ICHAD hate in the church

ICAHD bring antisemitism into the Church. The story of the ‘sick’ Israelis

Yesterday was a distressing day. When I go to these events, I usually promise myself that I will not fall prey to the obvious bait set out in front of me. Sometimes, it is difficult to remain completely calm in the face of the spiteful and twisted message that is put across. This ICAHD event was one of those.

Reverend Rosemary Fletcher and ICAHD

I am almost of the mind to simply direct this blog towards Reverend Rosemary Fletcher. Rosemary is the Minister at the Marlborough Road Methodist Church in St Albans. I was there, 1 February 2018, for a talk by Tim and Mayonne Coldicott titled ‘Saving Israel – What next for the Palestinians?’ A ‘fine event’ in a Church, that clearly seeks to save the Israelis from themselves. The Coldicott’s represent a group called the ‘Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions’ (ICAHD).

ICAHD suffered ‘financial collapse‘ in 2012 due to a lack of reliable donors. They changed their method of operations to seek sources of additional funding. Who better to fleece than good-hearted Christians in Europe? Thus, ICAHD activists these days look for churches with Ministers naive enough to allow them to spew their poison onto the innocent people in the audience. They have been described by NGO Monitor as an NGO that ‘does nothing to advance coexistence and instead promotes extreme views which fuel the conflict‘.

The ICAHD event

Reverend Rosemary Fletcher and I have never met before. Nor have I been inside her church. When I arrived yesterday, about 50 people sat waiting for the event to begin. Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) literature was spread over two tables near the entrance.  The PSC have no interest in truth or peace whatsoever. They still have 9/11 truthers and Holocaust Deniers turning up at their AGM. When you see PSC literature inside a church then you know you are inside enemy territory.

The talk was delivered by Tim Coldicott and lasted about 45 minutes. Tim is a perfect presenter for a church audience. He is well presented, well-spoken and looks like a caring and learned man.  Presentation counts, especially if you need people to buy heavily into the content.

From the moment that Coldicott began to speak, to the moment he finished, he fed the audience an unforgivable and disgraceful demonisation of Israelis and Zionist history. I am used to distortion, I am also used to a heavy bias, or someone overcooking the Palestinian perspective of things. But this was more than that. Coldicott dehumanised the Israeli Jews, he ripped history apart, he scrubbed clean the streets of all Jewish blood and placed lie on-top of lie in an attempt to convince the audience, that to save Israelis from themselves, they simply had to destroy the Jewish state.

Lies at the Marlborough Road Methodist Church

Within seconds Coldicott had spread lies about the state of the Israeli education system, how Arab Israelis are treated and suggested Israel didn’t actually have any real enemies. He needed to lay the groundwork for what was to come. He seems to think it is bad that Israel teaches Jewish children, Jewish history, and clearly believes it is a problem that from a very young age, they are taught about the Holocaust. Coldicott goes on to say ‘and the message they absorb is, that it could happen again. Unless we are vigilant and strong.‘ Er, yes Tim. This is the central message from the Holocaust that we must teach ourselves and our children. After all, even today in Churches across the UK, ICAHD are being allowed to tell awful lies about Jews. In reality Tim Coldicott is using Jews studying the Holocaust to press home how paranoid Jews are. All part of the way he thinks Israelis need to be saved from themselves.

The background formed an important part of the ICAHD message. This is how he explained the history of the conflict:

“And the problem is that though Jews owned only seven percent of the land and represented a third of the population of Palestine at that time, they were allocated 55% of the territory. And even before the mandate came to an end in May 1948, Jewish military forces, began to implement a long-standing plan called Plan Dalet (Plan D), of attacking Palestinian villages and terrorising the population so that they fled. The Palestinians lacked the resources to fight back as these had been destroyed by the British in putting down the revolt of 1937/1938.

So, by the end of 1948, the Jews had added a further 23% of the land area to what the UN had proposed as the Jewish state. And had taken 60% of what had been proposed for the Palestinians. This is what the Arabs call the Nakba, the catastrophe. But to this day it is not recognised by Israeli Jews as equivalent in any way to the Holocaust. So there is a flaw right at the start of Israel’s story. It was not an empty land. It was not Jews who faced being pushed into the sea, it was Palestinians.”

Yes, you read that right. Even the Holocaust bit. So there is no argument over this text, here is the footage:


That demonising history

In 45 minutes of discussion, there was no mention by ICAHD of any violence against Jews at all. Not by the Arab armies, not by the Palestinians, not during the civil conflict, not during the Intifada. In fact the only post-1949 violence that was ever mentioned, was the horrific actions of one Jew, Baruch Goldstein. The memories of tens of thousands of dead Jews, wiped from existence inside a Methodist Church.

It isn’t distortion that Coldicott was selling, it was a lie. Upon which he placed a sickening Holocaust reference. During the Q&A I tried to question him on his lack of historicity, but as soon as Rosemary had realised my question was hostile, she became uncomfortable and tried to take the microphone back.

You see (directly speaking to Rosemary Fletcher), it is all about explaining motivation. When you seek to dehumanise people, you need to make their actions seem callous, unnaturally violent, illogical and inhumane. If you do this successfully, by taking away all truth and context, then presenting a distorted case on top is relatively easy.

The conflict disappears

Coldicott didn’t mention Arab violence at all. In the 1948 conflict, he failed to state that the Arabs had rejected partition. He didn’t tell anyone that Arab violence broke out a day later. Forgot to mention that the neighbouring states declared war, promising that when the British left, the Jews will be swept into the sea. He didn’t mention that in May 1948, those nations invaded.

For the short period of time I was allowed the microphone, I brought up the irregular forces that had begun to enter British Palestine from Syria and Lebanon in January 1948. Forces that extracted a high price from Jewish attempts to reach Jewish towns and break Arab blockades. Tim shook his head, as if I was the problem.

This from a general outline of this period of the 1948 conflict on Wiki:

‘From January onwards, operations became increasingly militarized, with the intervention of a number of Arab Liberation Army regiments inside Palestine, each active in a variety of distinct sectors around the different coastal towns. They consolidated their presence in Galilee and Samaria. Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni came from Egypt with several hundred men of the Army of the Holy War. Having recruited a few thousand volunteers, al-Husayni organized the blockade of the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem To counter this, the Yishuv authorities tried to supply the city with convoys of up to 100 armoured vehicles, but the operation became more and more impractical as the number of casualties in the relief convoys surged. By March, Al-Hussayni’s tactic had paid off. Almost all of Haganah’s armoured vehicles had been destroyed, the blockade was in full operation, and hundreds of Haganah members who had tried to bring supplies into the city were killed. The situation for those who dwelt in the Jewish settlements in the highly isolated Negev and North of Galilee was even more critical.’

Coldicott had failed to mention the Irregular forces, failed to mention the civil war, failed to mention Jewish casualties. So Rosemary, when I wanted that microphone, it was to reset the balance. To let all those who had been lied to, know that Jews weren’t actually violent aggressors, but rather engaged in a civil conflict started by an Arab population that sought to destroy them. Thanks for stopping me.

The fall of Sepphoris (Saffuriya)

It  wasn’t one lie or distortion. The ICAHD stream was endless. I do not have the luxury of being like Ben White or Asa Winstanley. In response to these lies, I cannot just make things up, build a few juicy conspiracy tales, throw fake statistics in return, or libel a few activists. At times like this I am envious of them. I need to work through every statement, check every source, research every statistic given. Just detailing five minutes of a 45 minute speech took hours. I have a notepad list of over 60 distortions given out last night still not mentioned. More distortions and lies than minutes in the ICAHD speech.

Coldicott pulls nonsense from anti-Israel propaganda sites time after time. He showed a 1945 image of the Arab village of Saffuriya. The village is no longer there. He didn’t mention that Saffuriya had aligned with the Arab irregular forces during the civil conflict. That it was hostile, and had joined those trying to destroy the Jewish state. That foreign Arab troops were inside and attacking the Jews. In return it was bombed in July 1948 and the people fled. Victims of a war that set out to destroy the Jewish presence. He neglected to inform those listening, that the core populations of some other local Arab towns, that were not hostile, remained in place.

Every fake picture, every fake clip

He uses a few carefully selected clips. We know these clips, we see them on social media all the time. Out of context, short clips that still need Coldicott to explain to us what it is we are seeing. He tells us stories. Oral history is then added as reinforcement. One had a small boy climb through a barbed wire fence to get ‘herbs’, only to be shot in the legs by the Israelis who had ‘ambushed him’. As he tried to crawl away, he was killed. Coldicott tells us that he knows this happened because he ‘met the boy’s uncle’.

Some of his information come from other groups like ‘Badil‘. This is an antisemitic cartoon that won second prize in a ‘Badil’ competition:

ICAHD Badil cartoon

His reliance on these groups is absolute. He tells the audience about (and quotes) an Israeli soldier threatening to ‘make all the youth of the camp disabled’. Yet when you follow up, you realise that this is just a claim, made by some youth. It was then published by Badil. How is this being presented as a truth? As something that happened? And after every clip, every twisted story, we are told, ‘this sort of thing goes on all the time’. We are in classic revisionist propaganda territory now. Everything, every sentence contained either distortion, lie or demonisation. Every clip, a segment designed to mislead. There was not an element of truth visible.  Other lies and distortions that were delivered can be read in the recent post by Jonathan Hoffman.

Those insatiable murdering Jews

Just before he ends, Coldicott revisits the question of the talk. What can be done? He tells us that Jews ‘want Israel to be a state for Jews only‘. He then embarked on a vile, and deeply antisemitic position that turned Jews defending their right to exist, into animals with an over-riding desire to control. That need to be violent, to kill. He spoke about the idea that if it were not for the occupation, Israelis would be killing each other in civil war, ‘tearing themselves apart’. And then he said this:

‘Ending the occupation, would challenge to the core, the way the Israelis think about themselves. And equally, what would Israeli society look like without the occupation. Lording over Palestinians daily life is deeply rooted in Israeli’s day to day experience. Peace frightens many Jewish Israelis because it means losing privilege. So, the occupation must be maintained. But quietly. Because ending it would undo, Israeli identity.  So equally, it is for us British people, to ask ourselves what we are prepared to allow, what we are prepared to do.’

Coldicott’s message is this: Jews hold on to the occupation, because if they don’t they will turn on themselves and kill each other. They have a ‘sickness’ (he used the term). So bloodthirsty are these Israelis, so integral is violence into their identity, that the occupation must remain in place. They kill Palestinian children, because clearly, they have to kill someone, and better Palestinian children than themselves. They scare their children with tales of the Holocaust, to make them paranoid, they show them weapons to make them violent. There is no enemy out there. The only enemy is the one in the Jewish mind.

Having removed all reasons for Israel’s actions, having swept away all Arab violence, he had Jews plan to go in just to uproot a passive population. He then had their greed, ‘lord over’ another people. He had them shoot innocent children because of their sickness, and suggested that they do it all because their violence is uncontrollable. They need to maintain this situation so they don’t kill each other.

This is the message that was delivered in that church. Sickening and unforgivable.


I get frustrated because I simply cannot undo the damage. I am there, I am a witness, I can speak, but I cannot undo what is being done. If I am lucky, I will be given time to ask a single question.  I can become the angry Zionist, reinforcing the false image of ‘aggression’ being delivered in the speech. But I don’t want to play into their hands. Or I can remain quiet, just like the Jewish people know we must not do. I don’t really want to play that role either.

Rosemary, via ICAHD you brought vile antisemitism into your church, just how am I meant to respond? What is acceptable for you in a circumstance such as this? Last week you held a Holocaust Memorial day. You urge people not to remain silent in front of antisemitism, why then do you silence those that oppose it? How should Jews react when Christians bring antisemitism into the church?

Why inside a Church?

Rosemary Fletcher seemed taken aback that the Jewish people and Christian Zionists in the audience seemed so hurt by what they had heard. I expect she is truly oblivious to the history of the conflict or the lies that she had brought into the church. To her it just seemed like an old man, telling the truth. Our opposition comes across as Jewish extremists not wanting that truth to be heard. Our voices actually reinforce the very image Coldicott is trying to create.

This wasn’t just historical distortion. It was a true demonisation process. It is unsettling to hear this anywhere. Truly chilling to hear it inside a church. As I was leaving, I was spoken to by a few church-goers. I want to show just one of these, which were more ‘positive’ exchanges.


What now Rosemary? How many lies does a man have to tell inside your church about Israel, before you begin to realise that the entire ICAHD message was unacceptable? What do you call it when someone deliberately tries to demonise Jews in Israel? To specifically try to brainwash those listening into believing that those Jews in Israel are monsters that need to be saved from themselves? At what point when he compares his false rendition of history to the Holocaust are you willing to call it antisemitic? How do you repair the damage that you have done?



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 can and does make a difference. In the last two or three years, several key stories on antisemitism that received global coverage were uncovered by this research and originally broken on this site.

If you can, please consider making a donation. Either a single amount or a small monthly contribution.  Research such as this is intensive. We need to be there to expose the hatred and the lies. We have to shine a light into the shadows and show people what is happening. Every contribution 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.



328 thoughts on “ICAHD bring antisemitism into the Church. The story of the ‘sick’ Israelis

      1. There are REAL Security Barriers, Checkpoints, at every airport in the World,

        to prevent another 9/11.

      2. And this is what you wrote on Richard Millet’s blog at roughly the same time Sharon

        It never struck anybody amongst the Jewish community in the UK that just as we the Jews and Israel are subject to adverse propaganda so are the EDL demonised. I have met some of them and spoken with them and they are salt of the earth people fighting for a democratically free England and Englishmen based in Christianity and the morals and ethics of the Old Testament, just as we are fighting for Israel and Jews based in the same ethics and values of the Old Testament. Just as we have little in common with Islam and the liberal secular “elitists” who desire that Jews, Israel and the EDL would simply pass on by, so does the EDL. As I said many times before, Jabotinsky taught us that in times of strife we must fight the greater enemy together with those whose greater enemy we share. We all share the greater enemy that is Islam and all it represents in its efforts to destroy the Judeo-Christian ethic that is our Western Civilisation and we must hang together in peace for the sake of peace.”

        ” Hey Richard – great piece! Nice to see the view fromWagamamas as it is evident that the suport was miniscule!! Bravo to the youngsters who came out for Israel – no violence on their tongues and no hatred in their eyes; and thanks to the EDL who supported us from across the road, resepecting the fact that many amongst the Jewish community did not want them to mingle with us, unlike the hate filled mob sporting Hizbollah flags emblazoned with a rifle, supported by those frock-coated filthy bearded Yiddish speakers. They will one day have to account to God for their sins!”

        1. Stephen,

          Many thanks for pointing out that Sharon Klaff is most sympathetic to the English Defence League – whilst I’m sympathetic to Plaid Cymru, what with being Welsh, I’ve never actually voted for the Welsh Nationalists, preferring Labour. I’m also quite partial to the Greens & was recently a member of that grouping. I wonder if Ms Klaff will enlighten us on her own political views, which are quite extreme compared to those of many I know, most of whom follow an internationalist path.

          1. Actually Stephen, that is not the way it played out. At 13:24 and 30 seconds, Jonathan, who had been handed the microphone during the Q&A, said ‘unfortunately my friends, you have been told a pack of lies here’. He said it in a more than reasonable tone.
            As he finished that first sentence, at 13:24 and 34 seconds, the Church Minister, attempted to reach over at grab the microphone from his hands. Jonathan said ‘no,no’ and turned away to continue to address the points.

            I am not in favour of disruption, but that is not what this is. The issue here is clear. Whatever unfolded in that church after the speech (and not much did beyond a few vocal suggestions it was a hate event and antisemitic), it started then. Why on earth did someone try to remove the microphone from Jonathan 4 seconds after he had begun to speak? That was unjustifiable (more so given the horrific nature of the speech), and everything leads back to that. The event itself was not disrupted at all. The entire speech went ahead without a single interruption. At the point where opposition is deliberately denied a legitimate voice, then those to blame are those trying to silence dissent.

              1. That is a nice deflection. Are you speaking of rights inherent in ownership? Certainly not to the person who tried to remove it from Jonathan. Nor in the 4 seconds that Jonathan was holding it, did I see her talk to and receive instructions from the owner of the microphone. Nor can it be argued, seeing as she had given it to Jonathan in the first place, that she knew who he was. In any event, the amount of abuse that could be visited on our society by reducing our freedoms only to questions of ownership isn’t really an argument from anywhere but the far,far right. It was a public meeting. Audience was asked to respond. Jonathan was handed the microphone. 4 SECONDS. The same tactic happened with me, only I lasted longer because for the first 20 seconds, I spoke of my experience inside the West Bank. So to those listening, it was not clear, where I was heading. As soon as I made clear where I stood, I had an attempt to take the microphone from me. The only reason she let me continue for a short while afterwards, because cries of ‘let him speak’, came from several people in the audience. Even then, she was clearly rushing me, agitated, I was under pressure to make my point quickly, and had to keep it very short.

                    1. I am merely asking what provoked the nicking of Scoffies bag and the slapping of the said Scoffie ( your description of events, not mine )

                      And who was the perpetrator of these crimes

                    2. Crime is your word, not mine. I did not see who took the bag (the provocation was Jonathan’s comments about the speech), and the man who slapped Jonathan, I think was the husband of someone who was involved in a verbal spat with Jonathan. I understand his frustration, just as I understand Jonathan’s. I didn’t make anything of it, just as I didn’t make anything of an anti-Israel demonstrator grabbing the biscuits from the hands of a Jewish student at UCL. Empty point scoring is for propagandists. Most of the actions that surround the central events, are led by innocent people on both sides, displaying ignorance, naivety, frustration and other normal human emotions. These people are not my enemy, and the solutions need to be found by ignoring these side-shows, rather than focusing on them.

                    3. If slapping is not a crime how come Ahed Tamimi is in jail. Oh you mean in the UK.

                      The fact is that Scoffie is a boorish disrupter, and wherever he goes there is unpleasantness and trouble. Without fail. It is never his fault.

                    4. I can understand you not wanting to focus on what you call side shows. I am sure people that are affected by them don’t see them as such. As I have said numerous times your effectiveness is very adversely affected by your association with them. Your choice.

                    5. I guess what I am trying to say to you in short, is if you don’t want the points you make to be over shadowed by side shows, and deflection from them so easy, don’t continually get yourself associated by the said side shows. Seems like a no brainer to me.

                      You seem to want your cake and to eat it. You want to be taken seriously but you have an irisistable attraction to a bunch of racist yobbish loons. I think there is an admirable sense of loyalty at play here. But you know…..

                    6. Tim is a perfect presenter for a church audience. He is well presented, well-spoken and looks like a caring and learned man. Presentation counts, especially if you need people to buy heavily into the content.

                      See you do get it….

              2. Perhaps one of Jonathan’s Jewish ancestors had an identical microphone over two millenia ago, therefore he owned it. Just a guess.

                1. Mike,
                  Grow up.
                  Your constant childish innuendo is getting boring.
                  If you are incapable of making adult commentary ,without slavering it in ssickly sweet sarcasm, then at least do it in front of audiences with sub zero intellectual capacity

                  1. So, you understand my comment …. and how ridiculous is the claim that because Jews once lived there the land belonged to them alone. Good!

                    You have enormous intellectual capacity? Nice.

                    1. So the “palestinian” skeleton keys prove exactly what???

                      Are you trying to claim that Islam predates Judaism or Christianity, I’m all ears to hear your proof.

                      Who did the Muslim “prophet” mohammed slaughter in Khybar? Klingons? Druids? Socialists?

              3. Stephen , what relevance is it as to whom the microphone belongs
                It was handed to Jonathan in a perfectly amenable way; that somebody tried to remove it from him is NOT OK.

        1. Mike,
          Please could you explain why ‘Christian Zionism’ is an oxymoron.
          I truly cannot see what connection you are trying to highlight.
          Please try and give a coherent reply rather than a vacuous monosylibic one liner

          1. No true Christian would supports Zionist Israel’s separation of people where one blood-line is accepted into the state over those without that bloodline.

            1. You mean like people of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Bahai bloodlines

              are not allowed to enter Mecca or become citizens of Fascist Iran, Syria, Iraq?

    1. Just out of interest, Jonathan. What steps would a Palestinian living in Hebron, West Bank, have to do to have his vehicle Israeli registered (though both himself, and the roads are NOT in Israel) so that he could use these Israeli controlled roads in his own land?


    2. Hey, Jonathan. I googled ICAHD and guess what?

      It’s not an organisation trying to destroy(you got destruction right!) Israel.
      It’s really …. Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions …. that’s where ICAHD comes from if you really think about it.

      Whoever told you it was to destroy Israel was taking you for a fool.

      Good job I found out and informed you, wasn’t it?

    1. Richard Arnbach say hi to Stephen Bellamy . It’s like Clark Kent and Superman . You never see them in the same room together .

    2. THIS is a Must See Youtube.

      Dr. Mordechai Kedar on Al Jazeera, a debate in Arabic, between the Host and an Israeli academic.

      Mordechai Kedar in al-Jazeera about Jerusalem & Islam

      Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University defends the Jewishness of Jerusalem, the Jewish capital for over 3000 years. He also defends the right of Israelis to settle in Judea and Samaria, the so-called “West Bank”.


    3. “I wouldn’t worry about the Methodist Church. The State of Israel owns it” – loony tunes from Bellend.

  1. If anyone has to tell Black people that the ‘trans-Atlantic slave trade’ was not a central plank of Black Americans identity, they would be accused of ‘racially bigoted commentary’; and rightly so.

    Yet many people try to minimise the immense shadow that the Holocaust casts over Jewish people.

    As the ‘trans-Atlantic slave trade of Black people’ was the biggest and most egregious example of slavery ever in world history, so the attempt to actively eradicate the ‘Jewish people via the Final Solution’ is the largest and most egregious case of mass murder ever in world history.

    Thus individuals and organisations that try to minimise the import of both the ‘Holocaust to Jews and the trans-Atlantic slave trade to Blacks’ are trying to eradicate a central plank of both peoples modern history.

    The Holocaust is the only ‘cold blooded’ attempt to murder an entire people by using mechanised industrial means to achieve that aim. It was planned via central office and effected in the field by employees/workers of central command. It was not a mistake.

    There was ‘malice aforethought’ in the methodology employed in the Holocaust that has never been evidenced in any other event in history.

    So it is up to us to prove our point. As most people accept the horror and import of the ‘trans-Atlantic slave trade and American slavery on Black people’, linking it to the effects of the ‘Holocaust on Jews’ may better help others to understand the import of Holocaust on Jews without them trying to minimise and excuse it l

    1. The Holocaust is the only ‘cold blooded’ attempt in Europe between 1938 and 1945 to murder entire sections of peoples; Jews, Roma, Homosexuals, Mentally and Physically infirm by using mechanised industrial means to achieve that aim.

      1. Mike
        What are you trying to say.
        The Holocaust, as it actually occured, started after 1941 when the number of Jews that came under Nazi control became to large for them to handle; please get basic historical facts right,

        The Holocaust is to commemerate a Jewish tragedy; It is not to minimise anybody elses tragedies, or to commemorate anybody elses tragedies,

        You try to minimise the Jewish tragedy for some reason; I know not why, but lacking any other logic about why, I can only assume that you hate Jews but feel that you cannot say that, so you try other methods to get to conceal your hatred for Jews

        1. Some say ’38. Some say ’40. Richard plumbs for ’41. The Holocaust was to destro Jews, Roma, the sick and disabled, Homosexuals …… .

          1. Fascist Iran has the same goals.

            That’s why Fascist Iran executes gay teens, hanging them from construction cranes, executes Jews, executes girls who won’t comply with Sharia Law..

  2. I think we all share your disgust, David. If our ‘opposition’ really were ‘principled people’ as they say they are, they would want want to keep the deranged, the anti-semites and those who have not forgiven the Jews for ‘allegedly’ killing Jesus OUT of the argument, completely. They are not! Clearly, the only way that the Israel haters can ‘win’ is by twisting the history of the conflict inside out to suit their repugnant agenda.

          1. Seriously Norm, Harv is a man of few words, he can be as forthcoming as a fish, you are a man of many words so maybe you can help me out. What is Harv’s point ?

  3. Simon Schama was quoted at a meeting this past week with the following words, which bear considerable significance for your work David.

    Mr Schama said: “We are living in a time when truth itself cannot be taken for granted; empirical evidence cannot be taken for granted.

    “We once thought the web would deliver us from untruth and would bring everybody together. It took us a long time to realise that the web is the perfect nest of fantasy, demonic fantasy. You can have communities that are nourished by the mutual supply of lies.”

    He urged his audience “to go out into the street and the rest of the world and be warriors for truth”.

        1. Mike you do get, that if every time someone brings up an issue that has anything to do with Jews, you seem to suggest it is all about financial motivation, that it is possible, just possible, they may see a pattern to your actions.

          1. They may also see a pattern to your blogs, accusing all and sundry of ‘antisemitism’, and beseeching others, who may see you as a night in shing armour, to fund your ‘work’.

            1. Your Laboor party has come to face to institutional antisemitism in its’ ranks and has been forced by the spotlight to ‘suspend’ members – for brief periods.

            2. Mike – criticising the Israeli government is fine, calling for the eradication of the Jewish State is Antisemitic. There are so many gaps in your understanding. I don’t know if its because you have only read books by left wing antiZionists or because you are a Jew hater looking for a way to justify your hatred! But the fact that you refuse to condemn the outrage that occurred in St Albans that David wrote about speaks volumes to me.

              1. I’ve never called for the eradication of the Jewish state.. I think is was a disaster for the Arabs who lived there but what’s done is done. His call is no more evil than denying the Palestinians their own state. I don’t thing calling for an end to Israel is antisemitic. It’s anti-Israel, of course, but Israel does not equate to Jews. Most choose not to live there.

                1. Of course the eradication of Israel would be anti-semitic – it would be a detriment to the jews if the Arabs ethnically cleansed them from Israel. Remember, Israel is an important part of the identity of 95% of all Jews. Now, ask yourself WHY all of this has been such a disaster for the Arabs and what they should have done differently. And start with the fact that the Arab leadership did not want the Jews there in the first place – in the same way that right wing morons don’t want immigrants, blacks and Jews in the UK.

                  1. Of couse? Sound reasoning there.

                    I repeat, Israel is not the Jews, as many live in the US.

                    So much a part of their identity that the majority choose not go live there, Norm.

                    Yes, Britain having gifted Jews a home there must have given them grief with the thought that half of what they considered their home was to be given to people who had lived elsewhere for millenia. Of course it would have benefitted them has they accepted the offer of a state, something thag Israel now withholds from them.

                    But of course Israell’s leaders and the majority of Israelis do not now want the Arabs there.

                    1. Again, another gap in your understanding. The British ‘gifted’ both Arabs and Jews their own state – one side rejected, one side accepted. There have been multiple offers to the Palestinians over the years – each rejected, in favour of war. And then you wonder why so many Israelis think the way they do……..

                    2. Norm, the Arabs already lived there, the vast majority werd living in Easter Europe. But Israel has no intention of there being a Palestinian state. If the Palestinians sought back to the ’67 borders then Israel would reject peace.

        2. Mike,
          What do you mean lucrative.

          By your statement I can only assume that yo are trying to link Jews to that centuries old srereotype that jews are ‘bloodsucking, greedy, money grubbing Christ killers’

          The more you post, the more I am convinced that you are nothing more than a classic Jew hating Antisemite,

          I would very much like to be proved wrong, so would appreciate your thoughts.

          1. “What do you mean lucrative?”

            At the bottom of each ‘sky is falling’ blog is a request to fund him. Don’t seach for imaginary slights, Richard.

              1. The BBC dispatches truth. David’s blogs, to my eyes, are a succession of wild attempts to define antisemitism in every criticism of Zionist thinking.

                p.s. BBC licenCe fee? An absolute bargain for the best broadcaster on earth.

  4. Mary McCarthy’s famous retort to Lillian Hellman comes to mind when hearing Coldicott’s presentation: everything you wrote is a lie, including “the” and “and.” I often wonder what possesses people to suspend their critical faculties so completely that they render themselves incapable of evaluating evidence as they normally would and accept claims that would be shown false by a moment’s research.
    Could this mindset be partly explained as a sociological overhang of the discredited doctrine of Christian supercessionism that posited that, by denying Christ’s divinity, the Jewish people have forfeited their national rights and are doomed until the End Times to be scattered among the Nations? The Coldicotts of the world seem to have a hard time accepting the reality that, with the establishment of Israel, Jews are no longer the powerless and despised minority living at the sufferance of their Christian or Muslim overlords, but are now a strong nation capable of defending itself by itself. Their goal would appear to be: destroy Israel and return the Jews to their divinely ordained state of subjection – or, as they may view it, “the good ol’ days” where everyone knew their place and stayed there.

      1. Well that is a rather skewed view Stephen. Not sure what variables you have in place to come up with that little nugget, but it is entirely false.

      2. Stephen

        You are now enterering your fantasy world of ‘Israeli basket cases’ and ‘Israeli/Jewish’ dependancy.

        You still have not had the good manners to explain to me why Israel is a ‘basket case’ though I have asked innumerable times.

        To claim that Israel is the worlds most dependant nations could never be fact based.
        If you feel that you have facts, please supply them rather than your mundane one liners that are nothing more than attempts at wind up.

        The problem is that although I know that you could never prove your wild allegations, there are to many people out there in our little old world that will actually believe your statements (because that is what they believe, and more importantly, want to believe)

    1. Indeed, Charlie. Mere Jews dare not to tug their forelocks? To actually defend themselves? Mummy, it’s not faaaaaaaair!

  5. “He neglected to inform those listening, that the core populations of some other Arab towns, that were not hostile, remained in place.”??!?

    Deir Yassin!

    1. Oh please do go and read a book. My statement regarding that and the surrounding villages was accurate and relies on Historian Morris and his book birth revisited.

        1. Can you either apologise for the straw man and retract that accusation or link to any point ever where I said Deir Yassin was left alone.

            1. Rape, massacre, transfer
              Benny Morris, in the month ahead the new version of your book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem is due to be published. Who will be less pleased with the book – the Israelis or the Palestinians?

              “The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.

              An excerpt from …. https://www.deiryassin.org/bennymorris.html

              1. why use a half quote?

                ‘At the same time, it turns out that there was a series of orders issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of the Palestinian leadership itself.”

                1. The whole article would have filled your page. Giving just one section, the section that shows your description as incorrect, allows the reader should he be bothered, to access the interview and make his own mind up as to the saints and sinners(on both sides)

                  p.s. Mr. Morris IS Israeli btw.

                  1. My description wasn’t incorrect and you deliberately cut the quote in half to distort it. Mike, I am fully aware of the nationality of Morris, and have had correspondence with him. Morris clearly breaks the conflict down into regions each with its own dynamic. My reference was to the Nazereth area as that was the area of the town under discussion. Do you want to use him as the guide, because he denies an act of planned ethnic cleansing? Do you accept that or are you only going to accept the pieces of Morris that suit your narrative?

                    1. “you deliberately cut the quote in half to distort it. Mike”?
                      Are you serious? Told you why I only included a snippet . I included the link for others to not take you or me at our words but to read it themselves, though you would prob. acuse others of misreading it were they not to have your opinion at the the end.

                      It was yourself that was holding Benny Morris’s writings as the absolute truth. He has revised his thoughts on several occassions, suppose he sells more books that way 🙂

                      There are still many documents that Israel refuses to release.

          1. Apologies. Those were NOT the exact words that you used. You wrote “He neglected to inform those listening, that the core populations of some other Arab towns, that were not hostile, remained in place.” Your implication was that those not hostile were left alone.

            Deir Yassin was NOT hostile. They had even prior hidden Jews from Arabs.

        2. David’s speaking of the virgin birth made me smile. I have a friend that teaches skool in West Cork, God’s own country. He claims this is a true story. But well you know he is Irish by birth and Munster by the grace of God.

          Anyway he said to these kids ….Do you think I just sailed up the Lea on a a banana boat ?

          This kid said ….yeah

          He said…….ok I know this is a war crime, collective punishment and all, but I want 600 words from each of you on could an omnipotent God create a round square, on my desk by Monday morning.

          This other kid said…….but sir God can’t be impotent cuz he banged Mary up.

          He said……..make that 1000 words

    2. Deir Yassin had no agreement with Jewish forces. It was part of the War of the Roads whereby Arab villages tried to prevent the transport of food to relieve the siege of Jerusalem. The hillside around the village had slit trenches from which fire could be directed towards traffic.

          1. Expand? 9/11, London’s 7/7 2005, 500,000 dead in Syria, Boston marathon,

            ISIS beheading videos featuring black hooded jihadis with BRITISH ACCENTS.

      1. Was there a massacre of the inhabitants, Mel? Where the survivors paraded? If you don’t know spend an hour on many sites and scan over all that is known.

    3. Mike

      Deir Yassin was one of the villages that hosted fighters that were actively trying to starve the Jewish population of Jerusalem into submission and defeat.

      The reaction of the Arabs to the events at Deir Yassin on 9 April 1948 was to my mind the biggest catalyst for thei Arabs defeat in 1948/9.

      Not sure if you are aware of the Hadassah massacre of Jews by the Arabs that happened on 13 April 1948 in Sheik Jarrah, in Jerusalem .

      Death ciunts fur both events similar
      Deir Yassin +/- 92 (Deir Yassin remembered)
      Hasassah massacre +/-88

      1. Even before the mandate ended, in April and May, Jewish fighters moved to protect, consolidate and widen the territory for the new Jewish state. Often they attacked areas designated for Arabs, and tried to depopulate Arab areas in the planned Jewish sector.

        Palestinian refugee camp in Jericho

        On April 9, Jewish fighters massacred scores of Palestinian villagers, including old people, women and children, in the West Jerusalem village of Deir Yassin, causing widespread panic and greatly augmenting the flight of Palestinians from their homes across the country.

  6. The surviving inhabitants of Deir Yassin were even triumphally paraded on a wagon through Jerusalem.

      1. Both actions sick of course. Doesn’t invalidate my showing that David isn’t being truthful.

        1. Well, citing that one exception does not mean that David is wrong either. Anyway, nobody can really be sure exactly what happened in Deir Yassin.

          1. Blah blah .. Anyway.


            The IDF were instructed, among other things, to destroy Arab villages that where near to the borders of the new state of Israel and drive out the inhabitants.

            Go search. All sites. Make your OWN mind up.

            1. This is a discussion about anti-semitism in the UK. The fact that you disagree with David on one issue does not erase the hate filled Jew hating rubbish at the event in St.Albans. How does THAT bring peace in the ME. If you wish to retain any sort of credibility stop trying to divert the debate by lame nit picking and address the issue – do you support the content of Coldicott’s BS lecture or not?

              1. MJew hating. Certainly doesn’t agree with Isradl’s actions.

                Peace in the middle east? You seriously believe that Israel is currently seeking peace, Norm? It seeks more land and external control.

                1. 9/11, London’s 7/7, Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan, Mumbai, Nairobi, Boston certainly don’t back the specious claim of “The Religion of Peace”.

            2. The Arab Legion was instructed, among other things, to destroy Jewish villages and drive out or murder the inhabitants to continue the work by the Grand Mufti’s ally.

              Same crap goes on today in Fascist Syria. 500,000 dead according to the UN.

              Go search. All sites. Make your OWN mind up.

    1. Mike ,
      The residents of Deir Yassin were moved to live with their Arab brethren so that they could no longer try to strangle the Jews of Jerusalem by attacking and destroying the food supplies of the Jews.

      How would you have liked thewm to ne moved?
      Or would you have liked them killed so that it would add to your anti-Jewish agenda.

      Problem with people like you Mike, is that we Jews will always be wrong whatever we do.
      The mere existence of Jews is an affront to your delicate sensiblities

  7. Norm you may follow other threads here. If so you may have seen an exchange that I had with some of the less sympathetic contributors. I asked why they were so fixated on a site whose main focus was the investigation of prejudice. Moreover I wondered why it was impossible to have a normal exchange with them on the subject. The responses made it clear to me that their entire purpose here is to mitigate the risk of this site promoting more sympathy for Israel from its efforts in drawing attention to prejudice against Jews. This is why they eschew normal response to articles and posts which indicate this prejudice in favour the more customary “yeah, but those Israelis…” This it seems is the game and it is a great tribute to David that they regard this site as being so threatening to their purpose

    1. Mike believes that David seeks to have Israel(touted as ‘the Jews’) seen as a wrongly maligned state.

      1. only to a degree. David seeks to make sure that the lens put on Israel is a proportional and accurate one. Sure this raises straw men in those that want to maintain a disproportionate and inaccurate lens, they suggest I want to deflect all criticism, that I conflate Israel with all Jews, that I see all criticism as antisemitic or that I seek to promote the idea Israel is flawless. All of this is deflective poppycock. Every one a straw man developed to maintain distortion. I can’t be bothered arguing with the straw men and I don’t waste too much time inside rabbit holes. I just carry on doing what I do.

      1. Cool. Don’t know what Israel has to do with it. If you want that type of conversation it’s probably best to stick with Mike, Chris or any of the noms de guerre on that side. They’re the experts as you’ve read. Wait…you said you weren’t Jewish and were from Ireland right? What are you bringing to the table?

      2. See Stephen, you like this line. It is a soundbite that seems to carry real weight, to suggest antisemitism contains a total separation of church and state (oohh I like that – thx). But it isn’t in any way more than a clever line, that helps to cover antisemitism. Jew-hate has never been just about the individual. It isn’t like the accusations of substandard humanity leveled against other groups who are struck by racism (although the AIDS libel against Africans comes close).

        One of the central and constant themes of antisemitism has been the group libel. The ‘elders’, controlling the world, controlling the media, running the banks, forcing us to pay high interest. A group that sees itself as gods chosen, making evil plans to kill our children. Now in today’s world, where would the Jew be running the show from? The connection with Zionism in the mind of the true antisemite would be absolute and Hitler displayed this for us brilliantly in Mein Kampf. Once upon a time, Jews were blamed, persecuted and massacred for spreading the plague. Now if you can tell me where the antisemite would suggest the Jews today would develop that plague, without mentioning or thinking of Israel, then I accept we can keep it out of the conversation.

    2. Ian,

      This is a disingenuous post by you, given you object to Posters such as myself clearly placing limits on what’s acceptable to discuss & what’s unacceptable to discuss. By way of example, as a Graduate of Modern European History ( BA in History & Politics, MA in European Studies) I’ve never once blamed all those of Germanic ancestry, or, the entirety of the German population living within Germany during the War years for the crimes of Hitler & the NAZIS Party. That is, as the historical record clearly indicates, many German’s were opposed to Mr Hitler – regrettably, most of these were neutered after Hitler’s ascent to power, with the full consent of the German Right. In the same fashion, it is wrong to conflate the actions of the Israeli State, a political entity, with the international Jewish community, of which the majority do not live in the political construct known as Israel. With regards Zionism, this again was a political movement, much as the modern Conservative Party is a political movement, one that governs the UK. I trust you’ll accept that modern Conservativism is informed by an ideology, namely that of Burke, but pulls on other stands too, whilst the Israeli political construct pulls on Zionist ideology, namely it is political. And, let us not forget that most of the early Zionists were secularists. As such, conflating transgressions by Israel with the international Jewish community is utterly wrong, although quite a percentage of said community supports Zionism ( as do many Christian Fundamentalists), this support is diminishing, particularly within the younger Jewish community, who, have far greater concerns, like the survival of the human race.

      1. Chris, don’t come at me with ‘disingenuous’. In our earlier exchanges I asked you why you were so intent on railing against a guy who spends his time writing about prejudice against Jews. You were the one that used half of each of the responses writing about life in the far east and the other half telling everyone how terrible Israel is. Now you’re presenting your CV and giving history lessons. So do me a favour and don’t talk bollocks. I get that some of the stuff where David looks at the UK Labour Party sits badly with you because you support them and he may have touched some raw nerves where the only response you can imagine is to demean and discredit. Seriously? You’ve got a Masters degree for fuck sake you must have more in the locker than that. It can’t just be about emotion. We’re talking about politicians for Christ sake; people who gain power by lying to other people and then get paid for it. (yes, yes Mike, just like Israel, just like everywhere in the world where organisational systems are based around professional representation). If this is all that it is then at least say it and stop tarting around trying to trip up a guy who is far better at what he does than either of us. ‘Genuous’ rant ends.

        1. “lying to other people and then get paid for it.”? Is that a dig at David? Just a question.

        2. Again Ian,

          You seem incapable of any understanding, except that which you place on them. For the record I’m posting here as I object to Zionists and Israeli apologists accusing the political Left of harbouring a legion of anti-semites, much as I object to Mr Collier claiming the BBC gives air time too, and is itself full of anti-semites. Had Collier referred to Tories, I’d not object. The fact remains that across Europe and the USA the actual Left is highly critical of Israel, we, and my peers, are critical due to Israel’s continued appalling treatment of the Palestinian’s, whom were ejected from most of their lands by Zionists. Now, post in good faith, post your apologies for the crimes of Israel, crimes noted by the UN no less, but please don’t put BS into my mouth – once the exaggerations & hysteria cease, I shall stop posting. Until such time, I’ll challenge Collier and his posse of supporters when they utter BS. Are we clear Sir?

          1. yawn. It is the old ‘ there is no antisemitism on the left’ argument. It plays on the additional distortion of left = good, right = bad argument, fully highlighted by the use of ‘Tories’ in the message. I mean since when did Tories = extreme right. See in the real world, people such as myself, recognise the dangers of extremism, with left extremism and right extremism being closely correlated through a horseshoe style spectrum.

            There are those that are trying to suggest (cough, Chris), that the line is one that doesn’t run from right to left, but rather from bad to good. With people moving further ‘into the light’ the more left they move. Moderate Labour in this spectrum is also on the right. Only once you move into the left, does ‘good’ exist, and the further into the left extremes you go, the more ‘good’ you will find. Extreme left wing therefore becomes the most pure.

            In reality it denies the obvious sentiment of the majority that all extremism is dangerous, and it cannot see the reflection of the fascist uniform when it looks in the mirror.

            1. “In reality it denies the obvious sentiment of the majority that all extremism is dangerous, and it cannot see the reflection of the fascist uniform when it looks in the mirror”

              Suggest that the above matches wonderfully with Israel and the civilised world.

            2. Could you please elucidate on what Left extremism is please David, particularly the ideological circumstances that drives it. I mean, little ole me is a eco-socialist and only been a member of either the Labour Party or the Green Party when I got sick of Tony Blair. My own ideology is driven by much of that informing the French Revolution and Veblen. Does this make me an extremist I wonder?

          2. on point. What do you think about people demonising Israel in a church by distorting history? In your battle against Israel, because of your ‘critical opinions’, do you turn a blind eye to lies and distortions that make Israel out to be worse than it is?

          3. “the crimes of Israel, crimes noted by the UN no less” – the UN? LMAO. You are unhinged.

          4. Chris

            When I refer to Antisemitism in the ‘left’ and certain parts of the Labour Party, I am refering to the obsessive focus of these groups on Israel to the almost total exclusion of the wrong doings of regimes that make Israel look like an angel.

            I now wait for your charge of ‘what aboutery’

            The fact of the matter is that these groups hold Israel to a standard that is not expected of anyone else
            I now wait for the charge that ‘we hold Israel to superior standards’ because she is part of the west, and therefore we hold Israel to our standards.

            This argument falls down for two reasons
            1) it treats the others who do not abide by the same standards as the west as uncivilised, uneducated others, which is actually very RACIST
            2) the western liberals actually hold Israel to a standard that is expected of no others (including the west) and thus puts Israel into its own special category, which to my mind then becomes classic Antisemitism because of the ‘double standard’ that only applies to Israel/Jews

            1. I don’t think he’ll take lessons on ‘racism’ from a supporter of Zionism.

              You will no doubt have heard of, and may have supported, the imposition of sanctions on Russia for its occupation and annexation of the land of others. Were that Israel was similarly held to account instead of the constant appeasement it generously receives from the West.

      2. “the political construct known as Israel” – I wonder which other countries this swivel-eyed, hatred-motivated, thick, ignorant schmuck refers to as a ‘political construct’.

      3. CFhris

        If you are a European History Graduate, have you read a book on Germany in the 1930s’ by a journalist named Shirer and called the Nightmare Years (think that info is correct)

        His take on Hitlers actions and the Germans peoples response is very interesting
        He places part of the blame for Hitler success on the pusilaneous response of the western powers to Hitlers actions
        I find the wests reaction to nuclear Korea and soon to be nuclear Iran similar to the actions of 1930s’ western leaders

        1. Chamberlain new what terrible cost in lives a war entails. You appear to not know. He attempted to avoid war but itvwas not to be. Germany went further. The world similarly appeases Israel over its ravenous hunger for control and land.

          Re. N. Korea, Kim seeks nuclear to ensure that his country does not follow Iraq in being the US’s next conquest. Israel itself, through subtefuge, acquired its own deterrent. Why should N. Korea not have the same rights as Israel. The US itself now seeks to develop reduced nuclear items, presumably for battlefield use. Meanwhile it bad-mouths others that seek parity. Remember thag Iran is a signatory to the NPT as was N. Korea before the US played silly buggers it making life very difficult for them resulting in N.K. withdrawing. Israel, that ‘peace loving paragon’ has refused to join and be monitored as it calls others to be. Hypocrite!

  8. Posted at 23.21 Israeli time. 2/2/2018

    Following my earlier post Norm I think that you can see how the tactics play out. It seems that the more abhorrent the prejudices are that David reports the more fearful posters like Mike become that readers will equate Jews to Israel and extend their sympathy towards it. He cannot let this happen and as you see this sends him into overdrive; furiously posting counter measures. It matters not one jot to him how direct a question is asked nor how long a list of atrocities against Jews is posted. The response will always be the same; Discredit Israel at all costs and demean the author. The pattern repeats in every thread and is indicative to the readers of the accuracy of David’s articles and the risk this presents to his opponents. The more active he is the more it’s hurting.

    1. Helpful Ian – you see connections I miss. There may well be a correlation between the damage a post can do, and the speed and depth of the deflection. Thanks for bringing that up.

        1. A theory doesn’t have to fit both sides Mike, not in the sense that it must accept myths. It will of course take elements from both sides. It has to be as true to historical fact as possible, it MUST NOT discard pieces just because they dent the theory, and it has to leave both sides human. Mine does, yours doesn’t.

  9. Ian – I am sure you are right. But this is what happens when they read these rubbish books about ‘Palestine’. These publications are so full of lies, half truths and distortions, is it any wonder that their pathetic arguments crumble the minute they start debating with people who actually know what they are talking about. But I also wonder if David’s articles are a little too complex and involved for many of the ‘fearful posters’ mentioned above and they don’t really understand what he is getting at. I mean I can find them hard going at times and I have an A level.

    1. Norm,

      I note you have an ‘A’ Level. May I enquire what this ‘A’ Level is in. Its not British History I hope, the syllabus of which presently is akin to an exercise in Tory Propaganda. For the record, this poster holds a Degree & Masters in Modern European History & Politics. Alas, allegedly I’m unqualified to comment, although, I must confess one did not study at depth British foreign policy with regards the Holy Land’s post WWII, although in my studies on the origins of a Unified Europe mentions of the Levant did occur. I take it my qualifications trump yours Norm?

      1. You have a Degree & Masters in Modern European History & Politics? I am sorry that you wasted your time at University. I hope it wasn’t at the tax payers expense. 🙁

        1. I don’t think you should take any of the personal ‘claims’ by any of these people very seriously. Not only do I not want the messages to spin into empty personal smears, but in truth, most of the claims are made only to deflect from, rather than address a point. Your education is irrelevant – theirs probably took place in Narnia.

          Time was, long before FB, that I spent time on forums. I remember a poster once, who was very big on being Israeli and secular and an officer in the IDF. He played the part of a true ‘peacenik’, and used to haunt forums where American Zionists used to dwell. His identity rather than his argument, was used to disarm the Zionist position. He supported the one state solution before BDS existed. He often relied on the use of the ‘I am Israeli and we don’t want your lot here’ type of argument. He ran with the line that his position, rather than theirs, was held by the majority of Israelis, and Israel was gripped by the ‘American Zionists’. As transparent as the troll was (an officer and a one state supporter), it was persistent and would not be broken. In essence it was a very clever persona, and awfully effective. It used to wind up Diaspora Jews who were left virtually unarmed and resorted to empty name-calling. His constant aim was to get them to argue with the persona, rather than the detail.

          Someone met him again on another forum. Except he was no longer a man, but a woman. On a third it was a grandmother. Whatever it was, it wasn’t even Israeli, because as it turned out, it couldn’t handle Hebrew. Because of one distinctive grammatical style, he/she was identified on 7 different forums, all with a slight variation on the theme. It was thrown out of several because as it burnt out, it resorted to explicit antisemitism. My own personal view is that it operated from a script, and had other persona’s also operating, each with its own style. I learnt a big lesson. Ignore the person. Play the point. They want you to do the opposite and if it is real person v troll, they will outbid you with any achievement you put forward.

        2. Norm,

          Your riposte is so weak its like being savaged by a dead sheep – now, where have I heard that famous quote before, except said sheep was not dead!

  10. It’s not what he’s getting at, it’s what he’s aiming for.

    Bet David wishes all his readers had just one ‘A’ level, Norm.

  11. Chris, I am grateful for the response but you must see that you haven’t made it easy to understand until now. As I mentioned and absolutely without intent to catch you out or draw a soundbite, you have referenced tv shows, life in the far east, Israel, your academic qualifications, the status of your marriage and sundry history lessons. All of this was in response to a pretty straightforward question about why you are so opposed to the way this site writes articles about prejudice. Surely you can see why I wouldn’t get it. Now you have made it clearer for me which I appreciate. Setting aside your antipathy to Israel for now and just looking at the point about your political allegiances, you say that ” Had Collier referred to Tories, I’d not object”. Did you mean to say that? Did you mean just Tories or Tories, Labour and other political parties as part of a wider reaching examination into prejudice in that arena?

    Surely someone with the undoubted strength of political conviction that you present ought to welcome any test that challenges the politicians that he supports. What could they possibly have to hide?

    I think it is another great compliment to David that you are taking his endeavours so seriously. Anything less credible would simply be dismissed as irrelevance.

    1. Ian,

      Its a funny old world, but when it comes to Journalism & Reportage, I like having my information presented in an ‘unbiased’, although critical manner. Regrettably, much of the UK media, namely the MSM, does not present unbiased facts, rather they sell a political agenda. Now, this is usually referred too as PROPAGANDA, which I’m opposed too. Hence, given many hacks in top jobs in the BBC & ITV are either members of, or former members of the Conservative Party, what would you call this?

      Good try, and again, I actually have many interests that I’m happy to join in and post about, namely economics, politics, geopolitics & cultural issues. Again though, I really do like reading both sides of the argument, which regrettably the host of this Blog omits.

      As for racists requesting that you leave the UK, could you elucidate further on this issue, given, in my humble opinion, if you reside within the UKs borders, carry a UK Passport and abide by the laws of the land, I’d call you English & a Brit. Indeed, a good University friend of mine, working class Yorkshire miner, was not only Jewish, but was an active military participant in one of the wars to befell your region, of course he was in the IDF. Nice chap. Funny thing was, at University he was in a relationship with a person not of the Jewish faith who hailed from Malaysia – we all got stoned often and had great discussions. Funny old world as I say.

      1. ” given many hacks in top jobs in the BBC & ITV are either members of, or former members of the Conservative Party” – or Labour, schmuck.

        1. Leah,

          I’m afraid to say you certainly are not the brightest card in the pack, however, please elucidate on why a demonstration opposing the privatisation of England’s NHS in London that attracted more than 60,000 demonstrators in London alone warranted 30 seconds on the BBC News on Saturday night. Of course, persons like you love your propaganda, others though shout out about it.

          1. Totally irrelevant to my point.
            And this thick, ignorant, reading-comprehension-challenged schmuck calls ME ‘not the brightest card in the pack’. ROFLMAO.
            Bugger off, thicko.

      2. Chris

        Being a University gradute as am I (law) you will understand bias (or should).

        Bias is not necessarily telling lies; it is the selective use of available information, it is the inclusion of certain information while suppressing other unfavourable but necessary fact.

        I studied at SOAS. On the surface the university was very open and inclusive until facts were introduced that countered the favoured narrative.

        The reaction to the counter narrative was spectacularly effective; it was not overt but covert to the extreme.
        I believe that many practising this reaction were mostly unaware of what they were doing; but the silent exclusion and sbtle put down were emotionally shattering to the recipients of said reaction.
        So most put their heads down and said nothing; and that saying ‘Evil Truimphs When Good People Remain Silent’

        And that is how bias and one sided narratives thrive; they silence opposition by making their opponents pariahs, socially unacceptable beings.

        I saw it at SOAS writ large; and it was both daunting and frightening

        1. “And that is how bias and one sided narratives thrive; they silence opposition by making their opponents pariahs, socially unacceptable beings.” ….. declaring them ‘antisemites’?

          1. Still playing the IslamFAUXbia card?

            Even after London’s 7/7 2005, Manchester, 9/11, Lee Rigby, Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan, Boston marathon, need for checkpoints at airports, Westminster bridge, Nice truck ramming on Bastille Day, Mumbai, Nairobi, Orlando, Fort Hood, Beslan, Moscow, Bali?

  12. Posted at 13.40 Israeli Time 3rd Feb 2018

    David, Chris’s remarks prompt an interesting control test that may be worthy of consideration; namely a focus on the right or ‘Fascist Feb’ if you will. A full month of articles about the non-left and their latent or patent prejudices. Maybe like the left there are absolutely none whatsoever now or at any time in history but if it is found that the New Boot-boys are unexpectedly intolerant of Jews and other races and religions then it may be worth noting the extent of the response or lack thereof from the usual suspects here; the ones that say its just about your examinations of the socialists.

    I’d be quite keen on an update on the lads that used to tell me to “fuck off back to Israel”. The irony of it eh!!

    1. I responded to you above Ian, although yet to receive a response. Strange. How very strange.

      1. Sorry for my delayed response Chris, I’m still getting over the Jewish, Yorkshire mining, former IDF soldiering stoner and significant other to a Malaysian partner who “was an active military participant in one of the wars to befell your region” (sic). You may want to let Mike know the last bit. He says Israel has never really been in a war.

        As we start a new week here in the Jewish State I have been encouraging everyone I know to start reading this stuff and specifically the comment sections just to see the nature and quality of the opposition in the diaspora. I’ve drawn their attention to the very real fear of David’s influence in the fight against prejudice and also the role that you guys play indirectly in the promotion of sympathy for our country. As the transgendered, juggling former vegan sous chef kibbutznik partner of my wife’s hairdresser would say “todah rabah”

        1. on a completely unrelated note, but triggered by ‘todah rabah’ is this story. I arrived in Israel for the first time in late 1987. I was on a Kibbutz near Gaza, and it was a few weeks before the 1st Intifada broke out. My Hebrew wasn’t bad it was non existent. For a while I seriously thought ‘Ken Beseder’ was the name of a really popular guy on the kibbutz. Everyone was always talking about him.

        2. Well Ian,
          On the small Island I live on we have one Israeli that I know of, she’s been here more than 25 years, is what would be correctly known as a Hippie, with a penchant for welfare for animals. Funny thing is, she used to have pet pigs until they were banned by the government – well, all pigs and fowl were killed on our Island due to fears over the influenza virus. She tokes a fair bit too. Don’t think she’s much of a Zionist and she certainly does not practice Judaism – nice woman. God knows what she’d make of this Blog I’m afraid to say!

          Oh, I’m certainly aware she’s not Leah, which is a good thing in my book.

            1. Leah,

              Unlike you I deal in facts, which means most of what I say or write anywhere can be verified by either peers, the authorities I work with, or by picking up an academic book. Suffice to say, in your cosseted world, that you deal in is “bollocks” – look up what bollocks means in South Wales, which sums up most of what you pump into your keyboard.

              1. What you call ‘facts’, you utterly ridiculous schmuck, is an evil-smelling mix of ignorance and propaganda.

          1. And on the island is no doubt an ex-pat who at some point in the 1960’s was also part of the hippie movement. Unfortunately, his story goes is that he was taken aboard an alien space-ship and tested on. He blames the UK government for having a secret agreement with these aliens. Don’t think he places much value in the UK, and certainly doesn’t pay any attention to its politics. God only knows what she would think of the state of the nation today.

            Oh, I am certain it is not you. I brought it up, because hey, these individuals are really, really relevant. It is really vital that everyone pay attention to random outliers.

            1. Well, David, it’s certainly not vital that posters challenge your claims of antisemitism in all your blogs.

              Your reply to me was a ‘well I think it was’, without any qualification as to how.

              Lesson is, don’t call David out on his claims. They are obviously always valid, obviously.

              1. Please stop chasing me onto different threads. If I had any urge or need to respond to you, I would have done so when and where you asked the question. As I have made absolutely clear, I have no interest in you whatsoever.

                1. The question I asked was about the claims ON THIS BLOG that you declined to substantiate.

                  My point is made.

                  1. Mike. The question was answered INSIDE the blog itself. The only point you are succeeding in pushing is that there is little sincerity about you. I have not stopped you posting here. I just have zero interest in your posts myself.

                    1. Oh Mike, you still don’t get it. Having someone who at times displays clear antisemitic tendency call my blog a fantasy doesn’t matter to me. My calculation is clear. Is there more value in me spending time being baited to run around after my own tail, or is there more value in continuing the research, and working on the next blog and other longer term projects? So I carry on, highlighting antisemitism where I find it, discussing the issues with the lie factory behind so much of anti-Israel activity and writing about it all. The blog is about antisemitism and the conflict. It is a well researched, highly factual store of an unfolding story and historical information. Many of the subscriber base hold PhDs. Many others are in politics or the media. That provides both pressure and reassurance. Pressure to maintain the quality, reassurance that I am on track. You can either continue to try to deflect and distract or not. You can continue to deny antisemitism in the face of clear antisemitism or not. You can lie, distort and pretend you have a counter for the argument or not. Up to you. You are a troll on an internet page. I really don’t care.

            2. David,

              I know many Jewish folk, have visited both Synagogues where I reside, have had the pleasure of dining with Orthodox Jews in their Kosher kitchen, have had business partners who are Jewish and bump into Jewish folks whenever I venture out of my Flat – none walks around fearful of anti-semitic slights, as actually most have far more important things to consider, such as: Earning a living, looking after the kids, caring for the environment – usually beach cleaning. I could go on, buts what’s the point, because if you lived with the 5,000 folks I live with, no doubt you’d find anti-semitism everywhere and put the fear of God into most people, regardless of their religion or nationality – I take it, where I reside, which is quite cosmopolitan, but also be an outlier?

              Oh, forgot to instruct I was actually raised within the Wesleyan Methodist Church, as such, no doubt, I’ve been indoctrinated with anti-semitism since a very young age via Bible classes on a Sunday. I preferred watching the Munsters and the Adams Family, which also no doubt indoctrinated me – what an awful place the UK is in your mind.

              1. not at all Chris. You really should stop telling me what I think. Perhaps you should even start actually reading what I write. Nobody is suggesting life here is terrible for Jews. The very fact, I need to chase it down in a particular political quarter, suggests I am free to be a Jew amongst the majority of people in the UK, without even having to think twice. Never have I suggested any different. When people tell me it is like the 1930’s, I knock them back. I much prefer the idea it holds similarities with the 1920’s.

                So if you put me somewhere where there wasn’t antisemitism, I’d be happy to meet these folk, go out, party with them, and you know what, the fact I am a Jew may not even make it into the conversation. That isn’t the problem. The issue is why, when there is a problem with antisemitism within a segment of society are YOU suddenly so concerned with me, why do you twist what I say, why do you misrepresent what I do, and why do you not see the antisemitism, even when it blatantly exists. So I have no argument with you at all that much of the UK is fine, I have an argument with you that you ignore the elements that are not.

  13. “He seems to think it is bad that Israel teaches Jewish children, Jewish history, and clearly believes it is a problem that from a very young age, they are taught about the Holocaust. ”

    Teach by all means. Trust also that Arab-Israeli children are taught about the Nakba and the ethnic cleansing that the Arabs suffered at the hands of the Zionists.

    1. Jews were ethnically cleansed from Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and slaughtered before 1948.

      So Happy Nakba!

      The Nakba being the FAILURE of 5 attacking Arab armies, none of which was an army of an existing “palestine”, to defeat Israel and continue Socialist hitlers genocide of the Jews.

    2. “the ethnic cleansing that the Arabs suffered at the hands of the Zionists” – moronic screeching from the schmuck.

    3. Mike

      in 1929 Hebron Jews were massacred or Ethnically Cleansed by the Arabs (a community that had existed for a few thousand years)

      In 1948/9 the British officered and financed Jordanian army Ethnically cleansed all the Jews of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and totally destroyed over 50 Synagouges.

      This same Jordanian army massacred dozens of Jews and Ethnically cleansed the rest of the Jews from the Etzion Block.

      In fact the most Judenfrei (Jew free) areas in the world were effectively the territories that became known as the West Bank after Jordans conquest and annexation of the area.

      That was of course followed by the effective ETHNIC CLEANSING of Jews from virtually the entire Arab/Muslim world; and they were ethnically cleansed solely because they were Jews.
      They were not ETHNICALLY CLEANSED during a war or because they were Zionists; it was solely because they belonged to the Jewish faith/people

      The Arabs left mainly because of the negative Arab propoganda surrounding Deir Yassin and during a civil war that then turned into an actual war between the Arab states and Israel

  14. David, the wiki link that you included says this “Dramatic demographic changes accompanied the war in the country. Around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled out of 900,000 from the area that became Israel, and they became Palestinian refugees.”

    Didn’t you say that the figure was much less?

  15. David, which text shows Coldicott displaying anti-semitism please. Having read your blog you have quoted text were he indeed mentions Jews. Which words are , to yourself, antisemitic? Where with his words is he displaying that strong emotion, ‘hate’?

  16. Posted 7.58 am Israeli Time Sun 4th Feb 2018

    Your comments about trollery are useful and it makes me think that your resident collective may have a helpful role to play in the site, certainly the less sophisticated ones. I imagine that most readers come here because they are sympathetic to your positions. Then there will be a smaller group who are not. Then there will a third group comprising those that are doing independent research and may use this and other sites to take a wide view. The first and second groups have already made up their minds and are simply coming to be either supportive or disruptive as per their own agendas. The last group is more interesting and here is my point. For this group they will, on the one hand see a body of work that is detailed, thorough and well presented, often supported by first hand testimony and knowledgeable evidential comments. When seeking balance they may be drawn to the comments sections where they will read posts from opponents that process a turgid copy and paste of “yeah…but Israel”, talk about your funding, your health and safety policy, their pets and some of their best friends who are Jews. Reviewing the weight of this counterpoint the only conclusion that they could draw is “Wow, If that’s all they’ve got maybe the author is onto something?”

    So on one level at least your opponents seem to be helping you to make the case against them. I think it should be encouraged.

    1. not the only reason they are useful, but one of them. In my own journey, in the transition from forum avatar to active researcher, I was empowered through the years of experience of facing them. By learning not to bite at all, to recognise the rabbit hole for what it is, to go for point and not man, and through a long learning curve that involved investigating every aspect of the arguments thrown at me, I came out the other side sharper, better informed, and more focused. Much of what I know, has come from reading those like Pappe, Said, Blumenthal, White, Peled, Suarez, Sabbagh, Chomsky, Muslih, Atzmon, Shlaim, Finklelstein, Kharmi and even Hitler. It isn’t as if supporters of these people will now derail me with semi-educated shadows of the actual arguments put forward in the books I have already read, understood, and seen through. So they deflect, mainly trying to get people to respond either with personal insults, or the far more travelled strategy, through taking discussions into carefully chosen rabbit holes. If people do neither, but stick to topic, and strike the point but not the man, there really isn’t much in their locker at all.

      1. Sticking to topic, would the “sharper, better informed, and more focused” David like to answer my question as to just what words used by Mr. Coldicott he deemed to be ‘antisemitic’?

        1. I did. Read the article. I don’t leave explanations over what I thought was antisemitic for the comment section. That would be negligent. Almost all open-minded people that see the article, will read it, and see the antisemitism. I have no interest in wasting my time trying to convince someone who wouldn’t see antisemitism in Mein Kamf, that I saw it in the church. That would involve me, going back to your comment, ‘losing focus’. And as I have mentioned earlier, I have no interest in diving into whichever rabbit hole you are trying to invite me into. As Ian points out, to those open-minded people, your ridiculous question is of the type that strengthens our argument rather than weakens it. Do please carry on.

          1. Read a story once about a suit made for a King. Think the tailors were Collier, Collier and Collier if I remember.

          2. “I don’t leave explanations over what I thought was antisemitic for the comment section. That would be negligent. Almost all open-minded people that see the article, will read it, and see the antisemitism. ”

            Not like you to shy away ….is it?

            You have, in a mood, written a blog claiming antisemitism, and now refuse to take questions on it. There you have it.

            Wonder what your next blog will attempt.

        1. Yes it is always fun watching the loon Scoffie lying his heart out. I will restrict myself to just two bits from here. The batshit defintion doesn’t say any of the stuff he says it does, and the Labour Party hasn’t adopted any part of it.

          1. Indeed Stephen,
            Although, what I find hilarious is Harvey harking on about Mein Kampf, which he cannot even spell. No doubt he must have had an E in his ‘A’ Level History, but we’ll give him a ‘C’ for his propaganda efforts.

            However, strange he mentions MK, when his good friend Scoffie actually associates with extreme rightwing fruit bats, the sort who believe MK is a tome of common sense – still, as they say, its all: “Horses for courses.” I suggest he reads some Veblen, which may enlighten him a little.

            1. Considering that Socialist hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem where close friends, how about Mein Koran?

    2. Ian when you refer to pets I hope you are not talking about Gnasher. Gnasher is not a pet. If you could see all the cuts, scratches and abrasions on my arms you would think I was self harming.

  17. Mike

    Israel introduced the ‘LAW of RETURN’ for Jews as an antidote for years of maltreatment at the hands of Christian, Muslim and Others.

    Israel allows people of other faiths/ethnicities into Israel subject to the same criteria exercised by most other countries

    I refuse to use that disgustingly Racist comment about ‘bloodlines’. You r use of that wording confirms the charge that you are an Antisemite. It is worthy of the language used by the Nazis and their fellow travellers. It is despicable that you could use such language.

    Sir: you are a racist

    1. That Israel uses that criteria to allow such an absolute right to immigrate to Israel, and become one of its citizens condemns the state to carry that label.

      Thankyou, Richard. Now for a smoke. …. just remembered, I don’t.

          1. Please list the Arab/Muslim countries that are “multi-cultural”, “multi-ethnic”, tolerant of non-Muslims and their particular religious symbols.

  18. Mike

    You fail to acknowledge the Hadassah Massacre of 13 April 1948 where appoximately 88 Jews died at the hands of the Arabs

    You fail to acknowledge the attacks on Jews by both local and foreign Arabs before Israel became an independant country

    Your thoughts are clouded by your anti-Jewish animus

    I repeat my charge sir that you are a raciust

  19. Mike

    An open request for funding is quite a legitimate request

    I was refering to your Antisemetic claim that it as a ‘lucrative’ endeavour

    As I said before it raises the anti-Jewish spectre of the money grubbing miserly Jew

    Sir; I repeat again you are a racist

      1. You may put it on a ‘prayer-rug’ if it pleases you – but it won’t end your endless Nakba (failure to defeat the Israelis).

  20. Mike

    The Holocaust as the world knows it began after the infamous Wannasee Conference

    Prior to Wannasee it was an ad hoc disorganised murder machine

    After Wannasee it bacame a cold blooded mechanised murder machine
    Therein lies the difference

      1. Mike Sir,

        May I suggest you read Christopher R. Brownings seminal study: The Origins of the Final Solution – pay particular attention to the bibliography. Further, it helps to understand the political structure of the Hitler State, which was totally re-evaluated in the 70s & 80s, much of this work is what Kershaw pulls upon & his books are among the most accessible for those with an interest.

  21. Mike
    an illiterate one line reply that says less than nothing

    Are you incapable of coherent arument and debate

    Or is your entire contribution fed by an unreasonable dislike for Jews, Israel and facts and the truth

  22. Of course I acknowledge that Jews were also massacred. My point is that the denials of ethnic cleansing and that the deliberate destruction of Arab villages was a carefully orchestrated plan are dishonest and fruitless.

    1. Moron Mike, Projecting Arab/Muslim crimes onto Jews/Israelis is dishonest and fruitless.

      See 9/11, London’s 7/7, Manchester, Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan, Mumbai, Nairobi, Pan Am 103, underwear and sneaker bombers, Times Square, NYC bike path ramming, Westminster ramming, …

  23. Mike

    Another incoherent attempt to refute an opposing argument

    Churchill maintained that a strong military prevented war by proving to agresive adversaries that military adventurism would have severe consequences

    Churchill is reputed to have said on Chamberlains return from Munich that he Chamberlain, had not guaranteed/acheived peace , but that he had guaranteed war

    Chamberlains vacilating, spineless negotiation with Hitler convinced Hitler that Britain and France were so weak that they would never stand up to his agression; and when he reached agreement with Stalin he felt that he would never have to fight a war on two fronts

    50 million deaths later the true results of appeasment are visible to all who have the eyes and intelect to see

  24. Mike

    I refer to provable facts regarding the different stages that the mass murder of Jews followed

    Silly comments like yours prove the level of your ignorance conncerning the Holocaust

    You seem to be unable to get basic facts correct

  25. Mike

    I am not sure if your trouble is the inability to read something, but are then unable to assimilate that information into a context that is coherent, or that you suffer from a disability such as dyslexia which prevents the eye from always transmitting the text coherently to the brain

    You seem to misinterpret all the knowledge that is offered you

  26. David, what is the basis for the imputation in one of your tweets that the title of a JVL Facebook post, “Racism in Israel is directly linked to profits”, which is directly related to the substance of an article published in Ha’aretz, is a manifestation of “antisemitic accusations”?

    1. I read the article. I hate exploitation. It goes on everywhere, and there is far more in the UK than in Israel. Forget the exploitation of those that make it through, We have no idea how many have died on their way to the UK after paying good ‘transfer’ money, only to be loaded like cattle onto trucks on mainland Europe. I also knew many a foreign worker in Israel, including Filipinos. For a while, I had the ‘pleasure’ of being a ‘foreign worker’ too, so I know only to well the experience of not knowing whether your boss that day would be a good guy or an animal. The Filipino’s I knew, were for the most part lucky. Employed, looked after, and treated as bosses should treat their employees. I also met some that weren’t.

      Back to the article. The substance of the article is in itself poppycock. Not that I dispute some people involved in the industry are exploiting the workers, but that I reject entirely these people are the central force behind the deportations. As here, public opposition to migrant workers is the central force. There is no reason to believe Israel is different. As the situation in some areas, certainly in Southern Tel Aviv, has become more visibly problematic, so the public voice has risen to create political pressure. Those affected the most are natural Likud voters, we could be facing an election soon. 1000 different reasons are available. Each play a part.

      In any event I did not see the word racism mentioned anywhere in the article. Even if we accept that the underlying issue of the article is a racist one (exploitation of foreign workers isn’t always racist, but rather one of financial opportunity. Some of these people are bastards. If they could get away with doing it to everyone, they would, but citizens are protected by greater laws), why is ‘racism in Israel directly linked to profits’? Didn’t see that in the article anywhere. Only saw it in the JVL tagline. Clearly antisemitic. Not sure what your problem is.

      1. David your use of prefixes and suffixes like clearly, obviously and as everyone knows , usually means that it is not clear, it is not obvious , or everyone does not know. They are short hand variants of this is not evidenced but take it as Gospel because I am asserting it.

        As my very dear friend Richard Armbach said…….

        ” Any organisation with truth or honest or accuracy or some similar in its name is invariably devoted to the very opposite.”

        He had in mind such as


        Honest Reporting


        When you use such expressions it makes me suspicious o)

        1. it isn’t difficult to understand. ‘Racism in the UK is directly linked to profit’. It’s a rather absurd statement, wouldn’t you say?

            1. As it is clearly an absurd statement. Let’s look at it. Don’t you think it plays on the ‘money grabbing’ trope? Put aside the absolute. Don’t you think it could easily be taken to be playing on the ‘money grabbing’ trope? If not, how else can such an absurd statement be unpacked? Give me the rational alternative.

              1. Given that I don’t understand it that is a big ask. But you know I am not a fan of these tropes. In order to see some antisemitism I need to see some hatred of Jews. That what the expression ” antisemitism” means.

                At the end of the LP conference JLM tried to get Naomi Idrissi disciplined for saying ” JLM would be more credible if it wasn’t running to the Telegraph and the Mail every five minutes”. She ” directed an anti semitic trope at Mike Katz” ( get your head around that construct if you can).

                This , FFS , is equivalent to saying that Jews, as a collective, are engaged in a demonic conspiracy to control the whole world and everything in it. Do you not think that is absurd ?

                1. I was there for that. Honestly, as much as I cannot abide NWI, I thought that was a political reference accusing some Labour members of running to the ‘Tory papers’ with a story. There isn’t antisemitism under every rock. I get the reference, and I know what they implied she meant, but I still think it was a stretch. I am almost certain I didn’t mention it in my own report.

          1. I was getting to feeling a bit disappointed that there had been no reaction from you Harv but there was no need. There you are !

            Once again Harv it is fortuitous that you are not a fish. You bite on every hook. o:)

      2. ” Clearly antisemitic” …….. as with Mr. Coldicott’s talk where you just couldn’t put your finger on why?

        1. Of course I can put my finger on why. Do you think ‘racism in the UK is directly linked to profit’? Was the racism of the bully boys from the ‘BNP’ driven by the money-grabbing attributes of its members?

  27. Stephen

    His actions were at the Jewish Leadership Council

    This does not affect the Jlm unless you can show that he has moved his practises there

    This is not exonerating him for the wrong he HAS done; this is just saying that because something happened there, then it has contaminated this now without any proof of a connection between the two is wrong.

    Don’t know the man so won’t comment on his character and whether he is guilty, or not.

    In this judgemental world, I hate the way blame is thrown around like conffeti at a wedding whether it is relevant and/or connected

    1. David, Newmark is as bent as a £9 note. Proven perjurer, proven fraudster. A one man walking ctime wave, Has been known for years. No oeganisation he heads can be taken seriously

      As for being charged with training in the LP and standing as a LP candidate…………..You could equally well argue that I am qualified to be the Grand Wizard of the Ballmena Orange Lodge

      1. Sorry I did of course mean Richard. Richard imagine a reincarnated Adolf Hitler getting appointed to Chairman of a Jewish charity. Would you say oh that was then this is now, what has he done wrong here.

  28. Mike

    Palestinians are not Israelis therefore they cannot register their vehicles in Israel. Period

    That anyone can think about it differently is not only wrong, but plain stupid

  29. Mike

    The only fool in this is you if you believe what you have just said

    This organisation, like all the other ‘liberal’ ngos’, have an agenda; and that agenda is not in the least bit favourable to Israel

    Most of these ngos’ are foreign funded,often by countries that had, and often still have, large groups of people that were quite partial to Hitler and his ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Problem’

    1. So Richard, Jonathan’s write up, containing “A clue as to the nature of the talk was inside the entrance. There was a big photo of a roadsign in Judea/Samaria forbidding non-Israeli registered vehicles from using a road. The Israel traducers of course tell you that the road is ‘for Jews only’ and is an example of ‘apartheid’. It’s a lie. The road is for all Israeli registered vehicles regardless of the driver’s religion and the reason for that is purely security. Further inside the entrance was a table with a variety of PSC literature on it. ” shows that both Jews AND Palestinians may use these roads? As you have a far greater intellect than myself please indulge me. 🙂

      p.s. perhaps Jonathan and yourself are not singing from the same hymn/prop. sheet.

      1. actually the entire discussion is wrong. The sign explicitly forbade Israeli vehicles from entering. It is a sign from a road leading to area A. It informs Israelis (Jews, Muslims, Christians, Agnostics – whatever) that it is dangerous to their lives and against Israeli law for them to continue. Only Palestinians can drive on that road, which is under the control of the PA.

  30. David, did Coldicott actually say or even infer that the Israeli-Jews would kill themselves without the occupation or is that YOUR spin on his words?

            1. I was there. You weren’t. And yet you call me a liar. Of course what I say matters, which is why I am always as careful as I can be in trying to make what I say stick as closely to the truth as is possible.

                1. “..the sort of cad who knows says he knows your own home town better than you do and he ain’t never been there.”
                  Alfred D Wintle MC.

              1. David, your blog trumpets ‘THE TRUTH MATTERS’.

                If you were there, and I believe that you were, surely you should quote his actually words rather than ‘paraphrase’ them to blacken his message and also his character.

                I didn’t call you a liar, merely asked for more proof.

  31. So, there are no roads in the West Bank that you can only drive on with an Israeli registered vehicle?

    1. We’re doing the Arabs a huge favour. Put them behind the wheel of a car and they seem to develop an overwhelming desire to aim it at Jews and plough into them at high speed. We’re also supporting the aid effort. Fewer martyrs for Abbas to pay means more money to distribute to his people from a dwindling pot since His Trumpship slashed their funding. Win, win wouldn’t you say?

      Israel; supporting safe drivers since 1948.

    1. Not sure what your reply was and which of my posts you were replying to. David’s blog software doesn’t nest enough.

      Your Jonathan reference re. special West Bank roads made my point though. Pity Jonathan’s blog(linked by David) forbade comments.

  32. Stephen

    Agreed; he is bent.

    This does not mean that the organisations and movements he is involved with are not important.

    It means that these groups must exercize more caution in the people they employ and react to impropreity when it becomes apparent.

    Still waiting on explenations on
    1) basket case allegations against Israel
    2) claim that Israel is the worlds most dependant state

  33. Stephen

    Using such an extreme example as Hitler to illustrate your point about financial impropriety in a Jewish organization is bth disingenuous and over the top (if there were emojis there would be a big smile here)

  34. Mike

    There are roads in Judea & Samaria (Jordanj called it the West Bank) that only cars with Israeli plates are allowed to use; irrespective of the race, creed and religion of the driver.

    There are vast areas of Judea & Samaria that Israelis are forbidden by Israeli Law from entering; these same areas funnily enough are the ones where if Jews enter they will be lynched by the tolerant , peace loving Palestinian residents

    1. Jonathan won’t be pleased with your post asserting that there is an apartheid being practised by the occupying Israelis in the West Bank.

      He told us “The Israel traducers of course tell you that the road is ‘for Jews only’ and is an example of ‘apartheid’. IT’S A LIE.. The road is for all Israeli registered vehicles …. ”

      You followed by …”Palestinians are not Israelis therefore they cannot register their vehicles in Israel. Period”.

      Hence we have that Palestinians cannot use these roads, in their own land. Israeli only roads … Apartheid.

      Richard, the gift that keeps on giving. Thankyou.

      p.s. The West Bank is NOT Israel.

      1. Apartheid is not being practiced. You are not paying attention. There is a conflict, there are two sides, and security issues created by the conflict means non-nationals are treated differently, just as they are or would be everywhere. All Israelis, regardless of race, colour or belief, are free to use some roads and not others, just as Palestinians are free to use some roads and not others.

        A simple question. Is there an occupation or not? If you believe there is an occupation, then you cannot argue Apartheid. How on earth can Apartheid exist in an occupation. If the difference between the two is occupied /occupier, then the divide is a national issue and not a racial one. This is not hard to grasp.

        Your argument (not mine) should be: The THREAT of Apartheid is over annexation without rights. If Israel takes all the territory into its national boundaries, thus ending the national conflict, without giving rights to a specific group, then the divide is no longer one of occupied / occupier, but rather a split on other (race, ethnic etc) lines.

        Unless this happens, you are both protecting your cake and eating it at the same time.

        1. David,
          Apartheid – Separateness

          “non-nationals are treated differently”? But this is in the West Bank NOT Israel. Those with Israel registered vehicles are ‘nationals’ in Israel, not in the West Bank.

          1. According to the latest Ministry of Transport statistics there was a 32% decline in vehicle related injuries and fatalities on the roads in the last 12 months. Experts attribute much of this to a sharp downturn in the number of Arab motorists driving their vehicles at high speed into gatherings of children, young mums and the elderly. Stiffer prohibitions now include 3 points and the mandatory completion of an online road safety course or summary neutralization.

            Israel; Encouraging responsible motoring since 1948.

    1. Yep, that’s what happened with the drone.

      Fancy violating the airspace of others with a drone. Moral Israel would never do that, Ian.

      1. Yep, that’s what happens when you allow people to play with sharp non-sequiturs.

        Fancy violating the blog space of others with a non-sequitur. Sincere posters would never do that Mike.

  35. I thought we were on road safety. Drones is air safety. Which one are you on about now? We don’t want to get sidetracked. Although, to be honest I don’t know how you got from antisemites in UK churches to Arabs in their Kamikaze Cortinas in the first place

    1. Just a misunderstanding, Ian.

      We’ve already established that there was no antisemitism in Mr. Coldicott’s talk that David could present on his blog. Just David’s usual ‘Well it OBVIOUSLY was’.

      1. ‘We’ve already established’.

        No you haven’t. There is more than enough information available here Mike. Your attempt to detract from serious posts, which involve eye-witnesses, quotes and fine detail, through the use of playground tactics doesn’t damage my character Mike, it highlights the weakness in yours. As it is, you are simply someone who turns up on a blog that deals with acts of racism, screaming ‘liar’ at the person complaining about it. It isn’t a role I would ever feel comfortable playing, so I really do not envy you.

        1. “‘We’ve already established’. “No you haven’t.”

          I asked you to quote which parts of Coldicott’s talk were anti-semitic.

          My post asked … “Sticking to topic, would the “sharper, better informed, and more focused” David like to answer my question as to just what words used by Mr. Coldicott he deemed to be ‘antisemitic’?”

          You replied …. “I don’t leave explanations over what I thought was antisemitic for the comment section. That would be negligent. Almost all open-minded people that see the article, will read it, and see the antisemitism.”

          You couldn’t quote me anything that was antisemitic!

          1. Okay Mike. I am never sure if you are intentionally playing stupid just to make it appear there is a conversation going on, or if other drivers are at work.

            This is your argument.

            1. ‘I asked you where you were on the night of the 14th’
            2. ‘you responded that you have a solid alibi, don’t want to go over it again with me, and had already described precisely what occurred and where you were in your testimony’
            3. ‘therefore you had to have been at the site of the murder – because you won’t repeat your alibi to me’

            and to cap all this off, on the basis of those comments, your last post suggested

            4. ‘now we have established you are guilty’….

            I don’t know whether to laugh, feel pity, or just stare blankly at the screen.

            The blog is full of what he said, and why it is problematic. Take it like a test. If you don’t see any antisemitism, then you have a blind spot to certain types of racism.

            1. “I don’t know whether to laugh, feel pity, or just stare blankly at the screen.”

              You should stop ‘crying wolf’, you are devaluing the charge of ‘antisemitism’, David.

              1. Mike, Attacks like yours are so ineffective here. I do not spend my time defending Israel (Israel is perfectly capable of defending itself). Rather I attack those that spread lies about Jews and Israel. Rather than waste my time countering what you say (thus legitimising your false narrative), I simply continually repeat the truth. I am not a blind supporter of Israel (Israel does not have to be perfect), and see the Arab people as victims too (the balance of historical evidence simply weighs heavily in Israel’s favour). Which makes me extremely problematic for you. You are simply not designed to fight me, and your propagandist rhetoric misses every time.

                See your last post suggesting ‘I devalue the charge of antisemitism’. It is an empty charge thrown in the air, that is completely out of place on MY blog. When it comes to antisemitism, on this blog, I don’t rely on the IHRA definition, precisely because people like you use it to deflect. None of my reports, into those such as the SPSC and PSC, included evaluations of criticism of the state (Israel). All of my accusations of antisemitism are accurate, because they focus on the human being, rather than the nation. If you suggest, by any measure, that something inherent in the nature of the Israeli makes them xxxxxxxx (insert false accusation here) then you are a racist. Then comes the crunch. When people say Israeli, they don’t mean Israeli, because implicit in their argument is the deduction of Israel’s non-Jewish citizens. They are targetting Israeli Jews. Now some, may suggest it is just an attack against ‘Zionists’, but many Israeli Druse and Bedouin are Zionists and we both know they are not included.

                So I suggest you hand yourself back to your designers for a refit. It has been three years and still they haven’t come up with an effective way of deflecting me from telling the truth.

                1. “You are simply not designed to fight me, and your propagandist rhetoric misses every time.”

                  Brave attempt. At least you’re not crying in the corner.

  36. Mike

    So you are trying to take a single issue, and from this claim that Israel is an Apartneid state.

    You demean and denigrate those that suffered at the hands of apartheid with your comparison.

    Those that suffered under apartheid suffered rom the moment they awoke to the moment they retired to sleep.

    They were affected every moment of every day; what bus they could catch; what area they could live in; what train they caught; what jobs they could do; what places they could eat at; what toilets they could use; what entrances to buildings they used; AND EVEN WHO THEY COULD HAVE SEX WITH.

    And because Israel reserves certain roads only for all Israelis to prevent your peace loving Palestinian friends from killing Jews, you accuse Israel of being an apartheid state.

    I have accused you of racism before, and your continued mendacious, hateful statements against Israel (who is the new Jew to you and your ilk) only confirms that.

    That you can make sauch ill judged, specious accusations that are bereft of factual evidence and truth must also call into q

    1. It really sounds strange to read from an Israel supporter that he has empathy for those that suffered under South African apartheid given Israel’s wish not to mix personally with others. True, they did suffer more in some ways.

      To be treat worse than Israeli citizens you don’t have to be a South Africa. Understand what the word means.

      The roads reserved for Israelis aren’t in Israel. They are in the West Bank. The West Bank is NOT Israel, yet Israelis have the greater privilege.

      It was David that provided the link to Jonathan’s ‘blog’, must have thought it relevant. I followed the link and saw his claims. Hence commented.

      My judgement is mine and yours is yours. That allright by you?

  37. Mike completing post

    must also call into question your ability to understand and compare facts, and tus your intellectual and cognitive abilities.

    Having lived in South Africa for the first thirty years of my life, I lived under a regime that legislated into law, with the judiciary and the police as enforcers of that law, the laws that sperated and divided people of every race and colour EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY. I saw first hand the pernisious effect this had on the black community.

    So when you make statements comparing apartheid to the Israelis restricting a few roads to Israeli drivers only, I have to question both your motives and educationl/comprehension levels

  38. Mike,

    If you are incapable of differentiating between the systemic and systematic oppression by law of millions of people because of their race, colour and creed to the promulgation of a regulation to prevent your friendly, peace loving Palestinian friends from murdering Jewish civilians, then you are truly beyond the pail.

    1. RichardI’ll take no lessons from a pro-Israeli on the subject of oppression.

      p.s. it’s ‘pale’. A ‘pail’ is what milk-maids used when milking cows.

  39. Again Richard, a great tribute to work undertaken by this site that it leaves opponents so completely frustrated and impotent. They cannot mount a coherent challenge to the accusation of antisemitism in a UK church so the argument rather feebly shifts to motoring. When, laughably this crashes like a suicide Skoda from Samaria we move to drones. Finally having been boxed off in their own propagandist cul-de-sac the only thing left is a snipe at grammar. I hope David’s readership bothers to read down this far. As usual they will be left with no other conclusion when reading the positions of his opponents other than to say “Is that really all they have?”

    1. ““Is that really all they have?””

      I thought that when I read david’s blog, Ian. All that text, all that accusing and yet unable to quote anything antisemitic.

      The motoring reference came from following David’s link to Jonathan blog which WAS a ‘car crash’.

      No snipe at Grammar. Was helping his English spelling. I’m helpful like that.

  40. Mike

    you are a highly prejudiced individual, whose mind is closed to anything other than your own warped anti Israel (the new anti-Jew) ideology

    I repeat my charge that you are a ‘racist’ ideologue that conceals his Jew hate in anti-Zionism

    You represent the new Jew hater who attempts to cloak that hatred as anti-Zionism.

  41. Mike

    Another meaningless and anodyne statement from a person who seems to have mastered the art of writing, with the ability to say nothing.

    Not sure if you are here to try wend us up or similar; but this is just to let you know that I reply to your comments for a very particular reason.

    If anyone with an incomplete idea of what is happening in the Middle East reads your nonsensical and uncongenial ramblings, these replies will put context to the story so that those with unbiased viewpoints will be able to make reasoned judgements on the issues at hand

    I am trying to guess how you answer this, but with you the answer is normally lost in the detrius of world pollution etc.

  42. Mike

    How silly of you to think that Israel would invade someones airspace, when that someone has said so many times that their goal is to wipe us entirely off the planet.

    Some are more circumspect in their statements and others more overt, but the destruction of Israel and Jews is message they try to convey; shades of the nazis and the ‘Final solution’ to the ‘Jewish problem’ methinks

  43. Mike

    Could you try for once in yor life to post a coherent stand alone statement that makes this world a better place, rather than your tongue in cheek nonsensical comedy that you deploy for amusement or I know not what.

    If you would claim your commentary is anything other than amateur comedy, and pretty mundane comedy at that, then it just goes to prove how the education system is responsible for allowing a few poorly educated persons slipping through the net

    Tick tock, tick tock

  44. Mike

    Shaked is one of approximately 8 500 000 Israeli citizens , each with their own viewpoint.

    She may be a member of the Knesset and the government, but in a democracy individuals can make a noise, but have very little power to effect any form of change, other than by negotiation and compromise.

    Waiting for you to give a context and fact reply that sats Israel is not a democracy and is in your opinion an apartheid state.

    Or will you suprise me with a flash of brilliance and make a comment that is worthy of the advanced state that humanity finds itself today

    I’m not holding my breath

    Tick tock, tick tock

    1. Mike,

      I think Robert Cohen does a better job than we ever could in challenging the racist opinions of so many of Mr Colliers cohorts: Here’s his latest post, to add to numerous others that challenge Colliers views, particularly that Israel is allegedly a central focal point of all Jewish folk, as is support for Zionism, which as the survey I’ve posted here focusing on the USA’s fourth largest population of those who consider themselves Jewish in San Francisco, disputes such claims. Anyhow, here’s Cohen talking common sense: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/writingfromtheedge/2018/02/faced-jewish-racism-can/#disqus_thread

      1. Thankyou for that, Chris …. bet Robert deesn’t dig trenches for a living. It would be a waste.

  45. Richard, you will have noticed a coloration here between the quality and veracity of David’s articles and the extent to which this sends his opponents into deflection overdrive. As an example you will note the desperation displayed by Mike to shift the thread. This is little more than panic and I imagine most sensible readers will be asking themselves ” What is the relevance of a politician from Israel to an article about antisemitism in British churches? Is this guy sexist as well as an antisemite?”

    1. “the quality and VERACITY of David’s articles”.?

      You should understand the meaning of words before you include them in your posts, Ian.

  46. Mike/Chris

    West Coast American Jews are in many cases denying or ignoring their Jewishness, whether that be religous and/or secular, so their views may be in stark contrast to the rest of the community

    Therefore to quote a single survey is a little parochial.

    Anyway most surveys are assumative/assumptive (new word) as they are only as good as the questions and are subject to manipulation and misuse by those with an agenda.

  47. Mike

    Was wondering when someone of you lot would try to deflect argument/debate by reference to a misused word.

    But what is out of context in the use of the word ‘veracity’; veracity means being true and accurate according to the ‘Compact Oxford English Dictionary’

    1. “veracity means being true and accurate according to the ‘Compact Oxford English Dictionary’”

      Knowing its meaning and seeing it used in the context of David’s blog is the reason it caught my eye, Richard.

      That Mr. Coldicott’s talk was antisemitic certainly wasn’t true, it was just an accusation from David. He refused to quote just what he found to be so.

      1. Isn’t it funny, how the person who was there, who quoted and uploaded videos of the blog, explaining in detail about the antisemitism, just ‘makes an accusation’, and you, who were not even there, know the accusation ‘certainly wasn’t true’. Do you practice these before you get up in the morning? To make them so spectacularly silly, must take a lot of training.

        1. Isn’t it funny, that the person who was there, who quoted and uploaded videos ON his blog declined to quote the specific text that he described as antisemitic, instead dissappointing the reader by imploring them to make the same unqualified conclusion that, yes, it obviously was.

          That you describe my statements as “silly” does not assist your antisemitic accusation.

  48. Mike

    The problem with the way Antisemitism manifests itself is varied.
    One way it never manifests itself is with fanfares and trumpets.
    Mostly Antisemitism appears as part of a story, a dialogue of sorts if you will.
    Therefore its use in stories like Caldicott(sic) is not explicit statement, rather it is woven into the fabric of the story as an inclusive narrative.
    The most worrying aspect of Antisemitism of this nature is the fact that the narrators are not always aware of the full import of their words and the way those words fit into and ehance the Antisemetic thrust of the talk.
    Being against Israel and disliking Jews are personal opinions; there is no compulsion to like Jews or Israel.
    But very often those sentiments become the story, and everything used in the narrative tends to emphasise the negative traits oh both Israel and/or Jews; often embellishing those traits which become the narrative.
    These ant-Israel and Anti-Jewish sentiments are part of a broad canvas that as time passes become the story as an accepted fact; facts become unnecesary as everyone has become attuned to the new reality that Israel/Zionists/Jews are the universal evil who corrupt all they touch and therefore anything said in their defence is a lie.
    Thus, returning to the term veracity; because Israel/Zionists/Jews are inherently wrong/evil etc, there is no longer a need to verify the story because the conclusion has already been reached before the talk/lecture/article has even appeared

    1. Richard, are you telling me that the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ that I can’t see are visible by yourself and David and, though you can’t describe them, they really ARE there?

Comments are closed.