Nazis, BDS

BDS black-lists, naive Jews and rabid Nazis. It has been quite a week

Sometimes I find the landscape a little overwhelming. What I do notice when discussing antisemitism within the community, is that each person stands in his own political corner, and focuses on the antisemites that swarm amidst his own personal ‘political enemy’. Activism against antisemitism is often ‘contained’ by political bias. This means that against Nazis on the far-right, there is a clear consensus, but when it comes to discussing the importance or level of Jew hate within other elements of the spectrum, that consensus breaks down.

It is a dangerous situation. The current problem is not an issue with the rise of the far right. Nor is it an issue with the rise of the far left. It is a combination of factors. These also include social media bubbles, colonial guilt, the import of antisemitism within immigrant communities, and an anti-Muslim backlash. It is only when all the factors are mixed, do we begin to visualise the ‘antisemitic union’ that threatens us. If we are not looking at the ‘bigger picture’, then most of the solutions we find, or strategies we devise, will fail us.

History shows us that the truly dangerous times are not one dimensional. It isn’t about one man who takes control and leads his people into an antisemitic fury. To treat antisemitism as if it is just about keeping the next ‘Hitler’ at bay and then trying to identify that ‘Hitler’ is a grave error. Firstly, the next Hitler is unlikely to look anything like the last. More importantly, if all the pieces are aligned, the resulting antisemitic tsunami brings the leader with it.

These are just a few events from this week:

American Embassy 6th January


A gathering in London, outside the US Embassy, to help Palestinians defend ‘Jerusalem and Al Aqsa’. This was organised by several Islamic groups in the Birmingham area, along with the ‘West Midlands Palestine Solidarity Campaign‘ (WMPSC). They are a particularly active and vicious branch of the PSC. This protest is one of various set up since Trump announced US recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

As is always the case in this type of Muslim led protest, the ‘Al-Aqsa‘ aspect is deliberately highlighted, as it stirs up religious anger by implying the ‘Al-Aqsa‘ mosque is somehow under threat. These same tactics have been used to promote violence against Jews for 100 years, and many massacres in British Palestine and then Israel, were rooted in false claims about Jews taking over, attacking or even destroying the Mosque. Friends of Al Aqsa (FOA) are another group that frequently play on this issue. Screaming that ‘Al-Aqsa is in danger’, invariably brings crowds onto the street. This is an image from the protest:


There were several pro-Israeli activists who turned up, thankfully to record some of the speeches. As is always the case, a couple of Marxist Jews, provide the protest with a legitimacy that permits almost any level of religious hatred. Some of the speeches were in Urdu. This is a translated extract from one of them:

‘Judaism was supposed to be the religion to claim justice in the world. But they didn’t do that. But they incited violence and unrest. In places where there was only peace, they only created violence. They have forgotten their own history.  Now they do not even realise what kind of torture they are doing to the Palestinians. They are raping Palestinian women. They are killing Palestinian children in front of their mothers. And now they’re doing the biggest injustice. Jerusalem which is the right of Palestinians.  Baytul Muqaddas (‘Holy place’, the phrase for the Temple Mount) which is the right of Palestinians, now they are taking it over.  They must realise that now the Muslim world is very anxious.  Once the Muslim world becomes united, the Jews will have no place to go.  So the Jews had better realise their mistakes.’ –

(h/t translation Shadman Zaman, editorial Jonathan Hoffman, video footage Campaign4Truth)

As most people researching antisemitism know, the word ‘Zionist’ is an English Language issue, and as soon as you begin to listen to speakers in a Language other than English, it doesn’t often exist. Instead, the word ‘Jew’ is openly used, and this speech clearly carries lies, antisemitism and threat. We (Jews) ‘had better realise our mistakes’ – or what, exactly? Words freely spoken on the streets of London.

Oh do shut up, Mira Sucharov

Then there was the BDS ‘black-list’, in which Israel published a list of organisations that were no longer going to be allowed the privilege of entering Israel.  BDS is a movement that seeks the end of Zionism, which means the end of Israel. It’s supporters go to Israel to gather information that they then distort and use to further that cause. BDS does not seek peace, compromise or negotiation, far from it, and as someone who has for years, researched those who support the movement, I am under no illusions as to the make-up of BDS activists. This is a short clip uploaded by a BDS Twitter account:

Recently in Scotland, there were a few protestors at a Radiohead concert, angry because Radiohead were going to perform in Israel. I did a check of those at the protest, and found that several were Holocaust Deniers. All my research into BDS activism in the UK, has highlighted high concentration levels of antisemites at gatherings. When the Palestinian flag is waved in England or Wales, the level is at least 40%, and in Scotland, it is even higher.  As I have often stated, it is difficult to believe these movements would exist as we know them, were it not for the antisemites providing the fuel.

Yet on the soft-left, BDS is not always seen for the animal it is. It is reasoned that boycott is a legitimate form of protest, and this is how BDS advertises itself. However, this ‘protection’ is given not because of some inherent ‘right to boycott’, (on the left, they would view a boycott of Israel from the far-right as illegitimate) but because some of those on the soft-left, identify with a limited boycott themselves. They live with the false idea, that they can separate the boycott, into bits they like and bits do not like. If the boycott is viewed as antisemitic, how can they display their dissatisfaction with Israeli settlement building. Therefore BDS must not been viewed as antisemitic. This is one example of how the fight against antisemitism is restricted by political positioning.

This blurring of the lines in never clearer than when listening to Jews or Israelis on the mid-to-far left of the spectrum. They sit in political wilderness, and view the electoral control of the Israeli right with growing frustration. They speak of the boycott and settlements in one breath, as if the boycott is about Israeli settlements. BDS is not about the 1967 lines. BDS is about the elimination of Zionism. Despite being a minority, these Jews sit in the grey area between opposition to BDS and support for a settlement boycott, and every time Israel takes any action, there will always be a handful of Jews who fall off, and suggest ‘ this is the action that crosses the line’. This time it was the turn of Mira Sucharov.

After the black list announcement Haaretz published a comment piece titled: ‘BDS Blacklist: Sadly, Now Might Be the Time for Jews to Boycott Israel

If any North American Jew is willing to jump on the boycott wagon, you can trust Ha’aretz to given them an entire page to air their rant. Ha’aretz love blurring the lines of the boycott, because they too are becoming increasingly frustrated in the political wilderness. Sucharov’s argument is typical self-righteous nonsense.  Mira sits inside a country that blacklists those that seek to cause it harm. She herself is not endangered by the threats to Israel. She just wishes Israel would behave more nicely, so she could show it off to her friends. She wants Israel to exist in a fairy-tale. She hates the fact Israel doesn’t behave as if its neighbours are Switzerland, and she wishes it would take far more risks in order to seek peace. Risks of course that her own nation, would never take.

Always remember that these left wing groups, were the ones pressuring Israel to give up the Golan in the 1990’s. We need to be thankful Israel doesn’t listen to them.

So Mira – no, it isn’t the time for Jews to boycott Israel at all. It is the time for Jews in the West to understand that their own nations have always closed the doors to those that seek to harm them. And the streets they live in, the streets you live in, are more secure because of it. A time for Jews to recognise Israel is a real state, with real world dangers. Perhaps it would be wise not to deny Israel, the very protection you enjoy. So please, do shut up.

Alison Chabloz and the Nazis, trial 10 Jan 2018

Alison ChablozThen there was the Alison Chabloz trial. Alison is on trial at Westminster Magistrates Court and facing five charges related to broadcasting offensive anti-Semitic songs on the internet. Chabloz is nasty, her songs, like ‘(((survivors)))‘ are vile, Holocaust Denying, vicious compositions, designed to insult Jews. Many of them are played to traditional Jewish tunes.  The trial itself is fascinating because it shows how far behind modern technology the law is, and how desperate it is to catch up. Arguments over how something is posted, whether it is embedded, where it is posted, all far more relevant to the issue of guilt – than the content itself.

As the trial is mid-way, and will continue in March, I am going to talk about the public gallery. This was where the action was happening, and it was there, amongst the Chabloz followers, that hard-core antisemitism could be felt. As the room was packed, one of the Chabloz supporters arrived late and found few empty seats. As he took his place he proudly commented that he hoped “he was sitting on the Nazi side”. These people know what they are.

Listening to the commentary as the trial unfolded was sickening. Groans every-time a comment was made about inclusivity or democracy. As the prosecution witness (I am deliberately refraining at this point from providing details), illuminated the court on the specific slurs in the Chabloz videos, those in the gallery nodded in agreement. Of course Jews control the word, of course they are devious. During the breaks, discussions broke out – regarding how the UK has ‘diluted it’s population’.

They called witnesses ‘bastards‘ while they were testifying. They laughed as witnesses donned ‘kippot‘ for the witness assertion. One called a Jewish lady “a stinky Jew” in the seating area outside the Court. When CAA influence was mentioned, one shouted out ‘because you do’. As a witness spoke of his organisation communicating with the government, audible groans went up. Instead of normal societal interactions, what these people heard, was about Jewish secret control, manipulating the British Government. They live in a conspiratorial world, where the witness was part of a global elite, pulling strings above them.

When a Chabloz video was played, most of the gallery  tapped their feet, smiled and when it was finished, broke out in loud applause. The judge silenced them, but it gave a clear indication of the make-up of the crowd. Of the 50 in the gallery, about 40 were Chabloz supporters.

It was truly a sickening experience sitting in that gallery, amongst people who whilst they deny the Holocaust, all wish one would come along now.

Final comments

At the Chabloz trial there were familiar faces. In theory there shouldn’t have been. This is a hard-core, Nazi swamp, and my own ‘haunts’ are mainly within the self described ‘humanitarian left’. How is it then that I recognise some of these faces? One of those in the Chabloz gallery, who stopped to acknowledge and talk to a notorious antisemite, was even at the Jewish Voice for Labour, Free Speech on Israel event in Parliament (more on that to follow). These are the ideological unions that we have to pay attention to, wherever we sit on the political map.

The three events, all from this week, highlight some of the separate elements I experience that bring signs of danger. It may not be wrong to suggest one element, or particular corner, presents more danger than another – but it is surely wrong to have blind-spots. I didn’t even address student activism, or the dangers of widespread Marxist antisemitism in the Labour party. This was my week, the week of a Jew researching antisemitism. How was yours?



Help support my research

I fight antisemitism and the revisionist narrative that demonises Israel. I was recently named as one of the J100 (‘top 100 people positively influencing Jewish life’) by The Algemeiner. My work is fully independent, and your support makes much of what I do possible. This research does make a difference.

Please if you can, consider making a donation. Either a single amount or if you can a small monthly contribution.  Research such as this is intensive. We need to be there to expose the lies. Every contributions is greatly appreciated.

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.


74 thoughts on “BDS black-lists, naive Jews and rabid Nazis. It has been quite a week

  1. Well my week was going fine until this cat, that is desperately trying to adopt me, took a chunk out of my hand. How she figures such behaviour improves her life chances is beyond me.

    1. Hatred that is A bit like when someone shouts ‘Get out of my country’ at a protestor at UCL, amiright?

  2. It depends on how one defines ‘far left’, David. Is the BBC ‘far left’? It is certainly as swivel-eyed antisemitic as Ha’aretz. A quick glance at BBC Watch suffices. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that in today’s UK, centre=far left=antisemitism.

  3. There are many of us in the Jewish community that have realised that there is no difference between a white supremacist that wants to kick Jews out of England and an Islamist supremacist that wants to kick Jews out of Israel. We certainly do understand that AntiZionism is AntiSemitism, and that in practice the ProPalestine movement is a vile antisemitic hate group, no different from the BNP and Nation Action. I think Corbyn was a wake up call for many Jews. And ,as the community wakes up to the real possibility that there will be unrepentant antisemites in power in the UK after the next general election more and more of us will see the reality of the horrific ‘anti-semitic union’ you referred to.

    1. Norm,
      Both you and I know the analogy you make is a false one, particularly given – and we have ample documentary proof of this since the inception of the State of Israel, that its the actual Israeli’s who desire to eject persons from the land they, that is the Zionists, claim as theirs. Now, just to ensure we are on the same page, here’s a wonderful article on this very issue published yesterday (Saturday, 13 January) in a well known Israeli news organ:

      I trust David will spend many an hour taking this article apart and finding evidence of ‘self hating Jew’ written all over it, for evidently, the historical record is ‘anti-semitic’ in yours and Mr Colliers eyes!

      1. Chris, I have no way of knowing whether you are simply a troll or a serious contributor here but on the basis that you wrote two relatively lucid paragraphs rather than the customary single line soundbite much loved by the less imaginative cretins that choose to make mischief here you get the benefit of the doubt. I’m sure you’re thrilled.

        Your point does not address the comments to which you respond as you well know. It cannot because you have used the wrong tools to rebutt; classic ‘whataboutery’ and phony evidence designed to support your own deflection rather than the original contributors remarks.

        Admittedly the use of any copy/paste from Haaretz allows you to direct your fire at David and again divert the discussion away from less safe ground and it is pretty obvious that this was your intention here..

        Perhaps if you had more confidence in your arguments you would have the bravery to enter the discussion at hand rather than the one that you want to have.

        1. Ian,

          Please don’t play the double standards game, particularly given in the UK talk of ejecting persons from our shores, particularly for ethnic reasons, would cause outrage. Alas, such outrage is commonplace as far as Israel is concerned, given its entire history has been about ejecting persons from the lands they inhabited for hundreds of years. I suppose the Nakba did not happen, nor the continuing Occupation & settlement of certain territories annexed after Israel’s recognition by the UN. Of course, when even Quackers are seen as a threat to Israeli, one really has to ask themselves how low Israeli apologists will descend. And the OPs remarks were crass & inaccurate, given no one I know is calling for any expulsions of anyone from the Holy Lands, that is apart from the Israelis themselves & their apologists.

          1. Chris, you are being called out for self serving posts. You responded to a remark above by ignoring it’s content entirely in order to divert the thread in your own chosen direction. You were challenged to have the confidence in your positions and address the remarks rather than deflect to safer ground. You will probably agree that this is a single rather than a double standard.

            The good news is that no one you know is calling for any expulsions of anyone from the Holy Lands (wherever they are). Are you presenting that as conclusive evidence in support of your point? If Norm above was pointing his remarks at the far right does this mean that you are mounting your defence on their behalf? Are you telling to us that these are the circles you move in?

            Oh and what the fuck are Quackers? You cannot be that barren of original thought that you now think we all hate the ducks?

      2. Chris – the reality is that the Arabs will never tolerate the existence of Jews or a Jewish State on Caliphate lands. The Nazis would not accept Jews in Germany. You are actually proud of the fact that you have taken the side of fascism, against civilization. I have always said that people with repugnant views like yours should not be allowed a platform on this website, but I am persuaded by the argument that destroying your vacuous assertions in such a public manner is better than suppressing them.

        1. So, standing up against attacks upon innocents is repugnant, which is why Israel has banned members of numerous Human Rights organisations from entering Israel, which you have to enter if you wish to make your way to the Occupied territories. Please give it a rest & proud to support BDS and end the violent repression of innocents by a tyrannical State.

              1. Moshe makes one big mistake. Not only hasn’t the LP adopted the batshit appendages, it hasn’t adopted the ” definition” itself. It hasn’t adopted any of it.

                1. Stephen,

                  At the Brighton Conference held in September last year the Party adopted a ‘Rule Change’ as to what constituted ‘hate speech’ as far as being aimed at Jewish persons was concerned. The fact remains, the Disputes Panel actually does utilise the IRHA definition of AS, together with the BS examples found under the ‘definition’. This may now change given the Left now enjoys a slim majority on the NEC and with that, the fact Ann Black has been voted off her position – the position that enabled the Witch hunts of the Left for what ever reasons our Rightish chums desired to offer. I’ll stick with colleagues in the JVL, many of whom are highly critical of Israel and its policies with regards the Occupied Territories and Palestinians in general. I’ll let the ‘swivel eyed folk’ make of that what they will, but holding Israel up for breaching international standards is no crime, and certainly not anti-semitic regardless of what the looney’s say!

                  1. Chris the disputes panel may use it but that is simply an illustration of of the undemocratic nature of the DP. and the contempt in which it holds the the democratic structures of the party. And the extent to which it functions as the servant of the unholy triple alliance of Lansman, Newmark and Macca..

                    Your faith in ” the left” is touching. The leftism of most of ” the left” on the NEC is no part of the solution. Their leftism is not the active ingredient. The active ingredient is Lansmanism, Here I have in mind Lansman, Willsman, Wolfson, in particular. The ” left” have been full participants in the purges. Black is still described as a ” veteran leftist”.

                    As for Shawcross I have had increasing doubts about her and the fact that she was put forward and supported by the Lansmanistas is clear proof that she has fully drunk the kool Aid.

                    The purges will go on unabated.

                    The simple fact is that the IHRA ” definition has not been adopted by the LP and certainly not the batshit appendages

                  2. You will note also that the meaningless drivel in the Alice Perry article, that the Zios seem to be relying on since they have nothing else, makes no mention of Israel.

                    This is because it wasn’t a genuine meeting of the DP but a ” special meeting”, in which the DP was the rope in a tug of war between Lansman’s envoy Newmark and Chakrabarti ( Corbyns minder) , both of whose presence was unconstitutional.

                    Chakrabarti seems to have won.

                    The NEC can’t adopt the batshit appendages because it has previously accepted the Chak report and it can’t accept both as they are at odds with each other. It would be a contradictory position.

                    David will know all about this, him being a logician and all.

                    BTW has anyone thought seriously about why the NEC did not take action against the two names in the Oxford Labour Club scam ?

                    1. Stephen,

                      Many thanks for your input, RE: The NEC and NEC constituted Disputes Panel. As a reminder, please note I’m not a member of Momentum, nor do I encourage membership.

          1. Not all ‘occupied’ Chris. I think we’re offering them Abu Dis as the fantasy capital of their fantasy state. The 39mil weekly divi from the EU with the UNWRA top up should be more than enough to keep the Arab top brass happy. And why start worrying about their people now? They have you and the rest of the BDS Fusiliers to deal with that. Altogether now “Free-ee Ahed Tamimi”

          2. Not one of the organisations that are prevented from entering Israel can rightly be described as ‘human rights’ groups.

            They are all organisations with a political bias that portrays Israel as uniquely evil, while white washing the multiple failings and hatred of the Palestinians.

            The Quakers (Quackers as you so rightly called them) fit this label perfectly; using the felp they offered the Jews in the 1940s’ as a mask to conceal their anti-Israel activity today.

      3. why on earth would I do that? I spend my time in the British archives, and I know how the British civil service commented on the ‘other’ back in the 1940’s. Do you remember British street talk of the 1970’s??????????? Hey, at that point in time, Arabs had representation in the Knesset and were freely voting in Israeli elections before blacks were freely voting in the United States. Pulling social positions out of one generation placing it over today’s world and commenting on how it proves something about today isn’t worthy of a serious response. The detailed discussions of the day, highlight a spectrum of thought, some of which was progressive, some of which wasn’t.

        As for you assertion that its the Israelis who ‘desire to eject the people from the land’ – I am afraid hard solid facts argue against you. Israel is by a country mile, THE MOST DIVERSE NATION in the region. In fact, Israel’s diversity makes the UK look like a white supremacist state. This is a statistically verifiable fact. On the other side of the borders however, there were no Jews allowed to remain, and factually entire communities were ethnically cleansed. That doesn’t mean that no Arabs were evicted from Israel, nor does it mean that some parts of the Israeli spectrum aren’t extreme, just as some parts of the UK or US spectrum are extreme, it simply places everything into historical and factual perspective.

        Anyone can go back and take selective quotes that prove anything about any nation. It is a strategy of omission, well known in revisionist writings, but if you think I will waste my time trying to respond to such efforts – you are very much mistaken.

        1. and if you want to look at things historically and in context, go to page 18 of the dissection of the Suarez revisionist text

          You can view a British analysis of the Hebrew press, the day after the partition vote. A photograph of a British archive document from 1947. There you can view the spectrum, from those who bemoaned the partition, to those who celebrated it, and those who hoped that despite it, there would be more co-operation between the two sides. It’s a real world, with real people, and multiple dimensions. All but one, spoke of peace and hope. This hours before Arabs attacked buses, a day before the Arab general strike was to herald riots, and weeks before Arab irregular armies invaded. All historical elements that would bring civil war, and all ‘omitted’ from the revisionist and one-dimensional tale of the Nakba, you have so firmly bought into.

          1. David I wonder how the usual suspects here will respond to the two and a half hour rant of Abbas yesterday. Will they simply fall silent after his horribly inconvenient ramblings or more pointedly, do they even care? Even the most transparent revisionists will find it difficult to fall into line with the Arabs that they pretend to support in the face of the hysterical, paranoid insanity of their unelected representative. I wonder how they will channel their whataboutery to avoid having to address the lifting of the Arab veil to reveal it’s true face. This is often the problem when allowing something to remain on the shelf long after it’s sell-by date. Sooner or later the decay will be so bad that nobody will be able to ignore the stench or pretend it’s coming from elsewhere.

              1. Could you possibly give some examples of Netanyahus’ rants as opposed to Abbas’ anti-Jewish, Antisemetic outburst where he resurected his Holocaust denying thesis and denied any Jewish connection to the Holy land.

                1. Well for example Netanyahu’s rant against UNESCO accusing it of calling Hebron’s shrine “not Jewish” in their resolution – while instead UNESCO’s resolution explicitly states that the Ibrahimi mosque/Tomb of Patriarchs is sacred to Judaism.
                  It’s just an example, I won’t make a list of the brazen lies and his aggressive rhetoric, it’s so manifest

          2. About Suarez’ book. I first point out that I didn’t read it, therefore my perception of the debate on it is based on limited information. However I have read the critical dossier that you published on your blog attacking Suarez, and I have to say that I found your points unconvincing.
            I have also read critiques attacking Ilan Pappe for his famous book, and also those were making weak or inaccurate points imho.

            I am not able to determine whether there are many factual errors in the book, which a I said, I didn’t even read. But I noticed that many reported errors of Suarez “pointed out” appear manifestly irrelevant, and the extraordinaryly aggressive, derogatory language by which they are “condemned” makes the criticism appear unbalanced, not credible, make it look as many topic “points” are in fact just pretexts for one “ad hominem” argument against the author – attempting to lable the author as “inaccurate” or unreliable etc. This type of criticism is not serious.
            A poin also made by person (Hoffmann) attempted to attack Suarez affirming that his book “even questions truth of survivor of Mengele’s Nazi experiment” with the purpose of implying that Suarez questions the veracity of Mengele’s crimes themselves. There is no trace of any such content in Suarez’ book, while pretextuous and vicious attacks on the author do not contribute to the credibility of the critics.

            On the other hand, while the criticism focuses on this quite ad hominem operation against Suarez, it seesm to me that completely fails to address some factual conclusions of the book. Like the finding that “from the beginning of WWII through to the summer of 1947, virtually all of the terrorism in Palestine was Zionist”. What we see in David’s report is perplezing reinterpretation of historical sources where the words “intensification of Jewish terrorism” (implying it has been already present) is reported as “civil disobedience”.

            I happen to agree with Suarez’ view of history, but my personal conclusion about Zionism is not based on Suarez’ book. It is based on an overall assessment of several elements, of structural. logical and contextual kind, which draw a solid picture of evidence, while i would consider Suarez’ essay just a book about detail. I don’t know if the book is academically unsound, but it looks like a book that focuses on details.

            On a macro-level of analysis, for example, I would consider ridiculous a statement that Irgun and Lehi would be fought and condemned by Zionism because they were terrorists, when the truth is that their terrorist leaders became prime ministers of Israel, and streets and towns are named after Lehi, Yair, Begin etc.

            1. Six paragraphs on a book that you’ve never read. What next; travel guides to places you’ve never been to?

              1. I happened to read David’s critique. My six paragraphs are on his report.
                Is the book worth reading?

          3. On p. 18 the report mentions a disproval Suarez’ (and others) interpretation of Ben Gurion’s quote. Yet the full quote of Ben Gurion’s talk is this:

            ” Mr. Ben-Gurion: The starting point for a solution of the question of the Arabs in the Jewish State is, in his view, the need to prepare the ground for an Arab-Jewish agreement; he supports [the establishment of] the Jewish State [on a small part of Palestine], not because he is satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we constitute a large force following the establishment of the state – we will cancel the partition [of the country between Jews and Arabs] and we will expand throughout the Land of Israel.

            Mr. Shapira [a JAE member]: By force as well?

            Mr. Ben-Gurion: [No]. Through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement. So long as we are weak and few the Arabs have neither the need nor the interest to conclude an alliance with us… And since the state is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it must prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement – we are obliged to run the state in such a way that will win us the friendship of the Arabs both within and outside the state. (from Efraim Karsh, “Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion and the ’Transfer’ Idea,” Israel Affairs, V4, No. 2, Winter 1997, p52-53)”

            Based on this, it is impossible to deny that Ben Gurion’s program was to take the whole Palestine – and that was the program behind the strategy of accepting (actually, forcing) partition.
            It claims explicitly that the goal is to take it all. That the purpose of partition is to be provisional and be cancelled later on. So, I don’t see how one could quote this as a source in support of a theory that Zionists pursued partition. One who wants to push a theory that Zionists would be content with partition, should quote some other source.

            1. p18 deals with the distortions Suarez employed when reading material from the British Archives. In this case the media reports. It even uncovers and clearly highlights how he deliberately cherry picked certain segments and goes on to, using the original document, prove Suarez inverted the meaning of the document he cited. The original document is produced in the report to highlight how bad the distortions were. Suarez distorted countless documents and I only stopped because I was swamped, not because I’d exhausted the options. If you like, I can go and uncover some more. When Suarez first attacked my report – that is exactly what I said to him. I suggested that I had finished, because I believed I had proved my point. If he were to suggest I hadn’t done so efficiently enough, I was more than happy to go back and uncover another 50 distortions. As Suarez is well aware of the standards he used when writing – he backed off – in my opinion it was a wise decision.

              Suarez did not write history – he wrote distorted fiction. If you can explain to me for example, where Kollek said what Suarez accused him of saying, I’d be delighted. The relevant documents are reproduced in my report. As they show – Kollek said the exact opposite of what the book claims.

              Not sure what you are on, but in your first post you claimed my report fails to undermine the central conclusions of a book you have never read. Please go troll someone else.

  4. “a white supremacist that wants to kick Jews out of England” – THAT’S the most critical threat? REALLY?

  5. George, I believe that David has said clearly what the threat is. Nothing I have written contradicts that!

      1. I meant ideologically, there is no difference. Yet the regressive left hate western fascism while forgiving Islamist fascism.

  6. Hi David. A bit off topic but a sincere request for help. I keep hearing that the LP ” adopted” the so called IHRA ” definition of antisemitism”. I can’t find when, where and how this happened. Wonder if you could help.

    1. Stephen – had a quick chat with a Labour activist for you. It seems that it was adopted by the NEC in Dec 2016 – and the only external confirmation of this is within this article by Alice Perry

      There were then rule changes adopted at the 2017 conference, that permitted the compliance unit to use it in the disciplinary process. Before this change, the only relevant charge was one of bringing the party into ‘disrepute’ which meant it was easier to kick out someone for supporting the Lib Dems on something than it was if they supported Holocaust denial.

      That’s all I got.

    1. For the moment I will merely point out that there wasn’t a meeting of the NEC in December 2016. Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.

      1. It says it was a meeting of the equalities committee. why you think someone would post a report of a meeting (including names and quotes) inside the Labour List if that meeting never took place is beyond me. I’d love to jump inside your head for a bit.

    1. Natch Bellers. Anyway can’t stop. Me and Gabriel are doing reviews of 6 restaurants we’ve never been to. Seems dead iffy but he reckons it’ll be okay.

        1. Gotta keep it edgy Bellers. Tough crowd here. Anyway it’s only social media lad. None of it really matters. Optimistic Nihilists of the world unite!!!

              1. A stylisation entirely of my own conception Bellers. It’s all a load of bollox but I remain hopeful that it may not be.

  7. Has it occurred to you that your (jews, I mean) support for vicious repression of free speech might have something to do with it? Your support for mass immigration? Your support for every single policy that destroys British tradition and folkways? Your arrogant dismissal of the views of the goyim?

    No, of course not. If such things occurred to you, you wouldn’t be a jew, would you? It’s your nature. This is why there *will* be another shoah. And it’s coming soon. My advice would be to move to Israel and petition your government to stop terrorizing other governments in shakedown rackets and getting them to fight your wars for you. Maybe the world will decide to just forget the endless evil you vermin have done them.

    But, of course, if you’d take that wise advice, you wouldn’t be a jew.

    1. yes – even this, I am leaving here. Better to let people see it, than have them deny this exists.

      1. Nobody is denying it exists, David. We see it all around us all the time. That is why your blog exists.

        1. oh Leah, if only that were true. (the first part – the second part and third parts are both nailed on)

          1. I knew you’d pull me up on the first part … 🙂
            What I really meant to say was that all sensible people know it exists. The vast majority of Jew-baiters, including those who post here, will continue to deny it regardless. Or will claim mendaciously that it exists only on the ‘Nazi Far Right’ (that is, anyone to the right of Lenin), and Marxists and Leninists cannot POSSIBLY by antisemitic. They said so.

Comments are closed.