Mr. Saboteur (who is well known here in London) is so adept at his craft that when Security arrived to ask him to desist or leave, he instead cowered Security into leaving.
"If that was the case," our hijacker ranted on regarding Marshall and Reconstruction, "why has it not been revealed this far?! Why did it take an American violinist ... an AMERICAN VIOLINIST! To reveal it?! Why?! ... ANSWER MY QUESTION, YOU BASTARD!"
Actually, I was trying to respond — not to the part about 'violinist', but to tell the audience that the offending statements were derived from British government documents — but I was drowned out by the man yelling "Anti-Semitic dribble! Racist dribble!"
© “Secret / Memorandum from the Government of Palestine / Running Diary of Political Developments in Palestine / From 1st May, 1943, until 31st December, 1944”. TNA, CO 733/456/4. Reproduced with permission.Two months later, in July (1943), Ben-Gurion’s opposition to post-war Reconstruction is presented in context of dissenting voices.
© TNA, CAB 129/21. Reproduced with permission.An extract from “Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs” dated 18 September, 1947, marked “Top Secret” at the top. I have added blue underline to highlight key passages. This paper dates after the UN’s Palestine committee (UNSCOP) formulated its two proposals for post-Mandate Palestine, and before the UN passage of Resolution 181 that accept the majority proposal: Partition. (The minority proposal was for a Federated, or bi-national, state.) What is clear from this document is that [1] Partition, whose implicit purpose was the creation of the Israeli state, was enacted in fear of continuing Zionist terror (against the West); [2] it was hoped that the disproportionately large portion of land given the Zionists in Resolution 181 would delay Israeli expansionist wars that were fully expected. Other documents prove that British and US officials knew, contrary to Resolution’s pretenses, that there would be no Palestinian state.
I found myself in the midst of pejorative misquotes, fabrications, words out of context; and where I said "Zionists" xyz, I was quoted as saying "Jews" xyz. But what was striking was that what I did say elicited equal venom. There was no need to misquote me; what I really said and really meant was just as bad.
Thus when the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a Zionist organization that has unilaterally decided that it speaks for Jews, informed a venue where I was to speak that I have "repeatedly and unapologetically made comments that are very offensive to the Jewish community," much on the list of alleged quotes the Board supplied to demonstrate my "hate towards [their] community" was +/- accurate. And the sources for those statements were all declassified Mandate-era documents held by the British government.
It was time to put the historical record on the witness stand.
Since detractors will not go to the National Archives in Kew to see source material for themselves, I decided to make available, online, a selection of documents that I cite.
It is a work in progress: http://paldocs.net
I have in effect called upon the British government of several decades past to testify on my behalf. Will declassified historical material held by the government be publicly flogged as hate material because it is unwelcome by Israel?
Paldocs.net is not and cannot be anything approaching a broad resource. Rather, the site is intended to make the Zionist creation myth do battle with the historical record itself, not with me. Its sampling of documents demonstrate that I am merely the messenger — and more importantly, it is my hope that it will whet the appetite of others to pursue this neglected area that is absolutely vital to ending the misery in Israel-Palestine, and indeed in the greater Middle East.
The documents illustrated are not the full substantive evidence for significant conclusions and positions taken by me that elicited such outrage (found in my book, State of Terror). Those positions are the sum of the history over the entire period at issue. For example, I state that UN Resolution 181, with its implicit creation of the Israeli state, was the capitulation to Zionist terrorism. For me, the proof lies in the cumulative history of the Zionist movement, especially in the preceding decade. On paldocs.net I illustrate a British government document that actually states this (see illustration below), by itself sufficient to upset the dominant, mythical Narrative.
© TNA, CAB 129/21. Reproduced with permission.An extract from “Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs” dated 18 September, 1947, marked “Top Secret” at the top. I have added blue underline to highlight key passages. This paper dates after the UN’s Palestine committee (UNSCOP) formulated its two proposals for post-Mandate Palestine, and before the UN passage of Resolution 181 that accept the majority proposal: Partition. (The minority proposal was for a Federated, or bi-national, state.) What is clear from this document is that [1] Partition, whose implicit purpose was the creation of the Israeli state, was enacted in fear of continuing Zionist terror (against the West); [2] it was hoped that the disproportionately large portion of land given the Zionists in Resolution 181 would delay Israeli expansionist wars that were fully expected. Other documents prove that British and US officials knew, contrary to Resolution’s pretenses, that there would be no Palestinian state.
Links:
- Palestine Documents: http://paldocs.net
- Brief video of the particular saboteur mentioned here
- This issue is used as a British election football (note that the quote "accuses Jews of exploiting the Holocaust", among others, is a fabrication)
- The Board of Deputies of British Jews undermines a talk
- To avoid more harassment, the talk sabotaged by the Board of Deputies had to be moved to a new, unannounced location, for a closed audience. - I respond to the general accusations
- I respond to complaints filed with the House of Lords
- Jonathan Cook graciously weighs in
Reader Comments