Tuesday, 26 August 2008

The first threat

From Mike Cushman:

I have complained about list members publishing to Hurry up harry beforebut no action has been taken and nobody who is praised by hurry up harryhas dissociated themselves from this scurrilous site or deplored theleaking of our postings to it.

In deleting, for good reasons, Jenna’s photo unfortunately Simon alsodeleted the caption. “Sheffield-based academic, Jenna Delich - links tofar right websites associated with the Klu Klux Klan”. This is apotentially libellous statement and I would urge Jenna to contacthurryupharry’s ISP

Details from http://whois.domaintools.com/
Tech Organization:Daily Internet Services Limited
Tech Street1:9 Regan Way
Tech Street2:Chetwynd Business Park
Tech Street3:Chilwell
Tech City:Nottingham
Tech State/Province:Nottinghamshire
Tech Postal Code:NG96RR
Tech Country:GB
Tech Phone:
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+44.1159725140
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email: domains@daily.co.uk

People who have had their names and details on this blog in the pasthave received threatening and obscene e-mails.

I would hope that UCU centrally or failing that Jenna’s branch willpursue this on her behalf.
Mike

29 comments:

SnoopyTheGoon said...

It may be a good idea to change the color scheme of this place to something less painful to the eye.

Cheers.

JR said...

Mike Cushman is obviously learning that you can't implement one Nuremberg law without implementing them all. He has recognised that it would help his cause if it were unlawful to state the truth on a website.

Alec Macpherson said...

Deeply odd, I can't access HP via my broadbean, but can on my mobile.

Anyhooo,

http://duke-of-chaos.livejournal.com/898.html

ModernityBlog said...

I shall aim to re-post the contents of this archive

just in case!

http://jennadelich.wordpress.com/

these threats to HP are utterly counter productive as they will ensure that this story runs and runs

Sophia said...

At last, a blog devoted to Jenna Delich! Thank you, thank you.

And to think I was going to do a post about what she said on the UCU list some months ago for Harry's Place - but was eventually persuaded to hold fire.

Looks like the wait paid of as the depths of her stupidity surprised even the most avid of Delich-watchers when she linked to the article posted on the David Duke website.

Sophia said...

And here's what Jenna Delich has said on the list, courtesy of the public service provided by Boycotted British Academic.


Like quite a lot of others I feel tired from getting bulks of messages on an hourly basis with this endless discussion going on, and have very rarely felt the need to say something. However, I now feel that I might add a few words.

First, I find the whole talk about anti-semitism as an attempt to shift the focus from attacking the IDEA of Zionism and the Isreali politics inspired by it, and subsequent terror it has brought on the Palestinian people. Not all people (in this case Jews) buy into one and the same idea (as we know, it wasn't even the case in WWII). Therefore, I don't we could comfortably say that ZIonism=Judaism, and therefore, all Jews are Zionists. We know that it isn't either true or correct. So, I can't see how attacking an idea may equate to attacking an entire nation or one people. I personally would strongly oppose if a member of my people spoke on my behalf trying to represent me if I did not agree with him. Nobody could have a carte blanche to speak in the name and on behalf of the entire nation. Thus, I don't think that we can box all Jewsih people in a package labelled Zionism, and therefore consider one's opposition to the idea of Zionism as an attack on the 'entire package'.

So, why now try to focus on the real essence of the entire discussion: Zionism and the official politics of Israel, and its effects on innocent Palesinian civilians who have been denied the basic human rights as a result of such a politics?

As to the boycott, I simply see the point of the boycott and similar actions as a way of political pressure to try and change the official politics of one government. We are all familiar with sanctions and even bombing of parts of the world (e.g. Lybia, Iraq) that were endorsed by the International community in order to remove oppressive regimes and a certain politics that had far more severe/devastating effects on the entire civilian population of those countries (children, women, elderly etc.) than a boycott would have on Israel. But how do you change one politics if you do not put pressure on the people of that country to make them stand against their government? And are you (or anybody in their right mind) prepared to support building a College on settlements that were once legally the Palestinian land? Would you allow anyone to come and build a shed in your garden, driving you out of there (although it would be only a very tiny piece of land), and them pride myself in having the most beautiful shed in the neighbourhood expecting others to admire its beauty, and praise and applaude the perpetraitor? And what would you think of those neighbourghs who would dare applaude someone invading you garden?

As to the bullying, I could never see a political discussion to be deemed as bullying. However, for those who claim this to have been so it would be interesting to invite them to state the exact quotes that they find to constitute bullying. I always believe that claims have to be substantianted by hard facts (what, where, when,and who).

Regards
JENNA DELICH

26 April 2008 16:17


Unfortunately, I am not convinced as actions speak louder than words.
And the Israeli actions (supported by the US weapons) we have been
seeing and reading about on a daily basis.
For me to be convinced in even a small part of what you have been
claiming it would take only actions which is to give the land and
properties back to Palestinians (as those were taken away from them,
and they have deeds to prove it) and allow them to return to their
land.

Let's turn the tables and give an example:
Say, I came to your house, drove you out of there, and built a hotel on
your land.You settled living in a tent on the street, and I keep bombing
you out on a daily basis to show that there is no return to what was
once legally yours.

And then, I am offering you a peace but not a chance to return home and
regain possession of what was legally yours. Would you call that a
peace? Id call it: I'm offering not to keep killing you on a daoily
basis if you keep quiet and stop insisting on returning back home.

Would you expect the neighbours who were watching me do all of that to
you to then applaude my actions, and sing praises to them or would you
keep pressurising them to do something about me so I could change my
ways, and your house and land could be yours again?


By the same token, how do you make people stand up to its government or
a regime unless you out pressure on those people. Didn't the
International community even endorse bombing iraq, Lybia or Avganistan
to shift those in power because of the regimes in those countries? And
the consequences of those bombings (or the 'damages' as the US used to
refer to them) were a massive loss of human lives (children, women,
elderly, etc.). And it would be too shameful and disgraceful to even try
to compare those disasterous consequences to the possible UCU call for
boycott.

And back to the occupation of the Palestinian land: would you really be
prepared to support a College that was built on the Palestinian land?
Perhaps one should carefully think looking at the scenario I gave you
above (about invading your property) before even attempting a response
to that question?

And back to speaking of democracy: we live in a democratic country (UK)
where things like that could not happen (i.e. I could not come to drive
you out of your house and your land). So, if you are still trying to
claim that Israel is a democratic country then please try to compare it
with other democratic societies in the world, and please name an example
of a democracy that is terrorising one people in exactly the same way
that Israel has been doing it. Perhaps Zimbabwe might be a democtratic
country after all?!

As I said earlier on, actions speak louder than words, and we are all
witnessing what the Israeli 'actions' are like on a daily basis. I don't
expect to change your views or those of any trying desparately to defend
what (evidently) cannot be defended (i,.e. Zionism and actions of
Israel) as long as we are witnessing mass murders and crimes against
humanity being committed on the Palestinians on a regular basis.
But I can tell you that I know a lot of Jews who the views of those of
us who are in favour of the call for boycott as a way of putting a
political pressure of the Israeli government. They are trying to
distance themselves from such a disasterous politics of Israel that is
most certainly likely to leave a bloody stain in the history of the
people who themselves suffered so much in WWII.
JENNA DELICH

29 April 2008 10:08


Unofrtunalye, not only would you not be able to convince me but I am sure nobody else witnessing crimes commited on the Palestinians on a daily basis would go along with words. You would most certainly agree that in life words do apeak louder than actions. And until people see peace and Palestinians having their land given back to me, and refugees allowed back home I don't think that there is a change for peace.

It is indentical to my 'hypothetical' scenario that I gave you (about me coming to your home, driving you out, and building a hotel where your house was, etc.). Would you want to be in peace with me if I told you that you could never get back your land or return even to put your tent up in what used to be your garden?

In your response you are saying what happened to Jews post 1948 in the Arab countries. Not that I would justify such actions or support them, but why did it not happen before 1948? Didn't Arabs and Jews live together in peace? What has brought the post-1948 actions in the Arab world on? I believe that violence brings more violence, and it was the violence that started it. And once you get into a vicious circle of violence it is very difficult to break it.

As to your saying 'any Palestinian born outside of Israel since 1948(ie anybody under the age
of 60) are citizens of the Palestinian territories' I don't see how it can be acceptable. Why were they born there? Would not they have been born in what used to be their fathers' and grandfathers' land if those had not been driven out of their homes? Also, if my parents came from a different country and I was born here, should I not be entitled to a dual nationality? So, by the same token those children born outside what used to be their homeland should be given citizenship of the land where they were born. Or, better to say their fathers and grandfathers should be allowed back to what was legally and rightfully theirs before they were driven out of there.

One more point to add to the issue of peace. I don't think that it is fair for either Israel or the US to try to impose any kind of peace on Palestinians until they are military as strong as Israel is. I trust that negotiations should be on an even keel, as if one side is considerably weaker (as is the case with Palestinians) than they could be forced to accept any kind of peace for the sake of saving their bare lives. The other way of looking at things (and the one I'd sttrongly favour) is to disarm the Israeli army and then bring both sides to the negotiating talbe. The first step towards any peace being 'safe return of Palestinian refugees' to what was rightfyully and legally theirs before they were driven out of there.

Finally, what about a great number of Jews who feel the same way most of us do about the Israeli politics and what it has been doing to Palestinians?
May I just mention two televised examples that I personally saw:

The first one was a programme last week (BBC1) called 'Alliyah" A Journey Home' about Jews who were born and raised in different parts of the world and then decided to go and live in Israel (whose houses and are they beeing given we won't even question, as we know the answer to that). There was an English teacher, a lady in her 50's who was born here, and raised as a Zionist. Once she went there she was disillusioned with the idea of Zionism having seen the way the Arabs living in Israel were treated. She was also deeply disturbed with what she'd seen that she decided to leave Israel, and move to the Arab tetrritory. She moved to an Arab town where she is the only Jew living among 25,000 Arabs, and has been living happily since she got there.She said she'd not go back to Israel, and now considers herself to be a cizitin of Middle East.

Another example was that of a London Rabb (personally watched it on TV some year or so ago)i, a very respectful elerly gentleman who was openly voicing his views on the official politics of Israel and was openly calling members of his community to boycott all Israeli products and shops! That coming from a Rabbi (not a calll for boycott from UCU), you must admit is very strong.

As to your saying:
'How about a motion for UCU Congress which calls on UCU members to question Zimbabwe, Chinese and Sudanese academics with a view to boycotting them and their institutions if they do not immediately condemn their Governments human rights policies and practices?'

I am all for it. But as we need to begin somewhere, and the situation with Palestinians has been going on for a long time the UCU call for boycott there is a good start for us, and, I believe is to pave the way for more examples to follow to include the issues of Zimbabwe, and China Sudan.

Best wishes
JENNA DELICH

29 April 2008 12:52


'So, we're going to lose a lot of members, we're probably going to breach anti-discrimination law, and we're doing this in the face of opposition from a majority of the membership.'

Could you please explain since when could putting pressure on one people as a non-violent way of making them stand up to their government and get them to change their ways be considered as anti-semitism or racism? The focus of the discussion and all criticisms are on actions of a government NOT the people. And let's keep it like that please.

Also, by the same token then we could call the US politics that had no business being in Iraq or Afghanistan let alone murdering their people as racist and discriminating, as there is no worse racism than murdering people, and denying them the right to life and existence. What's more, the US did it without the UN endorsement or consent, but the UN member states didn't see it as a reason for leaving the UN nor have we seen a single member state leaving.

We live in democracy and are entitled to different views and opinions. But some might find that a downside to that might be that the majority vote wins, and that not always would we be the winners but could get out-voted, and that the results have to be accepted and respected. So, if the majority of UCU is pro-boycott then those against it might not agree with it but should respect and accept the majority win as a regular outcome.
The fact that the majority do not share one's views should not be seen as the reason for leaving the Union.

If someone has voted for a certain political party as they share their political programme (and views) but it lost in the local elections it would not be a good enough reason to move out of that town, would it?

JENNA DELICH

30 April 2008 10:43


I am frankly tired from this endless discussion, and find myself to keep repeating some of the points, so would not have even come in this time. However, when something I wrote is twisted than I do need to clarify my position.

'Jenna speaks as if a boycott would be a boycott of a country. It would not be.'

I am quite surprised that my post has been mis-read/misinterpreted. I did not even think or say anything like that although I might have made a comparison of a micro-plan action (ie. boycott) to a macro-plan one (ie.. the military action of the US on some countries). Let me please be clear once again as to why I used that comparison:

I used the comparison purely to point out that the possible UCU call for boycott cannot be the reason for someone to leave the Union. Then, I went on to say that there were far bigger things happening in the world which did not make any UN member state leave the UN (although they didn't agree with or endorse what the US did).

' A boycott would be a boycott of the people/workers of a country which they had not called for and which would do nothing constructive to build peace.'

So, are you saying that putting a political pressure on a people to try to make them put pressure on their government isn't likely to do anything. If that was so it then appears that you didn't believe in sanctions. So, could oudl you then please tell us what it is you did against the sanctions the US imposed on Iraq as it was the civilians that were suffering? Were the new-born children guilty of the crimes of Saddam and his regime?
Putting a political pressure on those who could raise their voice against the Israeli Government (and its murderous politics) is a way of saying that we expect from them to refuse to be part of the establishment and raise their voice against it. And that's a difference the boycott could bring about.
I as a human being would be ashamed if we stood and kept watching while one murderous and racist politics has been trying to wipe off one entire nation from the face of the earth without trying to use non-violent political means to oppose such actions.

'In addition, it would be an imperialist action where we would determine how well people in another country meet our standards.'

Putting a political pressure by using peaceful means cannot be seen as imperialism. It is just what it is: a political pressure.
Back to one of my emails, I did mention an example of a London Rabbi that I watched on TV quite awhile ago calling members of his community to boycott all Israeli products and shops.
Are you trying to say that you consider the Rabbi to be an imperialist or a racist, or discriminating against his own people? Or would you not simply agree that by doing so he is openly showing a disagreement with the Israeli government and its politics?

As for the imperialism, we are witnessing, on a daily basis the US imperialism while it is trying to order around countries like Afghanistan and Iraq and their people, and impose its standards as the only right ones. And it's using brutal physical force to enforce their 'rules and criteria'. It has invaded countries and is terrorising their people. In Iraq the US has killed more people than Saddam's regime did. And that is the real imperialism.
Do you go along with it? And if not, what have you done to oppose the US imperialism?

'The first is that every Israeli deserves being boycotted because they are Israelis. They deserve to be boycotted because they have no place in that geographic region.'

Again, another mis-interpretation or an attempt to shift the focus from actions to people. We are opposing ACTIONS of the Israeli government, and as a way of expressing it we are putting pressure on people there to change its government's murderous politics, and not to be parts of its establishment. How do you make that happen without putting a political pressure? Got a better idea that would work and make a difference?

we have already established numerous times that not all the Jewish people think the same, and many are opposing the Israeli government. So, the boycott has nothing to do with people, but ACTIONS of the Israeli government.

As to the people in that region, the only people that the world has been seeing as having no place in that geographic region, and being denied their livelihoods, and existence are the Palestinians. One could try to deny it but no matter how hard one could keep trying the facts (and actions) speak luder than any words could.

'Jenna makes an interesting point in stating "if the majority of UCU is pro-boycott then those against it might not agree with it but should respect and accept the majority win as a regular outcome". I agree and I think Jon will as well. This is why we launched Members For A ballot last year. Neither Jon nor I were scared to have the popularity of a boycott tested in a poll- thus, Jenna, would you like several other pro-boycott people commit publically to campaign for a ballot on the issue to see what the true democratic wishes of the UCU membership is?'

I think that the ballot has been tried and tested using this list in the past few weeks, with the vast majority of us voting in favour. This is purely based on the number of different people speaking out against the Israeli government, and in favour of boycott, as opposed to all the same few trying to be vocal in defending what cannot be defended (i.e. the official politics of Israel).

JENNA DELICH

30 April 2008 10:44


'The boycott was first debated at Imperial at an Extraordinary General Meeting in May 2005 following the passing of a boycott motion at the 2005 AUT Congress.'

What facts were they presented with? Was the purpose of the boycott and its expected effects explained properly? Or was the discussion led in the way that was suggesting that the boycott was not not a good idea (in the way that some have been trying to argue here)?

'However by trying to force UCU into adopting a policy that is opposed by the majority of the membership, the credibility of the union is being continuously eroded and long term damage is being inflicted on UCU.'

So, are you proposing that we should sit and quietly watch while a genocidal politics of Israel keeps murdering innocent people in an attempt to wipe off an entire nation of the face of the earth?
Is that honestly what you want to keep happening?

Or perhaps you have a different suggestion as to what we could do to put pressure on the Israeli govermnment that would really work? If you do, could you please share it with us.

JENNA DELICH

30 April 2008 20:16


'Academics are highly trained individuals in the area of investigation. Any academic worth their salt would be able to generate enough information to come to a conclusion. Similarly AR staff are highly skilled professionals. While presenting information is important they do not need to be spoon fed arguments or information.'

We also know that the outcome may depend on what the sources of information are, who presented them and the way they were presented (the arguments put forward. we also know that the information could be used in a manipulative way. Didn't the media manipulate masses in some countries (to include a number of academics, doctors, etc.) into wars?

'Can you please explain in concrete terms how this proposal would save one life? Or is it a case of any gesture is better than none? s.'

So are you saying that no political pressure is going to work?
Perhaps, we should then explore the life-saving alternatives. Why then not disarm Israel to bring it to an even keel with Palestinians? That would stop the killings, and bring both sides to the negotiating table. Perhaps we should then campaign for disarmament as a solution to save the lives there?

'Believe me, in a conflict situation there is nothing worse than gesture politics.'

I can only say that I have a personal experience of a conflict (which I believe you don't) , and can speak from my experience. And I can tell you that the political pressure does work. That's why I believe that the boycott would work.

JENNA DELICH

30 April 2008 20:18


Brilliant points.

May I just add some information re the US support to Israel:

- Total US aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just 0.001% of the world's population.
- Direct US aid for each Israeli citizen in 2001 (per capita annual income of Israel = $16,710) was over $500, while direct US aid for each Ethiopian citizen in 2001 (per capita annual income of Ethiopia = $100) was around $0.45

So, as I said earlier on, rather than a call for boycott perhaps we should start campaigning for disarmament of Israel to bring it to an even keel with Palestine, and then bring both parties to the negotiating table.

JENNA DELICH

01 May 2008 09:56


Just picked up on some of your points:

'while questioning Jon's concerns about the boycott bringing about
resignations and discrimination for which there is so much more evidence.'

SUCH AS? Who, what, where, when? Hard evidence, quotes, names, where does each such claim fit with the related law?

'As a mechanism for change this boycott is a non-starter. In fact the only reassurance Samia El Boteh and Lisa Taraki (speaking at SOAS last night) could muster is that it upsets the Israeli government and
gratifies Palestinians, which I found *glib* considering the
magnitude of what they are asking us to do. I would have hoped that if we were going to adopt something as important as boycott there would be, after all these years of boycott, some evidence of effectiveness or some
discussion of the mechanism they show such confidence in. Apparently not - what we do have is plenty of evidence of discriminatory boycotts of *individuals* like Schlesinger, Toury, Darawshe, Yiftachel, and a prospective student of Andrew Wilkie. And in the absence of any evidence of effectiveness...'

First, I'd like to refer you to email from Malcolm Povey of yesterday where it says:

'The UCU boycott discussion does have a serious impact on the Israel
government. The motion regarding it, which was passed at the last but one AUT congress, was an item of discussion for the Israel cabinet and the subsequent special congress attracted the serious attention of the Israel Embassy. The Israel government are very sensitive to this because
they see themselves as a European bridgehead in the Middle East. Israel academic links with Europe are very important to Israel and hence are a pressure point.'

So, if the boycott isn't going to work why is it such an important topic to be discussed in the Israeli cabinet?

Next I would like to say: trust me, I know the situations where it worked. I know of the situations where economic sanctions worked too. I have a personal experience of a conflict (I suppose you don't) where it worked.

'we here in UCU are *still* supposed to swallow the notion of complicity of academics, the relegation of academic freedom, and the normalisation of disrimination by nationality and indirectly, ethnicity and religion? Makes no sense to me.'

I still don't agree, and see this as yet another (one of many so far) exercise to shift the focus of our discussion from the real issue (the terrorist and genocidal politics of Israel) to claims about racism and anti-semitism. Isn't the worst form of racism the killings and crimes against humanity that are being committed on Palestinians by the Israeli government on a daily basis? Isn't the fact that the Palestinian children have no life, or future, let alone proper education, and have to cross check-points only to go to school also an act of racism? An entire nation is being denied the right to existance.

And if you still claim to be right, than please answer me how come that there are Jews that are opposing such a politics and have the same views as the pro-boycotters do?
I mentioned watching a London Rabbin (and elderly gentleman) on TV some time ago who was opposing the Israeli politics and was calling (on TV) members of his community to boycott all the Israeli products and shops! So, from what you are seriously saying that the Rabbin is a racist and an anti-semitist?

Let's go back to the real issue: the genocide on palestinians. So, as the killing is only against people, and the world is watching Palestinians being killed in double figures every day I have a different suggestion. If you believe that the boycott isn't going to work how about us campaigning to disarm Israel? That would most certainly work and would stop the killings. And it would most certainly bring an end to the genocidal politicis of the Israeli government.

Do you honestly believe that a country should be built on ethnic cleansing? And it is something that the world should be strongly opposing. Are you prepared to campaign prepared for the safe return of all the Palestinian refugees to what was rightfully and legally theirs?

How would you feel if someone came to your house, drove you out of there, made you live in a tent away from what was once your house, built a hotel there and moved in their reliatives from all over the world? And then, if you wanted to go to work you'd have to cross their check-points, and would be bombed on a daily basis to be reminded that there was no way or no chance you'd ever go back to what was once yours?

'Thankfully, Palestinians are not, as you suggest, disappearing in the eyes of the world.'

Are they not? Then what is it that the world has been watching on a daily basis on TV, reading in the papers? Or is the entire world dillusional?

Before you start talking about anything else, and trying to shift the focus back on claims of racism and anti-semitism please answer my questions.

JENNA DELICH

01 May 2008 19:05


'Jenna Delich has referred (many times) to an alleged genocide of Palestinians by Israel.'

I am not the only one. It is not alleged. And also, I like to call things their real names (which is in line with its definition, as well).

'The number of Palestinian refugees in 1948 was around 750,000.'

As you said, it was clearly the figure for 1948 ONLY, and makes a shocking and shameful statistics for one year only.

'The Palestinian population currently in the West Bank and Gaza is around 4 million (with an average life expectancy of around 71 years - compare Rwanda, around 45 years, and Zimbabwe, around 34 years).'

As the Palestinians kept fleeing their homes (post -1948) the number of refugees kept going up.
And one general remark: the world population has been expanding in general, but it seems from what you are saying that the Palestinian nations should have shrunk.

'The claim that Israel has committed or is committing genocide is a vilifying lie.'

It is not. By definition:

'Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group' (Wikipedia)

or

'"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2).

The key word in the definition is 'any'. And the world has been witnessing Israel doing most of those acts on the Palesinians over decades. So, what would you call the murderous and destructive acts of the Israeli government on the Palestinian nation?
Or perhaps we should have double-standards that would allow for use of a different term for the sufferings of the Palestinians?

'There is a long and utterly dishonourable tradition in Europe of not only exaggerating Jewish crimes, but of lying about them on an apocalyptic scale. It is appalling to see that tradition
being perpetuated under UCU auspices.'

I can't see that anybody has been doing that here, but some are certainly trying to make such insinuations as soon as someone ventures out to criticise the Israeli government.

Now, what about attempts to undermine the sufferings of the Palestinians? Or denying crimes that are committed on them on a daily basis? Double-figure deaths on a daily basis (babies, children, women, elderly)?

On the human level I am appaled that there are those who are proposing that we sit and watch such a horrendous loss of human lives on a daily basis and do nothing? Aren't you?

Before you try to write about something else in your response to me I'd appreciate if you would answer my questions.

JENNA DELICH

01 May 2008 19:06


'Important to point out that Israelis have plenty to celebrate today. Particularly those who remember being chucked out of their countries or had attempts made on their lives or the lives of their families because they were Jewish.'

Chucked out of their countries?! Is that why Palestinians were made to pay the price for what happened to you or ay other people (if they suffered)? Is that why the were 'cucked out' of their homes and homeland,and have had their basic human rights denied ever since it all started?

I would be srriously concerned to know that there are those who truly believe that the genocide commited on Palestinians to chuck them out of their country is a cause worth celebrating?!

If it was my country that did it I would be walking around with my head down, and protesting loudly against its government and its genocidal politics, trying to distance myself from it as much as possible. I would feel very much like Haim Bresheeth does. And he is a Jew as well.

And before you answer to any of the above perhaps you could go back to my little hypothetical scenario of before and think what if someone came here to your property, chucked you out, built a hotel and brought all their relatives from all over the world to live there, and then started celebrating such an achievement? What about 'Do not do to others what you do not want to be done unto you' principle of Judeism?

JENNA DELICH

10 May 2008 10:29


"The situation is not hypothetical; it is precisely what did happen to
the Jewish people. Following which, for 2000 years, we have been kicked
about from pillar to post, refugees every generation, being murdered
every generation, until such time as the Jewish people were in a very
fortunate position to be able to re-establish the Jewish state in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people."

As far as I am aware the story of the 'Promised Land' did not come with a manual to destroy another nation to create that land.
Besides, if the entire mankind kept going back 2000 years into history and each of us tried to return to where we were in the past 2000 years in a peaceful manner the world today look completely different. But chances are that, if it happened the world would end up at a massive war.

"The great tragedy of the situation is that it is also the homeland of another national group -
the Palestinians - who are as much deserving of justice as the Jewish people."

What you are saying is exactly what I said: The Palestinians have had to pay the price for your sufferings.

"What is particularly unfortunate about the position you take is that to only accept the narrative of one nation and to utterly ignore, indeed demonize, the narrative of another - an approach, incidentally, that you and others on this group share with the far right and settler movement in Israel (who utterly refuse to accept the Palestinian narrative) - is that the only thing that can result from it is further conflict,
violence and bloodshed."

It is not the approach or the 'narrative' of the Palestinians. It is the facts that we are working with. With means of communications nowadays we are able to see things 'live' as they are unfolding. And we know what we have been seeing on a regular basis on TV, reading, in the newspapers, hearing on the news etc.

What one's seeing is far more convincing that any 'narrative', and that's why I share the views of most of the world.

The only reason why the bloodshed is continuing is that the Palestinians are being denied return to their homes. Would you sit and watch me occupying your property and telling you that you can never return, and to make sure that you never even think of it I'll shoot at you on a daily basis.

Let's disarm Israel to bring it to stop the bloodshed and het it at an even keel with Palestinians to give peace a real chance.

"I really do suggest that you take some time out to read extensively on Jewish history, come to understand the position and narrative of the Jewish people."

I am speechless at someone wanting us in the 21st century to go back 2000 years into history to understand why the Palestinians have been chosen to pay the price for the sufferings of the Jewish people. If that is so shall we tell American Indians to do the same? And do the same with Latin America and the rest of the world? Are you proposing a major shift in world population? Should we then all start re-examining our 'narratives' and going back even 500 years?

Finally, there are the likes of Shirley Franklin and Haim Brasheeth, and the London Rabbin that I mentioned in one of my previous emails (who called for boycott of all Israeli products and shops in England in protest to the politics of the Israeli government). I find those people strong in their resolve not to be placed in the same 'box' with the genocidal Israeli government. What would you say to the fact that there is a great number of Jews who do not share your views, and refuse to be associate with the genocidal politics of the Israeli government?

"and then find a way to allow your clearly passionate activism to be channeled positively for justice and peace for all."

Passionate? I can see that the only thing that I am always passionate about is 'justice' and, as I see what the rest of the world has been witnessing for such a long time, I am on the side of the justice. Sorry for those who are failing to see it.

JENNA DELICH

10 May 2008 10:31


You are obviously (and fortunately unsuccessfully) trying to make us all delusional and ignorant. So, you are clearly trying to parade any criticism against the Israeli genocidal politics as 'racism' and anti-Semitism' (as it said in the article in the Independent of yesterday that some members put the link for yesterday. I'd strongly recommend that you read daily press.).

I am not going to stoop that low to offend you like you did me, and will let other to be the judge of what you wrote/did.

Your email is full of hate and is very much directed at me for openly criticising the genocidal and murderous politics of the Israeli government as the hate mail was directed towards Haim Bresheeth for feeling ashamed of it and going public about it!

Genocide in Palestine is not a lie, but it seems that I'll have to take this opportunity to teach the definition of genocide (who is now the ignorant one?):

'Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.' (Wikipedia)

and another one:

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." (UN Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2).

Please read it carefully to make sure that you don't misss the word 'any' in the definition above. And the Israeli government has been doing MOST of it see above in bold). So, if you were by any chance (which is highly unlikely) to convince us that what's happening to Palestinians isn't quite happening to them, what would you call then the actions of the Israeli government which drove Palestinians from their homes and homeland? An act of mercy?

I KNOW the Employment Law, and that's exactly why I have kept saying that the focus from criticising the genocidal and murderous politics of Israeli government should not be shifted to racism or anti-Semitism as you have been trying to do. Criticiisng one politics and its actions has nothing to do with being against one nation.

If that was true than we would not have a multi-party system and democracy, and would see whoever criticised the party in power as being against us, meaning discriminating against us (i.e. being 'racist').

But you do not seem to be open to different views when it comes to the issue of criticising the Israeli government.

Let me quote the definition of racism:

'Racism, by its perhaps simplest definition, is prejudice and discrimination based on race. One with racist beliefs might hate certain groups of people according to their race (i.e., bigotry).' (Wikipeia)

A great number of Jews are opposing the actions of the Israeli government. So, are they discriminating against themselves? Clearly not. Opposing actions of a government has nothing to do with racism.

No Iraqi (apart from those that were part of the state establishment) has ever seen opposing the government of Iraq at the time of Saddam as an act of racism. And they had sanctions imposed on them for what their government was doing, and yet didn't see the sanctions as an act of racism although those were denying them basics for life.

So, what you keep trying to do is use incorrect names ( 'racism' and 'anti-Semitism) for the criticism against the murderous and genocidal politics of Israeli government ' to shut up anyone who is trying to criticse the actions of the Israeli government. It is the actions that we have been criticising. If you cared to read the posts carefully you would have picked up Haim Bresheeth's and Shirley Franklin's posts in the past days. They ARE JEWS as well. So, based on you trying so hard to shut me up (as well as anyone else who has so far criticised Israel) you would probably be saying to them what hate mails to Haim were saying, or what Shirley was saying the likes of you would think of her (as a self-hater or denier). If you claim to be 'all-knowing' how come then that there are your fellow-Jews who think the same way I and a great number of other people do? Are they also 'racist' and 'anti-Semitists' for saying exactly the same things that I and a lot of others have been saying? Answer that question if you can.

You obviously do not like me for calling things their real name, but I have to whether you would wish to accept it or not. Yu obviously find it difficult to accept any criticism against the Israeli government and to think outside the 'box'.

Someone seeing murders and genocide a cause for celebration is saying enough for itself.

"One can only feel sorry for you for trying so hard"

You were reading my thoughts as that's exactly what I was going to say about you.

JENNA DELICH

10 May 2008 10:33


Sorry, but none of those definitions are mine (both of them are properly referenced, and the long one is the UN definition).

BTW- You missed Israel from the list.

Another point: you said 'spanning' the existence of Israel. So, the difference between Israel and those countries is that those countries existed, whereas Israel was created on such actions. And whereas none of us condone any kind of murderous actions towards any people, the issue here is on the way one country has been created, and the right to those who had been driven out of their homes and homeland to return to what was rightfully and legal theirs being denied. And the actions of the Israeli government keep continuing.

As to the Palestinians and their struggle, I am sure you yourself would not be prepared to give up the right to return to what was rightfully yours if anyone came and took it. OR WOULD YOU?
I am sure you would not.None of us would. So, I don't think that one could call the struggle of those who have been expelled from their land and properties to return there a genocidal act.

May I mention again that there are Jews on this list who are opposing the Israeli politics much in the same way as I or many of us have been. But it appears when I ask you or any of those sharing your views to explain that you keep avoiding it. WHY?

Thanks for mentioning Serbia though. I know only too well what they did, and that they created their territory within my country following ethnic cleansing and genocide with refugees and displaced people created through such horror being denied the right to return to what's rightfully and legally theirs. So, there's a big resemblance between my country and what has been happening to the Palestinians. In effect, I can say that I have been through a historically comparable experience).

So, would you be prepared to claim that it was OK what Serbia did to us (ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, imprisonments, killing of civilians, bombing places, and the rest of the horror that the world has witnessed taking place there) to create their territory?

JENNA DELICH

10 May 2008 10:34


I completely agree that we should discuss any form of racism. Perhaps it would be the right time to ask if UCU is doing anything to combat the anti-Islamic trends that are quite present in the society nowadays. The following link is just one example of how far it can get: http://www.islamawareness.net/Islamophobia/ip_uk.html

Unfortunately, to be a Muslim nowadays quite often means being associated with 'terrorism' and 'terrorists' and things that are evil. Due to that unfortunate and undeserved branding and stereotyping Muslims are quite often being pushed into social exclusion which they do not either need or want. As we should all be working towards inclusion of all groups I believe that we should combat the stereotypes and help and support everyone to successfuly integrate into society.

Therefore, I would ask UCU if they are doing anything (and what) to stop anti-Islam?


It would be really helpful if we could have some points of action on combatting anti-Islamic tendencies in the society and stereotyping of Muslims. can anyone from the Union shed some light on what's being done to combat that trend?

JENNA DELICH

18 May 2008 11:58


I do not consider criticism of Israeli athrocities and crimes against humanity to have anything to do with anti-semitism. I strongly believe that any such politics does deserve all sorts of boycott including the academic one. And the calls for boycott canot in any way be interpreted as something that is to do with anti-semitism. Trying to do so is nothing but an attempt to silence anyone who dares criticise Israel and do something using peaceful political means to stop the Israeli athrocities, and is definitely something I canot accept.

It is one's democratic right to express their views and opinions. That is something anyone who (supposedly) lives in a democratic society is fully entitled to.

JENNA DELICH
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:49:43 +0500


Haim, you are making very valid points as you always do! But just to add a little question to your last two sentences: perhaps we should start by asking if some ready to recognise any racism and inequality other than anti-semitism?

JENNA DELICH
Sat, 26 Jul 2008 21:38:49 +0500


Here are three examples of "easy words":

1) "The UCU is a democratic organisation."

'Calls for an indicative ballot on the question of boycotting Israel have been voted down at SFC and by
Congress. The vast majority of ordinary members are not able to determine the policy of the union.'

Such assertions are unfounded as in this case one cannot say that the vast majority isn't for boycotting Israel. Such claims are unfounded and unsubstantiated.

2) "The UCU stands up for academic freedom"

'But we encourage our members to threaten other academics with such exclusion,
and we host a campaign (BRICUP) that promotes "silent" and "personal"
exclusions from the academic community. You can see this clearly from the response that Haim Bheshreeth cites,
to the petition of Israeli academics in support of Palestinian academic freedom. '

One cannot say that either. Isn't it democratic to oppose undemocratic and murderous regimes (like the one in Israel), and to seek peaceful political means to express that opposition as well as support to the victims of it (i.e. Palestinians)?

'If we were consistent supporters of academic freedom, we would oppose political tests as a precondition for entry into the academic community. We don't oppose such tests, and so we are not consistent supporters of
academic freedom.'

As I already stated above, UCU is fostering the spirit of democracy by strongly opposing murderous and undemocratic regimes that do not allow any freedom (let alone academic) to the victims of such regimes (in this case the Palestinans). By opposing such regimes I see our Union actually supporting academic freedom (and the development of it where it has been stiffled and denied for such a long time as is the case with Palestinians).

'3) "The UCU fights discrimination."

No, we don't, not consistently. We propose, encourage, and licence acts of discrimination with respect to Israelis. Our policy on Israel/Palestine is hamstrung because it probably breaches the Race Relations Act. '

Yes, it does fight discrimination by opposing the Israeli actions that have been discriminating against an entire nation for decades. I believe that we have been down the 'Race Relations Act and Employment Law' avenue, and by now know that what we have been doing here (i.e. criticising the actions of Israel, and proposing peaceful political means of opposing such a regime) has nothing to do with any legislation.

JENNA DELICH
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:15:29 +0500


Jimmy,

'If yes, can you tell me which other countries which had these types of things happening you supported boyotting? Or is it just israel?'

It is not about Keith or boycotting other countries. The discussion thread has been about Israel, so I can't see why we should not keep it focused or shift the focus of our discussion to somethiing different.

'Regards from one who has been hauled off buses, stopped for ID etc because of his community in a place nearer to home than Israel/Palestine.'

As someone who has experienced war aimed at destrying my people just for what they are I am ableto understand how you must have felt. But, does this mean that we should ignore what's happening in other parts of the world away from where we live? Or is that we should abandon any criticism of the murderous and genocidal politics of Israel? I would not expect anyone who has experienced something like what's been happening to Palestinians to support it.

And frankly I am appaled to think that there might be those who expect anyone to support killing of people (innocent civilians whose only guilt in this case is because they are Palestinians), occupaying land, and all that the world has been shamefully witnessing happening to Palestinians for the past 60 years.

JENNA DELICH
20 August 2008 20:47 +0500

I believe that I have said numerous times how I feel about the issue of boycotting Israel. You have rightly said that there were 2 poples there, one more powerful than the other. In fact, by sheer coincidence I was watching a programme last night (Discovery channel) on Israeli Commandos. And the commentator said that Israel was a country born in a war and is maintained by the threat of war! What a world do we live in where some are supporting something that was born by force to be maintained by a constant threat of force?!
We all know who started the war 60 years ago, and why. So, indeed we do have two peoples there, and the (far more) powerful/armed one has chased the other one out of their homes and their land and has been doing everything since to make sure they do not return. We all know that the Palestinians live in a sort of an open prison (ro perhaps ghettos is a better expression?). Imagine your children trying to go to school, and each time you see them off you can's tell if you if it was the last time you saw them. I wonder if anyone arguing against the boycott of Israel tried to walk in their shoes (being chased out of your property, and your life and the lives of your family have been threatened on a daily basis) would be able to really understand how one must feel living there?

As for the boycott, it's evident that I have been supporting it along with a large number of others. And, as I said earlier (quite awhile ago) it is not because they are Israelis but because a number of them have been siding with the murderous and genocidal politics of Israel, or are at least indifferent to the crimes their government have being committing for decades over an entire nation (Palestinians). I see the boycott as a form of a political pressure on those who can do something (and stop supporting such a horrible politics) to do it. And so do a number of Israelis (like Haim Bresheet, Finkelstein, a number of Jewish Rabbis etc.).
As for you proposal to boycott the other side (i.e. Palestinian academics) for supporting violence, I am afraid that I have to say that all I have come across so far is their pleas for peace and an end to occupation. Anyway, what kind of a use of force can they support when Palestinians have no arms? Unless they have been supporting throwing stones at Israeli tanks so we need to boycott them for that?
Talking of fairness and balance of forces! I'd call for Israel to be disarmed to be brought to an even keel with Palestinians which would end the violence and give peace a chance. Or so the Western powers claimed in one very recent war when one sovereign poeple were denied weapons (to defend themselves) saying 'More weapons, more blood'. Or are we talking double standards yet again?

JENNA DELICH
Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:34:56 +0500


John,

In support to your link this may be a long but also an interesting reading:

http://www.davidduke.com/general/humanitarian-disaster_595.html

No comment necessary. The facts are speaking for themselves.

JENNA DELICH
Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:55:02 +0500


Hello John,

I didn't realise who David Duke was nor did I hear of him. I just looked
at the article not the website where it appeared. Apologies for picking
up that website as I personallly am strongly against any racists,
anti-semitists and the likes of them. I just found the article quite
powerful, and none are saying that Joe Quinn (the author of the article)
is a racist or anti-semitist, and the article is quite interesting. So,
perhaps we should focus on the article itself and not where it appeared
(if we look at it in a broader sense, the website itself appeard on
Google and so did the article)? Anyone can put anything on their
website. That's how some of us ended up being quoted and commented on on
Hydra website awhile ago.

Sincere apologies once again though for picking the wrong website, but
it's the article that I found interesting as it gives some amazing facts
and it was not written by David Duke (who, I most certainly agree, has
no place in UCU but is the author of the website and not the article).

JENNA DELICH
21 August 2008 20:39 +0500


'Given that the offending posting by Delich quoting the ultra racist site of David Duke was made in response to my posting, your acceptance of her apology is on behalf of yourself and certainly not me and no doubt many others on this site. I am deeply and personally offended that a contribution from Delich showing that she consults racist sites and then has the audacity to quote articles found on them in a debate on a trade union site in response to a posting from a Jewish member, which from previous discussions she and long standing members of this list are perfectly aware is the case.. '

Twist to fit again?! I am PERSONALLY AND DEEPLY offended by such attempts and claims. First of all, my post was NOT in repsonse to a Jewish member but to John Porter.

I DO NOT know who Dave Duke is, as I am not interested in any kind of racists and fascists and the likes of them. I don't like to even read about them. That explains why I don't know who he is (I really do not want to know him or know of him and the likes of him).
I personally have always been speaking from a humanitarian level and have been interested in articles that are publishing facts on humanitarian disaster that's been going on there for decades, and is now worse than ever.

As for quoting the article that was found on David Duke's website, apart from not knowing who he was (otherwise I would not have posted it), and the fact that he wasn't the author of the article I'd like to draw a parallel by saying that our quotes were found on HYDRA site. So, some had the audacity to quote us without our consent. The same happened with the article that had been ripped off another website (as N. R Clark stated in his post of yesterday). The way I come across things is by simply typing 'killing in West Bank and Gaza' and similar NOT by going on particular website to consult them.
As John Porter said, the article itself is fairly accurate. So, instead of attacking me or John and being offensive to us, perhaps it'd be worth offering facts that would prove the article wrong / incorrect.

' Yet again such a level of profound ignorance from somebody who posts to this site on a regular basis is hard to comprehend. '

Is it so difficult to comprehend that someone who is not interested in racists and fascists do not even read about them. So, why would you keep insisting that I do something I never would (i.e. learn who Dave Duke or the likes of him are).? I am aware of a number of the likes of Duke who were butchering my people in the very recent history, and reading about more of them in the world would be too painful for me. You have picked on me and offended me too many times (on and off the DAN list) that I'd past caring to mention. But with another one of your insiults - accusing me of something that's completely untrue (i.e. consulting racist/facist website) is extremely offensive for me- in my view such an individual is not worth my further consideration.

JENNA DELICH
Fri 22/08/2008 12:27 +0500

Alec Macpherson said...

Google her name! I'm ahead of both this site and Modernity!

Alec Macpherson said...

Of the top ten hits on Google for her name, seven refer to her dissemination of Nazi literature, two bland references to her teaching position and one to a good looking namesake in Minneapolis.

==> I am aware of a number of the likes of Duke who were butchering my people in the very recent history, and reading about more of them in the world would be too painful for me.

This is a particularly stupid statement. She dares claim exemption because of what was done to 'her' "people", memories so painful that she didn't bat an eyelid when originally linking to Duke's webpage, but feels free to accuse Jews who don't bend to her will of being worse than their murderers.

Is she Croation? She certainly went to the Tuzl Gymnasium. Expect now references to the Ustashe. Or is it only Jews we're allowed to call Nazis 60 years after the fact?

Tim Allon said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was the "well funded" "Zionist Lobby" that went about stifling debate. So, disagreement equates to silencing tactics, whereas shutting down a blog, well, that's what, exactly? This is becoming quite surreal.

However, like linking to neo-Nazi hate sites, this will prove to be another own goal. This will get them far more attention than they ever could have bargained for.

ModernityBlog said...

support across the web for HP is coming in, a bit too slow for my liking, but its coming in from various corners.

Red Star Darren's good.

http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/news-on-harrys-place-26-august-2008/

Alec Macpherson said...

Modernity, part of the reason, I assume, is because occassional readers of HP will think it's simple site problems.

Has anyone tried to get Sunny Hundal on cue? Or is he too busy talking about his head?

Alec Macpherson said...

And David Kelly's suicide.

Inna said...

Love this Jenna quote:

"We also know that the outcome may depend on what the sources of information are, who presented them and the way they were presented..."

I couldn't agree with her more there.

Regards,

Inna

ModernityBlog said...

Alec,

I posted at both of Sunny's sites.

I sent out a few emails, etc

one of the charming Engagers has passed this link to me, it is very good.

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/index.php

JuliaM said...

"these threats to HP are utterly counter productive as they will ensure that this story runs and runs"

Agreed. I though Harry's Place was just having a technical problem, until I read about this this morning over at 'Unenlightened Commentary'.

I've now blogged it, and I hope more people pick it up. Let's shine a light on the activities of these people and see them run for cover....

Dave said...

Has anyone tried to get Sunny Hundal on cue?

Guffaw.

Jesus H. Hundal and his band of sycophants are only interested in talking about his own greatness and how he's personally going to overthrow Boris and ensure Broon wins the next election.

Don't expect much help or sympthany from the chimp, in other words.

meeh said...

Even the lovely SWP *cough* are leaping to your aid:

http://complexsystemofpipes.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/fwiw-bugger-off-harry/

Well, sort of. :D

Alec Macpherson said...

Dave, you're probably right. At least topiary face hasn't posted at all today. He might be sick, and just waiting until he gets better before posting on this.

DavetheF said...

I DO NOT know who Dave Duke is, as I am not interested in any kind of racists and fascists and the likes of them. I don't like to even read about them.

Need one say more. How does this incoherent, ignorant person get to be an academic?

Benjamin said...

Mike Cushman is obviously learning that you can't implement one Nuremberg law without implementing them all.

Can we have little more hyperbole, please? Obviously we are sadly lacking it here.

This whole "scandal" is absurd, but I guess if it passes the time, guys...

JR said...

ok benjamin, for you maybe silencing academic discourse is a joke, attacking freedom of speech is a joke, racism is an absurd joke.

Alec Macpherson said...

Benji, who posted that disgusted comment on HP criticizing this gagging in all shape and form? They used the nick Benjamin, for sure, but... oh, fuck this shit! Fuck off, Benji.

ModernityBlog said...

support is coming in, across the world, I shall do an update shortly.

Benjamin said...

Oh Alec, my dear Macpherson, of course I don't agree with Delich threatening libel, and HP being taken offline etc etc., but really, this is all rather silly is not?

Nick said...

Benjamin, what exactly is "silly" here? I think your insouciance act is a misguided attempt to portray yourself as a Big Boy Who's Above All This Nonsense, flapping about your smoking jacket nonchalantly at the wonder of these hysterical underlings. That being so, I think you've chosen your timing poorly.

Benjamin said...

I suppose if you incessantly pour over the scribblings of Nick Cohen and Paul Berman, stare at computer screens too long, drink too much coffee, stay up too long at night, you might work yourself up into an impressive lather over some irrelevance nonsense in mailing list somewhere involving a third rate academic. Then build it all up into a grand conspiracy or tendency.

Okay, I admit it, dear Decents, its possible. But probably not very healthy. Or realistic. Or connected much to the real world. But, hey, it passes the time.

vildechaye said...

benjamin: if you think protesting and discussing the fact that a blog site shut down for "libel" when all it did was quote an academic's post accurately, then you're a dilettante and an idiot and there's no point debating this with you.
i agree with the "fuck off" sentiments expressed earlier.

Also, if Ms. Delich is, in fact, Croatian, isn't it possible that she has imbibed some of that longstanding Ustase type anti-semitism with her mother's milk, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding? Of course not all Croatians were anti-semites during the war, but a good many were, including recent prez franjo tudzman

Alec Macpherson said...

Jenna Delich did, indeed, attend Tuzl Gymnasium. I don't think, though, it is suitable to associate her with the Ustashe. That said, the association with it and Croats is far, far, far stronger than Jews and Nazis.

"Just obeying orders" could be invoked with images of Pierrepoint, but, no, this toxic woman has to compare Jews to their murderers.

Benjamin said...

i agree with the "fuck off" sentiments expressed earlier

You are ever the sophisticate!

Delich is Croatian?

Eeeuuurrggghhhh! Another 'shocking' revelation.