Thursday, October 29, 2009

Polish Chief Rabbi Slams New Statesman Kaminski Story

Remember the attempt by James Macintyre of the New Statesman to assert that the Chief Rabbi in Poland had criticised Michal Kaminski and urged David Cameron to sever ties with him. Rabbi Shudrich has today given his real views. I wonder whether James Macintyre will be man enough to admit he misled his readers. This is what Rabbi Shudrich has said...

There is no doubt that Kaminski is a strong friend of the State of Israel. He himself has spoken out against anti-Semitism on several occasions during the past decade. It is a grotesque distortion that people are quoting me to prove that Kaminski is an anti-Semite. Portraying Kaminski as a neo Nazi plays into the painful and false stereotype that all Poles are anti-Semitic.

I would also like to clarify that the headline of James Macintyre article of July 29, 2009 entitled: "Jewish Leaders Turn on Cameron's Tories: Poland's chief rabbi and others call on Cameron to sever ties with Polish MEP" does not represent what I said to the author. I made no political statement and this headline is misleading and untrue.

So there we have it. If Kaminski is acceptable to the Chief Rabbi of Poland, shouldn't David Miliband now take back the disgusting allegations he has made against Michal Kaminski and the Conservative Party? Shouldn't Denis MacShane look himself in the mirror at some of the terrible things he has said? And will James Macintyre explain how he misled his readers and admit he got it wrong?

I might as well save my breath.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Miliband was at it again this morning on the Today program, despite having the Chief Rabbi's refutation quoted at him. I listened in fury to the lies pouring forth, I really don't know how he gets away with it. But as you say, "I may as well save my breath."

Sunder Katwala said...

Iain

It is clear that the Rabbi is being pressured from various sides. He challenges the headline of the piece, claiming it misrepresents him.

He does not appear to withdraw or disown the content of his emailed statement; have you seen any claim that this is not from him?

---

Dear James,



I do not comment on political decisions. However, it is clear that Mr Kaminski was a member of NOP, a group that is openly far right and neo-nazi. Anyone who would want to align himself with a person who was an active member of NOP and the Committee to Defend the Good Name of Jedwabne (which was established to deny historical facts of the massacre at Jedwabne) needs to understand with what and by whom he is being represented.

Michael Schudrich

---

I surmise that he stated he did not want to be in a political argument, while providing a statement which certainly has political content, and now seeks to say that he does not have a political view, making a different [political] statement

canvas said...

@ Disgruntled in Tunbridge Wells ... Ooops I mean @ Iain Dale: "I might as well save my breath". Good idea!

"David Cameron would be forced into a swift and humiliating retreat on Europe if he wins power, according to one of the elder statesmen from the last Conservative Government."

Let's face it, Cameron screwed up bigtime on Europe. If DC wins the next election then he will have no choice but to fully embrace 'Europe' - or get left behind. You know it's true.

Weygand said...

There is no point in Denis MacShane looking in the mirror because he will see nothing there.

Anonymous said...

Like anon. 11.57, I was listening in fury, but it wasn't Millipede I was furious with particularly, but Hague. What the hell was he playing at? He just blustered and equivocated when what was needed was a robust straightforward rebuttal. How hard can that be when our disgracefully inept excuse for a Foreign Secretary has been repeating the same pack of lies for weeks now? I'm past being cross with Banana Man but it is very irritating when your own side is so feeble.

Alan Douglas said...

My email to Milipede :

Mr Milliband,

You purport to represent the UK in the world.

You have repeatedly issued disgusting and UNstatesmanlike smears against the Conservatives and the Polish leader Michal Kaminski.

The Polish Chief Rabbi has now issued a statement :

I would also like to clarify that the headline of James Macintyre article of July 29, 2009 entitled: "Jewish Leaders Turn on Cameron's Tories: Poland's chief rabbi and others call on Cameron to sever ties with Polish MEP" does not represent what I said to the author. I made no political statement and this headline is misleading and untrue.

Is the ANY hope that a small-mindedly partisan and Communist-flavoured so-called "statesman" such as yourself will now unreservedly APOLOGISE to both David Cameron and Michal Kaminski for your falsehoods and smears ?

Forgive me if I underestimate you, but I am not holding my breath.

Alan Douglas

David said...

"It is clear that the Rabbi is being pressured from various sides."


"I surmise that he stated he did not want to be in a political argument, while providing a statement which certainly has political content, and now seeks to say that he does not have a political view, making a different [political] statement"

Are you mad, or just stupid?

David said...

"It is clear that the Rabbi is being pressured from various sides."


"I surmise that he stated he did not want to be in a political argument, while providing a statement which certainly has political content, and now seeks to say that he does not have a political view, making a different [political] statement"

Are you mad, or just stupid?

Tom said...

MacIntyre just went on the Daily Politics to claim the Rabbi has been "knobbled". Amazingly he was brought on as their Michal Kaminski expert - this being the man who described the Tory party as "institutionally racist" last month, and they let him get away with claiming that Obama and Hillary Clinton are concerned about this grouping, with Chris Huhne there to confirm he's "definitely" homophobic, without any Tory or ECR spokesman to counterbalance. Unbelievable.

Hawkeye said...

You're right about holding your breath Iain. Truth and The Comrades are total strangers to each other.

The Comrades lie as naturally as a duck takes to water.

canvas said...

I think David Miliband has been performing rather well lately. In fact, he's been very impressive. Raising his game... I wonder why? :)

Colin said...

They should all do the things you say.

They should, but they won't.

Miller 2.0 said...

Er, right... http://tinyurl.com/yj8bkds

Anonymous said...

Whats wrong with the new tory alies, they support the waffen ss,hate gays, and dont believe in climate change.A strange bunch indeed...lol good old Hague.

Ross said...

Now that it is clear that James Macintyre lied to his readers shouldn't the New Statesman sack him?

Nigel said...

>>I think David Miliband has been performing rather well lately. In fact, he's been very impressive. Raising his game...<<

Those must be banana tinted shades you're wearing, Canvas.

Causer said...

He is the Worst Journalist ever.

http://takeonpolitics.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/james-macintyre/

Roger Dodger said...

You might as well hold it indeed Iain.

We are not dealing with logic or even and attempt to appear logical.

The likes of David Milliband are Therefore everything he does to win is right in the same way all the opponents are wrong. The spirit of the game and the veracity of the debate are out-of-date niceties.

Therefore such quaint notions such as applying the same standards to their own partners in the EU as the Tories are non-starters. Not because they are unfair or untruthful but because they do not serve to forward their holy vision.

One rule for the right and another for the self-righteous.

Once that pact with themselves is made, once whatever they do is considered right all bets are off.

I am constantly reminded of the wonderful scene at the end of the wonderful Primary Colors. John Travolta (as Clinton) turns to his idealistic agent and explains how petty morals and rules are insignificant because they can only really to good when they get power. The victims on the route of the power grab are irrelevant. They represent the greater good. Whatever they have to do to get that power is justified.

New Labour follow this philosophy to the letter. The more Milliband lies, the more he is fighting the good fight. It is as pernicious a viewpoint as we have today.


On a side note, Milliband bottled from going for Brown when it looked like he had the power to topple him. Since then he has said multiple things which would diminish his chances of future domestic political success.
My paranoia glands are secreting fast. This seems part of that 'just get Lisbon ratified and we'll take care of you' stuff that is making Mandy keep Brown in office.
Just wait for Milipede to get a job in the EU that he didn't really deserve or is really suitable for.

Perma-tans, great suits and 20 grand watches to follow.

Boo said...

I don't understand why Miliband is banging on about this. Aside from the fact it is unbecoming of a Foreign Sec to slam Mainstream parties of our allies.

However, from a politcial sense it is wrong. Hagues campagn had a problem cos the were constantly banging on about europe. The majority of people agreed with the Tories on europe, but they dislike the one dimensional aspect of it.

Now we have Labour and their fellow travellers banging on about europe. The problem is the people dissagree with their position. How is this not going to blow up in their face?

Nigel said...

Remind us Iain, has banana boy apologised yet for justifying terrorism ?
Or am I unfairly misrepresenting his position to make political capital ?

Sunder Katwala said...

Iain

I wonder if you had spotted the comment at 12.14pm that the Foreign Secretary "seems much more interested in pursuing ancient jewish grievances than doing his job"?

Irene said...

McShane is still at it

Windsor Tripehound said...

When they circumcised David Miliband they threw the wrong bit away.

Sunder Katwala said...

mIain,

I thought Dimito's comment at 12.14pm was objectionable, in stating that that the Foreign Secretary "seems much more interested in pursuing ancient jewish grievances than doing his job"?. As you are pre-moderating this thread, I would welcome your view about it. I felt it crossed an important line, though others may disagree.

Personally I find it objectionable for almost precisely the same logic by which I agreed that Peter McKay's Daily Mail diary item about you was offensive, writing twice about that at the time in support of your challenge to it.

McKay pointed to a candidate being gay and writing to the Pink News to advertise the open primary. This was not inaccurate. Many people would think this rather routine: the primary was open; all candidates would seek to get lots of people there, and they might use any particular civic networks they have to do so. The innuendo implied this was dubious, which depends on the idea that gay people are not equal citizens and part of civic society, but some sinister fifth column acting on their own group interests, and many may have thought a possible motive was to damage the chances of a gay candidate with Mail readers.

This commenter points to the Foreign Secretary having a Jewish background and speaking out on anti-semitism (as he sees it). Many would find this routine: the UK government is committed to human rights, and all Foreign Secretaries would tend to be concerned about that issue (even if there is poliical disagreement about the merits of this case). The innuendo implied this was dubious, which depends on the idea that gay people are not equal citizens and part of civic society, but some sinister fifth column acting on their own group interests.

I can not imagine that phrase being used of Robin Cook, in a circumstance where he took the same line Miliband is taking, as I think it very plausible he would have done.

I would welcome your view as to whether the analogy is apposite or not in those respects.

(I fully realise it is not your post or a commissioned view, but a blog comment; so the publisher's role is different. I accept too that there may be grey areas in the boundaries around legitimate comment, robust, offensive but part of debate, over the line, etc. So I do think people can legitimately disagree about these issues, and if we disagree then I am not making any argument to suggest that you agree with the comment, which I would think very unlikely).

If you think the comment should stand, I would be interested to know if you personally think it crosses any sort of line about the sort of debate we should have.

Those who agree that the comments are offensive might disagree about what to do about that. For example, I can see the rationale for the view that the PCC ought not to prevent articles like McKay's (or Jan Moir's) from being published, though I think the civic reputation of the Mail, McKay and Moir is damaged by both the stupidity and offensiveness of their homophobic writing. (Other than Moir's factual inaccuracies, these three cases seem to me to have a similar structure in terms of principles).

Iain Dale said...

Sunder, I have deleted the comment. Due to travel, I haven't been able to monitor every comment today.

Sunder Katwala said...

Iain

thanks. i see you are in Dublin. feel free to delete my latest post too if it now seems irrelevant