BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 07:49 AM

I have never equated antisemitism with 'just being a prat'.

Yes you have Dave. Think back.

How about 6 lines down in your same post

Not what I was accused of. I just said I agreed with Joe about something.

Jim,
"QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!"
This has become nonsensical Keith

Yes, you never can, revealing yourselves to be liars.

Nobody else is discussing Labour anti-Semitism

Who was I discussing it with then??

and you refuse to discuss Israeli anti-Semitism

This thread is about UK politics, not Israel.
I will be happy to squash your silly claims again, but not on this thread.

Norman Finklestein" has since leapt to her defence by pointing out that it was a joke

She did not see it as a joke, and really advocated it.

It has nothing whatever to do with The Labour Party

Of course it has. She is a Labour MP and Labour suspended her over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 07:36 AM

It was not an assertion - it was a joke, which I'll now make serious, based on the fact that you lied about Wheatcroft's use of the word "fraudulent," misapplying it to someone he never said it about, and that you lied about Naz Shah, assigning the word "blatantly" to her statement though she never used it. On top of that, you assigned a remark to Shah that she never made, about advocating the transportation of Jews out of Israel, and you blatantly ignore the fact that the map was intended as a joke which was not her own work at all but that of a Jew who was affected by the Holocaust, Norman Finkelstein, who stated that it was a joke. You make things up, Keith, and you never back down. That's why you are a laughing stock here whose word can never be trusted.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 06:21 AM

Incidently, as Shah said in her apology "I wan't antisemitic - what I put up was antisemitic"
The originator of the suggestion, Norman Finklestein" has since leapt to her defence by pointing out that it was a joke circulating throughout America when he first put it up.
It has nothing whatever to do with The Labour Party and the fact that it is the remaining case of "massive Labour antisemitism" and the fact of your clinging onto it like a life-raft makes your argument (or lack of one) a joke in itself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 06:11 AM

You resented the time I suggested you were stonewalling - here you are doing it as a permanent ploy to avoid facts
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 05:44 AM

"QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!"
This has become nonsensical Keith
- nobody tells lies and you are dishonest in the way you respond to given facts
You are now entering into the reallms of trollism by making statements you refuse to debate on any issues that don't back up your cursade on a subject that is long dead elsaewhere
Nobody else is discussing Labour antisemitism and you refuse to discuss Israeli antisemitism that has been confirmed by your fellow Israeli supporters on a now closed thread
None of them has describe d it as "a pack of lies" - you even out-troll them
You are truely on your own
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 04:53 AM

Not true. Produce an example if you can.

How about

You appear not to, equating it with just being a prat.

I have never equated antisemitism with 'just being a prat'. I have said that anyone using any racist phrases, particularly those in the public eye, are prats. Equating it to just being a prat is your interpretation, not my words.

If I have ever done that, QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!

How about 6 lines down in your same post

Steve, Jim and Greg, I do agree with Joe that you are "bullies who dominate almost every political thread here."

Do you really think that people don't notice these things Keith or do you not care?

Different mora...

Oh, you know the drill.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 04:48 AM

That is a blatantly fraudulent statement, Keith!

Just another of your empty assertions that you can not substantiate with any actual facts.

It is amusing how you people all switch to personal attack when your arguments all fail.
You might as well post, "We lose."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 04:30 AM

And when you quote from a post in a thread, you are, by implication provided by the fact that you selected the quote to make a point (in this case smearing Jim), passing comment. Let's get rid of that particular piece of Keithly bullshit, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 04:26 AM

Too bad. I wouldn't hang around a place full of bullies if I were you, Keith. Just a helpful suggestion. That's the thing about internet forums. It's not like being sent to school where you live in daily dread of the bullies you're forced to mix with. You have a choice.

"You make things up and put words that people have not said in their mouths."

"Not true. Produce an example if you can."

That is a blatantly fraudulent statement, Keith! 😂😂😂

(Explanation of the joke will be provided on application...)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 03:56 AM

Dave,
You have no clue whatsoever what Naz Shah believes,

Yes I do. I read what she writes. That is a big clue to what she believes.

You make things up and put words that people have not said in their mouths

Not true. Produce an example if you can.

When asked to provide evidence you change the subject.

That has never happened, and again you will never produce an example.
Having to make up shit about me shows that your case has failed.

When your so called evidence is questioned you cry abuse and bullying.

If I have ever done that, QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!

Steve,
That IS a comment on the thread

No. I just gave the name of the thread I assumed you meant, with a quote from Joe's post that I assumed you referred to.
I made no comment of my own at all.

Jim, I do not find Ake to be in the least patronising.

Steve, Jim and Greg, I do agree with Joe that you are "bullies who dominate almost every political thread here."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 03:41 AM

When your so called evidence is questioned you cry abuse and bullying.

Or maybe he does it by proxy?

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 02:17 AM

What a shower of bullies!

Keith keeps calm and makes his point, you simply offer abuse in return.

You couldn't make this stuff up!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 03:37 AM

Incidentally Ake
Has it not occurred to you how partonising your behaviour towards Keith is?
He doesn't need a minder constantly leaping in to defend him from all those "bullies"- people who choose to participate in these debates do so because they feel themselves capable of doing so without having a nurse on hand to wipe their bum and blow their nose.
He is mentally competent enough to stop when he has had enough
You know that because you never allow yourself to get involved in a discussion long enough to even respond to what others have to say - one of your easily recognisable traits
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 02:59 AM

"What a shower of bullies!"
You have become just a mindless troll with nothing to say here Ake - you ever hav had the courage to back up your tyrollism with decent argument - your post is lttle more than hate-mail now
Keith chooses to drag this long-dead thread on and on and on for his own gratification - nobody forces him to do so, but at least he responds to what people have to say - in his own distinctive manner
To expect others to allow him to smear the party and the politics and the Party without reply is bullying censorship in the extreme
I sugest you add to the discussion or butt out and mind your own business - if you have nothing to contribute it is nothing to do with you - simple as that
If I have been "proved wrong" show me where I have - but you don't do that sort of thing, do you
You prefer to hide behind others and throw stones from a safe distance - that's what trolls do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 02:17 AM

What a shower of bullies!

Keith keeps calm and makes his point, you simply offer abuse in return.
Jim continues to show what sort of person he is, liking to dish it out, but completely unable to accept it when proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:39 PM

No Steve, he's a truly horrible child.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:36 PM

Well, Keith, you said:

"Steve, I took no part in that discussion, and will pass no comment on it now it is closed.
I just cleared up which thread you were talking about."

But you didn't just "clear up which thread." You did pass comment on it, in a most opportunistic and despicable way. You said, commenting on the thread:

"I think you must mean the "INTERNATIONAL BRIGADES Urge MP support" thread, where Joe said,
'Here's Jim Carroll, proving that he actually may be a Jew-hater after all.'"

That IS a comment on the thread. Your motive for digging out that blatant out-of-context remark was very clear. You wanted to smear Jim. You are truly a horrible man.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:31 PM

You have no clue whatsoever what Naz Shah believes, what I believe nor, I suspect, what you believe yourself. Your arguments are just circular and vacuous. You make things up and put words that people have not said in their mouths. When asked to provide evidence you change the subject. When your so called evidence is questioned you cry abuse and bullying. Everyone knows what you are like but still we try to reason with you. I think it must be me that is mad.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:02 PM

That's the whole problem, Prof. - you have no idea what ANYONE is talking about. Including yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 02:55 PM

PYRRIC VICTORY

PUBLIC SECTOR ONLY

PUBLIC RAGE FORCES RETREAT

UNDEMOCRATIC SAYS BRITISH JEWS

ILLEGAL

BAN DENIES THE RIGHTS WE ARE DEFENDING

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 02:05 PM

Dave,
1. Say that she believes being antisemitic is not being a prat

No. that she believes it worse than just being a prat, as I clearly stated.

2. That she agrees with whatever it is you are rambling on about

No. Just on what I clearly stated.

3. That I do not take antisemitism seriously.

You appear not to, equating it with just being a prat.

Greg, I have no idea what you are talking about.
If anyone else does, please explain.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 12:27 PM

I HAVE explained myself, Professor, viz: You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 12:16 PM

Her words need no interpreting. She could not be clearer about what she now thinks of her anti-Semitic outbursts.

In other words you believe that the words she used

1. Say that she believes being antisemitic is not being a prat
2. That she agrees with whatever it is you are rambling on about and
3. That I do not take antisemitism seriously.

There is something seriously different in our understanding of the English language. Dare I say it... :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 12:10 PM

Why can't you just say what you mean Greg?
I have replied correctly to Steve's post.
If you disagree explain yourself, otherwise forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 12:00 PM

No, no Professor - the two sentances before that.

You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 11:49 AM

"we took three local councils – Leicester, Swansea and Gwynedd – to court for passing BDS motions, and it was on the back of those legal actions that the (UK) Government has decided to move to ban such boycotts"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/12162084/Jews-know-that-a-boycott-is-just-the-beginning.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 11:48 AM

CANADIAN JEWS, NOT THAT THEIR OPINIONS COUNT!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 11:36 AM

I did Greg. Perhaps you need to.
He also said, "I think you've made up everything in that sentence."
I showed him to be wrong about that.
Thanks for bringing it up Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 11:32 AM

As many as three – out of how many?
America ha kept Israel from facing war crimes charges with its UN veto and waged war on Vietnamese peasants for fourteen years by pouring burning petrol on them
FRANCE

CANADA

CANADA AGAIN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 11:27 AM

Nice try, Professor, but YOU LOSE.

Now, go back and read Steve's posting - for comprehension this time - & then try again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 10:28 AM

Steve,
Give me a list of the countries that have condemned it.

Wiki,
Canada
Legislative Assembly of Ontario
In 2016, in a bipartisan vote, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario passed a resolution that "calls on the legislature to stand against any movement that promotes hate, prejudice and racism" and "reject the 'differential treatment' of Israel by the BDS movement".[56]

France
In France, the 2003 Lellouche law outlaws discrimination based on a variety of immutable characteristics, including national origin."[57][58] That law and hate speech laws have been applied to BDS activities.[59]

United States
In April 2015, Tennessee became the first state in the United States to pass a resolution condemning BDS.[60] As of June 2017, a total of 21 states have passed anti-BDS legislation.[61]

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 10:20 AM

Rag,
But she did not use the word "blatantly" though did she.

She could have because in the context the words are interchangeable.
I am not getting involved in etymological pedantry with you, and that is my last word on it.

But you did pass comment, didn't you, Keith, which is why I mentioned it, you clown!

I made no comment at all, you clown!

Dave,
In other words no evidence but your interpretation of her words.

Her words need no interpreting. She could not be clearer about what she now thinks of her anti-Semitic outbursts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 09:43 AM

""Here's Jim Carroll, proving that he actually may be a Jew-hater after all:""
Can some moderator please prevent yet another thread from being used for yet another series of hate posts from those who have no rational arguments any more
To use a despicably cowardly posting from someone who should know better who has been given the right of reply after a thread has been closed down to the rest of us is beyond belief
If we wish to deal with antisemitism fully here, deal with the fact that Israel is now colluding with a fascist group in Hungary to prevent antisemitic posters from being banned - that's what I call antisemitism on an international scale - a pale shadow of any imagined and unproven antsemitism in the Labour Party
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 09:12 AM

accusations that are safely beyond the reach of responses.

Yeah, seems like Joe in addition to honing his trolling skills is a coward and a schoolyard bully.

Fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 09:05 AM

In other words no evidence but your interpretation of her words. Nothing whatsoever to conclude that she believes anything that you say. No evidence to back up you ridiculous claim that I do not consider antisemitism to be serious either.

Quelle Surprise.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 08:56 AM

But you did pass comment, didn't you, Keith, which is why I mentioned it, you clown!

"As for BDS, it is considered to be anti-Semitic and condemned by many countries for being a campaign to delegitimize Israel and spread hate and anti-Semitism around the world."

Considered by you. Give me a list of the countries that have condemned it. In each case, give me their official reason for condemning it. In other words, I think you've made up everything in that sentence. It's just throwaway stuff, isn't it? So I'm challenging you to verify it. No rush.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 07:55 AM

But she did not use the word "blatantly" though did she.

YOU have interjected that word which has a totally different meaning to the word "clearly" which was used.

I have put both dictionary definitions on this thread just for you.

If you cannot understand the difference find an adult who will explain it to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 07:48 AM

I would venture to guess that Joe intended the recipient of Carroll's generous offer of redemption to be the Anti Defamation League and not the Jewish Defense League but I will let Joe speak to that.

As for BDS, it is considered to be anti-Semitic and condemned by many countries for being a campaign to delegitimize Israel and spread hate and anti-Semitism around the world. In France, for instance, advocating for BDS is illegal and considered a hate crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 07:42 AM

Dave,
So, you have hard evidence that Naz Shah agrees with you? On What?

On what I said she did Dave.
"That (anti-Semitism)is worse than just making a prat of herself,"

She has made statements subsequently that show how seriously she views her errors. More than just making a prat of herself.

Steve, I took no part in that discussion, and will pass no comment on it now it is closed.
I just cleared up which thread you were talking about. You described it as the Civil War thread, neither of which words appeared in the title.

Rag, both of those definitions describe her anti-Semitic statements very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 07:15 AM

You are misrepresenting Joe Offer's (rather unfortunate) recent contributions, in which his opinions were inconsistently-expressed and somewhat uninformed to say the least. You opportunistically picked that out to smear Jim. Tell us what YOU think, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 07:05 AM

"Did she really say BLATANTLY antisemitic? Or is this yet another example of your hyper-interpretational skills? She said "clearly anti-Semitic" which means the same"

Definitions:
1.blatantly
ˈbleɪt(ə)ntli/Submit
adverb
in an open and unashamed manner.

2.clearly
ˈklɪəli/Submit
adverb
in a clear manner; with clarity.

Quite different meanings there professor, you are attempting to re-write the dictionary ........... again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 07:05 AM

I back my opinion with hard evidence and quoting Shah herself.

So, you have hard evidence that Naz Shah agrees with you? On What?

Yours appear to be just baseless whims.

Is it a baseless whim that Shah was not an MP when she made her stupid remarks while Morris was? Is it a baseless whim that both made prats of themselves? Your opinion, as ever, is based on rigid preconceptions and you hate having that pointed out.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 06:59 AM

Steve,
Joe Offer took the opportunity to have an extended last word in the Civil War

I think you must mean the "INTERNATIONAL BRIGADES Urge MP support" thread, where Joe said,
"Here's Jim Carroll, proving that he actually may be a Jew-hater after all:"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 06:52 AM

Dave,
Yes Keith, just your opinion. Again. Worth very little in most places and even less on here. In my opinion

I back my opinion with hard evidence and quoting Shah herself.
Yours appear to be just baseless whims.

Nice to see you using the same type of weasel words that the Daily Heil use.

I do not, and I never quote the Mail either.

Steve,
Did she really say BLATANTLY antisemitic? Or is this yet another example of your hyper-interpretational skills?

She said "clearly anti-Semitic" which means the same.
No "hyper-interpretational skills" needed by me.
She said,
"The language I used was anti-Semitic, it was offensive," she said. "What I did was I hurt people and the language that was the clear anti-Semitic language, which I didn't know at the time, was when I said, 'The Jews are rallying.'"

Jim,
Sorry I am still just discussing the Shah issue, but you are free to post any random shit you want.
I will shoot it all down again when I am finished here.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 06:16 AM

Closed or deleted threads are not really anything I bother about much, but I note that Joe Offer took the opportunity to have an extended last word in the Civil War thread that was extremely critical of Jim and which made bitter accusations that are safely beyond the reach of responses. Not my gig this, but that seems entirely wrong to me. I think his post should be deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:48 AM

I think we have had enough of this anti BDS crap Keith
The attacks on Labour were first started by Friends of Israel in response to the threat of a boycott for their illegal and inhuman behaviour
Your "massive problem" within the Labour Party has now dwindled to one member quoting a respected Jewish intellectual
Enough really is enough - the Israeli influence on this forum has reached the point where it could very well destroy it
A couple of Pro-Israeli trolls have just brought about the collapse of yet another thread by with their hate posts of "Jew Hater" - sadly it involved someone I once very much respected who also accused me of hating Jews and demanded I paid a donatation to an organisation which has been entered in Wiki as:
"a Jewish far-right religious-political organization in the United States, whose stated goal is to "protect Jews from antisemitism by whatever means necessary".[1] While the group asserts that it "unequivocally condemns terrorism" and states that it has a "strict no-tolerance policy against terrorism and other felonious acts",[2] it was classified as "a right wing extremist group" by the FBI in 2001 and is considered a radical organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[3][4] According to the FBI, the JDL has been involved in plotting and executing acts of terrorism within the United States.[3][5]"
This argument should have been over long ago when these accusations were proven to be directly linked to the Israeli anti-BDS campaign - it has no foundation and even if it was shown that Shah was not just repeating a joke, she does not represent the Labour Party, nor does she pose a threat in any way shape or form.
You have no interest in antisemitism - you never have had.
You are now endorsing antisemitism yourself by refusing to comment on Israel's support for Hungarian Antisemitism which has direct historical links to the Nazis.
It's time that all right-wing Israeli influence was exorcised from these discussions - that is what you are engaging in by flogging this long-dead dead horse
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:35 AM

Did she really say BLATANTLY antisemitic? Or is this yet another example of your hyper-interpretational skills? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 04:58 AM

Yes Keith, just your opinion. Again. Worth very little in most places and even less on here. In my opinion :-)

Nice to see you using the same type of weasel words that the Daily Heil use. Perhaps you do etc etc I would stop using that type of insidious smear if I was you. I can play that game as well. Perhaps it is true that the vicar throws cream cakes at you...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 04:46 AM

Dave,
blew it by suggesting that you think Naz Shah would agree with you.
In your dreams.

Just my opinion, but based on what she has now said about her statements.
She full confesses that they were blatantly anti-Semitic, which is indeed much worse than just making a prat of yourself.

Perhaps you do not regard anti-Semitism as being that serious, but she does.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 04:26 AM

Whike you continue to support Israeli antisemitism as you are Keith you have no case

If I have ever supported any kind of racism, QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!

Why should we believe an antisemite like you

I do not ask you to believe me, just all those liars (!) at the BBC and the Guardian, The Labour Party and every other party, and Shah herself.

It is laughable that you claim to be right and all of them wrong or lying.
Sadly that is your whole case, so you lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 07:40 PM

Whike you continue to support Israeli antisemitism as you are Keith you have no case
Why should we believe an antisemite like you
A reminder, in case you missed it the first half dozen times

The Times Tuesday, July 11th
ISRAEL BACKS HUNGARY'S 'ANTISEMITIC' POSTER AGAINST SOROS AFTER U-TURN
ISRAEL
Gregg Carlstrom Tel Aviv

Binyamin Netanyahu has overruled his ambassador and backed the right-wing Hungarian government's campaign against the Jewish billionaire George Soros.
Official posters denouncing Mr Soros have been described by Hungary's main Jewish organisation as antisemitic. Yossi Amrani, Israel's ambassador in Budapest, urged Viktor Orban, the prime minister, to remove them.
"Beyond political criticism of a certain person, the campaign not only evokes sad memories but al¬so sows hatred and fear," Mr Amrani said in a statement.
His bosses in Israel initially en¬dorsed the call, but later issued a clarification, saying that the Hungarian-born financier threatened democracy by funding charities critical of Mr Netanyahu.
Mr Orban's government has repeatedly attacked Mr Soros and is trying to close down a liberal university that he set up and funded. It has accused him of trying to flood Europe with immigrants.
It has paid for billboards across the country denouncing Mr Soros as a threat to national security. "Let's not allow Soros to have the last laugh," reads one, next to a photo of the smiling banker. The head of Hungary's Jewish community said that the billboards were antisemitic, while Human
Rights Watch compared them to Nazi propaganda, which often featured "the laughing Jew".
Mr Orban wrote a letter to Jewish leaders last week saying: "My duty is to defend our homeland and citizens."
Israel is normally quick to condemn antisemitism, but this time the government distanced itself from the ambassador's comments. "In no way was the statement meant to delegitimise criticism of George Soros, who continuously undermines Israel's democratically elected govern¬ments by funding organisations that defame the Jewish state," Emmanuel Nachson, a spokesman for the foreign ministry, said.
Mr Netanyahu has not appointed a foreign minister and holds the post himself. He is scheduled to meet Mr Orban in Hungary next week.
Israel and Hungary have both passed legislation that seeks to limit the influence of liberal charities such as those Mr Soros funds.
Last month Mr Orban praised Miklos Horthy, a Second World War-era Hungarian leader, as an "exceptional statesman". Admiral Horthy was a Nazi ally who passed a series of anti-Jewish laws.
Again, Mr Amrani protested, this time on Hungarian television, and several leading Israeli politicians urged Mr Netanyahu to cancel his visit. But the foreign ministry said it was satisfied with Hungary's clarification—that Mr Orban was only praising the "positive periods" in his predecessor's history, not the "negative periods".
Israel used to follow local Jewish communities in deciding whether to meet parties with dubious pasts. It kept its distance from the National Front in France because Jewish leaders shunned the group.
But Mr Netanyahu and his government have sought to build ties with far-right factions across Europe, viewing them as useful diplomatic allies.
Last year, the head of Austria's Freedom Party spent a week in Israel on an official visit. The Israeli foreign ministry officially boycotts the party, which was founded in 1956 by former Nazis.
Jim Carroll