The faux Zionist history of Ilan Pappé

A guest post by Dexter Van Zile 

Ali Abunimah, Ilan Pappe, and Sophia Deeg

By now, it’s reasonable to conclude that famed revisionist historian Ilan Pappé has transgressed the sacred ground between quotation marks by inventing a quote and attributing it to Israel’s first prime minister David Ben-Gurion. It’s also reasonable to conclude that his publisher, Oneworld Publications and his colleagues at the University of Exeter will fail to hold him account for his actions.

The quote in question appeared in an article Pappé wrote for the Autumn 2006 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies and in his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oneworld Publications) that came out a few weeks later. In these texts, Pappé reported that in a 1937 letter to his son, Ben-Gurion declared:

“The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war.”

Historian Benny Morris declared that the quote was an invention in December 2006. He did not challenge Pappé directly, but journalist Johan Hari used the quote to assail Israel in a commentary that appeared in The Independent soon after it appeared in print twice under Pappé’s name.

In declaring the quote an invention, Morris was on solid ground. The quote does not appear in any of the references that Pappé cited for it. In Ethnic Cleansing, Pappé cites the July 12, 1937 entry in Ben-Gurion’s journal and page 220 of the August-September issue of New Judea, a newsletter published by the World Zionist Organization. The quote appears nowhere in these texts, nor does it appear in the source he references in the article appearing in the Journal of Palestine Studies, a book by Charles D. Smith.

Morris’ statement that the quote attributed to Ben-Gurion was an “invention” should have prompted Pappé to either provide an accurate, verifiable source for the quote or to issue a retraction to prevent others from using it. Instead, the quote lingered on – without correction or retraction – in the fever swamp of anti-Zionist commentary.

It eventually made its way into With God on Our Side, an anti-Israel documentary produced by Porter Speakman, Jr. in 2010. (One of the main commentators in this movie is Rev. Stephen Sizer. Sizer is well known to readers of CIF Watch, Harry’s Place, Seismic Shock and to fans of his appearances on Iranian state television.)

To his credit, Speakman was the first person to issue a correction regarding the quote. After challenges from CAMERA, Speakman acknowledged that the quote in question did not appear in the original sources that Pappé cited and stated it would not appear in future editions of the movie 

It took a few months for Speakman to finally respond to a factual challenge, but he did the right thing. And to its credit, the Journal of Palestine Studies is taking a closer look at Pappé’s 2006 article, but is apparently having a tough time getting a hold of the historian himself.

This is no surprise. Pappé has ignored repeated inquires from CAMERA about the quote.

Pappé’s silence on this matter is inexcusable.

Six years on, it’s time for an accounting.

Pappé needs to admit the quote is a fake, or pull a rabbit out of a hat and provide an actual, verifiable source for the statement he attributed to David Ben-Gurion.

The space between quotation marks is sacred ground and needs to be treated as such.

If Pappé does not come clean, his colleagues at the University of Exeter need to challenge him to do, as do his publishers at Oneworld Publications, which needs to expunge this quote from its text.

To fail to do so would indicate the publishing house seeks to profit from a fabrication.

Dexter Van Zile is a researcher at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA).

65 replies »

  1. I hope that Dexter Van Zile has sent this article to Exeter University. Pappe’s fairy stories bring it into disrepute.

    “The space between quotation marks is sacred ground and needs to be treated as such.”

    Of course, but we are living in a world where the distinctions between fantasy (ie what a person wants to have happened) and what actually did happen are increasingly and often deliberately blurred. Do the latter often enough and you forget that there is a distinction between fantasy and reality, and fall into the habits that the Guardian has, of being “inadvertently” antisemitic (which proves as nothing else does, and from the mouth of its own Readers Editor, that antisemitism is part of the culture there), and equally and probably actually inadvertently racist towards Palestinian and other Islamists whom it thinks it has to rescue because they are too child-like to act sensibly on their own behalves.

  2. It is worth recalling Pappe’s words in an article by Baudouin Loos that he gave to a Belgian newspaper ‘Le Soir’, written in 1999

    “Q: Did you first become communist or “new historian”?

    A: I have to correct something: I like life too much to be communist! I am socialist. True I am member of Hadash which is a front where you find the communist party to which I don’t belong. You also find the non-Zionist Arab-Jewish group to which I belong. I think both my political commitment and historian known position developped simultaneously. And one supported the other. Because of my ideology I understood documents I saw in the archives the way I understood them, and because of the documents in the archives I became more convinced in the ideological way I took. A complicated process! Some colleague told me I ruined our cause by admitting my ideological platform. Why? Everbody in Israel and Palestine has an ideological platform. Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers. ”

    It did not need Benny Morris to upstage Pappe and expose his methodology. Pappe admits what he writes is not about facts but ideology. If facts get in the way, make new facts up, is what he is saying

    This is the man, the Guardianistas and the bleeding heart liberals prefer, and so it seems, mainstream academia, when it comes to relying on “the facts”.


  3. I’m immediately reminded of the (former?) CiF poster Papalgi, who would repeatedly urge people to read Pappe as if the latter had written some universally accepted objective account – and then basically call anyone challenging him mentally ill.

    Although to be honest he does remind me of certain posters here in terms of juvenile attitude.

    • @pretzelberg

      “Although to be honest he does remind me of certain posters here in terms of juvenile attitude.”

      There are 2 posters so far and I’d like to know why you think my post or Serendipity’s is juvenile, what is juvenile about?

      • “here” meaning the website’s posters in general (not specifically you or Serendipity) – I assumed that was obvious.

    • pretzelberg, I well remember Papalagi and what can only be termed his fixation with Ilan Pappe.

      (PS: why did you have to spoil your post by resorting to Pretzel-Jekyll mode? I am genuinely curious.)

  4. Thanks to my friend Deborah I have the correct quote:

    “We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their
    place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven
    throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in
    the country for ourselves and the Arabs.”

    Ben-Gurion, letter to his son 5 October 1937,
    quoted in Shabtai Teveth, Ben Gurion: The Burning Ground,
    p 612

  5. I will not try to defend Pappe’s particular quote but it is not difficult to find Ben-Gurion speaking in favour of the forcible transfer of Palestinians. In August 1938, speaking to the 20th Zionist congress in Zurich, he said: “With compulsory  transfer  we [would] have a vast area [for settlement]…. I sup­port compulsory  transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.”.
    On July 12, 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary: ”The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the First and Second Temples…. We are being given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is more than a state, government and sovereignty this is national consolidation in a free homeland.”

    It is not surprising that Ariadne can find a contrary quote. Ben-Gurion said many things about how to make room for Jewish settlement, some of them contradictory. Sometimes he deliberately spoke softly to avoid scaring the international community; sometimes he spoke in camera or was unreported at the time; sometimes, maybe, he simply changed his mind…..

    • “make room for Jewish settlement”?

      What about stopping Arab immigration? Even Churchill noticed that it was far greater than Jewish.

      I just skimmed through the ridiculous “Palestine Remembered”. In ToothFairyLand there is not a word about the Arab closeness to the Nazis from about 1935.

  6. I guess that, assuming you are not telling porkies*, sencar, Ben Gurion could not be blamed from taking a leaf out of his neighbours’ book as regards the “forcible transfer” of their Jewish populations, when they weren’t being massacred that is.

    But sencar you are not an honest person are you?* You were not only telling porkies but also being economical with the actualite and therefore dishonest by trying to pass off your post as being on fact rather than opinion. You were also lying by omission – you dared not give the source for your information which was, hardly an unbiased one, all of which points to your trying deliberately to mislead us.

    *And people, guess where he got the above quote from? Yup! From the palestinermembered site, lifted word for word, and without attribution and therefore allowing the less savvy among us to think that he had done the research for it himself. I went there and found this under a special section dealing with “ethnic cleansing”: The whole tenor of the site is so anti-Israel that anything on it should be viewed with the contempt it deserves for its wilful distortion of fact. From the page itself:

    “On July 12, 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed in British Peel Commission):

    “The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty—-this is national consolidation in a free homeland.” (Righteous Victims, p. 142)”

    sencar, you have led us to believe that you are some sort of statistician/researcher and a devotee of the equally questionable Greg Philo, who is not above a little bending of the actualite either, or at least overemphasising certain aspects and totally ignoring others in order to put his views across.

    But this, frankly, is dishonest, isn’t it and, if it’s your usual way of going about your work then I don’t reckon it much.

    • HairShirt, I too skimmed through that ridiculous site. It reminds me of a book on “Bacon is Shakespeare”. On every page there was a repetition of the mantra in large print.

      Likewise, the repetition of [Palestinian] as an adjective qualifying “Arab” did not make the fantasia any more real.

      They’re just Arabs and mired in untruth. Alas it has proved very profitable.

  7. Score one for solid research. I don’t like to make sweeping comparisons…but it’s worth noting that outright lying about what does and doesn’t appear in obscure sources has a long-standing tradition of usage supporters of Islamic terrorism and Holocaust denial. As rotten as many far-Left views on Israel are, they do tend much more frequently towards cherry-picking facts and quotes and leaving out the context, which is less noxious than outright Pappe-style lying and also best countered by the full set of facts (which tend to either support the pro-I side or produce a complex picture that’s far from black & white villainy in general).
    And yes, whether President Sarkozy ever says so or not, Pappe is unquestionably a fraudulent disgrace of a lying betrayer of history.

  8. This is a test. My reply tp Hairshirt was repeatedly rejected by WordPress. If I don’t see this I’ll assume I’m being censored.

  9. I’ve tried again. It seems the system will not accept my reply to Hairshirt. Either it’s rejected as a duplicate or (if I disguise the introduction) it just isn’t posted….

  10. From what I have learnt about David Ben Gurion, comments such as these would have been completely out of character.

    • Whenever these quotes are posted, they invariably contain “….”, which is usually crucial since the omitted words (often whole sentences) if factored back in provide either the opposite meaning to the one presented or some context.

  11. My quotes are actually taken directly from “Righteouis Victims”, by the Zionist historian Benny Morris.

      • “Morris recanted”

        With due respect, Ariadne, this is silly. Morris changed his political stance. He hasn’t withdrawn all the research done for his early books. The Ben-Gurion quotes are as good as that research, which is regarded as very good by his academic peers.
        This reminds me of the howls of delight that came from certain quarters when Goldstone ‘recanted’. He withdrew one particular allegation but the evidence of crimes collected for the Goldstone Report still stands, and is attested to by his co-authors.

          • Thanks for pointing me to the Karsh article criticising Morris, Ariadne. Karsh devotes some space to dissecting Morris’ comments on Ben Gurion and his views on transfer. He notes some key omissions in Morris’ version of Ben Gurion quotations. Significantly, however, he doesn’t refer to the two quotes in my original post, which seem to stand unchallenged.

            • That’s a dead horse, sencar. Why would B-G not welcome transfer? He was a man of his time and obviously knew what was intended as the Jewish national home despite the Arab-British perfidy that reduced and reduced Jews’ legal entitlements. I should probably say de facto entitlements since legally they were never removed,

              • @Ariadne. B-G didn’t “welcome” transfer at all. He cautioned against it, while accepting other aspects of the partition proposals by the British. “Transfer” was introduced by the Brits. That, I think, is the point sencar misses in his overall view, and Morris still has a great deal to explain. The books with misquotes continue to be published despite recantations. And that is a problem. Karsh has a point. Is Morris a person who seeks publicity and headlines?

                • Joshua, I expressed myself badly. Jews were expelled in the Mandate period and of course the Mandate was for a vast area in comparison to (a) what the British proposed in Partitions and (b) what Israel ended up with after the Arab attacks on the new state. There was also a proposal, I think in between the 1937 and 1947 Partition plans, that the Mandate should be abrogated.

                  I remember reading a League of Nations Conference Report from 1930 or 1931 when the French were trying to wrest back some rights for Jews from the British. It was a very, very bad time and got worse. But through that time the Yishuv had (fading) hopes of some large areas of land and B-G mentions this in the mid 1930s.

                  B-G as quoted by Hairshirt is correct. It seems to me like someone making the best of a bad job.

                  I am very well aware that Jews always wanted to share the land and despite the murderousness of the false Arab claimants and their huge Arab state backers/funders/arms suppliers – not to mention the present mindless morons supporting Arab fantasia and conquest – they still do.

                  In reality transfers of population came about quite generally not too many years later including of course the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab countries. And there were some post WWI. I’m not a historian so others can flesh that out if they want to.

                  Perhaps I just don’t see population transfer as solely carried out by Hitler or the British but in view of the overall British perfidy in this Mandate it just doesn’t have a very prominent place.

                  It’s very sad that the Debates of the Second Knesset are no longer available free online. They clear up absolutely the idea (fiction/lying propaganda) that Jews were all about conquering land.

                  [I hope that prints in the usual way. The line length seems to have changed.]

                • I think Karsh is absolutely excellent but there may be something personal between the two, I read what Karsh wrote about Morris fairly recently and I didn’t like it.

        • Sencar, the debate has shifted a bit since I last posted. Pappe does not quote, he makes it up and calls it fact. That’s the issue. “Why does he do it?” is the question.In a word: ideology.He’s not interested in truth if it does not suit his politics. I call that lying that causes harm, but others….

  12. There is an illegal download of “Righteouis Victims”. Whenever I give the URL this system rejects my post, but you could google it….. Unfortunately the free Amazon site version omits the pages with the Ben Gurion quotes. This isn’t a conspiract – all free Amazon books omit some sections.

  13. Now, why on earth should we think that the Amazon omissions of Ben Gurion quotes are a conpiracy? Are you so ready to see conspiracies where are are none that you believe that we are too? Is that it?

    As for Benny Morris, yes, he has recanted, which means that all the research done for his earlier books must be re-examined analytically through the lens of this new attitude, doesn’t it?

    But are you capable of performing such a rigorous re-examination? Given the extent to which your posts here are almost always lacking in context or background or any sources which would encourage the casual passer by to believe that you are inquisitive and scholarly rather than bluffing I very much doubt it.

    • “all the research done for his earlier books must be re-examined analytically through the lens of this new attitude”

      No, Hairshirt, that isn’t necessary. Morris identified unambiguous Ben Gurion quotations supporting forcible transfer. No amount of shuffling lenses will change their meaning. As I have noted elsewhere Ben Gurion made contradictory statements on transfer. Either he changed his mind or was selective in what he said to different audiences, but the quotes I use are plain enough. We can only assume he meant what he said.

      • I read the article by Karsh. Karsh was making a few points about Morris’ style of methodology who was selectively airbrushing statesmen. I do not believe Karsh’s criticism stops at the few quotes he has analysed in the article, otherwise he would have said so. I am sure that there were other (mis)quotes. Whatever the position, to not have been true to one’s work is shameful. It gives no pleasure to knock an otherwise brilliant academic.

        • Here is Alyssen Lappens review of “Righteous Victims” on Amazon.

          Anita Shapira’s New Republic essay, “The Past is Not a Foreign Country,” (online) decimates this book. Adding to Efraim Karsh’s 1996 study (Fabricating Israeli History), she reminds readers that Morris failed to reply. He ignored 50 Karsh references to his own work, Avi Shlaim, primary sources and major historical and journalistic studies.

          In this work, Morris ironically refers to many of Karsh’s sources, but nevertheless arrives at incorrect conclusions. The book is thus a politically charged revision of the Israeli-Arab conflict covering the pre-1948 through the history of Arab wars on Israel. The book shows culprits and casualties, and blames Arab regimes for violent incursions into Israel in the 1950s, for the secret war between Israel and terrorist groups, for Naser’s threat to Israel before the Sinai and Six-Day wars, and for many Arab calls for Israel’s destruction. Moreover, while Morris notes that Israel’s West Bank and Gaza rule “was never as restrictive or repressive as the Palestinians made out,”–which is certainly true–in this book, he nevertheless misconstrues the greater part of fact and history.

          One big problem is Morris’ large reliance on Israeli and secondary sources. He consults only a few primary Arab documents (and those, only in English translation), thus all but ignoring available Arab memoirs and state files. Oddly, Morris exploits every Israeli contingency plan and idea as conclusive evidence of Zionist expansionism, but ignores Arab plans for a “Greater Syria” as well as King Hussein’s designs.

          Another is Morris’ exclusion of regional effects of the cold war, and Soviet arms that poured into Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and other Arab states, worsening Arab-Israeli relations from the 1950s on. In short, Morris ignores the fact that the opportunity for Arab-Israeli peace opened up only following the collapse of the Soviet Union, which left Arab hard-liners without support for their traditional rejections.

          Worse, Morris misconstrues the notorious topic of ” transfer,” a term commonly used between the two world wars to describe population exchanges like that between Turkey and Greece in the 1920s. In his first work on that topic, Morris rightly concluded that the “Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design, Jewish or Arab,” but was (rather) a by-product of both people’s fears and the protracted, bitter fighting of the first Arab-Israeli war. But that conclusion provoked attacks from Arab historians and Israeli revisionists.

          Whatever the reason, Morris in this book reverses his earlier conclusion, standing history on its head. He makes effect into cause, and falsely translates the results of war into a paradigm for Arab-Jewish relations. He writes, “fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well).”

          This reading libels Zionism and its foundations.

          Actually, the Peel Commission first proposed in 1937, to transfer the Arab minority from territory designated for the tiny Jewish state as part of a planned partition of western Palestine into Jewish and Arab states (as noted in Israel’s Wars and The Closed Circle among other volumes). Morris presumes that Zionist leaders “played a role in persuading the Peel Commission to adopt the transfer solution.” But he provides zero proof.

          In fact, Ben-Gurion welcomed the British idea only to persuade Zionists to accept a tiny Jewish state (and the proposed partition)–but also warned of its inherent dangers. Furthermore, Zionist leaders believed that a Jewish majority would come from massive immigration, and that Western Palestine could accommodate millions of Jews and Arabs. History proved them right on that score, although the peace they expected remains ever-elusive.

          The Arabs initiated war in 1948 in preference to accepting a Jewish state–and thought they could win. And everywhere they prevailed, Arabs expelled every last Jew. Benny Morris should get real.

          –Alyssa A. Lappen

  14. Only O N E fabrication in the Pappe’s garbage? Try to find a single true fact in Pappe’s crap. For starters, ask yourselves how come there are no Arab attacks on Jews in “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”, even though the Arabs started the war and the Jewish losses in the war amounted to 6000. Pappe is nothing but a lousy propagandist, and the Palestinians deserve a much better (and honest) one.

    • Pappe is stupid,,,, the killings to Arabs are justfiied because they are the followers of Mohammed, who worship a worng god, named allah. Allah means hell

    • Sorry, Adam. Can you please delete these abhorrent comments from “Irgun Boy”? It makes it hard to complain about unmoderated comments on Cif (which have been there for 9 hours) when comments like this stand on your blog for almost one month.

      Yours helpfully and constructively!

      • I’m sure Irgun Boy is a troll who wants to discredit Cifwatch with his Nazi crap. Tomorrow we’ll see articles on CIF accusing Cifwatch with inciting to genocide. This boy is certainly a false flag operation – we have to ignore him.

  15. umm.. why dont you guys just read the letter from ben gurion to his son in 1937 that pappe quoted? yes pappe DID fabricate the quotation but from what i see its accurate and compatible with the letter..

  16. In my work I initially also quoted from Ben-Gurion’s letter to his son Amos from October 1937. Later I stopped referring to it altogether — not because of Karsh’s criticism (he has been harping on my “misquotation” of it for over a decade now), but because the letter is problematic (as Karsh, of course, knows but fails to inform his readers). Karsh accompanied his piece last Sunday with a photocopy of pages from one of my books. He would have done better, if honesty was what he aimed at, to have presented his readers with a photocopy of the relevant page in Ben-Gurion’s letter (as I did in the Israeli journal Alpayim years ago, when I first rebutted Karsh’s charges in this connection. Karsh throughout his pieces in English attacking me exploits his audiences’ ignorance of the original Hebrew texts.).
    The problem is that the handwritten page by Ben-Gurion sports a crossed-out line, which leaves the text saying starkly: “We must expel Arabs and take their places.” But if one deciphers what is written in the crossed-out section (as was done by experts in the IDF Archive, where it is deposited), one emerges with the full sentence running: “We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs …”
    The question then is what Ben-Gurion intended to write — and who crossed out the lines. If it was Ben-Gurion himself, and with aforethought (but Ben-Gurion was famous for almost never correcting his handrwritten texts), then the sentence must read: “We must expel Arabs …” But if it was someone else, with some ulterior motive, or if Ben-Gurion crossed out the words mistakenly and unintentionally, then one may conclude that Ben-Gurion had written and intended the opposite.
    There is no way of deciphering who did the crossing out. Hence, it is a dubious piece of evidence, and is best left ignored. -benny morris

  17. David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, told a Zionist Conference in 1937 that any proposed Jewish state would have to “transfer Arab populations out of the area, if possible of their own free will, if not by coercion.”[8]Report of the Congress of the World Council of Paole Zion, Zurich, July 29-August 7, 1937, pp. 73-74.

    We were told not to try to speak to Ben Gurion, but when I saw him, I asked why, since Israel is a democracy with a parliament, does it not have a constitution? Ben Gurion said, “Look, boy”-I was 24 at the time-“if we have a constitution, we have to write in it the border of our country. And this is not our border, my dear.” I asked, “Then where is the border?” He said, “Wherever the Sahal will come, this is the border.” Sahal is the Israeli army. Article by Naim Giladi, author of Ben Gurion’s Scandals: How the Haganah & the Mossad Eliminated Jews, http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/real_freedom/Propaganda/false_flag_attacks/false_flag_attacks_on_jews_in_iraq.htm

    • This story could have been told nearly forty years ago. I had accumulated a great deal of research material pertaining to the sinking and attempted sabotage of the ships Patria and Struma. Also a ship called Empire Life Guard was planted with bombs with a delay-switch. However the timing device failed to work at the set time, and the ship exploded in the port of Haifa with loss of life. All these ships carried the remnants of
      European Jewry that had escaped the fury of Hitler’s Third Reich. Not as lucky was Egoz, a small boat that sank off the shores of Morocco while carrying Jewish children out of Morocco. I was incensed that these innocent victims were sacrificed on the altar of statehood. In addition, the Arab village of Qibyah was attacked on October 14, 1953.
      Sixty-nine defenseless men, women and children were mercilessly massacred. It was rumored that the Israeli army was the perpetrator of the massacre, but Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion officially denied this. He said: “We checked and found that not one army unit left the base that night.”

      Two days later, I met a friend who lived in a Jewish colony across the border from Qibyah. He told me that he saw fully armed Israeli soldiers under the command of Ariel Sharon cross the border in the direction of Qibyah that very same night. David Ben-Gurion had indeed ordered the operation in spite of his denials. He also denied subsequent cover-ups,such as the massacre of the passengers of a bus near Maaleh Ha’akrabim. The Israeli government wrongfully accused Arabs, while it was a Jewish
      gang that committed the massacre. With much research, I later found evidence proving the involvement of yet another massacre sponsored by the Israeli government. It was at this point that I decided to write what I had discovered because I knew the truth couldn’t be hidden without damaging what I believed at that time to be the refuge for the Jews. – Naeim Giladi foreword to Ben-Gurion’s Scandals: How the Hagannah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews at https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/total_truth_sciences/w_37gkeXPAo

      • Are you suggesting, aaheart (or is it aaheartur?) that Ben Gurion and the Jewish leadership of Israel sabotaged ships full of refugees from Nazi Europe? What planet are you living on? Whichever planet it is, do us a favour and f*** off back there.

        • I have now read your links. The sites you link to are card-carrying tin-foil hat wearing conspiracist forums. You, sir, are entirely insane and will not take up a second more of my valuable time.

  18. Have you read Naeim Giladi’s book? If not you have gone to the source. I gave you just an introductory excerpt. He begins his book with a very simple testimony from his personal experience:

    I write this article for the same reason I wrote my book: to tell the American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors. I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called “cruel Zionism.” I write about it because I was part of it.

    Giladi personally spoke with Ben-Gurion to receive the revelatory statement from him on his farm. This is in part a first-person report. THIS is the reality you are refusing to know.

    • THIS is the reality you are refusing to know.

      Yes. And the Queen of England is actually an alien sleeper merely posing as a human being.

      See the news yesterday about her missing the Commonwealth Day service because of “illness”? Yeah right, Guardian et al!
      In fact she was in the Buckingham Palace bunker preparing for her co-reptilians’ imminent invasion.

      It ain’t too late, people. Repent or perish!

  19. In 1992 Naeim Giladi’s book was banned in Israel and the United States. With new materials, the expanded second edition was re-issued in 2003 and is in the top 277.000 books in sales on Amazon. This Jewish Iraqi journalist delivers the painful truth about the Zionist rape of Palestine and Zionist activities during Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion’s political career. Still a devout Jew, Naeim decided to sell his home in Israel and move to the United States.so that he could tell what he had experienced and learned about the State of Israel behind the facade of propaganda and lies. An Arab edition is currently in the works.

    Your concerns about the Queen of England seem a bit out of place here and far off-topic. Instead of reading your books about alien sleepers and reptilians, you might do some serious reading about the very real murder of innocents, theft of land, and demeaning of the people of the Torah by a bloody oppression of a people in their own land. Spielberg you’re not. Keep your day job.

    • With new materials, the expanded second edition was re-issued in 2003 and is in the top 277.000 books in sales on Amazon.

      How on earth did I overlook this veritable giant on the bestseller charts?

      • Sure beat the crap out of your standings, pretzelberg. But then you have nothing to say of significance, no experiences of note to share with a world larger than your local thimble, and empty as a tomb. You don’t even have the courage to look. At least Goldstone took a risk at being an honest man and for a brief shining moment he actually looked like somebody, but he quickly succumbed to the demands of the crowd and slunk back into ignominy. You can’t even stick your head out the window, much less the door. Yet, that is just what I expected of you even though I hoped you would prove me wrong about your self-congratulatory arrogance. Just proves what Jeremiah and Amos and the other prophets were saying about the original Hebrews. So when you can manage to say something of significance based on what another man of the tribe has written, you might understand what your self-imposed blinders have done to you and your friends.

        • Just proves what Jeremiah and Amos and the other prophets were saying about the original Hebrews.

          Please do explain.