Uncategorized

Jon Snow lunges for Richard Millett’s phone at LSE event while questioned on ‘Jewish lobby’ comment


The following is a first person account by Richard Millett

Ilan Pappe, Peter Kosminsky, Jon Snow, Karma Nabulsi, Rosemary Hollis at LSE.

Ilan Pappe, Peter Kosminsky, Jon Snow, Karma Nabulsi, Rosemary Hollis at LSE.

On Friday (April 26) Channel 4 news presenter Jon Snow was at the London School of Economics to chair a panel of hardcore anti-Israel polemicists but as I was questioning him face to face about his own use of the term “the Jewish lobby” he violently grabbed my mobile phone attempting to dislodge it from my hand accusing me of trying to secretly record our conversation.

He then repeatedly called me “a creep” and claimed a breach of his human rights.

He had been explaining to me (Clip 1 below) that “the Jewish lobby” is a common term in America. I asked him if he would use the term “the Muslim lobby” to which he replied that he would.

This was how the event itself was described:

On this panel discussion, chaired by Jon Snow of Channel 4 News, the speakers will discuss aspects of the current situation in Palestine, including: Palestinian domestic politics, Israel’s position, the international dimension of the impasse and the insights into the conflict provided by film-making.

I went mainly to hear Peter Kosminsky, director of Channel 4’s drama series The Promise which portrayed Jews in British Mandate Palestine and contemporary Israel by using anti-Semitic stereotypes. For example, Israeli Jews were shown to be stunningly wealthy, and there were lines like these spoken by a British soldier:

“The Jews and Arabs have been living here in relative harmony for years. But our victory over the Germans has turned the trickle of Jews coming to this land into a flood. You must understand, the Jews see it as their holy land. But the Arabs, who have been here for over a thousand years, see them as stealing their land. Our job is to keep the two sides apart…..”

And:

“After Bergen-Belsen, I thought that the Jews deserved a state, but now I’m not so sure…. Their precious state has been born in violence and cruelty to its neighbours, and I’m not sure I want it to prosper….”

Last night Kosminsky said that after the series had aired:

Nothing prepared me for the level of vitriol that was going to drop on me from the Zionist lobby…personal, vicious stuff came my way….If I choose to criticise my country, and I often do, nobody calls me ‘a racist’. They accept that it’s a legitimate thing in a free society to criticise the political and diplomatic behaviour, the domestic and foreign policies of a sovereign state. It just means that you disagree with its political behaviour. But if you’re Jewish, as I am, and you criticise the domestic and/or foreign policy of the sovereign state of Israel you are immediately called an anti-Semite. Very clever isn’t it.” (Clip 2)

No it’s not clever actually because Kosminsky doesn’t just “disagree with its political behaviour”. He disagrees with Israel’s existence and calls for Jews in Israel to be boycotted (presumably he doesn’t wish those of other religions in Israel to be boycotted). He said:

the boycott creates so much anger in Israelis. They really hate the idea, particularly the academic boycott, which suggests to me it would probably be quite effective. So I think, yes, we should do it.” (Clip 3)

I hear the Nazis also boycotted Jews. In the 1930s it was considered anti-Semitic but apparently in 2013 it isn’t.

On America’s support for Israel and the similarity of the creation of both countries he said:

this is why America finds it so hard to take a stand against the illegality and the disgusting behaviour of the state of Israel, because that’s how they (the Americans) came into existence, guys!” (clip 4)

There was also a lengthy discussion on how much Jews were hated by America and Britain, this being the main driver by these countries to create Israel in order to get Jews to go there instead.

Kosminsky put it like this:

America was very keen to strong-arm Britain into accepting a Jewish-controlled state in what had been Palestine because…they really didn’t want any more Jews in New York, please.” (clip 4 also)

As for Rosemary Hollis, former director of research at Chatham House, she claimed that at the same time Lord Balfour was drafting the Balfour Declaration he was also driving anti-Jewish immigration legislation through Parliament. (clip 5)

Hollis also claimed that it wasn’t the Jews that invented Jewish nationalism but “the Europeans”. She said “it was the Europeans who decided somehow that Judaism was something above and beyond a religion”. Incredible! Who was Theodore Herzl anyway and that book he published in 1896. Der Judenstaat, anyone?

Jon Snow didn’t hold back either but suggested that Britain might well have delayed bombing the railway lines to the concentration camps because of Britain’s hatred of Jews. (clip 6)

Snow had also started the evening claiming that there was “Palestine fatigue” in the media (clip 7).

Palestine fatigue! Has he not picked up The Independent or The Guardian recently or watched his own beloved Channel 4 which aired The Promise and many other programes about the Palestinians including one being aired while we were at the event!

To round things off nicely Ilan Pappe implicitly compared Israel to Nazi Germany (clip 8). He said Israel is beginning to look like “your own worst enemy” in its obsession with having as many Jews in Israel as possible.

Meanwhile, Karma Nabulsi spent most of the evening calling for the so-called “right of return”, commonly known as a pretext to the demographic destruction of the Jewish state. Nothing new there then from ex-PLO Ms Nabulsi.

(Read Jonathan Hoffman’s account of the event here)

Clips from the event (customer warning: may contain anti-Semitism)

Clip 1:

(Snow mentions “the Jewish lobby” at 1 min 34 secs.)

Clip 2:

Clip 3:

Clip 4:

Clip 5:

Clip 6:

Clip 7:

Clip 8:

107 replies »

  1. This was how the event itself was described: “On this panel discussion … the speakers will discuss aspects of the current situation in Palestine, including: Palestinian domestic politics, Israel’s position …”

    And who on the panel was putting/defending the latter?

  2. Richard, you have a stronger stomach than I to be in the same room as these people, let alone for the length of time you stayed there. Thank you.

    Jon Snow tried, if I remember correctly, to get one over on an Israeli spokesman at the time of the Marmara, about Israeli “brutality” or some such, and (again as I remember it) got the verbal pasting he deserved.

    He’s among the “intelligent” commentators who resent deeply that Israel has support and is able to defend herself literally and in writing and speech.

    • Jonny never will forgive the uppity Jew – Mark Regev – who made mincemeat of him.

  3. Was there any dissenting comment in that room Richard?
    Thought not. Just yet another “bashing israel” bash at a top university.

  4. Ilan Pappe represented the Israeli viewpoint. He is an Israeli historian who has researched the issue of Palestine objectively and now presents the just solution to the conflict in the Holy lands that is also in the interest of the Israelis living in Palestine. Just as fascism was against the interests of the German people, Zionist occupation is against the interest of the Israelis as much as it is against others living in Palestine. Ilan represents that very well and he genuinely serves all those living in Palestine.

    • Ilan Pappe represented the Israeli viewpoint

      And Lord Haw-Haw represented the Allies’ viewpoint.

    • Ilan Pappe represents the largely discredited “new historians” who set out to question the mainstream history of the Arab- Israeli conflict and, in his case, ended up as propagandists for the Palestinians. His so-called researches have been heavily criticized for their total lack of objectivity for which he has earned an unenviable reputation among contemporary historians. His contribution to the “debate” at LSE could only have been to agree 100% with the views of the other speakers. A true representative for Israel would have been someone who could refute the arrant nonsense spewed out and actually make the event a real debate, and just one more anti-Israel/anti-Jewish get-together for the lads and lasses.

      The whole tenor of the meeting doesn’t surprise me in the least. LSE’s Middle East Centre is just another Arab-funded department, employing Arab academics concerned exclusively with Arab, Iranian, Turkish and Kurdish affairs and UK fellow-travellers, some of whom are ex-Chatham House. Israeli politics receive scant attention and then only through an Arab- oriented looking glass.

      http://www2.lse.ac.uk/middleEastCentre/about/home.aspx

      • Correction:
        “….and NOT just one more anti-Israel/anti-Jewish get-together for the lads and lasses.”

        Apologies for the typo.

    • Ilan Pappe represent his point, not Israeli. Ilan Pappe is aginst the interest of Israelis
      he dosen;t represent us . He is a liar and was proven as one.
      Benny Morris exposes Ilan Pappe as a fraud in a quite definitive way.

      From TNR (thanks to TNR for giving a pass-through link beyond the paywall for EoZ readers):

      At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two.
      http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2011/03/benny-morris-owns-ilan-pappe.html

    • Just as fascism was against the interests of the German people, Zionist occupation is against the interest of the Israelis …

      Yet again you can think of no other comparison than the Nazis.
      Yet again you look like an utter moron.

    • Ashley George, such an arrogant imperialist, that he/she now has nominated themselves as spokesperson for the Jewish people.

  5. “As for Rosemary Hollis …..she claimed that at the same time Lord Balfour was drafting the Balfour Declaration he was also driving anti-Jewish immigration legislation through Parliament.”

    Balfour was actually one of the sponsors of the 1905 Aliens Act which restricted immigration to Britain and is generally reckoned to have been aimed particularly at Jews.

    “America was very keen to strong-arm Britain into accepting a Jewish-controlled state in what had been Palestine because…they really didn’t want any more Jews in New York, please.”

    This is also basically true. The US 1924 Immigration Act placed quotas on immigrants depending partly on their country of origin. Quotas for eastern Europe states (home of many prospective Jewish immigrants) were set much lower than those for north and western Europe:
    http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5078

    • According to respected historians both of the above allegations are correct. They are perfect examples proving the necessity of an independent Jewish state where the fate of the Jews is not in the hands of others especially not the hands of far-left Jew-haters like Snow and wannabe kapos like Kosminski and Pappe.

    • To say that America strong-armed Britain into accepting a “Jewish-controlled state,” because of immigration restrictions on nationals from some European countries is a fallacious argument. First, America didn’t strong-arm Britain into doing it – Britain, a world power at the time with a vast empire, came up with the Balfour declaration without the help of the U.S., and most probably didn’t give a flying fig what America thought about it, nor was the U.S. a part of the League of Nations unanimous vote to establish the Jewish National Home, because the U.S. was not a League of Nations member, so the entire assertion is false to begin with. Second, nothing about immigration restrictions would compel the United States into making any such demand, unless one already believes in classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, i.e., that the Jews were in control, as well as some anti-Americanism. The panel and their fellow travelers are truly dregs and conspiracy nutters.
      “The Jewish Lobby” is a common term in America? Not during my lifetime. But then again, I’m an American who’s lived my entire life in American, and not an arrogant Brit in “show business.”

      • “America didn’t strong-arm Britain into doing it – Britain ….came up with the Balfour declaration without the help of the U.S., and most probably didn’t give a flying fig what America thought about it”

        It wasn’t so much America “strong-arm[ing] Britain” as Britain seeking to influence US opinion. Balfour, rightly or wrongly, had a great belief in the strength of the ‘Jewish lobby’ and sought to use it to reinforce US commitment to the war (in November 1917 the US was still gearing up its troops). Balfour commented: “The vast majority of Jews….now appeared to be favourable to Zionism. If we could make a declaration favourable to such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda … in … America”. Quoted in Charles D. Smith, ‘Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict’, 1992.

        This was of course long before the League of Nations was founded in 1919 and the mandate vote in 1922.

        • “It wasn’t so much America ‘strong-arm[ing] Britain’ as Britain seeking to influence US opinion.”
          Really? Because in your previous post you quoted, “America was very keen to strong-arm Britain into accepting a Jewish-controlled state in what had been Palestine because…” By the way, what exactly had been Palestine?

          “Balfour, rightly or wrongly, had a great belief in the strength of the ‘Jewish lobby’…”
          O.K. sencar, for 10 points: Which one was it? Rightly or wrongly?
          “…and sought to use it to reinforce US commitment to the war (in November 1917 the US was still gearing up its troops).”
          So, in other words, Lord Balfour was a conspiracy nutter not dissimilar to Jon Snow and Co.

          • continued…
            “This was of course long before the League of Nations was founded in 1919 and the mandate vote in 1922.”

            Again, from your previous post:
            “The US 1924 Immigration Act placed quotas on immigrants depending partly on their country of origin.”
            So, the 1924 Immigration Act act became law long after the the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1919 founding of the League of Nations, and the 1922 Mandate vote.
            Yes, sencar, history does matter.

            • Let’s unpick our recent posts a little, Jeff.

              1) I quoted the sentence beginning “America was very keen…” and said it was “basically true”, then went on to refer to the 1924 Act that discouraged Jewish immigration. My intention was to agree with the idea that America didn’t want “more Jews in New York”. It would have been clearer if I had cut the “strong-arm” phrase”, which I don’t believe to be true.

              2) There is significant evidence that British politicians in 1917 (including Balfour) thought US Jews had a lot of influence over their government. Incidentally they thought the same of Russian Jews. In my opinion this view was greatly exaggerated, but it’s Balfour’s opinion that matters, since this influenced his famous Declaration.

              3) Of course the 1924 Act was after 1917, just as the British 1905 Act was before. The point is that there was an anti-immigration sentiment in both countries during the early 20th century. The timing of the legislation is incidental.

              • As I see it, Rosemary Hollis was trying to once again hype the idea that reconstituting a Jewish National Home in the Holy Land was little if anything more than an anti-Semitic scheme to get rid of the Jews. Whilst there may be some truth to this, there were other reasons – religious, historical, and political – that were far more compelling at that time. None of them were mentioned. Unstated is the idea that Zionism itself is somehow anti-Semitic, a noxious idea of that many left intellectuals have bought into.

        • Balfour, rightly or wrongly, had a great belief in the strength of the ‘Jewish lobby’ and sought to use it to reinforce US commitment to the war

          Oh good God. Which insane website did you get that crap from?

          • Actually I got it from one of the standard historical works on the mandate: ‘One Palestine Complete’, by Tom Segev.

  6. Incidentally, many people talk about the Muslim lobby or the Muslim vote and nobody complains about it as it is a description of a phenomenon in politics that is real and present. Many Muslim organisations use the strength of their community to lobby politicians in their interest. The lobby itself is legitimate. Of course the object of the lobby could be illegitimate, immoral or criminal and we can criticize that. Where the politicians oblige the lobby on issues I consider immoral. I have every right to expose the politician and the lobby associated with it whether it is a Muslim, Christian, Hindu or a Jewish lobby.

    • There was that war!

      American Minute with Bill Federer

      During World War I, Britain was ineffective manufacturing explosives, until a breakthrough in synthesizing acetone was made by Jewish chemist Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who was born NOVEMBER 27, 1874. In gratitude, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, establishing a Jewish homeland. President Woodrow Wilson wrote to Rabbi Stephen Wise, 1918: “I think all Americans will be deeply moved by the report that…the Weizmann commission has been able to lay the foundation of the Hebrew University at Jerusalem.” President Harry S Truman wrote to Dr. Weizmann, November 29, 1948: “I remember well our conversations about the Negeb…I agree fully with your estimate of the importance of the area to Israel, and I deplore any attempt to take it away from Israel. I had thought that my position would have been clear to all the world, particularly in the light of the specific wording of the Democratic Party platform.” Truman continued: “I have interpreted my re-election as a mandate…to carry out…the plank on Israel…In closing, I want to tell you how happy and impressed I have been at the remarkable progress made by the new State of Israel.” Dr. Weizmann wrote: “I think that the God of Israel is with us.”


      http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/wwi-chemist-dr-chaim-weizmann-and-israel/

  7. Pappe is not an historian, nor would he claim to be except in less than discerning company. He admits that facts are irrelevant when it comes to the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

  8. cba you are wrong as far as I know Haw was a fascist and a racist anti Semite
    whereas Pappe is anti-racist, anti-fascist and opposes Antisemitism. –

    Epidermoid you are totally wrong and that is a fact. Pappe is a Historian and is recognized as such internationally among the Academic community. He holds a very prestigious position at Exeter University.

    I think Snow makes a very relevant point that there is no such thing as unified Jewish lobby they are diverse as any other community based lobbies. He differentiated the Zionist lobby from the Jewish lobby.

    I like the idea of a Native American shouting “You are the immigrant” at the anti-immigration protesters in the US.

    • there is plenty of evidence, that europeans arrived in north america at the end of the last ice age. i like the idea of one of there descendants shouting at indian meeting you are the immigrant.

    • Ashley, I used to attend conferences like this, and it took me some time to realize that they are carefully staged, relentlessly fraudulent, and cult-like in their zealous hate. Generating hatred of Israel dishonestly (via misleading half-truths and outright lies) is now an industry. It is astonishing in its scope and incredibly easy to undercut if you are paying attention. But most people don’t pay careful attention. It does take time.

      Please read the article again, more carefully.

    • As far as you know. Exactly. You don;t .

      “My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the “truth” when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. – Ilan Pappe

    • cba you are wrong as far as I know Haw was a fascist and a racist anti Semite
      “Woosh!” goes the point, as it flies over ashley’s head.

  9. Ilan Pappe the liar.

    As Steven Plaut said, About 10 years ago a middle aged MA student named Teddy Katz, submitted a masters thesis to the University of Haifa that had been prepared under the supervision of Israels most extremist and anti-Zionist academic, Ilan Pappe. Pappe likes to describe himself as Israels most hated person and I suspect he may be on to something there.

    He spends his days addressing anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rallies and conferences around the globe and likes to write Israel-bashing pieces in the PLOs journal. He appears in al-Ahram. He has openly called for Israel’s destruction – to be replaced by a Palestinian state with Arafat as its dictator.

    He ran for the Knesset on the slate of the Arab Stalinist party HADASH.
    The MA thesis in question claimed that a platoon of the Alexandroni brigade of the Hagana had in 1948 conducted a massacre of Arabs at the town of Tantora near Haifa when the town was conquered in Israels war of independence.

    It was of course, as it turned out, a complete fabrication based on some Arabs suddenly recovering from repressed memory syndrome after 50 years and claiming there had been a massacre when they were infants. Except when the tapes of interviews with these folks were checked out, it turned out even these Arabs had never said there was any massacre but rather that the Hagana had been very nice about helping the civilians.

    Katz and Pappe had simply invented the story. When word hit the press, the Hagana vets organization sued Katz and the University of Haifa for libel. Eventually the matter reached a court settlement in which Katz agreed to admit publicly he had lied, publish a retraction at his own expense, and apologize to the vets. Katz was represented in all this by ultras-leftist lawyer Avigdor Feldman, who took time off from his usual passion for representing Arabs who have murdered Jewish children.

    Feldman was present when Katz signed the court settlement.
    But a few days after that, Katz tried to back out of the settlement, probably under encouragement to do so by Pappe, who continues to insist the massacre really took place even though not a shred of evidence has ever been discovered by anyone that there had been one. (Even Arab journalists and reporters who had been present at the battle never claimed there had been any massacre.) The judge refused to allow Katz to back out of the deal. When Katz refused to publish the retraction, the vets successfully sued Katz to recover their costs. Pappe and the communists then organized a campaign to try to raise cash to help out Katz with this.

    Meanwhile, the University of Haifa looked ridiculous in all of this and demanded that Katz submit a revised version of the thesis if he wanted a degree. The original version had been awarded a grade of 97 by Pappe and his collaborators.

    Katz ultimately did resubmit a revised thesis. This week the University of Haifa rejected it, after five independent reviewers had read it and dismissed it as garbage. Pappe and his comrades are running about now insisting that these five were lackeys of Ariel Sharon and George Bush or some similar sort of academically scrupulous argument. The University agreed to kick Katz out by granting him a MA degree without a thesis, an act of cowardice by the campus authorities. Katz should have been simply expelled permanently and Pappe fired for his role in the fabrication and charlatanism.

    Anyway, I have decided to make an alternative proposal about how the university could better resolve things. Why not just let Katz write a completely NEW thesis on a different topic under Pappes supervision? This time the thesis should be on one of these topics:

    – An oral history proving the Germans never killed any Jews in Auschwitz.

    – An oral history proving that Lincoln actually shot John Wilkes Booth at that theater.

    – Proof that the Mossad was really behind the attack on the WTC on September 11.

    – An oral history that proves that Jews, and especially settlers, drink the blood of gentile children on Passover after all.
    I bet Pappe would give the new thesis a grade of 98!

  10. Earth to Kosminsky, Israel is dealing with Palestinian Nazis.

    http://www.amazon.com/New-Shoah-Israels-Victims-T
    A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel’s Victims of Terrorism
    Giulio Meotti

    Every day in Israel, memorials are held for people killed simply because they were Jews–condemned by the fury of Islamic fundamentalism. A New Shoah is the first book devoted to telling the story of these Israeli terror victims. It centers on a previously unheard oral history of the Middle Eastern conflict from the viewpoint of the Jewish victims and their families.
    Ten years ago, Palestinian terrorist groups launched their Second Intifada, resulting in an Israeli “Ground Zero” with 1,500 civilian victims. Israel is a tiny country, and this number would be proportionally equivalent to about 54,000 terror victims in the United States. The hundreds of attacks in Israel, day after day, amount to a sort of “new Shoah,” as Roger Scruton explains in his foreword. Giulio Meotti spoke to many of the Israeli families that have been destroyed by terror attacks on all the ordinary places of everyday life: on buses, kibbutzim, religious places, cafés and restaurants. Many of the survivors told their heartbreaking stories of loss for the first time. In these human fragments lie the raison d’être for the State of Israel, the first country in the world to experience suicide bombings on a massive scale, the fruit of jihadi nihilism.

  11. No Jewish nation can be at peace when it is surrounded by Islamofascists. The question you should be asking is there a day in history when muslims have ever been at peace with non-muslims?

  12. A great article documenting how the British have always supported the Arabs against Israel.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4371351,00.html
    In the service of the Palestinians
    Op-ed: In light of its dark past, Britain’s involvement in building of PA’s army very problematic
    Elyakim Haetzni
    04.23.13

    British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould is doing all he can for the Palestinian army, which he claims plays a crucial role in the establishment of a Palestinian state. He is urging Israel to transfer authority to the Palestinian army in areas B and C and reveals that the UK “invests in training the Palestinian security forces…We have senior and experienced officers embedded in Palestinian training academies.” But this reminds the Jews of other “experienced” British officers, such as Glubb Pasha and the other British commanders who built the Jordanian army and commanded over it during its invasion of the Land of Israel with the goal of thwarting the UN’s partition plan. These forces destroyed Gush Etzion and the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem and killed thousands of soldiers and civilians.

    The Jews also remember the words of anti-Semitic general Evelyn Barker, commander of the British forces in the Land of Israel: “(We) will be punishing the Jews in a way the race dislikes as much as any, by striking at their pockets and showing our contempt of them.” Before Barker, during the pogrom of 1920, Col. Waters Taylor, financial adviser to the Military Administration in Palestine, explained to Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini that if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem during Easter, both General Bols (chief administrator in Palestine, 1919-20) and General Allenby (commander of the Egyptian force, 1917-19, then High Commissioner of Egypt) would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home. Waters-Taylor explained that freedom could only be attained through violence.

    Following the riots he told Jerusalem Mayor Moussa Kazim: “I gave you a fine opportunity; for five hours, Jerusalem was without military protection; I had hoped you would avail yourself of the opportunity, but you have failed.” This was how the murderers’ phrase “Dola Maana” (the government is with us) was coined. It even preceded the phrase “itbach al Yahud” (slaughter the Jews).

    We also remember that Jews who tried to protect themselves were tried and imprisoned by the British Mandatory Government, including Jabotinsky, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison and was permanently exiled.

    There was also the decorated British officer Roy Farran, who, along with his comrades, kidnapped, tortured and murdered teenager Alexander Rubowitz and disposed of his body. The British authorities acquitted Farran from the charge of murdering Rabovitz on the ground that since the body of the boy had not been found there was no case against him, despite the fact that they had a written confession. And there was also the British officer who murdered Avraham “Yair” Stern, who was unarmed. There was also the British unit which controlled the area in which a convoy en route to Mount Scopus was attacked. The British soldiers did not lift a finger until the Arabs murdered 78 people. It is difficult not to think of these officers when you hear that the British are once again building Arab forces in the Land of Israel.

    Britain never apologized. In our days, civilized countries apologize: For the slave trade, discrimination against blacks and the annihilation of the Indians. The Germans apologized for the Holocaust and France apologized for the crimes of the Vichy regime. Britain, before it offers us advice, should prove that it is sincere and convince a persecuted nation with traumatic memories that there is a new Britain – a Britain that recognizes its past crimes against us and regrets them.

    The British never apologized for tearing away three-fourths of the Jewish Home’s territory in the Land of Israel or for refusing to allow this vast territory to be used to resolve the “Palestinian problem,” instead of cutting even more into the Kivsat Harash (poor man’s lamb) that remains in the western part of the Land of Israel. They have not apologized for their role in the Hebron massacre of 1929, when British officer Cafferata stood by and allowed 67 Jews to die in agony. They haven’t apologized for not opening the gates to the Land of Israel during the Holocaust, which could have saved the lives of millions of Jews; they haven’t apologized for the 759 people who drowned when the MV Struma sank; or for the 4,554 Holocaust refugees aboard the SS Exodus who were expelled back to Germany and were imprisoned there; or for the 52,000 people who were held in Cyprus for months and years.

    Mr. Ambassador, with such a past and no regrets, how do you expect us to believe that your advice is not merely a continuation of the old British policy, which is aimed at pushing the Jews out of their land by any means possible?

  13. http://blog.camera.org/archives/2013/04/imagine_a_boston_bombing_every_1.html
    Imagine a Boston Bombing Every Week
    April 26, 2013

    In a piece in The American Thinker, novelist Noah Beck writes sympathetically about the tragic Boston Marathon bombing, calling victims “the epitome of innocent.” He continues:

    But imagine if this happened again next week, at a pizzeria, killing 15 diners. And again, a week later, on a bus, killing 19 passengers. Then at a discotheque, killing 21 teens. Then at a church, killing 11 worshipers. And so on, with a new bombing terrorizing us almost every week.

    Israelis don’t have to imagine; they just have to remember. Between 1995 and 2005, each year saw an average of 14 suicide bombings, murdering 66 victims. Two thousand two was the worst year, with 47 bombings that slaughtered 238 people.

    That’s almost one Boston bombing every week. Adjusted for population differences, Israel’s victims in 2002 amounted to the equivalent of three 9/11s in one year. And these bombing statistics don’t include all of the shootings, stabbings, and other violent attacks by Palestinian extremists during those years.
    Unfortunately, as Beck notes, “the incidents usually received only scant and perfunctory media coverage, if they were mentioned at all.”

  14. How Ilan Pappe makes up lies.

    http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=2188
    University of Exeter Gives Pappé a Pass on Invented Ben-Gurion Quote
    February 3, 2012
    Dexter Van Zile

    For one brief shining moment, it looked as if the University of Exeter was going to hold Ilan Pappé accountable for attributing a fake quote to David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister.

    Those hopes were in vain. Not only did the university’s Ethics Committee fail to hold Pappé accountable for his fabrication, the committee accepted an explanation from the historian that is simply so byzantine and ludicrous that it raises questions about how seriously officials at the University of Exeter take the pursuit of truth and respect for the historical record.

    In short, Pappé dug himself deeper into a hole when he responded to a challenge about the fake quote, and the Ethics Committee decided to shack up with the historian in the hole he dug.

    Pappé’s shell-game began in 2006 when he reported that in a 1937 letter to his son, David Ben-Gurion declared: “The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war.”

    He reported this quote in two venues – in an article (“The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”) published in The Journal of Palestine Studies and in his book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, published by Oneworld Publications.

    There was some confusion about exactly where the quotation marks belonged however. In the original version of the book, the quotes appeared only around the first six words, (“The Arabs will have to go”) but in the journal article, the entire sentence was included in the quotes. In later versions of the book, however, the closing quotation mark migrated to the end of the sentence. (More about this later.)

    In November 2006, the now-disgraced journalist Johan Hari used the quote in one of his commentaries at The Independent. This prompted a response from historian Benny Morris who declared in a letter to the editor that the quote was “an invention, pure and simple, either by Hari or by whomever he is quoting (Ilan Pappe?)”

    Morris was on solid ground. The quote did not appear in any of the sources that Pappé cited for it in his book, Ethnic Cleansing or the article appearing in The Journal of Palestine Studies.

    In all, Pappé listed a total of three sources for the quote, none of which check out.

    In Ethnic Cleansing, Pappé cites the July 12, 1937 entry in Ben-Gurion’s journal and page 220 of the August-September 1937 issue of New Judea, a newsletter published by the World Zionist Organization.

    Nothing even resembling the quote appears anywhere in either of these texts, nor does it appear in Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, by Charles D. Smith (St. Martin’s 2004), the source he references in the article appearing in the JPS.

    Morris’s 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. Morris’s statement was too direct a challenge for any serious historian to ignore.

    Despite Morris’s challenge, the quote lingered on in the fever swamp of anti-Zionist commentary. For example, Hari used the quote a second time in a 2008 commentary.

    The quote eventually made its way into With God on Our Side, an anti-Israel documentary produced by Porter Speakman, Jr. in 2010.

    To his credit, Speakman issued a correction regarding the quote after challenges from CAMERA. In his correction, Speakman acknowledged that the quote in question did not appear in the original sources that Pappé cited. He stated the quote would not appear in future editions of the movie.

    Speakman did the right thing, but Pappé stonewalled, ignoring queries submitted in early November about the source of the quote, prompting CAMERA to file a complaint with the both the College of Social Sciences and International Studies (Pappe’s department) at the University of Exeter and the school’s Ethics Committee.

    CAMERA also contacted the peer-reviewed Journal of Palestine Studies, which contacted Pappé and asked for an explanation to be published in a future issue of the journal. In response to an inquiry from CAMERA, Oneworld Publications, which published Pappé’s book, stated it was looking into the matter, but has remained silent since.

    In response to the CAMERA complaint, submitted in November 2011, Professor Nicholas Talbot, chair of the University of Exeter’s Ethics Committee, reported that the school takes such issues very seriously and that the committee had asked Pappé to explain himself.

    At no point did Pappé respond directly to CAMERA’s inquiry.

    His supporters did, however, come to his defense when information of the controversy appeared briefly on the Wikipedia page dedicated to the historian’s career. After a brief round of edits, the information was deleted altogether.

    In late December, Pappé obliquely acknowledged the controversy in an article in Electronic Intifada, in which he portrayed himself as the victim of intimidation at the hands of “Zionist hooligans.” Pappé claimed that since he had started teaching at the University of Exeter, his work has been regularly challenged and that these challenges “have been brushed aside.” He wrote:
    This year a similar appeal was taken, momentarily one should say, seriously. One hopes this was just a temporary lapse; but you never know with an academic institution (bravery is not one of their hallmarks).
    A few days later, the Ethics Committee reported its findings to CAMERA in a letter signed by chair Professor Nicholas Talbot. The upshot of this letter, detailed below, is that Pappé was given a pass.

    Pappé’s Explanation, Transmitted by Talbot

    In the letter, Talbot noted the original quote that appeared in the original hardcover edition of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine differs from what appeared in subsequent versions of the book.

    In the hardcover edition of Ethnic Cleansing, (which Talbot writes “must be considered the original text”) only the first six words of the sentence attributed to Ben-Gurion (“The Arabs will have to go…”) are included in quotation marks.

    Talbot reports “there may have been a different version in some of the many reprints” of Pappé’s book.

    “If this is the case,” Talbot writes, “the Professor Pappé has assured us that it will be corrected in the next edition.”

    Talbot then states that the second half of the quote attributed to Ben-Gurion (“but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war”) was a “fair and accurate paraphrase” of the sources he provided in Ethnic Cleansing – Ben Gurion’s diary entry and the article in New Judea – the latter of which recounts a speech Ben-Gurion gave.

    Interestingly enough, the letter does not say which passages in these sources Pappé was paraphrasing. Given the ongoing questions surrounding the quote in question, it would seem reasonable for him to show his work and provide these passages to his readers. (Maybe he will, in a yet-to-be published article in the Journal of Palestine Studies.)

    The questions do not stop here, however.

    Source for “The Arabs will have to go”

    We are still left without a source for the first half of the quote (“The Arabs will have to go”). Talbot doesn’t come out and say it, but his explanation indicates that Pappé admits that first half of the quote (“The Arabs will have to go…”) is not in any of the three sources he originally provided. He does this when he provides another source – his fourth – for this part of the quote.

    Here is what Talbot writes:
    The source for the first part of the sentence, is based on a letter from David Ben Gurion to his son from the 5th of October 1937. Shabtai Teveth[,] Ben Gurion’s biographer, Benny Morris and the historian Nur Maslaha have all quoted this letter. In fact their translation was stronger than the quotation from Professor Pappé ‘We must expel the Arabs and take their place.’ Professor Pappé has documentary evidence of these quotations and the source will ensure that this is correctly cited in any future editions of the publication or related studies.

    Based on these investigations, the University is completely satisfied with the standard of scholarship and academic practice of Professor Pappé within the framework of the University’s Agreement of Academic Freedom.

    The University therefore considers the matter closed. (Emphasis added.)
    Take a look at the first sentence again, because it is revealing. The phrase is “based on” a Ben-Gurion letter is a tacit admission that Pappé paraphrased the first part of the quote as well. In other words, Pappé’s use of quotation marks around any part of the quote he attributed to Ben-Gurion is simply untenable.

    Simply put, Pappé misused quotation marks by putting them around words that the person being quoted did not say.

    How did the Ethics Committee miss this?

    Do quotation marks mean one thing to students, researchers and professors at the University of Exeter and something else to the rest of the world?

    Apparently so.

    That’s Not All, Folks

    But it gets worse. Even if Pappé’s readers are willing to accept that the phrase “The Arabs will have to go” is a reasonable approximation of “We must expel the Arabs and take their place,” there’s another problem.

    Ben-Gurion didn’t write or say “We must expel the Arabs” either. In fact, he wrote the opposite.

    Ben-Gurion’s diary entry for Oct. 5, 1937 letter actually reads, “We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places.” (Correction made March 27, 2012.) Ben-Gurion subsequently writes: “All our aspiration is built on the assumption – proven throughout all our activity – that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.”

    Morris used the correct translation in the Hebrew version of his 1987 book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, but used the incorrect translation in the English version this text. (For a comparison of the two texts, please go to this article by historian Efraim Karsh and scroll down.) Morris subsequently corrected himself in a later text, Righteous Victims, published in English in 2001. In this book, Morris reported that Ben-Gurion wrote he did not want and did not need to expel Arabs and take their places.

    Another historian invoked by Pappé to defend himself, Shabtai Teveth, also used a mistranslation of the passage in question in the English version of his book Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs published in English by Oxford University Press in 1985.

    But the Hebrew version of this book, also published in 1985, has Ben Gurion writing, “We do not want to and we do not need to expel Arabs and take their place.”

    The problem with this mistranslation of Ben-Gurion’s diary has, thanks to historian Efraim Karsh’s book Fabricating Israeli History (first published in 1997), been well known for over a decade and yet, Pappé relies on this mistranslation to defend part of his scholarship.

    For a discussion of the details of this well-known controversy, see this article regarding the 2003 book, Whose Land Whose Promise by Gary Burge of Wheaton College which also uses the mistranslation of this quote.

    What Can We Conclude?

    Pappé plays a pretty mean shell game, but following the story closely, two conclusions become evident.

    First, Ben-Gurion simply did not say or write any part of the quote attributed to him by historian Ilan Pappé. This is the only logical conclusion one can draw from the letter sent from the Ethics Committee that exonerated Pappé. This letter says one part of the quote is a paraphrase, and that another part of the quote is “based on” something Ben-Gurion wrote. In sum, Pappé’s use of quotation marks around the words he attributes to Ben-Gurion, whether around the entire sentence, or just the first few words, is deceptive.

    Secondly, the primary source that Pappé invokes for the first half of the quote (“The Arabs will have to go”) does not say what he says it does. It says the opposite. In other words, it is not even a fair and accurate paraphrase of what Ben-Gurion said.

    Upon examining the evidence, most reasonable people would conclude that the quote Pappé attributed to Ben-Gurion is “an invention, pure and simple.”

    In other words, Benny Morris was right.

    Another Invention?

    Morris has challenged Pappé on yet another quote, this one appearing in The Rise & Fall of a Palestinian Dynasty: The Husaynis, 1700-1948 (University of California Press, 2010). Here, Pappé discusses the British-created Shaw Commission charged with investigating 1929 riots. Pappé reports that Sir Walter Shaw, chair of the commission, blamed the riots on Britain’s support for Zionism: “’The principal cause’, Shaw wrote after leaving the country, ‘was twelve years of pro-Zionist policy’.”

    In a scathing review of Pappé’s work, titled “The Liar as Hero,” that originally appeared in The New Republic in March 2011, Morris writes:
    It is unclear what Pappe is quoting from. I did not find this sentence in the commission’s report. Pappe’s bibliography refers, under “Primary Sources,” simply to “The Shaw Commission.” The report? The deliberations? Memoranda by or about? Who can tell? The footnote attached to the quote, presumably to give its source, says, simply, “Ibid.” The one before it says, “Ibid., p. 103.” The one before that says, “The Shaw Commission, session 46, p. 92.” But the quoted passage does not appear on page 103 of the report. In the text of Palestinian Dynasty, Pappe states that “Shaw wrote [this] after leaving the country [Palestine].” But if it is not in the report, where did Shaw “write” it?
    Here a little more background is useful. The reference that Pappé provides is to the deliberations of the Shaw Commission itself. “Session 46,” refers to a meeting of the Shaw Commission that heard testimony from leaders in Palestine. This document is an unlikely source for a statement written by Shaw, “after leaving the country.” If Shaw were to have written such a statement, it would not logically be included in the commission’s proceedings, but in the report itself, or some other correspondence.

    Maybe it’s a niggling concern, maybe it’s an innocent error, but in light of how Pappé dealt with the Ben-Gurion quote, giving him the benefit of the doubt at this point seems pretty unreasonable.

    So we are left with some obvious questions. Does the Shaw quote appear in the source Pappé cites? Or is it somewhere else? Does it appear anywhere? Is it a paraphrase or a direct quote? Did Shaw really write what Pappé said he did?

    Morris offered his challenge in March, 2011. Almost a year has passed and to the best of CAMERA’s knowledge, Pappé has not responded. Hopefully, we will not have to wait six years for this issue to be resolved.

    Morris’s challenge becomes much more poignant in light the Royal Historical Society Statement on Ethics which calls on historians to eschew “fabrication” and “falsification.” The Royal Historical Society also invokes the “Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct” of the American Historical Association, which is quite forceful in its statement regarding fabrication. It reads in part, as follows:

    All historians believe in honoring the integrity of the historical record. They do not fabricate evidence. Forgery and fraud violate the most basic foundations on which historians construct their interpretations of the past. An undetected counterfeit undermines not just the historical arguments of the forger, but all subsequent scholarship that relies on the forger’s work. Those who invent, alter, remove, or destroy evidence make it difficult for any serious historian ever wholly to trust their work again.

    Apparently, the University of Exeter thinks otherwise.

    • Even more galling is the fact that Pappe almost takes pride in falsifying here he is in interview:
      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”.

      http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/$99-11-29loos-pappe-interview.htm

  15. You have read Barry’s propaganda now for the truth as per the wikipedia –
    Perhaps Barry would now go and research the various names in the quote below to determine their validity. Or he will go and try to put aspersions on Wikipedia –

    The British controlled the Haifa port area until April 23, 1948.[35] The rest of the city fell to the Carmeli Brigade of the Haganah commanded by Moshe Carmel in Operation Misparayim. After the fall of Haifa, Arab villages on the slopes of Mount Carmel began attacking Jewish traffic on the main road to Haifa. The task of the Alexandroni Brigade was to reduce the Mount Carmel pocket.
    Tantura was chosen as the starting point for this operation, codenamed Namal, which took place on the night of May 22–23.[36] That night, the Brigade’s 33rd battalion attacked and occupied Tantura. The attack began with heavy machine gun fire, followed by an infantry attack from all landward sides with an Israeli naval vessel blocking any chance of escape to the sea. By 800hrs on May 23, the battle was over, as the forces encountered little resistance.[37] According to an unsigned Haganah report, dozens of villagers were killed and 500 were taken prisoner (300 adult males and 200 women and children).[38]
    Most of the villagers fled to the nearby town of Fureidis and territory controlled by the Arab League in the Triangle region near to what was to become the Green Line.[27] Women prisoners were taken to Fureidis.[39] On May 31, 1948, Bechor Shitrit, Minister of Minority Affairs of the Provisional government of Israel, sought permission to evict the Tantura women from Fureidis due to overcrowding, lack of sanitation, and the risk of information being passed to unconquered villages.[40] A Ministry official, Ya’akov Epstein of Zikhron Ya’akov, who visited Tantura shortly after the operation, reported seeing bodies, but said nothing of a massacre. In 1998, Yahya Al Yahya published a book on Tantura recording the names of 52 dead.[41] The occupation of the village was followed by looting. Some of the items recovered by the Haganah included ‘one carpet, one gramophone … one basket with cucumbers … one goat’.[42] The male prisoners of war were held on the beach before being transferred to Zichron Ya’akov police station[39] and put into labour battalions.[43]
    In 1964 the IDF released an official history of “The Alexandroni Brigade in the War of Independence” in which 11 pages were devoted to al-Tantura. There was no mention of any expulsion of villagers. In 2004, Alexandroni veterans acknowledged the forced expulsion as publ

    • The truth as per the wikipedia? lol

      Pappé freely expresses his attitude toward historical investigation and academic objectivity:

      There is no historian in the world who is objective. I am not as interested in what happened as in how people see what’s happened. (“An Interview of Ilan Pappé,” Baudouin Loos, Le Soir [Bruxelles],Nov. 29, 1999)

      I admit that my ideology influences my historical writings…(Ibid)

  16. Barry please write shorter pieces – besides do try to stick to reality and your use of Benny Morris to prove that David Ben Gurion did not advocate ethnic cleansing is disingenuous. This is what Morris actually said of Ben Gurion

    Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

    “From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created.”

    Ben-Gurion was a “transferist”?

    “Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist.”

    I don’t hear you condemning him.

    “Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here.”

    As for the comparison with Boston bombing casualties Here is another comparison –

    The Israeli attack on Gaza, killed around 1,400 Palestinians over a period of three weeks . This if proportioned according to the population of Palestine amounts to some 30 9/11’s in a period of under three weeks. Meaning less comparison but no more so than your comparison with Boston.

    • Umm – as far as I can recall, the people killed in 9/11 were not firing rockets at the terrorists piloting the planes into the buildings. Unlike the people in Gaza.

  17. The simple fact of the matter is that the Israel lobby only has power because the American voters support Israel. If they didn’t, Israel wouldn’t be an electoral issue.

    It’s the same reason Arab issues aren’t popular. This is what Jew-haters just won’t accept, because they need to believe their lies in order to feed their conspiracies and recruit other ignorant/gullable people to their cause.

  18. Imagine the response if someone lunged at Snow and tried to take away his camera or tape recorder. What indignant squeals would we hear and read about “freedom of expression”, etc. These are the same people who glory in every film clip put up by a Palestinian or a supporter from the West Bank.

    What Richard’s incredibly brave efforts show is that these people want to live in the shadows – like Teredo shipworms clinging underwater to the hull of the United Kingdom (ha!), gradually eating their way through in secret till the ship sinks. The fear being exposed by Richard more than anything.

  19. Exactly ACUS that is why Israel should not have bombed Palestine and over 1400 people htta were killed as a result had done nothing to deserve such an attack – Even UN inquiry condemned the Israelis attack on Gaza as barbaric.

    Following the investigation into the incident, the U.N. Board concluded that Israel intentionally struck a U.N.-run school, exhibiting a “reckless disregard for the lives and safety” of civilians; three civilians were killed.[1] The Israeli Government report claims that the UN Inquiry acknowledged that “information regarding the School functioning as a shelter for civilians was provided by the U.N. to IDF only on 6 January 2009, the day after the incident had occurred. A list of facilities serving as shelters — provided by the U.N. one day earlier on 4 January 2009 — did not include UNRWA Asma School”. However, earlier that day, UNRWA apparently had opened the school as an emergency shelter, after it had been closed for nine days prior the incident. IDF’s investigation of the incident revealed that on the night of 5 January, a unit of militants was present in Asma School site. Supposedly without being aware that civilians were present in the site, the IDF targeted the unit.[2]

    • That is why Hamas shouldn;t have bombed Israel for more than 10 years. They should have thought about their people, but as they admit they don;t really care about their people as long as they can kill Israelis.

      “For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death like you desire life.’”

  20. This honorable member of the British academic community and a honorable professor working for the the most honorable Exeter University – Ilan Pappe – gave an interview to the neo-Nazi anti-semite German newspaper the National Zeitung and after getting caught said that he didn’t know the nature of the paper. So a veteran political activist and a history professor gave an interview to someone without checking its political credentials. An interesting case of the scatter-brain scholar…

  21. I thought the panel was very well balanced – all ethnic groups were represented. English, because of their historic roles, the Jews and Palestinians because of being Party to the conflict. They certainly left me with a clear understanding of the conflict. Alright fascists and racists were not represented but than they are not interested in the just resolution of the conflict. I would have loved to spend longer listening to such a well accomplished panel.

  22. ashley george, Hamas has fired 14,000 missiles at Israel since 2005.
    Do you think Israel should do nothing but accept Palestinian terrorism.
    All deaths, whether it was friendly fire or civilians killed collaterally because Hamas fires rockets from civilian areas could have all been avoided if Hamas just did not fire any rockets into Israel at all!
    Again and again and again it is Arab aggression that causes Israeli defensive use of force!
    Arabs cannot ever be trusted to tell the truth. Even when they kill their own, they will blame it on Israel or twist the truth to demonize Israel when it is always the Palestinian Arabs who refuse to live in peace with the Jewish state of Israel.
    It always has been!
    Due to the many generations of Arab training to hate and kill Jews, Their is no possibility of peace with these Arab hate mongers.

    Muslims always use chaos, death and destruction to terrorize people into submission to Islam but Israel will never submit to Islam.

  23. Ashley George, What did Golda Meir say 40 years ago about Arab child abusers?

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
    Hamas missile launch pad next to mosque, playground. Civilian factories, gas station also half a block from Fajr-5 firing site.
    Aaron Klein
    November 16, 2012

  24. Ashley George, how awful that Hamas thinks of their children as weapons instead of as human beings.

  25. Fancy Kosminsky’s omitting Indian Partition which was very close in time to the creation of the state of Israel.

    Impact and Aftermath of Partition

    “Leave India to God. If that is too much, then leave her to anarchy.” — Mahatma Gandhi, May 1942

    The partition of India left both India and Pakistan devastated. The process of partition claimed many lives in riots, rapes, murders, and looting. Women, especially, were used as instruments of power by the Hindus and the Muslims.

    Fifteen million refugees poured across the borders to regions completely foreign to them because their identities were rooted in the geographical home of their ancestors, not their religious affiliations alone. In addition to India’s partition, the provinces of Punjab and Bengal were divided, causing catastrophic riots and claiming the lives of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs alike.

    Many years after partition, the two nations are still trying to heal the wounds left behind. The two countries began their independence with ruined economies and lands without an established, experienced system of government. They lost many of their most dynamic leaders, such as Gandhi, Jinnah and Allama Iqbal, soon after the partition. Pakistan later endured the independence of Bangladesh, once East Pakistan, in 1971. India and Pakistan have been to war multiple times since the partition and they are still deadlocked over the issue of possession of Kashmir.

    Read more: http://postcolonialstudies.emory.edu/partition-of-india/#ixzz2RmupUvKX

    The death toll of this terrible episode remains very much contested. Hundreds of thousands of people died, as Hindus and Sikhs fled to India, Muslims to Pakistan, and many others were caught up in a chaotic transition. A consensus figure of 500,000 is often used, but the sources closer to the truth give figures that range between 200,000 and 360,000 dead. By other estimates, Partition resulted in as many as 1.5 million deaths. The word genocide did not come to the minds of observers at the time, though there were genocidal aspects to what finally developed.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak-partition2.htm

    Not even worth a mention!

  26. Once again Richard Millett has given us a keen insight into the unpleasant world of anti-Israel and thinly veiled anti-Semitic meetings. It seems only a few days ago that following the announcement that James Harding was to be the BBC’s newly appointed director of news and current affairs, the Guardian’s Lisa O’Carroll was warning its readers that:

    ‘Harding, who is Jewish, will also have to leave behind the pro-Israeli line of the Times.’

    Yet, as far as I am aware, the Guardian has never criticized Jon Snow for his openly anti-Israel stance. He has never ‘left it behind’ despite his powerful position at Channel 4 TV news. (Sooner or later he will be put out to grass and Cathy Newman will probably attain his crown, but meanwhile he still enjoys the number one spot.) Originally, I believe Matt Frei was supposed to be being groomed to take over from Snow in the future, but now he is C4 News’s (excellent) Washington correspondent.

    A few months ago when I was in England, watching Channel 4 News, I saw Matt Frei interview a Lebanese gentleman who was defending Hamas rockets being fired into Israel and claiming they were mere ‘fireworks’ and that Israel had no right to retaliate.
    Being used to the C4 line on the ME I was completely unprepared for Matt Frei’s response. He tore into the Lebanese guy almost shouting and accused Hamas of bringing Israeli retaliation on itself.

    Jon Snow was not there that night and for once I had the pleasure of seeing a pro-war crimes mouthpiece reduced to a state of disbelief that an interviewer on C4 had had the temerity to refuse to give him the usual easy ride.

    As for Jon Snow lunging at Richard Millett’s cell phone, well I hate to think what the outcome would be if someone lunged at Snow’s mike, cell phone or other device. He’d be squealing about his rights. The all-time low with Jon Snow for me were the nights immediately following the horrific mass-murders in Mumbai which included the attack on the Chabbad House. Snow called the terrorists — ‘practitioners’ — as if they were doctors.

    Ironically, not long after, a couple of Pakistani doctors did try to carry out terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow Airport, Scotland. They both subsequently died of burns but Snow didn’t refer to them as ‘practitioners’.

  27. Poor Ashley. Hamas Terrorists dying and she’s comparing them to 9/11 victims of Arab terrorism. You got to love the mentality of the radical left.

    http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=ewJXKcOUJlIaG&b=7717007&ct=11149763#.UX17QrWG1u8

    Hamas Admits up to 700 Fighters Killed in Operation Cast Lead
    Casualties in Operation Cast Lead:

    Hamas’ interior minister confirms the number of deaths for first time
    Numbers are consistent with IDF’s reported figures

    Jerusalem, Nov. 1 – For the first time, a senior Hamas official admitted that between 600-700 security personnel—approximately half of whom were Hamas members—were killed during Operation Cast lead.

    Following Operation Cast Lead, Iran-backed Hamas reported that fewer than 50 of its men were killed.

    The admission made by Fathi Hammad, Hamas’ interior minister, in an interview with Al-Hayat corroborates figures reported by the Israel Defense Forces following the operation.

    Hammad confirmed that Hamas experienced large personnel losses in Hamas’ military wing during the conflict.

    Israel’s initial strike on the first day of the operation, Dec. 27, 2008, resulted in the deaths of 250 fighters, Hammad said. In the subsequent fighting a further 200-300 members of Iran-backed Hamas and other factions were killed.

    A further 150 Palestinian security personnel died in the fighting, Hammad added.

    There is also evidence that Hamas fabricated instances of death to inflate the total number of lives claimed by the conflict. Conversely, Israel contests Hamas’ total death toll.

    Israel entered Operation Cast Lead at the end of 2008 in what was widely considered a defensive war in response to the barrage of missiles launched from Gaza into southern Israel.

    During the prior eight years, 12,000 rockets were fired from Gaza.

    In Operation Cast Lead, Israel attempted to destroy Hamas’ “mortar and rocket launching apparatus and infrastructure” and to reduce the ability of “Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza to perpetuate future attacks against the civilian population in Israel.”

    Since Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Palestinians have continued to launch rocket attacks on Israel. Dozens of rockets have been fired since Israel launched direct peace talks with the Palestinian Authority on Sept. 2.

  28. Golda Meir was deluded – she thought Palestine was a land without people looking for a people without land – She did not recognize Palestinians as humans. Her view does not matter as she was a typical European racist. What a disgusting thing to say about any parent. Can only be said by somebody who lacks total compassion. She was after all, part of the administration that executed ethnic cleansing and pushed out over 700,000 Palestinians out of their homes. She obviously felt the Palestinian anger of the time. However the naked aggression of the Zionists did nothing to damage Palestinian love for their children. If anything it strengthen that love and devotion. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a racist of the extreme type.

    • “Golda Meir was deluded – she thought Palestine was a land without people looking for a people without land – She did not recognize Palestinians as humans.”

      “ashley” is giving us a lesson in anti-Semitic propaganda. Begin with a slander, a lie, and proceed from there.

      • Of course there wasn’t an “independent Palestinian state” because the British denied progress towards Palestinian independence in the interests of colonial Zionism. However the Palestinians were certainly driven from there land via a process of brutal ethnic cleansing.

  29. Why did Jon Snow object to being recorded I wonder? I think the reason he grabbed Richard’s phone was he lost control. Jon Snow doesn’t like uppity Jews who don’t know their place.

    Well done Richard for highlighting what a complete shit this man is.

    • “Why did Jon Snow object to being recorded I wonder? ”

      Oh, gee, I thought it was because he’s a ‘journalist’, interested in democracy and the free exchange of ideas. Such dedication. ; -p

  30. @ AKUS

    Sorry AKUS, I owe you an acknowledgement as I seem to have used very similar words to you in one of my sentences in my post above. You wrote:
    ‘Imagine the response if someone lunged at Snow and tried to take away his camera or tape recorder. What indignant squeals would we hear and read about “freedom of expression”, etc.’

    I later wrote:
    ‘As for Jon Snow lunging at Richard Millett’s cell phone, well I hate to think what the outcome would be if someone lunged at Snow’s mike, cell phone or other device. He’d be squealing about his rights.’

    This was unintentional similarity on my part.

  31. ashley george,

    Fatah promised the boy $22 and 72 virgins if he blew himself up.
    Google the name Hussam Abdu 72 virgins.
    Sent To Die (March, 2004)

    If you needed more evidence of Islam’s vile and heinous nature, the cover story from the March 25, 2004 edition NY Daily News certainly obliged. For $22.00 and the promise of 72 virgins in Allah’s paradise, a mildly retarded Palestinian boy was coerced into becoming a human bomb by Islamic clerics. Compelling young children to do their dying for them seems to have become a favorite tactic of the Islamic fundamentalists in control of Yasser Arafat’s political party called Fatah.

    Islamic Imams and warlords are cowards, hiding behind little boys. They corrupt, coerce, and recruit children with promises of perverted rewards, while they themselves remain in the comfort and safety of their mosques and madrasas. No doubt they know Muhammad’s dogma is fraudulent and morally bankrupt and that Islam is simply a means to wealth and power.

  32. I know Barry you want to blame the victims of vile Zionist racism –

    Here are some really racist quotes by those who led the Zionist movement, the state of Israel and organised the removal of Palestinians from Palestine. all of it is documented all the way into the UN resolutions.

    “We must expel Arabs and take their places.” — David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

    “There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”– Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.

    “Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.” — Moshe Dayan, April 1969, Ha’aretz; quoted in Edward Said, ‘Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Victims’, Social Text, Volume 1, 1979, 7-58.

    And here is that lovely Golda Meir, true to her racist core:
    “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.”
    — Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

    “How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” — Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

    “Any one who speaks in favor of bringing the Arab refugees back must also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen.” — Golda Meir, 1961, in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner, October 1961

    “This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy.” — Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971

  33. The frequency and popularity of these “debates” in British (EU) universities is worrying. They are held to demonise Jews, nothing to do with Israel, that is just an excuse. Loathed though I am to draw parallels with Nazi Germany, I have to say that this is how it started in 1920s. Left is using Israel/Palestine issue to monger hate for Jews and sadly, one must admit, there are many Jews helping in this cause.

    I have no respect for Jon Snow.

    Kudos Richard Millett.

  34. “I asked him if he would use the term “the Muslim lobby” to which he replied that he would”.

    When?

    • Very early on in this blog a Jewish group of the 1940s was mentioned. By me but I had forgotten their collective name. (Forgotten it again,) League of (something).

      The point: their resistance to the establishment of Israel was the fear that they would be driven out of Britain. That is terribly sad and different from the communists who don’t want nations anywhere and the Jewish ones of the time especially didn’t want Israel.

  35. June – I think you missed the fact that two out of the four members of the panel are Jewish. John Snow is one of the most respected journalist in the visual media in Britain.

    Promise has been the most informative semi-documentary I have seen for sometime. Ilan Pappe is a historian of high repute.

    Being critical of racism, does not make one antisemitic.

    • June – I think you missed the fact that two out of the four members of the panel are Jewish

      Read my earlier post where I have alluded to this.

    • AG: “Being critical of racism, does not make one antisemitic”.

      An obsession with the state of Israel as the greatest abomination the world has ever seen certainly does. Or are you that much of a deluded hypocrite that you actually believe that its Jewish demographic is purely coincidental to your hatred and bigotry?

  36. This panel – consisting a far left Jew-hating pseudo scholar well known about <a href = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Papp%C3%A9&quot;.his falsification of history and his flirtation with German fascists, a Jew hating far left idiot who is extremely upset because a Jew wiped the floor with him on TV an outside the UK totally obscure as-a- Jew who is trying to make a name for himself with creating Jude Suss like movies, a Jew hating ex-Palestinian activist who is famous about her support of Palestinian terrorism and is an enemy of peace between the two people (naturally she is in London and not on the frontline) and an other obscure nonentity whose only intellectual achievement is the use of the Livingstone formula – will help the Palestinian cause like a small snowball will help to make hell a cryogenic chamber.
    That they don’t want to be recorded is perfectly understandable. That the event was hosted by the LSE famous about distributing PhD degrees for bloodmoney is perfectly natural as well (they should have invited David Duke, Gilad Atzmon and David Irving to make the panel more comprehensive). I’m looking forward to a panel hosted by the LSE discussing the necessity and importance to fight crime – panelists: Vito Corleone, Al Capone, Pablo Escobar and Lucky Luciano.

  37. June so what are you saying just because many Germans opposed fascism they were considered self hating germans by the Nazis today similarly those who oppose Zionist racism should be considered self hating Jews – You know that is rubbish. Let us have no illusion about that.

  38. Tell you what tell anybody that you have a right of return to the house that your ancestors left some 2000 thousand years ago and this chap who holds the key whose father lived there has no right to that house. You will learn something about the fantasy world. I suspect you are not interested in justice or truth only in pushing forward a racist Zionist agenda of ethnically cleaning Palestine of Palestinians.

  39. alexa – I tell you what do not give them a right of return let them go back and live in peace with their neighbors that will do – coffee by any other name is still coffee as they say – Palestinians being allowed to return to their homes would gladly agree to live in peace with their neighbors

  40. Alexa – I do not know what answer you are looking for.but I did answer As I said before, I think you did not appreciate my response coffee with any other name is still coffee. Now if you tell me that the Palestinians can come back and live in peace with their neighbors that is fine. When do you think they will be allowed to come back than. Perhaps you will be kind enough to put a date on it.

    • YOu posted this

      How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” — Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

      I was asking
      Who was the legitimate sovereign in the West Bank and Gaza before 1967? Palestine?
      I do hope you’ll answer this time.

  41. I answer one question you ask another – you still have not answered when the Palestinians can be expected to allow to go back to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors – as for your question – Before 1948 before 1967 and even now Palestinians have legitimate sovereignty over their homes and their lands. No colonizer, British, Turk or any other has any sovereignty over the anybody else’s irrespective of any claims.

    • “Palestinians have legitimate sovereignty over their homes and their lands.”
      No, “ashley,” Palestinians never had a nationality or a state, therefore they had no sovereignty.
      And they certainly have no sovereignty over the the State of Israel.

    • So you mean there was an independent Palestinian state which was occupied by different powers?
      As for the refugees ,they had their chance in 1948.
      Resolution 194 recommended that refugees be allowed to return to their homeland if they met two important conditions:
      1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbors
      2. That the return takes place “at the earliest practicable date”
      The arab countries chose to vote agianst 194.
      Live in peace? We had such great example of this peace beofre 1967.

  42. Ashley/natzie of the Arab lobby and his antisemitic propaganda, a mind least affected by intelligence, morale or knowledge.