Jackie Mason, Obama and the brainwashing of the British public

I have seen comedian Jackie Mason perform many times before and never expected that a visit to the opening night of his latest 'final London farewell' season would trigger a blog posting. But observing the audience interaction provided some profound and depressing facts about the UK which I think are worth sharing.

For a start you would think that people who pay big money to see Jackie Mason (and we are talking about £90 per seat for a very short show) would have some knowledge of his political views (i.e. views not dissimilar to this blog) and be sympathetic to them. OK there were plenty of politically correct /leftist Jews who came to his Zionist Federation performance at Wembley arena a few years back and complained like hell that he was 'racist', but on that occasion he was just one of several acts and the ticket price was minimal. But this was different. Although Mason has steered clear of genuine political material on all previous West End appearances I always had the impression that the audience were intelligent people who understood him.

So, to cut to the chase, one of the only places in London where I would expect NOT to come across a whole bunch of jerks who still think Obama is great is a Jackie Mason gig. Yet, depressingly, the jerks were out in force. There were indications early on that the audience were not really tuned in to his thinking (I won't go into the details) but half way through the show he asked the audience if they liked Obama and incredibly a clear majority did (which I think surprised him as much as it disgusted me). He still launched into an anti-Obama monologue (although it was very tame and politically correct compared to what he says outside of theatres) and it was obvious that most of the audience did not approve.

It seems to me that there can be no better example of the extent to which the British media continues to brainwash the public about Obama and cover up for him. Obama's incessant failings and lies have had almost no impact on his popularity in Europe because the media have simply censored them. American friends find it hard to believe that Obama is still essentially considered as a God-like figure by a majority of Brits (including most conservatives and even most Jews). But those whose only news comes from the main stream media have never been told differently. Which is why, for example, the only time I have ever been severely threatened in my professional work (which I keep free of politics) was when someone interpreted something I said (which was completely neutral) as being not sufficiently deferential to Obama; I was told by another professional that, by even suggesting that Obama was not the greatest modern politician, I was a right-wing racist and that if I did not apologise for my comment he would ensure that nobody would work with me again. 

The Infidel

David Baddiel: leftist hypocrite and self-hating Jew

A number of friends have asked me to go and see the stage production of David Baddiel's 'The Infidel'. To understand why I will not go to see this (I saw the film incidentally and it was pretty poor) here is the relevant self-explanatory snippet from a blog posting I wrote back in 2010 about anti-semitism ingrained in the world of  'the arts':

To give another flavour of this same argument, I found something very illuminating in the latest issue of the Jewish Chronicle magazine. There is an interview there with the Jewish comedian David Baddiel about his new film "The Infidel" (about a Muslim who discovers that he is Jewish). One question asks:

What can the film teach audiences? 

Baddiel answers: "The main Muslim characters in the film are not suicide bombers or fundamentalists, they are just ordinary people and the film tries to show them as such".

OK, but the very next question is: 

What does being Jewish mean to you religiously and culturally?

Baddiel answers: "Probably the key speech in the film is when the rabbi, played by Matt Lucas, doesn't let Mahmud in to see his father, who is dying, because he can't say the Shema. That is the definition of Judaism."

Obviously Baddiel does not see the irony of his determination to portray Muslims as 'just like us', but to portray Jews as religious fanatics.

It is also worth pointing out that Baddiel - whose TV career effectively ended several years ago when he stopped being funny - tried to get himself some much needed publicity last year; he was the person who led the ludicrous campaign to stop Spurs fans calling themselves 'Yids' - a campaign that was fiercely opposed by 97% of Spurs Jewish supporters (and 91% of all Spurs supporters). Baddiel is a Chelsea supporter who has never campaigned to stop the genuine anti-semitism that Chelsea fans always direct at Spurs (the gas hissing sounds, Hitler salutes etc).

6 April 2017 Update: David Baddiel did not like me criticizing him .. 

Blatant anti-semitism on stage in London ("From Here to Eternity")

Long-term readers of this blog will know that I was motivated to start the blog by the incessant and obsessive anti-Israel bias I kept coming across at cultural events in London. Over the years I have reported on many of these. Notwithstanding the fact that much of this anti-Israel activity is intrinsically anti-Semitic, I actually do not recall witnessing any blatant (non-Israel related) antisemitism. That was until Monday night when I went to see Tim Rice's musical "From Here to Eternity" (about American soldiers in Hawaii just prior to the Pearl Harbour attack), at the Shaftsbury Theatre .... and discovered that Tim Rice has also created a 1940s Shylock - without the redeeming features and without any justification from the perspective of the storyline. I am actually not normally bothered by this type of thing, but it was so blatant and so totally unnecessary that I have actually fired off a complaint to the theatre.

Most people have seen or heard of the Oscar-winning 1953 film of the same name, but few will know that the 1951 book by James Jones on which it was based, was banned because of its explicit sex. While the film retained the heterosexual scenes it removed all references to the homosexual activity, The play reintroduces these as it does a minor character - a soldier by the name of Isaac Bloom. As in the book Bloom is a Jew - and disliked for it,  being called a  "Jew boy", "Kike" etc. I don't have a problem with that because, in a similar vein, the play portrays the anti-Pole and anti-Italian mindset of the typical soldier. As in the book Bloom is also a homosexual. But for reasons that only Tim Rice can explain he has decided he also wanted to introduce a really evil soldier into the play. And that was also Bloom. And not just evil, but also a coward, a liar, and a snitch. In the play Bloom turns out to be the soldier who, having been caught by the Military Police in a gay bar, earns his personal freedom by revealing the names of all the other soldiers who were present. When confronted with this by the hero Pru, Bloom says something like "yeah that's typical, always accusing the Jew of being the snitch" which in other contexts might be seen to be exposing antisemitism. Except, because here it was true, it actually is an example of gratuitous antisemitism. For the audience Bloom is indeed a stereotypical evil queer Jew. And in case the audience 'still did not get it' Bloom then pulls out a knife and attacks the hero Pru with it. When the ensuing fight is broken up by the sergeant, Pru gets Bloom 'off the hook' by saying that no knife was used. Shortly afterwards the evil Bloom kills himself by firing a gun into his mouth. Now compare this portrayal of Bloom with what James Jones' daughter Kaylie Jones says about the character, and his suicide, in a recent interview

One soldier, Bloom, realizes he enjoys sex with men, and is so terrified and ashamed of being gay and of being called on it, that he commits suicide. The sin and the shame, it seems, are not associated with the act itself or even in getting paid for it, but in whether or not a soldier enjoys it. My father saw the total hypocrisy and ridiculousness of this and Bloom’s death is portrayed as a tragedy, absurd and unnecessary.  

In stark contrast the only thing portrayed in Bloom's death in the play was that the evil Jew bastard deserved it. At least Shakespeare endowed a modicum of sympathy in Shylock, but there was nothing to redeem Bloom.

The question I would like to ask Tim Rice is not why he decided to introduced a new evil character and make that character not just a Jew but the only Jew in the play (plenty of writers have done that for generations). I would not even bother asking him why he would introduce such a character when such a character was irrelevant to the main plot (again plenty of writers have introduced the token evil Jew just for the heck of it). The question I would ask is: would he even have thought about introducing a similar character from some other ethnic minority, such as, for example a Muslim, or a Black. He would not of course. But Jews, it seems, are safe and therefore fair game. And that is why Tim Rice has got away with as blatant a piece of 'cultural' antisemitic stereotyping as you will see anywhere outside the Muslim world.

Demonization of Israel by left-wing Israelis

I have blogged many times about how extreme leftist Israelis play a major role in the international demonization of Israel (see, e.g. here and here as examples). Often, (as in this example) they do so with the unwitting support of local diaspora communities who assume that "an Israeli speaker" is somebody who will be putting forward a positive, objective view of Israel. Often it is cultural forums (plays, films and even music events) where leftist Israelis are given a platform - again often by unwitting Jewish organisations - to promote their anti-Zionist propaganda.  So, for example, the annual UK Jewish Film Festival is currently taking place with, as in previous years, films by Israeli directors dominated by those with an anti-Zionist narrative.

Particularly depressing is when friends who are pro-Israel, but not particularly well-informed, go to one of these events not even realising that they have been subjected to two hours of anti-Israel propaganda. For example, friends were chuffed to tell us recently they had been to see an Israeli production "Ballard for the Burning Star" at the Edinburgh Festival in August. It turns out that this play is based on the writer's work with the extreme leftist NGO "Breaking the Silence", which was set up to exploit the 'experiences' of anti-Zionist Israelis who had been in the IDF and use it for propaganda to accuse Israel of war crimes. Most of the 'personal stories' have turned out to be either completely made up or grossly exaggerated (see here, here and here).

Sometimes, when confronted with the extremes of anti-Israel bigotry in the West even extreme leftist Israelis finally take a reality check. A very important example of this is the story being told by Hen Mazzig. Daniel Greenfield has a brilliant overview of his story here. This is a must read, not only for its exposure of the depths of anti-Semitism among the supposed Western intelligentsia, but also for Greenfield's exposure of the extent to which some anti-Zionist Israelis (in this case the unhinged Tal Nitzan) have contributed to this anti-Semitism.

18 Oct update: Caroline Glick has posted an especially relevant story about an anti-Israel play by an Israeli here.

Crude anti-Israel propaganda at the Saatchi gallery London

When I first started writing this blog in the summer of 2005 it was as a result of going to see a play called “Arab-Israeli Cookbook”. Instead of the pleasant evening out I was looking forward to I was subject to a barely disguised piece of brutal anti-Israel propaganda. The Israeli characters were all based on the classic stereotypes of militaristic or heartless immigrants from New York, with no culture of their own; in contrast every Palestinian character was warm, sympathetic and with rich culture deeply ingrained in the land now ‘usurped’ by the Jews.

Last Sunday I experienced the further extent to which the demonisation and deligitimisation of Israel has infiltrated British consciousness. I was at the Saatchi gallery in London to see the special exhibition of new art from the Middle East. A very fine exhibition and overall experience was totally spoiled by a vicious, nasty and unsubtle piece of anti-Israel propaganda posing as art called ‘Qalandia 2067’ by the artist Wafa Hourani. The piece is a very large model. As you approach it from the normal direction you see an intricate and impressively realistic reconstruction of a chaotic Arab village, full of life, diverse culture and even music coming from the houses. But at the end of the village is a very large wall of mirror with a soldier standing on top of it pointing a gun. As you walk round this wall you realise that it is supposed to be the Israeli security fence. But, there is no attempt to leave any doubt about what lies on the other side. In contrast to the vibrancy and ‘authentic’ life of the Arab village this is cold militaristic Israel whose only culture is American imports. Unlike the Arab village, the Israeli side is abstract and unscaled. Just in case anybody fails to notice the Israeli flags and large El Al sign, the artist has helpfully placed an enormous Star of David on a stand ‘protected’ by a soldier (who is of course much larger than any of the Arab figures) and tanks pointed at the Arab side. The only other objects on the Israeli side are an airfield with warplanes (all helpfully emblazoned with the Star of David) and a large abstract reconstruction of an eerily cold restaurant (with the obligatory Israeli flag on top) made from what appears to be coloured sweets - to laboriously emphasize that Israeli presence is alien in this land. A large ‘menu’ pinned to the model helpfully lists only American imports on offer.

The model manages to encapsulate just about every anti-Israel stereotype currently permeating our media, even to the extent of ignoring the context in which Israel’s security fence was built (Qalandia has been a notorious breeding ground for terrorists who have committed dozens of suicide attacks and shootings against Israeli civilians; only since the construction of the security fence have fatal attacks from Qalandia been largely avoided). It also portrays Israelis not just as lacking in humanity, but actually being not human at all. This is much like the way the Nazis portrayed the Jews in order to create the mindset necessary for their annihilation. Make no mistake, the anti-Israel propagandists now have the same end game in mind and they clearly feel they are winning with prominent exhibits like this (I understand that art critics have praised this piece as the outstanding work in the exhibition).

But what I cannot understand at all is why the Saatchi gallery – opened, named and presumably at least part-financed by the well-known Jewish philanthropist Charles Saatchi - should allow this piece to be displayed. Is he aware of the offence this causes to (the still large number of) people who are sympathetic to the State of Israel and the Israeli people? The large Star of David in this context is especially disturbing wince it borders on pure anti-Semitism.

It is also curious that an exhibition of new art from the Middle East fails to feature a single Israeli artist. Perhaps the owners of the gallery know that, if an Israeli artist exhibited a piece that was in any way politically sympathetic to Israel, the usual anti-Israel renta-crowd would have been protesting not just outside the gallery but would have destroyed the work itself as part of their openly stated campaign to boycott all Israeli culture. So why is the Saatchi gallery supporting those kind of people and their propaganda?

The forgotten Rachels

By TOM GROSS

"My Name is Rachel Thaler" is not the title of a play that is likely to be produced anytime soon in London. Thaler, aged 16, was blown up at a pizzeria in an Israeli shopping mall. She died after an 11-day struggle for life following the February 16, 2002 attack, when a suicide bomber approached a crowd of teenagers and blew himself up.

She was a British citizen, born in London, where her grandparents still live. Yet I doubt that anyone at London's Royal Court Theatre or most people in the British media, have heard of her. "Not a single British journalist has ever interviewed me or mentioned her death," her mother Ginette told me last week.

Thaler's parents donated her organs for transplant (helping to save the life of a young Russian man), and grieved quietly. After the accidental killing of Rachel Corrie, by contrast, her parents embarked on a major publicity campaign. They traveled to Ramallah to accept a plaque from Yasser Arafat on behalf of their daughter. They circulated her emails and diary entries to a world media eager to publicize them. Among those who published extracts from them in 2003 was the influential British leftist daily The Guardian. This in turn inspired a new play, "My Name is Rachel Corrie," which opened this month at the Royal Court Theatre,one of London most prestigious venues. (The New York Times recently described it as "the most important theatre in Europe.")

The play is co-edited and directed by Katharine Viner, the editor of The Guardian's weekend magazine, and by film star Alan Rickman (of Die Hardand Harry Potter fame). Their script weaves together extracts from Corrie's journals and e-mails. For those who don't recall the story,Rachel Corrie was a young American radical who burnt mock-American flags at pro-Hamas rallies in Gaza in February 2003. A short while later she died after jumping in front of an Israeli army bulldozer that was attempting to demolish a structure suspected of concealing tunnels used for smuggling weapons.

Partly because of the efforts of Corrie and her fellow activists in the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), the Israeli army was unable to stop the flow of weapons through these tunnels. Those weapons were later used to kill Israeli children in the town of Sderot in southern Israel,and elsewhere. However, in many hundreds of articles on Corrie published worldwide in the last two years, most papers have been careful to omit such details. So have Rickman and Viner, leaving almost all the critics who have reviewed the play completely clueless about the background of the events with which it deals.

"Corrie was always a progressive with a conscience . she went to work with the International Solidarity Movement in Gaza," wrote Michael Billington in The Guardian last week, without a shred of explanation as to what the ISM actually is.

The ISM is routinely described as a "peace group" in the western media.Few make any mention of the ISM's meeting with the British suicide bombers Omar Khan Sharif and Assif Muhammad Hanif, who a few days later blew up Mike's Place, a Tel Aviv pub, killing three and injuring dozens- including British citizens. Or of the ISM's sheltering in its office of Shadi Sukia, a leading member of Islamic Jihad. Or of the fact that in its mission statement, the ISM said "armed struggle" is a Palestinian"right." "'Israel' is an illegal entity that should not exist," wrote Flo Rosovski, the ISM "media co-ordinator," clarifying the ISM's idea of peace. Unfortunately for those who have sought to portray Corrie as a peaceful protester, photos of her burning a mock American flag and stirring up crowds in Gaza were published by the Associated Press and on Yahoo News on February 15, 2003, before she died. But the play doesn't mention this.

So British reviewers are left to tell the British public that the play is a "true-life tragedy" in which Corrie's "unselfish goodness shines through" (Evening Standard).

"Corrie was murdered after joining a non-violent Palestinian resistance organization," writes Emma Gosnell in the Sunday Telegraph. ("Murdered"is a term that even Corrie's staunchest defenders have hesitated to use up to now.)

Charles Spencer in the Daily Telegraph, talks of "Corrie's concern for suffering humanity. ones leaves the theatre mourning not only Rachel Corrie but also one's own loss of the idealism and reckless courage of youth." Not surprisingly, the play has also been praised on Al Jazeera's website and in the Beirut Daily Star. In one of the most astonishing comments, Michael Billington, the Guardian's critic, writes of the play:"The danger of right-on propaganda is avoided."

It is ironic to reflect that there have been several real victims of the Intifada called Rachel - and it is hard to believe that these critics have ever heard of them. All these other Rachels died within a few months of Corrie, but - unlike her - in circumstances that weren't disputed. They were deliberately murdered: Rachel Levy (17, blown up in a grocery store), Rachel Levi (19, shot while waiting for the bus),Rachel Gavish (killed with her husband, son and father while at home celebrating a Passover meal), Rachel Charhi (blown up while sitting in a Tel Aviv cafe, leaving three young children), Rachel Shabo (murdered with her three sons aged 5, 13 and 16 while at home). Only one critic (Clive Davis in the Times of London) dismisses parts of the play as "unvarnished propaganda." At one point Corrie declares "the vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian non-violent resistance". As Davis notes, "Even the late Yasser Arafat might have blushed at that one." Rachel Corrie's death was undoubtedly tragic. But ultimately this play isn't really about Corrie, but about fomenting hatred of Israel. The production is now sold out and there is talk of it being staged in America. The Royal Court is also rushing out a printed edition of the play to give to schools.

(The writer is the former Jerusalem correspondent of The Sunday Telegraph.)


Update August 2015:Confessions of an ISM member