Source: A Plague on Both Houses
Or rather, Zionist friends need a company. What a difference the smallest word in the English language can make to the meaning of a sentence. In fact, Zionist friends, as we shall see, love a good limited guarantee company.
The social media platform formerly known as Twitter recently alerted those who were interested that some leading lights in the media had incorporated a Limited Company called British Friends of Israel Limited. This prompts many questions, the first of which is: why would you need a Limited Company to assert your friendship with anyone or, in this case, anything? All countries are things, by the way, and we’ll discuss the interesting similarities between countries and companies, such as how both come into being to fulfil the needs of their stakeholders and how both can cease to exist when they fail to meet those needs.
So who are the directors of this Zionist-friendly company? They are:
Toby Young – he of the what-more-do-I-have-to-do-to-get-a-peerage fame, and founder of the selective Free Speech Union (FSU) (“selective” to be explained in Part II).
Laura Dodsworth – she of the ‘free’ mind; a purportedly passionate anti-nudger who just happens to have teamed up with a professional nudger to warn you about the dangers of being nudged.
Allison Pearson – a confused stop-it-I-like-it jab-sceptic and jab-taker.
Francis Hoar – barrister specialising in birthday tweets to countries committing genocide.
Janet Macvarish – a sociologist with an interest in neuroscience, and also Education and Events director at Young’s FSU.
Ian Rons – IT guy and fellow ‘free-speech’ traveller of Toby Young. Rons was a director of the Free Speech Union at its incorporation but has since resigned his position.
Glancing at this list of British Zionists, you’d think that free speech hobby-horsing is a prerequisite for entry into the Zionist hall of infamy. And in a perverted way, it just might be, because the most effective way to subvert a civic good is to wear its mantle while twisting a knife into its back. If you’re going to plot the death of free speech and avoid suspicion for its murder, why not make like Machiavelli and publicly declare your undying love for the very thing you are privately killing? This is the basic modus operandi of Zionism. When you look at legislation being passed in the Western World, it would appear that Zionism is succeeding in defining all anti-Zionist speech and activism as antisemitic.
However, the onslaught of oppressive gaslighting has provoked a groundswell of moral indignation that no laws can suppress. The majority of people across the world have sent a clear signal to Zionist lobbyists and the governments under their spell that anti-genocide is not antisemitism. And the more Zionists try to muzzle their opponents’ expression of outrage over genocide, the more outraged we get.
Have company or country, will travel…but eternal life is not promised
British Friends of Israel’s articles of association state the company’s objects are “to support British Jews, to oppose antisemitism both in the UK and abroad, and to support Israel’s right to exist.” Are we to infer that the world might not be in such a mess today if it were more widely known that racism could be tackled by fiercely brandishing a Memorandum and Articles of Association, printed on high-quality 200gsm coated paper? As someone with a financial background, it’s exhilarating for me to think Young and his pals are perhaps pioneering a social justice movement in which a well-crafted Memorandum and Articles of Association could become a cross for vampires like Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson. And while a limited company is more often than not chosen as a vehicle for financial transactions and giving a tidy bank account a safe home, I refuse to entertain any cynical thoughts that these upstanding Zionist pillars of the community could be motivated by a tawdry preoccupation with financial gain of some sort.
On the subject of Israel’s right to exist, I will say that a country is on shaky ground if it, and its supporters, have to assert its right to exist. I am prepared to wager substantial sums of money that no Englishman alive today has ever had to assert, publicly or privately, England’s right to exist. A country’s right to exist does not derive from its assertion of a right to exist; it derives from everyone else’s conscious and unconscious acceptance of its existence, in the presence of which there is no need for the assertion, which only serves to emphasise deep insecurity over its right to exist!
Companies and countries aren’t that dissimilar in that they are vehicles formed by groups of people (small in the case of the former and larger in the case of the latter) to serve the goals and ambitions of the people who formed them. Both are formed and led by tiny cabals – shareholders and directors in the case of companies; revolutionaries, politicians and ‘elites’ in the case of countries. They both invite people to ‘buy into’ their venture to make it successful – employees and customers in the case of companies, and citizens in the case of countries. And crucially, when the factions and participants that make up each of these entities cease to get along, they break up, and the shareholders, directors and employees (in the case of companies), or politicians and citizens (in the case of countries) abandon the original vehicles and jump on board new ones.
Neither companies nor countries, as vehicles set up by people to serve either business interests (in the case of companies) or national myths and the agglomeration of power in a nation state (in the case of countries), have a right to exist. When things don’t work out between the parties and the profits aren’t delivered or national power structures disintegrate, the vehicles disintegrate and new ones have to be formed. That observation as it relates to countries should not be construed as an attempt to denigrate national sovereignty per se, but countries do fall apart and when they do, no professed right to exist can save them.
I spent the first 12 years of my life living in a vehicle called Rhodesia. It was predicated on a privileged ethnic minority arrogating to itself the right to rule over an ethnic majority. That ghastly ideology died a death in 1980 and the country called Rhodesia died with it. Everyone was pretty excited when the new vehicle called Zimbabwe hit the road. Well, everyone except the people who had crashed the previous vehicle. Israel is based on a similarly ghastly concept of an ethno-nationalist colonial settler state, and it too is destined to crash and burn. In short, a country has no more of a right to exist than a company, and history is replete with examples of countries whose disintegration negates such a purported right.
Do not interpret my expression of a view that a country has no right to exist as a wish to see harm done to its inhabitants or citizens. My view is that a rogue state should be peacefully reconstituted under a new contract that is just and equitable for all parties. Israel is undoubtedly a rogue state that is in desperate need of reconstitution. Israel knows that too, because it wouldn’t keep telling everyone that it has a right to exist unless it knew that the only crutch on which it relies for its existence is the illegitimate patronage of history’s most obnoxious bully – the US-NATO empire.
The vehicle called Israel was constituted to clear the land previously called Palestine of its indigenous inhabitants, Palestinians, who had been there for centuries. That is the contract between the State of Israel and its citizens, and that is what keeps its citizens strapped into a dangerously unsafe vehicle that went off the rails from the moment it was conceived. It was in fact born in a fiery furnace of terrorism and ethnic cleansing. In 1948, a minority (roughly 30%) of European Jewish settlers set out to achieve their goal of ethnic cleansing, but failed to finish the job. For 76 years since, virtually all of the strife within Israel has been over how to rid themselves completely of the remaining Palestinians and to somehow have this grisly deed rubber-stamped by an international court of public opinion. October 7th 2023, was the pretext Israel’s passengers and drivers (citizens and state) needed to unite and complete the longest drawn-out ethnic cleansing in modern history, and to do so without compunction; to drop the pretence that they cared about whether genocide was a crime against humanity.
By their fruits and friends ye shall know them
If there is any truth in the aphorism that one can judge a person by the company (pun intended) they keep, then what does it say about these six high-profile personalities who have chosen to be friends with Israel? By now, you’re getting a sense of the character of Israel and its founding ideology, Zionism, but we can go a bit further. Israel, insofar as how it governs its inhabitants, is not based on any principles of justice, fairness and equality. It is based explicitly on a state for Jews to the exclusion of all others, and it predicates its very survival and existence on the total marginalisation, and ultimately extinction, of non-Jewish people within the borders of the land it stole in 1948. Don’t take my word for it; here’s what its longest serving Prime Minister affirmed after that principle was reinforced in 2018 with new legislation to remind non-Jews of their place in Israel, or rather that they had no place there:
“According to the basic nationality law we passed, Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and only it”. [emphasis added]
Ilan Pappe, renowned Israeli historian, has observed of the nation state law:
“Texts such as the Nationality Law…have deep origins stretching back to the beginning of the Zionist settler-colonial project in Palestine… In order to grasp fully the significance of the law and its impact on the ‘1948 Palestinians’ (Palestinian citizens of Israel) one has to elaborate on the applicability of the settler-colonial paradigm in the particular case of Zionism… The settler-colonialists are white Europeans who were encouraged or forced to leave Europe due to persecution and who settled in someone else’s homeland… Their main challenge was the presence of indigenous populations and indigenous peoples in the newly coveted homelands. The encounter with the indigenous people activated what the late Patrick Wolfe called ‘the logic of the elimination of the native’… In Palestine, the presence of indigenous people led to ethnic cleansing operations that began in the mid-1920s and culminated in the 1948 Nakba… The white European settlers also saw themselves as the ‘new indigenous’ and portrayed the indigenous as ‘aliens’. This self-indigenisation of the European settler and de-indigenisation of the native in the case of Zionism was carried out in the name of the Bible. And, thus, a secular Jewish settler movement created a ‘new homeland’ by using a sacred religious text, the Bible.” [emphasis added]
In explaining why I believe Zionism, and therefore the State of Israel in its current guise, is fundamentally abhorrent, I will draw on the words of Professor David Miller, partly because they express my own sentiments very well, but also because his legal battle for free speech has some relevance to the British Zionist and supposed free-speech advocate, Toby Young, who made some disappointing but entirely expected statements about Miller. I will discuss this in more detail in Part II.
Professor David Miller was persecuted by his employer, the University of Bristol, for expressing anti-Zionist political speech. He was dismissed from his post for stating the plain and simple truth about Zionism:
“Zionism is and always has been a racist, violent, imperialist ideology premised on ethnic cleansing. It is an endemically anti-Arab and Islamophobic ideology. It has no place in any society”.
Dr Miller challenged his employer, taking a case to the Bristol Employment tribunal. In making his case, he needed to prove that his anti-Zionist belief was coherent and cogent, qualifying as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.
Dr Miller succeeded in his claims of direct discrimination, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. While it was not the Tribunal’s place to endorse Miller’s views or comment on his analysis, it acknowledged that his arguments on the nature of Zionism were in fact “coherent and cogent” and that he “is an academic with expertise in Zionism and the Zionist movement ”.[i]
Miller’s characterisation of Zionism is borne out by the historical record. The aim of Zionism, as outlined by its founder Theodor Herzl in 1896, is not in dispute:
“The Idea which I have developed in this pamphlet is a very old one: it is the restoration of the Jewish State.” [ii]
This in and of itself would not have been problematic had the formation of a Jewish state not entailed migration to a land already peacefully inhabited, and the expulsion of those inhabitants who had been there for centuries. Miller explained to the Tribunal that “his opposition to Zionism is not opposition to the idea of Jewish self-determination or of a preponderantly Jewish state existing in the world, but rather, as he defines it, to the exclusive realisation of Jewish rights to self-determination within a land that is home to a very substantial non-Jewish population”. [emphasis added]
Tracing the arc from Balfour in 1917, to UN partition stitch-up in 1947, to genocide in 2024
Describing the non-Jewish population as “very substantial” is an understatement when getting across the point about the Zionists’ choice of land for setting up a Jewish state. The slogan the Zionists hit upon to motivate Jews in the diaspora to emigrate to Palestine was: a land without people for a people without land. Not only was this a bare-faced lie, it was the beginning of the dehumanising colonial animus toward Palestinians; they aren’t people as far as Zionists are concerned. And the current war criminals have not been shy to publicly profess their dehumanisation of the entire Palestinian people, calling them animals. This public dehumanisation of Palestinians seems to be a prerequisite for high office in Israel.
At the time of the signing of the Balfour Declaration in November 1917, which marked Britain’s intention to hand Palestine over to Jewish Zionists, Palestinian people, whether Christian or Muslim, comprised over 90 per cent of the population of Palestine, and owned about 97% of its land.
The declaration is so insulting that it did not even recognise 90% of the population as Palestinian. Instead, they were termed “non-Jewish”. It was drafted by the British Government and the Zionist Organisation, with the US giving its assent to the final draft. Pause and imagine China and Russia setting up a French state in England and calling the English people the ‘non-French’. As insulting and injurious as the Balfour Declaration was to the indigenous Palestinian people, the Zionists wanted the language of their impending displacement of Palestinians to be far clearer than the declaration implied.
This is trivia to a British Zionist. A British Zionist is someone who typically complains bitterly about uncontrolled immigration into Britain today while ignoring the fact that uncontrolled immigration of European Jews into Palestine between 1917 and 1945 resulted in Zionist terrorist militias, representing a 30% minority (from the roughly 10% in 1917), violently displacing 750,000 Palestinians and then stealing their land using a land-theft vehicle called the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Or perhaps that is precisely why British Zionists complain bitterly about uncontrolled immigration into Britain today – they know only too well that the kind of immigration they look upon favourably in the context of Israel could, if replicated, result in their own replacement here.
On the role of the JNF, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in his account of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine explains that:
“Founded in 1901, the JNF was the principal Zionist tool for the colonisation of Palestine. It served as the agency the Zionist movement used to buy Palestinian land upon which it then settled Jewish immigrants.”[iii]
By 1948, at the time of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the Jewish community had acquired only 5.8% of the land in Palestine.[iv] That changed in 1948 when over 500 Palestinian villages were wiped off the map by well-organised and well-armed Jewish terrorist militias. Between April and May of 1949, Pappe records that the response of Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, “was to intensify the settlement of Jewish immigrants on the confiscated land and in the evicted houses…Ben-Gurion again appointed a more cabal-like body that soon encouraged hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants from Europe and the Arab world to seize the Palestinian homes left in the towns and cities and to build settlements on the ruins of the expelled villages.”[v]
On the role of the JNF, Pappe writes:
“It was the Settlement Department of the JNF that decided the fate of destroyed villages once they had been flattened: whether a Jewish settlement or a Zionist forest would take its place. Back in 1948, the head of the department, Yossef Weitz, had reported to the Israeli government: ‘We have begun the operation of cleansing, removing the rubble and preparing the villages for cultivation and settlement. Some of these will become parks.’…Weitz proudly reported that he remained unmoved by the sight of tractors destroying whole villages.”[vi]
That is why Zionism is inherently racist, imperialistic and colonial. That is why, in Professor Miller’s words, it “necessarily calls for the displacement and disenfranchisement of non-Jews in favour of Jews, and it is therefore ideologically bound to lead to the practices of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide in pursuit of territorial control and expansion.” [emphasis added]
The story of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine isn’t just about a colonial project. It is also the story of how powerful Zionism is and the ruthlessness with which it has operated from its very inception. By 1917, the Zionist movement had garnered enough power to broker a deal that saw the British empire hand over Palestine in the Balfour Declaration in exchange for Zionists lending their influence to encourage the US to enter World War I on the side of Britain, enabling the Allies to defeat Germany. [vii]
By the end of World War II, Zionism was powerful enough to nobble the UN to pass a General Assembly resolution giving a 30% minority a disproportionate 55% of Palestine.[viii] This from an institution whose purported founding principle was the self-determination of peoples. An organisation that should have put its weight behind fair and democratic elections in which all the inhabitants could create their own independent country instead greenlighted a coup that empowered a minority settler population to ethnically cleanse a majority population. The UN was strangled at birth by the hand of Zionism. The UN is a tool of powerful vested interests and has been since its birth.
The US State Department was vehemently opposed to the UN’s partition plan but it was overruled by a Truman administration in thrall to Zionism. The head of the State Department’s Division of Near Eastern Affairs warned that:
“US support for partition of Palestine…can be justified only on the basis of Arab and Jewish consent. Otherwise we should violate the principle of self-determination which has been written into the Atlantic Charter…and the United Nations Charter…Even a United Nations determination in favour of partition would be, in the absence of such consent, a stultification and a violation of the UN’s own charter.”[ix] [emphasis added]
The warnings went unheeded because, in the words of Evan Wilson, a career diplomat who had been US Consul General in Jerusalem, Truman had been largely motivated by “domestic political considerations”. Undersecretary of State James Webb in a despatch to Secretary of State Dean Acheson noted that “past record suggests that Israel has had more influence with the US than has US with Israel.”[x]
The only practical purpose the UN partition resolution served was to galvanise the Zionist movement in Palestine into mobilising their militias for an attempted full conquest of Palestine, which was its goal from the beginning. 55% of Palestine, though a grave injustice to the Palestinians, was never enough for the Zionists.
That UN General Assembly resolution was not a binding resolution and, as international jurist Henry Cattan concluded in his 1988 book The Palestine Question, “the partition resolution was not legally effective or binding on the Palestinian people.” Arab requests to refer the question of UN jurisdiction over the Palestine situation to the International Court of Justice were rejected, leading Cattan to the ineluctable conclusion that “such avoidance of international law constituted a denial of justice which deprived the partition resolution of any juridical value.”[xi] The Palestinians were subjected to a stitch-up of Biblical proportions, and it matters because there is a traceable arc from that stitch-up 77 years ago to the genocide today.
The fact that Zionism might never have existed had it not been for centuries of antisemitism is obviously not a sound moral basis for the acceptance of Zionism. I would never seek to diminish the suffering of Jewish people over the ages, but nor would I wish to transfer it to another group. To argue that Zionism is a legitimate response to antisemitism is to argue that two horrific wrongs could make a right. It was in fact this very same psychological illness of trying to right wrongs with more wrong that found its expression in the eagerness of Europeans to launder their Holocaust guilt by sacrificing Palestinians on the altar of Zionism. It was an exchange of one racism for another. And 76 years later, we are witnessing another genocide. It is no coincidence that it is being perpetrated by the descendants of the first victims, and it is no coincidence that it is being fully supported by the descendants of the perpetrators of the first crime.
There is thus an intimate, indeed incestuous, relationship between the Holocaust, the 1948 Nakba and the current genocide in Gaza. There is a school of thought that forbids any comparison of the events and practices leading up to the Holocaust and the Holocaust itself with the 76- year-long oppression of Palestinians and the genocide in Gaza now in progress. And given the generational intertwining of causes, victims and perpetrators, and the evidence of the planned destruction of an entire population in Gaza today, it is hard to fathom the rigidity of thought that seeks to bar such a comparison. The question today seems to me to be: how can you not compare them?
Having said that, I am personally not interested in a detailed technical comparison of these two horror stories. Does one really need to put the suffering of each group on the scales to forensically establish which evinces more horror? Is it necessary, meaningful or dignified to quibble over the maths of body counts and the relative horror of the different methods of extinguishing life? Not only do I not have the stomach for it, but if the purpose of such a comparison is to determine which group has suffered more, how does one look the ‘losing’ group in the eye and tell them that they have not suffered as much as the other group?
The media which serves the powers that birthed and support Zionism has spent 76 years gaslighting the world into believing the problem is fiendishly complicated and intractable. Colonial land theft, which was the vile realpolitik of the 19th and early 20th century, is not difficult to understand once the facts are presented. Nor is it beyond the wit of the average person to appreciate that everything that has happened in Palestine and Israel since 1917 is a straightforward story about a colonisation project and an indigenous people’s resistance to it. Every single war, the illegal occupation, the illegal settlements, the apartheid state, every single failed ‘peace negotiation’, October 7th 2023 – all of these are logical consequences of, and a continuation of, the West’s final colonisation project of the 20th century.
As for the intractability of the problem, to the extent that a resolution is elusive, this is a direct result of Israel’s success, with the full backing of the US, British and EU empire axis, in creating ‘facts on the ground’ — i.e. making the 1948 colonisation and ethnic cleansing irreversible by settling the stolen land and studiously avoiding the two-state solution to which Israel and its US patron deceitfully paid lip service. We are now witnessing the logical conclusion of a plan whose goal, from its very inception, was to create an ethno-nationalist Jewish state by ethnically cleansing a majority-established indigenous population. The sickening end-point of that goal is the current genocide of the descendants of the people whom the Zionist militias failed to ethnically cleanse in 1948.
Israel, sick as it is, is desperate to achieve this because failure to do so brings it closer to a one-state solution. And that is the only morally acceptable solution that remains – equal rights for all within the borders of the state now called Israel and the occupied territories of Palestine. The choice before the world now is to either halt the genocide and create the framework for equal rights for all, including the reversal of the illegal post-1967 settlements, or to allow Israel to complete its genocide. The seriously defective moral compass of a Zionist points to the latter.
On the matter of whether there is a genocide now occurring in Gaza, the overwhelming evidence of the genocidal intent of the Israeli leadership and its practical implementation prompted the International Criminal Court to accept South Africa’s application demanding that Israel take necessary steps to stop a genocide from happening. The International Criminal Court is now seeking arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister, his minister of defence and senior ranking members of Hamas for war crimes. Israel’s military objectives in Gaza are patently clear. It seeks the total annihilation of Palestinian life in Gaza by making it uninhabitable through the total destruction of its civilian infrastructure, and killing huge numbers of people by bombing and the deployment of starvation as a weapon of war. The body count keeps rising and yet, with approximately 35,000 dead, mostly women and children, British Zionists refuse to acknowledge the scale of the barbarity.
Amos Goldberg, professor of Holocaust History at the department of Jewish history and contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is not in doubt that a genocide is happening in Gaza.
“What is happening in Gaza is genocide because the level and pace of indiscriminate killing, destruction, mass expulsions, displacement, famine, executions, the wiping out of cultural and religious institutions, the crushing of elites (including the killing of journalists), and the sweeping dehumanization of the Palestinians — create an overall picture of genocide, of a deliberate conscious crushing of Palestinian existence in Gaza.”
He is not some isolated crackpot either. The only way to deny that a genocide is happening is to convert to the crackpot cult of Zionism. This is perhaps the only genocide in history which is being so openly broadcast to the world, both by the perpetrators themselves and by the endless and gruesome media footage reaching billions on a daily basis. No formal trial is necessary since the evidence has been made publicly available in real time. If a trial to prosecute for war crimes were to be held, it ought to be the shortest in history.
Even the international criminal justice system that was “built for Africa and thugs like Putin” [time stamp 19:07] is trying to issue arrest warrants for its allies, Israel’s Prime Minister and Defence Minister. These words were those of an unnamed US empire representative sent to intimidate the ICC prosecutor, thereby ironically confirming that every single high-ranking official in the US-NATO empire is a thug.
The ICJ rulings and recent ICC moves to prosecute Israeli war crimes are testimony to the depths to which Israel has sunk (and it had already reached rock-bottom in 1948, though most did not know it then), but they should not be construed as sincere efforts to instigate effective justice. Welcome as they are, the truth is that they are cynical moves for self-preservation – Israel’s breaches are so transparently and outrageously illegal that doing nothing would guarantee the death knell for these fake defenders of justice set up to window-dress the New World Order NATO-owned justice system that has yet to feel the collars of Bush, Blair and other Iraq war criminals. But the mere fact that they are doing something, however ineffective, confirms that Israel’s actions have elicited such revulsion that it has even succeeded in forcing its own side, the Empire’s own policemen, to wave a billy club at it.
If British Zionists were capable of empathy for anyone outside their tribe, they would have to acknowledge that an equivalent loss of life in the UK would entail 1.1 million deaths. But their position is clear – the value of a Palestinian child’s life must not be placed on par with an Israeli child’s life or a British child’s life. This of course is the sentiment that drives all crimes against humanity – that certain lives have more value than others. This is how Zionists justify the genocide of Palestinians as revenge for Hamas’ attack on 7th October.
Nevertheless, the writing is on the wall for the 76-year-long Zionist gaslighting project. In America, probably the most Zionist brainwashed population on the planet, 56% of Democrat voters believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, while the percentage nationwide is 40%. Some 70 % of all American voters support a permanent ceasefire and de-escalation of violence in Gaza. Zionism has only ever had two weapons in its armoury – violence and deception. The role of deception is to justify the violence, and now that the deception is losing its power, the public’s acceptance of the violence is no longer holding.
Israel is not a country. It is a 76-year-old torture chamber to which the Palestinian people have been condemned for the crime of not having any friends in high places when the land they had peacefully inhabited for centuries was being traded under their noses without their consultation. Israel is an abomination that British Zionists have chosen to call a friend.
I’ve stressed so far that to understand Zionism, and to understand who Young and Company have chosen as their friend, you have to understand the spark that lit the fire in 1896, the fuel added to the flame in 1917, the UN partition stitch-up of 1947, and the bonfire of 1948. The weighty tomes analysing every single major event after 1948 serve as a detailed post-mortem of the wreckage that followed. Those tomes are important because they explicate the cardinal sin of 1948, from which there is no turning back and no remission. But the essence of what is required to appreciate the moral bankruptcy of Zionism lies in the history between 1896 and 1948, and that history is thoroughly documented by Ilan Pappe in his work The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by reference to the historical record, and the statements and actions of the Zionist terrorists at the time.
Deciding where to start the clock on this whole sordid mess is another way of asking: who started it? Zionists like to start the clock on the conflict in around 70 AD with the fall of Jerusalem. So, while Part II of this essay will return to the directors of the little friendly British Zionist company to examine the contradiction between their desire for freedom at home and oppression abroad, it will also deal with the absurdity of the Zionist claim to an ancestral right to the land of Palestine and whether such a claim has any moral or legal force. And since 7th October has prompted Zionists to wallow in attempts to extract pro-Hamas confessions from anti-Zionists, we’ll take a look at why no-one loves Hamas more than a bred-in-the-bone Zionist.
[i] https://www.rllaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Judgment_Miller-v-Bristol-Uni_Rahman-Lowe-Solicitors.pdf [para 231]
[ii] Theodor Herzl writing in Der Judenstaat in 1896: https://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-i-1917-1947/
[iii] Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, One World Publications Limited, 2006, Ch 2, pg. 17
[iv] Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, One World Publications Limited, 2006, Ch 2, pg. 18
[v] Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, One World Publications Limited, 2006, Ch 9, pg. 214
[vi] Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, One World Publications Limited, 2006, Ch 9, pg. 220/221
[vii] Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, Copyright Alison Weir, 2014, Ch 4, pg 20, Ch 6, pg. 32
[viii] Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, Copyright Alison Weir, 2014, Ch 8, pg. 44
[ix] Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, Copyright Alison Weir, 2014, Ch 8, pg. 48
[x] Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, Copyright Alison Weir, 2014, Ch 9, pg. 53
[xi] Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, Copyright Alison Weir, 2014, Endnote 226
No comments:
Post a Comment