soas303 Nov 2016. I was inside one of the hot spots of radical Islam in London – SOAS. We came to hear Tom Suarez promote his book, ‘State of Terror’. I had not heard of Suarez, and he is a musician, not a historian. The book is published by Karl Sabbagh, who provided one of the speeches at the House of Lords event that saw the Zionists blamed for the holocaust. The only endorsements on the book were from Jenny Tonge and Ilan Pappe. My expectations were low.

My expectations should have been much lower. Suarez is an example of how someone can make a new career out of hating Israel without academic training or even a basic historical knowledge of the conflict. His methodology was clear, ‘I hate Zionists/Jews’, but to write a book, I need to make some citations, and he went off to find some.

Suarez doesn’t come with a backstory or a bio. There is no introduction. From the moment Suarez opened his mouth, until his pillar of sand had been swept aside by several people in the room, Tom Suarez built a narrative that was dripping with hard-core antisemitic undertones.

The basic script was difficult to believe. He has no grounding in history, nor does he seem to have academic research skills. He is clearly not well read, nor does he use diverse source material. What he does is plunder a single archive. Seeking out anything that can seem sinister. This quote, this thought, this demand, then becomes the driving force for the entire Zionist movement.

Creating a Jew hating myth

Suarez needs only a partial record of a conversation. He requires no hard logic. The method of creation is important to understand. Suarez enters a single archive seeking breadcrumbs.  It is a Goebbelsesque system of narrative creation that is supported by classic antisemitic tropes of scheming Jews, powerful Jews, bloodthirsty Jews and designed to propagate a myth of a satanic cult of ultimate power that brutally murdered a nation of farmers.

Suarez sidesteps entirely Arab violence. The only ‘terrorism’ of the 1920’s becomes legitimate Jewish land purchase. The only killers, Jewish. Another peculiarity was the insistence in referring only to Christian and Muslim Arabs in the British Mandate of the 1920’s as ‘The Palestinians’. Odd, racist and historically without any merit.

It is however a combination of factors that creates the truly sinister message. The insistence on cleansing the Arabs of violence pushes the outbreak of civil conflict into the late 1930’S. The belief in the global power of the Jewish Zionists.  The adherence to the image of the demonic bloodthirsty Jew.

When these three elements are merged, we are left with a rampant demonic force with global control and sinister intent, doing its will between 1937 and 1948. This as six million Jews died. His entire narrative depends on the existence of ‘Elders of Zion’ style control at the very same time as the world shut its doors to Jews and a genocide was committed against them. It is frightening in its sickening inter-dependency.

He gives Jews global control as they lay dying in Auschwitz. He suggest Zionist Jews ‘twisted’ Truman’s arm and Truman “always did as he was told”. There were brutally obscene comments, such as one discussing an atmosphere of diminishing global antisemitism in 1946 as Europe was knee deep in Jewish corpses. When it was put to Suarez that the Arabs co-operated with the Nazis, he suggested that the Zionists co-operated even more.

Nazi – Zionist cooperation at SOAS

I lost count of the number of Nazi analogies. Everything the Zionists did was comparable to Nazi Germany.  Lenni Brenner and his Nazi-Zionist co-operation (‘51 document’) hoax seems to have been a heavy influence on Suarez in the creation of this fiction.

There was also much talk of indoctrinating and brainwashing children. There were discussions of Rabbis scouring post war Europe to kidnap Jewish refugees from non- Jewish families.  Effectively any transgression or ethically dubious action committed by any Jewish person over the last 100 years, is placed into a case file titled “evil Zionism”. He creates an image of a world desperate to receive hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, being frustrated at every turn, by a manipulative Zionist force that is determined their only destination should be Palestine.

Then question time arrived. There is an issue at these types of events and a clear disconnect between speaker and audience. Especially with the type of audience at SOAS.

The people watching the event, are invested in the modern fight against Israel’s existence. The base of their belief is the Naqba myth, the tale of a one-sided, pre-planned expulsion. Their history begins in 1948. People like Suarez provide pillars on which this narrative can stand, and for this the SOAS audience are thankful. Suarez helps to reinforce the vision of the Zionist monster in their heads.

Yet there is an absence of critical thinking. There is no attempt to challenge or address the tale Suarez has spun at SOAS. There are rarely many questions. He provided a service, he can go home now. Unless of course there are Zionists in the room.

What swiftly destroys the underlying pillars of the myth is the reality of Israel as the diverse nation. In the audience at SOAS there was a Muslim supporter of Israel. A black Israeli Jew. A Sephardic Israeli whose father was expelled from Egypt. The mere existence of these identities within the room destroys the opposition narrative. As they speak, there is no effective counter to their words. This type of challenge is far more effective than most and an element that should always be considered.

In the end, Suarez was easily handled. The Q&A session was taken over by supporters of Israel, but the lack of questions from the adoring crowd was the undoing of their own event. They had nothing to ask, so the vast majority of hands raised belonged to the tiny minority of Israeli supporters. One by one as they were picked, they took their opportunity to press the message home.

Antisemitism, the invention of an evil Zionist soul and global conspiracy theories involving Jewish power, should never be discussed. Not even inside the heart of the beast itself, SOAS.

Footage is being made available on this blog’s YouTube channel.

 

Follow, like, donate

Keep up to date, subscribe to the blog by using the link on the page. Follow the FB page for this blog: and follow me on Twitter. Please if you can, also consider making a donation. Mine is an independent action and research is expensive and time consuming. Even producing just one of these piece does take days, sometimes weeks, and whilst I do what I can, there are serious constraints that impact on what is possible. Your assistance can and does make a difference.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

27 thoughts on “SOAS Palestine Society and evil Zionists that control the world

      1. Stephen. I find the ‘get out’ comment disgraceful and unacceptable. Even with the provocation and intimidation, there is no need to lose control, even verbally. It isn’t Jonathan however, he wasn’t there.

          1. Stephen, the problem with ‘just saying stuff’, means that sometimes you say it to someone who knows you are creating myths. I happen to have been there that evening. I know for a fact that there was no interaction at all between the two sides prior to the initial attempt to enter the first room. That means that the entire episode of the occupation of the room, much of the chanting, intimidation and so on, occurred prior to any external interaction between the two sides.

            Then, we all left the first building to go to the second and entered the second unaware that the protesters had followed. This photo is outside the second venue, not the first. Which means it is on the way out, not on the way in. This places this photo towards the very end of the evenings events. After *all* the provocations. In other words you tried spinning a lie to someone who personally witnessed the event and your comment has just been shown to be absolutely wrong.

            If you have any doubt, look at the image of the photo, it is clearly nowhere near Bedford Way (first venue), but rather on the main campus….(second venue)…Tut tut…

    1. That rather says it all doesn’t it: overt racism from the Zionists. Why am I not surprised? Imagine the outrage if Jews were referred to in a public forum as swine, and yet the moderator of this forum permits such comments to be displayed. Absolutely disgraceful.

  1. I am sorry I could not be there. This is the type of material that I love to challenge. In the last 7 years, I have heard a ton of the self-righteous pro-Palestinian delivery as if to say; ‘we have done nothing wrong., it was the Jews that made us this way’

    The worst part of these meetings is the absolute lack of a positive thinking, or what can we do for the future?

  2. At the beginning of Shahak’s “Judaism, the Weight of 3000 Years” there’s a quote by Gore Vidal that has been used to support the allegation that Truman was bribed.

    “Sometime in the late 1950s that world-class gossip and occasional historian, John F. Kennedy, told me how in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistlestop campaign train. ‘That’s why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast’. ”

    Was this particular canard brought in? (It also appears in Alison Weir’s “Against our Better Judgement”).

    The problem with this is that Truman recognized Israel on May 15th, 1948. The 1st leg of the tour began 3 weeks later on June 3rd. The order of events makes this particular claim an impossibility.

    Far from having his arm twisted by Zionists, Truman ignored them during the campaign, issuing no statements on the middle east until the final week of the campaign, and even then only in response to a similar position in favour of Israel by Dewey. The US had imposed an arms embargo against Israel dating from Dec 1947 – in spite of pleas from US Zionists Truman did nothing to lift it. He was also running against former VP Charles A. Wallace, a Progressive who ran on a pro-Zionist platform. Wallace bled votes from Truman to the extent that Truman lost New York State to Dewey.

    So the claim that Truman was manipulated is quite risible.

  3. At SOAS that this could happen is proof that if we put in the effort and we have the facts, we can prove our point and win the argument.
    There will be many more skirmishes like last night, but by winning here and there we may inspire more of our brethren to lift themselves out of their stupor and disinterest, and come to support us.
    Success is a wonderful incentive for others to join, just as failure results in loss of support.
    We can do it; but the road ahead is neither clear nor obstacle free; but last night recharged my batteries and makes tomorrows battles easier.
    Churchill said after el Alamein,” This is not the end, this is not the beginning of the end, but this is the end of the beginning”.
    Let us look forward in hope

    1. Well publicized defeats of ISIS, putting their leaders on display, undermines the track record of ISIS.

      This is a propaganda War too. And it needs to be waged ruthlessly.

    2. Thank you, David Collier, for the report, all the commenters, and particularly Richard Galber. I am new to this struggle, but it has not taken long for me to grasp the mendacious, unfounded and ultimately antisemitic nature of the anti-Zionist argument.

      What has stuck me especially in my recent research is the astonishing effectiveness of the massive campaign of propaganda and indoctrination of the Islamists, based on twisted facts (Al Durah, etc.) and set-ups (like the current situation of the Palestinian Arabs themselves as “weaponized” – if often willing – victims of Arab anti-Zionist manipulation). Combatting this entrenched distortion of history is clearly like combatting Holocaust denial, but on an infinitely broader scale.

      I am encouraged, in a small but significant sense, by statements such as Galber’s “we have the facts, we can prove our point and win the argument” – and obviously by the (again, small but significant) victory it represents.

      Over the past year or so, I have indeed been lifted “out of my stupor and disinterest”. And it is largely thanks to sites like this.

      “The end of the beginning” – yes, that sounds precisely right.

  4. (I’m a member of both the Jewish and the Israeli societies at SOAS and I study Israeli history. I attended this event. I had no prior knowledge of Suarez or his book, although I have since read it.

    The version presented here is completely at odds with both the talk Suarez gave, the book itself and the behaviour of some people in the audience. As soon as he had finished speaking a South African gentlemen rose to his fee and gave his own version of “the truth”. I recognised him as he has disrupted other events at SOAS.

    He and others working with him then proceeded to shout down Suarez and any other members of the audience who tried to ask a question. When challenged on his behaviour and asked to be quiet he yelled at considerable volume that he was exercising “free speech”. He clearly understands the term differently to most normal people.

    Others joined in and some even arrived towards the end of the meeting (i.e. not even having bothered to listen to the talk) and began chanting and shouting and unfurled Israeli flags. None as far as I can judge were SOAS students. The meeting had to be abandoned.

    It was a disgraceful spectacle and one which brings shame on those who claim to support Israel. As one young lay commented (before being yelled down) if people behaved like that at a pro-Israel meeting they could expect to be expelled at best and probably assaulted.

    I very much doubt that “davebt” has even picked up the book in question, let alone read it.

    1. I am not sure what your motive was for posting the above. I was there and have the entire session, including the Q&A, recorded. At no point were any questions shouted down. Your post therefore is simply pushing a lie. In fact, almost all the questions came from a sizeable number of people who found the talk offensive. I allowed your comment in because I believe all opinions should be aired, even though I did think twice about accepting such deliberate propaganda here. Your comment about ‘others working with him’, is also illuminating. It implies you do not see a sea of opinions that differ from yours, but rather a singular, almost organised opposition. As it happens, those that arrived and asked questions all did so independently. I had the good fortune to question them all after the event. But that is what I do, I research and question. Unfurled Israeli flags? You weren’t even there, that is clear.

      As for your general remarks. Of course I read the book, and the book was full of distortions. It deserved to be questioned rigorously. And as for free speech. At no point was the talk disrupted and Suarez was given the opportunity to be heard. A week before this, as UCL the very students in the room expecting free speech here, had sought to no-platform an Israeli speaker using aggressive, disruptive tactics. Either comment properly or leave me alone. If you want to write fiction, there are other outlets for your nonsense.

  5. I would have though my motivation was clear – as someone who attended this event and who is both a student at SOAS and a member of both the Jewish and the Israeli societies there, I wished to correct what I believe is a totally false version of both what the guest speak said and has written and the conduct of the meeting itself.
    You claim to have been there and yet you appear to have no recollection of the following:
    (1) When Suarez had finished his presentation the first to speak was a gentleman on the first row, South African accent, who leapt to his feet and offered us his version of “the truth” (this chap has disrupted other events at SOAS which I have attended)
    (2) He then proceeded to shout at and heckle others who wished to ask a question or make a point with which he disagreed
    (3) When asked to show more respect he shouted (loudly and repeatedly) that it was “free speech”. I even asked him to be quiet myself.
    (4) A lady read statistics from Wikipedia and thereafter shouted and interrupted others who attempted to speak. A number of others did so to.
    (5) The security staff were called and the gentleman referred to above was asked to behave, which he ignored.
    (6) A number of people arrived towards the end (and were actually sat directly behind me) and some of them unfurled Israeli flags.
    (7) The meeting was abandoned before the scheduled end on the advice of the security team.
    There is an official recording of this meeting should anyone wish to check which version is closest to what took place. But you were there and yet don’t recall any of those things, correct? How odd.
    It doesn’t help Jewish people and it doesn’t help Israel to be associated with such behaviour.
    And on that note, you have allowed this forum to be used to refer to people as “swine”. I thought you claimed to oppose racial hatred?

    1. Guilt by association does not work with me. I am against all forms of racial hatred. Stop trying to smear.

      Anyway. thank you for both proving my point and highlighting that you cannot grasp academic enquiry nor free speech. Given that input, thank you also for providing further evidence that your motivation is to spread propaganda.

      The most important element of your statement and the one that categorically destroys your entire position is this one:

      “When Suarez had finished his presentation the first to speak”

      In other words the academic was allowed to present his case, in full and without interruption. This highlights the respect that the entire audience gave both the academic and the notion of free speech. Your own admission. If you want to see how the anti-Israel mob deal with free speech, you only need to check what happens on campus throughout the country. In two events in London over the past year, there has even been violence, in several others there has been a blatant and public call for the speaker to be denied a platform. The idea is simply not to allow the speaker to present his case. That is a denial of free speech. That you choose to come on this thread, where a speaker was given total respect (in your own words), shows your argument is without merit. We should all congratulate the Zionists who attended a hate ridden event that they adhere to principles of free speech. Admirable.

      So I go on.

      when Suarez had finished, someone got up to question and contradict what the speaker had said. He did so too loudly for my taste, but each to his own. He was perfectly within his rights to speak but was heckled from the moment people realised he was a Zionist. Then a lady asked a perfectly valid question about violence against Jews from 1920-1936. Rather oddly, she was heckled when providing the evidence. She was perfectly within her rights to ask the speaker a question and perfectly within her rights to use wiki to do so. That you take this as ‘interference’ just highlights how ridiculous your position. What is a Q&A for, if not to ask questions and challenge. Are you actually serious? She was the one interrupted, with the same disdain you have shown her here. Following her input several other questions were asked.

      As I said. I have a complete video of the entire event. You are just making things up. The event was visibly (according to the video footage) stopped because the hosts tired of hostile questions.

      So thank you for clearly stating that
      a, the speaker was allowed to speak completely uninterrupted.
      b, you have a problem when people ask questions you don’t like.
      c, you do not seem to understand what free speech is.

    2. And now for proof you are spreading propaganda. This is a video taken right at the end of the event. Showing people leaving their seats. It involves an exchange between an Arab who claims their father was expelled from British Palestine and an Israeli, who claims their father was expelled from Egypt. Laying bare the true tragedy of the conflict. But that isn’t the point. What matters is during the video, taken precisely as the event finishes, we get to see the entire spread of people in the hall. No people at the back with Israeli flags… NONE…So you my friend, are not being very honest.

  6. I am probably the South African you are talking about. I saqt in the front row. I had my hand raised to ask questions, but was not given the opportunity to speak. I did not say anything as a result.. There was no other South African man who spoke. Therefore I can only assume that your facts are wrong or you were not there and your information is second hand
    As far as the Israel Society is concerned, I was thrown out/ejected from it two years ago for airing pro-Israel views. The Israel Society then was an extension of the PalSoc. Being a member of a student society at university reflects very little on either the member or the society

  7. (1) Suarez did indeed make his presentation and then the disruption began. No one said otherwise so you have prved nothing.
    (2) The South African gentleman at the front shouted and heckled through out the second part of the meeting as did others. You will recll the security staff speaking to him as did I. Why was that if he was being quiet and respectful?
    (3) Richard Galber, if you didn’t speak and didn’t shout and were not asked to be quiet, then no, you’re not the gent I am referring to. Davebt recalls him speaking and I do too, so you’re clearly wrong.
    (4) If you have a video of the entire meeting, please post it on YouTube and let’s see whose version of this meeting is the more accurate.

    1. 1. Of course it proves something. It proves that the people in the audience adhered to the principles of free speech. They allowed him to talk and then challenged him during the Q&A.
      2. It also proves you do not understand free speech because in your response you simply complain that people challenged the speaker.
      3. You only seem to be complaining about pro-Israeli’s that began to become agitated. Why? As we already know, you complained when someone asked a question during the Q&A, (what a crime!). She was heckled throughout. Are you saying this person at the front, should have sat quietly as anti-Israeli activists tried to shut down the questions? Was their behaviour perfect, no of course not. Given the circumstance nor did it have to be.
      4. How many times do I have to prove you lied? You said pro-Israelis sat at the back and unfurled flags. We now have proven this to be untrue. There is little credit left in your tank. I tell you what. You direct me to a post of yours somewhere, anywhere, where you stand up for free speech at UCL (where anti-Israeli mob attempted to no-platform Zionists) or at Kings (where anti-Israeli mobs turned violent)… or anywhere in fact where anti-Israeli mobs have refused to allow free speech, show me it actually bothers you, and you can earn some credit back. Until then, you are simply displaying yourself as unreliable, misinformed, mistaken and hypocritical. I have already shown you lied. So please stop wasting my time.

      Put it this way. You are complaining here because someone used the word ‘swine’ in one of their posts. You attack me for allowing it. You tell me I am responsible. This clearly in your eyes is over the edge and needs to be edited out. You clearly have no concept of free speech when it comes to nasty comments about Palestinians. On the other hand, you have come here to argue about pro-Israelis who were expected to sit quiet whilst someone else made all sorts of vile statements about Jews and Israelis. These comments for you are acceptable and should not have been challenged. Can you really not see how ridiculous your position is?

  8. Oh and it’s not guilt by association. You made a big thing of how good you were to approve my comments so they could be seen here, so equally you must have approved the openly racist comment which appears here too. That’s your choice and you have to take responsibility for that.

    1. Firstly, you assume too much. This site is not set up so all posts are moderated in advance. Once again you choose to misinform based on what you think rather than what is. Secondly, as can be seen throughout my site, I adhere to the strongest definition of free speech that I can possibly accept. I am loathe to moderate and have accepted many comments from anti-Israel posters that I find repulsive. You are simply intent on smearing me for my belief in free speech (something you have already shown yourself not to understand or respect). Guilt by association will not work with me. I did not post the comment, nor do I agree with it. Please grow up.

  9. There was no other South African Man who spoke
    The more you post the more it seems your information is second hand

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *