British Media Ramp Up the Jew-Baiting
Every Jew is a suspect in this new golden age of high-class anti-Semitism.
December 14, 2009 - 12:00 am
On December 4 I wrote an editorial for PJ Media about the scurrilous Channel Four television documentary presented by British conservative commentator Peter Oborne exposing the “power” of the Anglo-Jewish lobby.
Now I would like to turn to some items following on that story.
No sooner had the program aired than the Jew-avoidance champion Richard Ingrams wrote in his Independent column that it was about time somebody stood up to the Zionists. Then on November 28 he hit the jackpot with a real doozy: he accused former Bush advisers Doug Feith, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz (he who liveth with a Libyan lady) of being ardent Zionists who are “more concerned with preserving the security of Israel than that of the U.S.” Let’s stop and look at that for a moment: he is saying that the triumvirate of Jewish neocons was subverting the security of the United States. Isn’t that an offense punishable by life behind bars? Would Mr. Ingrams like to let us know exactly how Messrs. Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle were ignoring the security of the American people in favor of the Israelis?
Now, why did I refer to Richard Ingrams as a “Jew-avoidance champion” a moment ago? Well, in the 2007 documentary Kike Like Me, director Jamie Kastner notes that Ingrams felt ill-disposed towards opening letters addressed to him at the Observer if the name on the envelope looked Jewish. And before bloggers accuse me of being obsessed with anti-Semitism, please note that in the Jewish Chronicle of November 25, Jonathan Hoffman of the Zionist Federation UK, with whom I appeared on the terrifying hate-Israel fest on Press TV in London on June 12, describes Ingrams as “vile.”
This brings me to the second Jew-hatred event of the month, which Ingrams thinks is long overdue. In the Independent of November 22, Sir Oliver Miles, the former British ambassador to Libya (Melanie Phillips refers to his ilk as the camel corps), makes the staggering assertion that two Jews with obvious pro-Israeli leanings, Sir Martin Gilbert and Sir Lawrence Freedman, should not have been selected to serve on the Iraq inquiry panel. He says, “Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media.” Well, Sir Oliver, inasmuch as these two men are prolific and quite brilliant historians of international repute, one doubts the media are fixating on their Jewishness but rather on the excellence of their acclaimed work.
Miles actually goes on to say that Jewish newspapers and non-U.S., non-UK media do talk about Gilbert’s Zionism at length; knowing their work as I do, the last thing I think of when reviewing Gilbert or Freedman is Zionism. What is deeply disturbing about the Miles accusation is that he suggests Freedman and Gilbert will have some kind of Jewishly unique pro-Blair, pro-Bush, pro-Zionist “handy ammunition” when needed and that this will result in the panel being “unbalanced.” So, this means that in the future, jobs in British government inquiries should have the health warning “Jews need not apply.”