Quite a good article. Two mistakes though. One:
It is incredible that this document[Protocols of the Elders of Sion], which portrays my people as cackling villains from a Saturday matinee, formed the template for contemporary anti-Semitism. It is so obviously a fake. Even if some of us do possess "limitless ambition, burning greediness, merciless vengeance, hatred and malice" (and I know I do), we'd never come right out and admit it to our peer group. There are appearances to uphold.
So Jon Ronson just totally contradicted himself.
"So," said Sam, "you say that Icke is not an anti-Semite." Brian held up his finger to say "wait a minute" and he rifled through his briefcase. He retrieved a sheaf of photocopies, which contained the writings of Noam Chomsky. Brian had marked passages that convincingly reflected his thesis - that David Icke was no more anti-Semitic than this respected Jewish scholar.
Sam studied the photocopies. He nodded thoughtfully. "This might be true to an extent," he finally agreed. "But there is a very big difference between Noam Chomsky saying it and David Icke saying it."
"Which is?" asked Brian, his eyes narrowing.
"Well, firstly," said Sam, "Noam Chomsky is Jewish. Secondly, Noam Chomsky is not mad. Thirdly, Noam Chomsky is, in fact, an intellectual. And, finally, Noam Chomsky is not an anti-Semite."
Henrick shuffled uneasily in his chair. He clearly felt that Brian's modus operandi was falling apart before their eyes. Yes, Henrick had promised to leave the lizards out of the discussion, but these were desperate times, and they called for desperate measures.
Was Brian's modus operandi falling apart? REALLY? He didn't even persue it!!! Did they fold for crap "arguments" like that?!?
The truth is the truth, it doesn't matter who says it.
So if Chomsky says "the Sun is shining" then it's true, but if Icke says "the Sun is shining" it's a lie?
Firstly, "Chomsky is Jewish." So? Does that mean he can say things other people can't? Does he have carte blanche?
Secondly, if the "coalition" base their claim that Icke is mad on what he says, then by their logic Chomsky actually IS mad too, since they say the same thing. That's why bringing in the lizard story is a mistake.
Thirdly, what is the criteria to qualify as an "intellectual" and who sets those criteria?
And finally, do they mean to say that Chomsky can't be an anti-Semite because he is Jewish? He can't be an anti-Semite by default?
That's like saying a Black person can't be racist, because he's black.
BTW, what is in fact "anti-Semite"? What's the criteria and - like I said before - who decides those criteria?
The failure to ask these basic questions of logic is a massive mistake Jon Ronson is guilty of.
By bringing up and questioning the four points of the coalition, the pro-Icke reporters could've destroyed the coalition's defence easily, without having to bring into the equation the lizard factor.
Intentional? Hard to tell.
Anyway, it's always jesters, village idiots, holy hermits, vagabonds and "crazy" people who tell the truth... ;-)