Seems a bit radical, don't you think, to correct a transgression against a law (if transgression there is at all) by genociding the transgressors. I'm a bit puzzled by the logic.
Anyway, I dropped a note to the editor of the Guardian 'alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk' and to the editor of CiF, 'georgina.henry@guardian.co.uk'. Sadly, my position is not fully aligned with that of my friends at CiF Watch, but I expect they'll forgive me:
Documenting the Malice
Ms Henry, Mr. Rusbridger
My friends at CiF Watch have alerted me to the recent case of a reader of yours, one William Bapthrope. Mr. Bapthrope is troubled by Israel's disregard of international law as he understands it, and advocates various methods to inform them of the seriousness of the matter. His third alternative is, and I quote, "they must be slaughtered, every last man woman and child". The staff of CiF Watch demands you ban Mr. Bapthrope from commenting at CiF.
I’m of two minds, I admit. If you assume murderous hatred of Jews is a contagious malady, rather like suicide, then having all mention of it disappear might make sense: people won't think of it on their own, or if they ever do they'll be ashamed of expressing their sentiments for fear of general ridicule and opprobrium. Assuming the media is the only venue where people communicate, which is probably not the case.
If, on the other hand, you're of the opinion that the excitement generated by dreaming of a world with far fewer Jews wells up from deep cultural sources reinforced by incessant lies about many things Jewish and constant reiteration of how uniquely evil Jews are, then of course the occasional censorship of an unusually crass expression of the Zeitgeist will have no positive impact on anything and will merely serve to cloak the pervasiveness of the hatred. Since the Guardian is one of the more important standard bearers of the animosity and purveyor of systematic and consistent lies, my inclination is to request that you desist from banning the worst examples of what you spawn, since your actions are merely an attempt to sanitize your own record.
The existence of the Jews and their well-being is fortunately not something the Guardian can impact on one way or the other. The full record of your malice, however, should not be tampered with.
Sincerely,
Dr. Yaacov Lozowick
Jerusalem
Update: Matt Seaton responds:
I'm not convinced he read my comment.Regarding the post in the Blincoe thread which you respectively have complained about, let me assure you that – contrary to the impression Cif Watch chooses to give – the comment was deleted promptly by moderators, and as per our standard moderation protocol the user has been placed in quarantine as 'untrusted'.
6 comments:
here's another example of how the "cultured" go about it http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/01/18/100118crbo_books_pierpont
pieces like this one worry me no end because there is very little stuff against which you can protest/argue without seeming a nitpicker, getting accused of wilfully misreading etc. But would any presentation of any other language literature totally side with how this literature writes about the act of killing somebody? I doubt it. Therefore articles like this one create a climate of acceptability in the aspiring to be educated/to climb socially crowds. After the fact of course only the ones who did the actual bloody work will have been guilty while the others get a new life selling new articles on what they really meant to say and they'll get away with it or they get even written about admiringly (Martin Heidegger, Carl Schmitt, Martin Luther, Richard Wagner - the world can't help admiring them and trying to whitewash them over and over)
But the most revealing sentence in the New Yorker piece is this one:
"it is about the longing—just emerging in the Palestinian public voice—for the moist earth and the olive trees of the villages left behind in 1948."
What could one offer that might beat the combination of MOIST earth and olive trees? No life-saving drug can ever even aspire to beating that image. Women with nails so well groomed that they will hesitate to touch anything resembling dirt will swoon at the idea of sinewy peasants tilling the moist earth - didn't Marie Antoinette like to party pretending to herd sheep?
rgds,
Silke
Israel's record in Gaza compares quite favorably to that of many nations that have done far worse to their own people. Yet this is ignored and the Jews are looked upon as uniquely evil. That is why the world is obsessed with what Israel did in Gaza considering it wasn't really an act of aggression.
It was in response to one that went on unabated for nearly a decade. But we are not allowed to remember it. This is where the truth has to be suppressed in favor of inciting Jew-hatred.
And we thought the Middle Ages was behind us.
Yaacov, It is hard to avoid the concern that Bapthorpe is only giving voice to the subconscious view – and subconscious agenda – held by the majority of Guardianistas and by Guardian management.
The further agenda is to prevent Israel from defending itself and so contribute to the same objective (of eliminating Israel and Judaism).
...contrary to the impression Cif Watch chooses to give...
Pathetic, but undeniably cute, which I suppose is the Guardian in a nutshell....
One of the more interesting questions, to my mind, is at what point will the Guardian (and those it presumably speaks for) choke on its own sarcasm.
Put another way, in what manner will the discovery that consistent prevarication---and then lying that one has been prevaricating (meta-prevarication?)---does have consequences, occur?
I (who was "banned" after supporting Rivka Carmi when she was cyber-mobbed for her rebuttal of Neve Gordon on CIF) received a similar message.
"Untrusted"?? He is posting 9 or 10 times a day, still!!
Try posting the same comment as Bapthorpe's about Moslems on CIF, and you will be banned before the pixels are dry on your screen.
However, yakov, I think it is really a dilemma - do you leave posts like his so the decent or ignorant can see what is crawling around iunder the surface, or delete them since they are so disgusting.
I am ambivalent.
I would have left Bapthorpe's comment, since it does not include the usual anti-Semitic invective, just as an indication of what is passing for acceptable speech and thought in Britain these days.
I recommend that all reading his comment write to as many news outlets as possible to draw attention to the Guardian's role in providing a forum for this type of person, and permitting him to continue commenting there.
Re "moist earth and olive trees":
You know, you can plant olive trees in a lot of places.
Lisa
Post a Comment