Earlier today, the unctuous Ben White attempted to leave a comment on Jonathan Hoffman’s piece below. Now, as some of the anti-Zionist nonsense underneath Jonathan’s piece attests, we try to allow a range of comments on this blog. But Ben White? No. While you’ve got to grin at his sheer chutzpah, White needs to understand that the ban on Jonathan Hoffman attending the launch of his ridiculous excuse for a book means that he is, as a direct consequence, not welcome here.
Subscribe to the Z Word blog via RSS - click on the orange button below. For more information on using RSS, please read this helpful guide.
RSS
- Cautious Optimism on Israeli-Palestinian Talks
- Argentine Jews: Someone’s Keeping An Eye On You
- Tell The Iranian Regime: Release Shiva Nazar Ahari
- Last Word on Tony Judt
- Tuvia Grossman, 10 Years On
- Direct Talks Between Israel and the Palestinians: Looking Ahead
- Northern Ireland: Refutation Number 4539
- Sudan’s Nuclear Ambitions
- Foreign Illusions About Turkey And The AKP
- Abbas and the Art of Indecision
It is chutzpah but I still think you should allow it. His decision to ban Mr Hoffman was clearly appalling; I do not think it does any good to do the same to him here.
Clearly a case of one rule for the Ben Whites of the world, another for the rest of us.
What an awful colonial mindset White has!
I agree with Alex: take the moral high ground, allow Ben the opportunity to respond, and shred his response to pieces.
It’s a joke: Ben White had Jonathan Hoffman banned, and he doesn’t allow comments on his own blog — but he wants to respond! And of course, he has already gone to HP and posted his response there — truly pathetic!
Alex and James, much as I respect the both of you, I’m sticking to my position. When White apologizes to Jonathan for colluding in this disgraceful antisemitic ban, he can comment here again.
Someone called “Jon” - evidently a person with a low ability to comprehend written English, has tried to leave a comment with a link to White’s response to Jonathan Hoffman.
There will be no reply, comment, link to other sites or anything else here from White unless he complies with Ben’s condition set out above.
Before some twit starts wailing about free speech and censorship let me remind readers that White has an infinity of spaces on the internet where he can put forward his views. This blog is under no obligation to provide him with another.
Not wailing. I just didn’t realise my comments were banned too.
Also, I don’t think I was offensive in my previous post so why would you say:
“Someone called “Jon” - evidently a person with a low ability to comprehend written English, has tried to leave a comment with a link to White’s response to Jonathan Hoffman.”
Please be civil.
Just visited Ben White’s blog. Comments are closed for all threads.
Ben White’s complaining at Mondoweiss about not being allowed ‘a platform’ at AJC. So how about Ben White turning off all comments from his blog altogether, thus refusing everyone a platform?
“When White apologizes to Jonathan for colluding in this disgraceful antisemitic ban”
Are you going to provide any evidence for this slur? I know random smears are so much easier than reasoned, fact-based allegations, but they’re also far less persuasive, and generally say more about the person making the charge than its intended target.
War on Want says Hoffman was banned, according to White without his knowledge, because of his record of disruptive behaviour. Where’s your evidence that both War on Want and Ben White are lying and that actually Hoffman was banned because he is Jewish and that White “collud[ed]” with the ban?
@Jamie SW
See my piece today on Z-Word “More Damn Lies About Israeli “Apartheid”.
Banning someone from protesting about antisemitic discourse is itself an antisemitic act. Just as the ‘Livingstone Manoeuvre’ is an antisemitic act, because it denigrates the process of identification of antisemitism.
It isn’t hard to see, surely
It’s not chutzpa, it’s simply an example of the narcissistic personality writ large. White obviously believes that mores of appropriate behaviour on blogs don’t apply to him.
Bravo for giving him a lesson in the consequences of his actions.
Alex Stein, on the contrary, this rot has to stop somewhere and it’s about time someone stood up for a sense of responsibility. White deliberately incites hatred against Jews. Why on earth should he be able to do so without let or hindrance and why particularly should he be afforded privileges that he is instrumental in depriving others of?
Uh huh. Needless to say the evidence you’ve adduced to support the claim that White’s talk propagated an “antisemitic discourse” is as convincing as the evidence Cohen presented for his equally spurious smear.
“Banning someone from protesting about antisemitic discourse is itself an antisemitic act.”
So in other words, any attempt by War on Want to ban any critic of White from the talk would have automatically been “antisemitic”, regardless of its motives and regardless of the ethnicity of the person who was banned. And some people wonder why that term has lost so much of its force.
btw, “Livingstone Manoeuvre”? Worst. Forced Meme. Ever.
“It’s not chutzpa, it’s simply an example of the narcissistic personality writ large.”
Sure. It has nothing to do with a desire, shared by almost every author who feels they have received an unfair review, to correct the record. No, that’s far too simple. Instead let’s ascribe it to “the narcissistic personality writ large”, because why not, eh?
“White deliberately incites hatred against Jews.”
Another smear absent any accompanying evidence. Quite a theme here, I gather.
Jamie
You can read about the Livingstone Formulation at http://www.z-word.com/on-zionism/antisemitism-and-anti-zionism/anti-zionism-and-antisemitism%253A-decoding-the-relationship.html?page=2 - recommend you do so.
White is quite happy to limit the freedom of speech of others, when it suits him but complains when other blogs don’t agree to push his ill informed and biased opinions.
That’s called hypocrisy.
James: I’ve read about the ‘Livingstone Formulation’, thanks. That’s why I was able to offer a judgement about it.
Ben White set up a group for his book on Facebook. Somebody left a comment on it (a commenter on HP) linking to Hoffman’s piece. Next thing it had been deleted , he had been thrown out of the group and the group had been changed to a closed group.
You couldn’t make it up.
White will often delete a critical comment from his own blog, the Facebook group supporting this awful book does not allow comments, etc.
A bit of a pattern there?
Like I said modernity, when I visited his blog, you couldn’t comment on ANY of the posts.
JamieSW
Calling Israel a racist state is antisemitic. ‘Apartheid’ is racist. That is why White’s book (see the title) and talk are antisemitic. See EUMC Definition of Antisemitism - the most widely used definition in the world.
Jamie
Since you’ve read about the LF, can we then please have your evidence and justification for calling it ‘Worst Forced Meme’ ever?
Jamie
I don’t know what goes on inside Ben White’s head. Whether he ‘deliberately’ incites hatred against Jews only he can know.
What I do know is that when he says he ‘understands’ why some people are antisemitic - however much he tries to qualify that statement - most Jewish people will find that offensive. Substitute the word ‘antisemitic’ with ‘anti-black’, ‘Islamophobic’, ‘paedophile’ or ‘homophobic’ and I think you’ll get the point.
Likewise, when Ben tries to argue that Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial is not in fact antisemitic, most Jewish people would find that hurtful (see http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/one-final-one/).
Does that seem unreasonable to you?
“Calling Israel a racist state is antisemitic. ‘Apartheid’ is racist.”
Let’s not play word games about the meaning of ‘antisemitic’. It’s not synonymous with ‘offensive’ or ‘inaccurate’. It refers quite specifically to the hatred of Jews. I can say that Israel is an apartheid state, and indeed I can make a lengthy argument to that effect, without harbouring even the slightest anti-Jewish prejudice. The same goes for branding Israel a racist state. If you can’t be bothered to address such arguments on their merits that’s fine, but don’t substitute that lack of engagement with cheap smears. It does nothing to persuade people of your point of view and it devalues the term ‘antisemitism’ even more than it has been already.
That the ‘Livingstone Formulation’ is a forced meme is surely beyond dispute. When Hirsh first came up with it all the other Engageniks started pushing it every opportunity they got, even though no-one had a clue what it meant and few people could be bothered to look it up. It’s rubbish because a) it’s such an ungainly, ugly phrase, and b) its use is almost always unjustified, because people are often smeared as anti-Semites solely for criticising the policies of the State of Israel (this thread is a good example). Moreover the idea that complaining about being falsely accused of antisemitism is itself antisemitic is so absurd its almost self-contradictory. As both an analytical tool and a rhetorical device it’s transparently ridiculous. It’s a shit forced meme, in other words, which is probably why it hasn’t caught on.
“What I do know is that when he says he ‘understands’ why some people are antisemitic - however much he tries to qualify that statement - most Jewish people will find that offensive.”
I don’t think you’re in any position to speculate about what “most Jewish people” find offensive, but let’s say you’re right. So what? ‘Offensive’ is not another word for ‘antisemitic’. Have we really reached the point where that needs spelling out? The same goes for his comments re. Ahmadinejad.
Anyway, I’m glad that you’ve acknowledged, albeit without an apology, that your smear against White was unjustified. It’s more than Hoffman and Cohen have done, at least.
Jamie says:
Anyway, I’m glad that you’ve acknowledged, albeit without an apology, that your smear against White was unjustified.
Getting a bit free and easy with your interpretation there, Jamie. So far as I can tell, James has acknowledged nothing of the kind.
It’s more than Hoffman and Cohen have done, at least.
Jamie, make a cup of tea, read a book, go to a movie. Do something to fill the time. Because it’s going to be a very long - I may say endless - wait.
And while you’re doing that, ponder whether there are any other states in the world that could credibly be compared to apartheid South Africa.
Jamie
I didn’t make any smear against White. I hsve however been banned by him from posting comments on (or even belonging to) his Facebook group. Perhaps you can push him to apologize and change his mind?
As someone who is Jewish and who is involved in jewish life, I think I have a fair idea of what most Jewish people would find offensive.
Re LF:
‘its use is almost always unjustified, because people are often smeared as anti-Semites solely for criticising the policies of the State of Israel.’ Again, examples please. Point to specific examples made by David Hirsh, me or anyone else which you consider are unjustified.
BW has not been labelled an antisemite simply for criticising Israeli policies. He has been labelled an antisemite for saying he ‘understands’ antisemitism (again: would you be so keen to defend him if he had said he ‘understands’ any other irrational prejudice?), for trying to contextualise Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust Denial, for promoting a boycott of Israeli (and only Israeli) academics. There’s a difference between all those things and ‘criticising Israeli policies’.
Jamie said:
‘Let’s not play word games about the meaning of ‘antisemitic’. It’s not synonymous with ‘offensive’ or ‘inaccurate’. It refers quite specifically to the hatred of Jews. I can say that Israel is an apartheid state, and indeed I can make a lengthy argument to that effect, without harbouring even the slightest anti-Jewish prejudice. The same goes for branding Israel a racist state. If you can’t be bothered to address such arguments on their merits that’s fine, but don’t substitute that lack of engagement with cheap smears.’
Jonathan has already made detailed arguments, both in his initial review and in his rejoinder to White’s response, against the contention that Israel is an apartheid or racist state. He has also specifically referred you to the EUMC Working Definition, which specifically says ‘Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.’
In other words, he has engaged with the arguments on their merits.
“Getting a bit free and easy with your interpretation there, Jamie. So far as I can tell, James has acknowledged nothing of the kind.”
Really? Cos one minute he’s accusing White of “deliberately [inciting] hatred against Jews” and the next minute he’s acknowledging that “I don’t know what goes on inside Ben White’s head” and that “[w]hether he [i.e. White] ‘deliberately’ incites hatred against Jews only he [i.e. White] can know”.
“Because it’s going to be a very long - I may say endless - wait.”
I’m not waiting for you to do anything. I simply stated a fact: that unlike James you haven’t retracted your smear.
“And while you’re doing that, ponder whether there are any other states in the world that could credibly be compared to apartheid South Africa.”
And why on earth would I want to do that?
James: I really couldn’t care less whether you are able to post on Ben’s Facebook group - its his property, he can do what he likes with it. And even if I did care, I don’t know Ben or have any influence with him.
“Again, examples please.”
Anyone who’s been involved in online debates on this topic for any length of time will have confronted this rhetorical tactic on many occasions. To be sure, it’s usually not referred to as the ‘Livingstone Formulation’, because like I say that’s a rubbish meme that virtually no one uses, but it’s the same principle. I can’t cite you examples now because only a weirdo would save such trifling offenses to a file. But I’m sure you, or anyone who has engaged in debates on this subject, recognises what I’m talking about. If not, I’m happy to agree to disagree.
“There’s a difference between all those things and ‘criticising Israeli policies’.”
There’s also a difference between those things and antisemitism, which, I can only repeat, is not synonymous with ‘offensive’ or ‘wrong’, but refers specifically to hatred of Jews. Interesting that the goalposts have shifted, by the way: I thought we were discussing Ben’s book, his (’antisemitic’) talk and the (’antisemitic’) decision to exclude Hoffman from that talk. Now you bring up other articles he’s written in the past and challenge me to defend them, like some bizarre free-association condemnathon.
Anyway, I think we’ve all made our positions clear and I’m beginning to repeat myself, so I’m going to leave it here.
And why on earth would I want to do that?
Exactly, Jamie - why would you want to do anything, like thinking, that might shatter the vulgar Chomskyite world you apparently live in? What a ridiculous suggestion on my part.
I’m beginning to repeat myself, so I’m going to leave it here.
The only sensible thing Jamie has said during his brief sojourn here. Off you go, then.
Jamie
Mitnaged made the accusation about ‘deliberate’, not me.
Your double standard about Ben W not being allowed to post here, but being free to exclude others from his F/B group, is quite breathtaking.
Stooping to censorship is always a sign of desperation and weakness. The stronger response is always to engage with the other point of view. Banning peoples comments (unless they are profane or deliberately offensive) is just weak, no matter which side you are on.
Why cant Ben White have his say? Are you scared of what he might say and that you might not be able to refute it?
Aaron Dover
JfJfP
Aaron Dover - grow up. The notion that any of us here would be cowed by the arguments of a dimwit like White is laughable. He is not welcome here because of his collusion in the antisemitic ban imposed on Jonathan Hoffman by War on Want - a genuine act of grotesque censorship which you are apparently not concerned by.
Now, why don’t you run along and ask White why he doesn’t allow comments on his blog.
Arron Dover,
“Why cant Ben White have his say?”
He can.
Ben wrote, previously, above: