Jeremy Corbyn and English irony

After Update 4 to this post I was fairly sure that nothing could or should be added to it. However, this battleship  boat refuses to go to the bottom without another fight:

In a statement issued on Friday night, Corbyn said he had used the term Zionist “in the accurate political sense and not as a euphemism for Jewish people”. He added: “I am now more careful with how I might use the term ‘Zionist’ because a once self-identifying political term has been increasingly hijacked by antisemites as code for Jews.”

The man is pathetic and more stupid than I have previously imagined. But the help is coming, so here it is, finally, an official clarification on the "British Zionists" issue from Labour party think tank:

1. British Zionists should not be confused with Jews.

2. British Zionists, whether born in UK or residing for most of their years in UK, are easily identified by their lack of real English irony. A field manual for detecting the lack of irony is being written at the moment by His Excellency Glorious Leader Jeremy Corbyn and, as soon as it is finished, will be issued to all card carrying party members.

3. Jews, on the other hand, are easily identified by:

• Their big olfactory organs
• Their predilection for money, mind control and world domination
• Their religious dietary rituals, which include several dishes requiring, as their chief ingredient, blood donations by non-Jewish people.
• Sometimes the two horns they wear could be a giveaway, however the horns are retractable, as it was learned.

No special manual is required to identify Jews, use your senses!

Together we shall root out the scourge of antisemitism!

Media, headlines, the usual

Of course, to complain about media's way to bend our minds to their ends is an exercise in futility. But a good whiny complaint sometimes makes the load of bile in out innards that much lighter, so here it goes.

CNN, August 20, 2018, Monday:

White House rejects Turkey's offer for pastor's release: report

I am not sure why the word "report" had to be added. How different is that article from a myriad others? To be on the safe side, here is a definition of the word, as it seems pertinent to our case:

A written document describing the findings of some individual or group

There is another definition:

A sharp explosive sound,

but we shall leave it for later.

Anyway, if you, like many other surfers of the news sites, skimmed the headlines, your conclusion after reading this headline alone and not clicking through must be unequivocal: the powers that be don't really want the good pastor to get out of Turkish jail. Right?

Only, if you do click through, what you get is a bit different:

The White House has rejected a Turkish offer to release an American pastor in exchange for forgiveness of billions of dollars in US fines on a Turkish bank, expressing that other matters would be considered only after Andrew Brunson is released, a senior administration official told The Wall Street Journal.

In effect, it looks like Turkey was trying to sell an American citizen for a ransom of several billions, isn't it so? Just like a regular gang of kidnappers or, even worse, some terrorist outfit low on cash...

So why wasn't it presented in the headline as it should have been? Like this:

Turkey offers to release the pastor for a ransom of several $B : report

You know why, don't you? Now I refer you to the second meaning of the word "report", and if you are above the age of 18 (or as appropriate in your place of residence), you can see it here.

Can a fart be misogynist?

"Yes, we can!" could be a male chauvinist answer to that question, of course. But, according to this article, the question was raised in all possible seriousness.

A word of warning: there is a high possibility that most of the content there is a spoof, but Ashleigh Ingle, one of the main protagonists of the piece, does exists and her other ridiculous shenanigans could be traced all over the net.

Well, here is a quote from the other one:

Local activist Steph Guthrie a feminist advocate and community organizer who specialises in social media and interactive events proposed an online campaign to tackle this misogyny that “keeps women down and trapped in their own bodies. I just find it horrific that the patriarchy has been controlling women’s flatulence this whole time and we have just realised this now, it is time for feminist worldwide to re-educate women on how they are being discriminated against.

For full disclosure, I would never try to dominate a lady in that activity.

Safety off and fire at will!

P.S. The hashtag "#FartRape" really exists. Or did exist for some time.

Hat tip: O.S.

CNN, burning cars, burning boats, bullshit...

A few days ago some Swedish citizens have had them a field day, running around several cities and putting cars on fire. Whether their choice of the cars was random or directed at a specific model or specific owners will remain unknown, probably. But we are here to learn, so CNN helpfully provided an article where one can learn the following:

Around 80 cars were set on fire and a further 40 vandalized in the city of Gothenburg in western Sweden on Monday night, according to Hans Lippens, police spokesman for the country's western region.

It is not unusual for such attacks to take place in Sweden in the week before schools reopen after the summer holiday, Lippens told CNN, but "the current count and level of damage is unprecedented."

Aside of the article showing that the festive events were well organized, the main thing we have learned, of course, is the timing.

What can I say: going back to school after a long, sunny and happy holiday is traumatic for the kids, no question about it. And everyone with real blood in his veins will understand that need for release of the bad feelings. Of course, loving parents can afford a few cars to make the progeny docile for the looming September 1. Especially if the cars were insured.

But - and there is a big but here. The CNN reporters (3 of them on that article!) have done a poor job of research. The real roots of car burning escaped their attention. Which is strange, since at least one of the three names sounds kinda Swedish. But no matter, here I come, helpful as always and armed with Google and a keyboard. Simple as that:

The Vikings were also known to be fearless and ruthless warriors. One of their actions can be used by the aspiring and ambitious managers to help their organizations to create value. After they landed their boat on some distance land and as they departed to fight the local inhabitants (enemies?), the leader would have the crew burn their own boat on the shore. Then they went into battle with the image of their burning boat at their back.

Were they crazy!! Why did the Vikings do that? There seems to be three major reasons. First, it was to strike fear and panic in the hearts of their opponent. Man has always had this love/fear of fire. The awesome sight of a burning ship on the beach could probably be seen for miles, certainly emphasizing the point, “We are here!”

Second, the burning ship was strong signal to the enemy that the Vikings were serious and committed. Given that they had destroyed their only way home, the enemy must have taken that as a sure sign that this was going to be an extremely tough battle.

Third, it was a signal to the Vikings themselves. The burning of their ship clearly made the point that the only possible way home was to win the battle. It reinforced their own level of commitment.

So, dear reader, it is not "Back To School" syndrome at all, but an important part of Viking folklore, a hallowed ancient ceremony, reenacted every year in August, incidentally at the same time when moms and dads visit the department shops to buy new schoolbags, pencils, books, lunch boxes etc.

So there. You are welcome.

I don’t think I was actually involved in it

They used to say "I was just doing my job". But they weren't sophisticated enough, now they have a new formula.

Jeremy Corbyn: I was “present” when the wreath was laid “I don’t think I was actually involved in it.” pic.twitter.com/fNL7yXxIdE

— Ben (@Jamin2g) August 13, 2018

And since when it rains it pours:

Which occasion is perfectly described by Phillip Mark McGough:

I admit I was present but I don't think I actually knew this was the hand sign for the Muslim Brotherhood, a pan-Islamist organization dedicated to the establishment of a global caliphate and proscribed accordingly in various countries for its terrorist affiliations. At the time I thought I was attending a Star Trek convention. I have devoted my entire life to a lasting trilateral peace between the Federation, the Klingon Empire, and the Romulan Greater Co-prosperity Sphere.

Update: and now another awkward attempt at a spin by Corbyn: a confession mixed with denial. So he was laying a wreath, but it was in memory of the 1985 bombing by Israel.

So patently, pitifully and obviously a lie. Here is what says... Jeremy Corbyn, in Morning Star article he penned:

After wreaths were laid at the graves of those who died on that day and on the graves of others killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991, we moved to the poignant statue in the main avenue of the coastal town of Ben Arous, which was festooned with Palestinian and Tunisian flags.

And this post is, most probably, all you will ever need to know about the protagonist. And what better to summarize it all than another quote from Phillip Mark McGough:

Consider the following:

*Corbyn didn't know that "honoured guests" he invited to tea in Parliament were blood-libelling Jew-hating genocidal scum

*Corbyn didn't know that a mural he defended was brimming with grossly antisemitic caricatures straight out of the pages of Der Stürmer

*Corbyn didn't know that social media groups in which he actively and enthusiastically immersed himself for years were foaming with a truly toxic antisemitism

*Corbyn didn't know that many of his fellow speakers at the innumerable pro-Palestinian hate fests he's attended over the past four decades were antisemitic obsessives, even as he sat through their obsessively antisemitic speeches

*Corbyn didn't know that he was at a memorial service for the terrorists who tortured and murdered Israeli athletes in Munich in 1972 even though he flew to Tunisia to attend the same and was photographed holding a wreath over the aforementioned terrorists' graves while muttering an Arabic benediction in their memory

Bearing the foregoing in mind, there are three- and only three- possible explanations:

(1) Jeremy Corbyn is lying

(2) Jeremy Corbyn has dementia and needs immediate institutionalization, electroconvulsive shock therapy, and a brisk, hourly beating

(3) Jeremy Corbyn is being gaslighted by an evil alter ego, much like Roger Moore in the psychological/supernatural thriller "The Man Who Haunted Himself" [Basil Dearden, 1970]

Update 2: ridiculous as the series of mumbling denials have been to start with, now the denial has become even more so:

Labour claims that no perpetrators of the Munich massacre are buried where Jeremy Corbyn attended a wreath-laying ceremony have been cast into doubt by an article from a leading Palestinian political party. Fatah’s official Facebook page carries a tribute to Atef Bseiso, who is buried at the cemetery in Tunisia, stating that he was involved in planning the “Munich operation”.

The post also sets out how Bseiso worked with “security officials like Ali Hassan Salameh”, who was operations chief for Black September, the group behind the Munich attack which left 11 Israeli athletes dead. It then records how Bseiso was killed at The Meridian Hotel in Paris in 1992, with Israeli intelligence organisation Mossad accused of the assassination.

What now, Jeremy?

Update 3: Again, for documentation purposes only: Jeremy Corbyn’s secret trip to Israel to meet Hamas.

Jeremy Corbyn visited Israel and the West Bank in November 2010 with an Islamist lobby group to meet senior Hamas officials...

No Jew encountered on that visit. The cup of my happiness overflows... enough, really, it is becoming grotesque.

Update 4: not to prove something new we didn't already know from the above. Just to (I hope so) put an end to the endless tragicomedy.

They [British Zionists - go figure, right?] clearly have two problems. One is that they don’t want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, don’t understand English irony.

This from a totally humorless and tedious bore, who will know what irony is only if a blazing hot piece of it was pushed up his arse...

Update 5: but of course, nothing would end so quickly, not when the two powerful voices of support, which incidentally belong to two neo-Nazis, get into the fray:

Update 6: the ridiculousness of this all... now to the last defense of a scoundrel:

Jeremy Corbyn claimed that Israeli officials control the speeches made by British MPs, in bizarre comments that have been called an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory' which ‘casts Jews as sinister manipulators’, MailOnline can reveal.

The remarks were captured on video in 2010, at a meeting of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) in London. In a speech about the shooting of Turkish activists at sea by the Israeli commandos, the Labour leader said:

‘[British MPs] all turned up [to the debating chamber] with a pre-prepared script. I’m sure our friend Ron Prosor (the Israeli ambassador) wrote it.

Oh boy... will the wonders ever cease?

Update 7: the answer to the last question is - definitely no. Here comes a new one:

Jeremy Corbyn has said he does not believe it is anti-Semitic to describe the creation of Israel as racist in a move which last night saw his relationship with the Jewish community plumb to new depths.

This changes my view on behavior of excrement. I expect it to dry down an smell less with time. Not in this case, apparently.

And this is the way it rolls with Gaza...

I am really tired of the topic, nothing new to be added to or subtracted from it. So, purely for documentation purposes, here is a summary of the latest developments by Irina, and old friend from the good old blogging days.

***

A few words about the latest Hamas led attacks on Israel:

* They were completely unprovoked. The Arab media is only reporting images of Israeli counterattacks. Israel and US advocates are failing to engage Arab audience on the reality of what happened.

* Hamas was in the middle of reported negotiations over ceasefire terms - so it scored particularly high on the bad faith spectrum, also misleading the interlocutor Egypt.

* Israel, in retaliation, struck two Hamas tunnels. Those tunnels were a national security threat even before the 180 rockets Hamas fired at Israeli civilians. Why weren't they destroyed earlier when Israel clearly knew about them?

* Hamas was clearly trying to harm civilians. 180 rockets damaged homes, other types of private property, wounded civilians, sent pregnant women into labor, and gave PTSD to hundreds of children in Sderot and elsewhere. Yet Israeli retaliation included damaging infrastructure that should not have been there to begin with. What lesson will Hamas and the international community draw from this response?

* Hamas attacking Israeli civilians for no reason: NO condemnation from international community and press. Why are we to take the international press seriously when they are clearly ok with unprovoked unjustified terrorism? Hamas did not even provide reasoning for it, not even a totally fake veneer.

*Hamas staged an attack, then, before they could be punished too severely, claimed that they are now done and want peace. That's not how it works. You don't get to fire deadly parting shots and walk away unscathed with no legal or political repercussions. Or at least you shouldn't. How does a bunch of cowardly terrorists hiding in Turkey get to dictate terms of engagement and what happens next?

* The world then wonders how is it that Israelis and right wing Jews in the US and Europe are distrustful of Arabs. Well, where are the Arabs on questioning their media and on condemning Iran-funded Hamas on risking its own civilians and attacking women and children? How can you have trust and understanding from one side when the other doesn't even want to hear your concerns and dehumanizes you from the get go?

Israel and disproportionate response

It was written by a person named Jonathan Howard in 2014. A good rebuke to idiots, unfortunately I don't have any access to Mr Howard to ask for permission or just to thank him for writing this. Enjoy.

***

For anyone who thinks Israel’s response in Gaza is disproportionate: I agree. It is absolutely disproportionate. So we must ask ourselves: what would a proportionate response look like, exactly?

Every Friday and Saturday, every rabbi in Israel would remind his congregation how important it is to kill all of the Moslems in the world, wherever they find them. Israeli schools would brainwash Israeli kids to die killing Moslems, for the glory of making Judaism dominate the Middle East.

Israeli TV would broadcast threats of genocide to the Palestinians, with the IDF entertainment unit singing specially-written songs in Arabic about how bloody and glorious the massacre will be. (At the same time, they'd go to the UN and accuse the Palestinians of genocide.)

Israeli girls would be killed by their own families if they liked boys. So would Israeli boys.

IDF artillery would shoot rockets into Arab towns without any military targets, with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible, several times a day, almost every day for the last 14 years.

The Mossad would send hundreds of young Jews to blow themselves up in shopping centres, hotels, cafes, nightclubs and bus stops around the world. Israeli municipalities would name streets after the suicide bombers, and the government would pay their families a pension for life. The proud Jewish mothers of the suicide bombers would appear on Israeli TV encouraging mothers everywhere to give up their children for the cause of killing Moslems.

The IDF would bully and threaten the UN to let them store their weapons and explosives in UN facilities. Israeli artillery soldiers would travel around in UN ambulances, kill their own women and children with misfired rockets, then invite the international press to see the dead women and children and blame it on the Palestinians.

They’d put IDF explosives in Israeli homes, and when they blow up in all too frequent accidents, they’d blame the Palestinians and invite the foreign press to come and see the dead women and children.

They’d ban the foreign press from taking any photos of IDF soldiers in uniform, and threaten reporters if they report anything except dead women and children.

The IDF Spokesman would claim that the majority of IDF casualties are actually women and children.

Bibi’s office, and all of the IDF general staff and senior officers, would be relocated to the basement of Hadassah Hospital (confident that the Palestinians generally try to avoid hitting things like hospitals).

Likud would execute members of the Israeli opposition parties if they criticised Bibi’s conduct, taking them out behind the back of the Knesset building and shooting them in the head.

Before running into their bomb shelters, brave IDF soldiers would force Israeli women and children into the firing line, sometimes breaking their legs to stop them getting away, and sometimes chaining them to buildings. Then they'd shoot missiles at the Palestinians, and leg it into the shelter. They'd emerge to find dead women and children, and call the foreign press over to take a look.

The IDF’s Engineering Corps would kill 160 Israeli child slaves during the construction of tunnels. The tunnels would be designed for blowing up Palestinian schools and homes, and for IDF freedom fighters to kidnap Palestinians to use as hostages.

If the tunnel kidnaps succeeded, Bibi would then use the hostages to force the release of the thousands of Jews in Palestinian jails who were responsible for organising the many Jewish suicide bombings. He would give them a heroes' welcome, and put them to work organising more suicide bombings.

The Israeli government would use most of Israel’s public money on terror tunnels and villas for Likud leaders, and put the rest in Swiss and Qatari bank accounts for Bibi and his friends to enjoy. This would sink Israel into poverty. They'd blame the poverty on the BDS movement, and demand more money from the international community to build more tunnels, and more villas for Likud leaders.

They would proudly announce, quoting the Israeli Declaration of Independence, that they're not going to stop until all of the Moslems in the world have been driven into the sea.

And then they'd come for you.

I think we can be thankful that Israel’s response is not proportionate.

Corbyn's pearls - for own collection

Really, one can get overdosed on so much crap, so this will be for my own archives. You don't have to... you know.

There seems to be a great deal of pressure on the BBC from the Israeli government and the Israeli embassy, and they are very assertive towards all journalists and to the BBC itself - they challenge every single thing on reporting the whole time.

"I think there is a bias towards saying that Israel is a democracy in the Middle East, that Israel has a right to exist, that Israel has its security concerns.

So, saying that we have a right to exist or, for that matter, to have own security concerns, is biased. What would be the unbiased version, I haste to inquire?

Oh boy, what a worm...

Professor Waxman and discomfort of the British Jews. Oh, and Freedom of Speech...

It so happens that every time I see an article that starts with the "full disclosure" of the kind: "I am Jewish..." or "As a Jew...", I get butterflies in my stomach. This time wasn't any different.

When I have seen the headline of the article in Times of Israel:

Who gets to define anti-Semitism?

I, of course, was slightly thrilled*. I was less thrilled after reading the lede:

The UK Labour Party must protect free speech, including the comments about Israel that most British Jews abhor.

So free speech is the issue then? Hmm...

And then, of course, the "full disclosure" part:

I am a British Jew, though I have spent my adult life in the United States. I’ve found it more comfortable to be a Jew here, but I have always bridled at the notion that Britain is, or is becoming, an inhospitable environment for Jews, whether due to anti-Semitism on the left there or among its large Muslim population.

Quite revealing, especially the part of being more comfortable. I assume that prof. Waxman was already asked about that confession, so I shall leave it alone. Just to mention that the butterflies in my stomach invited a few friends to join the dance. And when prof. Waxman bridled at that notion - what can I say: the butterflies really lost it, each one dancing and jumping up and down to its own music. Inviting more buddies, too.

Now it is my turn to do that "full disclosure" part, I guess. Not being a British Jew, just an oldish Israeli one, with a considerable time done elsewhere (USSR mostly and USA some), I hate the topic of antisemitism. Every one of the few people reading this blog knows that rarely does it go into this murky subject, for various unrelated reasons.

But when many (if not all) of my British friends, Jewish and not so blessed, bitterly complain about that malady in what used to be their political home of preference, when they leave that home in droves, when they start looking elsewhere for acceptance - only a deaf and blind would ignore that.

When the leader of that party is caught again and again in de facto antisemitic acts, like buddying up to terrorists (tell me who your brothers are...). Like declaring the mere existence of Israel bizzare. By seeming unable even to say "Israel", so deeply is the word lodged in his craw.  Etc. etc.

When dignitaries like David Duke and Nick Griffin declare their support for the said leader - tell me who you friends are now.

When the Deputy Leader says things like "Labour faces ‘eternal shame’ over antisemitism."

When the glorious leader himself is forced to issue an artificially sounding half-confession/half denial, which (at least) includes words like "But I do acknowledge there is a real problem that Labour is working to overcome."

What does all of the above leave of prof. Waxman bridling? I don't know and really don't want to.

But all of the above is not really the point of the discussed article, nor of this post. The real point is the big red herring of free speech, placed by prof. Waxman at the center of his article. According to his logic (or his beliefs) it's quite fine (in the framework of free speech, of course) to direct more attention and criticism to Israel’s alleged crimes and misdeeds than toward other democracies. It is cool (free speech) to compare Israeli policies and actions to those of Nazi Germany. It is quite acceptable (free speech) claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour. Etc.

And I wouldn't even comment on that bizarre notion:

The fact that many Jews are justifiably offended by false analogies between Israel and Nazi Germany does not automatically make such analogies anti-Semitic.

Because, as I mentioned already, this is just another piece of the same red herring and as such is besides the point.

To the point: the vaunted freedom of speech prof. Waxman so selflessly defends is not something that should be protected by a political party, it is rather the business of the government and its institutions and the public at large. To use a (randomly chosen, with apologies to prof. Waxman) definition of political party:

A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office.

I strongly doubt that even a man, so liberal in his views as prof. Waxman, will object to the notion that Holocaust deniers, Israel-haters and various other shades of anti-Semites and other racists and bigots, while they might have the freedom of speech protection of their activities and their hate speech, are not entitled to "automatic" (whatever it means) protection of their party membership.

In other words: I might fight to death for your freedom of speech, hateful as your speech might appear, but I wouldn't want to invite you to my party (pun intended).

I hope this dispenses with the red herring in its entirety.

Q.E.D.

(*) And disappointed eventually, since no matter how carefully you read the article, you wouldn't find an answer to this, seemingly trivial, question. Rather a dismissal of the whole by this:

That’s what the British Jewish communal establishment declared in its condemnation of Labour’s definition of anti-Semitism: “It is for Jews to determine for themselves what anti-Semitism is.”

While the feelings and sensitivities of Jews should be considered, they are not sufficient.

One would think (wrongly, apparently) that the issue of defining an insult is in the eyes of the insultee. But prof. Waxman, obviously, doesn't think so. I am not going to deal with this, painfully obvious, strawman, aside of quoting my Facebook British friend, Sarah Minxy Mann Yeager, who expressed it quite well:

People like you are the reason we are running scared. Ask yourself this xxx: if a black person told you they felt there was racism being aimed at them from a political party would you dare to ask them to substantiate it?

If an LGBT person told you they were feeling victimised would you dare to ask them for proof?

Why, as a JEW who tells you there is a palpable threat to their whole group from a political party, do you dare to expect any more substantiation than daily press articles that cover the front pages of our national press from the Daily Telegraph to The Mirror?

If you are curious, YOU go and look. You are clearly not satisfied with the evidence that I have given you and your refusal to believe there is a problem is tantamount to gaslighting.

You are telling me, a JEW, that I am imagining it and there is NO antisemitism. I am telling you there is.

Why is my telling you isufficient? If I were BAME and told your something similar you would not ask for proof.

Some pigs are not like the others: right, Jerusalem Post?

The story starts with this cartoon a veteran cartoonist posted:

A veteran Israeli cartoonist was cut loose on Tuesday from the magazine he worked at for nearly three decades over an illustration portraying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud lawmakers as pigs from George Orwell’s “Animal Farm.” The cartoon by Avi Katz drew on a photo of Netanyahu and members of his Likud party snapping a selfie at the Knesset following the passage of the so-called Jewish State law last week.

Undoubtedly, the cartoon was inspired (besides Orwell) by this picture:

Likud MK Oren Hazan takes a selfie with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, center, and MK David Bitan, right of Netanyahu, after the passage of the so-called Jewish State law at the Knesset on July 19, 2018.

I wouldn't go into the rights or wrongs of the artist's vision or his politics. Should I mention my opinion of many years that Jerusalem Post is quite a provincial rag, and that nothing has happened so far to persuade me differently? Nah, no need, really.

I shall just throw in another tidbit that may look somewhat unrelated to the matter and hand. At the first glance, possibly. Here is a Russian cartoonist, in a country that is not known for its gentleness toward dissidents of all stripes, publishing a cartoon including... but see for yourself:

"Orthodox devils" - says the caption.

And you know what: so far Mr. Kopeikin, the author of the cartoon in question, was neither fired nor fed a Polonium cookie.

Make one wonder, innit?