Author Archives: richardmillett

Jackie Walker brings her “lynching” to SOAS.

walker2

Jackie Walker is a political activist who thinks she has been lynched by supporters of Israel who don’t like Jeremy Corbyn. To use “lynching” is a pretty strong metaphor. It means to “kill (someone) for an alleged offence without a legal trial, especially by hanging.” This is obviously what she thinks has happened to her. Some exaggeration.

When I walked into SOAS last night for her performance of The Lynching there was a black doll in front of us with a noose around its neck.

The first half of the show is about her tragic life. She was the product of an affair between her mother and Jack Cohen, a Jewish jeweller, who met each other during their fight for black rights in America. She held up a photo of two black men hanging by their necks.

She came to the UK, via Jamaica, with her mother and suffered racism in the UK. Her mother died prematurely from an asthma attack when she was 11 and she was taken into care which she left at 18. She became a teacher. In 1991 she joined the Labour Party and was eventually elected vice-chair of Momentum, the hard-left Corbyn supporting group within Labour. She was then sacked as vice-chair of Momentum and suspended from Labour over allegations of anti-Semitism against her.

The show then turns into her own trial of the accusations against her where she plays both prosecution and defence. The accusations are: 1. She accused Jews of financing the slave trade 2. She said there’s no such thing as anti-Semitism. 3. She belittled the Holocaust.

She defended herself against each. On 1. she claimed that instead of writing on Facebook that “And many Jews, my ancestors too, were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade” she should have written “amongst the chief financiers” and that missing out just one word does not make her an anti-Semite.

On 2. she claimed that she was merely asking for a definition of anti-Semitism she could work with. On 3. she claimed that she merely wanted all who had suffered similar, like the millions killed in the slave trade, to be remembered.

She didn’t explain why she raised Jews as being “financiers of the slave trade” at all considering all religions and nationalities were.

But why were these accusations made against her? She says it was merely because Jeremy Corbyn had been elected and that “he was a supporter of the Palestinians.” His enemies were the “establishment and people on the side of Israel”. And then to huge applause (there were about 200 hard-left activists in the room) she said “Get rid of right wing Labour MPs!”

She said the accusations were an “attack on a movement for change and that Jackie Walker was not a Jew hater but innocent…I don’t seek the destruction of Israel but to save Israel from its descent into racism and far-right nationalism…We must be free to fight for a Palestinian homeland without being accused of anti-Semitism…I refuse to go to the back of the bus because the media or anyone else says I should.”

Then Walker was joined for a Q&A by three other anti-Israel activists: film director Ken Loach, author and journalist Victoria Brittain, and academic Prof. Jonathan Rosenhead.

The Q&A session basically turned into a full attack on the Jewish Chronicle and those writing for it who Walker called “proto-fascists”, The Jewish Labour Movement (Walker thinks the JLM should not give training sessions on anti-Semitism), the Israel Advocacy Movement who Walker accused of digging into her Facebook, the Labour Party compliance unit who Walker thinks is leaking everything to the Jewish Chronicle, the Campaign Against Antisemitism and the Community Security Trust who Walker said “churn out biased surveys all the time”, the so-called “weaponisation of antisemitism” (see above), the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of AntiSemitism which is being increasingly adopted by governments and councils, and, of course Israel.

These hard-left activists want the IHRA defintion changed because they only recognise the neo-Nazi type anti-Semitism as seen at Charlottsville. That means they, in their opinion, can never be considered anti-Semitic.

They don’t like the IHRA classifying “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” as anti-Semitism. That’s because they want the end of the only Jewish majority state.

Rosenhead said “it was a shame racism had reared its head in Israel of all places…and it was a shame Jews in this country are supporting a racist state” and that it was “convenient for the British government to plant them (Jews) there (in the Middle East)”.

It was then time for audience members to claim victimhood. Dave Watson said he was an opponent of Stella Creasey MP and that he’d tweeted “anti-Israel things, not anti-Semitic and I supported Naz Shah (presumably when Shah said Israel should be relocated to America). He said he “criticised Zionism and supporters of Israel but not Jews.” (It seems he also, inter alia, compared Mossad to Nazis).

Graham Bash, Walker’s partner, said he’s Jewish and has only come across anti-Semitism once in 49 years in the Labour Party.

A Hungarian lady said “Anti-Semitism is misused which is an insult to those who died in the Holocaust.”

Once Loach had declared “No arms trade with Israel, no trade with Israel” I took to the microphone:

I said that most people in the room, including the four panelists, just wanted the end of Israel. I challenged the four panelists to admit that they wanted the end of the only Jewish majority state. I said that calling for the end of the only Jewish majority state, while not calling for the end of any other state, was anti-Semitic. I told them that they obviously wouldn’t admit to being anti-Semitic and that another way of, therefore, expressing anti-Semitism was to call for the destruction of the Jewish state. I also said they didn’t care about the Palestinians.

In response to this challenge I received idiotic responses.

Loach said he was merely here to help Walker get justice. Walker said she was a “socialist and internationalist” and Rosenhead said he didn’t want the destruction of Israel but a country with five million Jews and five million Palestinians (note to Rosenhead: that is the destruction of the only Jewish majority state.)

In conclusion, Walker’s play possibly gives an insight into her animus towards Israel. She was rejected by her father who was a wealthy Jewish man. Ever since then she’s felt the victim but now she has spotted the opportunity to take revenge. It will get her nowhere but continue to eat her and her supporters up as Israel continues to thrive.

Avi Shlaim goes to St James’s Church to slam Israel’s creation and anti-Semitism “allegations”.

Rt Rev Michael Langrish appealing for money for Palestinians in northern Israel's

Rt Rev Michael Langrish appealing for money for Palestinians in northern Israel’s “refugee camps”.

Historian Avi Shlaim was invited to speak on Balfour and Palestine: From Balfour to May on Tuesday night at St James’s Church in central London.

St James’s is a church hostile to Israel and no expense is spared. In 2013 St James’s dedicated its entire Christmas to demonising Israel’s security wall at a cost of £30,000.

St James’s knows how to harness extremists’ hatred for Israel and on the way out on Tuesday The Rev Lucy Winkett was beaming with pride at seeing 300 people in her church. One can only imagine the usual turnout on Sunday mornings.

Su McClellan, of Embrace the Middle East (see below), set the dire tone for the evening when she described Shlaim’s family as simply having “left Iraq for Israel for various reasons”.

Those “various reasons” might have included the Farhud massacre visited on Baghdad’s Jewish community in 1941 which was followed up with continued oppression and confiscation of property by the Iraqi government. Shlaim’s father lost everything it seems. None of this was mentioned.

Farhud and Hamas were the main words totally absent from Shlaim’s talk. He blamed the lack of peace between Israel and the Palestinians solely on Israel. He claimed “settlements only are continuing the conflict.”

Shlaim seems proud to be a part of the British establishment. Throughout the evening he repeated that he married the great-grand-daughter of David Lloyd George and said that although “his wife was proud of her great-grand-father she was ashamed of the role he played in Palestine”. Palestine, he said, had been “wiped off the map”.

Lloyd George was Britain’s PM at the time of the Balfour Declaration which promised a national home to the Jewish people “in Palestine”. Shlaim ascribed the Declaration to Lloyd George’s “anti-semitic view that the Jews were uniquely influential.”

Meanwhile, Shlaim repeated Christian metaphors to appeal to his audience. He condemned Winston Churchill as a “dog in a manger” for overly praising Jews during the 1936 Peel Commission and he criticised the “old historians who stick to Israel’s beginning as one of immaculate conception”.

Quite incredibly Shlaim then praised Ilan Pappe as his inspiration. Pappe has been described by Benny Morris as “one of the world’s sloppiest historians”. Pappe has also been caught on film agreeing propaganda may be more important than facts.

Shlaim then claimed the Balfour Declaration meant Palestine had been “twice promised”, having already been promised by the British to the leader of the Arab world, via an exchange of letters, in return for Arabs fighting the Muslim Ottomans during World War One.

Shlaim continued that the “intrusion of a foreign entity in the shape of the Zionist movement showed a total disregard (by the British) for the indigenous population”.

He concluded by praising the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC dedicates itself to the demonisation and eradication of Israel) and saying that only recognition of a Palestinian state as a UN member can “save Israel from itself”.

During the Q&A Shlaim defended the Labour Party against “alleged anti-semitism within the Labour Party” and praised Jeremy Corbyn (warning: this kicks off a bit):

Shlaim should watch the film Whitewashed: Anti Semitism in the Labour Party.

At the end Rt Rev Michael Langrish gave a fundraising appeal for the church’s Embrace the Middle East charity to raise money for the Palestinians (this despite the Palestinian Authority having paid out $1bn to Palestinian terrorists over the last four years).

Last year the appeal was for Gaza. This year it was for Palestinians in the “occupied West Bank” and….Israel.

According to Langrish “In Israel, many Palestinian girls living in the northern city of Acre, families who lost their homes in that 1948 war, live in a cramped neighbourhood that resembles a refugee camp in all but name…Many of them have been abused in various ways. They battle mental illness. They face pressure to drop out of school and marry young.”

Here he is:

If only St James’s Church gave such thought and money to those really struggling in Britain or, dare one suggest, Syria.

Physically attacked at SOAS after anti-Israel event with Roger Waters.

A scene from the film shown at SOAS.

A scene from the film shown at SOAS.

It’s with great sadness I have to write this piece. Having attended hundreds of anti-Israel events throughout London and beyond for 10 years I have never been hit. I have been threatened repeatedly but never thought someone would follow through. Last night that changed at SOAS, where I’m also an alumnus.

Last night Prof. Gilbert Achcar hosted a film narrated by Roger Waters. About 275 people were in the auditorium, few of whom were students let alone students from SOAS. It was a publicly advertised event so anyone can just walk in off the streets; a security nightmare itself in these times.

The film lasts 80 minutes and contains multiple scenes of dead and mutilated Palestinian and Lebanese men, women and children. There is also footage and stills of Israeli soldiers who are shown to be committing violent acts against Palestinians.

Interspersed with these scenes were interviews with the usual anti-Israel protagonists: Finkelstein, Chomsky, Blumenthal, Greenwald, Walt to name but a few.

Their message was that “the Israel lobby” spends millions of dollars in America to reverse the narrative that “Israel is the aggressor” into one of “Israel is under attack”. The film claims that the American public is being duped into supporting Israel.

Waters also states that the Hamas Charter was “written by a few ideologues” but had been disowned by Hamas long ago and that UNSCR 242 simply called for Israeli soldiers to withdraw from the West Bank. And let’s not even go into Water’s potted history of the build up to 1948.

After the film Waters was skyped in live and I had my hand up throughout but Achcar managed to circumvent my outstretched arm. I wanted to ask Waters how a Star of David emblazoned on a pig at one of his concerts could be considered anything other than anti-Jewish.

Then there was a Q&A to a panel consisting of John Pilger, Dina Matar and Sut Jhally. At one stage they raised the propaganda of Goebbels and the Nazis, presumably by comparison to Israel’s “Hasbarah”.

Jonathan Hoffman asked a question and he also interjected when SOAS lecturer Matar claimed outrageously that “anyone who is pro-Palestinian is instantly labelled anti-Semitic”.

When the event finished I met up with Jonathan inside the auditorium and he was being quickly surrounded by those wanting to speak to him. I jokingly castigated him for asking an “unbiased question”.

A male next to Jonathan then turned to me and asked if I was with him (Jonathan) and I said “yes” presuming he wanted to chat about the film. But he was immediately face-to-face with me and I noticed he was totally drunk. He was a white male, much taller than me and much younger, probably in his mid to late twenties.

I tried to get away but had nowhere to go as the room was very crowded. There was no security around whatsoever. He was facing me very close telling me I was going to be “fucking mugged off”. I asked him to calm down and back off or I’d call the police and that I just wanted a relaxing evening to which he responded (here’s the audio):

“I’ll give you a relaxing exit. Would you like a relaxing exit? I’ll tell you what, you’ll get a fucking pasting. You’ll get a fucking pasting.”

I dialled 999 but he had walked away so I stopped. However, he then immediately returned, tried to slam my phone out of my hand and also punched me on the side of my head.

I had never seen the attacker before at any event. All he knew about me was that I was connected to Jonathan who had, during the Q&A, tried to put forward Israel’s narrative. This attacker, who had just watched a film with multiple scenes of dead and mutilated men, women and children wanted to find someone to take it out on.

Maybe he was just a fan of Waters. All I know is these meetings are now not safe to attend.

Hezbollah humiliated on streets of London as their Al Quds Day protest is blocked by pro-Israel activists.

Hezbollah terror flag at front of Al Quds Day parade.

Hezbollah terror flag at front of Al Quds Day parade.

We came we saw we conquered! While the Hezbollah Al Quds Day terror parade was allowed to take place on Sunday 18th June in the heart of London’s West End a group of 20 to 30 pro-Israel activists stepped out into the road to block the march no sooner than after it had just started.

The 300 or so Hezbollah supporters looked frustrated and bemused after expecting their usual easy ride shouting their slogans calling for Israel’s destruction.

Anti-semites will continue to block us from their anti-Israel meetings and have us thrown out of their anti-Israel events by making up accusations that we “disrupt” but they can’t stop us taking it to them on the streets of London.

As soon as the Iranian-regime inspired terror parade had set off down Portland Place from the BBC we stepped out in front of the Hezbollah supporters and for the next hour all they could do was watch as we chanted at them “TERRORISTS, OFF OUR STREETS!” while we walked slowly and danced to Israeli tunes down Portland Place and Oxford Street to the old American Embassy where Hezbollah held their terror rally accusing “Zionists”, inter alia, of causing the tragic Grenfell fire.

How in 2017 is a terror organisation like Hezbollah with a rifle emblazoned on its flag allowed to parade through London?

Is the British Jewish community so ill-considered, so small that we are so easily sacrificed? Would the authorities allow Al Qaiada or ISIS parades?

There is no political wing of Hezbollah. It is impossible. The movement has targeted and murdered so many Jews throughout the years that it is incredible that in 2017 our mayor and government allows a terror group with blood on its hands to parade through London.

Lets hope this is the last year this parade of hate is allowed. If not then we need everyone out next year to oppose this terror movement.

With thanks to Israel Advocacy Group and Yochy who put their heart and soul into today and to Kay Wilson who survived a terror attack in Israel, eventhough her friend didn’t, and who spoke at today’s pro-Israel rally while bravely having to confront, once again, the same terror mindset which targeted her and her friend in Israel.

Photos and footage:

This is just after we step out in front of them:

You’re blocked.

Al Quds Day paraders are clueless as we step out in front of them.

Al Quds Day paraders are clueless as we step out in front of them.

Al Quds Day paraders on their way as we walk slowly in front.

Al Quds Day paraders on their way as we walk slowly in front.

Al Quds Day paraders were stopped for about 15 minutes here as they turned into Oxford Street.

Al Quds Day paraders were stopped for about 15 minutes here as they turned into Oxford Street.

It becomes our march, not theirs.

It becomes our march, not theirs.

The Guardian and Hamas: The love story continues.

Peter Hain's letter in Saturday's Guardian.

Peter Hain’s letter in Saturday’s Guardian.

Love is in the air at the Guardian. With summer approaching in the UK, down at Guardian towers (soon to be moving out of London to try to cut their dreadful financial losses) they continue wooing one of the most anti-Jewish outfits since the Nazis: Hamas.

One of the most effective ways to offend Jewish people is to show sympathy to Hamas, an organisation who, by their own admission in their 1988 founding Charter, want to murder every single Jewish person on the planet; man, woman and child.

In a Guardian opinion piece in May 2017 headlined Why now is the time to talk to Hamas Tareq Baconi asked us to do just that.

And now Sarah Helm does similar in friday’s Guardian with a piece headlined If we cared about peace we would be talking to Hamas. 

Like Baconi, Helm is in rapture about the Hamas’ recently published Document of General Principles and Policies. Helm falls head over heels in love with Article 20 in which Hamas calls for “a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along 1967 lines”.

Helm assumes this shows Hamas’ “commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.

It shows no such commitment. It merely commits to a Palestinian state on the so-called West Bank. Article 20 even expressly states “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.” This ultimately means the total removal of the Jewish state. Helm chooses to overlook this.

Baconi did admit that “Hamas’s leaders have denied that this document replaces the movement’s founding charter”. As I have stated that 1988 Charter asks “Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews)”.

Helm admits no such thing but maybe “killing the Jews” isn’t such a biggie.

Helm is far more interested in Hamas’ parlous financial situation and Gaza’s lack of electricity. The latter was brought on by Hamas’ dispute with Fatah. Even vicious anti-Israel websites admit this.

The former was brought on by Hamas being more concerned spending its international aid on rockets and tunnels with which to attack Israel’s civilian population than spending it on the population it was elected to govern. And Hamas’ tunnels are built by the children of Gaza, many of whom have died while building them.

And since it was elected Hamas has fought three wars with Israel but has not built one shelter for its own people so leading to many of their deaths while their own cowardly leadership hid in safety under the Shifa hospital.

This is the vileness that Helm thinks can be rationalised with.

Helm even accuses Israel of having built an “apartheid wall” around Gaza. How, in any rational sense, can it be “apartheid” to build a wall that stops Hamas entering nearby Israeli towns like Sderot to murder innocent Jewish Israelis?

The very minimum Helm does is acknowledge that Gaza also has a border with Egypt. But for Helm it’s “Israel’s siege of the territory” that is to blame. She writes that “Two million Gazans, mostly refugees, are today locked behind walls and fences and deprived of bare essentials”.

Bare essentials? Israel’s Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) details the huge amounts Israel supplies to Gaza in terms on food, fuel, healthcare etc. There is no boycott of “bare essentials”.

These sick Guardian pieces by Baconi and Helm won’t have any impact beyond riling and offending the British Jews who read them.

Meanwhile, the Guardian published a letter (see photo above) on Saturday from ex-Labour Minister Peter Hain who refers to Hamas’ recently published document as a “new olive branch”.

If a far-right Nazi group attempted to moderate its stance towards Jews most reasonable people would never take the bait. But when Hamas attempts it the likes of Baconi, Helm and Hain not only take the bait they are also so easily reeled in!

(This is also posted at UKMediaWatch)

The Guardian’s Tareq Baconi wants us to talk to Hamas.

Also posted at UKMediaWatch

How certain journalists are wanting us to view Hamas due to its new document but nothing has changed.

How certain journalists want us to view Hamas due to its new document but nothing has changed.

The Guardian’s Tareq Baconi wishes us “to talk to Hamas” urging that now is the time due to Hamas’ recently released Document of General Principle and Policies which, he writes, “supports the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders”.

As we argued this document is a mere sham meant to trick the gullible and aid those desperate to push the Palestinian cause at any cost.

Baconi admits that Hamas’ original 1988 document is still in force:

“Hamas’s leaders have denied that this document replaces the movement’s founding charter,” Baconi writes.

That 1988 founding document, which Baconi admits is antisemitic, calls for the murder of all Jews everywhere with its “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews)” and claims that “Palestine is an Islamic land”.

But to mollify the reader Baconi continues that “numerous Hamas leaders have distanced themselves from it”. The link in his piece provides no evidence of such distancing, however, probably because no Hamas leader has ever distanced themselves from the 1988 document.

In 2013 Hamas head Khaled Maashal even explicitly denied an accusation that Hamas recognised Israel.

So the 1988 genocidal charter is still in force and there is no evidence of any Hamas leader having ever distanced themselves from it but Baconi pushes on, nevertheless, and, just like his Guardian colleague Patrick Wintour, sees nothing at all sinister in Hamas’ support for the “creation of a sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders”.

Let’s do the maths: The 1988 document calls for the death of all Jews and states Israel to be “Islamic land” but the 2017 document calls for the creation of a Palestinian state on “1967 borders”. Surely, it is glaringly obvious that the two documents as a whole point to the creation of a Palestinian state only as a precursor to the destruction of the Jewish one.

However, Baconi sees this all as a mere “compromise between Hamas’s various constituencies” as if Hamas is similar to a normal political party with left, centre and right wings.

Hamas has no wings. Its only objective is the annihilation of Israel and its Jews. It is laughable to think otherwise. As Israeli diplomat Ron Prosor likes to assert the only negotiations with Hamas would be over the size of his coffin.

But Baconi still pushes on and it gets worse. Baconi wants “to condemn the murder of civilians” by Hamas while also putting it “in context” because, according to Baconi, “Israel has systematically acted in violation of international law for decades”.

It is simply Baconi’s opinion that “Israel has…acted in violation of international law”. This sickening attempt at equivalence simply allows Hamas to get away with the murder of innocent Israelis. And when you check the link that Baconi provides as evidence of Israel’s “violation of international law” the headline of the article announces “Israel’s Gaza campaign may violate international law, says UN official”.

“May violate”. Again this is the opinion of one person. For Baconi a collection of opinions amounts to “international law”.

So Baconi’s article offers little evidence that Hamas has changed. He should read Article 20 of Hamas’ new document which calls for the “liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea”.

Article 20, therefore, calls for the destruction of Israel.

So if even Hamas admits its ultimate objective, which is the annihilation of the Jewish state, then why can’t Baconi?

Really, Mr Baconi, what’s there to discuss?

Meet the new cuddlier Hamas…according to our media.

Also posted on UKMediaWatch
hamas

The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) wants to rebrand itself as a group which doesn’t want to annihilate Jews worldwide (Hamas’ 1988 charter states: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews)) to a group wanting to kill those Jews only living in Israel whom Hamas’ latest document, apparently, refers to as “the Zionist occupiers aggressors”.

Their latest document, published yesterday, doesn’t surplant their previous 1988 document so we can presume that they are both now in force; the tactic probably being the 1988 racist document being for Hamas’ local audience and the 2017 racist document for western consumption.

And to an extent the western media has fallen for the Hamas’ sweet-talking.

The Guardian headlines it:

Hamas presents new charter accepting a Palestine based on 1967 borders.

The Independent goes with:

Hamas to drop call for Israel’s destruction in new policy document. The terrorist organisation says it will agree to a Palestinian state along borders agreed in 1967.

And The Times:

Hamas softens view on Israel’s total destruction.

The Daily Mail:

Hamas announces it no longer seeks the destruction of Israel and does not hate the Jewish people as it seeks to soften its image

The Daily Telegraph:

Hamas unveils new, seemingly more pragmatic political programme.

The problem with these headlines is that nothing about Hamas has changed whatsoever, especially when considering its 1988 genocide-approving document is still in force anyway.

Predictably, Patrick Wintour, of the Guardian, gets overexcited at what he thinks is Hamas’ “biggest concession” which conists of, according to Wintour, “the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the refugees”.

Even more incredibly Wintour continues:

“By implication, the document accepts that there will be another state entity outside these borders, even if it does not mention Israel.”

Really, the document implies no such thing. It merely accepts a Palestinian state on those pre-Six Day War ceasefire lines. It does not accept “another state entity outside these borders”. Only the Guardian could fall for such a charade.

Basically, Hamas are accepting a Palestinian state on the pre-Six Day War ceasefire lines with the intent of then destroying the Jewish state and incorporating it into what will inevitably become an Islamist Palestinian state ruled in the same brutal way Hamas currently controls Gazans. But the sycophantic Guardian doesn’t wish to go there.

Neither does Wintour wish to notice that calling for “the return of the refugees” is another code for the destruction of the Jewish state, albeit demographic destruction as opposed to Hamas’s usual method of murdering innocent Jewish people.

The equally sycophantic Independent goes along with this theme writing that Hamas has “drop(ped) its call for Israel’s destruction”.

The Independent piece is beyond idiotic. It wants to push the Palestinian cause so much that Niamh McIntyre gratuitously introduces the old worn theme of Israel building “illegal settlements”. The Independent doesn’t use inverted commas though. For those great lawyer-turned-journalists at the Independent they are, simply, illegal.

And there’s more. Niamh McIntyre continues:

“Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, although a number of  illegal settlements have since been built in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights.”

So Israel withdrew from Gaza but Israelis are now living back in Gaza? When did that happen? Of course, it hasn’t happened. This just symbolises the atrocious level of journalism when reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Gregg Calstrom at the Times also seems to have fallen for Hamas’ ploy. He simply thinks Hamas “would establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel in the West Bank, Gaza, and east Jerusalem.” And Carlstrom naively thinks this new document is simply meant by Hamas to improve relations with Egypt, the Gulf States and the west.

David Burke, of the Daily Mail, quite remarkably writes “In a dramatic twist, however, the group said it is willing to accept 1967 borders – before Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”

Burke will be the toast of Hamas tonight!

Burke, like Calstrom, McIntyre and Wintour, is unable or unwilling to see that Hamas’ 2017 document is just another tactic in Hamas’ overall aim of destroying the Jewish state by setting up a Palestinian one as a precursor to destroying Israel.

At least the Daily Telegraph is not so taken in. It reports that Hamas “retains the goal of eventually “liberating” all of historic Palestine, which includes what is now Israel.”

Finally, a piece of journalism that isn’t willing to simply push Hamas’ desired narrative. To that, at least, we say Hallelujah!