Meanwhile in Hungary

November 3, 2009 — Mira Vogel

At Harry’s Place Karl Pfeifer tells of a writer who is contributing to a climate where people in Hungary can walk around proudly sporting antisemitic slogans.

Posted in antisemitism, The Right. Tags: , . 30 Comments »

30 Responses to “Meanwhile in Hungary”

  1. Absolute Observer Says:
    November 4, 2009 at 8:56 am

    Meanwhile in the UK,

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-42/episode-1

    But of course, there is no comparison.
    One talks about Jews, the other Zionists,
    One talks about the real world and not myth.

    I mean, who nowadays would believe that Jews,
    “wield[] great influence among the highest realms of British politics and media, little is known about the individuals and groups which collectively are known as the pro-Israel lobby. ”

    The truth and the myths are completely unrelated; as are the concepts of Jews and Zionists,……….

    but wait, what is this…………

    “For example, Edward Tivnan, in his 1988 book The Lobby, writes that the “Jewish lobby” in the United States “had become primarily a pro-Israel lobby, one so aggressive, omnipresent and influential on matters relating to the Middle East that the denizens of Capital Hill refer to it simply as “the lobby,”…
    “The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy.”

    Well, that’s sorted then.

    Reply
  2. Absolute Observer Says:
    November 4, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    Meanwhile in Poland,
    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/11/04/leave-poland-alone-you-jew-or-we%e2%80%99ll-cut-your-hands-off/

    One poster noted,
    “If antisemitism in the UK and US is, as Lerman and others have argued, is a consequence of what Israel does, then one can only wonder what the Jews are doing to so piss off the Poles and bring down their righteous wrath………
    No, wait a moment……………..that’s the antisemite’s argument that they have used for years and in many places – accept, apparently, in the present in the UK, France and the US.”

    Reply
  3. tony Says:
    November 5, 2009 at 12:26 pm

    care to democratically tolerate/entertain a different point of view on some of these issues?

    http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10867.shtml

    Reply
  4. Karl Pfeifer Says:
    November 5, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    Mira your question is to the point.
    People like tony have only one subject matter they like to mention.
    violent neo-arrowcross people march in the streets of Hungary, 2008 eight gypsies were murdered in Hungary.
    Incitement against Jews, Gypsies and leftwing people is rampant. All this does not interest Tony.

    Reply
  5. tony Says:
    November 5, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    I’m surprised that you think that i change the subject: not at all. I’m fighting anti-semitism. I’m even more surprise that Mr Pfeifer implies that I support anti-semites. Oh well, I didn’t expect too much.

    However, perhaps Mira and Karl would like to use the following golden opportunity to explain yet again that one must not confuse between Jews, Zionists and Israel as well as to say who is primarily responsible for this conflation:

    http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/21614/jewish-community-attacks-government-goldstone

    Reply
    • Brian Goldfarb Says:
      November 6, 2009 at 8:35 am

      And your point is, tony? That Jews who support Israel’s right to exist as an “ordinary” and/or “normal” state (and others who do the same) should be vilified for doing so? That they should be somehow tarred with the same brush as open antisemites? You _might_ (but only _might_, not _do_) have a point if those who attack Israel’s right to exist and/or demand boycott’s against Israel and Israeli institutions _also_ made such attacks and demands against other states which have equally bad or worse human rights records – and, no, I’m not going to list which these are: you’re (presumably) a big boy and can look them up for yourself. Heck, you only have to scroll through these comments columns to find out.

      And if you _still_ need convincing, read Absolute Observer’s second comment on the thread attached to the article immediately above this one: you are well aware of this article and comment, as you’ve already posted a comment there.

      Reply
  6. Karl Pfeifer Says:
    November 6, 2009 at 6:38 am

    @tony@ I am a professional journalist. I wrote an article about alarming racism and antisemitism in Hungary not in my mother tongue. And now you want me also to give declarations on a subject matter not connected with rampant racism and antisemitism in Hungary.
    I hope you don’t imply that Jews (Zionist and Israel) are responsible for antisemitism in Hungary.
    If you do, I suggest that you continue to discuss the matter with your comrades who think Jews, Zionist and Israel are responsible for tsunami, disastrous floods, earthquakes, epidemics and ignorance and poverty in many countries in the world.
    Read what I have written about Hungary and than if you have anything to criticise go ahead.

    Reply
  7. Absolute Observer Says:
    November 6, 2009 at 10:51 am

    “I’m fighting anti-semitism”
    Tony’s guide to opposing antisemitism and sexual harrassment.

    1. “Accusations that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism have become little more than a ritual exercise in defamation.”
    When someone who complains about antisemitism and sexual harrassment, never take it on face-value. Always assume that they are either, a. lying. or b. have an ulterior motive.
    Remember, “duplicitous” is the key word here.

    2.”the EU’s definition of anti-Semitism”
    Once again Brussel’s have introduced regulations from above.
    Wherever possible, disregard them as a source in protecting victims of sexual harrassment and antisemitism. Such anti-discriminatory regulations are part of the problem, not the answer.

    3.”Similarly, since holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli state is indeed anti-Semitic, what then is one to make of the actions of the Board of Deputies of British Jews? On 9 January 2009 the Board of Deputies held a rally under the title “Community to Show Support for Israel at Trafalgar Square Rally.”

    It may be possible that the style of dress, for example, of the claimant, or the fact that they may have supported Israel publically provoked the harrassment and antisemitism in the first place. In which case, explain to the claimant that a. we cannot assist their claim in any way and b. it is not harrassment or antisemitism but legitimate forms of response to such provocation.

    4. “Zionism held that Jews were strangers in other peoples’ lands and that anti-Semitism was the natural, if not justifiable, reaction to an alien presence among them. It was but a short step from this to an acceptance that anti-Semitic characteristics and caricatures of Jews were essentially correct”

    Following from point 3. always draw to the complainant’s attention the similarity between their complains and the words and actions of the sexual harraser and the antisemite. Explain to them that, since there is little to choose between them, no help can be offered.

    5. “Even today, in a perverse way, a real anti-Semite must be a Zionist.” And from Pinhas Felix Rosenbluth, a leading German Zionist, to Arthur Ruppin, head of the Jewish Agency, Zionists have not hesitated to employ anti-Semitic rhetoric to further their cause.”
    This point relates to point 1.
    Never trust the claims of the claimant – they must prima facie be assumed to untrue and malicious. Indeed, wherever possible, contacts should be made with the alleged offending party and links made.

    6. “One is either an anti-Semite or an anti-Zionist. One cannot be both.”
    Explain to the claimant of harrassment and antisemitism that there is no such thing as “friendly” harrassment in the sense that friends and intimates never abuse those of their acquatance. Explain that antisemites and harrassers are easily identifiable by raised right arms or armbands or bad breath and large raincoats. This point is essential so as to avoid any embarrassing and malicious allegation of politically and morally uprighting individuals.

    7.”Wilders claimed that “Israel is only the first line of defense for the West. Now it’s Israel but we are next. That’s why beyond solidarity, it is in Europe’s interest to stand by Israel.””
    Always inquire, but not of the claimant, who also supports their claim. Should we find an antisemite or harrasser as supprting the reason for the harrassment, then, again, it is further proof that such claims are malicious and tendentious.

    Once defined in this way and acted upon accordingly, I have little doubt that antisemitism and sexual harrassment claims will be a things of the past. Having eradicated the definition of the cause of complaints, we will have eradicated any complaints and have eradicated the phenomena themselves.

    As I say, “I am fighting antisemitism”.

    Reply
  8. Karl Pfeifer Says:
    November 6, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    @tony@ please answer my question:
    Do you think that Jews (Zionist and Israel) are responsible for antisemitism and racism in Hungary?

    Reply
  9. tony Says:
    November 6, 2009 at 11:34 pm

    what do you Karl dear think that my opinion on the matter is?

    Reply
  10. pony Says:
    November 7, 2009 at 12:00 am

    to engage’s absolute mumbler:

    no matter how many tedious words you’ll frantically write into your blue box, it still cannot remove the fact that the analogy underlying your comparison is silly and invalid.

    thank you, though, for confirming a more important point: no difference exists between engage and the american ADL. in other words, the illegal ariel college should continue to destroy the lives of those stateless occupied subhuman palestinian non-jewish subjects and you, in turn, can continue to drink le-chaim for the lawless staff working them.

    and one other thought: perhaps european-based supporters of the massacre in darfur have their own absolute mumblers whose line of argumentation is to white-out for them their crimes against humanity by saying to their anti-racist critics such as myself: “why don’t you first address the zionist crimes of the white european settlers in palestine instead of targeting us brown people as your colonial fathers and grate fathers did for 150 years”?

    now what did you, absolute mumbler, did for darfur lately? the answer is one alone: nada, yok, klum. your entire spare time is spent on laundering israeli crimes via engage. you know well that you couldn’t care less about the people of darfur who in many respects resemble the third world palestinians in gaza.

    “as a jew” (this is for your guru founder) i’m obliged to wish wish you a huge Shabbat Shalom (and this is regardless of your religions affiliation or agnosticism).

    Reply
  11. Brian Goldfarb Says:
    November 7, 2009 at 1:10 am

    tony (now disguised as “pony”) can only resort to thumbing his nose at AO, launching insults and chanting ear-closing sounds – possibly with fingers in ears at the same time.

    This is an answer? An effort at debate? What it is is stupidity masquerading as a political position. As so many have said, if you have something to say, say it. If not, shut up.

    While on the subject of Darfur, AO may or may not have done anything for the place lately or anytime, but at the very least isn’t ignoring it in order to satisfy his/her ideological need to attack the only Jewish state which, whatever else it is (and it is lots of things, not all of them nice), is not, by a very long chalk, the worst offender against human rights, nor the worst (proportionally or absolutely) the worst destroyer of human life. Which makes those who concentrate on Israel to the exclusion of all the Darfurs there are at the very least suspect of being anti-Zionist or worse, antisemitic.

    As the golden oldie has: if the cap fits wear it, tony – and stop hiding behind various and variable pseudonyms.

    Reply
  12. Karl Pfeifer Says:
    November 7, 2009 at 6:27 am

    @tony-pony@ I asked the question. And you shirk to give an answer.
    You are illogical when you ask me, what your opinion could be, because you did not write about racism and antisemtism in Hungary, but on entirely different things.
    Now one thing you made clear, you are a one-track-minded person, who is only interested to push his own agenda.

    Reply
  13. tony Says:
    November 7, 2009 at 10:39 am

    mira first – but also the rest of your gang: do be honest enough extend your personal and collective apologies to tony greenstein because unfortunately (for him) he is not me whatsoever. this merely proves that you have no arguments other than name calling.

    and here is the award winning israeli journalist amira hass that your website stand in opposition to everything she stands for and her failure is because of occupation apologists like you:

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091116/hass/print

    Reply
  14. Karl Pfeifer Says:
    November 7, 2009 at 10:47 am

    @tony-pony@ instead of answering a simle question you shirk and give us your mantra.
    So who is responsible for blatant racism and antisemitism in Hungary?
    Do you blame the Jews?
    Do you blame the Zionists?
    Do you blame Israel?

    Reply
  15. Defamation/ADL/British Community Security Trust (etc)sh Trust (etc.) Says:
    November 7, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    “In the UK, too, there is anger towards Defamation. Mark Gardiner from one of Britain’s biggest anti-Semitism campaign groups, the Community Security Trust, believes the film could put Jews at risk.”

    http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/10/20091031142820116973.html

    Reply
  16. Moderator Says:
    November 7, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    Tony , Pony and now Defamation…..

    Can you just post under one name please.

    Thanks

    Reply
  17. Absolute Observer Says:
    November 7, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    Tony,

    You write,
    “this merely proves that you have no arguments other than name calling”
    then you write in the immediate paragraph,
    “because of occupation apologists like you.”

    Your last comment, as with your previous ones, whilst hardly surpsising is is completely irrelevant.

    First, you try to change the subject from antisemitism. And, once people refused to play your game, you then come back with a slur that Engage is “occupation apologists”.

    Perhaps, you could point to where posters to this thread, or any engage formal post has “apologised for the occupation”?

    You see, the trouble with straw men arguments is that the slightest wind (in this case, of what Engage says as opposed to what others think it says) blows it away.

    You see, Tony, most posters on Engage are sophisticated – and politically principled enough to be both against the occupation and antisemtism.

    However, I understand your frustration, since such a position entails a flexibility of thought and principle that, as your posts suggest, you are entirely lacking, but which common amongst those who see work according to

    Pony,
    Thank you for your comments. They are most insightful and interesting. I appreciate also the respectful tone in which they are written.
    May I also wish you Shabbat Shalom and a long and prosperous life. And I sincerely pray that whatever you wish for me comes to you twofold.
    Regards,
    Absolute Observer

    Reply
    • Mira Vogel Says:
      November 7, 2009 at 3:10 pm

      Thank you AO for taking the trouble to respond. Relieved that I don’t have time today – I’m working on a report for the HEA on the subject of engaging academic staff in professional development for online learning, and then I’m going to a bonfire party. Tony (or whomever you want to respond as), what are you up to?

      Reply
  18. Absolute Observer Says:
    November 7, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    A witticism for those of a certain age and musical taste…………

    “Tony , Pony and now Defamation…..Can you just post under one name please.”

    “You can syndicate anyone you want to be”

    Reply
  19. Absolute Observer Says:
    November 7, 2009 at 5:50 pm

    Let’s assume Tony is rational and is open to debate…………

    Tony,
    Let’s not focus on ADL, APAC or anyone else. They can talk for themselves.
    Let’s talk about Engage.

    You seem to be making three claims.

    1. That there is no antisemtism as it relates to antizionism and criticism of Israel.

    The only reason Engage says there is antisemitism is to detract from and delegitamise criticism of Israel and its policies.
    If this is the case, maybe you look over the pages of Engage take, say 10-15 incidences it has reported and show that what Engage claims as antisemitism is not antisemitism, but pure fabrication.

    2. That there is antisemitism as it relates to antizionism and criticism of Israel, but that Engage brings it to people’s attention so as to detract from and delegitamise criticism of Israel and its policies.

    If this is the case, then, the implication is that Engage is dishonest in its claim to oppose antisemitism as an expression of racism, but is “really” providing cover for Israeli policies.
    Again, please troll through the pages and indicate where this is the case.
    Or,

    3. You may think that merely bringing antisemitism to people’s attention cannot but detract from and deligitamise criticism of Israel (hence, no need to provide instances as in the two previous scenarios, since the mere reporting of antisemitism is itself problematic.)

    If that is the case then, the implication is that since criticism of Israel “trumps” antisemitism, then it is best one not mention it.

    Which is it, Tony?
    If you are serious about a discussion and debate, then you will have no problem articulating your view on this matter.
    (Of course, both of the above positions may rest on my misunderstanding of your comments, in which case, again, could you clarify your argument and your position?)

    Thanks.

    Reply
  20. NIMN Says:
    November 8, 2009 at 2:56 pm

    Tony,
    I am a bit confused.
    On the one hand, you appear to support a boycott of all things Israel, then, on the other hand, you demand comment on an Israeli film.
    Assuming you had your own way, that film would not be distributed in the UK or elsewhere.
    So, why should this film not be the subject of a boycott would appear to be the more pertinent question considering the nature of the story that started this thread.

    Indeed, if the boycott campaign is untainted by antisemitism, and this question has been troubling me for a while, why has there not been an attempted boycott of the Israeli component of the current Jewish Film Festival?

    Reply
    • Brian Goldfarb Says:
      November 9, 2009 at 1:37 pm

      Perhaps, NIMN, because it has occurred to tony and his ilk that as it is mainly Jewish people who attend the Jewish Film Festival, and in the UK (and especially London), most of these people are also Zionists, no-one who plans to go the Jewish Film Festival will take a blind bit of notice of such a call.

      Even he and his ilk can see that it would be totally wasted resources, despite their one-eyed view of everything Israeli.

      Reply
  22. Absolute Observer Says:
    November 9, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    I have seen the documentary “Defamation”.
    Tony may like to know that the only critical mention of the conflict in Israel and Palestine was made by David Hirsh (our “founder guru” ) at what loooked like quite a high profile conference in Jerusalem.

    Reply
  23. Absolute Observer Says:
    November 9, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    Brian and NIMN
    Interestingly, not all those who attend the Jewish film festival are “Zionists”. Indeed, at a screening yesterday of Defamation, one person could not contain their comments about Finklestein and mumbled something out aloud, this was greeted with a severe response of “Nazi”.
    Obviously, the latter person could not have been a boycotter – since how would they be able to be there in the first place.

    Reply
    • Brian Goldfarb Says:
      November 10, 2009 at 12:13 am

      AO, I did say “most”: the Jewish population anywhere, like all other populations allowed to freely express their opinions, are never monolithic.

      Up there, at 10.37 am, 7 November, tony insists that he is not Tony Greenstein. He appears to forget (or hope that the rest of us forget) that we are required to give our email addresses. The moderators know what this is (even if the rest of us don’t) and so can tell just who is commenting and that they are not setting up multiple persona to change the point of attack (such as tony/pony). So give over tony, and stop trying to play us for mugs, which we are decidedely not.

      Reply
  24. Tony Greenstein Says:
    January 21, 2013 at 2:16 am

    Over 2 years later, whilst googling for something else, I came across this page.

    In 2009 I did not have a twitter account. It’s not @tony/pony or anything else. The name Tony is quite comment and this Tony is not me but the attacks on him have quoted me.

    I don’t know whether this Tony did give an e-mail address or not, or whether it was mine or not, however it is quite normal for people to give addresses which are not theirs or which even do not exist.

    I have always written under my own name and have never used a pseudonym (except once when posting to an Atzmonite site).

    I write this simply for the record.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Karl Pfeifer Cancel reply

«

»