Journalist, writer, political analyst.
Leeds University Faculty of Law – LL.B Hons. 2i
Chancery Lane College of Law.
School of Oriental and African Studies – Masters in Near and Middle Eastern Studies.
London School of Journalism.
Supports Leeds United and Yorkshire County Cricket Club.
Contact me @richmillett and firstname.lastname@example.org
Good stuff , a few spelling mistakes, at least you dont have to used joined up handwriting on here!!
Seriously, well done and hope this is the beginning of a very long journey in the world of journalism!
Your rip off my blog . . . and then, what is worse, don’t even put me in your “Links”?! 😉
Great posts here Richard. Keep fighting the fight!
Interesting reading sir. I will be back for more.
Just put a note on with Jonathan- another big night coming up at the LSE on 1 June.
Captain John Ging of the UN in Gaza is speaking along with a lady from Goldstone.
This week Ging said that the ships carrying aid should be allowed into Gaza.
He also made claims about white phosporous.
Your pettiness knows no bounds…
Of course it does. I’m a Zionist settler and I talk in a “hasbara”-like way.
Did you have anything specific in mind?
After reading your ‘blog’ I have come to the conclusion that you are just a zionist propagandist.
Thanks for reading!
They don’t like it up ’em, Richard.
I tried to post on the LBC page but the Comments box seems to have been disabled there.
No, I very much doubt that it was an innocent remark. I deal with anti-Semites quite a lot over the Internet and what he said and how he said it is
very familiar to me indeed.
The meaning behind the “The Jews” remark is straight forward enough. The speaker does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and therefore would not say “Israeli’s” even if prompted. Had he been interviewed properly, this would have become clear.
There are three types of people in my experience who wouldn’t use teh term “Israelis”. The first are radical socialists who see Israel as an Imperial evil. The second are Islamists. They always refer to Israelis as “Zionists” or Zionist occupiers.
The third type are your old fashion, plain and simple anti-Semites, usually Protestants/C of E type but sometimes they have had a Catholic upbringing. Not necessary religious but that kind of background. They refer to Israel’s as “The Jews”. They hide behind an anti-Zionist agenda but if you know how to speak to them they soon give the game away. Usually all you have to do is mention the British Mandate Period, The Kind David Hotel or the hanging of the two British sergeants and that’s enough for them to lose all pretense of civility. It’s common for them to tell you that they had a relative in the army who told them a thing or two about “The Jews” in Palestine.
We in Israel are coping with terrorist attacks in the South and a high state of warnings of attacks in Yerushalayim. I have been monitoring LBC radio over the past week and they have as good as ignored the terrorist attacks here.
Brachot from Yerushalayim
The first are radical socialists who see Israel as an Imperial evil
This remark made me think that maybe the left became so rabid concerning Israel because there another of the attempts at living whatever they dream of tended to look a bit different in real life than they had imagined it.
I remember that there used to be a lot of enthusiastic talk about Kibbutzes in the most glowing terms as if they were heaven on earth and not rather complicated sounding establishments. And so I guess that once they found out that another Utopia had been thought out in heaven and proved tough to live in on earth they turned around like refused lovers.
And as is so often the case with refused lovers they discover that they have passion and a skill for stalking.
I’m a Batley lad and also a Leeds Supporter. My worse moment ever was during a posting on Ascension Island I was referred to by the RAF as Leeds Nil.
MAY THE TRUTH BE TOLD PUBLICLY!!!!
Richard, I read your Albert Hall blog. Why not simply report it officially yourself at work ?
I haven’t visited the blog in a while, but just wanted to say that what you are doing here is tremendous: I can’t bear to read a lot of it – it just brings me down – and, living in Israel, I don’t feel that I need to . . . but it is great that someone is exposing all this anti-Semitic filth.
Hope to see you in “Occupied” Jaffa very soon. Chazak ve’ematz!
Taken yesterday on Brent Street . . .
Get those captions coming!
“I write about the anti-Israel movement in the UK and its inherent violent anti-Semitism.”
Does that mean that anyone posting any comments in your blog that go against Israel policy or course of action is inherently violent and anti-semitic?
Barack, Stop whining. And Happy Nakba!
“Nakba” is the term used recognize the failure of 5 Arab armies to massacre the Jews of Israel, to continue the Holocaust under the direction of Euro nazis hiding in Arab dictatorships like Syria and Egypt (just as Osama bin Laden hid in Pakistan).
Thank you for your interesting website.
To add to the discussion perhaps a few of the following items could be considered concerning Palestine. In particular all binding UN Security Council Resolutions should be adhered to including 476 and 478 (pertaining Jerusalem).
The UN view of the Palestinian Territories can be seen at the following URL: http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/OCHA_IsrSettlementPolicies.pdf.
The West Bank and East Jerusalem is occupied Palestine (recognised by 132 nations in the world including India, China, Russia, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Iceland).
Palestine is still illegally held and sadly Israel has ignored the ruling of the International Court of Justice (subsequently supported by the UN and EU) with respect to the “separation barrier”. This “wall” is 3 times the length of the Berlin Wall.
UNESCO’s recognition of Palestine last year was supported by France, Spain, Ireland, Belgium. Norway, Greece and other European nations.
International law and UN Resolutions (over which there are over 150) are ignored by Israel.
*** UN Security Council Resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980 – BINDING
The Security Council, recalling its resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible; deeply concerned over the enactment of a “basic law” in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security; noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel ; Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;
*** Resolution 694 (1991) – BINDING
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2989th meeting on 24 May 1991
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its resolution 681 (1990),
Having learned with deep concern and consternation that Israel has, in violation of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and acting in opposition to relevant Security Council resolutions, and to the detriment of efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, deported four Palestinian civilians on 18 May 1991,
1. Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;
2. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel, the occupying Power, refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the save and immediate return of all those deported;
3. Decides to keep the situation under review.
*** Resolution 672 (1990) – BINDING
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2948th meeting on 12 October 1990
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 476 (1980) and 478 (1980),
Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people,
Taking into consideration the statement of the Secretary-General relative to the purpose of the mission he is sending to the region and conveyed to the Council by the President on 12 October 1990,
1. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at the Al Haram al Shareef and other Holy Places of Jerusalem resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and to the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers;
2. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life;
3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
4. Requests, in connection with the decision of the Secretary-General to send a mission to the region, which the Council welcomes, that he submit a report to it before the end of October 1990 containing his findings and conclusions and that he use as appropriate all the resources of the United Nations in the region in carrying out the mission.
24th April 2012 – UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said:
“I strongly condemn the Israeli government’s decision yesterday to turn three illegal outposts in the West Bank into settlements. I urged the Israeli government in my statement on 5 April to remove – not legalise – outposts across the West Bank.”
Furthermore, I would like to refer you to specific serious concerns raised by the International Court of Justice (2004) – with relevance to the ‘security barrier’ – which was viewed with alarm by the international community. Incidentally the reference to the illegality of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem was also reinforced when the International Court of Justice also found the following (indeed the EU supported the UN vote pertaining to the ‘security barrier’):
* That the separation barrier is intended to assist the settlements, the establishment of which violates Article 49 of the Convention. Also, the court pointed out that the restrictions placed on the local population located between the barrier and the Green Line are liable to lead to abandonment of the land, which also constitutes a violation of Article 49. In addition, the opinion stated that taking control of private land to build the barrier injured private property owners, and thus violated Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* The illegality of the barrier under international human rights law. In this context, the court stated unequivocally, and contrary to the position held by Israel, that international human rights law applies in its entirety in occupied territory, along with humanitarian law. The court ruled that the separation barrier violates rights set forth in conventions to which Israel is party. The court mentioned the rights to freedom of movement and the right against invasion of privacy of home and family, which are enshrined in Articles 12 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the right to work, to an adequate standard of living, health, and education, which are enshrined in Articles 6, 11, 12, and 13 of the International covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.
There already is a “palestine”. It’s called Jordan.
Perhaps you want a three/four/five state solution?
As for democracy in an Arab country, if it can’t happen in Egypt, it ain’t going to happen in a “palestine”.
What has the UN decided to do to stop the slaughter in Syria? 40,000+ have been killed, yet the faux problem of “palestine” takes much of that now diminished world body’s precious time.
the ruling of the International Court of Justice (subsequently supported by the UN and EU) with respect to the “separation barrier”
the court hasn’t RULED is
it has issued an advisory opinion.
As I have learned from listening to lectures of at least one judge at the court, there is a huge difference between the two.
Any pundit or blogger for example can issue an advisory opinion.
thus without reading Anthony any further I conclude that he is at best an obfuscator and thus a waste of time
What a depressing read this blog is – and yet I am pleased not to be the only one trying to get people to stop Israel-bashing just because it’s fashionable. As of today, over 1,000 Syrians have been killed this month alone (https://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/) but, hey, they’re not important, are they. .
Ask my permission when you quote me ‘balanced argument’ on Beinin.. otherwise, good job at making your voice heard, it’s clear what side of Camp David your on… try and be more objective, you obviously have the intellect… see you at the next event. T