Everything this guy brings up is moot, Israel, unlike pretty much every other country on the face of this planet, was established by the UN after WWII…thus making this whole argument rediculous.

Its neither here nor there whether jews exist…Israel exists. End of story.

Mailman

TAU historian accused of anti-Semitism

‘The Community Security Trust, a charity that monitors anti-Semitism in the UK, also questioned how there was no dissenting voice at any of Sand’s appearances.

“The book was featured without dissent on BBC Radio on November 9, the 61st anniversary of Kristallnacht,” said Mark Gardiner, the Community Security Trust’s director of communications.

Gardiner said there had also been no contextualization during the appearances. Evident, he said, when presenter Andrew Marr summarized the book on the BBC radio show with Sand saying: “There was a kind of [Zionist] master plan to present the history of the Jewish people in Europe which emerged in the 19th century and the modern world has rather swallowed whole… [The book says] actually the history of the Jewish people is not as you thought… The Old Testament is very, very inaccurate… Most of the story of the Jews as presented in the history of the Old Testament is fictitious, you think…” ‘

http://tinyurl.com/ykuvsyt

2) Gábor Fränkl writes:

‘Andrew Marr and many, if not most people from the BBC behave/conduct an “interview” this way. Why do you think that is, I am left wondering? What is the motivation and the driving factor for these people?’

Naturally, I can’t speak about Marr with any degree of certainty (for all I know some of his best friends might be Jews), but it is obvious that the motivating factor in most cases is the wish to deligitimise Israel, and, if they have to harness anti-Semitism towards that political end, then so be it. Of course, they don’t find that last very difficult as their hatred of Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism in the first place.

Had the BBC been a department in Joseph Goebbels’ Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, it really couldn’t have done less to publicise the plight of the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust. Today, having effectively collaborated in the Holocaust through its silence, the BBC seems to be doing its level best to deligitimise and destroy the Jewish state. It just goes to show that when prejudices are as deeply embedded as anti-Semitism in a culture they are very difficult to eradicate (not of course that much has ever been done to eradicate anti-Semitism in Britain; if it was quiescent for a number of decades after World War II that had much more to do with shame over the Holocaust than anything else).

The Independent – 22 August 1993

Why the BBC ignored the Holocaust: Anti-Semitism in the top ranks of broadcasting and Foreign Office staff led to the news being suppressed, says Stephen Ward

http://tinyurl.com/dzn5t9

Richard Dimbleby Describes Belsen

‘The BBC initially refused to play the report, as they could not believe the scenes he had described, and it was only broadcast after Dimbleby threatened to resign.’

http://tinyurl.com/bsocz7

Askenazic Jews have been determined to be more genetically similar to Palestinian and Syrian “Arabs” than they are to eastern Europeans and this is hardly suprising. Without a doubt at least some of the Levant’s Christian and Muslim populations descend from converts from Judaism.

It’s truly a sad statement that someone as lacking in bona fides as Sand can pass off his book as scholarly and authoritative and that there are so many people who are happy to assist.

http://tinyurl.com/bmh9fo

Jeffrey Goldberg on Sand:

“Sand is dropping manufactured facts into a world that in many cases is ready, willing, and happy to believe the absolute worst conspiracy theories about Jews and to use those conspiracy theories to justify physically hurting Jews. It is nothing new.”

http://tinyurl.com/ydhezky

Andrew Marr has lots of form. An example:

“Take the 23rd July edition of what the BBC describes as its ‘flagship political programme’, Sunday AM with Andrew Marr. There were four guests, all known for their hostility to Israel: Glenys Kinnock, Matthew Parris, Nayla Mouawad and Sir Menzies Campbell. All were simply invited by Andrew Marr to offer their thoughts. Not one guest was invited on who might have acknowledged that there is another view.

From the very first day it was obvious how the BBC would treat the conflict, when a film on Newsnight concluded with the reporter, Peter Marshall, remarking across a picture of a blown-up bridge: “All this destruction. And still more threatened” – as if it was a given that the IDF was on a wilful mission of destruction.”

http://tinyurl.com/yh26ttw

Another example:

BBC Starts the Week with claim that Israel is like the Nazis

http://tinyurl.com/5pgadn

And here, in an interview with William Hague, Marr spews his poison:

“And one other area of foreign policy. You’ll have seen the pretty appalling looking reports coming out of Israel where members of the Israeli Defence Force who were involved in the Gaza operation have talked about effectively being told to shoot at civilians. Now governments almost never say anything about this because they don’t want to offend people diplomatically. As the opposition spokesman, how did you react to those stories?”

http://tinyurl.com/y8dbj4s

Finally, a coward:

“Jewish history is not my field.” [says Shlomo Sand] No, but once he [Sand] had discovered that the story of the connection of the Jewish people to the Holy Land was a myth, he decided that he would secretly explore the history but not publish until he got tenure for doing other work. Because if he published this first, “there would not be any chance of being a full professor. Not only in Tel Aviv. But at NYU too.”

The above quote comes from a blog run by Philip Weiss, the anti-Jewish extremist. I have for that reason not provided a link.

http://cifwatch.com/2009/11/10/shlomo-the-sandlout/

See my reports of Sand’s two London appearances this week – there is one more to come, tonight.

The key test of Sand’s bizarre and antisemitic ‘history’ is whether he has ever submitted it before an academic forum for peer review by experts in Jewish history. To the best of my knowledge, he has not.

A clue to his antisemitic agenda is on page 313 of the book: “To what extent is Jewish Israeli society willing to discard the deeply embedded image of the “Chosen People”?

This is the well known ‘chosen people’ trope so beloved of antisemites who use the phrase as implying exclusive rewards – whereas in its true context in the Bible it involves responsibilities as well as rewards — and others are granted the same.