Prominent TV executives in the U.K. have expressed dismay over a social media post by Tamara Abood, a former Channel 4 commissioner, criticising Stephen Fry’s “disingenuous” Christmas Day message on antisemitism. Deadline Hollywoodhas more.
Tamara Abood, an ex-Channel 4 current affairs commissioner and producer of shows including What Happens In Kavos, sparked anger after posting on LinkedIn about Fry’s alternative Christmas Day message.
Industry executives were also dismayed that one of Abood’s posts was ‘liked’ by Deborah Williams, Chief Executive of the Creative Diversity Network, British TV’s inclusion watchdog.
Fry used his speech on Channel 4 to express concern about rising antisemitism in the U.K. and implored viewers to stand up against discrimination. The six-minute speech was produced by Fulwell 73.
Abood, who now works as a psychotherapist but maintains links to the TV industry, wrote that the speech was “disingenuous” in a series of LinkedIn messages.
She added: “C4 is broadcasting a Christmas message about antisemitism. If this doesn’t demonstrate to you where the power lies, and who dies for those lies of the powerful, you are choosing to be blind.”
Abood has since deleted her LinkedIn account, meaning her messages are no longer in the public domain, but a source shared screenshots of the posts and the uproar they provoked. Abood has been contacted for comment.
In other messages, Abood argued that antisemitism “is not happening in a vacuum” and that the spectre of hatred towards Jewish people “has been used to silence debate.” …
Leo Pearlman, Managing Partner at Fulwell 73, told the Daily Telegraph – which first reported on the LinkedIn posts – that it was like Abood was “playing a game of antisemitism bingo”. He added: “Every trope is there from ‘Jews control the media’ to ‘antisemitism not operating in a vacuum.’”
You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
19 Comments
Oldest
NewestMost Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
zebedee
1 year ago
If the British establishment wasn’t antisemitic how would you explain the news coverage of the current conflict and the policing of the demonstrations around the UK?
Creating the impression of a hostile environment for Jews might convince them that Israel is the only safe place. Would that be a favourable result for Zionists?
Maybe the establishment is anti-Semitic but is it not the same establishment that would previously accuse those who criticised Israeli policies or even mention the Holocaust off-narrative as being anti-Semitic?
JXB
1 year ago
Disgraceful. But no surprise.
According to GB News and a recent poll, the top three major concerns of the great British public are:
Cost of living.
The NHS (of course PBUH)
Small boats.
Ruination of culture, society, economy, Net Zero, Fascist Govt – no concerns it seems.
And bonus 45% will vote Labour. Well, as the saying goes, nothing’s so bad it can’t get worse.
I cannot find anything to fault in Tamara Abood’s two LinkedIn messages shown above.
It is apparent that Israeli forces have been bombing civilian areas, resulting in thousands of deaths, and that is a war crime. I am aware that this action was provoked by Palestinians ‘breaking out’ of their ‘open air prison’ (Gaza) and, according to mainstream media, committing atrocities. I take anything mainstream media reports with a pinch of salt, however, any atrocities committed should be punished accordingly but that does not justify random bombing of innocent civilians, purely because they have the same nationality as the perpetrators.
For decade after decade we have been hearing of problems in the Middle East, regularly reported as solved by US Presidents inviting warring parties to Camp David. Clearly, the problems are not being solved at all.
In my pathetically simplistic view, it seems that in 1948 a shipload of people landed in the then Palestine and claimed the land belonged to them, being ‘the chosen ones’. This understandably displeased those living and working on the land at the time – the good, old days of colonialism and raising flags on foreign territories having long passed.
Israel proceeded to isolate itself from its neighbours, rather than reaching out to them, solving the problems and becoming a valuable neighbour. That is a shame and that needs to be reversed before there can be any lasting peace in the area.
And there is no justification for killing children, none whatsoever.
At the conclusion of World War II, most Jewish survivors of the Nazi Holocaust could not remain in Europe with its terrible memories; many opted to build a new life in the Jewish homeland. The British escalated their restrictions on Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine. The Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine) responded by increasing the activities of the clandestine network of rescue operations (started in 1934) known as “Aliyah Bet”.
The availability of vessels in Europe, most of which were small, soon proved insufficient to transport the large number of survivors who wanted to come to Palestine. In the United States, on the other hand, there was a surplus of ships that could be purchased inexpensively, and persons willing to pay for them, as well as experienced seamen ready to man them.
Ten ships were purchased in the United States and manned by American and Canadian volunteers. These ships played a significant role in the post-\World War II “Aliyah Bet” fleet. From mid-1946 until May 1948 when Israel became an independent State, they carried some 33,000 refugees, about half of the refugees leaving Europe.
Each of these ships was eventually intercepted and captured by the British forces. The refugees were interned in transit camps, initially in Atlit (in Palestine) and later in Cyprus. The 4,530 passengers of the Exodus 1947 were returned to Germany.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948.
The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948.
Before 1948, Palestine was home to a diverse population of Arabs, Jews, and Christians, as all groups had religious ties to the area, especially the city of Jerusalem. The land itself was under the control of various empires, such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and eventually the Islamic Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire.
The word Palestine derives from Philistia, the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who in the 12th century BCE occupied a small pocket of land on the southern coast, between modern Tel Aviv and Gaza.
The name was revived by the Romans in the 2nd century CE in “Syria Palaestina,” designating the southern portion of the province of Syria, and made its way thence into Arabic, where it has been used to describe the region at least since the early Islamic era.
After Roman times the name had no official status until after WW1 and the end of rule by the Ottoman Empire, when it was adopted for one of the regions mandated to Great Britain.
I apologise for my ignorance but I remain unable to understand why it was thought a good idea for the adherents of a specific religion to be allocated to a specific patch of land. Even more so when that patch of land is determined by some very ancient fables. Surely the religion one follows should be unaffected by where one lives? That seems to be the case for most other religions, albeit that in some places adherents of one religion often persecute adherents of other religions.
That decision seems to be the root of the issues and despite googling i only been able to establish that that decision was made, not why.
It may well of been a mistake to divide what was the British mandate of Palestine into 2 separate areas, however what has happened can’t be changed and it would be an even greater injustice to try and undo the ‘wrongs’ of the past by cleansing Israel of it’s Jewish population which is what Hamas want to do and what their despicable apoligists in the West, obviously including a few people who comment here, seem to support.
I have seen videos showing the bodies of dead children being dug out of demolished refugee sites, sites that were filled with Palestinians fleeing from the bombing in the north. Is it possible to condone bombing a refugee site? I do not think so.
If a bunch of genocidal, heavily armed, yet cowardly b*****ds are skulking in a refugee camp planning the next barbaric massacre of civilians then targeting them is justified even if they’re holding Palestinian kids as human shields knowing that a few dead children will make excellent propaganda. Or maybe the Hamas videos didn’t show a refugee site and a few gullible, useful, idiots have fallen for it.
The problem seems to be deciding who is genocidal and who is heavily armed. I cannot believe anyone, indeed any country, in the Middle East is better armed than the Israeli nation.
And I agree with your earlier post that one cannot undo the past but I repeat my contention that Israel would have done better to reach out to its opponents and forge friendship with neighbouring countries, rather than – in my possibly incorrect opinion – isolating itself from its Arabian neighbours and standing proudly alone.
Whether I am correct or not, we have had decades of conflict in that area and carpet bombing will not solve any problems, at least not long term.
But I do disagree with your notion that bombing children can be justified.
I don’t necessarily agree with all the views in your post, or those in Tamara Abood’s LinkedIn messages either. But I too see nothing in them which merits the apparent outrage expressed in this article.
For a publication such as the DS which proclaims itself to be a bastion of free speech to deny her right to express her freely-held opinions, seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy. I’m very surprised this piece was even published. Who is Richard Eldred anyway?
-132, and counting. Is that a record? Am I going to get an e-mail from Tony Young saying “What the hell …?” and banning me from his website for the next 50 years?
And all the time I have no idea what is causing offence. I keep reading my post and the input from Tamara Abood (I have no idea who she is but her text seemed OK) and have essentially only had two responses saying it is OK to bomb a hospital and refugee camps if you assume terrorists are hiding there. I disagree but that was their opinion. Otherwise?
Or is it just the case that criticising anything Israel does is simply not allowed? I hope not.
Yes, Israel was attacked and responded to the attack, which is understandable. But bombing innocent civilians is not helpful to Israel’s cause, in my opinion. Feel free to contradict me!
EppingBlogger
1 year ago
The criticism should be of Fry’s presumptuon to make a Christmas statement.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
If the British establishment wasn’t antisemitic how would you explain the news coverage of the current conflict and the policing of the demonstrations around the UK?
Creating the impression of a hostile environment for Jews might convince them that Israel is the only safe place. Would that be a favourable result for Zionists?
Maybe the establishment is anti-Semitic but is it not the same establishment that would previously accuse those who criticised Israeli policies or even mention the Holocaust off-narrative as being anti-Semitic?
Disgraceful. But no surprise.
According to GB News and a recent poll, the top three major concerns of the great British public are:
Ruination of culture, society, economy, Net Zero, Fascist Govt – no concerns it seems.
And bonus 45% will vote Labour. Well, as the saying goes, nothing’s so bad it can’t get worse.
https://thenewconservative.co.uk/the-new-conservative-alternative-honours-list/
Frank on his usual good form.
Watch the embedded twitter video at the end of the article.
I cannot find anything to fault in Tamara Abood’s two LinkedIn messages shown above.
It is apparent that Israeli forces have been bombing civilian areas, resulting in thousands of deaths, and that is a war crime. I am aware that this action was provoked by Palestinians ‘breaking out’ of their ‘open air prison’ (Gaza) and, according to mainstream media, committing atrocities. I take anything mainstream media reports with a pinch of salt, however, any atrocities committed should be punished accordingly but that does not justify random bombing of innocent civilians, purely because they have the same nationality as the perpetrators.
For decade after decade we have been hearing of problems in the Middle East, regularly reported as solved by US Presidents inviting warring parties to Camp David. Clearly, the problems are not being solved at all.
In my pathetically simplistic view, it seems that in 1948 a shipload of people landed in the then Palestine and claimed the land belonged to them, being ‘the chosen ones’. This understandably displeased those living and working on the land at the time – the good, old days of colonialism and raising flags on foreign territories having long passed.
Israel proceeded to isolate itself from its neighbours, rather than reaching out to them, solving the problems and becoming a valuable neighbour. That is a shame and that needs to be reversed before there can be any lasting peace in the area.
And there is no justification for killing children, none whatsoever.
At the conclusion of World War II, most Jewish survivors of the Nazi Holocaust could not remain in Europe with its terrible memories; many opted to build a new life in the Jewish homeland. The British escalated their restrictions on Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine. The Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine) responded by increasing the activities of the clandestine network of rescue operations (started in 1934) known as “Aliyah Bet”.
The availability of vessels in Europe, most of which were small, soon proved insufficient to transport the large number of survivors who wanted to come to Palestine. In the United States, on the other hand, there was a surplus of ships that could be purchased inexpensively, and persons willing to pay for them, as well as experienced seamen ready to man them.
Ten ships were purchased in the United States and manned by American and Canadian volunteers. These ships played a significant role in the post-\World War II “Aliyah Bet” fleet. From mid-1946 until May 1948 when Israel became an independent State, they carried some 33,000 refugees, about half of the refugees leaving Europe.
Each of these ships was eventually intercepted and captured by the British forces. The refugees were interned in transit camps, initially in Atlit (in Palestine) and later in Cyprus. The 4,530 passengers of the Exodus 1947 were returned to Germany.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948.
The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948.
Before 1948, Palestine was home to a diverse population of Arabs, Jews, and Christians, as all groups had religious ties to the area, especially the city of Jerusalem. The land itself was under the control of various empires, such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and eventually the Islamic Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire.
The word Palestine derives from Philistia, the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who in the 12th century BCE occupied a small pocket of land on the southern coast, between modern Tel Aviv and Gaza.
The name was revived by the Romans in the 2nd century CE in “Syria Palaestina,” designating the southern portion of the province of Syria, and made its way thence into Arabic, where it has been used to describe the region at least since the early Islamic era.
After Roman times the name had no official status until after WW1 and the end of rule by the Ottoman Empire, when it was adopted for one of the regions mandated to Great Britain.
Very interesting, thank you.
I apologise for my ignorance but I remain unable to understand why it was thought a good idea for the adherents of a specific religion to be allocated to a specific patch of land. Even more so when that patch of land is determined by some very ancient fables. Surely the religion one follows should be unaffected by where one lives? That seems to be the case for most other religions, albeit that in some places adherents of one religion often persecute adherents of other religions.
That decision seems to be the root of the issues and despite googling i only been able to establish that that decision was made, not why.
It may well of been a mistake to divide what was the British mandate of Palestine into 2 separate areas, however what has happened can’t be changed and it would be an even greater injustice to try and undo the ‘wrongs’ of the past by cleansing Israel of it’s Jewish population which is what Hamas want to do and what their despicable apoligists in the West, obviously including a few people who comment here, seem to support.
I don’t disagree. I’m just trying to understand the logical process that was applied at the time. It is something that genuinely perplexes me.
What civilian areas? Even the hospitals are under military control.
I have seen videos showing the bodies of dead children being dug out of demolished refugee sites, sites that were filled with Palestinians fleeing from the bombing in the north. Is it possible to condone bombing a refugee site? I do not think so.
“Is it possible to condone bombing a refugee site?”
In this dark world, unfortunately, yes.
If a bunch of genocidal, heavily armed, yet cowardly b*****ds are skulking in a refugee camp planning the next barbaric massacre of civilians then targeting them is justified even if they’re holding Palestinian kids as human shields knowing that a few dead children will make excellent propaganda. Or maybe the Hamas videos didn’t show a refugee site and a few gullible, useful, idiots have fallen for it.
The problem seems to be deciding who is genocidal and who is heavily armed. I cannot believe anyone, indeed any country, in the Middle East is better armed than the Israeli nation.
And I agree with your earlier post that one cannot undo the past but I repeat my contention that Israel would have done better to reach out to its opponents and forge friendship with neighbouring countries, rather than – in my possibly incorrect opinion – isolating itself from its Arabian neighbours and standing proudly alone.
Whether I am correct or not, we have had decades of conflict in that area and carpet bombing will not solve any problems, at least not long term.
But I do disagree with your notion that bombing children can be justified.
I don’t necessarily agree with all the views in your post, or those in Tamara Abood’s LinkedIn messages either. But I too see nothing in them which merits the apparent outrage expressed in this article.
For a publication such as the DS which proclaims itself to be a bastion of free speech to deny her right to express her freely-held opinions, seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy. I’m very surprised this piece was even published. Who is Richard Eldred anyway?
-132, and counting. Is that a record? Am I going to get an e-mail from Tony Young saying “What the hell …?” and banning me from his website for the next 50 years?
And all the time I have no idea what is causing offence. I keep reading my post and the input from Tamara Abood (I have no idea who she is but her text seemed OK) and have essentially only had two responses saying it is OK to bomb a hospital and refugee camps if you assume terrorists are hiding there. I disagree but that was their opinion. Otherwise?
Or is it just the case that criticising anything Israel does is simply not allowed? I hope not.
Yes, Israel was attacked and responded to the attack, which is understandable. But bombing innocent civilians is not helpful to Israel’s cause, in my opinion. Feel free to contradict me!
The criticism should be of Fry’s presumptuon to make a Christmas statement.
I agree he’s become very arrogant “aren’t I wonderfully intelligent” and smug over the years.