Howard Jacobson Twittered by Anti-Semite.
This is real anti-Semitism.
Howard Jacobson is the beloved author of the Finkler Question.
Ben White is a freelance journalist, writer, and human rights activist, “specialising” in Palestine/Israel.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Tendance Coatesy 
Ben white is a jew hating nobody…
Ben White is an antisemite
May 30, 2012 at 2:14 pm
I’m glad you seem to recognise that there are lots of unreal allegations of antisemitism but what’s so real about this one?
levi9909
May 31, 2012 at 8:04 am
I would say it’s pretty obvious even to one as insensitve as myself.
Andrew Coates
May 31, 2012 at 10:49 am
There is nothing “anti-semitic” about this tweet. It probably refers to Jacobson’s latest tedious letter to the press comparing the boycott campaign to McCarthyism.
John
May 31, 2012 at 11:14 am
I suppose the constant publication of pictures of leftists with Jewish names on Red Watch isn’t either.
Andrew Coates
May 31, 2012 at 4:47 pm
“Beloved”? By whom? The lobotomised, possibly.
Bert
May 31, 2012 at 7:22 pm
As White says himself the point is the rubbish arguments Jacobson comes up with. The rest is in your imagination
John
May 31, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Maybe it is obvious to you but it isn’t obvious to a lot of people. So perhaps you could have an honest go at explaining what it is about the tweet that is antisemitic without resorting to spurious comparisons and other dodges.
Go on, have an honest go.
Thanks.
levi9909
May 31, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Andrew, if this is antisemitism to you, I’d argue you’re extremely sensitive.
Gert
May 31, 2012 at 10:02 pm
So where are we with this?
In his first response Andrew Coates will not or cannot explain what is antisemitic about Ben White’s tweet because, according to him, it’s obvious.
In the second, it is obvious because Andrew Coates believes the tweet bears comparison with a neo-nazi website which publishes photos of Jewish leftist activists with a view to getting them beaten up.
The first response was a tad better than the second but regarding the first, something obvious can still be explained, especially to people to whom the allegation isn’t obvious.
The second response is totally bogus. Jacobson’s picture, name and politics are all in the public domain. So Ben White cannot possibly have been inciting violence against him simply by publishing a picture with an indication of Jacobson’s political stance on it and even Harry’s Place hasn’t stooped to making that ludicrous allegation.
Can Andrew Coates at least admit he has no intention of explaining what used to be a serious allegation?
levi9909
June 1, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Red Watch published, in this sequence, a picture of my good self, so let’s get personal.
Andrew Coates
June 2, 2012 at 3:41 pm
I think it is gratuitously offensive. I can’t see the point of it really. Anti-semitic? Very possibly, in that it defames a leading Jewish author. Better this this abuse would be to engage Jacobson’s Jewish chauvinism intellectually.
jacobbauthumley
June 2, 2012 at 11:26 am
Nonsense! Even if it did defame Jacobson that would not make it antisemitic but rubbishing a serial zionist bullshitter like Jacobson hardly amounts to defamation. You appear to be missing two points here. The first is that Andrew Coates has lent his blog to an attempt at a viral defamation campaign against a well known anti-zionist campaigner and the second is that he is unable to explain his allegation except to make it worse by implying that Ben White is like a neo-nazi inciting violence against his subject.
You might also note that many attempts “engage Jacobson’s Jewish chauvinism intellectually” are also greeted with false allegations of antisemitism.
levi9909
June 2, 2012 at 12:07 pm
As you know, that has nothing to do with Ben White and your false allegation against him. And the fact remains, you’ve made an allegation of antisemitism against Ben White which you simply can’t substantiate. Falsehood can work as humour, but as your friend here says, your humour is lame as well as your integrity. Hard to believe this has been a temporary glitch.
levi9909
June 2, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Andrew, neither in the text of your post nor in this comment section do you provide and rationale for your accusation. You don’t find that a bit lame? Or is it enough for you to shoot off lazy accusations that are quite grave? ‘Mud sticks, this will stick too’ kind of thing?
Gert
June 2, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Look Gert if you don’t find this Tweet and the photo dodgey then the problem’s yours. not mine.
Andrew Coates
June 3, 2012 at 12:41 pm
You didn’t say it was dodgy, you said it was antisemitic. The only people who agree with you are the likes of Harry’s Place and Bob from Brockley – though the latter has done so in a typically deniable (creepy?) way – both of whom routinely falsely accuse Israel’s critics of antisemitism. You’ve tried to justify your bogus allegation by likening the posting of a picture of a dodgy character together with his statement against BDS to a campaign of incitement to violence by neo-nazis. You have tried humour by referring to yourself as a victim of Redwatch. Now you are accusing Gert of having a problem. The thing you haven’t done is explain what is antisemitic about Ben White’s tweet. If you want to downgrade your allegation from antisemitism to dodginess, go ahead and explain that. But please stop ducking and diving.
Thanks
levi9909
June 3, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Excuse me but I was signaled out by Red Watch.
I have personally been threatened by fascists a number of times, I just don’t make a point of mentioning it.
To my mind this Tweet makes Harold Jacobson look like a version of something out of the Jud Süß.
And since I have seen that when I lived in France (extracts on the telly, as Le Juif Süss) I would say I am entitled to make comparisons with.
Andrew Coates
June 3, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Perhaps having been fingered by Red Watch and your French experience made you over-sensitive? Because you’re not making a lot of sense about this tweet.Dragging Jud Süß into doesn’t change that.
Gert
June 3, 2012 at 1:40 pm
My first question:
I’m glad you seem to recognise that there are lots of unreal allegations of antisemitism but what’s so real about this one?
Some of Andrew Coates’s responses:
I would say it’s pretty obvious even to one as insensitve as myself.
I suppose the constant publication of pictures of leftists with Jewish names on Red Watch isn’t [antisemitic] either.
To my mind this Tweet makes Harold Jacobson look like a version of something out of the Jud Süß.
Your responses are so bogus they even conflict with each other. First you made out the tweet was self-evidently antisemitic then you claimed that your take was based on some personal experience, ie not self-evident then. Then when you expanded on your responses it turns out that you are alleging that Ben White’s tweet amounts to a) an incitement to violence against an identified individual (c/f Redwatch) and b) an incitement to hatred of unidentified Jews in general (c/f Jud Süß). And still you haven’t explained how a picture of Howard Jacobson that was already in the public domain together with some pious platitude of Jacobson’s against BDS amounts to an incitement to violence against Jacobson or an incitement to the hatred of Jews.
If you were genuinely concerned about antisemitism or any other form of racism you wouldn’t trivialise it with such a ludicrous allegation and bogus comparisons. And if you could make a case for your false allegation against Ben White you would have done so by now.
By the way, the photo of Howard Jacobson, which you claim “makes Harold Jacobson look like a version of something out of the Jud Süß” was first posted by San Francisco Voice for Israel.
/large
Now bullshit your way out of that, imbecile!
levi9909
June 3, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Anone who thinks that posting a picture of someone with very obviously Jewish features below the statement “if you need another reason to support a boycott of Habima, I present a massive picture of Howard Jaconson’s face” *isn’t* antisemitic (that, sfor instance it is a reference to Jacobson’s “rubbish arguments” rather than his appearance)…
1/ Can’t read
2/ Can’t think
3/ Is probably predisposed to this kind of antisemitism themselves.
OK?
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 9:41 am
“obviously Jewish features”? Don’t be so fucking ridiculous. And you accuse others of antisemitism. Also, lest we forget after about 4 attempts, Andrew Coates couldn’t dream up your ludicrous nonsense.
levi9909
June 4, 2012 at 10:04 am
So you, levi999 think there is no such thing as “obviously Jewish features”. I presume there are also no obviously Afro Caribbean features or obviously South Asian features or obviously Native American features…
How, exactly, is this “ludicrous nonsense”? It would be, of course, if I only drew attention to someone’s racial appearance in order to denigrate him. Oh yes: that’s exactly what Mr White did, isn’t it?
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 12:36 pm
These “obviously racial features“ feature largely in the racist’s mind only. White was lampooning Jacobson’s ridiculous knee-jerk opposition to the announced protests at The Globe, I’m sure of it and reading Coatesey reaction only confirms my opinion: there’s no case for antisemitism here.
Do you think self-pronounced ‘King of the Jews’, Bibi Netanyahu, has ‘obvious Jewish features’?
Gert
June 4, 2012 at 2:04 pm
“These “obviously racial features“ feature largely in the racist’s mind only”: right, so someone could easily mistake me (a white caucasian) for an Afro Caribbean? And racial attacks on black people happen only by law of averages?
White’s comment was explicitly about Jacobson’s *appearance* (ie his “face”), *not* his views. It was racist. Plain and simple.
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 2:09 pm
No Jim,. you are a racist pure and definitely simple. Some say there is a thin line between zionism and antisemitism..Jim, you are the proof that there is no line between them at all.
“I presume there are also no obviously Afro Caribbean features or obviously South Asian features or obviously Native American features”
Ok Jim, what are Howard Jacobson’s “obviously Jewish features”? Indeed, what are “obviously Jewish features” in general? And why do you suppose it is those features which Ben White was alluding to and not a smug self satisfied smirk adorning some anti-BDS text? There are pictures of Howard Jacobson all over the net. The one selected by Ben White happens to be one accompanied by anti-BDS text. That would be an enormous stroke of luck if his view of Jews was as racist as yours.
But go on, tell us the physical characteristics you imagine Jews to share in the same way African-Caribbean people share features with each other. Go on. Tell us what they are.
Oh, and remember Andrew Coates here appears to be oblivious to these “obviously Jewish features” since he claimed that the photo reminded him of a photo of himself. Does Andrew Coates have “obviously Jewish features” too?
levi9909
June 4, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Considering how keen you are to put people in little boxes, each with their own ‘racial characteristics’, I think Jacobson’s “obviously Jewish features” exist only in your and Coatesey’s mind.
At worst White may be sailing a bit close to the wind here but largely to yank the racist Zionist crowd’s chain…
Gert
June 4, 2012 at 5:10 pm
“At worst White may be sailing a bit close to the wind”: no he’s not, Gert; he’s crossed the line. I suspect that you know that. Now admit it it. Racism is racism and all the obscuration from people like you and “levi 9909” cannot hide the fact of what Mr White said and what it, to any rational person, means.
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 5:44 pm
I’ve only just seen thius hysteria: “tell us the physical characteristics you imagine Jews to share in the same way African-Caribbean people share features with each other. Go on. Tell us what they are.”. The person who wrote this is, simply mad. And a racist of the worsdt sort, because he’s in denial.
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Now please tell us about these characteristics, Jim. We’re all ear. Afraid to sound like a Nuremberg Race Laws Commissar, perhaps?
White’s fine. He’s an object of hate at the Brown sauce. I wonder why (tongue firmly in cheek)? The twit who started this finds antisemitism in an empty cookie jar, as long as it’s somehow related to Palestinian activism.
Gert
June 4, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Gert, ask yourself this: how do racist attackers choose their victims?
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 6:28 pm
These “Jewish characteristics”, Jim, that’s what I want to hear about. Go on, don’t be shy now!
Gert
June 4, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Ok Jim, keep calling me names but at least try to answer the question – what are “obviously Jewish features”? Keep in mind, I am Jewish so tell me which features you would expect to see on my face that mark me out from the rest of humanity. It is you who has introduced racial theorising to the thread, not me.
And “sailing close to the wind” with a personal attack on Jacobson’s smug self-satisfied appearance hardly crosses the many lines that you and your merry band of smear merchants cross all the time. In fact for all I call myself a Jew sans frontieres, it is you who seems to have no boundaries when it comes to smearing the critics of the racist war criminals of the State of Israel.
But please be a “man of the highest integrity” (I’m quoting one of your comrades) and answer the question you have been asked, remembering, of course, that it was Andrew Coates who was being asked what was antisemitic about Ben White’s tweet and in 4 or 5 responses, as dishonest as they all were, even he didn’t resort to the grotesque racial theorising that you have.
levi9909
June 4, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Just as matter of intrest do you have any words left for any other Master War Criminals’? Let’t begin with a few cases, like Rwanda, or Sudan.
You will find it very hard, FYI, to find any defence, anywhere on this Blog of the State of Israel. Indeed the word, “impossible” springs to mind.
Andrew Coates
June 6, 2012 at 11:59 am
“Don’t be shy now”: Gert, I’m beginning to tire of this foolishness. “Jewish characteristics”: how do you think the antisemites in Marseilles yesterday, identified their victims? Or how BNP/EDL racist thiugs identify their black and Asian victims? Are they using “racist goggles” that show up physical characteristics that the rest of us cannot see?
Is being “anti-racist” dependent upon not seeing those physical characteristics, as opposed to stating that they are of no consequence?
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 7:10 pm
levi9909: “Keep in mind, I am Jewish ”
That is of no consequence, levi. So was the notorious antisemite Tony Cliff.
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Jim you are being asked what are “obviously Jewish features”. You have said that Howard Jacobson’s features are so “obviously Jewish” that only antisemitism can explain Ben White’s motive for suggesting a picture of HJ looking particularly smug and self-satisfied could be used as an argument for what HJ was arguing against, ie BDS.
But actually, as you know but have decided to unknow, a lot of racism has nothing to do with appearance and more to do with culture, religious heritage, language, etc. A guy was beaten up in Kiev recently. He was a yeshiva student but not dressed like one. Some said he was wearing a kippah at the time but one wasn’t found when he was found. There’s a picture of him here – http://forward.com/articles/157135/was-kiev-beating-anti-semitic-act/?p=3
Of course the motive might not have been antisemitism at all but if it was it could have occurred because of where he had been, a conversation he had had, what he was wearing, anything. Have a look at the pic and tell us what would have marked him out as a Jew with regard to “obviously Jewish features”.
Oh, and typically, you quoted me out of context. I said “I am Jewish so tell me which features you would expect to see on my face that mark me out from the rest of humanity.” But since you’ve thrown another Jews into the mix, what are the “obviously Jewish features” shared by Howard Jacobson, Tony Cliff, the guy in the Forward article and me which we do not share with the rest of humanity?
Go on geezer. We know your racial theory. We want to know how you put your racial cognitive skills into practice.
levi9909
June 4, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Which is of course equally true of the other ‘races’ Jim brought up. But if the racists are in doubts about ‘racial traits’, they can always come and ask Jim, he knows. He’s just a bit stingy when it comes to sharing his knowledge!
Gert
June 4, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Ah! It’s now that Howard Jacobsen looks “:particularly smug and self-satisfied,” not that he looks Jewish. The nazis (or, rather, their apologists) would be proud of you, leve9909.
Gert: “A lot of racism has nothing to do with appearance and more to do with culture, religious heritage, language, etc.” and I agree.
Which has no bearing whatsoever upon the fact that some racism *is* to do with appearances. I repaet my question to gert: how do you think racist attackers select their victims?
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 8:20 pm
He looks like me, that fellow Goncharov and I’m a ‘True Blood Flem’. Thoroughly confusing, ‘racial theory’!
Gert
June 4, 2012 at 8:23 pm
‘It’s now that Howard Jacobsen looks “:particularly smug and self-satisfied,” not that he looks Jewish.’
I think the former was the first thought of everyone who didn’t want to launch a witch-hunt based on the premise that it was obvious that the second was the case. Did you not even pause to consider that possibility. Did Coatesy? I’d say next time engage your brain before typing, but I don’t think it will do any good,
So back to the “Jewish characteristics”, you claim Mr. Jacobsen (the smug fucker at the top of the thread) possesses. What are they, exactly? [Exactly means in detail, specifics,man, what are the specifics?]
skidmarx
June 4, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Skidiot: we all know that you are a fucking idiot and an antisemite: please don’t force us to explain why. It’s ust too distasteful.
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Oh dear Jim, it is you who is claiming that Jacobson has “obviously Jewish features”. You are now saying that a look of smug self-satisfaction is a singularly Jewish trait. Is Richard Branson Jewish? Unless he converted (as anyone can) then I am fairly certain that he is not Jewish. Private Eye said that he looked so smug that people around him were in danger of “secondary smirking”. What I am saying here, which is another thing you must know but have decided to unknow, is that anyone from any ethnic, religious or cultural background can look smug and self-satisfied it’s just that Jacobson manages to do it in a pic forming part of a campaign against BDS.
My instinct is to say “stop digging Jim” but I really do want you to answer the question that you keep on dodging.
Now, you have indicated that racism can only ever be based on appearance but in particular you seem to think that disparaging a Jewish celeb’s photo can only be motivated by antisemitism. You really need to explain this and so far you have deliberately failed to do so. I believe it is because you can’t do it and I believe that is because, a) the only people who claim that Jews have “obviously Jewish features” are racists and b) Jews come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. I further suspect that something about your commitment to zionism makes it pain you to admit that Jews come from many and varied ethnic backgrounds but that’s another story.
Anyway, without projecting your own racism and faux pas onto others, could you now please tell us what it is that enables you to spot a Jew just by looking at their face? That is, what is it about Howard Jacobson’s face that you have claimed amount to “obviously Jewish features”?
levi9909
June 4, 2012 at 9:00 pm
‘Jim Nice But Dim’ continues spreading his wisdom:
‘We’ all ‘know’ that, Shiraz (go easy on it for a bit, Lambrini’s more your style, I think)? Is this another of these ‘self-evident’ things you claim to ‘know’? Cause I don’t see it.
Still, it’s those ‘Jewish characteristics’ we’re [cough!] discussing here, so please indulge. What would be the traits that would anti-Semites cause to attack a Jewish person? C’mon Jim.
Gert
June 4, 2012 at 9:00 pm
levee: “You are now saying that a look of smug self-satisfaction is a singularly Jewish trait”: oh yer? Where exactly do I say that, levee, you liar?
Oh dear, my good fellow: you aare now reduced to misrepresenting thjose who disgaree with you..
As for the increasingly ridiculous “gert, who asks, “What would be the traits that would anti-Semites cause to attack a Jewish person? C’mon Jim.”…
…I reply: looking like a Jew. That seems to be good enough for antisemitic attackers. Why are you not sure?
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 9:07 pm
“Ah! It’s now that Howard Jacobsen looks “:particularly smug and self-satisfied,” not that he looks Jewish. The nazis (or, rather, their apologists) would be proud of you, leve9909.”
A fool’s errand asking you to explain what you said, I know, but with that statement you appear to be saying that a “smug and self-satisfied” look amounts to a Jewish look. I can’t think what else you can be saying.
But I did ask you to stop projecting your racism and faux pas onto others. Pointless to ask you to refrain from projecting your dishonesty too.
Now, where were we before you decided that racial theorising, being abusive and lying were a better idea than answering the question that you have been asked? Just to run it by you again, what are the characteristics of Howard Jacobson’s face that amount to “obviously Jewish features”?
You don’t have to give an immediate response, It will only be more bullshit and I can tell by your typos and your insane logic that you’re either drunk or pretending to be so that you can deny all this in the morning so shall we call it a day now?
Have a fried breakfast and take two paracetamol in the morning and think up an answer or apologise for the smears tomorrow afternoon. Fair?
levi9909
June 4, 2012 at 9:21 pm
So, people like you, who know what “obviously Jewish features” are?
Please don’t forward to Kippahs and other cultural signifiers, we weren’t talking about these.
Gert
June 4, 2012 at 9:40 pm
levee, let me run it by you once more (and I can assure you, typos or not, that I have no intention of letting this go): the picture of Jacobson is very obviously that of a Jew; White’s comment was about his appearance, not his views. It was clearly a racist coment. You have attempted to defend that racist comment. Therefore you, yourself are a defender of racism and an antisemitism (regardless of whether you happen to beJewish).
I will “have a fried breakfast and take two paracetamol in the morning”: you’ll still be an antisemite and a racist.
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 9:52 pm
“We all know that you are a fucking idiot and an antisemite: please don’t force us to explain why.”
I think we all know that you can’t explain why, because you have no evidence to support your contention, because the last time I asked you to what evidence you had you squirmed like a weasel and then asked me to provide some evidence to substantiate you claim.
but this is about you, not me, and your anthropometry . When you speak of:
“someone with very obviously Jewish features”
what are those features?
When you ask:
“how do you think the antisemites in Marseilles yesterday, identified their victims?”
how do you think they identified them?
When you ask:
“Are they using “racist goggles” that show up physical characteristics that the rest of us cannot see?”
What are those physical characteristics?
When you ask:
“Is being “anti-racist” dependent upon not seeing those physical characteristics”?
What are those physical characteristics?
All of your questions seem to have been asked rhetorically, so you should already know the answers to them and thus the answers to mine. Out with it, what are the physical characteristics by which you measure race?
skidmarx
June 4, 2012 at 9:57 pm
White Jewish Israeli man adds to the confusion. But knows where his ‘racial’ loyalties are… attaboy!
Gert
June 4, 2012 at 9:58 pm
An idiot asks: “what are the physical characteristics by which you measure race?”
I reply, those by which people suffer discrimination and are attacked.
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Look at the ’Jewish traits’ on this one! Pfwoar! (Sun reader: “boy I’d luv to slip ‘er one!”)
Pity about the racist claptrap she comes up with. Another MK from the Zionist Entity.
Gert
June 4, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Gert:”the Zionist Entity,” do you mean Israel?
Why call that nation “the Zionist Entity”? Can you not bring yourself to mention its name?
The more I dig, the worse it gets, as far as evidence of underlying antisemitism goes…
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Jim, you started “letting this go” as soon as you were asked to clarify your racial theory about “obviously Jewish features”.
And paraphrasing Churchill isn’t the smartest of moves when you’re trying (and failing) to fend off allegations of racial theorising about Jews and their features, albeit to smear an Israel critic as an antisemite.
“The picture of Jacobson is very obviously that of a Jew” because Jacobson is known to be Jewish. But even people who have never seen Jacobson know that he’s Jewish. It’s in his name, it’s in his writing. It’s not, for most of us, because he has “obviously Jewish features”. So why don’t you explain to us what these features are? I don’t understand that bit. You’ve said lots of other stuff but you simply refuse to explain what you mean.
by “obviously Jewish features”.
This wasn’t Andrew Coates’s explanation. He said that the photo of Jacobson reminded him of a photo of himself and a nazi German movie caricaturing and stereotyping Jews. Ok, they were mutually exclusive explanations but they still didn’t invoke “obviously Jewish features”. Is “Coatesy” antisemitic too or was he lining up the “obviously Jewish features” for his third, fourth or fifth explanation of his allegation?
Also, the perceptive chap who pointed out to “Coatesy” that he’s just not funny, said that Ben White’s tweet was “very possibly” antisemitic because it “defames a leading Jewish author”. Utter tosh but still not about “obviously Jewish features”. Is he antisemitic for not seeing “obviously Jewish features”? I suggest that you have to be an antisemite, a zionist or at least some kind of racist to claim that there are such features.
Now I’m guessing that the guest has moved on but presumably “Coatesy” is still around. What’s his take, I wonder, on these “obviously Jewish features”? Who knows Jim? You might have given him another excuse for trivialising allegations of antisemitism.
So, are you there Coatesy? What’s your take on “obviously Jewish features”?
levi9909
June 4, 2012 at 10:45 pm
1/ “The picture of Jacobson is very obviously that of a Jew” because Jacobson is known to be Jewish”: no, it’s because it conforms to all the usual stereotypes of what a Jew looks like.
2/ “This wasn’t Andrew Coates’s explanation”: no, it’s mine. Coates can speak for himself.
3/ “I suggest that you have to be an antisemite, a zionist or at least some kind of racist to claim that there are such features”: I suggest you have to be an idiot to suggest there are not. And to deny that White’s reference to them was claerly antisemitic.
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 11:18 pm
1.What stereotypes? List “the usual stereotypes of what a Jew looks like” and then tick the boxes for how many of them Jacobson fits. I don’t think I have ever had a discussion with anyone who thinks a real live Jewish guy resembles a stereotypical Jewish guy in terms of looks.
2. You are deliberately missing the point about what I said about Andrew Coates’s explanation. You have accused me of antisemitism because I do not share your take on the photo of Howard Jacobson. I asked you if you think Andrew Coates is antisemitic because he doesn’t appear to share your take either. Another question you have dodged. I also indicated that I know he can speak for himself because I addressed him at the end of my comment. So you managed a double bullshit on that one. Well done, Jim!
3. White did not make any reference to any “obviously Jewish features”. , You did and no one else did. And yet you still haven’t explained what these, ahem, “features” are. So go on Jim, you’re big on telling me what I should think on account of being Jewish. Now tell me what I look like.
levi9909
June 4, 2012 at 11:43 pm
1/ “1.What stereotypes? List “the usual stereotypes of what a Jew looks like” and then tick the boxes for how many of them Jacobson fits. I don’t think I have ever had a discussion with anyone who thinks a real live Jewish guy resembles a stereotypical Jewish guy in terms of looks”:
you’ve never met a nazi or a screaming anti-Israeli nutter of the sort that infest the PSC, then?
2/ Doh: I’ve simply no idea what you’re on about here. Sorry.
3/ ” White did not make any reference to any “obviously Jewish features”.”Agreed. He refered to his face, and provided a photo. And your point is?
Jim Denham
June 4, 2012 at 11:51 pm
1.” you’ve never met a nazi or a screaming anti-Israeli nutter of the sort that infest the PSC, then?” Maybe I have met such people but you are the only person who I have had a discussion with who claims that a real live person resembles a racist stereotype of that person’s community.
2. “I’ve simply no idea what you’re on about here” Then you have no idea of what you are talking about. You said I must be racist because I don’t share your view of Ben White’s tweet, I pointed out that Andrew Coates doesn;t appear to share your view either and asked if that makes him antisemitic. You told me that Andrew Coates can speak for himself and I pointed out that you should know I know this because I addressed him at the end of the comment before my last one. And I don’t think your apology or anything else you say is sincere.
3. Ben White referred to Howard Jacobson’s face but the only person I know of who says a face has “obviously Jewish features” is you Jim. My point is that you are an antisemitic zionist projecting your racist worldview onto an innocent anti-racist campaigner.
You’re deliberately trolling now Jim so I’m turning in.
I’m sure I can expect more racism, more insults and more lies from you (in a word, well two, more trollng) but what I would really like to see when I return to this is an honest attempt by you to tell us what it is that amounts to “obviously Jewish features” on a person’s face. If you can’t do it, then just say that you can;t justify what you said.
levi9909
June 5, 2012 at 12:12 am
1/ “you are the only person who I have had a discussion with who claims that a real live person resembles a racist stereotype of that person’s community”: eh, I don’t understand your piont, levi: please try to express yourself more clearly in future. Then I’ll answer.
2/ My reply stands, as before.
3/ “but the only person I know of who says a face has “obviously Jewish features” is you Jim”: you don’t get out much (or read much) then, do you?
but the only person I know of who says a face has “obviously Jewish features” is you Jim.
Jim Denham
June 5, 2012 at 12:31 am
Oh, and this, levi: “but what I would really like to see when I return to this is an honest attempt by you to tell us what it is that amounts to “obviously Jewish features” on a person’s face”
Let’s put it this way, for the hard of thinking. Imagine a poster or leaflet from a right-wing republican, attacking Obama. imagine that poster or leaflet carried an image of, say, Jessie Jackson, together with the statement: “if you want a reason to vote against Obama, look at this guy’s face”.
Would that be racist? yesw or no?
Jim Denham
June 5, 2012 at 12:35 am
“express yourself more clearly in future. Then I’ll answer.”
No you won’t. Nite nite Jim.
levi9909
June 5, 2012 at 12:37 am
Fuck off you pathetic apologist for antisemiism.
Jim Denham
June 5, 2012 at 12:45 am
woops, I didn’t see that last ludicrous comment.
” imagine that poster or leaflet carried an image of, say, Jessie Jackson, together with the statement: “if you want a reason to vote against Obama, look at this guy’s face”.
Would that be racist? yesw or no?”
It would depend on the expression on the face taken together with any text accompanying the picture. Also, Jess Jackson’s face is black. In comparison to that I would say that the main feature of Jacobson;s face is that he is white. But according to you his face is Jewish, stereotypically Jewish, indeed a face that has “obviously Jewish features”. It’s those features you have been asked to detail. You have so far failed to do so in spite of many requests and in spite of me having the decency (sheesh decency?!) to answer your questions.
So go on Jim, you’ve got the whole night to dream up an answer not that you will..
levi9909
June 5, 2012 at 12:51 am
Oh we crossed again but didn’t I say you wouldn’t answer? And I was right, you won’t answer. I am not an apologist for antisemitism but even if I was, you are not simply an apologist for racism, you are a racist, a hard core racist of the 19th century pseudo scientific variety. Fuck off is just about all you have got.
Again I say, you won’t be answering any questions so nite nite Jim.
levi9909
June 5, 2012 at 12:56 am
I don’t answer questions from apologists for antisemitism and helpers of the far-right like you, levee.
Jim Denham
June 5, 2012 at 1:05 am
The idiot levee writes: “the main feature of Jacobson;s face is that he is white”: I don’t think so, but even if that were true m(and I accept that to some degree iut’s a matter of perception), is levee trying to argue that there can be no racism towards “white” people? Tell that to the travellers.
Jim Denham
June 5, 2012 at 1:09 am
Glad you recognise that my answering your questions amounts to answering “questions from apologists for antisemitism and helpers of the far-right”. But you said “please try to express yourself more clearly in future. Then I’ll answer.” Now you are saying you won’t answer which, of course, is what I said. You won’t answer. We could have saved a bit of time if you were that half honest in the first place.
levi9909
June 5, 2012 at 1:13 am
I didn’t say that there can be no racism towards white people but you said replicating a picture of Howard Jacobson was antisemitic on account of his “obviously Jewish features”. His white feature is that he is white. What’s his Jewish feature?
levi9909
June 5, 2012 at 1:15 am
What’s his Jewish feature?
Use your eyes. racists like you and your antisemitic friends are good at that. Mr White certainly is.
Jim Denham
June 5, 2012 at 1:16 am
Levee, if you really need things spelled out (and I don’t believe you’re really as stupid as you make out), have a look at these antisemitic cartoons:
http://elegance4life.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/anti-semitic-cartoons-from-middle-east.html
Jim Denham
June 5, 2012 at 1:23 am
It’s you that alluded to Jacobson’s “obviously Jewish features”. Ben White didn;t mention them at all. So it;s really for you to explain what you meant but since you have now reneged on your claim that you would answer a clear expression, is there any point to further discussion?
The assertion by you is that Howard Jacobson has “obviously Jewish features”. You’ve been asked to point out what those features are and you have raised several other issues but dodged the main issue that you raised. It seems obvious to anyone now that you simply want the last word with not too much regard for what that word is so go ahead, Be merciful and say your last word.
levi9909
June 5, 2012 at 1:24 am
I’m not wasting my time looking at cartoons. Howard Jacobson is not a cartoon, he is a real person. Why don’t you link to one antisemitic cartoon and tell ussee how it resembles Howard Jacobson. It still won’t make any difference to Ben White’s intention but do it all the same. It will be your first attempt in goodness knows how many comments to answer a straightforward question which was put to you many hours ago now.
levi9909
June 5, 2012 at 1:27 am
“It’s you that alluded to Jacobson’s “obviously Jewish features”. Ben White didn;t mention them at all”: no he didn’t, did he. He just posted a bloody great picture.
Have a look at those antisemitic cartoons, levee. then do something new. Think.
It’s not that i demand the last word. i just want truth, honesty and respect for the facts to out, against slimy liars and apologists for racism, like you.
Jim Denham
June 5, 2012 at 1:27 am
Levee: “I’m not wasting my time looking at cartoons.”
he may as well have said, “Don’t bother me with so-called evidence.”
Ignorance really is bliss for these apologists for antisemitism, isn’t it?
Jim Denham
June 5, 2012 at 1:57 am
Ok, I looked at your stupid cartoons.
“So-called evidence”? It isn’t evidence of any kind. Some of the pictures aren’t of people at all, most of the ones of people appear to be of Ariel Sharon who in real life or cartoon form looks nothing like Howard Jacobson and some show people in Jewish garb which Jacobson doesn’t wear. The thing is caricatures aren’t the same as true depictions anyway whereas the picture of Howard Jacobson is a true representation which you have decided is the same as a caricature because you appear to be saying that “obviously Jewish features” on a photo of a person are just like a caricature. This might be the case with some people but what is it about Howard Jacobson’s face that amounts to “obviously Jewish features” or the features of a racist caricature? You said you would answer if I expressed myself clearly. I couldn’t be more clear but I did say you wouldn’t answer and you didn’t and you won’t.
The last thing you want is “truth, honesty and respect for the facts”. You claim I am a racist on the basis of defending Ben White and yet it is you who suggests there are such things on a person’s face as “obviously Jewish features” without saying what those features are. You also support colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and segregationist laws. There is evidence of your racism in this thread and throughout your whole Shiraz soaked blog. Your evidence for my racism is my support for someone whose racism you have miserably failed to establish.
Paraphrasing Winston Churchill you said I would still be a racist in the morning and you have called me a liar. Actually, apart from a brief flirtation with zionism as a youngster I have never been a racist and I never lie in political debate. You have been a racist ever since I first became aware of you (though never as explicitly as on this thread) and you are always lying to defend your indefensible position.
So go on Jim, keep digging but keep in mind that assertion is not argument and barking is not thinking.
levi9909
June 5, 2012 at 9:03 am
don’t know much about this Harold Jacobson guy but I would note that Jim Denham recently commented on Dave Osler’s blog that Tony Cliff was an “obvious Jew” who “traded on his Jewishness”. Weird scenes inside the Matgamnaite goldmine.
colonel blink
June 5, 2012 at 9:27 am
Jim Nice But Very Dim:
Jimboy, try a little logic: name me one Far Right European party that hasn’t traded in its antisemitism for Islamophobia and doesn’t support the Zionist Entity? (There is one but you won’t know that)
Here are the members of the ZE’s Knesset on the refugee kerfuffle. No wonder Marine Le Pen gets damp knickers thinking about Israel!
Never before has an ideology given license to so many to call others ‘antisemitic’. You’re a useless idiot, lambrinisocialist.
Gert
June 5, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Now levi, you’re not even making sense: “Some of the pictures aren’t of people at all, most of the ones of people appear to be of Ariel Sharon who in real life or cartoon form looks nothing like Howard Jacobson and some show people in Jewish garb which Jacobson doesn’t wear. The thing is caricatures aren’t the same as true depictions anyway whereas the picture of Howard Jacobson is a true representation which you have decided is the same as a caricature…” etc etc
My point, I repaet, id very simple. The piuctutre of Howard Jaconson is pretty obvioulsy that of a Jewish person, even if you don’t know who Jacobson is. The comment b”look at his face” as the bassis for a political conclusion can only be racist. If you don’t understand that, you are simply beyond hope.
Jim Denham
June 5, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Gert, check out recent comments by Nick Griffin on “Zionism.” They’re widely reported on the web. You ignoramous.
Jim Denham
June 5, 2012 at 4:15 pm
What??? If you don’t know who the man in the picture is, how is one to conclude he’s Jewish, Jim?? By the faux-science of craniometry, perhaps? By comparing it to Nazi caricatures? Is that what you use, Jimboy?
Leave the fermented grape juice alone for a bit, Jim. ‘Too much of a good thing’ and all that…
Gert
June 5, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Did he or did he not very publicly come out in support of Cast Lead, Jim? What about the offshoot, the EDL? Proudly waving Israeli flags next to Union Jacks and St Georges? What about every other European Far Right anti-immigration wingnut party, Jim? What about some of their leaders proudly having their pictures taken in Yad Vashem, Jim? Anders Breivik, anyone?
Gert
June 5, 2012 at 4:27 pm
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/yad-vashem-top-tourist-attraction-for.html
Watch the vid, Jim: very instructive…
Gert
June 5, 2012 at 4:29 pm
For Griffin some Zionists just aren’t racist and Far Right enough. For the moment that’s about the extent of Griffin’s ‘criticism of Zionism’.
Gert
June 5, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Jim, whatever new and bogus point you have flipped over to, the point of your linking to the cartoons was to firm up on your biological racist assertion that Howard Jacobson has “obviously Jewish features”.
——–
Me – I didn’t say that there can be no racism towards white people but you said replicating a picture of Howard Jacobson was antisemitic on account of his “obviously Jewish features”. His white feature is that he is white. What’s his Jewish feature?
You – What’s his Jewish feature?
Use your eyes. racists like you and your antisemitic friends are good at that. Mr White certainly is.
You immediately after that – Levee, if you really need things spelled out (and I don’t believe you’re really as stupid as you make out), have a look at these antisemitic cartoons:
http://elegance4life.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/anti-semitic-cartoons-from-middle-east.html
———-
You were clearly trying to say that the cartoons demonstrate something that a genuine picture of Howard Jacobson demonstrates, ie, “obviously Jewish features” but what you haven’t said is what these “obviously Jewish features” are.
You have falsely claimed that others misrepresent you but you misrepresent yourself. You are a bare faced liar quite simply because you cannot make a case for your racist politics. You have demonstrated clearly the very close relationship between zionism and antisemitism and the fact that neither can be justified by honest argument.
levi9909
June 5, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Jim, I suggest you go and expand on your ‘racial theory’ at Atzie’s deliberation cesspit: locals like Eisen et al might find your stuff ‘interesting’, at a minimum!
Gert
June 5, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Gert: you are clearly a far-right Israel-hater and antisemite. Levee is simply a dishonest shyster. I repeat what I’ve said before, and stand by:
So you, levi999 think there is no such thing as “obviously Jewish features”. I presume there are also no obviously Afro Caribbean features or obviously South Asian features or obviously Native American features…
How, exactly, is this “ludicrous nonsense”? It would be, of course, if I only drew attention to someone’s racial appearance in order to denigrate him. Oh yes: that’s exactly what Mr White did, isn’t it?
Jim Denham
June 6, 2012 at 12:02 am
Jim, stop asking bogus rhetorical questions and answer a real one, what are “obviously Jewish features”? That is, those features in his face which Howard Jacobson shares with other members of that multifarious ethno-religious tapestry that is the Jewish community.
Just answer that and we’re done.
levi9909
June 6, 2012 at 12:18 am
“Just answer that and we’re done”: use your eyes, and your common sense. Then stop lying.
Jim Denham
June 6, 2012 at 12:22 am
I’ve used my eyes and I haven’t lied.Tthere. I’ve complied with your request. Now you answer the question, what is it about Howard Jacobson’s face that amounts to “obviously Jewish features”?
levi9909
June 6, 2012 at 12:33 am
Howard Jacobson doesn’t really look much like Tony Cliff, yet for Denham they are both “obviously Jewish”. Perhaps he could explain that also, or maybe give a list of other people he thinks look obviously Jewish so we can work towards an identikit picture. Incidentally, Jimbo, this anti-Semite Ben White was given a guest commentary on Juan Cole’s blog the other day, so you have yet another name on your hitlist!
colonel blink
June 6, 2012 at 6:42 am
My thoughts precisely. Just a sample of 10 Jewish faces should give Jim hours or anthropometric fun. The world will then finally know what a Jew really looks like, thanks to Jim Nice But Dim. Next stop for Jim: ‘Arabs’! The possibilities are endless!
Gert
June 6, 2012 at 2:41 pm
You know this kind of Blog ‘debate’ reminds me I practically never post on anything to with Israel.
Andrew Coates
June 6, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Maybe you shouldn’t post “This is real anti-Semitism” when it’s a lie. And I think you owe Ben White an apology.
skidmarx
June 6, 2012 at 5:59 pm
“You know this kind of Blog ‘debate’ reminds me I practically never post on anything to with Israel”
On your own logic, you presumably posted it because you thought Ben White’s outrageous anti-Semitism was worse than anything happening in Rwanda or Sudan. Although if that was the case it would be hard to see why you have struggled so much in defining the nature of this anti-Semitism.
colonel blink
June 6, 2012 at 8:50 pm
In fact I have posted – in the past – quite a bit on Central Africa: about ten times more than on Israel.
Andrew Coates
June 7, 2012 at 1:54 pm
I don’t understand the introduction of Rwanda and Sudan to this but re: “You know this kind of Blog ‘debate’ reminds me [why] I practically never post on anything to [do] with Israel”, the post wasn’t about Israel. It was ostensibly about antisemitism and tagged with “Anti-Fascism, Fascism, Racism”. You’ve now offered a range of mutually exclusive “explanations” of what was antisemitic about Ben White’s tweet and said it was others who have problems, you’ve sat it out while one of your comrades invoked “obviously Jewish features” and now you’ve managed to conflate the State of Israel with Jews in general – assuming antisemitism is to do with Jews in general.
Even your comment about never defending Israel appears to be contradicted by your notion that this was a post about Israel when it was a smear of an Israel critic which of course is the main way of defending Israel in a blog.
You can hardly complain about the standard of debate when the dog whistle post was so out of order and your follow up comments were no better.
levi9909
June 7, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Ben Whiteæs may have been a silly comment but it was hardly anti+Semitic. I can tell you for a fact that Ben was one of our allies in the fight against Atzmon. Do not ever label as anti+Semites those who are not, it merely demeans the term. And if anti+Semitism is wrong then how much more so today the constant destruction of Palestinian villages to make way for Jewish settlements via the tried and trusted method of military closed zones.
Wake up Andrew. Anti-semitism was wrong. Anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism is even more wrong given teh powerful effect it has today. You know I condemned and pursued to the ends of the earth Atzmon and Shamir. How can u not say anything about people like Pastor John Hagee, of Christians United for Israel who believes Hitler was godæs messenger to drive the jews to Israel? Or the welcome given to the Lithuanian Foreign Minister by Liebermann? This man who is rehabilitating the pro-nazi puppet Lithuanian PM of 1941? You know how many Jews were murdered because of these fascists. The Baltic countries were the worst. Virtually no one survived in Estonia. Perhaps 5% in Latvia (German Jews were shot en masse on arrival at Riga). Racism changes and today those who damned the Jews praise the Zionissts.
Jacobson is a wretched racist fool. Ben White is a paragon of virtue by comparison. Donæt be afraid of condemning your own supporters, if you have to support them. I led the charge on those who would laud Alex Cockburn. Have the same courage. I know u r otherwise a good socialist and part of the movement to resist workfare and the rest. Donæt succumb to reaction in any shape or form.
tonyg666
August 1, 2012 at 11:31 am