Antisemitism in the mainstream UK media, here
Tom Gross on Fatah, Israel's "peace partner", here
Friday, August 14, 2009
Friday, August 07, 2009
A simple question to Daniel Blanche.
Daniel Blanche works as a staff worker for the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF).
Daniel has blogged approvingly about Ben White's book, Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide, here.
When I and others began to challenge Daniel about White's use of fake quotes, citation of Holocaust Denier Roger Garaudy as an authoritative source, and use of other dubious sources, Daniel pulled out of the debate.
I have twice posted the following question on this post on Blanche's blog. Twice it has been deleted. The question is as follows:
"Daniel: do you think it is acceptable for your friend Ben White to cite the Holocaust Denier Roger Garaudy as an authoritative source and to use fake quotes in his book?"
I have just posted my question for a third time. I await to see whether Blanche will answer, or will go on courageously deleting.
Daniel has blogged approvingly about Ben White's book, Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide, here.
When I and others began to challenge Daniel about White's use of fake quotes, citation of Holocaust Denier Roger Garaudy as an authoritative source, and use of other dubious sources, Daniel pulled out of the debate.
I have twice posted the following question on this post on Blanche's blog. Twice it has been deleted. The question is as follows:
"Daniel: do you think it is acceptable for your friend Ben White to cite the Holocaust Denier Roger Garaudy as an authoritative source and to use fake quotes in his book?"
I have just posted my question for a third time. I await to see whether Blanche will answer, or will go on courageously deleting.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
A "tissue of lies"
The anti-Zionist propagandist Ben White has just released a book called 'Israeli Apartheid: A Beginners' Predictably enough, this is gaining plaudits from all the usual suspects. For a detailed refutation of White's book, I recommend the essay by Jonathan Hoffman at http://blog.z-word.com/2009/07/lies-damn-lies-and-the-apartheid-analogy/.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Big questions for Stephen Sizer
The Christian monthly Evangelicals Now recently featured a review of Ilan Pappe's book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. You can read the review, written by Mike Moore, here.
Stephen Sizer, took exception to the review and critiqued it here, in a post headed 'Holocaust Denial?'. For good measure, I have reproduced the whole of Sizer's critique (which includes comments from Ilan Pappe) in bold at the end of this post.
Where to begin with fisking Sizer's post? Here are a few thoughts.
1. The history
Sizer accuses Moore of denying the Palestinian Nakba. Moore doesn't: he questions whether the Palestinian refugees fled because of preplanned 'forcible expulsion'. Pappe (and Sizer) would have us believe that all of the Palestinian refugees fled because they were forcibly expelled as part of a preconceived, deliberate Zionist plan. Anyone with a fleeting knowledge of Israeli historiography will know that this is the line taken by the so-called 'New Historians', in contrast to the line taken by writers such as Ephraim Karsh or Sir Martin Gilbert, whom I will label as 'traditionalists'. Good examples of Karsh's work are available here and here. The thrust of the traditionalist line is that many if not most of the Palestinian refugees fled because they were commanded to do so by their own leaders, so that they would not get caught up in a war unleashed by the surrounding Arab states on the fledgling state of Israel. This view is supported, among other things, by Arab voices quoted in a Palestinian authority daily
and by statements such as these. Stephen Sizer and Ilan Pappe are invited to comment on how such candid statements by Arabs fit into their own thesis that the Nakba was All Israel's Fault.
2. Other views of Pappe
Let's move on to the response to Pappe by other historians. Karsh labels one of Pappe's previous books as 'disgraceful'. Yoav Gelber called him a 'charlatan'. Seth Frantzman accuses him of 'flunking history':
"As a work of scholarship, Pappé's book falls short, and it does so in a particularly damning way. He ignores context and draws far broader conclusions than evidence allows by cherry-picking some reports and ignoring other sources entirely. He does not examine Arab intentions in the five months between the U.N. endorsement of Palestinian partition and Israel's independence, nor does he consider the widespread public statements by Arab officials in Palestine and in neighboring states declaring their goal of eradicating the Jewish presence in Palestine. It is obvious why a polemicist such as Pappé would cleanse—so to speak—his narrative of any such references: To avoid doing so would strike at the core of the reality that he wishes to foist upon his readers, one which precisely inverts the historical record and turns a coordinated Arab attempt at ethnically cleansing Palestine of its Jews into a Jewish attempt at ethnically cleansing Arabs.
Pappé's writings may win plaudits among his new British peers, whose disdain for the state of Israel is legendary. But his disregard for the obligations of the historian and his indifference to academic integrity condemn his work to the realm of the polemic, not scholarship."
Perhaps most significantly, Pappe was also denounced in the strongest possible terms by Benny Morris, here, here and here: 'This truly is an appalling book. Anyone interested in the real
history of Palestine/Israel and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
would do well to run vigorously in the opposite direction.' This is important because Morris at one time 'walked a stretch together in uneasy
companionship [with Pappe]' . In short, it seems clear that Pappe is viewed with disdain by many of his own academic peers. Can Stephen Sizer tell us why, in light of all this, he himself is so keen to defend Pappe? What does he know that these professional historians do not?
3. Pappe's methodology
Echoing Efraim Karsh, Mike Moore referred to Pappe as a 'self-confessed post-modern relativist for whom historical research is a "backward-looking projection of political attitudes and agendas regardless of actual facts". Karsh's assessment derived, among other things, from the candid statement of Pappe in 'A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples' that
'My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the "truth" when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers.'
Yoav Gelber's comments are also worth re-reading, here.
In the light of such comments by both Pappe himself and by his peers, Sizer is again asked to explain his own fondness for Ilan Pappe. Whether or not Pappe refers to himself as 'post-modernist' seems irrelevant.
4. Tantura
Mike Moore wrote:
'[Pappe] repeats an allegation of the deliberate massacre of 200 Palestinians in the village of Tantura by the Jewish Alexandroni Brigade. Pappe's story relies heavily on a discredited doctoral thesis by Teddy Katz, a graduate of Haifa University, who was found to have 'gravely and severly' falsified his evidence. Nevertheless, in the Spring 2001 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies, Ilan Pappe defended Katz, insisting that his conclusions were correct, even if his facts were not, since historical research need not be based on facts!'
When Sizer asked Pappe for his comments, Pappe replied 'Katz’s thesis is reliable but in any case it is not the basis for the Tantura affair, which is only two pages in the book, but my own research into the archives and oral history.'
On the allegations of the Tantura massacre, Yoav Gelber is worth quoting again, at length:
"Pappe reiterates endlessly that a massacre took place in Tantura. Unfortunately, saying it does not make it so. Reiterating slogans has nothing to do with historiography or truth. I have re-read the testimonies of the three Jewish witnesses alleged by Pappe to confirm the massacre (Ambar, Vitkon
and Lishansky) only to find that despite Katz's aggressive manner of questioning them (contrary to the teachings of all Pappe and Firro's authorities on oral history) they all denied the allegation.
Pappe's version of Sheikh Nimr al-Khatib's whereabouts in 1948 is absolutely baseless except for one fact - the Sheikh was indeed a member of the National Committee of the Arabs in Haifa until the attempt on his life. Al-Khatib's presence in Haifa later than 19/2/1948 (the date of the attempt), however, is not mentioned in any document. If Pappe has such a document as he claims, let him scan it and put it on the web. Since he regards the al-Khatib story as a cornerstone of his argumentation, his nonsense illustrates the validity of the entire case.
The General Staff's document in question is now on the web (see:
http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory), and the readers are invited
to look in it for a "mass grave" that Pappe now declares was mentioned by
the sender. A "minor" detail indeed."
If Teddy Katz thesis is indeed reliable, then why, according to Rikki Hollander, did the University of Haifa find fabrications and distortions of quotes in Katz’s work and disqualify the thesis, removing it from the university’s bookshelves? Again, according to Hollander, why did Katz insist under oath that he had been misunderstood and that he had never believed there was a massacre? And later write the following?
'After checking and re-checking the evidence, I am now certain beyond any doubt that there is no basis at all for the allegation that after Tantura surrendered, there was any killing of residents by the Alexandroni Brigade, or any other fighting unit of the IDF. I would like to clarify that what I wrote was misunderstood, and that I did not mean to suggest that there had been a massacre in Tantura, nor do I believe that there ever was a massacre at Tantura.'
Why does Ilan Pappe, and by extension Stephen Sizer, consider Katz' thesis to be reliable?
5. The comparison with Holocaust Denial.
Sizer heads the piece 'Holocaust Denial?' and comments that 'Thankfully it is a crime in some countries to deny the Holocaust. It is a shame that it is not yet a crime to deny the Palestinian Nakba, as Moore does.' In Sizer's mind, Moore's robust critique of Pappe is equivalent to denying the Holocaust. In light of all the above, it is clear that this is at best ludicrous and at worse downright scurrilous on Sizer's part. There is no possibility whatsoever of Holocaust Denial being a legitimate position to hold. Yet there is every possibility of there being alternative explanations for the Nakba than that advanced by Pappe and Sizer. To equate the two is a particularly obscene example of immoral equivalence on Sizer's part; almost as obscene as labelling a picture of Israel's security barrier with the caption 'Arbeit macht frei.'
6. Sizer's alternative
As an alternative to Mike Moore's review, Sizer instead suggests Stephen Lendman's 'much more balanced review' at Global Research here. I'll leave it to others to decide whether or not the review is balanced, but one wonders why Sizer is directing people to a website which speculates on whether 9/11 was an inside job. One also wonders why he considers Stephen Lendman to be a reliable source of information: Stephen Lendman is a regular contributor to Ziopedia.org, a website which aims to 'to demask and expose Zionist crimes and Jewish supremacism as our contribution to the fight against the "Jew World Order".' Has Stephen Sizer not learnt his lesson about encouraging others to read material written by antisemites?
7. Pappe & the neo-Nazi newspaper
Mike Moore wrote, 'Pappe's anti-Israel bias is so extreme that he recently gave an in-depth interview to the German anti-Semitic neo-Nazi paper National Zeitung, in which he repeated his charges against Israel.'
When asked about this by Sizer, Pappe responded:
'The interview in Germany. I gave a press conference that was published also in that newspaper. On the day the interview appeared there I published a special note to all the German press that I deplore and rebuke the positions of this newspaper and have nothing in common with its agenda and views.'
I'll leave it to others whether this (translation into English available here) is an 'in-depth interview' given to a specific newspaper or a general press conference given to many journalists which somehow ended up in the National Zeitung. The question in any case remains: why would a neo-Nazi newspaper be interested in Pappe's work in any event? What is Pappe doing to make his work useless to antisemites? The same questions can, of course, be asked of Stephen Sizer, a man who gave an interview to American racist Mark Dankof (apparently arranged by his publisher) and whose own work is so admired by a variety of antisemitic and white supremacist sites. (Interestingly, both Sizer and Lendman are feted by the Revisionist Clarion.)
8. Conclusions
The last time I wrote an in-depth critique of Sizer, he responded by insisting that he shares Jewish concerns about the rise of antisemitism and that he is working to defeat it. Is he working to defeat antisemitism by linking to Stephen Lendman, by comparing a critique of a revisionist historian with Holocaust Denial and by defending a man who is admired by a German neo-Nazi newspaper? Methinks Rev Sizer needs to work a little harder yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sizer's post is reproduced in full below. All hyperlinks are in Sizer's original.
Holocaust Denial?
I was saddened but not surprised to read Mike Moore cynical ‘review’ of Professor Ilan Pappe’s “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” in last month’s Evangelicals Now.
Don't get me wrong. EN is a fine newspaper. I subscribe, as does our church. I read it avidly. I even contribute occasionally when asked. I just find it a little strange to read such a one sided and wholly negative 'review' of a book by a Jewish author about the Palestinian Nakba reviewed by a pro-Zionist Christian in an evangelical paper. Was the review commissioned or more likely sent unsolicited and used to fill a gap? I'll give EN the benefit of the doubt.
Thankfully it is a crime in some countries to deny the Holocaust. It is a shame that it is not yet a crime to deny the Palestinian Nakba, as Moore does.
The simple fact is that one in four refugees in the world today, according to the United Nations, is a Palestinian. Where did they come from? Over 500 towns and villages erased from the map of Palestine in 1948-1949.
Far from “leaving no trace” as Moore suggests, there are over 5 million Palestinian refugees registered with the UN today who still have the keys and title deeds to their homes in what is now Israel. (see here and here for more information)
I took the liberty of asking Professor Pappe to respond to the specific criticisms which Moore makes. He replied:
1. The interview in Germany. I gave a press conference that was published also in that newspaper. On the day the interview appeared there I published a special note to all the German press that I deplore and rebuke the positions of this newspaper and have nothing in common with its agenda and views.
2. I did not say that I am using oral histories instead of military archives, half of the book is based on the latter!, I am using them in conjunction. I do have my doubts on the reports of the IDF, as one would and should have about them today.
3. The basis for the allegation of expulsion in the first five chapters of the book are based on the Israeli military archives not on a post modernist notions. I never declared myself to be a post modernist and I am not a post modernist scholar.
4. Katz’s thesis is reliable but in any case it is not the basis for the Tantura affair, which is only two pages in the book, but my own research into the archives and oral history.
5. Finally, none of the professional Israeli historians refute that the half of Palestine’s population was expelled, they do not share the shame that I feel about it.
Evangelicals Now is highly regarded for its factual reporting and balanced book reviews. Mike Moore’s review was neither.
You can read the review and decide for yourself here
Stephen Lendman has written a much more balanced review for Global Research here
Watch Ilan Pappe on the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine here
Ilan Pappe's website
And here is one of the best sites for maps showing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Stephen Sizer, took exception to the review and critiqued it here, in a post headed 'Holocaust Denial?'. For good measure, I have reproduced the whole of Sizer's critique (which includes comments from Ilan Pappe) in bold at the end of this post.
Where to begin with fisking Sizer's post? Here are a few thoughts.
1. The history
Sizer accuses Moore of denying the Palestinian Nakba. Moore doesn't: he questions whether the Palestinian refugees fled because of preplanned 'forcible expulsion'. Pappe (and Sizer) would have us believe that all of the Palestinian refugees fled because they were forcibly expelled as part of a preconceived, deliberate Zionist plan. Anyone with a fleeting knowledge of Israeli historiography will know that this is the line taken by the so-called 'New Historians', in contrast to the line taken by writers such as Ephraim Karsh or Sir Martin Gilbert, whom I will label as 'traditionalists'. Good examples of Karsh's work are available here and here. The thrust of the traditionalist line is that many if not most of the Palestinian refugees fled because they were commanded to do so by their own leaders, so that they would not get caught up in a war unleashed by the surrounding Arab states on the fledgling state of Israel. This view is supported, among other things, by Arab voices quoted in a Palestinian authority daily
and by statements such as these. Stephen Sizer and Ilan Pappe are invited to comment on how such candid statements by Arabs fit into their own thesis that the Nakba was All Israel's Fault.
2. Other views of Pappe
Let's move on to the response to Pappe by other historians. Karsh labels one of Pappe's previous books as 'disgraceful'. Yoav Gelber called him a 'charlatan'. Seth Frantzman accuses him of 'flunking history':
"As a work of scholarship, Pappé's book falls short, and it does so in a particularly damning way. He ignores context and draws far broader conclusions than evidence allows by cherry-picking some reports and ignoring other sources entirely. He does not examine Arab intentions in the five months between the U.N. endorsement of Palestinian partition and Israel's independence, nor does he consider the widespread public statements by Arab officials in Palestine and in neighboring states declaring their goal of eradicating the Jewish presence in Palestine. It is obvious why a polemicist such as Pappé would cleanse—so to speak—his narrative of any such references: To avoid doing so would strike at the core of the reality that he wishes to foist upon his readers, one which precisely inverts the historical record and turns a coordinated Arab attempt at ethnically cleansing Palestine of its Jews into a Jewish attempt at ethnically cleansing Arabs.
Pappé's writings may win plaudits among his new British peers, whose disdain for the state of Israel is legendary. But his disregard for the obligations of the historian and his indifference to academic integrity condemn his work to the realm of the polemic, not scholarship."
Perhaps most significantly, Pappe was also denounced in the strongest possible terms by Benny Morris, here, here and here: 'This truly is an appalling book. Anyone interested in the real
history of Palestine/Israel and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
would do well to run vigorously in the opposite direction.' This is important because Morris at one time 'walked a stretch together in uneasy
companionship [with Pappe]' . In short, it seems clear that Pappe is viewed with disdain by many of his own academic peers. Can Stephen Sizer tell us why, in light of all this, he himself is so keen to defend Pappe? What does he know that these professional historians do not?
3. Pappe's methodology
Echoing Efraim Karsh, Mike Moore referred to Pappe as a 'self-confessed post-modern relativist for whom historical research is a "backward-looking projection of political attitudes and agendas regardless of actual facts". Karsh's assessment derived, among other things, from the candid statement of Pappe in 'A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples' that
'My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the "truth" when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers.'
Yoav Gelber's comments are also worth re-reading, here.
In the light of such comments by both Pappe himself and by his peers, Sizer is again asked to explain his own fondness for Ilan Pappe. Whether or not Pappe refers to himself as 'post-modernist' seems irrelevant.
4. Tantura
Mike Moore wrote:
'[Pappe] repeats an allegation of the deliberate massacre of 200 Palestinians in the village of Tantura by the Jewish Alexandroni Brigade. Pappe's story relies heavily on a discredited doctoral thesis by Teddy Katz, a graduate of Haifa University, who was found to have 'gravely and severly' falsified his evidence. Nevertheless, in the Spring 2001 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies, Ilan Pappe defended Katz, insisting that his conclusions were correct, even if his facts were not, since historical research need not be based on facts!'
When Sizer asked Pappe for his comments, Pappe replied 'Katz’s thesis is reliable but in any case it is not the basis for the Tantura affair, which is only two pages in the book, but my own research into the archives and oral history.'
On the allegations of the Tantura massacre, Yoav Gelber is worth quoting again, at length:
"Pappe reiterates endlessly that a massacre took place in Tantura. Unfortunately, saying it does not make it so. Reiterating slogans has nothing to do with historiography or truth. I have re-read the testimonies of the three Jewish witnesses alleged by Pappe to confirm the massacre (Ambar, Vitkon
and Lishansky) only to find that despite Katz's aggressive manner of questioning them (contrary to the teachings of all Pappe and Firro's authorities on oral history) they all denied the allegation.
Pappe's version of Sheikh Nimr al-Khatib's whereabouts in 1948 is absolutely baseless except for one fact - the Sheikh was indeed a member of the National Committee of the Arabs in Haifa until the attempt on his life. Al-Khatib's presence in Haifa later than 19/2/1948 (the date of the attempt), however, is not mentioned in any document. If Pappe has such a document as he claims, let him scan it and put it on the web. Since he regards the al-Khatib story as a cornerstone of his argumentation, his nonsense illustrates the validity of the entire case.
The General Staff's document in question is now on the web (see:
http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory), and the readers are invited
to look in it for a "mass grave" that Pappe now declares was mentioned by
the sender. A "minor" detail indeed."
If Teddy Katz thesis is indeed reliable, then why, according to Rikki Hollander, did the University of Haifa find fabrications and distortions of quotes in Katz’s work and disqualify the thesis, removing it from the university’s bookshelves? Again, according to Hollander, why did Katz insist under oath that he had been misunderstood and that he had never believed there was a massacre? And later write the following?
'After checking and re-checking the evidence, I am now certain beyond any doubt that there is no basis at all for the allegation that after Tantura surrendered, there was any killing of residents by the Alexandroni Brigade, or any other fighting unit of the IDF. I would like to clarify that what I wrote was misunderstood, and that I did not mean to suggest that there had been a massacre in Tantura, nor do I believe that there ever was a massacre at Tantura.'
Why does Ilan Pappe, and by extension Stephen Sizer, consider Katz' thesis to be reliable?
5. The comparison with Holocaust Denial.
Sizer heads the piece 'Holocaust Denial?' and comments that 'Thankfully it is a crime in some countries to deny the Holocaust. It is a shame that it is not yet a crime to deny the Palestinian Nakba, as Moore does.' In Sizer's mind, Moore's robust critique of Pappe is equivalent to denying the Holocaust. In light of all the above, it is clear that this is at best ludicrous and at worse downright scurrilous on Sizer's part. There is no possibility whatsoever of Holocaust Denial being a legitimate position to hold. Yet there is every possibility of there being alternative explanations for the Nakba than that advanced by Pappe and Sizer. To equate the two is a particularly obscene example of immoral equivalence on Sizer's part; almost as obscene as labelling a picture of Israel's security barrier with the caption 'Arbeit macht frei.'
6. Sizer's alternative
As an alternative to Mike Moore's review, Sizer instead suggests Stephen Lendman's 'much more balanced review' at Global Research here. I'll leave it to others to decide whether or not the review is balanced, but one wonders why Sizer is directing people to a website which speculates on whether 9/11 was an inside job. One also wonders why he considers Stephen Lendman to be a reliable source of information: Stephen Lendman is a regular contributor to Ziopedia.org, a website which aims to 'to demask and expose Zionist crimes and Jewish supremacism as our contribution to the fight against the "Jew World Order".' Has Stephen Sizer not learnt his lesson about encouraging others to read material written by antisemites?
7. Pappe & the neo-Nazi newspaper
Mike Moore wrote, 'Pappe's anti-Israel bias is so extreme that he recently gave an in-depth interview to the German anti-Semitic neo-Nazi paper National Zeitung, in which he repeated his charges against Israel.'
When asked about this by Sizer, Pappe responded:
'The interview in Germany. I gave a press conference that was published also in that newspaper. On the day the interview appeared there I published a special note to all the German press that I deplore and rebuke the positions of this newspaper and have nothing in common with its agenda and views.'
I'll leave it to others whether this (translation into English available here) is an 'in-depth interview' given to a specific newspaper or a general press conference given to many journalists which somehow ended up in the National Zeitung. The question in any case remains: why would a neo-Nazi newspaper be interested in Pappe's work in any event? What is Pappe doing to make his work useless to antisemites? The same questions can, of course, be asked of Stephen Sizer, a man who gave an interview to American racist Mark Dankof (apparently arranged by his publisher) and whose own work is so admired by a variety of antisemitic and white supremacist sites. (Interestingly, both Sizer and Lendman are feted by the Revisionist Clarion.)
8. Conclusions
The last time I wrote an in-depth critique of Sizer, he responded by insisting that he shares Jewish concerns about the rise of antisemitism and that he is working to defeat it. Is he working to defeat antisemitism by linking to Stephen Lendman, by comparing a critique of a revisionist historian with Holocaust Denial and by defending a man who is admired by a German neo-Nazi newspaper? Methinks Rev Sizer needs to work a little harder yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sizer's post is reproduced in full below. All hyperlinks are in Sizer's original.
Holocaust Denial?
I was saddened but not surprised to read Mike Moore cynical ‘review’ of Professor Ilan Pappe’s “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” in last month’s Evangelicals Now.
Don't get me wrong. EN is a fine newspaper. I subscribe, as does our church. I read it avidly. I even contribute occasionally when asked. I just find it a little strange to read such a one sided and wholly negative 'review' of a book by a Jewish author about the Palestinian Nakba reviewed by a pro-Zionist Christian in an evangelical paper. Was the review commissioned or more likely sent unsolicited and used to fill a gap? I'll give EN the benefit of the doubt.
Thankfully it is a crime in some countries to deny the Holocaust. It is a shame that it is not yet a crime to deny the Palestinian Nakba, as Moore does.
The simple fact is that one in four refugees in the world today, according to the United Nations, is a Palestinian. Where did they come from? Over 500 towns and villages erased from the map of Palestine in 1948-1949.
Far from “leaving no trace” as Moore suggests, there are over 5 million Palestinian refugees registered with the UN today who still have the keys and title deeds to their homes in what is now Israel. (see here and here for more information)
I took the liberty of asking Professor Pappe to respond to the specific criticisms which Moore makes. He replied:
1. The interview in Germany. I gave a press conference that was published also in that newspaper. On the day the interview appeared there I published a special note to all the German press that I deplore and rebuke the positions of this newspaper and have nothing in common with its agenda and views.
2. I did not say that I am using oral histories instead of military archives, half of the book is based on the latter!, I am using them in conjunction. I do have my doubts on the reports of the IDF, as one would and should have about them today.
3. The basis for the allegation of expulsion in the first five chapters of the book are based on the Israeli military archives not on a post modernist notions. I never declared myself to be a post modernist and I am not a post modernist scholar.
4. Katz’s thesis is reliable but in any case it is not the basis for the Tantura affair, which is only two pages in the book, but my own research into the archives and oral history.
5. Finally, none of the professional Israeli historians refute that the half of Palestine’s population was expelled, they do not share the shame that I feel about it.
Evangelicals Now is highly regarded for its factual reporting and balanced book reviews. Mike Moore’s review was neither.
You can read the review and decide for yourself here
Stephen Lendman has written a much more balanced review for Global Research here
Watch Ilan Pappe on the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine here
Ilan Pappe's website
And here is one of the best sites for maps showing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
"See no evil" Part III: Israel, anti-Zionism, antisemitism, and British evangelicals
For Part I, see here
For Part II, see here
Part III: why is Dick Lucas, respected evangelical leader, going to speak at Stephen Sizer's church? When will senior evangelical leaders start taking Sizer to task for all these things?
Is the problem that British evangelicals don't know, or that they don't think antisemitism matters?
Oh, and in relation to this post of Rev Sizer's, Stephen Sizer might consider why neo-Nazis took to Ilan Pappe so much, as David Hirsh quite properly asked here. Of course, Rev Sizer could also ask why neo-Nazis like his own output so much, but on past form he is more likely to refuse to engage with the majority of the points I make, and threaten me with police action.
For Part II, see here
Part III: why is Dick Lucas, respected evangelical leader, going to speak at Stephen Sizer's church? When will senior evangelical leaders start taking Sizer to task for all these things?
Is the problem that British evangelicals don't know, or that they don't think antisemitism matters?
Oh, and in relation to this post of Rev Sizer's, Stephen Sizer might consider why neo-Nazis took to Ilan Pappe so much, as David Hirsh quite properly asked here. Of course, Rev Sizer could also ask why neo-Nazis like his own output so much, but on past form he is more likely to refuse to engage with the majority of the points I make, and threaten me with police action.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The lunatics take over the UCU asylum - again
Another year, another entirely predictable attempt by the national congress of my trade union, the University and Colleges Union, to exclude Israeli, and only Israeli, academics from British campuses. David Hirsh chronicles developments here. Some points to note:
- the boycott motion was passed in defiance of democratic norms, here and here
- the boycott motion was passed despite clear legal advice that it would be illegal, indeed the Socialist Worker Party-led National Executive decided to suppress the legal advice, here
- Proponents of the boycott motion included Tom hickey, who has in the past spoken in front of a reading list featuring the work of Holocaust Denier Roger Garaudy; the Holocaust falsifier Haim Bresheeth; Mike Cushman, who circulates antisemitc emails; and Sean Wallis, who also appears to embrace antisemitic conspiracy theories.
- A proposed amendment to investigate antisemitism-related resignations from the union was voted down.
- And, of course, the party driving the boycott motion is the Socialist Workers' Party, a group whose explanation of the Holocaust omits any reference to Jews and which has in the past promoted the openly antisemitic Gilad Atzmon.
A motion which is aimed at helping the Palestinians, which expresses 'legitimate criticism' of the policies of the Israeli government and which is in no way antisemitic? Don't believe a word of it.
FOOTNOTE: it would be lovely if the church was different from the world in this respect. But, since the Anglican boycott drive is spearheaded by a man who, for all his pretty words, police threats and protestations to the contrary, has yet to provide any decent response whatsoever to the well-documented charges against him - sadly this is very much not the case.
- the boycott motion was passed in defiance of democratic norms, here and here
- the boycott motion was passed despite clear legal advice that it would be illegal, indeed the Socialist Worker Party-led National Executive decided to suppress the legal advice, here
- Proponents of the boycott motion included Tom hickey, who has in the past spoken in front of a reading list featuring the work of Holocaust Denier Roger Garaudy; the Holocaust falsifier Haim Bresheeth; Mike Cushman, who circulates antisemitc emails; and Sean Wallis, who also appears to embrace antisemitic conspiracy theories.
- A proposed amendment to investigate antisemitism-related resignations from the union was voted down.
- And, of course, the party driving the boycott motion is the Socialist Workers' Party, a group whose explanation of the Holocaust omits any reference to Jews and which has in the past promoted the openly antisemitic Gilad Atzmon.
A motion which is aimed at helping the Palestinians, which expresses 'legitimate criticism' of the policies of the Israeli government and which is in no way antisemitic? Don't believe a word of it.
FOOTNOTE: it would be lovely if the church was different from the world in this respect. But, since the Anglican boycott drive is spearheaded by a man who, for all his pretty words, police threats and protestations to the contrary, has yet to provide any decent response whatsoever to the well-documented charges against him - sadly this is very much not the case.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
How to wreck a trade union
Modernityblog sums up the latest anti-Zionist and thoroughly antidemocratic shenanigans in UCU here. It truly beggars belief.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
"See no evil" Part II: Israel, anti-Zionism, antisemitism, and British evangelicals
(For Part I, see here.)
Stephen Sizer commends the Pope for repudiating antisemitism, here. But when will evangelicals take Stephen Sizer to task for apparently circulating antisemitic emails, accusing those who are concerned about antisemitism of acting in bad faith, slipping into antisemitic rhetoric about 'the lobby', citing or cooperating with Holocaust deniers, turning a blind eye to Israeli pain and citing various other dubious sources, the interview he gave to American racist Mark Dankof (apparantly arranged by IVP USA!), using openly antisemitic language in a national newspaper, insulting the memory of those who died in the Holocaust, subtly insinuating Israeli complicity in 9/11, rewriting history and misrepresenting those he disagrees with? (Not to mention threatening those who dare to criticise him with police action, whilst himself manifestly failing to engage with most of the points put to him.) No time soon, it would seem, since Sizer was recently asked to speak at the London School of Theology. Whatever evangelicals may think of Sizer's theology and politics, the fact that they continue to give him a platform tells me that evangelicals either aren't aware of these aspects of Sizer's writings, or think that they just don't matter. For shame.
Stephen Sizer commends the Pope for repudiating antisemitism, here. But when will evangelicals take Stephen Sizer to task for apparently circulating antisemitic emails, accusing those who are concerned about antisemitism of acting in bad faith, slipping into antisemitic rhetoric about 'the lobby', citing or cooperating with Holocaust deniers, turning a blind eye to Israeli pain and citing various other dubious sources, the interview he gave to American racist Mark Dankof (apparantly arranged by IVP USA!), using openly antisemitic language in a national newspaper, insulting the memory of those who died in the Holocaust, subtly insinuating Israeli complicity in 9/11, rewriting history and misrepresenting those he disagrees with? (Not to mention threatening those who dare to criticise him with police action, whilst himself manifestly failing to engage with most of the points put to him.) No time soon, it would seem, since Sizer was recently asked to speak at the London School of Theology. Whatever evangelicals may think of Sizer's theology and politics, the fact that they continue to give him a platform tells me that evangelicals either aren't aware of these aspects of Sizer's writings, or think that they just don't matter. For shame.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Two must-read pieces
When the CST say “Seven Jewish Children” is antisemitic, it is time to take the charge seriously, here
David T on the fight against anti-Semitism, here: "There are some who are prominent within anti-Zionism who are also opponents of anti-semitism. Andy Newman, and even George Galloway, have been fierce in their condemnation of anti-Jewish racism. Yet, when it comes to the crunch, they’re enthusiastic “neverthelessers”. You can’t cheer on Hamas - hand money over to Hamas, even - but either ignore or attempt to explain away their genocidal antisemitism, and still claim to be an anti-racist."
David T on the fight against anti-Semitism, here: "There are some who are prominent within anti-Zionism who are also opponents of anti-semitism. Andy Newman, and even George Galloway, have been fierce in their condemnation of anti-Jewish racism. Yet, when it comes to the crunch, they’re enthusiastic “neverthelessers”. You can’t cheer on Hamas - hand money over to Hamas, even - but either ignore or attempt to explain away their genocidal antisemitism, and still claim to be an anti-racist."
Saturday, April 04, 2009
The revival* of Russian antisemitism?
Russia expels four rabbis in a year, here
* Assuming, that is, that it ever died in the first place...
* Assuming, that is, that it ever died in the first place...
Monday, March 30, 2009
Warning signs
Saturday, March 21, 2009
How to convince people that you are not antisemitic
If Melanie Phillips wrote an article which accused me of hoping that would Israel would disappear and of giving interviews to, endorsing or forwarding material from American white supremacists and Holocaust deniers, I guess there are a number of things I could do.
Firstly, I could try to deny its factual accuracy. I could say that I categorically deny any position that threatens Israeli sovereignty. That might be tricky, though, because when I was in Iran not so long ago, I reportedly said this:
"Asked to comment on the United Nations requirement to repatriate the Palestinian refugees to their homeland, he said that repatriation of Palestinians to their own territory will be effective in retaking their own country, because, when the Palestinian refugees come to their home, they will form majority of the population and would form a multi-ethnic state including Jews, Muslims and Christians."
[UPDATE: Stephen Sizer says this report misquotes what he said.]
I could also insist that I "have never knowingly, to use her words, ‘given interviews to, endorsed or forwarded material from American white supremacists and Holocaust deniers’." That would leave someone needing to explain the existence of various emails apparently sent out by me, including:
Next, I could slip into one of my old favourites, "the Livingstone Formulation". Not for the first nor even for the second time, I could suggest that someone is raising the spectre of antisemitism in an dishonest effort to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policies - specifically, I could write this -
"Is [Melanie Phillips' piece aiming] to deflect attention from Israel’s recent wanton killing spree in Gaza? Or was it written out of frustration at the decision of the Church of England Synod to divest its shares in Caterpillar? Or just part of the wider Zionist lobby targetting Barak Obama’s new Administration? Or is it perhaps a precursor to an imminent pre-emptive attack against Iran? Lets hope not otherwise it won’t be the libel or calumny we are debating but whether her friends who seem anxious for Armageddon are right after all."
It would seemingly not concern me that repeatedly accusing Jewish people of raising the spectre of antisemitism as a dishonest ploy to stifle criticism of Israel's policies might in itself be an antisemitic claim (because it implies that the [usually] Jewish people who do it are dishonest), nor that they might be doing so because, in light of those emails which seem to have left my outbox (not to mention my subtle insinuation of Israeli complicity in 9/11 or my repeated use of dubious sources), they might in fact have good reasons for doubting my philosemitic credentials.
Thirdly, I could lapse into conspiracy theory, suggesting [as above] that Melanie Phillips' piece is part of the wider plans of the wicked Zionist lobby working on both sides of the Atlantic to target Obama's administration, to instigate a pre-emptive attack against Iran, and to discredit Chas Freeman (and me). Again, it would seemingly not overly concern me that the myth of an all-powerful Zionist lobby controlling American policy is just that - a myth. And, like the Independent, I might find it difficult to convince people that I really do emphasize the difference between the "Zionist lobby" and the older antisemitic trope of a "Jewish lobby", because in the past I have specifically written that Dole & Clinton were cowed by the "Jewish Lobby". It would of course help me to gush over the work of Mearsheimer and Walt (which I refer to as "dynamite"), even though numerous commentators have challenged its claims, notably Alan Dershowitz who pinpoints numerous factual errors and who summarises it as "the newest - and oldest - Jewish conspiracy". Too bad that Dennis MacShane, someone who knows a bit more about government than me and whose work I have promoted on my own blog, demolishes the work of Mearsheimer and Walt, summarising it as "smears against Jews", concluding with the telling comment that "Jews, Israel and the fabled 'lobby' did not exist in any papers I saw or discussions I had as a government minister." (MacShane, Globalising Hatred - The New Antisemitism, pp. 137 & 138)
Fourthly, I could encourage my hearers to combat racism: I could urge them to "Support the United Nations Durban Review Conference to be held in Geneva in April. The Durban Review Conference, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, 20-24 April 2009, will evaluate progress towards the goals set by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. The Review Conference will serve as a catalyst to fulfilling the promises of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action agreed at the 2001 World Conference through reinvigorated actions, initiatives and practical solutions, illuminating the way toward equality for every individual and group in all regions and countries of the world." It would seemingly not occur to me, and certainly not to my hearers, that the Durban 2001 conference turned into a cesspit of antisemitism (sorry! - "legitimate criticism of the policies of the Israeli government"), nor that numerous observers, including veteran anti-apartheid campaigner Benjamin Pogrund, consider that the 2009 conference will be little better, nor of course that one of the goals set in 2001 (point 65 of the Durban and Declaration and Programme of Action) was this: "We recognize the right of refugees to return voluntarily to their homes and properties in dignity and safety, and urge all States to facilitate such return". Would that be a call for the Palestinian right of return, long recognised as a euphemism for Israel's destruction? Whoops!
Finally, I could turn to the Bible. In critiquing statements allegedly made by Israeli military rabbis [which, if accurately reported, this blogger would also condemn], I could ask this question:
"One has to ask which rabbinate? Perhaps the one the Apostle John refers to in the Book of Revelation 2:9-10, 3:9?"
This would be ironic, seeing as I devote a lot of my time to criticising those who see the Bible as predicting events in the modern-day Middle East. It would also be a bit silly, seeing as the people referred to in those passages were based in first-century Smyrna and Philadelphia respectively. It would also be tricky exegetically, since both groups apparently "claim[ed] they were Jews but [were] not" - suggesting they may in fact have been Gentiles claiming to be Jews (something which has parallels in later history) - but who ever heard of a non-Jewish Israeli rabbi? It could also be a PR disaster for me, because a simple Google search shows how that phrase in Revelation has been and still is misused by antisemites today, whilst one of the leading works on left-wing anti-Semitism shows how the trope of Satanic or Satan-worshipping Jews has a long and inglorious history. And I wouldn't want anybody to accuse me of being antisemitic, would I?
Firstly, I could try to deny its factual accuracy. I could say that I categorically deny any position that threatens Israeli sovereignty. That might be tricky, though, because when I was in Iran not so long ago, I reportedly said this:
"Asked to comment on the United Nations requirement to repatriate the Palestinian refugees to their homeland, he said that repatriation of Palestinians to their own territory will be effective in retaking their own country, because, when the Palestinian refugees come to their home, they will form majority of the population and would form a multi-ethnic state including Jews, Muslims and Christians."
[UPDATE: Stephen Sizer says this report misquotes what he said.]
I could also insist that I "have never knowingly, to use her words, ‘given interviews to, endorsed or forwarded material from American white supremacists and Holocaust deniers’." That would leave someone needing to explain the existence of various emails apparently sent out by me, including:
- this one which contains commentary by Holocaust Denier Michael Hoffmann II
- this one containing an article by conspiracy theorist Michael Collins Piper
- not forgetting this one containing an article by one Ted Pike ("an outspoken critic of ADL's evil Jewish leadership") taken from the website of conspiracy theorist Jeff Rense
- Oh - and not forgetting this one either, seemingly sent out by me to the Holocaust Denier Israel Shamir, on first name terms, asking him to cooperate with me.
- Oh - and also this email which seems to have come from me and which ended up in the inbox and on the blog of former National Front leader Martin Webster. (Of course, I can't control who signs up for my mailings or where they end up... but why is Martin Webster so keen on what I have sent?)
Next, I could slip into one of my old favourites, "the Livingstone Formulation". Not for the first nor even for the second time, I could suggest that someone is raising the spectre of antisemitism in an dishonest effort to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policies - specifically, I could write this -
"Is [Melanie Phillips' piece aiming] to deflect attention from Israel’s recent wanton killing spree in Gaza? Or was it written out of frustration at the decision of the Church of England Synod to divest its shares in Caterpillar? Or just part of the wider Zionist lobby targetting Barak Obama’s new Administration? Or is it perhaps a precursor to an imminent pre-emptive attack against Iran? Lets hope not otherwise it won’t be the libel or calumny we are debating but whether her friends who seem anxious for Armageddon are right after all."
It would seemingly not concern me that repeatedly accusing Jewish people of raising the spectre of antisemitism as a dishonest ploy to stifle criticism of Israel's policies might in itself be an antisemitic claim (because it implies that the [usually] Jewish people who do it are dishonest), nor that they might be doing so because, in light of those emails which seem to have left my outbox (not to mention my subtle insinuation of Israeli complicity in 9/11 or my repeated use of dubious sources), they might in fact have good reasons for doubting my philosemitic credentials.
Thirdly, I could lapse into conspiracy theory, suggesting [as above] that Melanie Phillips' piece is part of the wider plans of the wicked Zionist lobby working on both sides of the Atlantic to target Obama's administration, to instigate a pre-emptive attack against Iran, and to discredit Chas Freeman (and me). Again, it would seemingly not overly concern me that the myth of an all-powerful Zionist lobby controlling American policy is just that - a myth. And, like the Independent, I might find it difficult to convince people that I really do emphasize the difference between the "Zionist lobby" and the older antisemitic trope of a "Jewish lobby", because in the past I have specifically written that Dole & Clinton were cowed by the "Jewish Lobby". It would of course help me to gush over the work of Mearsheimer and Walt (which I refer to as "dynamite"), even though numerous commentators have challenged its claims, notably Alan Dershowitz who pinpoints numerous factual errors and who summarises it as "the newest - and oldest - Jewish conspiracy". Too bad that Dennis MacShane, someone who knows a bit more about government than me and whose work I have promoted on my own blog, demolishes the work of Mearsheimer and Walt, summarising it as "smears against Jews", concluding with the telling comment that "Jews, Israel and the fabled 'lobby' did not exist in any papers I saw or discussions I had as a government minister." (MacShane, Globalising Hatred - The New Antisemitism, pp. 137 & 138)
Fourthly, I could encourage my hearers to combat racism: I could urge them to "Support the United Nations Durban Review Conference to be held in Geneva in April. The Durban Review Conference, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, 20-24 April 2009, will evaluate progress towards the goals set by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. The Review Conference will serve as a catalyst to fulfilling the promises of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action agreed at the 2001 World Conference through reinvigorated actions, initiatives and practical solutions, illuminating the way toward equality for every individual and group in all regions and countries of the world." It would seemingly not occur to me, and certainly not to my hearers, that the Durban 2001 conference turned into a cesspit of antisemitism (sorry! - "legitimate criticism of the policies of the Israeli government"), nor that numerous observers, including veteran anti-apartheid campaigner Benjamin Pogrund, consider that the 2009 conference will be little better, nor of course that one of the goals set in 2001 (point 65 of the Durban and Declaration and Programme of Action) was this: "We recognize the right of refugees to return voluntarily to their homes and properties in dignity and safety, and urge all States to facilitate such return". Would that be a call for the Palestinian right of return, long recognised as a euphemism for Israel's destruction? Whoops!
Finally, I could turn to the Bible. In critiquing statements allegedly made by Israeli military rabbis [which, if accurately reported, this blogger would also condemn], I could ask this question:
"One has to ask which rabbinate? Perhaps the one the Apostle John refers to in the Book of Revelation 2:9-10, 3:9?"
This would be ironic, seeing as I devote a lot of my time to criticising those who see the Bible as predicting events in the modern-day Middle East. It would also be a bit silly, seeing as the people referred to in those passages were based in first-century Smyrna and Philadelphia respectively. It would also be tricky exegetically, since both groups apparently "claim[ed] they were Jews but [were] not" - suggesting they may in fact have been Gentiles claiming to be Jews (something which has parallels in later history) - but who ever heard of a non-Jewish Israeli rabbi? It could also be a PR disaster for me, because a simple Google search shows how that phrase in Revelation has been and still is misused by antisemites today, whilst one of the leading works on left-wing anti-Semitism shows how the trope of Satanic or Satan-worshipping Jews has a long and inglorious history. And I wouldn't want anybody to accuse me of being antisemitic, would I?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)