Middle East Monitor (MEMO) is one of those nasty anti-Israel think-tanks which aims to win the ear of the political establishment.
It describes itself as “an independent media research institution founded in the United Kingdom to foster a fair and accurate coverage in the Western media of Middle Eastern issues and in particular the Palestine Question.”
Fair and accurate? Pull the other one.
They won’t even let you into one of their meetings if they disagree with your views.
Now MEMO asks: Is Britain’s new ambassador to Israel really going to be objective?
The question under discussion is: “Can a Jewish ambassador to Israel ever be truly objective when advising his home government on relations with the Jewish state? That is going to be the big question for Britain’s new ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, who has just taken up residence in Tel Aviv.”
This is not the first time the someone’s Jewish background has been held against them recently in the media. When respected historians Sir Martin Gilbert and Sir Lawrence Freedman were appointed to the panel of the Chilcot Enquiry to investigate the Iraq War Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Libya, wrote in The Independent:
“Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media, but The Jewish Chronicle and the Israeli media have no such inhibitions, and the Arabic media both in London and in the region are usually not far behind. All five members have outstanding reputations and records, but it is a pity that, if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunition will be available. Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced.”
Should being Jewish really disqualify them from all aspects of political life involving Middle Eastern matters?
And yet I wish I had a pound for the amount of times that someone’s Jewish background has been utilised to make a political point when it is to Israel’s detriment.
Richard Goldstone, who in his shabbily investigated report into Operation Cast Lead found Israel guilty of war crimes, has repeatedly had his objectivity placed beyond reproach solely because he is Jewish.
Then people who call for boycotts against Israel and march through London holding Hezbollah and Hamas flags think themselves beyond reproach with regards to anti-Semitism because they have a few communist Jews and the extreme religious Jewish sect of the Neturei Karta marching alongside them.
And now MEMO highlights the new British Ambassador to Israel’s Judaism as being a possible hindrance to his objectivity and raises the age-old issue of Jewish loyalty to the country in which they are citizens.
Despite Matthew Gould’s claim to be “a career diplomat”, his previous service as the principal private secretary to Labour’s David Miliband (also a member of North London’s increasingly influential Jewish community) when he was Foreign Secretary suggests that Conservative Mr. Cameron is indeed playing the Jewish card with this appointment. But for whose benefit: Britain’s or Israel’s?
This despite Cameron recently calling Gaza a “prison camp”!
Apparently Gould lost eight close relatives in the Holocaust and the MEMO article continues:
“Without wishing in any way to diminish the significance of the Holocaust on the psyche of Jews in Israel and the Diaspora – and the need to ensure that “never again” will a powerful militarised state be able to commit genocidal acts without being called to account for its actions – it is this “visceral” link which surely calls into doubt Matthew Gould’s ability to be a critical friend of Israel.”
But politicising the deaths of six million Jews in this way does “diminish the significance of the Holocaust”!
This is all despite Matthew Gould being a model British citizen, serving Britain to the best of his abilities and paying his share of taxes to support Britain’s needs.
Now the only apparent problem is that he’s Jewish.
And because he is Jewish MEMO perniciously describes Gould as “in all but name, a person with dual citizenship rights”.
In 1883, with Jews scattered across the globe and vicious pogroms against them the norm in Eastern Europe Moshe Lilienblum wrote in “The Future of Our People” the following prescient piece about smearing Jews:
“The opponents of nationalism see us as uncompromising nationalists, with a nationalist God and a nationalist Torah; the nationalists see us as cosmopolitans, whose homeland is wherever we happen to be well off. Religious Gentiles say that we are devoid of any faith, and the freethinkers among them say that we are Orthodox and believe in all kinds of nonsense; the liberals say that we are conservative and the conservatives call us liberal. Some bureaucrats and writers see us as the root of anarchy, insurrection and revolt; and the anarchists say we are capitalists, the bearers of the biblical civilization, which is, in their view, based on slavery and parasitism. Officialdom accuses us of circumventing the laws of the land – that is, of course, the laws directed specifically against us….Musicians like Richard Wagner charge us with destroying the beauty and purity of music. Even our merits are turned into shortcomings: “Few Jews are murderers,” they say, “because the Jews are cowards.” This, however, does not prevent them from accusing us of murdering Christian children.” (The Makings of Modern Zionism, Shlomo Avineri, 1981)
In employing someone’s religious background so gratuitously in order to try to smear that person ignorant organisations like MEMO display that, for some, Lilienblum’s thesis is still intact today, 127 years later.
The more of this undermining of the Jewish community I read, the more ashamed and exasperated I become. The fact that it is now acceptable here in the UK makes it all the more disturbing.
Mr Gould’s appointment should be celebrated and welcomed.
Was Ambassador Frances Guy’s allegiance called into question when she posted the rather inopportune remarks about Sheikh Fadlallah on her blog in July? Admittedly she did apologise after the event, but I don’t recall reading any personal slurs of the kind directed at Ambassador Gould.
At the risk of hurting anyone’s feelings, how important is the British Ambassador to Israel anyway? I’d bet that not one Israeli in 10,000 knows or cares who he is.
That being said, I’m reminded of a wonderful moment in The Simpsons when Krusty the Clown discovers that he’s not Jewish after all. He bemoans:
“All this time I thought I was a self-loathing Jew, when all along I was just a plain old antisemite.”
thanks for taking the pain to read their garbage
it is ridiculous and mean beyond words.
Repeating myself Jews died in disproportionate numbers in the trenches of WW1, certainly proof of dual loyalty
another question is whether somebody with dual citizenship may be an ambassador. But that depends on British law and would apply equally, if he had any other second citizenship. Michael Oren had to give up his US-citizenship, whether this was owed to international habits or to the law of Israel or the US I don’t know and anyway it is a totally different question.
Pingback: Some Round Up? « ModernityBlog
Another piece of slop from Richard ‘not-a-Zionist’ Millett, independent [cough!] ‘journalist’…
Straw man. Gould’s Jewishness isn’t the problem here, but his potential lack of objectivity is. Lemmesee, the overwhelming majority of Jewish and non-Jewish supporters of Zionism (also here on this blog) defiantly claim that the overwhelming majority of Jews support Zionism. It’s therefore a reasonable guess that Gould’s a Zionist, ergo with respect to Israel about as objective as Richard Millett.
Straw man 2. Nobody said anything of the sort, ferchr*ssake! The next PM of Britain may well be Jewish…
Put your money where your mouth is and give credible examples.
Complete and utter nonsense. And the “a few communist Jews and the extreme religious Jewish sect of the Neturei Karta”, didn’t I hear you say they were second class (or words to that effect) Jews? Lovingly called here usually ‘self-loathing Jews’? And what’s with the ‘communist’ adjective? Kaufman gone red and I didn’t get the memo?
Proverbially speaking Gaza is a prison camp: hard to get out of, hard to get in.
Israel wanted not only to block off the arms supply to Hamas but also to impose economic hardship upon the population in the phantasmagorical hope that the Gazans would then turn on their elected leadership. So now some degree of economic hardship is in place. Enter the Zionists supporters: ‘it’s not as bad as the Sahel!’ Hypocrites…
Yet Zionism and Israel politicise the Holocaust all the time.
Nope. As stated above.
“Perniciously”??? There is not a single Israeli Zionist that I know personally (no exceptions, PERIOD) that doesn’t enjoy dual citizenship. Millett would enjoy it automatically the moment his (automatic) right to Israeli citizenship was granted. Most of Mike ‘The Belcher’ Melchett’s gang enjoy it. This while x,000,000 Palestinians don’t enjoy citizenship AT ALL.
Sigh. Playing the antisemitism card again, eh? Must be a sad life to live in a society where antisemitism is all but completely eradicated, and yet find ‘antisemites’ wherever you look… Or ‘self-haters’…
Pingback: Jewish objectivity called into question by MEMO « Engage – the anti-racist campaign against antisemitism
And yet I wish I had a pound for the amount of times that someone’s Jewish background has been utilised to make a political point when it is to Israel’s detriment.
Put your money where your mouth is and give credible examples.
(cough) Richard Goldstone, already mentioned (cough) Gerald Kaufman (cough) Deborah Fink (Cough) Mike Cushman (cough) the Neturei Karta fringe (cough). You even mentioned two of these folks in Kaufman and the NK. If I”m ever being prosecuted, I hope you’re the prosecutor, sincerely.
“and the need to ensure that “never again” will a powerful militarised state be able to commit genocidal acts without being called to account for its actions”
What ever could they mean by that I wonder?
Gert says: Straw man. Gould’s Jewishness isn’t the problem here, but his potential lack of objectivity is. Lemmesee, the overwhelming majority of Jewish and non-Jewish supporters of Zionism (also here on this blog) defiantly claim that the overwhelming majority of Jews support Zionism. It’s therefore a reasonable guess that Gould’s a Zionist, ergo with respect to Israel about as objective as Richard Millett.
So let’s see. His Jewishness isn’t the problem. But hey, since most Jews are zionists, then Gould’s probably a zionist, therefore, he can’t be objective. But by that logic, Jews are the problem. Oh well, Gert’s never made much sense before, why should this giant hole in logic and commonsense be any different.
But let’s see if some basic human rights 101 can get through: You don’t discriminate based on religion, race, color or gender. A person’s actions judges his/her potential, not their religion or ethnic origin. If you automatically disqualify someone for a position because you think he “probably” won’t be objective solely on the basis of his religion, ethnicity, color or gender, that’s bigoted. Simple enough?
Predictable crap from Gert.
don’t forget Ilan Pappe, Alexei Sayle, Judith Butler, the late Tony Judt the list can go on forever
MEMO lost me at”…the Palestine Question.”, one step from ‘the solution’ no doubt. Classic-steal-evoke-holocaust-vocabulary-imagery-use-it-to-hurt-you-the-jew-in-the-worst-way-manoevre. Thought that was anti-semitism?!
Isca Stieglitz, a bit of decorum if you will. Anti-semitism doesn’t exist anymore. See Gert above.
Doh, how silly of me ;O)
Gert says this has nothing to do with Gould being Jewish, but is merely about his impartiality, because…he is a Jew.
With “logic” like that, no wonder Gert can only cut and paste the thoughts of others.
Gould’s not being persecuted or discriminated against. His objectivity is being questioned. I also seriously question Millett’s blatant pro-Israel bias: does that make me a bigot too?
You put the threshold for ‘antisemitism’ so low that just about anyone must be a bigot in your eyes…
I seriously question your anyone’s objectivity if their name begins with G. Therefore you cannot be objective.
And my questioning makes about as much sense as yours. If you make sense then so do I.
Classic Millett: can’t win the argument? Create a straw man. I never said anything of the sort. Contrary to many here I read the findings of the Parliamentary commission on antisemitism. Even assuming the reported incidents are somewhat under-reported (a reasonable assumption) these results also show that antisemitism in Britain is currently very low.
Of course with the amount of false positives created on blogs like this one, anyone could get to conclude that Britain is the New Weimar (dixit Melanie Phillips).
Lill’ Adam wrote:
Brilliant argument! Congrats!
Oh, now he tries at least:
If Gould wasn’t Jewish but a demonstrable non-Jewish Zionist the complaints would be exactly the same.
I don’t believe a word the American Administration has to say about Israel either, whether they’re white, black, blue, red or Jewish: because they demonstrated their blatant pro-Israel bias for decades now. Nothing to do with their ethnicity or religion…
Seems to me that the ones exploiting Gould’s Jewishness isn’t me but Millett, Lill’Adam and Vildechaye…
When you think about it, Millet’s trying to have his cake and eat it too (but squared).
Lemmesee, when a British politician makes a critical noise about the Zionist Entity, he’s up in arms, see ‘Dave’ and Nick ‘yellow peril to Israel’ Clegg.
Now a British ambassador to Israel may well turn out to be a Zionist of a Zionist sympathiser. Reason for the Zionists to rejoice, I would say…
Of an ambassador dispatched to a country can reasonably be expected that he represents the interests of his own country, not the host country. This may well be in doubt with Gould.
And so, instead of quietly rejoicing, Millet then sets out to denounce those feel that a Zionist British ambassador to Israel may be a bit of an oxymoron as… bigots! All thanks to the elevation of antisemitism to Special Status Racism…
Gert, where have you heard that Gould is a Zionist?
Gert the Jewish state basher now tries to wriggle out of his self made trap. (It’s not because he’s Jewish – it would be the same for a non-Jew who supports the Jews, but being a Jew, he must support the Jews – what a towering intellect our resident obsessive is).
How I enjoy it!
As Nick once so powerfully put it – Gert, as you hate every Jew who lives in Israel and hatefully label them as “Zios”, including those who clawed their way from the death camps – I spit in your face.
I’m guessing that Gert has suddenly found himself with lots of spare time on his hands.
“I spit in your face.” – Here I disagree with Nick and Adam. Waste of good spit.
In his conniving way, evil Gert is trying to steer an honest discussion into another one of his hackneyed, (dare I say it) anti-Semitic tirades.
Any country that enjoys diplomatic relations with Israel, de jure, recognizes Israel’s right to exist in its ancestral homeland and is, for want of a better word, a Zionist.
Each and every foreign ambassador in Israel is a Zionist. I hope that ambassador elect Gould fits the entrance criteria – otherwise his stint will be a short one.
Even Gert has kindly recognized Israel’s albeit de facto existence, and while he would have led the nays all those many years ago, his reluctant acceptance of the Jewish State, makes him a Zionist in my book.
But he would not make for a welcomed ambassador in Israel. Unemployed parasites, hate-mongers, and benefit fraudsters are not the stuff that seasoned diplomats are made of.
But beyond his pathetic judo-phobic rants, Gert has caused serious rifts in steadfast friendships. He has even managed to come between Daniel and myself as regards our difference of opinion on whether or not to waste our spit on him.
This has now led to an even deeper schism.
I contend that Gert is not fit to sleep with a pig, whereas Daniel thinks he is.
Perhaps venerable Adam, a man of impeccable good taste, can tip the scales on this one. Adam, do you think Gert is fit to sleep with a pig?
Slightly off-topic but oh so interesting, if one compares it to the analysis Israel gets
not to land in the spam filter, I have put the link to the man’s CV in the next comment. It would be very interesting and no doubt educative to dumb pro-Israel-me, if Gert would stoop to elaborate on all the potential conflicts of interest and loyalty involved in this appalling situation.
question to Daniel
shouldn’t it be spittle?
my little Oxford Dictionary last revised in 1988 knows spit only as verb
Lol, no, it is spit. Spittle was probably last used some 600 years ago by Chaucer (English poet/writer).
Ctrl-F reports neither spit nor spittle in here 😉
even though Merriam-Webster says its first use is from the 14th century.
btw I once imbibed the Penguin edition of it and enjoyed it – what a great great past you Brits have to lean back on …
Daniel and Nick
Gert comes from pig-loving stock just as I do and presumably Adam does
in “our” stuffed with ignorance to the hilt pig loving world they are nevertheless maligned as dirty which actually is quite untrue
if given a half-way decent pace to live in i.e. one including a mud patch bathroom they are as squeaky clean as those we love as pets. That said I can testify that both cats and dogs, given a chance, have quite some deficiencies in the cleaning up field.
That said lets look for some humans who might delight in Gert as their bed companion.
On Pigs, Spit and Gert
Much has been said about our friend from Bridlington on Sea on this blog, and I have little to add. Suffice it to say few people have more respect for him than I, and that, indeed, is his tragedy.
Regarding the question as to whether he is fit to sleep with a swine or copulate with a cob roller I shall abstain until such a susceptible sow is found and let her decide. If the beast really is as clean and cultured as fair Silke suggests, I have no doubt as to what her preference will be.
As to Silke’s latest semantic speculation as to the difference between Nick’s spit and his spittle, in my opinion, while spit is saliva, spittle is its state after having been excluded by a spittlebug or spat out. The author of this excellent blog rightly traces the latter’s origins to the late 15th century.
The question thus become as to whether the saliva should not be squandered but should and stay in Nick’s kisser, in which case “spit” would be correct usage or as to whether he has already spat in Gert’s face, in this latter case it would be correct to say that Gert has Nick’s “spittle” on his countenance.
Of course, the subject is as yet far from being exhausted and no doubt there will be further enlightening comments regarding this important dilemma.
as to the matter of spit I stay faithful to my albeit slim 1258 pages Oxford Dictionary last updated 1988 and that knows spit only as the action of emitting spittle. If the text messaging generation has deemed it appropriate to nounify the verb let them live with the consequences.
here is Merriam-Webster on “spit”-noun – no hint of of a relation to spittle to be found in there http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spit
late 16th century – pah! – before 12th century
as Merriam mentions the Germanic relation:
spittle in today’s German is Spucke like in “ich spucke Spucke”
while the Merriam spit would be Spitze, like in “die Spitze” of the Iceberg, an image quite in use if one wants to say that what one sees is nothing as compared to what is under water.
most interesting though seems to me wanting to defend my preference for long words, if you click on spit as a transitive verb on the above mentioned Merriam page …
Who was it that said?
“The difference between LIKE and LOVE…SPIT or SWALLOW…”
Adam, Adam, Adam, I heard it from you and your lot of course, can’t you read or can’t you remember what you wrote yourself? Isn’t the overwhelming majority Jews also supposed to be supportive of Zionism? If by ‘overwhelming majority’ we understand, say at least 80%, then stating that Gould is in all likelihood a Zionist is at least a reasonable assumption. Not that I expect you to understand what ‘a reasonable assumption’ actually means…
Now that Daniel and Nick have arrived on the scene Millett’s motto will have to be changed again to:
‘If Carlsberg did Kindergartens…’
Gert you bounder!
Don’t try and change the subject. We were discussing whether Nick should spit in your caddish face and whether the correct noun, in such an eventuality, would be spit or spittle. What is this obsession with Zionism – you scoundrel?
Characteristically, over at Engage, they’re trying to outdo Millet: the headline of their post is:
“Jewish objectivity called into question by MEMO”
So some question, reasonably IMHO, the objectivity of Gould (a person) vis-à-vis Israel (and specifically within the context of his ambassadorship) and to Engage that means that we question the objectivity of Jewry (a people)… Like I said, it must be hard going through life with a manufactured persecution complex…
If the execrable Nickie spat in my face he would have to suffer the consequences, which would be slightly harder hitting than a bit of spit.
On ‘spit v. spittle’ I believe Richard is correct: in Chaucerian times ‘spittle’ would have been used, it later became abbreviated to ‘spit’…
I think it was Richard who scared Gert silly by mentioning Chaucer. Any reference to literature from high end to airport novel stuff tends to make Gert change the subject. I guess he has quite a phobia to cope with there as I have noticed him doing it with friends and foes alike … maybe it is due to early experiences of reading playmates shunning him and thus too painful for him to face it and thus realize that by now it is no longer about Chaucer but only about dictionaries and encyclopedias. I wouldn’t know of his feelings towards those either way.
I think that the old English might have been “spǣtl” or something similar. I also note that the Webster as early as 1913 offered both Spit \Spitle and Sputum as nouns with the common definition “The secretion formed by the glands of the mouth”
The following excerpt from the 11th c. Regimen Sanitatis Salernitanum, attributed to John of Milano:
If Sanguin humour do too much abound,
These signes will be thereof appearing cheefe,
The face will swell, the cheeks grow red and round,
With staring eies, the pulse beate soft and breefe,
The veynes exceed, the belly will be bound,
The temples, and the forehead full of griefe,
Unquiet sleeps, that so strange dreames will make
To cause one blush to tell when he doth wake:
Besides the moysture of the mouth and spittle,
Will taste too sweet, and seeme the throat to tickle.
Anyway, there seems to be a great deal of general agreement, dare I say consensus, regarding Nick spitting in Gert’s ugly mug, so I say that the time has come to move on.
What about Nick vomiting at the sight of our barmy, Belgian, blogger brother. Could we call that spitting up, or is that an Americanism used mainly in connection with regurgitation by young children?
Gert, you really are thick. I didn’t realize how thick until just now.
You constantly deride the idea that most Jews support Israel, but then confirm the idea by saying that Gould couldn’t be impartial, because as a Jew he is probably a supporter of Israel. You then say your objections to his appointment have nothing to do with him being Jewish, and that the only question is his impartiality – but then confirm that he can’t be impartial – because he’s Jewish.
Gert, you are a joke. Do you realize how stupid you look? I mean, seriously?
You just don’t get it, do you?
Firstly I don’t “constantly deride the idea that most Jews support Israel”, I deplore it. That’s not the same thing. I take solace from the fact that many Jews don’t condone Israel’s behaviour vis-à-vis the Palestinians. There are, by the way, many Zionist Jews, including Israeli ones, who support the idea of a Jewish homeland but do not condone that behaviour either. You know… that “non-existent occupation”?
Nor did I say that Gould “couldn’t be impartial”, only that by YOUR reasoning in all likelihood he’s a Zionist and thus PROBABLY not impartial when it comes to Israel. The next British ambassador to Israel could well have been a non-Jewish Zionist. It just happens not to be the case.
Like I said, the ones making a big deal about Gould’s Jewishness is you, Millett et al, because you think you’ve found another case of antisemitism and that causes a little bulge in these kiddy pants of yours…
YOU are in fact the one claiming that Jews must be biased towards Israel. I say many are but many aren’t. You’ve basically been hoisted by your own petard…
what is you off-the-cuff judgment on the question of spit vs. spittle?
the answer to the question is exceedingly dear to my heart because at my age it is highly enjoyable to find something to bash the young ones with.
The mutilation of language accusation is one I happen to enjoy particularly.
I mean all these 4 and 2 and other laughabilities drag me right back to the age when one had to cut everything down to make a telegram affordable. Only we never ever would have descended to the “crimes” of the text messaging crowd (psst because 4 in a telegram if I remember correctly would have cost just as much as for).
Watch Gert pedal backwards as fast as he can. Realizing he makes no sense, he has changed his spots yet again. Apparently it is us (whoever we are) making a big deal of Gould’s Jewishness…except it isn’t. He is seemingly unaware of the subject of this post, as he dives in with yet another blunder.
Gert, it is Middle East Monitor who has the problem with Gould’s Jewishness – that is why Richard has written a blog about it – the very blog on which you are posting. That’s why we’re talking about it. We (whoever we are0 didn’t raise it – Middle East Monitor did. Is that really hard to comprehend?
You really are terribly thick, aren’t you?
Gert, the “occupation” must be non-existant, as you have repeatedly failed to say from whom the land is “occupied”.
Let’s give it another try – now come on Gert, you know you want to, and you’ve had a long time to think about it – from whom is Judea and Samaria “occupied”?
Silke, it would be the action of spitting on Gert’s hateful ideology which would be so hugely rewarding – the spittle being the mere result.
So I go with spit.
Look, we already established that your name begins with G and that, as a result, you cannot be trusted. So please stop lying. Anyone whose name begins with G is obviously a liar. And I know this for an absolute fact.
So either change your name or hush.
We are all indebted to the indefatigable Silke whose mastery of the English tongue brings to mind the great Joseph Conrad for second-language English excellence.
Perhaps Belgium altar boy Gert is also in that category, but cut-and-paste hate-filled invective on a twopenny-halfpenny web site, does not win awards for distinction.
However, while it will sadly never be known whether Conrad (or indeed Chaucer) would have deposited spit or spittle into Gert’s face, we can all agree that our unemployed, keyboard-happy, goose-stepping antagonist, would be covered in damning saliva.
Daniel Marks has carried out exhaustive research into the medieval usage of spittle, and has cited one of his favourite twelfth century medical poets in that respect.
Adam has not as yet, cast his lot, on the contentious issue of whether Gert is, or is not, fit to sleep with a pig. But Silke has broadened the debate with a flattering account of the hygienic habits of Gert’s farmyard bed-partner which has vindicated the latter and mitigated the former for his choice in at least knobbing a cleaner animal than himself.
thank you for the gracious compliment, Nick, but I love some of Conrad’s too much and admire the rest enough not to feel my leg ever so slightly pulled. BTW I stumbled on something by Nabokov the other day where he told that when translating some poetry. he felt his English wasn’t rich enough so he could have done it the justice he might have achieved with Russian. Should give some people who brag about being perfect in another language a bit of a pause, shouldn’t it? Oh and not to be misunderstood Nabokov emphatically did not say that English per se wasn’t up to it, it was HIS English.
as it happens from Conrad stems one of the sentences that help me make sense when life seems to get too confusing – it is from heart of darkness and describes Kurtz as “he is an extremist …”. For quoting the context properly, paraphrasing one of the Greats won’t do, I would have had to retrieve the book from its cellar storage or – wonderful new world – refer to Google Books.
It is interesting that it was announced that Matthew Gould would get the job prior to the general election. I wonder whether he would have been appointed under the Lib/Cons.
Just for the record, Gould’s wife isn’t Jewish. Perhaps that makes him more acceptable to the FO establishment?
I think that it was worth noting who is behind Memo..
Honorary Advisers to the Middle East Monitor
Dr Salman Abu Sita, Palestinian author and member of the Palestinian National Council,
Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham, member of The House of Lords,
Baroness Jennifer Tonge of Kew, member of The House of Lords,
Dr Maria Holt, Lecturer of Democracy and Islam in the Centre for the Study of Democracy in the University of Westminster,
Oliver McTernan, Co-Founder and Director of the Forward Thinking organisation,
Professor Tariq Ramadan, Professor at Oxford University,
Nick and Silke,
I am sure that nothing was farther from Nick’s intent than to pull your much prized legs, which incidentally I remind you that in an early posting, you commented would not have shamed the immortal Marlene Dietrich.
Koplaloff says that, “Daniel Marks has carried out exhaustive research into the medieval usage of spittle” that is something of an exaggeration. I would imagine that our medieval ancestors used spittle in ways very similar to ours of today – namely, to eject or discharge in the direction of Gert’s medieval, very evil forefathers. Indeed, it would be more correct to say that my modest efforts were in researching the medieval usage of the term spittle rather than spittle itself.
Though I too am flattered by the compliments bestowed on me by the evergreen Nick, perhaps one of the greatest analytical minds of this century, I believe the subject of spit vs spittle to be far from exhausted and am uncertain why the well meaning Blacklisted-Dictator should wish to sidetrack this important question in order to gossip idly chit-chat about Matthew Gould and his missus.
Finally, and briefly, regarding the much discussed anticipated possibility of Gert’s salacious saga with a sensuous swine, again, and at the risk of being denounced by the RSPCA, I say, “Let the porky pass judgement, let the piggy pick. It’s she who shall have to wake up with him in the morning. I suspect that a single night with our brainless, Belgian-Burlington, between-jobs blogger ought, anyway, to put her off anti-Semites for life. So why not let nature take its course?”
thanks for listing the luminaries behind MEMO
One of them has been a favourite of mine for a long time. I think his much praised charms are mostly the result of his ability to talk people into paralyzed boredom. I think I last encountered him at the LSE where through courageous womanly struggle I managed to imbibe a maximum of 10 minutes of his I am so brave and even though it pains me no end I keep going to save mankind by bringing it “moderation”.
I support “let the pig choose” and let her be free to flee any of the emitters of foul miasmata at any time she deems suitable.
Can pigs spit spittle? I’ve once observed the prime village breeding boar trying to do his job. He foamed at the mouth quite a bit but as the farmer had timed the encounter badly, his desired one wasn’t in the mood yet and refused to stand still. Therefore I don’t know whether she would eventually have foamed also and whether the foaming of one or both would culminate in spitting foamed spittle. During my many encounters with pigs over a 20 year period I have never consciously seen one doing it. They somehow don’t seem as prone to fits of fury like cats who quite regularly come close to something very like it. Do I remember correctly that camels do it?
BTW at tnr.com Reuel Marc Gerecht has interesting and plausible things to say about the mindsets of certain enamoured by abstruse world views people. Towards the end he calls them predators.
I don’t know that much about camels, I drive a Suzuki. However, Gamil is an expert on the subject as he trades in camel dung and might be of help.
Robert Graves told me in his Lawrence of Arabia biography that they not only rode their camels but ate them also – is camel allowed by your diet rules and if yes, have you ever had a bite? and if it should be good, why is it not in fashion?
who is Gamil? should I remember him?
No, camels do feature in the Bible, but are not kosher. As far as Gamil is concerned, I have no doubt that we’ll be hearing from him soon.
Spill the beanz… who spoke at the LSE? Tariq Ramadan?
I would have thought that any of them could, after a mere 10 mins of talk, encourage one to be an immediate suicide bomber, if only, to escape the rest of their lecture.
Hello to every bodies and Silkes!
I am Gamil who is a expert about camels. What have you wanted to know?
Blacklisted Dictator, you are saying very funny things and also auntie-Arab. Be very careful from me!
how considerate of you to show up?
I am eager to know more about camels?
do they spit, do they have other nicely disgusting habits?
are there camel butchers?
which are their choice pieces?
is there a camel recipe site?
what is the correct wine to serve with camel?
in my book Tariq Ramadan is the fear of paralysis inducing bore
Tariq Ali (I think also last heard by me via LSE podcast) is the “help doctor my brain’s been twisted in knots” inducing bore
take your pick – both test a thinking person’s ability to suffer torment to the hilt
If you want to hear something intelligent including some very nice stuff on Ramadan’s father (the CIA found him unworthy;-) I recommend A Mosque in Munich from the Carnegie Council Podcast – kind of nice that the Muslim Brotherhood got its first foothold in Germany of all places, ain’t it?
Do Camels Spitting?
Sometimes people are thinking that camels are spitting and they really not are spitting only vomiting what is in camel stomachs, along with saliva. They are doing this if you surprise and anger them like trying to sexy intercourse in them while they are tired.
They have much another disgusting hobbies like making fartings while they sleeping or in weddings.
Camel Recipe (http://www.food.com/recipe/whole-stuffed-camel-67495)
1 whole camel, medium size
1 whole lamb, large size
20 whole chicken, medium size
12 kg rice
2 kg pine nuts
2 kg almonds
1 kg pistachio nut
110 gallons water
5 lbs black pepper
Directions:Prep Time: 2 hrsTotal Time: 1/2 day
1Skin, trim and clean camel (once you get over the hump), lamb and chicken.
2Boil until tender.
3Cook rice until fluffy.
4Fry nuts until brown and mix with rice.
5Hard boil eggs and peel.
6Stuff cooked chickens with hard boiled eggs and rice.
7Stuff the cooked lamb with stuffed chickens.
8Add more rice.
9Stuff the camel with the stuffed lamb and add rest of rice.
10Broil over large charcoal pit until brown.
11Spread any remaining rice on large tray and place camel on top of rice.
12Decorate with boiled eggs and nuts.
13Serves a friendly crowd of 80-100.
About wine the Koran has said, “Intoxicants (wine and spirit) and gambling are Satan’s handiwork, avoid them…”5:90 (112)
Sounds like a lot of pepper to me.
the decoration seems a bit unappetizingly monochromatic to me, I’d advise some parsil and red peppers
I agree that the amount of ground pepper seems slightly exaggerated
on the other hand since salt is completely lacking people who try to survive under the yoke of an anti-high-blood-pressure-diet should like it.
As to the no wine directive – are camels to be eaten only by “fidels”, was there an exception made for Lawrence then?
– what about the much lauded Arab hospitality – my lower class western style hospitality would demand that I provide guests with their favourite beverage, so again red or wine or maybe beer?
Also it says nothing whether one maybe should bring an extra pair of dentures to be up to the task?
Daniel, how mischieveous you are to make my mouth water like that
once upon a time on a Greek island in pre-season a restaurant had sheep’s head on offer – honestly wonderful and to this day I regret that I chickened out at trying the eyes – at a barbecue on another island in another year I was offered male private parts, not bad but overrated.
In northern Germany there is a dish called “mockturtle” which used to be in pre-BSE-times calf’s head in madeira sauce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_turtle_soup
these days it can be found in tins here and there but I don’t know what they make it off – I didn’t care for it too much because the widely varying texture of the meat pieces in there made me slightly weary – I like to first have a look at what I put into my mouth – also I like to drink my booze not have it evaporate in sauces.
To the tune of “Popeye the Sailor Man” . . .
He’s Gertie the Belgian clown,
He lives in a Yaaarkshire town;
He wears high heel boots
And gives “Heil Hitler” salutes,
He’s Gertie the Belgian clown . . . OY!
Who said only Nick can do verse?
Mike and Gert (is very funny)