Pilger passes an important marker
I have written before about how John Pilger was, for me, an early influence and about my distress at his descent into crude anti-Americanism and general hysteria in recent years.
Paradoxically, Pilger’s degeneration into incoherent anti -“western” ranting (and concomitant tolerance of tyrants and mass-murderers, so long as they are his enemy’s enemy) has paralleled his increasing acceptance by the mainstream media and his gradual slide into becoming a tame radical of the Michael Moore variety (though even at his worst, Pilger is infinitely preferable to that hypocritical toad Moore).
As far as I was concerned, Pilger ceased to be a serious commentator the moment (a couple of years ago) he offered his support to the Iraqi ‘resistance’, with (an imagined) offhand shrug and the casual explanation of why anti-imperialists sometimes have to support child-killers, nihilists and woman-haters: “you can’t be too choosy”.
Now, with the inexorable logic of anti-working class, third-worldist hysteria, Pilger has lined himself up with the “boycott Israel” campaign. In an appropriately-named article (“An important marker has been passed“) in the current New Statesman, Pilger gives unconditional backing to a “boycott of Israel” (note: not Israeli goods or even Israeli academics, but Israel itself – presumably its very existence).
In the course of his New Statesman piece, Pilger appears to question the truth of the well-documented fact that Arab leaders called for Jews to be “thrown into the sea”, appears to blame Israel for the ‘war on terror’ (I say “appears” because Pilger’s latter-day prose style is far from clear), dismisses the “premises of Zionism” as “racist” and those who oppose the boycott as “Zionist fanatics”, seems to dismiss anti-semistism as a “mere threat” and backs the “courageous Israeli historian” Iian Pappe’s call for “a single democratic state to which Palestinians are given the right to return”, as the “only feasible and just solution”.
It’s a filthy piece of work that marks a new low in the degeneration of this once respect-worthy journalist.
However, given Pilger’s enduring prestige and the relative influence of the New Statesman, it’s a piece that warrents a more detailed rebuttal than I’ve had time for here. I’m presently trying to persuade someone else to take on that task: but if he doesn’t, then I will. Watch this space.
Shiraz Socialist 
Jim Denham said,
August 28, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I forgot to mention that, naturally, Pilger makes the standard comparison between Isreal and apartheid South Africa, citing some well–known South African freedom-fighters, whose knowledge of Palestine, Israel and the Middle East is, to say the least, questionable. Stan Crooke has (Imho) given the definative answer to that particular analogy, at the ‘Workers Liberty’ site :
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/9053#comment
Jim Denham said,
August 28, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Thought readers might be interested to know the following: I’ve just changed the link to Pilger’s article, because the one I’d used at first, no longer worked. it was the link to Pilger’s own site and it definitly worked immediately after I first put it up – I checked. Now it doesn’t. So I’ve changed it, to the ‘New Statesman’ site, so that you folk can read pilger’s piece for yourselves, and not have to take my word for anything. Funny, though, about Pilger’s link coming down. eh?
Jules said,
August 28, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Jim,
Re “pushing the jews into the sea”. This phrase has been atributed to both the PLO and Nasser, but there is no evidence that either ever said it. In fact the slogan of the PLO from the beginning was a democratic secular state for Muslims, Jews and Christians.
I haven’t read the Pilger article but when you write “(Pilger) appears to blame Israel for the ‘war on terror’ (I say “appears” because Pilger’s latter-day prose style is far from clear)” this at best sounds like speculative bullshit.
I agree that Pilger’s lack of class analysis is his major weakness but nothing else you’ve written about him above makes what he wrote a “filthy piece of work” or demonstrates “a new low in the degeneration of this once respect-worthy journalist.”
They are all, in varying degrees, commonly held views of leftwingers – just because you disagree with them it doesn’t mean they’re beyond the pale does it?
In addition – why is Moore a “hypocritical toad”.
modernityblog said,
August 28, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Jim,
good points and I quickly scanned Stan Crooke’s article, it looks excellent, and very comprehensive
I commented on Pilger’s article a few days ago, this link should work, http://www.newstatesman.com/200708230026
and if you need to see how far some on the Left has fallen just look at some of the comments attached to Pilger’s article, they are disgusting
Dave said,
August 29, 2007 at 9:48 am
I must be thick or something, but I still simply cannot understand how any Marxist could see anything objectionable in a single democratic secular state to which Palestinians have the right of return.
This position does not demonise Isrealis, it is not an implicit call for Arab revanchism, and it does not deny them the right of nationhood. It simply asks that they respect the basic norms of democracy. What is the AWL’s problem with this idea?
Clive said,
August 29, 2007 at 10:26 am
If the Israelis could be persuaded, tomorrow, to accept the dismantling of Israel, and to live in a single nationless state (which is what a single state would have to be) with the Palestinians, nobody would ‘have a problem’ with it.
But this is a) not an answer to the Palestinians’ immediate national oppression; b) would be the first time in history such a thing had happened; and c) actually *is* an implicit call for Arab revanchism, at least for many people – which is why many or most of those who call for it don’t bat an eyelid at the idea of a single Palestinian state ruled by Islamists – ie, it’s the single state which matters to them, not the democratic or secular aspect of it.
Dave, you must have noticed how some people (not all, okay) of those who advocate a democratic secular state *do* demonise Israel and Israelis. (In principle you can want to see such a state, eventually, without demonising anybody. But I think the people who hold this view are a minority. Steve Cohen springs to mind).
I have no problem at all with the idea of Palestinian resettlement by peaceful agreement. The ‘right of return’, though, by virtue of being a right, doesn’t depend on anyone agreeing with it, in principle. For that reason, it seems to me much more rational to focus on what are immediate rights – to a fully independent state, etc.
Richard said,
August 29, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Clive. Steve Cohen wants no states , not a single state. I think he’s living in cloud cuckoo land but he’s consistent and being for no states he doesn’t single out Israel or request for Israel to do what no other state will do. He’s also very concerned about the ammount of antisemitism on the left and the ammount of antisemitism under the guise of antizionism.
johng said,
August 29, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I love the way Jim accuses “South African Freedom Fighters” of “knowing nothing about Israel”. Would he care to substantiate that or is it just because they’re Africans?
johng said,
August 29, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I’d also be interested in Jim’s views on the ‘war on democracy’. He probably doesn’t want to talk about this as it reveals him to be as utterly uninformed about Venezuela as he is about Israel (certainly African freedom fighters are more likely to know about Israel then a cranky English opponent of the anti-war movement).
Ed Rooksby said,
August 29, 2007 at 5:16 pm
What the hell is ‘anti-Americanism’ ?
Gadgie said,
August 29, 2007 at 9:11 pm
An awful article about Pilger and unlike Jules I read it. I think that he has always had the same problem. Take Cambodia. Superb stuff on the genocide. Full support of the Vietnamese intervention. Once the UN brokered a peace deal and democratic settlement Pilger opposed it vigorously and argued for the continuation of the Vietnamese puppet regime. He was dead right about the involvement of the Khmer Rouge in the settlement but his view was that it was an American diktat and so he rejected the whole settlement and predicted terrible disasters and a new civil war. He was wrong, his judgement blinded by his anti-Americanism. The same happened when he started defending Saddam in the first Gulf War. He cut his teeth in Vietnam and never changed.
What drives me to despair is the friends the Palestinians end up with. They don’t understand the conflict at all, try to shoehorn it into pre-formed ideological positions and, as some of the comments show, slip into an anti-Semitism of the left. The Palestinians deserve better.
What is needed is not a boycott but active working with the Israeli peace movement, the labour movements within Palestine and Israel, Palestinian democrats (remember 20% of Palestinians were Christians -much reduced due to higher emigration- and Hamas oppress them) and other forces (such as education, arts and other programmes that bridge the divide). There is much to build on to promote the only viable solution, one based on two states. The occupation is horrible, the wall awful, life for the Palestinians is desperate, but ending the occupation means dealing with the dynamics of the conflict not in gesture politics and rhetorical flourishes that only really care about a sectarian ‘left’ agenda.
Gadgie said,
August 29, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Sorry – that should read an awful article BY Pilger – oops!
Jim Denham said,
August 29, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Jules: there is prettyy strong evidence that the first PLO leader, Ahmed Shukairy (or Shuqayri) talked about “driving the Jews into the sea”, or something very similar. Moshe Shemesh, in Israel Studies – Volume 8, Number 2, Summer 2003 pp 70-81 discusses this in great detail. The BBC’s highly respected former Middle East correspondent, Jeremy Bowen, in his book “Six Days” describes Shukairy as “(specialising in) bombastic speeches threatening Israel with a bloody and savage end” .
And, of course, on the day Israel declared independence, the Arab League general secretary, Azzam Pasha stated “This (the 1948 attack on Israel by the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq) will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongoliian massacres and the Crusades”.
These are just the two best-known and well-documented examples. There are, undoubtably many others. It simply beggars belief that Pilger (and others on the “left”) continue to question the fact that such sentiments were expressed by Arab leaders.
Jon Pike has a good reply to Pilger, over at the ‘Engage’ site: Pike also notes some factual howlers that I missed and predicts that the ‘Statesman’ will have to carry an apology in its next edition.
modernityblog said,
August 29, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Jim,
there are many examples of Arab leaders and regional media talking of “driving the Jews into the sea”, Cairo radio at one time used similar language, etc
but honestly, if Jules disputes that then google is the place, the key words: throw sea Jews and a few other permutations will bring up sufficiently links
etc will bring up enough, that’s if he is truly interested
resistor said,
August 30, 2007 at 12:23 am
What is really ‘filthy’ is Jim Denham’s racism towards Arabs whose right to return to their homes he denies because they are not Jews. He has also described Palestinian refugees as ‘ex-pats’. What better example of Zionism as racism?
modernityblog said,
August 30, 2007 at 2:15 am
resistor arrives as if by magic, when ever there’s an attack on Israelis you can bet resistor is cheering it on, whilst he flicks thru the BNP news with Wagner playing in the background
Red Maria said,
August 30, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Boys! boys!
I don’t know enough about the Israel-Palestine issue to venture any comment on it. But I do find some of the anti-Zionist rhetoric troubling and unpleasant.
Modernityblog may be interested to read about War on Want’s new Israel boycott initiative.
Jason S. said,
August 30, 2007 at 5:19 pm
So what’s so awful about Michael Moore? Yes, he’s imperfect, but I’m thankful he’s out there — his film “SiCKO” may help to re-start the movement for taking health care out of the market in the U.S.
modernityblog said,
August 30, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Red Maria,
Thanks for the suggestion, do you have any links in mind?
I will look into it when I can
Red Maria said,
August 30, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Weeell, seeing as you asked, you can take a look at my own blog…
modernityblog said,
August 30, 2007 at 7:45 pm
just looking now, very well argued! much better than the old rubbish I do on my feeble blog
I wish I written that
Red Maria said,
August 30, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Awwww. You’re making me blush!
johng said,
August 30, 2007 at 7:54 pm
A quite incredible paragraph this. Apparently we’re supposed to remember that 20 per cent of Palestinians are ‘Christians’ oppressed by ‘Hamas’…so presumably they’re alright then.
“What is needed is not a boycott but active working with the Israeli peace movement, the labour movements within Palestine and Israel, Palestinian democrats (remember 20% of Palestinians were Christians -much reduced due to higher emigration- and Hamas oppress them)”
Have you ever spoken to a Palestinian? Or perhaps we should’nt speak to them but instead patronise them with these revolting hypocritical whining noises. I guess this is what has come to constitute the Israeli ‘peace’ movement. Are these by any chance the same people who thought it would be radical to catapault rubbish into gaza in protest at rocket attacks?
johng said,
August 30, 2007 at 7:59 pm
“has also described Palestinian refugees as ‘ex-pats’”. Thats right. Don’t forget that Jim is also sure that ‘African freedom fighters’ don’t know anything about Israel (I wonder how he knows?). He’ll be telling us that Bernard Lewis knew Arabic better then any Arab next. But anyway the Palestinians deserve so much better then us. Whats urgently required is support for Israeli security measures. Tough love and all that. Thats real solidarity. These palestinians need teaching a lesson and the AWL are going to do the teaching. With a little help from the IDF (don’t say IOF as that is the acroynym used by palestinians by those under occupation and is therefore a bit snidey, unfair and unbalenced: possibly anti-semitic even). beyond satire.
modernityblog said,
August 30, 2007 at 8:09 pm
JohnG wrote:
I guess this is what has come to constitute the Israeli ‘peace’ movement.
you know full well who the Israeli peace movement are, but I suppose to you, JohnG and the SWP, that they are just “Zionists”, and not that you give a shit about any Israeli that might disagree with you, eh?
you really should lay off the booze and the political nihilism, the Middle East is not helped by the existence of Hezbollah, Hamas or other genocidal antisemitic groupings, but if you’re honest and sober you would admit that (if only to yourself), but to others you won’t
but you’ve been told to be a cheerleader to these lunatics, and so you carry on with no regard for the well-being of the inhabitants of the region, if there was peace in the Middle East you would have nothing to shout about
and JohnG, let’s be honest, your politics is all about shouting, cheap slogans and mischaracterizations
for those interested the Israeli peace movement, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_peace_camp
Jim Denham said,
August 30, 2007 at 8:35 pm
John G and his fellow professional Israel-hater “resistor” take great glee in attributing to me quotes that don’t actually appear in my post: if either of them would care to cite the particular context in which I used the allegedly “racist” term “ex-pats”, perhaps one or other of them would like to cite it. Then we can have a rational discussion – or, at least as near to a rational discussion as is possible with people who believe Israel has no right to exist and that Zionism is purely and simply “racism” (ie: anti-semitic morons).
resistor said,
August 31, 2007 at 11:29 am
This is what Denham wrote about Karma Nabulsi
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/karma_nabulsi/profile.html
from
‘Addendum (June 18 2007): this pretty much sums up what passes for “politics” in middle class, ex-pat Palestinian opinion in the West: denial, self-pity and self-righteousness, combined with a refusal to believe that any problems the Arabic people of Palestine are experiencing, can have any origin other than the Israelis and the USA. Pernicious stuff. ‘
Denham is a liar as well as a racist.
SP said,
August 31, 2007 at 12:08 pm
If you think that justifies your allegations then you are simpler than I had previously thought.
sackcloth and ashes said,
August 31, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Good comments from Jim Denham, Gadgie et al, to what is also a brilliant piece on that pseudo-leftist, Pilger.
‘I love the way Jim accuses “South African Freedom Fighters” of “knowing nothing about Israel”. Would he care to substantiate that or is it just because they’re Africans?’
The author of this comment is a PhD student from SOAS called John Game. From experience, I know that this is a standard approach for him, which is to ignore comments that are better argued than anything he can offer, and to twist them in his own way. So, Jim’s comment that Ronnie Kasrils and Archbishop Tutu are not all that well informed about the intricacies of the Israel-Palestine problem is turned into an accusation of racism.
Aside from the despicable way in which the original comments are distorted, John Game also ignores the fact that Kasrils is while. Although presumably (seeing as Kasrils’ parents were Jewish emigres from the Baltic states) Mr Game’s next gambit would be to accuse Jim Denham of anti-Semitism.
Truly pathetic. If this is the intellectual cream of the Socialist ‘Workers’ Party then I can only say that the cream has long gone sour.
SP, ‘resistor’ really is stupid even by troll standards.
sackcloth and ashes said,
August 31, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Ouch. That should read ‘Ronnie Kasrils is white’. Perhaps a Preview option on this page might be in order.
johng said,
August 31, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Its interesting that shiraz socialist attracts the kind of people who when incapable of mounting a rational argument seek to get left wing students victimized in their institutions and see’s nothing wrong with such things. It is perhaps a symptom of the general decline in political and moral standards charecteristic of those who describe themselves as the ‘decent left’ but are anything but.
modernityblog said,
August 31, 2007 at 1:41 pm
JohnG wrote:
the kind of people who when incapable of mounting a rational argument
for once, I agree
but I hope that shirazsocialist does not removed those “incapable of mounting a rational argument” otherwise JohnG’s pearls of wisdom would be lost forever!
resistor said,
August 31, 2007 at 3:38 pm
SP
Denham denied writing something I proved he did write. What he claimed was simply untrue
Do you consider refugees who are victims of ethnic cleansing to be ex-pats and do you deny their right to return to their homes on the basis of their race?
That is Denham’s position. I call that racist. What else can you call it?
sackcloth and ashes said,
August 31, 2007 at 4:08 pm
‘Its interesting that shiraz socialist attracts the kind of people who when incapable of mounting a rational argument seek to get left wing students victimized in their institutions and see’s nothing wrong with such things. It is perhaps a symptom of the general decline in political and moral standards charecteristic of those who describe themselves as the ‘decent left’ but are anything but.’
Typical John Game. Just because someone has called him out on a baseless smear of his own (which in any case was irrelevant to the thread at hand) he starts whingeing. You can dish it out, but you can’t take it back.
Perhaps you can tell me why a comment along the lines of ‘You’re talking bullshit and you should know it’ constitutes an attempt to ‘get left wing students victimized in their institutions’. I’m not trying to get you sacked from SOAS, you stupid little man, I’m trying to get you to at least establish your facts before you make an argument. But I can see that in that respect I’ll be fighting a losing battle.
sackcloth and ashes said,
August 31, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Another good comment on this issue.
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2007/08/the-warsaw-ghet.html
I’ll nail my colours to the mast too. You do not have to be a hard-core Likudnik to see this proposed boycott as inherently immoral. I happen to believe that support for Palestinian statehood should not be incompatible with support for Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign state, and I don’t know why this point is so hard to grasp for people like John Game. I also happen to think that whatever the wrongs inflicted by the Israelis on the Palestinian people, the fact is that Israel faces existentialist threats from movements (such as Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon) who have declared war not on Israel, or on Zionism, but on Jews.
I also happen to think that it is as best fatuous and at worst morally bankrupt to wail about ‘baby killers’ (to quote Kasrils) but to say nothing about those who bomb pizzerias and buses, and who fire rockets and care not where they might land. I could also point out that the same movement responsible for such atrocities are perfectly capable of brutalising their own people too, and I find that repulsive too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/26/wgaza126.xml
Furthermore, of all the Middle Eastern countries Israel is the only one where society has such an open and frank debate about the country’s past. I can see for myself that more eminent historians in that country of all political backgrounds are engaged in a vibrant and at times furious debate about issues ranging from the 1948 war of independence and the Nabka to the present day. I don’t see similar debates elsewhere in the region. If you are telling me that it is a just course of action for me and other historians to shun our Israeli counterparts because of their nationality, then that is an outrage. Where do you want us to go next? Do we boycott Israeli students, or vet them to see if they have the ‘appropriate’ views on the Israel-Palestine question? Do we then start asking if we can teach Jewish students of all nationalities, because they may have ‘dual loyalties’? I can see the road where this boycott leads, and I do not like its final destination. It only goes to show that the convergence between the hard left and the extreme right is now complete in all but name.
The proposal for a boycott is unethical and unacademic. It does nothing to help the Palestinian cause, or to promote peace, racial and sectarian understanding in the Middle East (which should be the default position of anyone who truly belongs to the democratic left). Judging by Shiraz’s comments, and the ENGAGE link, I can see that disgust with the boycotters is widespread in academia and the media, and I hope that this foul cause will die the death in the gutter that it deserves. I look forward to the continued frustration of petty-minded hacks like Mr Game. Failures in academia, and failures in politics. How galling must that be?
johng said,
August 31, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Sack Cloth perhaps you’d tell me where you work. Then every time you say anything I could accuse you of something outlandish and mention your workplace. What a repulsive little bully you are.
modernityblog said,
August 31, 2007 at 5:08 pm
JohnG,
see if you are up to engaging with S&L’s point: The proposal for a boycott is unethical and unacademic. It does nothing to help the Palestinian cause, or to promote peace, racial and sectarian understanding in the Middle East (which should be the default position of anyone who truly belongs to the democratic left). ..
go on, try at least
sackcloth and ashes said,
August 31, 2007 at 5:25 pm
John Game, you could always just respond to my arguments and try to refute them. Or you could even try and argue the case for a boycott, and tell my why I’m wrong. That would be a radical departure from your usual methods of posting.
johng said,
August 31, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I’d very much enjoy refuting your arguments. However you don’t tend to make any but instead want to talk about where people work. Jim reckons that African freedom fighters know ‘to say the least’ very little about Israel. I’d like to see some evidence to back this up before moving on to your equally ludicrous assertions.
modernityblog said,
August 31, 2007 at 9:30 pm
JohnG
here is just one of S&L’s arguments:
The proposal for a boycott is unethical and unacademic.
go ahead, refute it, logically and with reason, if you can
sackcloth and ashes said,
August 31, 2007 at 10:44 pm
John Game, your name and institutional affiliation is known on sites like these, so don’t get coy with me. You have my comments today dated 4.34pm, when I explained why I regarded the boycott as a disgrace. You can challenge my arguments, or ignore them. It’s your call. But I think you’ll do the latter – because, deep down, you cannot refute what I have to say without showing your true colours.
modernityblog said,
September 2, 2007 at 2:26 pm
JohnG,
isn’t this an insult to your professional livelihood?
you probably pride yourself on your skill in argumentation and yet you can’t take up (directly) any of S&L’s points?
why is that?
johng said,
September 2, 2007 at 4:19 pm
This was not a discussion of the boycott. This was a discussion of Jim’s views about African freedom fighters and their knowledge about the Israel-Palestine conflict. I don’t engage with debate with the far right and therefore do not hold discussions with Modernity and Sack Cloth and Ashes. The only wonder is why they turn up on blogs calling themselves Socialist.
modernityblog said,
September 2, 2007 at 4:26 pm
JohnG wrote:
I’d very much enjoy refuting your arguments. However you don’t tend to make any
S&L replied:
You have my comments today dated 4.34pm, when I explained why I regarded the boycott as a disgrace. You can challenge my arguments, or ignore them. It’s your call.
JohnG’s reply:
This was not a discussion of the boycott.
so in the end, S&L was correct when he said:
You can challenge my arguments, or ignore them. It’s your call. But I think you’ll do the latter –
there you have it
sackcloth and ashes said,
September 2, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Of course John Game doesn’t debate with the far right. He just marches with them and says nothing when they shout “Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, jaysh Muhammad sawfa ya‘ud”.
I find his accusation against my politics laughable. I don’t align with anti-Semites and Homophobes. Nor do I regard human rights and gender equality to be mere ‘shibboleths’ to be discarded in the interests of mere expediency. But the SWP does.
As for Jim Denham’s comments about the failure of people like Ronnie Kasrils to understand the Israeli-Palestinian problem, I would point to the stark difference between their statements and the harsh reality that both sides have committed atrocities against each other, and that a peaceful settlement requires compromise on both sides. I also don’t recall the ANC calling for the extermination of all whites in South Africa, in the same way that Hamas calls for the destruction of all Jews. I would have thought that was selt-evident.
I would also ask Mr Game (and he will remain Mr) to respond to my arguments and challenge them, rather than throwing his toys out of the pram. I would also like him to explain why support for a peace settlement based on a two-state solution and mutual recognition and respect between Israelis and Arabs – and above all Jews and Palestinians – is a policy of the ‘far right’.
Jim Denham said,
September 2, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Now that “resistor” has cited the context of my use of the term “ex pat”, I am quite happy to stand by it: and I wonder why he, as a professional anti-semite and Israel-hater, should consider the term “expat”, when appled to middle class Palestinian academics living in Britain, to be “racist”?
resistor said,
September 3, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Denham lies yet again when he calls me an anti-semite. He previously claimed to have evidence that I was an American white supremacist – more bollocks
As to proof of his dishonesty, note that he previously denied using the term ex-pat, now he tries to defend it.
To describe a refugee as an ex-pat (though what her class and occupation have to do with it?) is to deny their suffering. An expatriate is someone who lives abroad through choice like the British in Spain.The Palestinians were expelled with the choice of becoming refugees or being slaughtered by Denham’s fascist heroes Begin and Shamir.
Denham denies the Palestinians their right to return to their homes, and even their refugee status, on the basis of their race, He would never describe a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany as an ex-pat – and I would call anyone who did an anti-semite.
There is obviously no depth to which Denham will nort sink, but what can you expect from a failed trad jazz drummer (possibly the four saddest words in the English language).
modernityblog said,
September 3, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Resistor wrote:
Denham lies yet again when he calls me an anti-semite.
Jim’s spot on, because resistor the only topics that you make any significant comment on are related to Jews
any topic if it is mildly attacking Jews then you’ll cheer
or conversely, if an article says that Jews shouldn’t be attacked and that reports indicate increasing antisemitism in the streets, you will dismiss it
you are kidding no one, you’re a jew hating nutjob, resistor, we’ve seen your kind before
resistor said,
September 4, 2007 at 7:43 pm
modernityblog is merely Deham’s Mini Me