"Now Sir David Hare is evidently about to do for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion what Leonard Bernstein did to Romeo and Juliet. This will not be funny."

You have lost this reader - is this some private code noone else can comprehend ? Just what are you trying to say ?

David Hare is a playwright, he can do what he wishes in the theatre......but what has this to do with Bernstein, or the Protocols........it is baffling....a bit too cryptic.

I'm lost too. Is she trying to suggest that attacking US neo-cons equates to some sort of anti-Jewish conspiracy?
Is there anything we can do in Melanies world without being branded an anti-semite?

I have always suspected that some theatre critics wrote their reviews without seeing the play in question. Now Melanie and the Telegraph have taken this practice to a higher level, by reviewing the play before it is even written.

The Telegraph writer infers from the theatre's and playwright's remarks that the play will be "a searing indictment of American foreign policy and how the British Prime Minister was pressured into joining the war".

One guide to the Edinburgh Festival warned visitors to avoid any play that describes itself as a "searing indictment". I'll be giving this one a miss.

But, um, most neocons aren't Jewish. On the contrary, a lot of them are Christian anti-semites who support Israel because they think their own Christian salvation depends upon there being a Jewish state. The most antisemetic thing of all is perhaps to allow these people to appropriate the mass suffering of the holocaust and use it as an excuse for self-interested wars. Did people really die just so rich Christian rightwingers could always have their way? How dare Melanie decide that actions and policies are in the name of people who can't speak any more! This reminds me of the lovely Ann Coulter, who after September 11 claimed that we should invade the Middle East, "kill all their leaders and convert them to Christianity" whilst simultaneously telling the Jewish World Review that America was attacked "not because it's a Christian country, but because it's a Jewish one". Right. Why does Melanie, a Jew herself, wish to collude in the exploitation of her own people and its history? Because being "hardline", and "rightwing", and "conservative", and generally showing liberal scum like David Hare where it's at, is more important to her?

Melanie's outburst, with its weird leaps of logic, illustrates the paranoia that overtakes some otherwise calm and rational Jews when Israel is in contention. She managed to stop just short of suggesting that David Hare has joined the Adolf Fan Club, but it was a close-run thing.

Some Jews who wouldn't dream of living in Israel-- far too dangerous, noisy and full of rude, crude Hebes from North Africa and Russia, darling-- overcompensate by this rhetorical sword-swinging. It doesn't impress anyone outside the eruv.

"Hebes"? I haven't heard that derogation in a while. Way to go.

Didn't Melanie just mean that Hare's play is likely to increase the popularity of the great Jewish Conspiracy myth, just as Bernstein increased the popularity of Shakespeare's play? If that is indeed was her simple analogy, rather than some deeply cryptic message, the possibility is odds on, I would guess. But we'll have to wait and see until someone sees the script. Why is everybody jumping on Melanie? Unless of course you all believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and agree with Henry Ford? The above posts seem to indicate that.

"generally showing liberal scum like David Hare "

Anna I take exception to this kind of language about David Hare. He is a playwright and has views whether I agree or not; he has free exprssion on the stage. I find your terminology an affront to civilised democratic values and the language usually associated with political extremists......you might wish to reflect soberly on your use of such terms

As for making Romeo & Juliet popular, I thought the delectable Olivia Hussey did that with Zeferilli's film version......

and why does she refer to Bernstein? What about Gounod's opera or Prokofiev's ballet ? Melanie is so into 'Prolekult'it is very disappointing. Still, you should take a look at Olivia Hussey.....

What is neo-conservatism? According to a prominent neo-conservative (Irving Krystol):

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp

and, less partially, in an encyclopaedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

The latter notes the fact that some Jewish neoconservatives have been criticised for supporting Israel; but also points out that many prominent neoconservatives are not Jewish yet also support Israel. The Jewishness of some neoconservatives appears to be a non-issue: the article by Krystol stresses as parts of a neoconservative foreign policy the need to distinguish friends from enemies, and to defend democracies.

The wikipedia points out that a prominent neonconservative, Leo Strauss, argued that democratic leaders should tell "noble lies" when needed in leading the nation in the proper direction. "45 minutes" comes to mind.

Plenty of material here for a playwright. What I don't see is any notion that criticism of neocons is only possible by portraying them as Jews when this is not necessarily the case; or, worse still, by propagating that loathsome forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That seems to be a non-sequitur that unfortunately was introduced by Melanie herself.

I thought Neocons were dejected Great Society liberals who had made the hike across the screen from Left to Right......such as Irving Kristol. That many happen to be Jews probably has much to do with the fact that many Jews were Great Society liberals, though it wasn't a necessary condition.

Why they are suddenly the bogeymen beats me....Neocon is certainly no worse than being a liberal, even if I consider it very much better than holding the weird views liberals seem to today. It might be just a case of drawing a line in the sand and saying 'justify change' rather than this espousal of each new fad, and setting core principles.......one of those might be to protect Israel, but conservatives like Pat Buchanan can here be distinguished from Neocons on this one issue.

It is part of the marketing categorisation so loved of politics nowadays to identify people with a brand and assign to them its attributes.....really a waste of time. Was Clinton a Democrat ? He was certainly more deficit-obsessed than Bush....did the Bond Markets punish Bush as they were supposedly going to punish Clinton if he did not cut social security ?

Neocons are probably looking for consistency in a pragmatic age of political opportunism

David Hare has been a leftie for quite a while. I am not surprised by the reproted tenor of his latest play. Two years ago in London he had an anti American play whose title I forgot, anyway it had Judi Dench and Maggie Smith in it. Despite my admiration for two consummate pros I refused to see it.

Is there any play about Wahhabism and its followers being written in the UK nowadays? Anything about Muslim citizens of the UK who have taken up arms to fight against their country and its allies in places like Afghanistan and Iraq? These seem to be good subjects for drama: maybe Hare or Pinter would be interested?

lafontaine, any play about Wahhabism will get the author a fatwa—particularly if it is a musical. ;-)

Lili

Still lost I'm afraid.

I don't get how criticising a particular (arguably influential) strand of US political opinion equates with belief in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Some supposed neo-cons are Jewish and a large number tend to be hardcore Zionists. So what? Surely, this does not exhaust all the issues raised in, for example, the "Project for the New American Century". The idea of pre-emptive strikes or the imposition of a distinctively American world-view are surely legitimate targets for derision.

The New Statesman recently branded David Aaronovich a "neo-con" - no friend of Sharon. Christopher Hitchens seems to buy into much of their agenda - whilst still collaborating on pro-Palestinian tracts with the late Edward Said.

Stop reducing everything to Israel. You're simply replicating the anti-war protesters mantra.

BTW - The Leftie anti-Israel obsession is less to do with anti-semitism and more to do with the Leninist logic of the "weakest link". The same goes for the obsession with Iraq. Find the most prominant example of US supported breaches of International Law, ignore the complexities of the situation, bang on about the hipocracy of Western foreign policy, recruit a few young Muslims on the way and hope to undermine the "great satan" of western capitalism. It doesn't matter whether what you say is right so long as you say it often enough. Simple expedient revolutionary tactics.

At the same time, people die in appauling conflicts in the Congo or West Africa or are subjected to terrible abuses of human rights across Central Asia. Only there is no political capital to be made on either Left or Right.

"Is there any play about Wahhabism and its followers being written in the UK nowadays? Anything about Muslim citizens of the UK who have taken up arms to fight against their country and its allies in places like Afghanistan and Iraq? These seem to be good subjects for drama: maybe Hare or Pinter would be interested?"

Pinter or Hare are apparently not interested, so find a playwright who is, or write the play yourself.......otherwise it smacks of 'prior restraint'......people write books and plays according to their wishes, not to meet the demands of The Leader......so stop trying to sponsor hare or Pinter to write what they don't wish to, and put your money behind a playwright who will produce the play you require and then become an 'angel' by investing in it

Suggestions are not exactly "demands of The Leader" nor any kind of censorship. Then, all those saudi princes drinking booz that's ilegal for their subjects, importing top-models and so on would be so much more interesting on stage than the neocons, wouldn't they? The've got so much more local color to work with. Besides, I've always thought that lefties loved to write about the radical right. Can you imagine a more radical right wing movement nowadays than Saudi Wahhabbism?

If there is a market for such plays, I am sure you or one of your literary friends will write and produce it ? Does Israel have lots of plays about Saudi Arabian princes on TV ?

I can think of nothing more fascinating personally, but I doubt I could make money producing it. Maybe you should ask Steven Spielberg to film it ?

If there are really any British Jews who still doubt that they are in immense danger, they should come and read the comments here.

"I can think of nothing more fascinating personally, but I doubt I could make money producing it. Maybe you should ask Steven Spielberg to film it ?"

Oooh yes, Romulus, we Jews are particularly adept at making movies and money, and a huge variety of other human enterprises. That is exactly why our contribution to Western culture is without equal.

Compare this with a Britain whose film industry is nothing but a sad joke, and whose economy is kept afloat by Brits selling houses to each other.

"Stop reducing everything to Israel"

I imagine she will, the very minute you European gentiles stop reducing everything to Jews.

I am gratified Charles that you think financing the play lafontaine proposes will be easy; would you then arrange someone to write it ?

"Melanie's outburst, with its weird leaps of logic, illustrates the paranoia that overtakes some otherwise calm and rational Jews when Israel is in contention"

The "Jews are just paranoid" charge is frequently levelled against the Jewish people, especially at times of maximum danger.

If we weren't highly suspicious of gentile Europe we would be plain mad. This is a Europe that, within living memory, murdered the great majority of Jews living on the continent. This is a Europe that has always, for obvious reasons, been virulently anti-Israel. How possibly could we ever trust a Europe (including, incredibly, Germany) that, in 1973, refused to allow American overflights to Israel, at at time when Israel was in very danger of being literally wiped off the fact of the map?

How could we ever trust a Britain that fought a war in spite of and not because of the Jews? How could we ever trust a Britain that not only didn't lift a finger to help the Jews of Europe, but also, at two conferences, actively lobbied other nations to do nothing? How could we ever trust a Britain whose shameful behavior after World War II in what was then Palestine shocked the whole world with its Nazi-like brutality towards the Jews? How could we ever trust a Britain, a country which has produced the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent?

"Britain whose shameful behavior after World War II in what was then Palestine shocked the whole world with its Nazi-like brutality towards the Jews? "

If it had used "Nazi-like brutality" there would not be any Israel, nor any Jews.....has that logic eluded you ?

My Charles,you are so emotive and histrionic.

Well Charles - if you read my post I was precicely saying that the neo-cons cannot be exclusively reduced to Jewish or Israeli interests. It is Melanie who makes such an anti-semitic analogy.

Well, Romulus, you know, the problem's that Jews in general do no have much first hand experience with Saudi Arabia. Not for some 14 centuries since they've been ethnically cleansed from that region. On the other hand, many Brits do. Remember Kim Philby's father who resigned from government service in 1924 as a protest against pro-Zionist policy (some pro-Zionist policy, btw!), renounced his status as a British subject, and lived as an Arab, becoming an advisor to Ibn Saud? Remember all those British citizens who have been spending time in Saudi jails lately? Yes, there are more of them than Brits in Guantanamo Bay. I still think that would make an interesting drama and, due to the UK's first hand experience in the region, Brit writers are well positioned to write about all that. On the other hand, coming to think about it, maybe Pinter wouldn't be able to do it, because, though he's so to say a good Jew, he's still a Jew and wouldn't thus be allowed in the desert kingdom. It's better for him to write about the US, a place he can visit, though probably visiting it would interfere with his ideas about the country. Oh, and since we're talkin about financing the writing of plays, do you have any idea who's financing Hare's play about the neocons?

http://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/?lid=6936

You missed your chance to ask him in person on 27th January

As for Saudi Arabia I should think Israel has quite close ties, with it being a major market for diamonds; and we should not forget Meir Amit as head of Mossad in 1965 suppyling arms to Yemen on behalf of saudi Arabia, nor the Mossad training od SAVAK in Iran.

Brigadier Dan Hiram, Israeli Defence Attache provided weapons and instructors to Yemenis at Saudi request, men who would appear as Arabs and could fight Nasser's proxies.

1963 "a royalist delegation visited Israel and shortly afterwards 'unmarked Israeli planes made about fifteen flights from Djibouti to drop arms over royalist areas." p.684

So I don't think you need to worry about Ibn Saud or St John Philby; it appears that Israel and Saudi Arabia get on reasonably well....if your family was banned 14 centuries ago, it obviously means you should join the right agency, or enter the right business to re-establish the contacts.

"How could we ever trust a Britain whose shameful behavior after World War II in what was then Palestine shocked the whole world with its Nazi-like brutality towards the Jews? How could we ever trust a Britain that..." etc. etc.

Clearly you don't think you can, with that "Jews against the world" mental prison you've built for yourself. But in view of how proud most of us are of our country's history nonetheless, please feel free to get out of it and not come back; or if you're not British then don't by any means feel obliged ever to set foot here again.

Good day.

Yes, diamonds are a kind of WMD, though Saudi Arabia is also a big market for a certain spirit distilled in Scotland.
Then, when it comes to the Yemen, maybe you'll remember that till operation Flying Carpet that country had lots of Jews. But Yemen is not, as far as I know, Saudi Arabia. And, well, the training of the Savak (Israel wasn't the only or the main one), but Jewish relations with Persia predate the Hijra by more than a millenium. And, unfortunately, the training wasn't good enough the keep all the ayattollahs out of business.

And, Simon, would you mind giving the same advice you're giving the Jews to some Muslims in any of the main London Mosques during a Friday service? Or would you mind doing the same with the French who have vandalized your military cemeteries in Normandy? Be consistent, man, show you're really corageous, go ahead and make our day.

"the French who have vandalized your military cemeteries in Normandy? "

They didn't.......not in Normandy

I don't presume to give advice to "the Jews", "the Muslims" (or even "the French"!) - but to those who clearly hate our country that much, and yet for some reason that mystifies me choose to remain here.

Charles -

"How could we ever trust a Britain that fought a war in spite of and not because of the Jews?"

Well, that was your line on an earlier thread:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=284

You were given a great deal of historical evidence against your point of view which you have neither responded to, or, apparently, learned from. Instead (on a later thread), you accused one of your detractors of being a "Jew hater", and now you continue to trot out the same arguments. I have tried to understand your point of view, and occasionally to reason with you, but I now know that it's a waste of time because there's no point arguing with a scratched record of a lunatic.

Your posts have the opposite of the effect that you intend, because they portray noble causes, viz. the defence of Israel and Jews, and the detection and opposition of anti-semitism, as the concern of a small-minded, bigoted, fool, with a pretended knowledge of history, whose hatred extends to entire countries, continents, maybe the whole world.

The best thing for you is never to write letters of complaint to the BBC, Guardian etc, because they will immediately see that you are a raving lunatic, and they will tar your cause with the same brush.

I will continue to read Melanie, who is a much more reasoned and persuasive advocate than you - but I'm out of here. You've hit my "off" button: the continual repetition of unthinking, unreasoning and unjustified abuse drives me mad, and if I stay here I will end up in the same asylum as you.

Ciao!

"How could we ever trust a Britain that fought a war in spite of and not because of the Jews?"

Good old Britain ! Time to put our interests first !

Fighting wars "because of the Jews" sounds a bit Adolf Hitler to me, he said they were responsible, but haven't Egypt and Jordan and Syria and Iraq "fought a war ..... because of the Jews?"

So they meet with your approbation, right ?

Charles and Melanie: partners in paranoia. Luckily there are plenty of British Jews (from Jonathan Sacks down) who manage a more nuanced view of past and present.

C&M should set their dogs on Rory Bremner. In one of his monologues last night he mentioned that the USA gives 40% of its foreign and military aid to Israel (pop. 6m). He could have added that Israel gets more overseas aid from the Yanks than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, but hey, that's just a coincidence, right? You're an anti-semitic schmuck if you think otherwise.

Who said anything about coincidences, shmuck? The U.S. gives a lot of aid to Israel because American Jews and many non-Jewish Americans want Israel, the only Jewish state on the planet and the only democracy in the Middle East, to survive. They're funny that way.

Kid Charelemagne,

When the Iraqi's get their promised "democracy" from the US will the mantra change to "one of only two democracies in the Middle East"?
Or am I being slightly naive?

The US seem to have already made all the major decisions about which of their corporate friends is to colonise the Iraqi economy. Looks like all they'll be left with is hard decisions on which type of biscuits to order for their tea breaks.

Try asking the Chilean's or the Nicaraguans about the US love for democracy. Or, for that matter,
those suffering under the Central Asian despots to whom the US has been nothing but polite and accomodating.

Chileans are and were in their majority against Allende, that's why their army (the Chilean, not the US) had such an easy job in defeating the allies of Castro and the USSR who wanted to do something you'd probably call "freeing" Chile. Nicaragua voted the Sandinistas out and most of the population there doesn't seem interested in becoming a new Cuba: they happen to like to eat, for instance (and they don't want to send their kids to Angola or Mozambique or to wage guerrilla waefare in Granada etc.).
The Iraqis, on the other hand, seem to be tired of having had their economy colonized by substandard Russian and French products. Remember, the only country that was ever able to win wars with French weapons was Israel. Maybe doing business with the US will be better for Iraq than with the corrupt Euro elites: but you can always ask Charles Pasqua and Alain Juppé for their opinions.
Now, about the suffering of Central Asia, let me see: 2.500 years ago the Chinese were already colonizing the region; then came the nomadic peoples, then the Muslim colonization, then the Russian expansionism and some British incursions too. Now, the problems of a region that have belonged safely to the Czarist and Soviet Russians for almost two centuries is the fault of the US? If so, then at least admit it was Russia that killed the Apaches, Iroquois etc.
The US gave money to Israel because, unlike, say, France, Germany, Belgium etc. that were rebuilt with US cash, Israel had been an ally and, during the cold war, actually fought and defeated the allies of America's enemy (the USSR, if you still remember that). How many Russian allies or satellites has continetal Europe defeated militarily during the Cold War? Anyway, British and French historic chutzpah knows no limits: two countries that created all the Middle Eastern confusion (plus the rest of Europe that added to it by trying to eliminate the Jews and thus generating the need for a Jewish homeland)dare to criticize the US and Israel. A bit of humility and self-criticism wouldn't harm you, my Euro friends.

"A bit of humility and self-criticism wouldn't harm you, my Euro friends."

Much more likely occurrence in Europe than in israel......but hubris is followed by.......

"When the Iraqi's get their promised 'democracy' from the US will the mantra change to 'one of only two democracies in the Middle East'?"

Insh'Allah.

And by the way, Iraq is already much more democratic than any other Arab country. Since Saddam Hussein was chased out, scores of independent newspapers and weblogs representing a huge diversity of views have popped up. Where else does that exist in the Middle East (outside of Israel)?

"Chileans are and were in their majority against Allende, that's why their army (the Chilean, not the US) had such an easy job in defeating the allies of Castro and the USSR who wanted to do something you'd probably call "freeing" Chile."

Only once Kissinger had orchestrated the assasination of general Schneider. Previously the army had a strong policy of poilitical neutrality. Democracy rarely results in an overwhealming consensus. Allende won the vote and thats that. Thay they were deemed too "irresponsible" (Kissinger) to make such a decision, expresses the US contempt for democratic processes.

"Nicaragua voted the Sandinistas out and most of the population there doesn't seem interested in becoming a new Cuba"

After 10 years of economic sanctions and terrorist activity backed by the United States, which brought them a slap on the wrists in the international court. The US trained contra's attacked schools, hospitals and any other soft-target killing thousands.

I don't care who has done what to the Central Asian republics in the past, it does not mitigate the fact that the US arms, supports economically and gives credence to some of the most vile regimes on the planet - Turkmenistan, Uzbeckistan etc.

My point about colonisation was that "democracy" would mean that Iraq should decide the terms upon which its economy is constructed (socialist/mixed/free market etc). The US has already made these decisions in advance - opting to create yet another dependant, 3rd world, neo-liberal economy behind which US corporations will be pulling the strings.

Guy, if Allende had not nationalised Kennecott Copper he might have survived. He was a fool however and not very successful, but copper was a strategic good and Chile had quite a bit of it

Some of you may have been taken in by "Charles" who is clearly an anti-Semite in a very thin disguise. He gives the game away when he says that Jews (of which he pretends to be one) are good at making money and films. Same old racist stereotypes.

I'm afraid discussion of Israel/Palestine will always attract a tiny minority of vocal anti-Semites: those who shout their prejudices loudly; and those who feign to be Jewish and/or Zionist but then seek to discredit both.

I'm as fiercely anti-Zionist as anyone but I refuse to have our cause hijacked by the race hate no-brains of the BNP and their ilk, who hate the Arabs at least as much as they seem to hate Jewish people.