Outside St Michael & All Angels Parish Hall, Chiswick last night.
St Michael & All Angels Parish Hall, Chiswick was the quaint setting for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s latest event to try to tear down the only Jewish state in the world.
When I arrived I accidentally walked into the main church where there was a carol service rehearsal taking place.
In stark contrast to the hymns as I climbed the steps to the large room on top I could hear Ben White spewing out poison about Israel.
Inside St Michael & All Angels Parish Hall last night.
Ben White is on a mission to sell his book Israeli Apartheid, A Beginner’s Guide.
He regaled us with maps, quotes and general distortions about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while a mostly sympathetic audience shook their heads and tut tutted the whole way through.
For 45 minutes he built up a picture of Israel as a “racist apartheid” state in readiness for the book signing afterwards.
Andrew Slaughter, MP for Hammersmith and Shadow Justice Minister, was there listening in.
Last week Slaughter met Muhammad Totah and Ahmad Atoun of Hamas.
The chairman for the evening, a prominent anti-Israel figure outside Ahava and British supermarkets, told us that to resist is to exist.
In the Q&A White was asked whether he could extend his apartheid analogy to the treatment of the Palestinians in Arab countries where they are deprived of their rights to work, to vote and to citizenship. White remarked that they were indeed treated badly but that the real culprit is Israel who won’t implement the right of return. Once that right has been exercised there will be equality for all Palestinians.
But last night was not so much about White and Slaughter but the audience.
It is the mingling afterwards where you really get to know the nature of the beast you are dealing with.
When you explain that Israel has to do certain things to stop rockets landing in Israel and suicide bombings the standard response is “Well, Palestinian casualties are much higher”.
One man told me that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist anymore. He also said that no state has ever recognised Israel as a Jewish state and that David Ben Gurion only accepted United Nations Resolution 181, the partition resolution, when he found out that the Palestinians were going to reject it.
One woman asked me to prove I was British and twice I was asked why I still lived here.
On the way out another woman asked me, “How can you justify a fucking Jewish state?” I tried to explain the basis for nationalism but she wasn’t having it. She told me she was a lesbian and how absurd it would be for a group of gays to get together to form their own country.
And all this in a church.
Ben White signing his book Israeli Apartheid, a Beginner's Guide
RichardMillett's Blog 
“She told me she was a lesbian and how absurd it would be for a group of gays to get together to form their own country.
“And all this in a church.”
Possibly the best ending to any blogpost. Like, ever.
Also: Ben White, what a peculiar man.
Mucho respect to you Richard, for wading through this filth.
as usual thank you Richard
IMHO you are another one of the rare breed I call Michael Totten style reporters
unassuming, low-key, very informative and thus very very interesting
Thank you Chas and Silke, so much.
http://blog.z-word.com/2009/07/lies-damn-lies-and-the-apartheid-analogy/
White’s printed diarrhoea is a compendium of lies and doctored quotations. He does not deny that he is a supercessionist Christian – which explains his vilification of Israel.
I was in deepest Chiswick as well, what a bizarre evening.
Next they will be doctoring carols to vilify Israel.
Nah – on second thoughts that is just too far-fetched…
I for one would regard with favour any move by gays to establish themselves in a country with which they had a 3,000 year old connection and presence, over which time they had developed a common faith, language, literature and philosophy.
Indeed, amie 🙂
Richard, did you tell that woman to fuck off back to Saxony or Normandy?
The UK is overrun by antisemitic filth, we know that. The question is why scum like Slaughter isn’t prosecuted for meeting with a terrorist organisation. I thought we finally had a government with nuts.
PS. I spoke to the Polish centre again. They assured me that they’ll be having a meeting on Monday to decide whether they really, really want to allow an antisemitic play to be shown on their premises. That’s something, I suppose. You wouldn’t get even that much from the antisemites at AI or Meeting House. So please, could everyone phone them?
@Yoni: so now the PSC is a ‘terrorist organisation’?
Come come Jonathan… You say “Ben does not deny that he’s a supersessionist Christian” – as if not responding to your venom and vitriol makes him ‘guilty’ of what you accuse him of. He neither denied or confirmed your accusation. Nor did he rise to your baiting and simply replied ‘thank you for attending Jonathan’. Is that what goads you?
By the way – if I was to call you a ‘[pick any adjective] Jew’ I’m guessing that the first word out of your mouth would be an accusation of anti-semitism. Why is it ok for you to accuse and spit venom at Christians? Obviously we need to coin a new phrase to describe your antics – shall we call it ‘anti-Goy’?
Baruch, Jonathan’s was a reference to fundamentalism which exists in all religions.
I am a goy and Jonathan has never treated me in any way suggesting even a whiff of anti-goyism actually quite the opposite.
I don’t care if White is or is not supersessionist. I believe he is and he has not denied it.
I do care that he spreads lies about Israel and traduces it. He knows that he will be opposed every step of the way.
@Silke – Jonathan doesn’t call every holocaust survivor a ‘racist’ or every anti-zionist Jew as self-hater – so, as a clear supporter of Israel’s policies I wouldn’t expect his anti-goyism to be pointed in your direction…
@Jonathan – to employ your logic – you obviously believe in occupying other people’s land and the ethnic cleansing of non-jews – which explains your support and praise for Israel.
Jonathan Hoffman is a lovely, admirable man.
Ben White’s book has been shown to be full of lies and he says he “understands” why people are antisemitic.
I hope he also understands that his vindictive, dishonest and self-aggrandising crusade is transparent to many.
…’And all this in a church’-HALL
But adding that little truth would have spoiled the attempt at a sensationalist ending, wouldn’t it?
Baruch
somebody is either anti-goyish or he isn’t and he isn’t
the same applies btw to anti-semites and all their pious protests don’t change that. Some may lust for a bit of killing with reservations some without but in the end the more fickle one will succumb, they always have.
@Silke: The fact that you haven’t been on the receiving end of Jonathan’s anti-goy rants it doesn’t mean it’s not there.
To play-back a commonly used ‘test’ (for which, read ploy) for determining if someone is anti-semitic or not is a protest that “some of my best friend are Jews”…
… So – as you protest – some of Jonathan’s friends are goys.
Proves nothing.
Baruch
where did I say that Jonathan and I are friends?
Quote please! or shut up!
lease read my post more carefully. Where is the sentence in which I explicitly state that you and Jonathan are friends?
To humor you a little though, such a friendship (if it were to exist – although you seem keen not to be quoted on it if it did) “… Jonathan has never treated me in any way suggesting even a whiff of anti-goyism actually quite the opposite.”
Jonathan can either be friendly, or unfriendly, towards goys.
Your post indicates in which way he has always treated you, as a goy.
Quite the opposite of unfriendly.
Why do you demean yourself by issuing commands such as ‘shut up’…?
Baruch, you continue to miss the point. It was not an “anti-goy” rant but an anti-fundamentalist rant. From your perspective this might be akin to you having a rant at Jewish settlers, but this wouldn’t make you anti-Jewish.
Actually – the words used by Jonathan at the event were ‘British Christian Fundamentalist’. The very fact that his comments were not aimed at Jews means they were, by definition, aimed at ‘goys’. That’s the point.
I’d like to see a goy having a ‘rant’ at Jonathan about Jewish settlers with him being able to restrain himself from denouncing them as anti-semitic!
Baruch
what you call “demeaning” myself gives me great pleasure
your reasoning shows you to be a lousy sleuth but highly premature in closing the whatever you’re after
Not often someone publicly admits to taking great pleasure out of demeaning themselves. But thanks for your honesty, anyway, Silke.
Seems you didn’t find the sentence where I linked you and Jonathan as friends?
Wonder why you’d be so cautious as to admit to such a friendship though.
And it does cast a shadow on your claim that you know he’s not anti-goy. How would you know that without being friends?
nice try Baruch but alas more than a bit unconvincing
a bit weak in the irony-department you are, it seems to me, and that on top of the logic department being totally non-existent.
can one enjoy life when plagued by a condition like that or does it hurt?
and if so, is it more like one of those constant nagging pains in the nether region or rather like sudden stabs when one is in one of one’s most serene moods.
Ah – the personal attacks begin. Still can’t find that sentence you accused me of writing and told me to shut up if *I* couldn’t prove? Your frustration is showing.
Perhaps you could consider dropping the attacks and join the honest debate instead?
“..the words used by Jonathan at the event were ‘British Christian Fundamentalist’. ”
Liar. I asked White if he was a supersessionist. He refused to answer.
‘White remarked that they were indeed treated badly but that the real culprit is Israel who won’t implement the right of return. Once that right has been exercised there will be equality for all Palestinians.’
How does he square that with a two state solution? An Israel with an Arab majority will shortly cease to exist.
An Israel with an Arab majority will shortly cease to exist – It will exist but not as a Jewish state which is exactly what White wants. The rest of his rhetoric and writing is really superfluous.
‘I asked White if he was a supersessionist. He refused to answer.’
Sizer is one. That doesn’t mean White is too, even if he is an ally.
Actually Jonathan – you said that the words “a land without people for a people without land” was never said by a Jew – but by a “British Christian Fundamentalist”. Probably the first time Golda Meir’s had her religion questioned – and been called British to boot.
Care to hear the recording?
…oh, I forgot to mention – you didn’t *ask* Ben if he was a supersessionist Christian…., you *told* him he was. Two very different things entirely.
How can you expect someone to glorify your wild statements by denying them?
And you stormed up to a video camera and repeated it. Shall I ask if I can get hold of a copy of your performance for you? Or perhaps you’d deny it was you and the video had been ‘photoshopped’ or similar?
who is this Baruch?
is he known?
his cries for attention hoping to get relief from his utter loneliness touches Mommy-me to the core
‘ Probably the first time Golda Meir’s had her religion questioned – and been called British to boot. Care to hear the recording?’
Yes. But a transcript will suffice.
And White has strongly associated himself with an Anglican Christian supercessionist, who says that it is Christians who receive the promises to Abraham, including the land, and not unbelieving Jews, namely Stephen Sizer.
White is himself the son of an Anglican minister.
Still haven’t found the sentence you accused me of saying then Silke?
Baruch, what on earth are you going on about?
I’ll let Silke fill you in on that one Adam – or alternatively you can read back through the thread.
Whilst Golda Meir may or may not have said what Baruch claims she says and many people have used the phrase again he is not paying attention (see the Lord Phillips thread for further information) the phrase was not coined by a Jew but by a Christian. In 1839 Lord Shaftesbury published an article under the title «The State and the rebirth of the Jews». In it he urged the Jews to return to Palestine in order, according to him, to seize the lands of Galilee and Judea. Shaftesbury first put forward the slogan “Land without people – people without land” .
‘Whilst Golda Meir may or may not have said what Baruch claims’
She didn’t. He’s confused it with another statement of hers.
I wonder if ‘Baruch’ is Tony Greenstein (like TG, he goes on about ‘photoshopped’), or Ben White?
‘On the way out another woman asked me, “How can you justify a fucking Jewish state?” I tried to explain the basis for nationalism but she wasn’t having it. She told me she was a lesbian and how absurd it would be for a group of gays to get together to form their own country.’
Moron.
Baruch, I have read back.
I still don’t know what you’re talking about. But I do sense you don’t feel outrage about the event described by Richard.
Richard, thank you so much for going to these disgusting events and tackling them in person. I take my hat off to you.
Is this Church happy that their premises have been used in this manner?
“A land without a people WAS said by a British Christian, aka a Scottish Presbyterian in 1839:
http://hnn.us/articles/49317.html
Baruch is a lying Jew-hating piece of sh*t for claiming that Golda Meir said it.
But we knew that.
Or, as Kennedy (more calmly and rationally) puts it perhaps he simply ‘confused it with another statement of hers’.
Really Jonathan – do you think such language and vitriol does you or your cause any favours?
If the quote Baruch actually meant to refer to was Golda’s famous utterance “It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine… and we came and threw them out… They did not exist.” then in reality there’s not much to distinguish between the two quotes.
Both deny the existence of an existing population on the land. And both seek to justify the occupation of it on that basis.
where do all these challenged in the reading department guys belong to?
this recent Stephen Elliot is another example –
any lawyer on his first case would not embarass himself by twisting Golda’s words in this way, not even if that would be his last chance to save his client from the gallows.
I hope the happy clappy boycotters at this blog read your great blog, Richard – I was called “shrill and disgusting” by one irate Methodist minister for calling White (who made a guest appearance) antisemitic.
(A number of pro-Israel commenters have been tickling them up a bit!):
http://theconnexion.net/wp/?p=8942#comments
“A beginner’s guide”??
White is covering himself just in case purchasers demand their money back. His publisher has obviously told him that the book won’t fool anybody who has some in-depth knowledge.
Rich,
Nice pic of him signing the book. He looks “uber-sensible” in his charcoal jumper and specs. White, Blonde, English and… Middle Class.
But it just goes to show that you shouldn’t judge a book by the author’s “cover”.
Rich,
And the woman who asked you twice why you are still here… you should have told her that you are a Mossad operative. You are taking names down, and those on your list, should avoid spending time in hotel rooms abroad.
Why would that not be taken as a death threat?
If zionists can report PSC stall-holders to the police for holding a collection tin, then, had Richard said what you suggest, the woman would have been perfectly within her rights to report such a threat to the police.
Now that you mention it however, it wouldn’t be surprising for Richard to be a sayan. He’s not been on here and denied it – which in JH’s book makes him guilty of it.