Haaretz on Ben White and War on Want

Well done to Haaretz, who are covering the story of War On Want’s shameful exclusion of Jonathan Hoffman, Vice-Chair of the Zionist Federation. Cnaan Lipshitz writes of Ben White:

‘Author Ben White has argued that Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not deny the Holocaust. In 2002, White published an article in which he wrote that he can “understand” why some people are anti-Semitic, though he himself was not.

War on Want praised his new book as an “information-packed, highly readable introduction to understanding the origins of the conflict and how apartheid applies to Palestine.”

“We didn’t call the police,” said John Hilary, War on Want executive director. “Organizers of past events told us Mr. Hoffman would create a disturbance and we don’t want such people to attend.” But Sacerdoti says that “anyone who knows Jonathan Hoffman knows this claim is nonsense.”

This may well be the end of Ben White posting articles from Haaretz, which is now quite clearly a biased liberal Zionist propaganda rag that dares besmirch White’s name.

Advertisements

8 Comments

Filed under Ahmadinejad's Christian soldiers?, apartheid analogy, bigotry

8 responses to “Haaretz on Ben White and War on Want

  1. While ever there are people like Gideon Levy and Amira Hass writing for Haaretz be will easily be able to quote this fantastic paper.

    Haaretz has a broad readership who undoubtedly will be attracted to a new historian perspective such as followed by Ben White.

    A sample of Ben’s book is found here:

    http://israeliapartheidguide.com/sample/

    Jonathan Hoffman’s exclusion from the gathering is understandable as the meeting was not the forum for Mr Hoffman’s position. Whilst he holds an important perspective which needs to be considered the event was an inappropriate forum for him to speak at unless he was invited. Full credit to Mr Hoffman for trying to enter. The dissenting voice is an important one. His presence at the door is an important symbol to remind those within the meeting that such a voice needs to be considered.

    It is in the best interests of all parties that dialogue channels are kept open. The question is where and when.

  2. Correction: While ever there are people like Gideon Levy and Amira Hass writing for Haaretz Ben will easily be able to quote this fantastic paper.

  3. modernityblog

    “Jonathan Hoffman’s exclusion from the gathering is understandable as the meeting was not the forum for Mr Hoffman’s position.”

    Excluding an elderly Jewish man from a public meeting is NOT understandable.

    Unless you feel that competing voices should be silenced?

    I wonder, does that sample contain those fake Ben Gurion quotes too?

  4. Pingback: White Replies. « ModernityBlog

  5. If the roles were reversed and a fundamentalist Jewish nationalist meeting was held and an elderly gentleman who had been a British police officer in British mandate Palestine and went to share his experience of Jewish terrorism as used by Irgun I would not be surprised if that elderly gentleman too was denied entry and his voice silenced. This is the prerorgative of the organisers of the meeting. They have to weigh up the advantage of letting such a member in and the disadvantage of the bad publicity of excluding such a person.

  6. James Mendelsohn

    Mod,
    I’m not sure JH would like your description of him as an ‘elderly man’!
    But otherwise I agree with you 🙂

  7. modernityblog

    If the roles were reversed and a fundamentalist Jewish nationalist meeting was held and an elderly gentleman who had been a British police officer in British mandate Palestine and went to share his experience of Jewish terrorism as used by Irgun I would not be surprised if that elderly gentleman too was denied entry and his voice silenced.”

    What an utterly ludicrous comparison, we are talking about a national charity holding a public meeting.

    Let’s dwell on that word for a moment: public meeting

    Open to the public, not a close or private meeting.

    When you decide to expressly ban your critics from your public meetings, you have to decide why you do it? would you complain if it happened to you and does it fit into your principles?

    Those are the questions, Stewart Mill’s you should be asking yourself, not trying to justify the unjustifiable.

    Either you believe in the power of persuasion and debate, or you’ll be banning all of your critics when you have the power and opportunity, so it is worthwhile pondering the issue *if* you truly believe in freedom of expression, or just when it suits you and people who share your views.

    Again, a national charity should not be holding a public meeting on an inflammatory subject, which potentially could store up racial hatred and then than ban one of its critics, on spurious grounds.

    It says much about the defenders of this practice concerning their own concept of freedom of speech, which seems to come down to: freedom to propagandarise lies, freedom to stir up hatred and not freedom of speech for those who criticize them.

  8. Pingback: Ben White’s questionable book « Engage – the anti-racist campaign against antisemitism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s