As to the third, Israel's defence budget is sorely stretched -let the inhabitants of Sderot know different. 'Coffers' is redolent of the rich and greedy. Also his describing Israel's last line of defence, her nuclear weapons, as 'wealth'. I am sure Seth and Linda would pooh-pooh what I say. What can I say? It's what I see.

It's a quasi-Marxist discourse (and I am not saying Seth is a Marxist, or sees himself that way -I am talking about the language used) which sees the Jewish state as the rich, local capitalist oppressor-colonialist.

I knew there was something else I wanted to add to my last post, before this thread disappears completely below the horizon: if Seth Freedman is _not_ pro-boycott, is _not_ ant-zionist and is living in Israel, why is he subscribing to the conspiracy of the all-powerful Lobby? There's plenty to criticise in Israeli government policy, settler activity, IDF behaviour on the West Bank, etc, without giving aid and comfort to the intellectual enemies of Israel. After all, the rest of us do it all the time here.

Or is that too simplistic for him? After all, I spend all day poring over the pilpulim of th Engage comments thread, don't I? I must do, after all, because Seth F. says so.

I think there is the very real prospect of seeing the public conversion of Seth Freedman from Zionist to anti-Zionist, especially as, I think, that is where his best prospects as a journalist for The Guardian lie. It will likely be irrelevant: most Israeli Jews do not originate in pleasant, liberal HGS, and do not have that bolt-hole, if they so choose. But it could be damaging, nonetheless.

Right now some ignorant non-Jewish Jewish yob is touting his anti-Zionism as part of 'the general fight against racism'. 'utterly ignorant of Jewish history in general, or Palestinian and Israeli Jews in particular. As far as I can see, on this particular thread, all Seth has done is compliment the man's sunglasses, without a single post in criticism.


Seth was a stock-broker, not an academic. Neither are most Israelis. But they have an innate understanding of the nature of Jewish experience for most of Christian and Islamic history that, for such as we, in liberal, democratic Britain, can only be gleaned from books, or speaking with Jews from elsewhere. Linda Grant has elsewhere written dismissively of such 'intellectuals'. Well, to understand Jewish history, you have to be a bit of an intellectual. The Church criticized Judaism because of its (as Christians thought) excessive intricacies and legalisms. Jewish history is a bit like that. Which is why the yobs (and these yobs can be very learned indeed) so often dismiss it as irrelevant, or inconducive to their view of the world.