This is a guest post by Hawkeye.
For those of you that are familiar with the Guardian’s ˜Comment is Free, you’ll know that it has become the meeting place ˜above the line“ of Jewish anti-Zionists of the likes of Anthony Lerman and Richard Silverstein, supporters of the one-state solution such as Ali Abunimah and Khaled Diab, leaders and spokespeople for Hamas such as Khalid Mishaal and Azzam Tamimi and proponents of the ˜Israel is an apartheid state” lie such as Ben White. Only yesterday CiF readers were exposed to the toxic views of CiF regular, Seth Freedman, who incredulously denied the deeply antisemitic nature of the Aftonbladet blood libel article.
“Comment is Free“ is also the meeting place ˜below the line” of viciously antisemitic comment threads fueled by the obsessive anti-Israel screeds that are a permanent fixture of ˜Comment is Free”. Adding insult to injury to those so-called ˜pro-Israel” supporters that bother to post in the comment threads, Guardian moderation regularly deletes posts refuting antisemitic comments on CiF or posts that challenge the orthodoxy of the “Israel is always wrong” crowd.
CiF Watch, a grassroots blog dedicated to monitoring and exposing antisemitism on “Comment is Free” has been launched as a response to the normalization of antisemitic discourse that is fostered on ˜Comment is Free.”
Building upon the Antisemitism on Guardian Comment is Free report authored by Jonathan Hoffman that was submitted to the UK Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism, CiF Watch has assembled a wealth of information exposing antisemitic discourse both ˜above the line“ and ˜below the line” using the widely used EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism as its guiding metric.
On a day-to-day basis, CiF Watch will function as a blog to debunk CiF articles that evince antisemitic sentiment and to provide a platform for discussion of instances of antisemitism at CiF, free from Guardian censorship.
With the support of those concerned with the proliferation and normalization of antisemitic discourse on the internet in mainstream media platforms such as ‘Comment is Free’, we hope to turn the tide against this growing and most troubling phenomenon.
To learn more about CiF Watch, please visit the About Us page at http://cifwatch.com/about/
I wish ‘bon voyage’ to the good ship CIF Watch and all who sail on her
Good luck, Hawkeye. I hope you have a very strong stomach.
A laudable initiative the credibility of which would be augmented if those behind it identified themselves.
“Now let me turn to the Islamic Republic of Iran, from which Press TV gets its funding – I believe it is a fundamentally decent government run by a fundamentally decent man.” — Press TV’s Roshan Muhammed Salih in a CiF post
As long as these kinds of nauseating opinions are peddled at CiF, your work will be valued and celebrated by many — good luck!
Eamonn, I can assure you that the founders of CiFWatch are private individuals with no formal link to any Jewish or Israeli organisation.
As private individuals, it is essential for their survival that they remain anonymous and not subject themselves to the possibility of retaliation either by the Guardian itself or by the anti-Semitic mob which controls politics in many a country.
Do the CiFwatchers live in Iran or North Korea?
Bravo - clearly you are someone who is hiding behind a false email and a false moniker - that is a feeble excuse. You are apparently claiming that “many a country” is run by an antisemitic mob. Some - as Eamonn points out, Iran, I would add Libya and Saudi Arabia as well - are. I am not aware that anyone from CiF Watch lives in any of these countries. I would not claim that the UK, where The Guardian is headquartered, is run by such a mob. Are you?
As for The Guardian “retaliating,” against what? If CiF Watch is simply documenting instances of antisemitism, what recourse to they have?
Ben
Being seen to support Israel can be professional suicide in some places in some professions, the UK included. That is why anonymity is sometimes necessary.
Jonathan - believe me, I know that it can be mentally and emotionally punishing. I spent several years as a BBC journalist after all. But I still don’t think that provides an argument for anonymity - the opponents of the academic boycott at Engage, those working to address media bias at Just Journalism and BICOM, the various columnists and bloggers who combat the vilification of Israel (whether on the left, like Nick Cohen and Norman Geras or on the right, like Melanie Phillips) don’t hide behind assumed identities.
In a society where you don’t face imprisonment or torture for your opinions, that is the correct stance to take. If you are really claiming that a person with an unblemished professional record could lose their job because of their views on Israel, then surely monitoring and exposing such cases is an
urgent priority?
Finally, the phenomena of “watching the watchers” and “critiquing the commentariat” are increasingly widespread. And I think that groups like NGO Monitor understand that to be credible, you can’t leave yourself open to your adversaries to sneer that you don’t have the spine to be open about who you are and why you do what you do.
Ben Cohen,
With every respect, yes it does. My profession requires me to keep my work and my private life (including my political leanings) entirely separate.
That need not mean that I should not be free to involve myself in any public political discussion/venture/whatever for fear that my personal and professional lives might collide.
I want to follow my profession and I also want to make a difference politically. Why should I have to sacrifice the latter at the expense of the former? True, I may not be put into prison for speaking out in my own name, but I stand to lose one hell of a lot otherwise in terms of my career if I were to “out” myself.
That is not being spineless, Ben. It’s being sensible.
PS: Of course I meant “..sacrifice the former at the expense of the latter”
Apols.
Calm down, “Etty” - I didn’t say you were spineless. I said that your adversaries will claim that.
My profession requires me to keep my work and my private life (including my political leanings) entirely separate.
A statement like this begs the question which Eamonn originally asked: are you living in Iran or North Korea? If not, you may be pleasantly surprised to find that your democratic rights are constitutionally or legislatively guaranteed. But whatever, this debate really isn’t going anywhere.
Etty, I agree with you.
I am a BACP-accredited counsellor and earlier in the year we were treated to a diatribe in the organisations journal “Therapy Today” by two people who had been part of a “fact finding” tour to Gaza in the wake of Cast Lead.
The article was, as I said, a diatribe, one-sidedly critical of Israel and churning out all the usual guff with little supporting evidence, and totally lacking in balance or context, and I doubt that the editorship had any idea of the furore their publication of it would cause. I believe that the two people published under their own names.
My point is that even if I had no politics worthy of the name myself, I would not want to choose a person who could write like this as my therapist.
I am not Jewish nor, until I began to take more notice of some of the one-sided rubbish being published in the so-called “quality” press about the Israel/Palestine conflict, was I remotely interested in it.
I am against the Iraq war and was going to a march in London against it, but, thanks to my new-found knowledge (when I found that I would be marching alongside Islamists and similar and therefore associated with them) I gave that a miss.
Now I am interested in the Israel/Palestine conflict, and I know for a fact that we are rarely told the whole truth about it, that no-one side is completely in the wrong, and, more importantly, that people should keep their work and private lives completely separate.
Ben
That’s fine if you have academic tenure or work for an organisation like BICOM or Just Journalism. But not everyone does.
Which would you rather have: someone is an activist under a pseudonym or they are not an activist at all?
Because for many people, that’s the alternative
Jonathan: with the greatest of respect, your argument is nonsense. Those who live in developed and democratic nations have legal options if they feel they have been discriminated against at work for campaigning against racism, which is what I understand the purpose of CiF watch to be.
Does that mean that no one is ever fired for expressing views the boss doesn’t like? Of course not, sometimes they’ll get away with it. But being a grown up means deciding to accept certain (in this case very modest) risks in order to defend just causes that are important to you.
Furthermore, resort to ludicrous pseudonyms only risks bringing contempt and sneering on what is basically a good idea.
By the way, now that we have heard from Etty and Belinda, I can’t wait to read what Gerty and Doris have to say….
Eamonn
You are wrong but I have no intention of breaching confidences
No one says you should. If those concerned can’t bring themselves to sign their names to their views then they aren’t going to contribute much.
“Etty,” your last attempt to comment has been deleted and you are now blocked. When you see “Belinda,” I would be grateful if you could pass on the same message to her. Which presumably you can do by looking in the mirror.
Excuse me, I do not understand the mindset of Eamonn and Cohen.
1. You have used a thread about CifWatch to emit more criticism of CiFWatch than of CiF.
2. You have thus expended energy attacking Israel’s friends rather than enemies (CiF).
3. The result remains sterile, as I assume CiFWatch likely thought seriously about the decision and your criticsm is unlikely to change that - especially if the agreement of a number of people were required to change it.
4. Comments on CiF are themselves anonymous, as they are on many political blogs. So too,frequently enough, are the articles themselves.
5. Virulent anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism do abound in some circles, as does political bias. Even in the freewheeling USA, acdemic leftist ideology has destroyed the career of more than one centre-right academic. Anonymity may at times be a necessity.
I also do not understand the Etty-Belinda issue. The same IP address can occur:
1. If two students post from the same library terminal.
2. If two family members post from the same computer.
3. If DHCP hands out the same IP sequentially to two posters.
4. If two family members share the same home router though two different computers.
5. A few months ago, Novatel placed on the market a small device, called MiFi, which connects to the telecomm using wireless mobile and creates a small local network to which several computers in the same office may connect. This would also result in the same IP.
Eamonn called this a “laudable initiative” and I readily provided Hawkeye with a guest post here - at my own initiative.
Yet according to Bravo, we are attacking CifWatch!
I don’t understand your mindset, which equates any kind of criticism with an offensive act. “For us or against us.” In other words, puerile nonsense.
Ben, of 21 posts on this thread, 18 discuss either the anonymity issue or the Etty-Belinda issue. Worse, your own posts descend to language such as “false moniker,” “feeble excuse,” “puerile”.
You’re not doing your side any good. In fact, you’ve made this thread an “own goal”.
Eamonn
“Those who live in developed and democratic nations have legal options if they feel they have been discriminated against at work for campaigning against racism”
I question whether you live in the real world. Discrimination suits are lengthy, costly, difficult to win, and absorb energy a responsible person would ordinarily use for their job, job, search, or family.
“But being a grown up means deciding to accept certain (in this case very modest) risks in order to defend just causes that are important to you.”
You have just called childish those working hard to defend Israel from the anti-Semitic Guardian. Are you on the Guardian’s side? You and Cohen appear to be. And by what right do you deign to look down on those who wish to protect their jobs and families? Is that the extent of your humanity?
Cohen, with this thread you have scored an own goal, all for the sake of your own ego. The thread now helps the Guardian. You should take the thread down.
Bravo, Eamonn and I had a little bet as to whether you’d accuse us of “supporting” CiF. I now owe Eamonn five bucks.
As for you, why not have a nice lie-down? You’ll feel ever so much better.
Your bet is irrelevant to the point. This thread is now helping CiF and should be taken down.
If you leave it in place, you’ll have proved my point that you ego is more important to you than helping Israel or fighting anti-Semites.
Take this thread down!
sorry…take this what down…CAN YOU SHOUT A BIT LOUDER PLEASE!!!!
You really should lie down.
I have just binned a comment from “Bravo for CiFWatch” which impugned Ben’s motives. He/she/they won’t be allowed on here again.
The phrase “No good turn goes unpunished.” springs to mind
Why is Khaled Diab packed together with people like Tamimi? Khaled might support the one-state solution, but his views are secular and he’s more critical of the Arab side than most of the anti-Israel camp and many “good” Jews (I’m quoting Eamonn on the epithet). You might not agree with him, but he tries to understand the Israeli position and has travelled to Israel himself. He’s someone you can engage in debate with and I wouldn’t call him an anti-Semite. Tamimi, on the other hand, you could call him ein Partei Mitglieder and you wouldn’t be breaking Godwin’s law, but stating something that is almost factual.
Jonathan Hoffman,
I assume that you’re the Jonathan Hoffman who authored the Parliamentry report on anti-semitism?
If so, have you actually read CIF Watch at length? Whatever your views about CIF, I’m amazed that you feel comfortable being associated with these people.
They have altered the wording of the EUMC working definition to remove the caveats about context.
They have conflated the EUMC definition with the MacPherson report into British policing. The result is that according to Louise (one of the founders), if she says it’s anti-semitic, then it is, and anyone who says otherwise is a “Jew-baiter”.
In the past couple of days they have published articles that are little more than extremist tracts, promoting settlement expansion and with no obvious links to anti-semitism.
http://cifwatch.com/2009/09/08/cif%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98jewish-naqba-denial%e2%80%99/
The founders of CIF Watch are anonymous for a very good reason - they promote their extremist agenda using smears, defamation and libel. I’m rather surprised that anyone with a reputation to lose would openly support them - to be associated with such a site would seem to compromise any necessary impression of impartiality, or good judgement.
I would strongly suggest that you take another look and reassure yourself (and maybe others?) that you are happy to endorse the views and methods they promote.