Some Dumb “Goys” and Al Durah: Insights into the minds of Useful Infidels

There’s a silly movie about a young martial arts student whose master sent him on a quest to find a still greater master. His only clue is (it turns out) a Chinese fortune cookie factory named “Sum dom goy.”

I was reminded of it by a passage in my latest read, Anthony Julius’ The Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England. In response to the Al-Durah affair, Irish poet Tom Paulin wrote a “squib” entitled: “Killed in Crossfire.”

We’re fed this inert
This lying phrase
like comfort food
as another little Palestinian boy
in trainers jeans and a white teeshirt
is gunned down by the Zionist SS
whose initials we should
– but we don’t – dumb goys –
clock in the weasel word crossfire.

Julius does a fine job of analyzing the multi-layered references to, and invocations of anti-Semitic themes here, including Paulin’s [gnostic] inside knowledge” that permits us certainty that “crossfire” conceals genocidal deeds.

I’d like to focus on the reference to “dumb goys” [sic]. On some level this poem is by a man who deeply resents how Jews – he thinks – dismiss him as a dumb goy. Thus they have the nerve to feed him “comfort food” about a cross-fire when (he knows) that they gunned this boy down in cold blood, a deed that reveals their Nazi-like nature.

And how does he know this? Because Talal, via his useful infidel Charles Enderlin, told him so.

Now that we know that the scene was staged, how different this all appears. Paulin was fed the “comfort food” of an anti-Semitic lethal narrative about a boy gunned down in cold blood, which he (and his fellow fool, Robert Fisk who wrote a piece two days after the story broke denouncing the use of “crossfire” as a euphemism for deliberate murder), swallowed hook line and sinker.

The alleged “comfort food” Paulin rejects here – the Israeli claim that the boy died in a cross-fire, hence they did not deliberately kill an innocent boy, even if they may have killed him – is unacceptable to Paulin and Fisk because it lets Israel off the hook.

In their minds, it puts the typical dumb goy – not them! they’re way too clever – to sleep, while the evil Jewish conspiracy goes on. (Julius point out the use of the “goy” as a derogatory term by the [anti-Semite’s version of] the Elders of Zion in their infamous “Protocols,” translated by Marsden as the “gentile aristocracy”).

How ironic that even that defensive posture of the Israelis is far from the real truth, namely that Palestinians faked this – and how many other? – lethal narratives in order to indict Israel and incite hatred. Of course if “crossfire” is unacceptable, how much the more “staged” would be to Paulin and Fisk.

The comfort food that Paulin and Fisk prefer to this weasel-word cop-out, is the far richer nourishment of blood libel, and in so doing they, like Catherine Nay, incarnate the European addiction to anything that can help them target their pathological hatred: the Jews. Like some 400 pound slob whose cholesterol is above 300, they just can’t stop popping down these delightful truffles of moral Schadenfreude that will kill them.

Some dumb goy, indeed.

I just finished attending the International Jewish Lawyers’ Conference here in London. One of the sessions was dedicated to BDS and Julius spoke about the pervasive presence of anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism in England. The discussion moved to matters of “framing,” and I suggested that British Jews might address their British brethren in terms of how by gulping down these tasty morsels of anti-Zionism they were feeding the monster that will devour them.

By and large most of the people there did not know what I was talking about, and when I specified that the monster was global Jihad, they assured me that the British public is far from feeling endangered. My sense is, reading Melanie Phillips in particular, that they misread the public and remain glued to the elites who live in la-la-land.

23 Responses to Some Dumb “Goys” and Al Durah: Insights into the minds of Useful Infidels

  1. Steven says:

    No, they were right – people here in the UK are not focused on Islamic fundamentaliam… they are asleep.

  2. SquareMileWife says:

    The UK is asleep, and sadly many in the Jewish community here are as well.

  3. RedPencil says:

    A young person and I were discussing Laurie R. King’s Mary Russell/Sherlock Holmes novels, in which Sherlock Holmes gets a young female Zionist apprentice who studies rabbinic theology at Oxford during WWI. While I found these novels enjoyable (and appreciate the fact that they are, for a change in popular fiction, unapologetically Zionist) I felt obliged to point out just a FEW little anachronisms. I first pointed out that women at Oxford weren’t even eligible for a degreed curriculum until 1920, & some other issues regarding women’s status at that time and place that would have really torqued some subplots.

    I went on to point out similar improbabilities in the young heroine’s rabbinic studies at that august institution. While I know Oxford has long had a respectable Hebrew chair, I suspected that the particular curriculum pursued by the young Mary Russell were just a little anachronistic, so I looked up the origins of the “Jewish studies” department there. But even so I was a little surprised by the condescending tone I found on the About page for the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies:

    The Centre was founded in 1972 by Dr David Patterson, then Cowley Lecturer in post-Biblical Hebrew, and thereafter the Centre’s President until his retirement in 1992. The University of Oxford, while strongly welcoming David’s initiative, emphasised that the Centre must be financially self-supporting as there was no scope for allocating funds from the University’s central budget. This has remained the position to the present day.

    Meanwhile, the Centre’s physical integration with the University was accomplished in the autumn of 2000, with the formation of the Oxford University Teaching and Research Unit in Hebrew and Jewish Studies. Now known as the Hebrew and Jewish Studies Unit of the University of Oxford, it is housed on the third floor of the Oriental Institute, the construction of which was funded by the Centre’s supporters. The Centre was designated a Recognized Independent Centre of the University of Oxford in 2006.

    Page on Hebrew & Jewish Studies

    We are told repeatedly that the Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies is self-funding and in no way subsidized by Oxford. And its founder Dr David Patterson is referred to, perhaps affectionately, simply as “David.”

    OK, this got me to wondering. How about the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies? The parallel page there says:

    The Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies is a Recognised Independent Centre of the University of Oxford. It was established in 1985 to encourage the scholarly study of Islam and the Islamic world. HRH The Prince of Wales is the Patron of the Centre. It is governed by a Board of Trustees consisting of scholars and statesmen from different parts of the world, alongside representatives of the University of Oxford.

    The Centre provides a meeting point for the Western and Islamic worlds of learning. At Oxford it contributes to the multi-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary study of the Islamic world. Beyond Oxford, its role is strengthened by a developing international network of academic contacts.

    Of course, given the fact that the Islamic Centre likely attracts donations from major petroleum exporters (aside from HRH himself), it is possible that the Centre for Islamic Studies is self funding too. And its capacious new building, next to Magdalen college. If so, Oxford does not feel obliged to trumpet this fact.

    Interesting contrast, I thought.

  4. incognito says:

    No, they were right – people here in the UK are not focused on Islamic fundamentaliam… they are asleep.

    I wouldn’t, like RL, rely too much on Melanie Phillips’ sense of the UK public’s concern with Jihad. I think she projects her own concern on it.

    Whatever the UK public does from now on, the die is cast.

    The demographics cannot be reversed in time and the UK welfare state is bankrupt and cannot recover. The muslim component in the population is already too large to have a solution short of what Islam is all about — submission.

    This is clear from UK’s foreign policies and EU FM’s have been explicit that they conduct them in order to avaoid at all cost violence from their 5th columns.

  5. incognito says:

    After making the previous comment I came across this:

    Game Theory and negotiations with Arab countries.

    It’s a must read. Indeed, if knowledge of game theory were applied more to reality, we would have a much better understanding of what’s going on and we would act much better in our own interests.

    This applies to a certain degree to the EU public’s attitudes toward jihad and explais in part why they’re not exactly asleep, but intimidated.

    The problem is that the critical component in the Blackmail Paradox is credibility. If the rational actor does not believe the blackmailer has it or the blackmailer does not perceive weakness in his interlocutor the paradox does not work.

    Such credibility is hard to achieve by turning from a rational into a blackmailing actor in the middle of the game. The arabs have ALWAYS been blackmailers, Israel always rational. The arabs have no incentive to weaken even if Israel changes now, which it won’t, but even if it does it won’t be credible.

  6. Eliyahu says:

    To #s 1,2,3

    It’s silly to talk of the pro-Muslim policy in the UK as “too late,” when the UK govt policy has been pro-Muslim since about 1920. How else do we explain the favoritism for Ataturk’s Turkey against the Greeks? And against the Armenians?? Not to mention the Jews?? What we see is a successful policy in that it seems to be accomplishing its goals, despite Melanie Philips’ noble efforts. UK favoritism for Arabs and for Islam is seen in RedPencil’s note that Prince Charley is on the board of the Islamic Center.

    Re RL’s post, unfortunately we have enough of our own useful idiots here in Israel, especially noted among some of the less sane intelligentsia. It all goes to show what efective psywar and cogwar can do. Amos oz and dvid grossman and other autistic fools are following in the footsteps of Jean Giono and Jean Giraudoux, two noted French authors who helped bring about German victory in the 1939-1940 period. Giono, a novelist like oz and grossman, called Hitler °poetry in action° or somesuch.

  7. Eliyahu says:

    I meant in the above that speaking of demographics closing the option to resist Islamization is silly since Islamization has been a UK govt policy goal since about 1920. The problem is the UK govt more so than the Muslim population in the UK to which the UK govt is eager to cater, not merely because there are so many of them and they are violent, etc.

  8. Eliyahu says:

    change that to the UK govt policy has been pro-Muslim since about 1920. I can’t be sure about when they decided to impose Islamic influence on their own country.

  9. incognito says:

    It’s silly to talk of the pro-Muslim policy in the UK as “too late,” when the UK govt policy has been pro-Muslim since about 1920.

    That’s not the point.

    By too late I did not mean that the policy is only now pro-muslim. I mean that even if they did change it now it would not prevent islamization of the UK.

    What we see is a successful policy in that it seems to be accomplishing its goals

    I’m sorry, but I think you’re mistaken here. You are right about pro-muslim policy, but I very much doubt they foresaw the internal islamization consequences of their policy. They probably thought, like good colonialists and class-driven society that they are, that they were just importing cheap labor to substitute for their demographic and financial collapse, and believed they would be able to control those lesser immigrants.

    And I think they deserve what is happening to them.

  10. SE says:

    The post’s final paragraph strikes me as alarmist. Do you really see England as adopting Muslim policies, beyond the Jewish state?
    How do you see England/Europe’s Islamization playing out?

  11. incognito says:

    How do you see England/Europe’s Islamization playing out?


  12. Cynic says:

    How do you see England/Europe’s Islamization playing out?

    A queue outside one’s front door:
    The first in line the Imam with his demand for djiziya and behind him the BBC thug for the TV license fee.

  13. incognito says:

    I urge you to read Glick’s latest piece:

    1. It validates the game Israel is playing versus its blackmailing enemies.

    2. It answers the question how Europe will look when Islamized. In fact it already does. And so does Australia.

  14. incognito says:

    CNN Editor Mourns Death of Hezbollah’s Spiritual Leader

  15. Unfortunately, Melanie Phillips and Nick Cohen and a few other outspoken characters are in the minority (and spoil their cases with being hysterical and fanatical on many other subjects, which makes the average reader dismiss their warnings on this one). Even the British citizen’s concern about “immigration” turns out to be aimed, not at the Muslims, but at the East European whites who take their jobs and eat the Queen’s swans. Pathetic, really.

  16. incognito says:

    and spoil their cases with being hysterical and fanatical on many other subjects

    Care to give examples?

  17. Nick Cohen is a fanatical hater of Christianity. In his recent Observer discussion of the dire state of Britain’s jails, he spoils a sharp and informed polemic by saying that it is dangerous to let private or charitable interests into jails because ” the area of rehabilitation is overrun with evangelicals who see the captive as a captive audience for their preaching”. In other words, it is seriously better than eighty thousand illiterate, violent, drug-addicted professional villains should stay as they are, than that, Atheism forbid, a few of them should be converted to Evangelical Christianity. (And I am no Evangelical myself, incidentally.) If this is not dangerous fanaticism, I’d like to know what is. He has absurdly refused to pay attention to Climategate, placing himself on the side of the cheats and the liars, because the other side included… Sarah Palin. And so on. I lost count of the number of times when I told him to his face that his religious fanaticism distorted his whole attitude.

    As for Melanie… where to begin, where to begin. Let’s just start with one recent enormity, which she did not start, but which she embraced with glee: that “fixed-term parliaments are an assault on democracy”; somehow, the Prime Minister’s ability to shut Parliament down when he pleases and call for a general election on his own terms is a guarantee of democracy. Pity those unfortunate Americans, French, Germans, Spaniards, etc etc, who are subject to the tyrannical imposition of knowing exactly when and how they will be called on to vote for their representatives; and worst of all, those unregenerate Italians who, after spending fifty years having elections whenever it suited their political bosses, have in the last two decades had them almost only when their Constitution demands! Melanie Philips is a sad instance of a frequent pathology: someone who, having started out as a fiery rebel, finds herself (or himself) mugged by reality – and instead of just changing those views that need changing, adopts every one of the views she opposed, wholesale, and becomes a caricature of everything she opposed.

  18. incognito says:

    If this is not dangerous fanaticism, I’d like to know what is.

    Hatred or incitement to murder would be, not this. You can argue about his analysis and conclusion, but not fanaticism. The rehabilitation argument is highly questioned by many much more knowledgeable than Cohen.
    And rehabilitation via religion even more so. If rehabilitation is undertaken I would much prefer it to be non-religious, as religion always takes advantage of people in trouble. Relative to the sin of religion, Cohen is pretty mild. If I were to criticize him it’s his focus on Christianity rather than Islam insofar as jails are concerned.

    Ditto for Melanie. Her criticism of certain electoral systems is not hers alone and as a political scientist who has done some work on the Israeli one, I am well aware of the pluses and minuses of such a system, and many of the latter can be undemocratic. For example, it is a major source of Israel’s lack of leadership, overstaying of governments beyond their competence, protection of incompetence, and blackmail by small and religious parties.

    So you can disagree with their analyses and proposals, but to claim fanaticism and hysteria is nonsense.

  19. Rehabilitation without religion does not happen. And I had not realized that you share Cohen’s brand of nonsense, or I would not have bothered.

  20. incognito says:

    Rehabilitation without religion does not happen.

    Really? And you have the gall to call Cohen a fanatic?

  21. Phil says:

    Richard, I thought you might like to share with your readers this article about the al Dura case:

  22. incognito says:

    And written by a Dreyfus, not less.

  23. […] sanity Al Mezan Center for Human Rights Susanne Goldenberg (Guardian) Sara Leibovich-Dar (Haaretz) Tom Paulin (British Poet) Catherine Nay (Europe 1 Anchorwoman) Osama bin Laden Iranian Government Ramsey Clark, International […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *