BanksyPalestineBarrier

The Curious Case of David Ward ’s Scalp

by on

Confusion as UK Liberal Democrats issue new instructions on language involving ‘the Jews’

Last week British MP David Ward was left wondering if his scalp would soon be hanging in the Zionists’ tepee.

Ward, if you remember, wrote on his website:

I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.”

This caused a great hullabaloo. Karen Pollock of the Holocaust Educational Trust said Ward “deliberately abused the memory of the Holocaust” and his remarks were “sickening”.

Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews was outraged by Ward’s “offensive” comments and complained:

For an MP to have made such comments on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day is even more distasteful…”

The Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, Alistair Carmichael, immediately wrote to Ms Pollock that Ward’s remarks were “wholly inappropriate” and that “singling out ‘the Jews’ in the way he does crosses a line of acceptability and is offensive”. He also wished to dissociate the Liberal Democrats from Ward’s remarks as they did not reflect the views of the party.

Carmichael said he was arranging a meeting to discuss the matter with Ward, and many believed this would result in disciplinary action. But for the last few days party sources have been strangely silent. What happened? The ever-watchful Jewish Chronicle had the answer to the question on everyone’s lips… Is David’s scalp intact, or has it become another Zionist trophy?

The JC reports that after his discussions with Ward, Carmichael sent a letter calling on him to

confirm the undertaking that you gave to me in our meeting that you will not again use the phrase ‘the Jews’ in this context. I am strongly of the view that your use of the phrase ‘the Jews’ in this context was unacceptable and I formally censure you for that.

Censure? Jeepers, that’s strong stuff… a formal reprimand, an official rebuke, an ugly blot on his LibDem service record, and no front-bench promotion for David anytime soon.

According to the JC, Mr Ward replied: “I confirm that I am prepared to give you the undertaking that you asked for in our meeting.”

But it isn’t enough for the moaners. They still wanted blood and hair. The Deputies’ vice-president Jonathan Arkush says on the Board’s website: “Most of our community will regard the censure as completely inadequate. It misses much of the point and is far too limp-wristed to be much of a disciplinary step. It would have been better if serious consideration had been given to withdrawing the whip from Mr Ward, or even expelling him from the party altogether.”

At least Ward keeps his hair… or does he? In these circumstances and under pressure from impertinent outsiders, a censure sounds uncomfortably like the lifting of someone’s scalp. Ward emerges bruised and humiliated as a result of the chief whip’s over-eagerness to placate those who, many believe, have no real reason to complain.

If you call yourself “the Jewish State” (even though it’s really a Zionist state), and tell everybody it’s the “Jewish Homeland” and hide behind the Jewish faith, your crimes will inevitably reflect badly on ‘the Jews’, or Jewish people generally. So how is this new language rule going to work? In what circumstances, exactly, mustn’t David Ward or other Liberal Democrats use that dreaded phrase ‘the Jews’?

And is the hypothetical Man on the Clapham Omnibus seriously expected to differentiate?

Luckily this fog of confusion and fear, no doubt created to further shut down criticism of the Israeli regime, is lifted by Alan Hart who reminds us, in his latest article ‘Anti-Semitism: What it IS and is NOT’, of the warning by one of Israel’s top military intelligence men, Yehoshafat Harkabi: “Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.”

So Israeli Jews know perfectly well the possible consequences to their brethren elsewhere but just don’t care. Meanwhile, under the new Carmichael Doctrine are we permitted to ask, without fear of causing offence, how much longer it will take ‘the Jews’ (meaning Harkabi’s “Jews throughout the world”) to end Israel’s 65 year-old crime spree in their name against the Palestinians?

Stuart Littlewood
31 January 2013

Share Button
14 replies to this post

  1. Jewish mindset of ‘We have to have a place we are wandering here to there, we have been persecuted for centuries we have to have a place of our own’…. makes one think of a guy who has been kicked out of a bar he comes to you and says this bartender is a real bastard he kicked me out the bar for no reason whatsoever you find out this guy has been kicked out of a 109 bars you start to wonder if the problem is not with the bartenders but with the individual itself.

  2. Mr. Littlewood appears to be in a league of “critics” that seeks to promote the rhetoric that Zionism is something different and apart from Judaism rather than being the outgrowth of Judaism itself. The problem with the Jews is their ideology and practices which should be analysis and scrutinized.

    Unfortunately Mr. Littlewood as with Alan Hart seeks to absolve Jews of responsibility for their ideology. They run to the rooftop and blame “Zionists” rather than “The Jews” or blame “Nazis” and seek to equate “Zionism to Nazis” as Alan Hart did in one of his recent articles.

    What this line of “Zionism ain’t Judaism” rhetoric does is promote the defence which is essentially what David Ward was doing as to say the Jews where victims of the Nazis and therefore their current action is due to “abuse”. This rhetoric absolves Jews of responsibility for their supremacist tenets and what writers like Mr Littlewood is doing is misleading and misinforming the public.

    The Jews needs to be called out for an ideology of supremacy that is destroying humanity. Those who want to label themselves as “Jews” them must take responsibility for the consequences of their ideology that is wrecking havoc. Otherwise if Mr. Hart and Mr. Littlewood care about “the Jews” as their writings indicate them they would be really be serving humanity as well as “the Jews” by telling them the TRUTH rather than making excuses for them.

  3. It is called the “Fallacy of the Middle Ground”. Seeking a “middle ground” when it comes to dealing with “The Jews” is capitulation. As we have seen over the centuries that Capitulation to Jewry only enhanced Jewish power.

  5. Stu you are deliberately narrowing the issue to “Israel” which illustrates my critique of your rhetoric. What about the Jewish occupation of Germany; the Jewish domination of the EU and the US.; the Zionist war on Africa. Somehow Stu you overlook the rest of the world. You also failed to address the abhorrent tenants of supremacy inherent to Judaism. That is the basis and what is at heart the problem.

    By your deliberate narrowing and also stating that this is a problem for Jews to solve you are dangerously misinforming your readership. The Jews cannot solve this because their belief system and structures demand them to behave in this manner. This will only change when we force Jews to repudiate their quest for supremacy and domination of humanity. In other words to complete Jesus’s mission.

  6. Deadbeat: “The Jews cannot solve this because their belief system and structures demand them to behave in this manner. This will only change when we force Jews to repudiate their quest for supremacy and domination of humanity. In other words to complete Jesus’s mission.”

    I think you really need to define what exactly you mean by “The Jews” in the quote above, because it really isn’t clear….

    Also, how do you propose forcing this group to do anything?

    • Roy Bard writes …

      I think you really need to define what exactly you mean by “The Jews” in the quote above, because it really isn’t clear….

      Stu defines “The Jews” in his article where he wrote the following …

      ‘the Jews’ (meaning Harkabi’s “Jews throughout the world”)

      This to me means exactly the group that Henry Ford writes about in his expose of Jewry — The Internation Jew. I’ve just starting reading this book and I highly recommend reading this book if you need to understand what the meaning of the pharse “The Jews”.

      Also, how do you propose forcing this group to do anything?

      It starts with education and telling the truth about “The Jews”. Unfortunately articles like the one above tries to engage in the fallacy of the middle ground but such is CAPITULATION and history has shown us that capitation has failed and in fact assisted in the growth of Jewish power. Had American been educated about Jewish power they would not have been so easily led into WWI and WWII which aided Jewry to increase their power and world-wide hegemony.

      • “Stu defines “The Jews” in his article where he wrote the following …

        ‘the Jews’ (meaning Harkabi’s “Jews throughout the world”)”

        I’m still not much clearer on what you mean by “the Jews” when you say: ““The Jews cannot solve this because their belief system and structures demand them to behave in this manner.”

        Harkabi wrote: ” It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.””

        So, if I understand him, he is saying that Israeli policies can lead to an upsurge in anti-Semitism, where Jews who are not aligned with Israel could pay the price.

        Your claim that “The Jews cannot solve this because” appears to be a general statement about all Jews – if that is the case, any generalisation about a group composed of millions of individuals is bound to be wrong.

        • Your claim that “The Jews cannot solve this because” appears to be a general statement about all Jews – if that is the case, any generalisation about a group composed of millions of individuals is bound to be wrong.

          The “Not All Jews” argument eh? I guess you can make an argument like that if one doesn’t understand the foundations of Judaism.

          Essentially you are suggesting that my argument is a “guilt by association” fallacy.
          However my argument is that folks who identity as Jews at a minimum have an affinity towards the religion called Judaism. Just like those who identify as Christians have a similar affinity to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

          Unfortunately, Judaism has a dark aspect to it — a supremacy as inscribed in the Torah and the Talmud. Christianity on the other hand teaches the values of universalism.

          A “Jew” therefore represents the teaching and practices the tenets of Judaism while a Christian likewise the tenets of Christianity.

          It is clear that folks who uphold the tenets and practices of Jewish supremacy over the Goyim are “Jews”.

          Now there may be people who call themselves “Jews” who completely reject Judaism’s supremacist tenets and practices. This is similar to those C.I. Schofield Zionists who call themselves “Christians”.

          In both cases the two aforementioned groups are mislabelled because they do not represent the fundamental tenets and aims of their respective religions.

          Thus Roy, unless you are ready to show that Judaism is not represented by the supremacist tenets of imbued by Torah and Talmud and that Judaism is represented by something else whatever that “else” is then it is you, Roy, who needs to explain the contradiction of your argument.

          Oh BTW I also stated in my previous post that by “The Jews” you can read The International Jew by Henry Ford if you need a better explanation of the meaning of “The Jew”.

          • Deadbeat: The “Not All Jews” argument eh?

            I believe it was the “generalisations about groups that consist of millions of people don’t work” argument!

            Deadbeat: “my argument is that folks who identity as Jews at a minimum have an affinity towards the religion called Judaism.”

            The vast majority of people who identify as Jews, are Jews by default ie they were born to Jewish parents , who identified as Jews, and in many cases within communities that also identified as Jewish – but there are an increasing number who are secular and who don’t feel an affinity to any strand of the Judaic religion. Others have a different view of the Jewish religion.

            For example, Richard Falk notes:

            For me to be Jewish is, above all, to be preoccupied with overcoming injustice and thirsting for justice in the world, and that means being respectful toward other peoples regardless of their nationality or religion, and empathetic in the face of human suffering whoever and wherever victimization is encountered…

            …As the great Rabbi Hillel teaches, “[T]hat which is hateful to you do not do to another..the rest (of the Torah) is all commentary, now go study.” Not hateful only to another Jew, but clearly meant to encompass every human being.

            However much Greenstein rails against Atzmon’s categorisation of Jews, he is clearly in the third category, but what of the other two categories?

            I will return to this when I have more time – but your post to which I originally responded did make me think of my local shop being done over my anti-Muslim racists – even though the owner is a Sikh…….

  7. Verbal Defecation Buries Truth
    By William A. Cook

    Excerpt: If truth be told, it did not take “a few years” for the Jews to inflict “unbelievable levels of persecution” on the indigenous people of Mandate Palestine; the persecution began in earnest in 1939 against the British, the British Mandate Government established in 1922 by the League of Nations to maintain order and peace in Palestine. The Zionists undertook “a war against the British Mandate Government, its Police and Soldiers” while it lobbied and subverted the MP’s in Westminster with propaganda and money. Here are the words Weizmann and Ben-Gurion promised the Mandate Government:

    • “if further action was taken against them (by the British Mandate Government) to destroy Zionism, then there would be a blood bath. Nothing could prevent it. Nobody would be safe in Palestine (July 12, 1946, Rhodes Archive Documents). If need be, we shall take the country by force. If Palestine proves too small, her frontiers will have to be extended” (Ben Gurion, Appendix LVc).

    This war set the British Government against its own soldiers and police, yea against the nations of the world that had authorized Britain to manage Palestine, and its own Balfour Declaration wording, to appease the Zionists that made this period one of the most destructive and humiliating experienced by the British people through their elected representatives. When in 1948, May of 1948, the Mandate soldiers and police returned home they were virtually shunned by the MPs as Robert Fisk notes in his piece, “The Forgotten Holocaust.”
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33758.htm

    • When in 1948, May of 1948, the Mandate soldiers and police returned home they were virtually shunned by the MPs as Robert Fisk notes in his piece, “The Forgotten Holocaust.”

      There is another Holocaust that goes unmentioned and is “forgotten” that occurred around the same time as the tragedy in Palestine… and that is the terror campaign against the German people in the post WWII years.

      I highly recommend the book Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 by Michael Thomas Goodrich.

      Here’s a link to his interview from Revolt of the Plebs this week

Leave a Reply