Saturday, September 26, 2009

Prejudices reversed: yup, they're still shit

[NOTE: I'm not DK, I just act that way to get the chicks]

The Daily Mail is an awful newspaper, and I apologise in advance for linking to it. However, whenever someone is involved in oh so terribly awful offensive racial slurs, it's usually the best at reporting them: the serious papers are quite happy to say "cunt" or "cocksucking motherfucking wanker" without asterisking at all, but whenever someone says "nigger", "Paki" or "Yid" they tend to gloss over the slur rather than repeating it.

The Mail, on the other hand, will refer to an unfortunate racial incident as "the youth suggested that Mr Barnbook should go and f*** himself in every relevant cavity, while the bigot suggested that the youth was a c***ragging worthless piece of n****r s*** who should go and get himself a f***ing job rather than sit about w***ing all day. And also that the youth's mother was a dirty c**n w**** who took it up the a*** from every gentleman with 50p to spare".

In the real, vaguely adult, world that I'm hoping most of the readers of this blog live in [*], then I'm hoping we'd go for the principle of "racial ephiphets, like all breaches of tact and civilisation, should be reported and slated, but at the same time asterisking out expletives is pathetic, Victorian-aunt behaviour". And hence I'd link to neither kind of hypocrisy. But without the Daily Mail piece, the story I'm linking to here makes no sense.

Now, I'm not asking you to share my views on the rightness of 'we stood by whilst the Germans tried to wipe out an entire race, therefore it's entirely fair enough that we should give them a country full of people who are neither us nor Germans'. I'm still distraught that the postwar settlement didn't involve carving out an Israel-sized bit of Germany, making it the Jewish homeland, and also using it as the key European US Army base - clearly the safest and fairest solution, with no drawbacks.

But sadly it didn't work like that, and instead we decided that the best recompense for the Holocaust would be to make a Jewish state somewhere full of Arabs. Sorry, Arabs! Anyway, the Arabs got cross at this and started some fights; the Jews who decided to take advantage of this special offer went for it, and hence Israel. America, feeling [INSERT REASON FOR THE US'S BLIND SUPPORT OF ISRAEL BEYOND ANY STRATEGIC REASON], decided to back said place to the hilt.

Anyway. The net result is, Arab chaps who had their land nicked are cross; some of them try and fight the people who nicked their land; but more of them, because it's easier, try and kill civilians on the other side who're on the land that got nicked. The killing of civilians is an evil and murderous piece of behaviour, as recognised by all kinds of international law. As a result, the Israelis bomb the shit out of said people.

Unfortunately, this also tends to involve bombing the shit out of civilians in the area. A lot. And as it happens, the Israeli military's approach to civilian casualties is similar to that of Sir Arthur Travis Harris Bt: they're the enemy, hence they need dead. Both are wrong [**]. Hence, civilised people tend to become cross at Israel's actions.

And so we return to the original story: Rowan Laxton getting prosecuted for his actions in the gym, whilst watching a report of the Israeli military's latest murder of a civilian. On reading the story in the Times and Grauniad, who merely suggested that Laxton used appalling and bigoted ephiphets, I'd assumed he'd shouted something unspeakably evil in order to get busted, perhaps: "fucking Yids, Hitler failed, gas the lot of 'em" - that might be considered worthy of a bit of censorship, even in a civilised society.

But the Mail article reveals that all he said, on watching some civilians whose parents made a deeply poor choice of homeland being slaughtered, was "fucking Israelis, fucking Jews". And that's enough, in this day and age, to get you done for incitement to racial hatred, fined and sacked.

Meh. It's obviously a twattish thing to say. Luckily, nobody ever makes twattish exclamations on seeing emotionally moving things. Which, weirdly, is where we came in... I'm leftier than most types about here, but still far keener on freedom than enforced PC-osity, and I hope that any idiot who's pleased to see Laxton's downfall is equally happy to see people locked up for saying "fucking terrorists, fucking Muslims".

Which, apart from the fact that a far higher proportion of Jews are Israelis than Muslims are terrorists, is a statement that's no more ignorant or offensive. And shouldn't involve getting jailed or sacked.

[*] One where we can say "cunt", no right-wing cunt will try and get us censored for taste, and no left-wing cunt will try and get us censored for misogyny...

[**] In 1940, more or less any British action would've been fair enough. But Israel and Harris both utterly fail to cross that criterion due to the unequivocal support of the world's greatest superpower. Thank you, FDR, for making Harris's actions dreadful rather than necessary.


Anonymous said...

Posts like this really makes one appreciate the skill of a good blogger.

Edgar said...

Not sure what your main point is here ...

Anonymous said...

The US supports Israel because it is owned by Jews who got out of Europe when they could ...

Lee said...

Bunch of sky fairy worshippers want to kill and maim a bunch of more advanced and powerful sky fairy worshippers... this whole sort of crap really makes me happy I just found another bottle of wine.

Westerlyman said...

Yes. I think I get the point of this post. I believe my reading skills are somewhat above average (which is not saying much) but this article could have been a bit clearer.

Martin said...


Good on you, because it's as clear as mud to me.

JuliaM said...

"...all he said, on watching some civilians whose parents made a deeply poor choice of homeland being slaughtered, was "fucking Israelis, fucking Jews". And that's enough, in this day and age, to get you done for incitement to racial hatred, fined and sacked."

Having the state monitor your words and punish you for them is so dreadful, isn't it?

Who agitated for that state of affairs, btw? Was it the left, perchance?

Anyone? Bueller?

JuliaM said...

"...and as it happens, the Israeli military's approach to civilian casualties is similar to that of Sir Arthur Travis Harris Bt: they're the enemy, hence they need dead."

The Israeli military, like our military and the US military (in fact, most First World military forces), has rules of engagement that actually ensure they take care that there are as few civilian casualties as possible.

All the while going up against murderous scum without uniform or code, for whom the greatest number of civilian casualties is the point of their action, naturally.

But why am I bothering? PDF knows this. Knows the people reading this blog know it too.

It just likes to indulge in the fantasy of poor oppressed people fighting back against an evil empire.

Why don't you put 'Star Wars' on the dvd player again, and leave the real world to the grownups?

Martin said...

Julia, the First World militaries do not minimise civilian casualties. If they did, they would not have used depleted uranium shells during Gulf War I, since believed to be responsible for an epidemic of childhood cancers. They would not have dropped and would not continue to drop cluster bombs, munitions which serve no purpose other than to shred as much flesh as humanly possible. Without apologising for jihadist war crimes, the kill ratio of Israeli bombs to Qassam rockets is something like 50 to 1.

polaris said...

WTF did the bulk of the commenters above read? Well said PDF, clearly laid and irrefutable analysis of how it is in the Middle East - and more importantly an inclination to sanction only opinions/analysis that are a sop to Israel - Middle East + Free speech: an illusion!

The Nameless Libertarian said...

Does acting like DK actually help you get the chicks?

Longrider said...

I would have thought the point was one of double standards and being hoist with one's own petard...

Anonymous said...

A sane and balanced commentary on Israel? On this blog? First time for everything, I suppose...

tipple said...

Is this a friends of Jeremy Bowen meeting?

A Concerned Student said...

That was the most incoherent post I've ever read on here.

What exactly is your point? Cheering on freedom of speech or doing the evil Zionist thing? Or a sardonic quote about the papers we get?

JuliaM said...

"Julia, the First World militaries do not minimise civilian casualties. If they did, they would not have used depleted uranium shells during Gulf War I, since believed to be responsible for an epidemic of childhood cancers."

The operative word in that statement being 'believed'...

"Without apologising for jihadist war crimes, the kill ratio of Israeli bombs to Qassam rockets is something like 50 to 1."

So the Israelis shouldn't use their technological advantage to its fullest because the Arab Jew-hatred blinds them to the fact that they haven't a prayer, and will get their people slaughtered..?

Umm, yeah. Whatever...

David Davis (libertarian alliance) said...

I think I have got the point of this but I'm not fully sure.

The reason to back Israel in any sort of Manichaean battle against the forces of darkness is that it's currently the only approximately-functioning pluralist democracy for about 1,500 miles in any direction. If I was an israeli, I'd feel somewhat physically-isolated in a sea of mortal enemies who are cheerfully-frank about what they intend to do to me. If I could develop a Nuclear Bomb, I would. the point of these, and the only point, is to use them against people who have none, or those who have and intend to wipe you out first. They are a weapon of first strike and first strike only, as we showed in 1945, against an enemy who has failed to see reason when he has already had his nosed rubbed in his own blood.

The clear and plangent pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah bias of the MSM, today, against Israel, cotrasts very oddly with its very same but entirely opposite bias _for_ Israel, against "the Arabs" in 1967.

I also ought to pooint out that the British State's "Foreign(ers') Office" has been utterly Arabist sicne the days of some mountebank called "Lawrence of Arabia".

Up Oxford, a couple of supremely cultured and charming men, one from Ch Ch and an Exeter chap, both doing Schools in Arabic in 1973, had already got accepted by the FO ahead of the CS exams.

David Davis (libertarian alliance) said...

Perhaps it was rather late at night (12.46am?) Good post and interesting but try writing when you're less tired.

Devshirme said...

Arguing about Israel today is as pointless an exercise as arguing about Jews was in the 1930s. People who hate 'em are going to hate 'em, and be convinced it's justified, come what may.

But being totally unable to see a fire without pouring petrol on it, I'll add a few observations before running away.

First, we decided to give the Jews a homeland at the end of the *first* world war. The Ottoman Muslims (Arabs included) had been on the other side you see, and after we had invaded, collapsed the existing government, and taken possession, we decided we didn't really want it. So we decided to give it to various people, distinct from the people who had originally held it but many of whom lived in the area, that we owed favours to.

We created all the Arab countries, and we also created a homeland for the Jews (in the area now covered by Israel and Jordan - the latter was the Arab bit of the first 'two-state solution'), who were one of the peoples already living in the middle east, but as a persecuted minority. (If you don't know about Dhimma laws, you should.) Something like 60% of the Jews who eventually colonised Israel in the 50s came from the Muslim middle eastern and north African territories.

But this is against the rules in Islam, and was as intolerable to Muslims as Pakis invading Bradford is to the BNP. So of course they rioted. And the British being the British, we appointed the leader of the riots to be Grand Mufti of the Palestinians. (Hajj Amin al Husseini - a very interesting character, look him up.)

By the time the second world war came around, we had rather cooled on the Jews, leading to events like the storming of the Exodus, the horror on the prison ship 'Runnymede Park' (who the hell names a prison ship dragging Jews back to German prison camps after the site of Magna Carta?!), and of course the British-run concentration camps full of Jews on Cyprus.

Well, anyway, it all got a bit too sticky and we decided to pull out. We Brits didn't like the Jews, the Americans didn't like the Jews very much, and oddly enough it was the Soviets that saved them initially. (Probably just to annoy us.) But then the Soviets decided to back the Arabs (who looked like winning and had all the oil), which of course meant the US had to back Israel as our cold-war proxy in the area. Later, as it became apparent how much of a threat Islamism would eventually become, and what illiberal shit-holes the Muslim countries had turned out to be, we backed them for civilisational reasons too.

(Oh, an by the way, it isn't the killing of civilians that's illegal in war, it's the killing of non-combatants.)

But I agree absolutely about the free speech bit. Nobody should be locked up for saying stuff.

Budgie said...

The original post is a typical pro-Arab, pro-Muslim, anti-Israeli rant, skewed, and toned down, to suit what PDF thinks is the outlook of many readers of DK's blog. With a major diversionary tactic on free speech.

The position taken on this issue is down entirely to how far back in history any contender allows himself to go. Whether that is the Germans and British in Palestine, or Saladin and the Crusaders, or Rome and the Jews.

Personally I think Israel is the ancient Jewish homeland, and after all the European and Muslim empires' conquests and meddling, the Jews deserve their homeland back.

Devshirme said...


That makes a nice sentiment, but you can't base policy on it, and it risks giving the impression that Israel's legitimacy rests on ancient religious beliefs, which is dangerous.

You can't assign ownership based on history, for the reason you give. The first question is, do they deserve a homeland? The second question is, did the League of Nations have the authority to legislate international settlements, and have the 'right of conquest' over the land after the first world war? Or you could ask the same question about the United Nations (with UN Res. 181) after the second.

But in any case, the original Jewish homeland was set up by the same organisation, at the same time, and on the same basis as all the Arab Muslim states. Their legitimacy has the same source.

Once you start raising ancient history, and who invaded who and when, as any basis to define a modern nation, you're soon walking on quicksand.

Anonymous said...

David Davis, thank you for showing me why I should not support the Libertarian Alliance. I've been wrestling with whether to vote Tory or Libertarian and you have made up my mind for me.

neil craig said...

I wish to say that I think the Mail is the best national newspaper in Britain. As well as having politically incorrect columnists it is the only one which does not censor to protect established untruths.

Specifically I have written letters on a large number of subjects to newspapers & the Mail is the only UK one which has been willing to print one on evidence that low level radiation is not harmful (called hormesis) & the only one, apart from the Morning Star, to publish ones about our government, not Milosevic, being the war criminals in Yugoslavia.

You don't have to agree with these, though I assure you that I know far more on the subjects than most readers & the evidence is overwhelming, to think it important that at least one part of the UK media does not censor all discussion on the subjects.

Anonymous said...

David Davis said:
"the only approximately-functioning pluralist democracy for about 1,500 miles in any direction."

You don't actually know how to read maps, do you, Davey? Or do you not consider Italy, Greece, Malta, Switzerland, France, Armenia, Bulgaria, etc, etc, etc, to be functioning democracies?

Also it's interesting that a libertarian such as yourself should consider an apartheid state in which religious extremists hold the reins of power to be a functioning democracy.

Devshirme said...


You do have a point on Switzerland, who I understand are not members of the EU.

"an apartheid state in which religious extremists hold the reins of power"?

Oh, you must mean Hamas and the PLO. Because that certainly doesn't apply to Israel.

Daily Male said...

It's not entirely clear what the point of this is, but I think i get some sort of idea now. In which case I have adjusted my outlook. I used to think the Israelis were 70 per cent wrong and the Palestinians were 99 per cent wrong.

I see the error of my ways: I now think the Israelis are 71 per cent wrong and the Palestinians 99 per cent in error.

Thanks for that.

Oh, and can all bloggers/ranters/thinkers please stop automatically trotting out the tired line that the Mail is a bad newspaper. It isn't, because it actually does report some news. I accept there are lefties who don't like it, but then lefties don't like much -- including each other.

Devshirme said...

Daily Male,

(What? Every day?)

In the hopes of being helpful, I think the actual point was to say that it's wrong to be done for incitement, fined, and sacked simply for saying "Fucking Israelis. Fucking Jews." in a gym.

What causes the confusion is the need to explain and demonstrate that the author is saying this on principle, not simply because the he is an ignorant Jew-loving Daily Mail reader. (Because he isn't one.) It only reads that way because it is strictly necessary in order to understand the story, not because the author lacks all moral credibility.

I realise that doesn't make sense, but I'm fairly sure that was the intention.

It's sad that the debate has become so polarised that this should be necessary. But it probably helps.

Hope that was helpful.