You can now read the Israel chapter I wrote in Not In My Name here.
I hope you enjoy it.
Archive for the ‘Not In My Name’ Category
Q: If you could force everyone you know to read one book, what would it be?
A: Julie Burchill & Chas Newkey Burden’s “Not In My Name: A Compendium of Modern Hypocrisy”.
I don’t know who you are, Flaming Fairy, but I applaud your taste and thank you for your words.
Not In My Name: A Compendium Of Modern Hypocrisy is published in paperback this week. Here are some of the reviews from when it was published in hardback last summer:
‘A spirited attack’ – Nick Cohen, The Observer
‘Waspish and witty’ – Daily Mail
‘Privileged celebs get a vicious tongue-lashing’ – The Sun
‘Absolutely brilliant – this is a fabulous, clear-eyed book that will frequently make you laugh out loud’ – Jewish Chronicle
‘Burchill and Newkey-Burden are spot on’ – Gay Times
‘They write like Old Testament prophets’ – Church Times
‘At their entertaining best they skewer the worst sort of leftist poseurs’ – Arena
‘A majestic piece of work’ – Sunday Mercury
‘Piercing intelligence’ – Royal Borough Observer
‘Enjoyable…everything from anal sex to Israel and Amy Winehouse”‘ – Australian Literary Review
‘A feverish anthology’ – Word magazine
I was particularly pleased with the Jewish Chronicle review, and its praise for my Israel essay: ‘Where has Newkey-Burden been all my life? He’s every bit as entertaining as Burchill. His essay on Israel haters made me ache with gratitude. I had tears streaming down my face as I turned the pages. Because he’s right, of course.’
You can read that review in full here.
…when you can have four?
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you my next four releases, all published next month:
Amy Winehouse: The Biography (updated paperback)
Alexandra Burke: Hallelujah, A Star Is Born
Not In My Name: A Compendium Of Modern Hypocrisy (paperback)
Phew…
I adore Nick Cohen for so many reasons. He once bought me a burger and laughed uproariously at my jokes as we lunched, even though his were much funnier. He described me and Julie’s book Not In My Name as “a spirited attack” in The Observer. His Facebook status updates are always hilarious and brighten up many an afternoon.
But mostly I adore him for his courageous writing. His book What’s Left is a shudderingly great attack on the hypocrisies and other ugliness of the modern British Left. Reading it encouraged Julie and I to write Not In My Name. She once described herself and I as “like Nick Cohen, but the K-Tel version”. I wish.
He now has a new book out called Waiting For The Etonians and gave Oy Va Goy an interview.
I loved What’s Left with all my heart. How does your new book compare with it in content and theme?
Waiting for the Etonians is a collection of journalism some new some already published and updated. Unlike What’s Left it’s a very British book, about my take on what it has been like to live and write over here at the end of an extraordinary and disorientating bubble market. There are two major themes:
* How the political left allowed speculators to run riot until they brought down the roof on the rest of society.
* How the cultural left failed to rise to the challenge from radical Islam.
In essence it’s about people forgetting their best instincts and disaster following.
You enjoy your spats. I do too, particularly your ones with Johann Hari and George Monbiot. Which one have you enjoyed most?
I enjoy arguments not spats. The one thing which shocked me after What’s Left? was released was people lying about what was in the book. Unless they are on drugs or soft in the head, they must sit down and quite deliberately invent. I’m used to it now, and quickly learned that you can’t really argue with people like that. All you can do is say “no I don’t believe that black is white and two and two make five”. It becomes very tedious very quickly. I’ve enjoyed arguing with European and Australian journalists much more than with Brits. Even if they think I’m wrong, they at least attack what I believe rather than invent some fantasy. I wasn’t aware I’d had a spat with Monbiot but I’ve had so many spats I may have forgotten it.
Spats with Monbiot rule. His one with Julie shifted thousands of copies of Not In My Name. On a separate note, what is the maddest thing an antisemite has ever said to you?
That the Israel “lobby” organised the second Iraq War. Madness straight from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, of course, but treated as sane by the London Review of Books, Independent, BBC etc, etc.
If you had to spend a month on a desert island with George Galloway or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which would you choose and why?
There must be a third way!
Why are people such arses, Nick?
Lots of reasons, Chas. In politics the main one is the fear of breaking with the received wisdom of those around them and being cast out of their tribe.
Well said. Waiting For The Etonians is out now.
I see Banksy is back in the news. An anti-capitalist who sells his art for colossal sums and gleefully works for big corporations, he was a natural target for me in Not In My Name: A Compendium Of Modern Hypocrisy. Here’s a passage from my chapter on him:
In times gone by, hypocrites could be seen at art galleries, staring at the exhibits, wondering how long they should spend looking at each piece of work and pretending they knew what the hell any of it meant. Then, during the 1990s, they got excited about Damien Hirst and his formaldehyde-bound animals.
Sickening stuff but not half as nauseating the artistic idol of the modern hypocrite: Banksy.
Publications like The Guardian and The Big Issue treat Banksy with enormous reverence. The modern hypocrite believes that by championing Banksy they have moved out of the art gallery and out onto the street. However, it must be easy to get all wet between the legs about graffiti when you don’t live anywhere near the streets that are destroyed by vandalism. Few Banksy fans live in such communities and therefore few of them are forced to pay increased council tax to have it cleaned up.
When he travelled to the Middle East to paint some images on the West Bank security wall Banksy earned their lifelong admiration. The construction of the security wall has coincided with a 90 per cent reduction in suicide bombings in Israel. Yes, it has caused hardships for some Palestinian people but just for a moment imagine all those Israeli people who were not killed as a result of it being built.
Then imagine Banksy deciding that what the world needed now was him to fly to the Middle East and do some silly drawings on it.
Describing the wall as “the ultimate activity holiday destination for graffiti writers” he displayed a level of self-indulgence that was extraordinary even by the standards of the Not In My Name brigade. However, any hopes that his nine drawings might make him a hero for the Palestinian people were dashed when a Palestinian approached him and the following exchange took place:
Palestinian: “You’ve made the wall look beautiful.”
Banksy: “Oh, thanks!”
Palestinian: “We don’t want the wall to look beautiful. We hate this wall. Go home.”
Oh dear, how embarrassing for him!
Me? I don’t know much about art but I know what I don’t like: Banksy.
In the run-up to the paperback publication of Not In My Name: A Compendium Of Modern Hypocrisy on April 2nd, I am running occasional extracts here.
Here is an extract from my lengthy chapter about the hypocrisy of Israel bashers. This passage focuses on the response in the UK to the war with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006:
“We are all Hezbollah now,” the modern hypocrites had chanted as they marched in fury against Israel’s latest battle for survival, as the rockets of that terror group were raining down on its cities and kibbutzim. If “Not In My Name” was an embarrassing slogan, then “We are all Hezbollah now” was little short of insane. How could these marchers, who say they oppose misogyny, tyranny, homophobia and genocide, march in support of an organisation which fanatically and brutally promotes all those things? Because they’re hypocrites, of course, and because their frenzied hatred of Israel has utterly stupefied them. It was embarrassing for them, therefore, when Hezbollah’s leader Hasan Nasrallah told them: “We don’t want anything from you. We just want to eliminate you.” As Martin Amis neatly put it, these demonstrators were “up the arse of the people that want them dead”.
But what were they doing up there? Many no doubt believed that during the war they were backing the little guy of Hezbollah against the big guy of Israel. The truth was somewhat different, though. Hezbollah was no little guy, it was backed by millions of pounds of Iranian and Syrian money. Neither were the two sides of the conflict as clear-cut as they believed. The Israeli Arabs of Haifa spent much of the summer sitting in bunkers to avoid being killed by Hezbollah rockets. Many of these Arabs cheered on the Israeli army throughout the campaign. Similarly, Ethiopian Jews who Israel had previously bravely airlifted from oppression and starvation were particularly badly hit in Tiberias. How incredible that back in England, many of the groups whose members wear white Make Poverty History wristbands and campaign on Third World debt were willing to cheer as Ethiopians were bombed by Hezbollah.
So no, Israel was not necessarily the Goliath of the conflict. How could a nation the size of Wales, surrounded by millions who want it wiped off the map be a Goliath? However, the courage shown by its soldiers was immense. Lt Colonel Roe Klein was marching at the head of a unit of troops when a Hezbollah man threw a hand grenade at them. Lt Klein jumped on top of the grenade to save his troops, losing his life in the process. Meanwhile, Hezbollah were employing the standard cowardly tactic of hiding among women and children, with wheelchair-bound people a particular favourite.
Throughout Israel, the population showed itself to be as brave and humanitarian as ever. Newspapers were full of classified advertisements in which families offered to house those from the north of the country who were under Hezbollah fire. Ultra-Orthodox Jews took in secular Jews, people living in small flats flung open their doors to large families with pets. The blitz spirit also saw youngsters from the big cities like Jerusalem and Tel Aviv organise treats for Arab children from Galilee. The government arranged for celebrities to visit the bunker-ridden population of the north and even flew in a gay porn star to cheer up gay Israeli troops. As Hezbollah’s rockets rained down over northern Israel, weddings in the region had to be cancelled. So cinema producer Eliman Bardugo organised for those affected to have the chance to be married en masse on the beach in Tel Aviv. Some 50 couples took him up on the offer.
Meanwhile, in London, left-wing people took to the streets to cheer on Hezbollah as it butchered Israeli people.
In the run-up to the paperback publication of Not In My Name: A Compendium Of Modern Hypocrisy on April 2nd, I thought I’d run a few mini extracts here.
To kick off, the following passages are taken from my Anti-Americanism chapter:
In April 2002, a lone gunman opened fire in a town hall in western Paris, killing eight people and injuring 19. The killer was of Yugoslav origin and his victims were French. So guess which country got the blame for the killings? Perhaps French Presidential candidate Alain Madelin can help us. He described the shootings as an “American-style by-product, we wished not to have in France.” Quoi?
Anti-Americanism has been around for so long that it is not a modern hypocrisy in itself. I recall that when my political awakening happened at the age of 12, there were no end of demonstrations against military actions, executions and human rights abuses. But nearly all of them were about American military actions, American executions, American human rights abuses. It was as if the rest of the world – excepting perhaps South Africa – was a peaceful idyll, with everyone cycling up and down country lanes, waving at each other and petting small cuddly animals.
However, in the 21st century it has increased dramatically – one poll showed that “favorable opinions” of America between 2000 and 2006 dropped from 83 per cent to 56 per cent in the United Kingdom – and so anti-Americanism forms a central plank of this book’s topic. As one commentator put it, anti-Americanism has become a hobby in Europe. You don’t need to be a keen historian to note that this hobby has become increasingly popular since the September 11 attacks. One wonder what sort of person watched that carnage and decided to get angry not with the aggressors, but the victims.
But then one wonders a lot about what is going in the minds of anti-Americans. Much was made of how Palestinians on the streets of the West Bank cheered the September 11 attacks. However, numerous reports surfaced of similar joy in Europe. A friend of mine rang me from a bar in Chelsea where he said all the customers were punching the air with joy as the Twin Towers collapsed; Rosemary Righter, of The Times was asked by a friend that evening: “Rosemary, isn’t it marvellous to think that the arrogant bloody Americans have finally got it in the neck?”
It is very strange that so many of those who would happily describe themselves as anti-racist are among the worst critics of America. These are the first to jump up and howl if any generalisation is made of a race or nationality elsewhere in the world, yet with America they are delighted to make the most sweeping of statements. Let’s be honest, few of us in England know much about America beyond a few large cities, many of our number are not even as clued-up as that. Yet more and more of us are willing to damn an entire nation and its people on so little evidence. Oh the exhausting irony of it, then, when these damners are so quick to accuse the Middle Americans they have never of being ignorant and arrogant! And where, one has to ask, is the respect of these anti-racists for the cultural melting pot that America represents?
We saw in the Israel chapter the contradictory attacks that the Jewish people have faced throughout their history. A similar process applies to America. At once the country is derided for being in league with Israel and yet in the pocket of Saudi Arabia. Can both of these be true? And if so, isn’t that something to admire? Not that this is the only gymnastics America is supposedly capable of, according to its critics. Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don’t, America is: decadent and immoral, yet Conservative and stuffy. It is dominated by Christian rednecks, yet also run by a smart, metropolitan Jewish cabal. It is selfish and isolationist, yet rampaging and imperialistic. It is full of commercially-driven consumers, yet it is dominated by an old-fashioned, outdated obsession with religion and morals.
Sounds like a lot of fun, I’d quite like to live there.
I remember reading, and being very moved by, the novel The Color Purple as a child. Its author Alice Walker has just toured Gaza and put on an it’s-all-about-me performance of the highest order.
As the report says:
“Walker said her decision to visit Gaza, along with members of the U.S. anti-war group Code Pink, was spurred by the recent death of an older sister. She said she felt a connection to Gazans who lost loved ones in the war.”
Why do these luvvies always try and put themselves centre-stage? I am reminded of my post in January, about Annie Lennox complaining that news reports of Operation Cast Lead ruined her Xmas “as a mother”.
It’s worth reading the report about Walker’s visit in full. Note that she didn’t visit – or even mention – the cities of southern Israel that have been battered by rocket fire. Note too that when given a chance to condemn Hamas, she dodges the question.
What a nasty piece of work she is. Consider me a former fan, Ms Walker.
Fresh from my recent blog about Not In My Name: A Compendium Of Modern Hypocrisy, the book I co-authored with Julie Burchill, I have received copies of the paperback that is published next month. Like all the best things in life it is sleek, slim and beautiful.
It’s always nice to receive finished copies of a book I have written. I actually have four books published next month. You know you can rely on me to remind you of them as they are published! 
Let’s be clear about one thing: those in the West who complain about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians are nearly always hypocrites. It is my considered opinion that, with very few worthy exceptions, the pro-Palestinian lobby in the West does not care two hoots about the Palestinian people, but merely use their plight to bash Israel, which they hate for the very worst of reasons.
I wrote a lengthy and well-received chapter about the hypocrisy of Israel’s critics in Not In My Name: A Compendium Of Modern Hypocrisy.
As I wrote, this hypocrisy is nothing new:
“When the West Bank and the Gaza strip were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, those occupations of Palestinian land drew not a whimper of protest from the people who spat blood at the ‘occupation’ of those territories by Israel. When Jordan killed thousands of Palestinians and drove just as many of them from their refugee camps into Lebanon, Israel-bashers saw nothing wrong with that at all. Neither did they take issue with Kuwait when it deported Palestinians in the aftermath of the 1991 Iraq war. Why were they silent in all these cases? Because none of them gave them a chance to bash Israel, of course.”
In the 21st century, I continued, this hypocrisy has flourished:
“When Palestinian children are hospitalised after being caught in the crossfire of fighting between rival Palestinian factions, there is not a word of condemnation from the West. When Palestinian children are deliberately forced into the line of fire by their own people, where is the concern from those who claim to be their biggest supporters? When terrorists are found to be hiding hand grenades in the cradles where Palestinian babies sleep, where is the outrage?
“If Israel is accused of torturing Palestinian terror suspects, the hypocrite is indignantly up-in-arms in protest without establishing a single fact but when Palestinians suspected of collaborating are proven to be brutally tortured – sometimes to death – by members of Islamic Jihad, again the silence is deafening.”
It is the same with the refugee question:
“The heartbreak that the hypocrite feels for Palestinian refugees is only expressed in the context of slamming Israel. When it’s pointed out to them that the Arab world has done precious little to help the refugees, their concern dwindles. And what of the hundreds and thousands of Jewish refugees who were deported from Arab states? They’ve never received any compensation – as Palestinian refugees have from Israel – and no Westerner has ever cried them self to sleep on their behalf.”
Dealing as it does with the hypocrisy of Israel’s critics, it’s a lengthy chapter – as you can imagine! A more concise attack on just these double-standards comes from Hillel Neuer who well and truly takes to task the muppets of the UN Human Rights Council in this glorious, golden oldie clip.
Enjoy.
Six years ago today, somewhere between one and two million people marched through London against the liberation of Iraq. It was quite a varied crowd: from seasoned leftie marchers to Islamist hardliners and misguided do-gooders. They gathered under the most narcissistic banner: Not In My Name.
Liberating Iraq has not been an easy task – none of its supporters suggested it would be. These things are never easy. It wasn’t easy dealing with Hitler.
But six years on, let’s see where we are:
The genocidal monsters of Saddam Hussein’s regime have been removed from power and tried for their crimes against humanity.
Contrary to the (racist) prediction of the anti-war movement that the Arab world wasn’t ready for democracy, over 80 per cent of Iraqis – a far higher percentage than here – have exercised their right to vote. More than 14 million voted in last month’s council elections.
Exiled Iraqis are flocking back to their home to help build a free vibrant country.
Other Middle East countries – including Egypt and Libya – have responded to this by stepping closer to freedom themselves.
Iraqi children are no longer born into a nation of tyranny and genocide. Instead, they are born into a free, democratic country.
Not in their name.
One of the many people that Julie and I took to task in the original version of Not In My Name was Tony Benn. Then, as has been reported, legal issues meant all names had to be removed from the book. So it was goodbye to the Benn chapter.
We’re holding the best of the cut material for a possible future project, but in the meantime here are some extracts from the Benn chapter.
- “I am opposed to the cult of personality in politics,” he often claims. Are you sure? When he’s not publishing yet another volume of his diaries – seven to date so far and no end in sight – or his autobiography, he is opening the stage at Glastonbury or embarking on yet another of his speaking tours of England where he laps up the almost messianic esteem in which his audiences hold him.
- One of his favourite routines during his speaking tours is the one he uses to emphasise his belief in democracy. “When I go into a polling station and I see an old lady on crutches come in and with a pencil destroy a government – ooh, for me that’s an almost religious experience,” he beams. One wonders how he reconciles this with his leading role in the movement that opposed the action to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, because he’s been at the head of more marches on this issue than I’d care to remember.
- So when he saw the Iraqis go to the polls in the wake of the war and cast their votes, did he not for a moment reconsider his position? When an Iraqi lady emerged from her polling booth and told the world: “Today, for the first time, I am a human being,” did he not find that a ‘religious experience’? No, instead he continued to march and speak out against the effort that brought democracy to that woman.
- Having met with Saddam, Benn returned in 2003. This time, he met Tariq Aziz: “We sat in his sitting room, and his wife later came and brought some tea. He has eight grandchildren. He’s a nice guy.” A nice guy who propped up Saddam’s genocidal reign! Good to know, too, that the Catholic Aziz’s wife knew her part in the set-up!
- Another of his favourite “evening with” anecdotes is about the time he went with Gerry Adams to a meeting commemorating the IRA hunger strikers. He tells with pride how Adams gave him a plaque with the names of the hunger strikers on it, together with a quote from Bobby Sands that reads: “Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.” Benn has been known to break down and cry in admiration at these words uttered by the terrorist Sands.
I’m posting this now because at the weekend Benn once again spoke at a demonstration arranged by Hamas supporters. And what he said about Israel and Jesus was absolutely hideous:
The man is a disgrace. It’s high time we stopped fawning over him.
Julie Burchill has written about George W Bush in The Sun today. It’s a brilliant article and I don’t only say that because I’m quoted at the beginning and end of it! Good to see Not In My Name getting another plug, too.
As George W Bush spends his final days in office, I thought I would share the essay I wrote on the hypocrisy of the anti-Bush bandwagon in Not In My Name: A Compendium Of Modern Hypocrisy.
George W. Bush is bad, right? Absolutely everything about him is evil. Whatever else we may disagree on, we can all agree that Bush is bad and therefore we are good. Right? That’s about as high-minded as any discussion of Bush gets, which is ironic given that it is Bush who is supposed to be stupid and not his detractors. However, the Bush basher will immediately cover their ears if you try and point out another side to the man.
So never try and tell a modern hypocrite that George W. Bush has been widely praised by leading aid workers for his radical and positive approach to poverty and famine in Africa. Don’t waste your time informing them that, throughout his career, Bush has championed the rights of immigrants. Neither should you bother reminding them that, once he became president, Bush filled senior governmental positions with unprecedented numbers of brilliant, black politicians. They simply won’t be listening.
It was Sir Bob Geldof who first flagged up Bush’s brilliance on Africa. ‘You’ll think I’m off my trolley,’ he said, ‘but the Bush administration is the most radical– in a positive sense – in its approach to Africa, since Kennedy.’ Sir Bob contrasted this to Europe’s ‘pathetic and appalling’ response and Clinton’s record: ‘he did fuck all’. Many aid charities have echoed his praise for Bush. Bono, too, has had many good things to say about him. None of this is good enough for your modern hypocrite, though. For them, Bush will always be the devil incarnate. Funny, isn’t it, how people who contribute no more to the cause than buying a white wristband should feel so comfortable hurling abuse at a man who has done more than most on the planet to help Africa.
He has not just helped bring aid to impoverished Africans, he has also helped bring hope to those living under harsh regimes. In 2005, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak jailed an opponent who was planning to challenge him in the presidential election. Bush pressured Mubarak – who prefers to run for the presidency unopposed – into releasing his opponent. When private pressure didn’t work, the Bush administration made its disapproval public. Then Condoleezza Rice cancelled a planned trip to Egypt in protest, Mubarak relented and Dr Ayman Nour was released.
Not that any of this will stop his detractors from thinking Bush is racist. So it’s hugely inconvenient for them to learn that in 1994 he passionately opposed a bill in California that would cut access to public services for illegal immigrants. He is actually a hero of many immigrants in America: for instance, his share of the Hispanic vote increased by nine per cent during his first term as president.
So, no, it’s not just Midwest bible-bashers who voted for Bush. While we’re on the religion issue, did you know that Bill Clinton publicly referred to Jesus Christ more times than Bush did? Bush averaged 4.7 times a year while Clinton averaged 5. 1 annually. Similarly, during the 2004 presidential campaign, Democrat John Kerry made a campaign speech in a church in St Louis and used a biblical quote to attack Bush, who never campaigned in a church and never quoted from the scriptures. However, when Bush mentions faith he is bad, but when a Democrat mentions faith it’s fine, almost groovy!
Intellectuals at English dinner parties have long enjoyed poking fun at Bush’s mangling of the English language. He acknowledges his weakness in this regard but shrugs, ‘You know, life goes on.’ Or in other words, ‘Let the European snobs sneer all they like, ordinary people in the US know and appreciate where I’m coming from.’ But how they love sneering! They also like pointing to the controversy over his 2000 election victory. However, just as they attack him with allegations of foul play, they simultaneously overlook similar allegations made against the Democrats. Cheating is either wrong or it’s not – it ill behooves us to condemn it only in some instances and not others.
Hypocrisy with a more chilling streak is found in those who like to suggest that Bush and Blair orchestrated 9/11 and 7/7. Yet, when it comes to the embarrassing lack of WMDs in Iraq, none of these conspiracy theorists stops to think that, if these men arranged terrorist outrages in their own cities, they might just have been able to stretch as far as fabricating evidence of WMDs in Baghdad. Likewise, the same people who say that Bush engineered 9/11 are also quick to point out how he sat frozen in shock in that classroom when he first learned of the atrocity. You can only imagine what the modern hypocrite’s response to 9/11 would have been had they been in Bush’s shoes. Probably something like, ‘Quick! Give them what they want so they stop!’
There’s sometimes a genuinely insane dimension to the anti-Bush bandwagon. At a gathering of world leaders at the United Nations in September 2005, Bush was seen passing a note to Condoleezza Rice. The contents of this note brought him fresh abuse from his detractors who used it as yet more confirmation that he’s the most unpleasant man ever to have lived. And what was the content of this controversial note? It read, ‘I think I may need a bathroom break? Is this possible?’ A man who’s been in meetings all day wants to make sure he follows the correct etiquette about using the bathroom. How terrible.
Of course, for most Bush bashers there is the wider issue of anti-Americanism at stake. These are the people who so enjoy mocking Americans as overweight and American television as dumbed-down crap. Funny, then, that they still manage to be such passionate fans of Michael Moore, who carries a bit of weight himself and makes, in my opinion, the most simplistic documentaries imaginable.
Of course, there are things about Bush that aren’t great: it would be silly to overlook his record on abortion and gay rights for a start. However, the truly silly ones are those who blindly bash Bush whatever he does or says. Has there ever been a less intelligent, less discriminating or more sheep like political movement than the anti-Bush bandwagon? It is one of the most hypocritical movements of all time, that’s for sure.