Yes I too was taken aback by the sense that the Editor of The Guardian does not read the columns in his own newspaper; nor watch them regurgitated on Guardian Media outlet the BBC.

I wish I could put it down to brazen hypocrisy, but I really don't think he reads the paid-advocacy articles in his own publication.

It is utterly irrelevant whether they intend to be anti-Semitic or not, the effect is every bit as evil and repellant as Streicher or Goebbels.

Yet another reminder that Jews today in "Great" Britain are really no safer than their brothers and sisters in Berlin in 1933, Warsaw in 1935, or Vienna in 1938.

"Yet another reminder that Jews today in "Great" Britain are really no safer than their brothers and sisters in Berlin in 1933, Warsaw in 1935, or Vienna in 1938."

This is a ridiculous and slightly contemptible remark that lacks any sense of moral and historical perspective - rather like the liberal media's visceral hatred of the state of Israel, in fact.

Nonetheless, a superb comment by Melanie on the risible hypocrisy of today's Guardian leader.

"This is a ridiculous and slightly contemptible remark that lacks any sense of moral and historical perspective"

Are you denying that deeply anti-Semitic Britain which fought a war not because of the Jews but in spite of them would not have rounded up the Jews and sent them to the gas chambers had it been successfully invaded? Perhaps you imagine that mainland Britain is somehow morally superior to the Channel Islands which did just that.

Britain accepts Jews only in so far as they are willing to abandon all signs of the Jewishness and support for Israel. Given a decent economic depression, the age-old hatreds which have been so successfully fostered by various newspapers and the BBC would again come to the fore and Jews will feel greatly sorry that they did not pack their suitcases and leave long before.

Will Self some time ago questioned whether British Jews are loyal. In fact whether we are discussing their enormous contribution in wartime or their incalculable contribution to society generally their loyalty is without question. No, it's not their loyalty that is questionable, but whether Britain (she of the 1939 White Paper and the almost complete failure to lift a finger to prevent the Holocaust) deserved any of that loyalty.

Naturally you see my comments as ridiculous and contemptible. When, like most of Europe, you have been living a lie for over sixty years, I suppose it must be more than somewhat disconcerting to be shown the unvarnished, unpalatable truth.

Ah, Warsaw 1935, yes the death of Marshall Pilsudski did lead to quite a chance with OZon; but to compare events with Britain today is quite hyperbolic.

France seems to be having most problems, and these seem to have origins in the Algerian population. I find it strange to accuse the Government of Anthony Blair as having a similar agenda to that of Adolf Hitler, and I find in that context no case to answer.

As for Julius Streicher, who do you see as printing such vile commentary ? Have you raised the issue with the police; I believe anyone trying to compare a right-wing paper like Der Stuermer with one today like The Daily Telegraph or The Daily Mail, might find it hard to discern any similarity whatsoever.

Trivialising the situation in Germany under Adolf Hitler does a great disservice to those who did suffer at his hands; and if the aim is to relativise the situation, I do suggest you read the speech made on 3 October 2003 by Martin Hohmann, MdB where he takes exactly your point to show that the excesses of the Nazi era can be seen in context by looking at the excesses of the Bolsheviks.....
again hyperbole.

Perhaps now that 'Lord' Black has been separated from his beloved Telegraph we can hope to be spared from the odious pro-Israeli rantings of his rather talentless wife?

Which, inter alia, is exactly why we have an Israel, Herr Campbell - to preclude any possibility that Jewish children may breathe the same air as you and the many millions of your fellow travellers.

"but to compare events with Britain today is quite hyperbolic."

Not at all: the British may express their Jew hatred slightly differently to other nations, but the final results will be the same.

As Ariel Sharon has suggested on a number of occasions recently, "the beast is back," and once it has devoured Israel, the life of a Jew will be worth no more and no less than those who lived in Berlin, Warsaw and Vienna in the 1930s.

I have had some dealings with Pooh and his rants before.

For a country that has recently elected a Jewish opposition leader, has had any number of Jewish cabinet ministers, and has already had one Jewish Prime Minister (Okay, it was necessary for him to convert, but it was a long time ago)his parrallels are not only hyperbolic but deeply insulting to Britain and its amazingly successful Jewish population.

I'm not sure what nationality Pooh is (American perhaps?), but he (she?)displays in his (her?) posts a profound, almost pathological misunderstanding of the country he (she?) presumes to understand so much about.

As for British anti-semitism,interestingly it was only during my first visit to the USA that I became aware of the concept, when I discovered from Jewish friends that many country clubs and similar institutions barred Jews from joining, a process I understand that still goes on.

By the way, the word "Great" in Great Britain (which you sarcastically highlighted)is a geographical concept, and is not meant to imply greatness in its political or cultural sense.

I had wondered if Pooh wasn't merely one of the more updated versions of "Jew-baiters" of old. The attempt to denigrate others just seemed to be very much a piece with the old Extreme Right.......but the great thing about Great Britain is that it has seen it all before, and can afford to tolerate rantings of the misguided like Pooh. We are fortunately the nation that has done more to civilise this world than any other.....

All this reminds me of a news item I saw on television years ago. A woman in a blue-collar neighborhood (I forget whether it was in New York or Boston) said that she didn't care for blacks because they always caused trouble.

When the interviewer asked how they caused trouble, her answer went along these lines: When blacks start moving into a white neighborhood where they're not wanted, the whites will naturally resist their presence. Then there are demonstrations, counterdemonstrations, police incidents, riots, etc. So, whenever the blacks want to move in, they bring trouble along with them.

She didn't seem to understand that the blacks just wanted to live their lives in a better neighborhood. She didn't see that the trouble lay with the whites.

I know that this is not an exact analogy. Many would say that Israel really has no right to exist in the Middle East (or anywhere), whereas black Americans should have the right to live where they want in any American city. But I think the analogy holds somewhat. If Jews always have to limit themselves--in numbers, in sovereignty, or in their very Jewishness--and if their failure to do so makes them "troublemakers," then that is anti-Semitism. Just as surely as that white woman was racist.

That doesn't mean that criticisms can't be made of Jews and Israel in good faith. But there is a slippery slope here.

Kev Cidle.
Yes and in South Africa most of the British clubs barred access to Jews. The cricket fixture was really bad when they happened to choose a Jewish umpire for a game at Newlands Cricket Club. Poor sod had to take his tea out on the grass.
But then again even Chris Barnard could not become a member until after his ground breaking heart transplants.

"But then again even Chris Barnard could not become a member until after his ground breaking heart transplants"

Does anyone have anything good to say about Hans Christian Barnard ?

Few biographies seem able to find any redeeming characteristics, and he sounds to have been somewhat narcissistic and money-obsessed.

"If Germans always have to limit themselves--in numbers, in sovereignty, or in their very Teutonism--and if their failure to do so makes them "troublemakers," then that is racism"

Joanne, I decided to paraphrase your comment to see if it made sense when I related it to the Germans and their need for Lebensraum. I think I understand them better now I see your analogy.

Joanne,

We ALL have to limit ourselves. That, by the way, may have been the crux of the American lady's problem with blacks coming into her neighbourhood. Maybe she thought they did not sufficiently limit themselves, as anyone aware of the colour of crime in America may conclude.

The fact is that you de-contextualised, quoted and made a judgement upon her story to support your own argument. Well, no doubt we're all guilty of that from time to time. But it isn't the same as speaking the plain truth and it isn't improved by your liberal use of the "r" word. Jews are as flawed as the rest of us and immeasurably more ethno-centred, or would you disagree?

The Guardian is indeed disgustingly hypocritical. Anyone reading their talkboard knows that they tolerate all kinds of disgusting anti-Jewish cant, including the comments of outright neo-Nazis. Meanwhile, they practically break their legs pulling off the slightest criticisms of Islam as soon as it appears.

The Guardian blatantly fans the flames of Jew-hatred, then pulls back and innocently mugs, "Who, me?"

I know there is a character in some famous piece of British or Western literature who did stuff like this, but I can't think of it now.

Wait a minute! There are limits and there are limits. First of all, I did not de-contextualize the story of the white woman. It was from one news report that itself was a self-contained item lasting a few minutes. That was the whole context. It was not part of any long-running coverage of some chronic crisis. This was a one-off deal.

Secondly, substituting "Germans" and "lebensraum" makes no sense here. This is not only a difference in degree, it is a difference in kind. Black families looking to integrate a white neighborhood is not analogous to the Germans' invading Poland for chrissakes!

Yes, we all have to limit ourselves, but it is where we draw the limits that matters. Or, more to the point, where we draw the limits for others. Was the desire of a few black families to move into a more affluent neighborhood overstepping proper limits? Does that mean that, to stay within limits, they should accept segregation?

"Maybe she thought they did not limit themselves" because of "colour crime". So these black families, who were probably upwardly mobile (otherwise they couldn't afford new houses) should understand that they had to respect limits because of "colour crimes" committed by others. Hmmmmmm.

As far a Jews being more ethnocentric? That depends on the Jew. Many are determined not to be, and overcompensate in the other direction. Some are deeply involved their identity, but no more so than several Greeks or French or Swedes whom I have met, who can be overbearing in their own national pride (not to mention Americans!). Also, the older generation, brought up in a time when being Jewish meant a lot more to them (and a lot more to the surrounding world in a negative way), have felt their Jewish identity generally intensely more than their progeny. However, your statement is a breathtakingly broad one about a people who are tremendously varied in their views.

As far as the Jews' being as flawed as the rest of humanity, I guess that's so since they're part of humanity. But I'm not totally sure what you mean by "flawed" in this context or why it's a relevant point. By the way, I will say this: When it comes to an intellectuality; a penchant for self-criticism; charity (to others as well as to themselves); a moral, reformist, and activist outlook, a striving to better themselves and the world, Jews have distinguished themselves, even as some of them (like Ariel Sharon, the settlers) have decidedly not done so.

OK, I confess, I'm a Jew (ethnically, culturally, not religiously), I'm an American, and I'm a liberal (very liberal). And, to make matters worse, I'm from New York. Ouch! There now, I've hoisted my true colors.

What has Barnard got to do with anything? You haven't said why he was barred, and have mentioned him more than once now.

As far as I know, he wasn't Jewish, though as an aside, his first patient Louis Warshansky, was.

Joanne I paraphrased your comment about 'Jews' substituting 'German'; I had not realised you were speaking of Black Jews, like the ones from Ethiopia.

I still ask you though what was wrong in Germans pushing for Lebensraum ? They had millions of Germans scattered around those countries created under Versailles - in Hungary, Cazechoslovakia and Poland......and the Wilson Doctrine of Self-Determination was ignored for ethnic Germans who were absorbed into new states as a minority, although in Danzig they were a majority.

JUst what do you feel makes their right to self-determination so inferior to others, as an American you can no doubt explain Woodrow Wilson's liberal outlook, and help Europeans understand just why millions of ethnic Germans were left in limbo in Central Europe, whereas Roosevelt in 1945 agreed at Yalta to their expulsion in the millions ?

Fiachra Gibbons is a man. if we're troubling ourselves with accuracy today.

"Interesting ruminations on the nature of British identity from ex-pat Donegal man Fiachra Gibbons, whois now the Arts editor of The Guardian newspaper. "

Man ? It would appear so

This to me is the great paradox of the English Right. We are - understandably - suspicious of the Jews, and yet we are supposed to cheer on Israel? What gives?

No paradox. The right has always allowed for a variety of opinion, some of which has always been arabist.

Your suspicion of the jews is, if I may say so, a little broad-brush. Suspicion of the jewish tradition of critique from the left is certainly understandable. Classical marxism is jewish. Cultural marxism is jewish (minus Habermas). But jews are prominent at every station of political opinion. Right-wing libertarianism, for example, is built upon von Mises, Rothbard, Popper, Rand, the Friedmanns. I can't see much to be suspicious about here. Maybe you could argue that a stateless western society would be a gain for jews, I don't know. It won't happen anyhow, but the culturally marxist assault on the west IS for real.

To Peter Williamson: Ethiopian Jews? Huh? What? I made it clear that I was speaking about American blacks trying to move into a white neighborhood. As far as the rights of ethnic Germans scattered in central and eastern Europe, that whole area was an ethnic hodgepodge, with the ever-changing boundaries of countries and empires having little relationship to the ethnicity of the inhabitants.

To M. Wilkins: Why is it understandable to be suspicious of the Jews? That is a total mystery to me.

To Peter Williamson: I made it clear that I was not speaking about Ethiopian Jews, I was speaking about American blacks trying to move into a white neighborhood. As far as the rights of ethnic Germans scattered in central and eastern Europe, that whole area was an ethnic hodgepodge, with the ever-changing boundaries of countries and empires having little relationship to the ethnicity of the inhabitants.

To M. Wilkins: Why is it understandable to be suspicious of the Jews? That is a total mystery to me.

Oops. Sorry for the double post. I thought it didn't go through the first time.

"As far as the rights of ethnic Germans scattered in central and eastern Europe, that whole area was an ethnic hodgepodge, with the ever-changing boundaries of countries and empires having little relationship to the ethnicity of the inhabitants."

You have failed to address the question of why a Democrat like Woodrow Wilson favoured Self-Determination for all but Germans in Central Europe in 1919; whereas Democrat Roosevelt espoused expelling them from Central Europe in 1945.

You make the same sort of statement in the term "ethnic hodgepodge " I would expect from anyone making a sperficial comment on the Ottoman Empire.

You really must explain why two Democrat Presidents held contrary views over the same people, or were they contrary. Weren't they simply that if one people has a state another people cannot have a nation state ?

That it is a zero-sum game in fact ?,

As I recall Joanne, borders have been fluid in many places, not least of all in the United States.....just when did Texas join the Union ? When did the Western States become states ? Just what did the Confederacy signify for American national identity ? Is the Mason-Dixon Line a facet of US Politics, and does Reconstruction play any role in political sympathies within the United States ?

Did you know that Adolf Hitler considered the United States an 'ethnic hodgepodge' ?

"Classical marxism is jewish. (minus Habermas)."

The rest of Guessedworker's entry makes a lot of sense. But I don't understand how one can say that classical Marxism is Jewish. What does that mean? Marx was of Jewish origin but came from a converted family. He hated Jews and Judaism (Hello, remember "On the Jewish Question"?). Also, Marx was writing about economics and economic history. Where is there any Judaism in that? He was a materialist: He believed that the structures of material ownership--means of production--determined everything else, social and political structures, for instance. Where is there any Judaism in that? Or any religion, for that matter?

And how can someone who maintained that "religion is the opium of the people" be reflecting any religion?

If it's Jewish culture or civilization or perspectives that you say classical Marxism reflects, that's a real stretch, since Marx's connections with any of these was remote or nonexistent.

As for subtracting Habermas, that's fine as he probably wasn't Jewish, but I imagine that you could subtract any early Marxist philosopher who was not Jewish (Engels, Lenin, anyone?), as well as later writers who were not Jewish. Also, the Jewish ones who refuse any connection with Jewishness.

To Peter Williamson:

Regarding Wilson and Roosevelt - Why is this any sort of paradox? The Democratic Party has never had a hard-and-fast foreign policy covering every detail; it's ever evolving.

You are obviously not American, or you wouldn't be so puzzled by this. Actually, the foreign policy preferences of any political party would evolve over time, including those of the more ideologically consistent parties in Europe . Plus, these are two leaders, each with his own personality, belonging to different generations and operating in different political climates.

In any case, Wilson wasn't speaking of Germans per se, since they already enjoyed self-determination. If I'm not mistaken, he was referring to other groups (Hungarians, Croats, Slovenes, Lithuanians, etc.) who were fighting for independence in the wake of the collapse of the Prussian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires. I find it very hard to believe that Roosevelt endorsed expelling ethnic Germans from central or eastern Europe. That sounds really suspect to me. Although, in the very anti-German atmosphere of the time he may not have been so sympathetic to the Germans. We were at war, after all.

Regarding "ethnic hodge-podge": It could be a comment on the Ottoman Empire, as well as the Russian, Prussian, Austro-Hungarian empires (or any empire, since that is what an empire is, by definition). Superficial? Not necessarily. It's a one-sentence statement. It's not meant to be comprehensive.

Did I know that A.H. considered the US to be an ethnic hodge-podge? Actually, I did. I think "racially impure" or "mongrelized" were the terms he used. And so what? I didn't mean "hodge-podge" as an insult, just as a statement of fact. In eastern Europe you had ethnic groups scattered everywhere, Germans and Ukrainians in Poland, Hungarians in Rumania, and Jews everywhere in the Pale, for instance.

As for fluidity of borders, again, I don't see the comparison with the US, which followed a one-way march of westward conquest. We conquered or bought land as we expanded. And once we expanded, we stayed expanded. In Europe, you had countries disappearing and reappearing on the map (the Baltics, Poland). and while, in the US, you had Mexicans and Indians living under US rule (and not having a nice time of it), you didn't end up with the same kind of border disputes. The Native Americas were usually nomadic, with little in the way of borders to defend; the Mexicans retreated to what is now Mexico. The rest of our hodgepodge came from immigration.

I have no more time to expand on this. I have to get back to work! If my boss came into my cubicle and saw me typing this...I'd get in trouble. Bye.

Don't worry, I'm just trolling. The signal-to-noise ratio of the 'Net is bad enough without Melanie Phillips adding her inane whitterings. I thought I'd do you all a favour by decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio of this forum in turn. Thanks for taking me seriously though. This gives me encouragement for the future. We love this site at work; it's by far the funniest thing on the web.

Go Mel! You rock, babe.

Ridicule and name-calling. The Left's increasingly knee-jerk response to comments they can't or won't debate.

Pathetic.

"I find it very hard to believe that Roosevelt endorsed expelling ethnic Germans from central or eastern Europe"

Yes, FDR did. He was invited to stay at the Soviet guest house by 'Uncle Joe' and was convinced that the two 'anti-imperialists' USSR and USA would run the world without the fuddy-duddy British Empire, and it was essential to create spheres of influence.....the expulsion of the ethnic Germans was agreed at Yalta.

He was possibly correct, removing these millions did give Europe many decades of peace until recent events stirred the pot again in Berlin.......did you know that in 1930 Germany had a 'Minister for the Occupied Territories' ?

It was not until 1990 that Germany managed to agree on its eastern border; and the eastern border of Poland was seized by armed conquest in 1939; a fact FDR also accepted at Yalta.

People fight and die for territory, and probably always will do. It is a zero-sum game, there is a finite amount of land and by changing the ethnicity of the area you alienate the land from those who think it is their cultural heritage. It is a common American mistake to think this is not so, because they do not cross borders or having foreign customs to negotiate within their land mass.

Hi Joanne,

I am a gentile and I am warm to the jews. So I don't particularly want to get into a thorny debate about the contribution to classical marxism of people who were - or who just happened to be - jews. In my own mind I was extending the orbit to include Marxism-Leninism where, regrettably, all too many jews were active. But I didn't make the point "on paper", so my apologies.

Habermas, as I may well know, was born into a Catholic family. He was a "brilliant" student of Max Horkheimer and, today, is generally thought of as the sole surviving member of the otherwise solidly jewish and astonishing influential clique of Frankfurt thinkers. As the grand old man of left philosophy he issued a joint statement with Derrida only this summer about the future of the European project.

Last point: I reserve the right to praise or be critical of anyone, based upon the facts in my possession. You wouldn't expect jews not in the firing line! You are always welcome to rebutt me and I will acknowledge you if I am proven wrong.

Susam actually it's the Right that are reduced to ridicule and name-calling in their current (rather powerless and ineffective) state. Hence their reliance on rent-a-rant columnists.

Are you a Daily Mail reader by any chance?

M. Wilkins:

Actually it's both the left and the right that engages in ridicule. That's just the way a lot of political discourse seems to be.

Joanne you're absolutely right. Serious politics is little more than willy-waving after all. And we all know who's got the biggest todger, don't we?

Don't ask me, M. Wilkens, I'm a female.

Of course, you mean that the Left does. The Left in my country does not have the biggest—or, more grammatically correct, the bigger—todger. Unless you count Bill Clinton's. Or would that be Hillary's?

"Todger." What a quaint expression. Must be a Britishism.

Mr Blair: A man with a dicky heart.

Bill C: A man with a - oh, work it out for yourselves.

I think our last few comments are lowering the tone of this thread. I'm sorry I pursued it. Plus, this must be very boring for everyone else.

Let's end this now so that we don't sink into the very sort of silly vulgarity that so many people (including the owner of this site) rightly abhor. My apologies.

Nonsense, this site could do with a dash of humour.

Mel's so stern and severe it can't be good for her, but we know she's a sweetheart underneath it all really.

Unusual ideas can make enemies.

Insanity is forgetting to believe a few lies.

You cannot learn without already knowing.