Britain sacrificed Czechoslovakia in 1938, but couldn't do the same to Poland as it was treaty bound to come to its defense

Below is an interesting article but I believe wrong when arguing that the Kindertransport had any effect on the British People's attitudes to the nazis. Kristallnacht possibly had a great effect. Britain entered the war as it was treaty bound to come to the defense  of Poland when attacked, and moreover because Britain realised that no matter what was sacrificed to nazi aggresion there was no sating it, no limit to Hitler's aggression, so Britain might as well do the decent thing for Poland and declare war on Germany.

Before WWII British feelings were mixed regarding Germany. As in the USA there was much support for fascism, especially amongst the elite, and even more support for keeping out what they saw as a european problem.
To some extent Britain's reluctance to get involved in europe is understandable when considering that Britain had lost a million men only 25 years beforehand.
The Jewish Community then is however marked by cowardice, then for the refusal by its leaders in the USA and Britain to raise hell for jews suffering under the nazis. We see the same now in the defence of Israel, where famous artists such as Fry and Jonathan Miller preferring instead of supporting Israel when under attack from all sides,  to try and curry favor with Israel's detractors, to latch onto the refrain about 'wicked' Israel and the 'occupation'. 
There are of course other jewish personalities like Howard Jacobson and Woody Allen who recognise the new antisemitism for what it is, and are unafraid to give their opinions about it.

The author is of course right about Hannah Arendt's soundbite about Eichmann epitomizing the “banality of evil”. Those who met Eichmann such as Joel Brand related that they felt when in his presence in terror of their lives. 
One man, "Dr. Senator, who didn't stand when Eichmann entered the room; Eichmann told him that if he wasn't gone from Austria within the day he'd be sent to a camp"." (When Eichmann was finally captured, a religious cabinet minister Dr. Yosef Burg worried that trying Eichmann would ruin Israel's image in the world. His son Avraham Burg took things further by leaving Israel and missing no opportunity to pander to Israel's enemies, whether about the supposed illegitimacy of jewish life in their ancestral homeland Judea and Samaria or generally about israeli democracy).


By Fred Barschak

On November 9 1938, a Wednesday, at the age of seven years and eight months, I was standing at my bedroom window looking across the street where, some 25 yards away, the synagogue, the famous Schiffschul, was burning. Unknown to me, so were
 22 other synagogues and some 60 shtiebls in Vienna alone.

Four-and-a-half weeks later, on a Friday afternoon, December 10, together with hundreds of other children aged from three to 17, I boarded a train and began a two-day journey that ended with a boat-trip landing us at Harwich.
 The experience of these two events, the one arising directly from the other, certainly lends a certain perspective to one’s recollection and, 75 years on, some things, dimly perceived at the time and even more dimly understood, have become clearer.

In many cases, parents told their children that the separation would not be that long, that they would be joining them sooner or later. In fact, only some 3,000 of the 9,739 children ever saw their parents again. And certainly the older children, seeing the forced smiles and hidden tears, had some idea of what the parents were saying and especially what they were not saying.

There was a very considerable difference between the experience of the German and Austrian communities. The Jews in Austria had had a very real taste of the “Kristallnacht medicine” ever since the first hour of the Anschluss in March 1938. The norms of civilised or even semi-civilised behaviour had long since been abandoned in post- Anschluss Austria.

But, in Germany, things were very different. In his book, Last Waltz in Vienna, George Clare pointed out that, even after Kristallnacht, arriving in Berlin was like landing on another planet. You could actually go to a coffee house without encountering the ubiquitous Juden unerwünscht (Jews not welcome) signs — plastered everywhere in Vienna, but not everywhere in Berlin. The point is that, before Kristallnacht, life in Germany was very unpleasant, but dangerously bearable.

Which explains why, in the six years between Hitler’s coming to power on January 30 1933, and Kristallnacht on November 8 1938, out of 600,000 Jews, barely 100,000 had emigrated, whereas, after that watershed, apart from the children, approximately 140,000 managed to get out of Germany. Three hundred thousand did not.

So, to that extent, while Kristallnacht led directly to the death of 90 Jews, with a further 1,000 victims who succumbed to their treatment in Dachau and Buchenwald, where 30,000 had been immediately incarcerated, by making clear that there was no possible future for those who thought things couldn’t get worse, Kristallnacht actually saved lives. The flames of the burning buildings illuminated the writing on the wall.

What was truly irreplaceable, and hit the Jewish communities like a volcanic eruption, was the destruction, within 24 hours, of 200 synagogues, together with 750–800 shtiebls (buildings each capable of holding some 100 people,) and their contents, some 10,000 sifrei Torah, all of which signalled the end not just of religious life, but also the destruction, even for non-religious Jews, of their communal life in Germany and Austria.

There was one thing that both groups of Jews had in common — a frantic attempt to get their children away.
 The first Kindertransport train left Berlin with 200 children on December 2. But it was the first train from Vienna, which left at about 11.45pm on a Friday evening, December 10, that had a direct bearing on a very old controversy. This dates from 1961, when Hannah Arendt, covering the Eichmann trial for the New Yorker magazine, coined the ineffable phrase, “the banality of evil”.

This refers to two of the most prominent points in Eichmann’s defence. What does Eichmann actually say? He says first, I was a mere cog in a wheel, concerned with efficient transport arrangements; second, I was following orders and, third, I had no particular animus against Jews, i.e. I would have transported Chinese or Hottentots if so ordered. It remains extraordinary that this hugely experienced journalist accepted Eichmann’s presentation at face value.

But it is the third of his claims that relates directly to the December 10 Kindertransport. The true story was revealed in 1968 by Vera Weismuller, the wife of a Dutch Catholic banker, and hugely involved in organising Kindertransports.
 She arrived in Vienna on or about December 3, carrying with her the priceless permissions for 600 children to board the train for Britain. On arrival, she was immediately incarcerated in one of the cells in the infamous Hotel Metropole — the SS and Gestapo headquarters.

In the morning, she was ushered into the presence of Eichmann; but not before she was subjected to a “personal” search by two Gestapo women. He then asked her: “Do the children know that they are going?” When she replied “Yes”, he asked: “Do the parents know the children are going?” When she replied “Yes”, he said: “Then you may take the children, but there is one condition: they must travel on Saturday.”

At first sight, the order was so obviously aimed at those, probably about 50 per cent of the children, who came from Orthodox backgrounds, and one is tempted to say that, thank God, he was unaware that even the most Orthodox Jew is enjoined to set aside the laws of Shabbat for the purpose of saving life. But, of course, it wasn’t aimed only at the Orthodox; families who were certainly not observant still had a Friday-night family meal, and it was not a proper Friday night without their children, so they, too, were targeted by Eichmann’s order.

Now there are dozens of examples of Eichmann’s dedicated pursuit of Jews, in matters much more severe than an order to travel on Saturday. But one thing unites them all. The infliction of gratuitous pain is the common feature of all Eichmann’s actions, and is completely at variance with his claim of an absence of animus against Jews.

And what about the children once they got to England? When I addressed the who’s who of Anglo-Jewry on March 9 1988 at the Wiener Library, where we commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Anschluss, I felt obliged to point out that the Kindertransport did not represent Anglo-Jewry’s finest moment of glory.

In the nine months during which the children arrived, there were living in Great Britain, in varying degrees of affluence and poverty, some 125,000 Jewish families. Of the 9,739 children, about 4,500 were accommodated in hostels, 3,000 were offered a home by Jewish families, and about 2,300 were accommodated in non-Jewish households. Since the organisers tried their best to get Jewish children placed with Jewish families, 3,000 Jewish families offered to take a refugee child in, and 82,000 families did not.

Now it is certainly the case that many of these families could not afford to make the offer — but many could, and didn’t. It was this extraordinary refusal by so many to rise to the occasion that caused Chief Rabbi Hertz, in January 1939, to state that he wished he could say that he had found as much support in his work of rescuing Jews from Europe among the Jewish community as he had among many in the non-Jewish community. This makes the contribution of those British Jews who did put their shoulder to the wheel all the more praiseworthy.

This year, there have been many detailed accounts of the contribution which the children and the refugees generally have made, in every field of endeavour.

But there is perhaps one contribution that the Kinder made without their ever being aware of it. And it is this; when Chamberlain returned from Munich in September 1938, he was greeted and cheered as if he were a visiting Messiah. And yet, when the scales were finally removed from his eyes and he decided to confront Hitler after the occupation of Czechoslovakia on March 15 1939, he found that he had a majority of the British public behind him.

Now historians are quite clear that the reason for the abandonment of the policy of appeasement was, indeed, the occupation of Czechoslovakia. But that does not explain the complete change in public opinion. So what exactly were the major events that took place between September 1938 and March 1939? There were, in fact, only two: Kristallnacht and the Kindertransports.

What in fact happened is that the British public felt cheated. They thought they had signed up for “Peace in our time”. What they got instead was a pogrom in the heart of modern Europe, and a picture of children, including toddlers, walking down a gangplank at Harwich clutching their pathetic suitcases.

A feeling began to spread that “it’s not right”, and this may partly explain why it was that when Chamberlain declared war in 1939, and one year later when Churchill was left to fight that war, the climate of opinion had changed sufficiently for them to have a reasonably united nation behind them.

The two events may have played only a very small part in that change of opinion, but a part they surely played.

The dream of Israel100 years ago

Since independence tiny Israel always declared itself willing make sacrifices for peace. Israel gave away territory to Egypt, to Jordan, to Lebanon and in 2000 to Palestinian Arabs, yet they continue to ask for more in their quest to destroy Israel

With Israel's miraculous achievements in mind, not least its very survival amidst a sea of arab and muslim hatred, it is easy to overlook that Israel is not even a century old! In the time since independence a tiny country with 600, 000 inhabitants absorbed a million jews ethnically cleansed from arab countries, developed a modern democratic system, and then again absorbed another million russian jews in the 1990's. And then Israel has gone on to be the 'startup nation', where innovation and invention are a powerhouse of new technology, rivalled only by its ally the USA (The old and the new Jerusalem together. Not for nothing does evil Iran describe the USA and Israel as the 'Great' and the 'little' Satan, the two countries bound by a common sense of humanity, freedom and a love of life).

Israel is still small with only 8 million inhabitants, 2 million of whom are non-jews with full and equal rights.


100 years ago the British government had still not formulated the Balfour Declaration which recognised the Jewish unbroken link with the Holy Land of Israel. It was only a few British christian statesmen like Lloyd George who believed that the Jewish People might once again rule themselves in their ancient homelands.

In 1913 one year before World War I broke out Herbert Samuel who was a member of the British political elite, a cabinet member and a jew hoped that at some future time a jewish state would arise but did not join the zionist movement because at that time before World War I Britain saw its strategic interests in propping up the 'sick man of europe, the Ottoman Empire'. The Ottomans were seen at that time as a bulwark against Russia, the old enemy and a main threat to British and French middle east interests. The Germans were also beginning to give Britain cause for worry. Britain's main interest was in keeping the Suez Canal safe, and a weak Ottoman presence in the Holy Land was for it the best option. But the Ottomans were not going to ever allow a Jewish State to arise. That had been made very unclearly to Herzl when he tried and failed to get an audience with Caliph Abdul Hamid II (Herzl did not receive a negative decision, he was just given the run around until he realised there was no way he would get to see the Caliph, or ever get permission to found a jewish state by way of the Caliph. Germany was a different and more promising option at the turn of the century however and Herzl did manage to get an audience with the Kaiser in Jerusalem).

Samuel confided in Sir Edward Grey (The War Minister on the outbreak of WWI - "Tonight the lights are going out all over Europe........"), that:

 'perhaps the opportunity might arise for the fulfilment of the ancient aspiration of the Jewish people and the restoration there of a Jewish State.' Such an entity, were it to be established, might become 'the centre of a new culture... a fountain of enlightenment and a source of a great literature and art and development of science'. (In The Question of Palestine: Isaiah Friedman p8)

 When Britain took the Land from the Turks the first civilian governor to be appointed was Samuel, something of a disaster the reverberations of which resound to this day. Being a Jew, Samuel had to always try and understand the arabs and how they felt. And when Britain soon after changed its mind about upsetting the arabs, and tried to curry favor with them by appointing the Haj Amin El Husseini as Muft of Jerusalem, Samuel agreed, despite the post being a religious one, despite Husseini being only in his twenties and quite ignorant of islamic laws (See Unholy Memories of the Holy Land - Samuel for an interesting and depth explanation of the machinations by Britain to get Husseini appointed, written by a contemporary, no relation to Herbert Samuel).

This one appointment, forced upon the arab community by Britain led to many thousands of jews' and British deaths in the Holy Land over the coming years such as in 1920,1921,1936-9 (and in europe; the mufti founded two SS muslim divisions which killed jews, gypsies and partisans in occupied europe during WWII) until the founding of the State of Israel. That other mass murderer of jews, Yasir Arafat was Husseini's nephew.

Nevertheless Samuel the zionist would be very happy to be alive today, to see that his dream came true beyond anyone's wildest dreams, and despite his great mistake.

'Asian' gangs grooming young girls for sex (don't mention they are Pakistani muslims)

As with the USSR the average British citizen is having to learn to read between the lines of the official reports. This is seen with a number of reports of 'asian' gangs having groomed young girls and then pimped them to friends and clients. Hindus and Sikhs have known to be upset at the BBC and other news media calling these people 'asians' when as far as is known, they are always muslim, and from Pakistan. There is maybe in part a laudable wish not to stereotype all muslims, but then if some amongst the muslim community are the sole perpetrators of this type of crime, then it points to an issue that must be addressed, not swept under the carpet. Just widening the pool of perpetrators of this crime from 'Pakistani muslims' to 'asians', is not to protect pakistanis or muslims, but unfairly taint the wider asian community in Britain. Whether we like it or not, there is a big problem with women in islam, and islamic communities.

And then there are the victims, left unprotected by authorities afraid to lay themselves open to charges of 'racism':

A VICTIM of the Oxford sex grooming gang that was allowed to operate with virtual impunity for years has told how she begged social services for help after being drugged, threatened and enslaved.

Western countries effectively tolerate barbaric islamic practices under shariah law such as beatings and perverse sexuality against muslim women and underage girls. FGM, honor killings and pedophilia happen in most european countries. Britain for example has never prosecuted anyone for carrying out FGM in Britain or abroad. Pakistani women are known to have disappeared without trace, their families 'clamming up' about the honor crime victims. Any attentions from the outside are frustrated and the police if at all possible will leave well alone.

When British politician Jack Straw tried to address pakistani muslims grooming of girls he received a mountain of opprobrium, although one muslim leader was brave enough to agree the problem exists.

He said that the scandal, exposed by the trial of nine Asian men jailed for grooming and sexual abuse of white girls in Rochdale, raised a problem which had to be “faced and addressed” within some communities in northern cities.

 Another lawyer disclosed that he is preparing a case involving alleged abuse of one girl in seven separate cities stretching across the North West of England but also as far away as Wolverhampton.

 The alleged abuse follows a similar pattern: involving grooming rings dominated by men from Pakistani backgrounds, who are often taxi drivers, picking up girls and taking them to flats for sex with several men.

 Mr Straw, whose Blackburn and Darwen constituency in Lancashire has a large Asian population, has angered some sections of the Muslim community in the past by calling for women to remove veils which cover their faces.

 Last year he also warned that white girls are sometimes treated as “easy meat” for some young Asian men who are “fizzing and popping with testosterone” but had no “outlet” within their own community.

 Speaking after the publication of the report yesterday, he dismissed claims that the problems uncovered by the Rochdale report affected all communities.

 “There is an issue of ethnicity here which can’t be ignored,” he told BBC Radio 4.

 “But it is also correct that in terms of group grooming there is an ethnic dimension which typically is of Asian men on white girls.

 “These are small communities so people will have a rough idea that people are abusing white girls in this way.

 “That has to be dealt with there as well as obviously with much more effective police and social services action.”

 Mohammed Shafiq, the Muslim commentator and chief executive of the Rochdale-based Ramadhan Foundation,.........“I think that an element of what he said is right – there are some people in my community, the Pakistani community, the elders, who think that the best thing to do is just ignore it and assume it all a BNP and EDL conspiracy.

 A spokesman for the Network of Sikh Organisations added that it was not accurate to describe the grooming rings as an “Asian” problem.

 “It is something tat the leaders of the Muslim community, the Pakistani community, need to address,” he said.

Another factor contributing to the Muslim rape wave is the fact that Muhammed, if he ever lived, allowed Muslims to take infidel women as their sex slaves. Using female prisoners of war for sexual gratification dates 1,400 years back to their prophet, who had a large number of sex slaves and advised his male followers to imitate his example.

While a Muslim husband can divorce at any time by repeating the word "talaq" three times, a married Muslim woman is her husband's de facto slave, since she can not divorce unless a Sharia council approves her wish and sets her free. If she leaves without being allowed, her risk of getting killed is as high as the killer's chance of remaining unpunished for fulfilling his culture's and God's expectations on how to treat women who leave a marriage without being allowed to.

A psychologically unhealthy religion

One does not have to be a psychologist to know what such a culture does to men's view of women. No grown-up man would ever consider having sex with minors, and certainly not against her will, drugged, beaten and threatened with death.

But what we are talking about here are not normal men, but males who since birth have been raised to think that women are inferior and that females who do not protect their honor by covering up are prostitutes and fair game. No man should ever wish to be subjected to such unhealthy cultural influence.

British media suppresses the islamic motive of the barbaric terror attack in London

Who sent this jihadist to chop up a british soldier on a busy street in London? Which mosque did he attend? Which radical preacher did he learn from?

In 2001 Israel faced a wave of terror which killed and wounded 10,000 israelis for no other reason than being jewish in Israel. Of course many non jews, muslims and christians also suffered in the terror wave. The outbreak was largely due to the liberal world view of and long standing appeasement of Israel's enemies by Ehud Barak who cared more for what Israel's enemies would say, rather than protecting his people as prime minister. When Ariel Sharon came to power the situation whereby suicide bombers were setting off their bombs in israeli streets, cafes and restaurants every other day came to an end.

Rather than wait for the suicide bombers to come to Israel, Israel in operation 'Defensive Shield' went to Jenin and Ramallah and cleared out the terrorists' nests. When those training and sending the suicide bombers on their missions could not be arrested, they were killed. The Security Fence was also built to stop easy access to Israel for the suicide bombers, and the checkpoints were built. Under the intense pressure of Obama's administration most checkpoints have been removed so now there are only 12 of them. And Israelis are once again being killed on the roads of Judea and Samaria.

In winning the war against the terrorists in 2002, Israel gave a lesson those 'specialists' in the west who said that you can not win a terror war among an enemy population without bribing them, without 'nation building' them. Well we see where 'nation building' has got Nato in Afghanistan. Absolutely nowhere. The secret of Israel's success was excellent intelligence, and a will to act. Britain took longer, but similarly defeated IRA terror by infiltrating its organisation. Winning the war against the terrorists did not mean that Israel acts indiscriminately, just the opposite. Israel's operations were targeted only against those involved in terror. Arabs in Israel have always known that if they don't get involved in terror, the state doesn't get involved with them, it tries its best to spare their lives.  Even Israeli smart weapons were created to spare arab civilians, such as the bomb that can be shifted to another target in mid-air if civilians are spotted near a terror target.
Israel's 'dummy bomb', an inert bomb was not so successful as when warned, civilians would then crowd the target with human shields knowing Israel would not launch an attack.

So now to the Woolwich terror attack. Britain has been lucky until now with the horror of terror on its streets being mostly prevented by its security forces.Britain has never faced the full wrath of jihad on its streets. This is partly because jihad does not always need to be violent. Demographic jihad also has its place, and with 10% of babies born in the UK now being muslim and with the commonest name for children now being 'Muhammad', Britain is well on its way to becoming another muslim country. If that's what the British people want then all well and good. But British people who are generally very tolerant should know that all muslim countries are intolerant of minorities, and many have islam written into their constitutions. Christianity is barely tolerated in most muslim countries and in them it is often very dangerous to be a christian. Is that what British people want, to be slowly forced to adopt other cultures and the muslim religion?

Whatever British people want, they should see that muslims in Britain are themselves protected from the extremism of the wahabite Saudi radical preachers. If integration rather than 'multi-culturalism' was promoted then there would be little to complain about. When jews came to the UK they assimilated culturally whilst keeping their religion in the home. But islam is a supremacist ideology, and if the host culture is not careful then shariah law, its intolerance and its punishments will follow once muslims become a majority. Already intolerance stalks London's streets with 'muslim patrols' enforcing sharia zones near mosques, where women are told how to dress and where alcohol may not be carried in the street, where muslim women are stripped of their rights in 'voluntary' shariah courts.

Shariah intolerance and islamic supremacism is what the Woolwich terror attack was about, of two violent men who instead of having their limited intelligence and their strength being channeled into something positive such as gardening or stacking shelves in Wallmart (Asda in the UK) or Tesco's, were taught in their saudi financed mosque to hate the society which paid them their benefits, where they learned that a good muslim should "strike the neck of the infidel" (47:4), and strike they did.

As usual the British liberal media jumped to cover up the islamic nature of such an awful crime. The BBC buried the fact that the terrorist chanted 'Allah Akbar'  many paragraphs down in its report of the attack. The BBC 'analysis' was predictable, that Britain is to blame, " basic principle that they (jihadists) oppose a Western presence in the Islamic world". Maybe the BBC would like to explain the gruesome bombings of shia against sunni and vice versa in Iraq? The lust for blood can be sated for all manner of reasons, all manner of invented grievances. But of course British journalists swallow these grievances hook line and sinker, as long as they are directed against Israel or western 'imperialism'. Islamic supremacism and imperialism is never mentioned. That might offend, and once offended certain people get violence. The liberal British version of the 'cycle of violence.' 

Even the terrorist wearing black shouting Allah Akbar and talking about 'good Ayas' in favor of jihad at the beginning of the video was given a voice over to disguise the islamic nature of his rantings. Only when the terrorist began spouting off about the British army invading other countries was he allowed to be heard, because this is part of the British liberal credo.

But then Israel gets this sort of distortion as part of the normal treatment by the mass media. I looked all over youtube for the video of the terrorist dressed in black ranting without the voiceover, but only jihadwatch had it.

 Here’s what he said:

We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day. This British soldier is an eye for an eye a tooth for tooth. We apologise that women had to see this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you.

The yahoo account neglected to mention the bit about, "We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you."

"They apparently encouraged passers-by to video them.  One of the alleged attackers was filmed wielding a bloodied meat cleaver, saying:  "We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

 I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you," he said.

The first mention in the yahoo account of islam was in paragraph eight, to allow a denial by the group one of the terrorists belonged to:

Anjem Choudary, the former leader of banned Islamic group al Muhajiroun, said he knew one of the alleged attackers but had not seen him for about two years.

Yahoo mentions the islamic side only in paragraph twelve:

 Two suspected Muslim fanatics attacked the man in the street a short distance from the Royal Artillery Barracks after apparently knocking him down with their car.

So the evidence of the islamic motive was in part selected out, voiced over, and buried deep in an article about. And of course the perpetrators are allowed full reign to distort their hateful crimed, to state their own victimhood status, that this poor soldier 'had it coming', that the 'sins' of the British are responsible for pushing poor muslims into doing such terrible acts.

 Exactly the sort of treatment the media gives habitually to Israel. At least there is until now no 'Pallywood' involvement, whereby news is invented.

It's interesting that the media will mention if a christian or jew act unsocially. The media loves to repeat versions of the mantra of 'right wing jewish extremist'. Usually those 'extremists' are caught defending themselves from arab rock throwers, but of course the arab rock throwing will be edited out in the versions for youtube. Thankfully the IDF and jews of Judea and Samaria are slowly learning to take their own videos of confrontations. Not nearly enough are made or posted to youtube.

So Britain after its security forces frustrated many hundreds of islam inspired terror attacks in the last few years has had another one. Sadly the lesson will not be learned.

The only way to defeat these jihadist terrorists is to go to the source, to close down radical mosques, madrassas and schools, and deport radical islamic preachers, usually emanating from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan back to their countries of origin.

Britain (along with other west european countries and the USA) won't do this, and that is why a large and growing proportion of Britain's muslim communities are being radicalized. We can only wait for the next islamic inspired terror attack to happen on Britain's streets, because happen it will.

Will the British people ever learn? It's hard to say with such biased media, indoctrinated in their universities to a particular world view of the West being forever at fault. Polls in Britain and europe consistently show Israel as being seen as akin to Iran, at the very bottom of the league, when it comes to human rights. The perversion of the truth is almost total, but after many years of spoonfeeding of arab propaganda, rehashed and 'soundbited' by western media, it's understandable.

So the media message is Britain is to blame. How predictable.

Britain marks Holocaust Day

Sunday Times marks the Holocaust

UPDATED 15:35 28/01/2013

The week when we hear about Britain and France merrily bombing away at Malian cities without a care as to civilian casualties is also when the Sunday Times sees fit to publish an anti-semitic cartoon worthy of Der Stuermer or of anti-semitic cartoonist Latuff.

Anyone who defends Israel comes across British Holocaust obsessed people. The usual line is how could jews do to palestinians what was done to them, an obnoxious distortion of history by those who would like to repeat it.
This week saw another  British MP David Ward compare the Jewish state to the Nazi regime. Ward chose to reveal himself as an anti-semite whilst attempting to cover himself in the protective garb of the Holocaust, of having visited Auschwitz not once, but twice. He now feels he can speak out from behind his Auschwitz veteran's suit of armour; saying in effect 'I can't be anti-semitic because I pay homage to Holocaust victims', whilst not forgetting to draw the usual condemnation reserved for jews who, 'do to the poor palestinians what was done to them'.

 “Having visited Auschwitz twice– once with my family and once with local schools –… I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza,”

This rider of , 'how could jews who were the victims now do the same to others' is all too frequent. It is a way for anti-semites to attack the Jewish People whilst purporting to show sympathy with the greatest massacre of all time. It is an attempt to compare Israel which has to defend itself in a war where every day, arabs try to kill jews with nazis who organised the premeditated annihilation of the Jewish People.

This British MP did not just one day emerge from the woodwork with such awful comments, but is the result of at least 40 years of arab propaganda in British universities, a system which has almost totally taken on board the myth of arab ethnic cleansing from Israel. The truth is of course the opposite, arabs make up 20% of Israel's population, but when arab countries invaded Israel in 1948 they loudly trumpeted their intention to commit genocide against the jews there.

 Reading Ward's website we see that he has been to Samaria and Judea. Ward doesn't say who paid for his trip (Raheem Kassam explains the funding behind this trip though; as ever saudi funded CAABU pops up), although his trip was filled with meeting with those who work against Israel on a daily basis, Ngo's such as Oxfam and Breaking the Silence, and of course a visit to an arab village blocked off by the security fence. Whilst berating the wicked Israelis for roadblocks and the fence which prevents access to the arab farmers reaching their lands, he forgets to mention the reason for the roadblocks and fence. No mention of the 1,000 israelis murdered by suicide bombers coming out of such villages as Ward visited. The security fence stopped the terrorists, but our British MP isn't interested in that. Wards job was to come to Israel and get more material for his preconceptions. Ward also met Mr Regev and unsurprisingly was totally unconvinced by anything Regev said to him. But at least Ward may now claim he looked at both sides. This anti-semite is a consummate propagandist if nothing else. As with his trips to Auschwitz he takes care to defend himself from criticism or any accusation of anti-semitism in service of  demonising jews and Israel. 
But Ward's comments on the Holocaust, in time for Holocaust Day 'outed' him, as just another jew hating Brit.

Ward seen with his activists serves a large muslim minority in Bradford .

Ward posted these ridiculous comments which reflect the depth of his indoctrination:

that of water control, the policy of controlling water is plain for all to see. As we drove along the road heading north we could see, time and time again, the small Bedouin farmers with bare, scrappy land on which there were a few goats or sheep whilst on the other side of the road we could for mile after mile see lush, green plantations and crops - surrounded by security fencing - that were being farmed by the Israeli settlers.

If this is not ethnic cleansing, then what is?

Beduin are nomadic, not farmers. Even when settled, they live by doing various businesses. So Ward's comments are strange, even for someone as convinced in his hatred of jews as he seems to be. Ward maybe feels that as he represents a large muslim minority constituency, attacking jews is the way to ingratiate himself with voters.

Ward has gained support from another British politician:

Chris Davies, Liberal Democrat MEP for the North-West of England, posted a message to Twitter, defending party colleague and UK Member of Parliament David Ward, who said last Friday that he is:

“saddened that the Jews (Oops- oh dear, little giveaway, that ethnic bloc of elders of zion. Don't call Chris Davies an anti-semite, he'll be only too happy to explain his words as being just a condemnation of 'zionists'....), who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.”

'the Jews' - oh dear, a little giveaway, Davies is slipping into considering a whole people as belonging to that ethnic bloc of elders of zion, controllers of the world, those who no matter what their political or religious affiliations are really just, 'the Jews'. So don't call Chris Davies who's done the haj to Auschwitz an anti-semite, he'll be only too happy to explain his words as being just a condemnation of 'zionists'....
Davies posted a message Saturday on his personal Twitter account saying, “Lib Dem leadership quite wrong to 'reprimand' David Ward. Makes Nick look like being in Israel's pocket. In fact he is a fierce critic.”

Davies’ defense of Ward seems to follow his own expressed position from 2006.

"I visited Auschwitz last year and it is very difficult to understand why those whose history is one of such terrible oppression appear not to care that they have themselves become oppressors," Davies said at the time.

I'm now waiting for our 'moderate' arab friend, funder of the Munich Olympics massacre and serial holocaust denier Mr Abbas to make the pilgrimmage to Auschwitz.

British media present in Israel in droves ignore the daily arab incitement, the shootings, knifings and stonings of jews

The Sunday Times as with other mass media outlets does not publish daily palestinian arab attacks such as that today  and calls for genocide against jews, published on official Palestinian Authority TV and in its newspapers. The real attempt by arabs to commit a new Holocaust does not fit the message that British anti-semites wish to convey. That Israel has fought for its life even bore its independence, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future is of no interest.

Caroline Glick found out just what it is like to debate regarding Israel in front of a well heeled British mob last week. Having been shouted down and unable to put Israel's case before supposedly well educated people she does not feel that she wishes to set foot in Britain again. Such is the reality that is Britain. Demonise Israel and praise arabs who call for the destruction of Jews and Israel. That mob are the real nazis. Were heaven forbid Israel ever to be destroyed by arabs, such indoctrinated Brits would not even blink before saying, "they brought it upon themselves."

A tiny sample of anti-semitic Holocaust cartoons below play their part in using the greatest tragedy to befall the Jewish People as a way of demonising jews and Israel further, to prepare the way for the next Holocaust.

Were there forced adoptions of yemenite children in Israel?

Cathy Come Home - working class poor in Britain had their children taken away and sent to Australia to be used as free labour

A reader's comment included a Haaretz link but the article is behind a paywall so have not read the article linked below (I have no intention of helping the anti-zionist Haaretz newspaper with its financial problems. Haaretz recently had one of its columnists Daniel Leby take up the apartheid calumny, much to the delight of Israel's enemies. Haaretz with its disappearing Israeli readership (less than 5%) has a long record of publishing selective and distorted news about Israel and is understandably the paper of note only for foreign Ngos, the hard anti-zionist left in Israel and lazy foreign journalists happy to have their anti-Israel articles written for them).

The reader's comment was as follows:

I accept some of the premise on which you make this claim. Everybody suffered. But you overlook the removal of Yemenite children from parents who were told their children had died.

There is plenty of proof for that. Try starting from here. http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/facebook-campaign-seeks-to-keep-missing-yemenite-children-issue-alive.premium-1.493285

There is plenty more in the way of discrimination going on, but things are much, much better nowadays. Seeking to cover early Israel in glory is counterproductve to presenting an honest face to the Jewish State.

on Were sepharadim discriminated against in the early years of the State of Israel (part 1)?

The Haaretz article introduction says that only 69 yemenite children were unaccounted for after deaths had been traced. If that is the case then Israel has little possible case to answer. 69 adopted yemenite children will be covered by abuse, violence and simple inability to cope cases. Maybe i'm wrong, so if you have information beyond the 69 please email me it.

It is of course possible that when the general state of illiteracy was seen by social workers, and the sometimes shocking hygiene of some in communities which immigrated to Israel (read more about this in coming weeks) children may have been forcibly adopted. With such low numbers of forcible adoptions in contention, it is hard to take a position on such happenings, whether there was justification or not.

But when comparisons are made with other european countries of the time such as Britain and europe it is possible to gain a better perspective. For example Britain has had a long and sorry history of taking working-class children away from parents and having them adopted out, even sending them away to Australia after telling the children their parents had died.

(O..C - The British 1960's,Ken Loach dir.,classic film ) Cathy Come Home raises big questions like this, as well as the more specific, such as whatever became of the thousands of children the closing credits tell us wereremoved into state care as a result of their parents' homelessness

….... the case of 130,000 British children from working-classhomes, often falsely told their parents were dead, who were sent toAustralia....... they were sent to do forced labour at places such as Bindoon, in Western Australia, for organisations such as the Christian Brothers and St Bernados.

And in Britain in 2012:

…...with 903 applications made by local authorities in January 2012, it is estimated that 10,500 children will be subject to care proceedings by the end of 2012, which indicates a trend towards the removal of children from their parents. A forced adoption culture and silencing of birth mothers has existed across some decades of the 20th century.

Sweden and Norway had a differentpolicy with regards to minority Sami People, Kven and gypsies, one ofextermination. The policy of forcibly aborting single parents and 'feeble minded' was carried on until the 1970's.

Sweden is only now giving in to pressure to end the forced sterilization of LGBT people, after a campaign in the European Parliament.

Sweden likewise only in recent times gave up its forced sterilization of gypsies and Sami women begun in the 1930's by eugenicists and doctors seeking to rid the 'pure' swedish gene pool of 'untermenschen'.

As far back as 1919 Herman Lundborg took his racist “People Types Exhibition” on tour in Sweden which became the foundation of the Institute of Race Biology (wikipedia writes: "Swedish racism was an important ideological precursor for the later Nazism").

These european countries with their racist eugenicist beliefs attempted either to wipe out 'impure' races or in Britain's case deport working-class children seen as lesser beings into effective slavery abroad when they were surplus to requirements in Britain.

A policy in Israel may or may not have been adopted that was misguided, and social workers may or may not have taken children without justification. But one needs to understand the that they were working in a different age, and were thinking that what they did was the best for the child's own future rather than as a result of any intention to discriminate against or harm sephardim. That attitude seems to be still adopted in the UK today.

Whilst every one of those 69 yemenite children are obviously an open wound to their parents, even if every one of them was a terrible mistake, it is as nothing to the untold misery being practised on children in supposedly enlightened european countries today. 

I wonder if you have ever heard of the Sami People? Did you know about the British deportations to Australia? And as a last thought, about the hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi children sold as slaves (sexual and otherwise) in India? Media is very selective, focusing and magnifying the least bit of truth about Israel and we who care about Israel need to be aware of it. That does not mean sweeping mistakes under the carpet, just having some sense of proportion that Israel although in so many respects a light to the world, needs to be given a little slack, needs some understanding even of its imperfections.

I will continue the series of articles on the ingathering of sephardim to Israel. Forgive me if I still see this as a glorious episode in Israel's history, a feat unmatched ever, anywhere in the world.

Damascus is Palestine's Capital City

The Arab-Israel conflict and the post 1967 construct of the Israel- Palestinian conflict (which is nothing but the Arab-Israel conflict dressed up for western eyes, to portray tiny Israel as not being  under constant threat of annihilation from hundreds of millions of arabs living in 22 countries, but rather of a regional Israeli 'bully' attacking the even smaller palestinian arabs ) results from an arab and islamic refusal to recognise legitimate jewish claims to the Land of Israel.

Whereas from the very beginning of modern jewish nationalism and Zionism jews were willing to negotiate, to help arabs improve economically and share their knowledge, the response was overwhelmingly violent.

From a petition sent to Lord Allenby in April 1920 by the Director of the Arab Club, Jerusalem just after murderous attacks on jews which were aided, abetted and even instigated by British officials (such as the notorious Colonel Waters-Taylor) three things are apparent:

1) that anti-semitism was at the very basis of the conflict. Jews were considered by arabs to have no rights in Israel,
2) that arabs would through force of violence not allow any jews to live in the land, and
3) that as far as arabs living in Israel (then 'Palestine') had any national feelings, they were as formerly in Ottoman times, expressed as being part of a Syrian state under then King Faisal.

Nothing has changed in the last hundred years as far as the hatred of jews, the justification for and the use of violence against jews and the refusal of any jewish claims to any part of Israel.
The only thing that has changed is that a faux nationalism has grown up, hardly believed by arabs themselves in Judea and Samaria ('West Bank') and Gaza. Hamas refers mostly to the caliphate and defers to Egypt whereas in Judea and Samaria most inhabitants have Jordanian citizenship. 'Palestinian' nationalism for what it is, is expressed in terms of what it is against, of hatred for jews, and for violence against jews who have 'stolen' islamic lands. The Mufti of Jerusalem's recent speech to the supposedly secular Fatah recently where he and the Fatah moderator berated the 'sons of apes and pigs'(jews) and called for genocide against them show that there is no solution that would ever be acceptable to arabs living in the ancient jewish homelands of Judea and Samaria.

Petition sent to Lord Allenby in April 1920 by the Director of the Arab Club (page 74 - Middle East Diary 1917-56, R Meinertzhagen, 1959)

1)
............

We declare that we cannot accept the Jews in  our country. Should they be permitted to do what they intend doing, we shall fight against them till death. We have learned from this war to be extremely cruel to those who intend to encroach upon our rights. We declare that we do not accept the Jews neither as guests nor as neighbours in Palestine: we do not accept that they be allowed to come to Palestine as slaves or servants, neither do we admit or approve of their language being used and the Hebrew, be recognized as the official language of a country, which is the native land of one nation, the Arabic nation

3) We have heard about the organization of a new government, for which we thank the Government, which thinks of the benefit of this country. But as we completely recognize Palestine as only a part of Syria, the natives of which have declared or owned their indepnendence within its natural boundaries, and as His Excellency Ameer Feisal was chosen king over it, we ask that the Government be formed according to the opinion of our laudable king and 'Capital' .
Kindly accept our respectful regards,
Mohammed I. Derweesh,
director of the Arab Club,
(Moslem and Christian Society).

In 3) we also see that  the arab 'laudable king' was that of Syria and its 'Capital'  Damascus - Jerusalem is just a backwater, of no significance as to national rights - the importance of Jerusalem exists only as far as it is needed to divest jews of their rights. Indeed when the Jordanians held Jerusalem after 1948, the Temple Mount and Golden domed Mosque of Omar was dilapidated and the golden dome not installed until the Israelis retook the city.