Emotion on campus, ‘Stan’ and ChrisJFraser 12

An informal blogpost here by Sam Westrop, Director of IMED, about the challenges facing the discussion of Israel on campuses in the UK.

This turn of events is not the aim of StandforPeace. Instead, we are an unashamedly pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian group – that is, we encourage both Jewish and Palestinian self-determination. The emotional hatred perpetrated by groups such as Action Palestine, PSC and Viva Palestina prevents any progress or hope. Their tactics are devoid of the progressive, liberal and veritably Jewish sense of optimism and forward thinking. They appear more interested in preventing Jewish self-determination than actually ever encouraging Palestinian self-determination. The negation or rationality also prevents identifying where moral culpability lies – show a picture of a dead baby, and it is the product of Israel’s cruel and wanton agenda to genocidally murder; it is never the fault of Hamas firing rockets or planting IEDs in the baby’s nursery.

It is a specious tactic to describe ‘activists’ or groups such as Action Palestine as ‘pro-Palestinian’, because they are not; they are almost solely anti-Israeli, and show little drive for peace.

Much like the flotilla activists, the white, middle-class, pro-Hamas PSC persons were also armed; in this case, with a McCarthy-esque biography of me, poorly researched claims from the Internet. There were wild accusations that I took money from the far right, I had a paid agenda to slander ‘pro-Palestinian’ activists, I was in cahoots with the Ayn Rand Institute. Only three days before, several National Front and BNP members had accused me of similar crimes, switching far-right for far-left. Potato, potahto; tomato, tomahto – let’s call the whole thing off.

Accusations of racism are often the refuge of the weird and the virulent ideologues. Who can forget Ahmadinejad and Mugabe leading the speeches at the UN’s anti-racism conference? – an event that appeared to be solely dedicated to hatred of Israel, an event led by two genocidal dictators – the former the patron and supporter of most of the terror and suffering in the Middle East.

Described by some fellow Amnesty activists as ‘quiet and unfriendly’, Fraser is not a manifest lunatic like Jamie ‘Stan’ Stanley, but he is someone who is slightly more sinister. Slightly more intelligent than Stanley, Fraser has the nihilist fascinations with suffering and vulgarity. He proudly boasts that his first ‘book’ was banned under obscenity laws.

Read more!

  • Matt the Hat

    Deat Sam Westrop.

    How dare you acuse Stan of being antisametic and racist in some of your other “publications”. How can you acuse him of anything when your whole system of goverment is built on facist capitalism hideing behind neo- zionism! Its to the point where you are hiding behind religon and religious ideals to gain further capitalistic atributes. Stan is a very close freind of mine and as such i feel i can speak for his charecter and, i can safely say that he is not an antisemite or a racist, he protests these things on the side of the equality, he was mearly putting foward the fact that what happenn to the garza aid vessel was wrong!

    Matt the Hat.

    • C. Gee

      Stan, the man from planet hubris has a mate who's Matt the Hat.
      Matt the Hat has gone to bat for his man Stan ( a manifest loon according to Sam.)
      Matt the Hat brooks no laughter, not when he's after that damn Sam to scram.
      Who gives a fig for grammar or spelling, when there's such brimful upwelling of feeling for Stan?
      Had I a hat, I'd doff it like that! I'd doff it like that to Stan's man Matt.

      • Matt the Hat

        Very poetic,and I no I cant spell. 🙂

  • Planethubris

    And finally – my latest letter to The Jewish Chronicle:

    Dear Jewish Chronicle,

    I have included Martin Bright as a recipient of this email, who I have been told is the political editor of The Jewish Chronicle, as we appear to have a mutual friend in film producer Alex Cameron. Alex has assured me that Martin is a thoroughly decent and honourable chap, he can also certainly vouch for my good character and verify that I am not remotely anti-Semitic, or a lunatic, conspiracy theorist or criminal as Sam Westrop has maliciously claimed in the libellous article you recently published on your website.

    The reason I am contacting you again today is threefold.

    Firstly, please find attached a copy of the content of all the correspondence between me and Sam Westrop since I discovered his article last week. I have already forwarded all these emails to you, the attached document I compiled for the police's ease of reference so I thought I'd forward it to you as well. It has all the emails in the correct order with appropriate labelling so hopefully this will make it easier for you to put it all in context and see what Sam is trying to do.

    Secondly, I don't know if the police have contacted you or if they plan to but obviously they could do with seeing the article in question. As it is no longer available on your site, perhaps you would be good enough to forward me a copy. I have screen shots and a partial printout but the police will obviously need the original source so that no-one can accuse me of altering the content. Your assistance with this would be greatly appreciated.

    Finally, I want to once again impress upon you the seriousness of this matter and urge you to act swiftly and appropriately. Regardless of anyone's personal views on the very complex Arab vs Israeli conflict, the likes of Sam Westrop are very obviously the Jewish people's worst enemy and as such distancing yourself from him and his kind really ought to be a priority of The Jewish Chronicle, in my opinion.

    It is patently false to present the conflict in terms of Jews vs Islamic Extremists as Sam always seeks to do. It has nothing to do with religion. It is a conflict between Arab natives and Israeli settlers, no more, no less. It is also patently false to label legitimate criticism of the modern state of Israel and modern Zionism as anti-Semitic.

    As I'm sure you know, anti-Semitism is by definition hatred towards and persecution of the Jewish people. The religious and cultural identity that is Judaism has existed for thousands of years and anti-Semitism for almost as long. The political movement that is Zionism has been in existence for a considerably smaller amount of time.

    As you should also know, prior to 1942, Zionist policy was against the creation of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East for the simple reason that such an undertaking would be inherently racist and apartheid as it would inevitably have to involve the invasion, occupation and ethnic cleansing of an area of Palestine. In 1942 this policy was reversed and the creation of Israel became the raison d'etre of Zionism. At which point many progressive Jewish people turned their back on it. Since then for every Jew who has rejected this form of Zionism, there is another who has grown up having been conditioned to believe in the false premise that this has always been the goal of Zionism and that it is a political movement that represents the Jews as a whole when it clearly is not.

    Now, of course, the modern Zionism practised by the government of the state of Israel is entirely secular and corporatist as it has converged utterly with the political agendas of the United States, Britain and a great many heavyweight organisations in the corporate and banking sector. Modern Zionism is therefore practised by Jews, Christians and Atheists alike primarily in the name of big business – it is patently absurd to suggest it is a Jewish existential enterprise in 2010. It is a political movement like any other, one that is primarily concerned with achieving and maintaining power and control at any cost.

    It is absolutely factually correct to say that the now essentially corporatist state of Israel uses Zionism's historical Jewish origins as a shield and as a means of silencing and stifling all legitimate debate and criticism of it by labelling it as anti-Semitic. Many people in this world do not understand this fact, which is why the modern Zionist movement continues to do as it pleases with total impunity. This is something that is set to change in due course due to the ongoing bravery and commitment of decent people from all creeds, races & religions – not least of all those of the Jewish faith, a good example of this being Jews Against The Occupation, an organisation that the likes of Sam Westrop would no doubt characterise as traitorous and fascistic in some way.

    http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org/

    My philosophy and approach to the Arab vs Israeli conflict is an entirely logical, reasonable and accepted one – one that is shared by prominent Jewish opponents of the state of Israel such as Noam Chomsky. As stated before I am a human rights activist who campaigns against all forms of fascism. In other words I don't have a racist bone in my body. This is why I find Sam Westrops attempted smear campaign so hurtful. Bullies like Sam need to be stood up to and stopped in their tracks.

    I trust this will form the basis of your decisions and actions in relation to resolving this matter. As stated, nothing short of a full published apology and retraction of the article will suffice as far as I'm concerned.

    I hope for an an amicable settlement and await your response.

    Yours sincerely,
    Jamie Stanley
    c/o NOTA-UK & Zeitgeist Production

    • C. Gee

      Planetchutzpah, if you ask me.

      • Planethubris

        Wow… how disarmingly intelligent of you C. Gee! : D You obviously have not been paying attention over the years. You may want to consider doing some proper research on the issue before formulating an opinion in future my friend. You look pretty foolish otherwise.

        Stay tuned for my upcoming write up of the whole Sam Westrop saga – including my recent discovery of his undercover efforts to acquire my contact details after writing his libellous article and prior to me receiving an abusive voicemail message – all of which is currently being investigated by the police.

        • Planethubris

          Or perhaps you were being positive C. Gee:

          “In Hebrew, chutzpah is used indignantly, to describe someone who has over-stepped the boundaries of accepted behavior with no shame. But in Yiddish and English, chutzpah has developed ambivalent and even positive connotations. Chutzpah can be used to express admiration for non-conformist but gutsy audacity. Leo Rosten in The Joys of Yiddish defines chutzpah as “gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, incredible 'guts,' presumption plus arrogance such as no other word and no other language can do justice to.” In this sense, chutzpah expresses both strong disapproval and a grudging admiration.”

  • Planethubris

    APARTHEID DENIAL & DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER

    I am dismayed, saddened and slightly amused that I have ruffled Sam Westrop's feathers enough for him to publicly accuse me of being a lunatic. Not just once but twice – on his The Atheist Conservative blog and in an article he wrote for The Jewish Chronicle on June 6th.

    His comments about me are clearly slanderous and tantamount to defamation of character, a matter I am more than prepared to take legal action over if an apology and retraction is not forthcoming from him and form The Jewish Chronicle.

    For those who are unaware of what I am talking about, Sam has apparently developed somewhat of an irrational hatred for me after I told him some home truths about his attempts to distort the reality of the recent Israeli murder of human rights activists on board a flotilla attempting to carry humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza.

    In the aftermath of the attack Sam had taken to posting unverifiable Israeli government spin and propaganda in an attempt to excuse the now widely acknowledged barbarism of the Israeli attack. My crime, in Sam's eyes, was to dare to challenge his insensitive behaviour.

    His response was to devote an entire section of his article in The Jewish Chronicle to misrepresenting me and attacking me personally. In it, he has chosen to purposely take out of context quotes from my online blog and a facebook conversation that we had in order to try and paint me as a fanatic. He specifically accuses me, in writing, of being a lunatic and a conspiracy theorist.

    Westrop begins his attack on me by quoting out of context an admittedly emotional and comment of mine that I posted during a conversation we had about one of his shamelessly pro-Israeli posts. The comment in question contains two profanities and an admittedly reckless assertion on my part about Sam's mental health. This comment I wholeheartedly retract. What Sam doesn't reveal, however, is the context of my comment. It was in response to his refusal to acknowledge the Israeli propaganda machine in the aftermath of the flotilla attack and his continued reinforcement of this propaganda – something that demonstrates a deep seated and truly worrying degree of denial.

    In the article, Sam then goes on to suggest that the three links I posted and urged him to check out are in some way anti-Semitic – the implication being that I myself am in some way anti-Semitic. This is the oldest trick in the book, of course. If Sam had bothered to pay any attention to what I was saying, he would realise that I am a some time human rights activist who actively campaigns against racism of all kinds, be it far right anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or the demonstrable racism of the Israeli government towards Palestinians. He would also know that I regularly post links to examples of Jews denouncing and taking a stand against the murderous actions of the Israeli government. To imply that I am guilty of anti-Semitism is a truly desperate act – one that would have gone unnoticed by me had I not chanced upon his defamatory article.

    All this is bad enough of course – but the most telling example of Sam's misrepresentation of me is in his decision to quote out of context from my “poorly written dissertation” a whole paragraph that contains nothing but well researched and easily verifiable facts pertaining to 9/11. He then uses this paragraph to try and suggest I am prone to belief in “bizarre claims and conspiracies”. In fact, the paragraph in question offers no opinion, makes no assumptions or suggestions of any kind and contains nothing but entirely factual information. This is a classic example of a Straw Man argument. He has taken his unfounded prejudicial assumption about me and then tried to use my own words out of context to suggest that his false premise is a correct one – an act of bottom of the barrel desperation, at no mistake.

    Sam Westrop claims to be pro-Israeli and pro-palestinian – and yet his utterly one sided view of the conflict is clearly arrived at entirely through the lens of the openly Zionist Israeli government – a government that more and more Jews are denouncing every day. All I ever did was point out this fact to him and urge him to acknowledge the truth about the flotilla attack – something he refuses to do to this day.

    My punishment for this was to be vilified, misrepresented and falsely accused by him in a very public arena – but in a manner that I would have had no way of defending myself from if not for my chance discovery of his article and blog post. The article speaks for itself, really. A more telling example of massaging reality to fit ones agenda you would be hard pushed to find.

    Sam Westrop and The Jewish Chronicle can rest assured that I will be now be seeking to publicise this behaviour as widely as possible. I will of course be taking legal advice on the matter and contacting The Jewish Chronicle to demand an apology and retraction of the slanderous article in question.

    Jamie Stanley
    c/o NOTA-UK & Zeitgeist Production

    • Arabsforisrael

      Your denial of racism is very Nick Griffin-esque. Zionism is the belief that after your ancestors (with your very same mindset) had been slaughtering the Jews for 2000 years in Europe, maybe it was best that the Jews try and defend themselves in the land to which they have always had religious, demographic, legal and moral links, under the capital Jerusalem that has always had a Jewish majority or plurality. To deny Zionism is to deny the Jews the chance to be free from persecution, to prosper and to live. Zionism calls for the the equal rights of all under the law, regardless of race, religion, etc. As Martin Luther King said, to be anti-Zionist is to be anti-Semitic.

      Secondly, I find your attempt to label EVERYTHING that you do not agree with as 'fascist', a rather…well..fascist thing to do. Read the 'Anatomy of Fascism' – your Schopenhauerian-like obsession with 'victimhood' draw from the very same roots that 1930s European Fascism did. Furthermore, the demand for a scapegoat, or 'enemy' is interesting – similar to the Nazi's blaming the 'Jews' for the economic situation or violent attacks, you are doing to the same for events such as 9/11 or other Islamist terror attacks. Instead you blame the 'fascists', which I'm sure you do not hesitate to differentiate from the Zionists, or if you put an end to your self-denial, the Jews.

      Stalin called the Jews 'Fascists' or 'Zionists'; Hitler called the Jews 'Communists' or 'Zionists'. You have a choice of being one of the two most disgusting genocidal men of the 20th century. Take your pick.

      • Planethubris

        I refer you to my most recent letter to Sam Westrop who, since I notified him and The Jewish Chronicle of my intention to sue, has emailed me reasserting his false accusations of anti-Semitism and threatening to republish his libellous article elsewhere on the net in a clear and blatant attempt to intimidate me. You have now been added to my list of people to hold accountable for making libelous and unfounded allegations about me. So I'd be grateful if you could supply your real name and contact details. Enjoy 🙂

        BACKGROUND: Sam Westrop is a Jewish self-appointed commentator on the Middle East who I had an argument with on here around the time of the Israeli attack on the humanitarian aid flotilla bound for Gaza a few weeks ago. I said my piece and then blocked him – so he wrote an article on The Jewish Chronicle website demonising me and accusing me directly of being an anti-Semitic lunatic – an article that I was oblivious to until recently and only discovered by chance. The offending article has now been taken down and I am considering legal action against The Jewish Chronicle for publishing it. Sam has now taken to sending me emails reasserting his false accusation of anti-Semitism and threatening to republish the article elsewhere in an attempt to intimidate me. This letter is my latest, and hopefully final, response:

        Dear Sam,

        How increasingly tiresome you are becoming Sam. Still you continue with your smear campaign and attempted intimidation of me. I can only assume that this tactic has worked for you in the past. Your devotion to it is amusing, if a little disturbing given what it says about you in terms of your state of mind.

        Firstly, I refer you to this organisations website, an organisation I fully endorse and support:

        Jews Against the Occupation
        http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org/

        You might want to pay particular attention to their mission statement. An extract from it:

        “ANTI-SEMITISM VS. CRITIQUES OF ISRAEL

        Jews Against the Occupation stands firmly against anti-Semitism and racism in all its forms. We see our historical struggle against anti-Semitism–a cornerstone of European white supremacist ideology–as inherently linked to all struggles against oppression. We therefore stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom.

        Judaism is a cultural and religious identity, which must not be equated with Zionism, a political movement. Criticism of the state of Israel, its policies, or the idea of a Jewish state does not by itself constitute anti-Semitism. Dismissing critics of Israel or of Zionism as “anti-Semitic” is a means of stifling debate and masking the impact of the occupation.”

        There you have it from the horses mouth. This last paragraph describes and exposes precisely what you are trying to do. Shame on you for doing it Sam.

        The content of the links I sent you all those weeks ago was relevant to the discussion we were having, that is why I sent them. Your opinion of the mindset of the authors of these works is of no consequence. Your attempt to conflate your opinion of them with me being anti-Semitic is laughable in the extreme and will bear no fruit I can assure you.

        It doesn't matter how much you try and misrepresent the things I've said and the motivation behind the links I sent you. It doesn't matter how much you try and intimidate me into backing down. I am not anti-Semitic and I am going to hold you to account for your libellous actions.

        Nor does it matter how much you persistently try and suggest that my formal letter of notice before action is unsuitable in some way. It isn't. I'm not going to repeat myself Sam, you know exactly where you stand with me. Each further attempt to intimidate me and wriggle out of the predicament you have put yourself in goes against you. You would be wise to either start back tracking or cease contacting me altogether if you are unable to bring yourself to do this.

        As I have pointed out to you numerous times now I am a pacifist human rights activist of no religious or political allegiance. I try to combat racism and fascism in all its all forms, in particular that of the state of Israel as the Arab vs Israeli conflict lies at the heart of much of the worlds problems.

        Your antiquated one-sided view of this conflict, which is itself no doubt a product of a lifetime of conditioning, and your continued denial of the true nature of Israel's occupation of Palestine does nothing but fuel the hateful agendas of the truly anti-Semitic. You and your ilk are therefore much more of an enemy of the Jewish people than I could ever be.

        By definition, anti-Semitism is the hatred and persecution of Jews. I am a friend of the Jews, much more of a friend than you are, I hasten to add. What I oppose and constantly seek to challenge is Zionism. The government of Israel is a Zionist one. It is factually correct to describe this Zionist government as racist and apartheid in relation to its policies towards Palestine. It has nothing to do with Judaism. Indeed, Judaism has long been abused by Zionists and held up as a pre-text for their actions. In truth, Zionists come in all shapes and sizes, Jewish, Christian, even atheist. Zionism is about power and control, not religion. The myth that Zionists act in the name of Judaism is slowly but surely falling apart. Thanks to people like me.

        So you see, your efforts to smear me and my character are doomed to fail at every attempt Sam. Because I, unlike you, bring an objectivity, logic and reason to the debate that you are incapable of due to your inherent bias and self-imposed ignorance.

        In my experience, there are two types of people who blindly support the actions of the state of Israel:

        1: Those who are in total denial about the true nature of the Zionist occupation of Palestine

        2: Those who genuinely believe that they belong to a race of superior human beings who have the right to oppress and kill whoever they like in the pursuit of their goals.

        The former I have much sympathy for as they are essentially victims of sustained misinformation and conditioning from a young age – invariably they know the truth in their hearts but can never acknowledge it as it flies in the face of their deeply held belief systems. These people need help.

        The latter, of course, are fascists. Indeed, this mindset is fascism incarnate. Fascists deserve no sympathy whatsoever. Whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian or Atheist, whether black, white, yellow or purple it makes no difference. Fascists are the scum of the universe, always have been and always will be.

        What you need to decide Sam is which are you? If it is the former then I will be happy to help you overcome this affliction. If it is the latter, then I will obviously have nothing more to do with you – except to challenge you and expose you at every turn.

        I trust this clarifies things for you.

        Yours sincerely,

        Stan

        • Planethubris

          And in the name of completeness, here is my next letter to Sam in response to his desperate attempt to cling to the false premise that I am anti-Semitic by quoting irrelevant Martin Luther King at me. Again, enjoy 🙂

          Dear Sam,

          Wow – that must have taken you all day to concoct. You really are revealing yourself to be a relentlessly silly man Sam. The Zionism of which Martin Luther King speaks bares absolutely no resemblance to the modern Zionism that is practiced by the Israeli government in 2010. Your continued attempts to bypass this reality are making you look increasingly ridiculous. My definition of Zionism is shared by the Jewish intellectual and writer Noam Chomsky. Have you heard of him at all? I think you might find these links rather illuminating on the subject:

          Israel in Global Context –
          Noam Chomsky interviewed by Ludwig Watzal
          http://www.variant.org.uk/16texts/Chomsky.html

          Anti-Semitism, Zionism, and the Palestinians
          http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19970609.htm

          A great many of the people that I 'associate with' as you put it and who support me in my mission to raise awareness of the truth about the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the inherent fascism therein are Jews. Progressive, moderate, intelligent Jews who have seen through the lie that modern Zionism is a Jewish cultural and existential enterprise and seen it for the corporately sponsored war-mongering fascism that it is. They are infinitely smarter, wiser and more decent human beings than you could ever be. Perhaps you are jealous of their wisdom and humility? It matters not. Every word you write condemns you more and more.

          However, you have confirmed in your last email that, as I suspected, you most likely fall into the former category of supporters of Israel that I described. So I will cut you some slack. Like I said, I can help you with reversing your conditioning if you'd like me too. The first step is to acknowledge the conditioning and then to want to reverse it. I'm pretty sure you're not there yet though.

          For your information, I am meeting with the police tomorrow to go through the details of your smear campaign and your continued attempts to intimidate me. We will also be discussing the anonymous abusive phone call that I received around the time of your article being published. So you will no doubt hear from them in due course.

          As for my libel action against you (and The Jewish Chronicle unless they agree to publish an apology) I have told you three times now that the revised letter I sent you and the JC in response to your article (plus its appendage) more than accurately sums up my intentions and the extent of your libel. Your continued obsession with this is puzzling. Perhaps you think that you may be able to wriggle out of this on some kind of legal technicality? If that is what you are relying on then that speaks volumes really doesn't it.

          It takes a big man to admit that he is wrong and make amends for his mistakes. Are you such a man? We shall see. It would do you no end of good right now if you were.

          Do yourself a favour Sam – stop sending me these ridiculously deluded emails. They do your position no good at all.

          Your sincerely,
          Stan

  • OH GAWD, IT'S EVERYWHERE