Two from "The Commentator": anti-Semites taken to task.

I have a distinct memory of referring to John Mann, MP, before in these columns. He, along with Denis MacShane, MP, is one of the really good guys, you know, the sort who includes antisemitism in their definition of racism. As a result, it's good to see him taking a fellow Labour MP to task for making antisemitic comments (and Denis MacShane has done much the same). Paul Flynn has since issued an apology and retracted his comments, which involved him questioning whether the UK Ambassador to Israel might suffer from "divided loyalties" (because he's Jewish). Mann still attacks him, despite the retraction, on the basis that he should have known better in the first place. And so he should. Here's the link.

On the same page is the link below, to an article written by Petra Marquardt-Bigman on the same day. This time, she's writing about Gilad (I was an Israeli paratrooper, but now I'm an antisemite and proud of it) Atzmon and the support shown by that well-known and formerly highly regarded academic Prof. John Mearsheimer, he of the Mearsheimer/Walt Israel Lobby two man industry. This all revolves around Atzmon's (joke of a) book, "The Wandering Who". This matter has been heavily aired all over the place, not least on Harry's Place and Engage (see the blog roll at the right-hand side of this column), but a new take is always welcome: the more apparently good academics who've lost their sense of perspective can be exposed as what they are, the better. Why does this seem to happen so often in connection with Israel? No need to rush to tell me, folks, the question's rhetorical. Just like you, I already know the answer. Petra M-B can be found commenting at engage, at least occasionally, as well as on her own blog at Jpost - to which there is a link at the end of her piece here.

By Brian Goldfarb.