Jeremy Bowen's written a book on The Six Day War

It seems that Jeremy Bowen wrote a book on the Six Day War. Reviews are as you'd expect, here's a few:

'1.0 out of 5 starsJeremy's prejudices, masquerading as history, surrounded by a false halo of "respected BBC ME correspondent".

ByMr. Roger Edenon 30 July 2015

Format: Kindle Edition

If you want the facts read history Professor Oren's book. Jeremy wasn't there, yet is able to quote Israeli Generals verbatim in the heat of battle. Of course if you believe, as does Jeremy, that Nasser consistent threatening to wipe out Israel since 1948, (apparently, according to Nasser himself, humiliating forced retreat from a position of great strength in 1948), his blockade of Eilat,(Suez was always closed to Israeli ships), his amassing multiple armies on Israel's Border, his joint military agreements with Syria and Jordan, a very nasty 6 months of radio propaganda towards Israel and provocation of sniping and artillery into Israel by all three countries, was nothing more than empty rhetoric. (Probably the Israelis didn't see it that way, you wonder why?). Therefore, in Jeremy's view, this was not a preemptive strike by Israel but a War of Aggression, then this book is for you, for those who want real facts, read Oren.

 

 

If you hate Israel you will love this book

Byukreaderon 15 July 2015

Format: Paperback

If you hate Israel you will love this book. It makes no pretence of being history, right from the first page. Why Simon and Shuster agreed to publish this re-writing of history is a mystery. Did they even read it, or did they assume it was clean because the author is a BBC correspondent? It tells a fantastic story of a mighty Israel attacking its pathetic Arab neighbours to conquer their territory, and weaves little bits of fact with very imaginative fiction. If you had no knowledge of the truth, it would be easy to believe this propagandist book is factual and, as I said, if you are looking for a justification to support your anti-Zionism this is it. I assume most of those who have reviewed the book favourably here are simply people who hate Israel and therefore love the book because it justifies their hatred, or part of the Muslim supremacist campaign against Israel who have not even read it.

 

 

Typical BBC pro-Palestinian propaganda

Byschlockhorroron 13 January 2009

Format: Paperback

Jeremy Bowen isn't known as al-Bowen around the 'net for nothing. This disgraceful book is simply an extended piece of apologia for the Arab cause. To give just two examples, Bowen dismisses Nasser's bloodthirsty threats against Israel as just Arab rhetoric. This you know how, Jeremy? By the fact that they weren't executed?

He also fulminates against Israel's bombing of an anti-aircraft position in a civilian area and hints darkly that this was a war crime. Here he has his case exactly wrong - the war crime, if any, consists in siting the gun battery there in the first place. If someone does so then the other side is quite entitled to attack it. Bowen hates Israel however and so this side of things never gets an airing.

Finally, you will struggle to find any mention of Islamofascist terrorism in this book. Bowen thinks Hamas and their ilk are freedom-fighting, peace loving victims of Israeli oppression.

A book so malignant it verges on being evil.

 

 

 

Profoundly tendentious

ByCharles Soperon 5 June 2007

Format: Paperback

Bowen is convinced the Arabs weren't out to destroy Israel, that the Israelis knew they would wipe the floor with their Arab antagonists. This hardly explains the Israeli chief of staff's (Rabin) nervous breakdown, or the then PM's (Ben Gurion) white hot fury with him for what he perceived as an existential danger.

Oren's book is far more extensively sourced from Arab, Hebrew, Russian documents as well as English one - and unlike Bowen evidently strives for precision and balance. The comparison between the two is highly illuminating.

 

 

Rife with anti-israel bias

ByJonathan Turneron 10 January 2007

Format: Paperback

The book is superficial, derivative and rife with standard anti-Israel prejudice, namely, the portrayal of Israel as the source of the Middle-East conflict and the whitewashing of Arab-Palestinian rejection of Israel's legitimacy and decades of relentless violence against the Jewish state.

 

 

Problems With Credibility

ByA customeron 22 May 2004

Format: Hardcover

After Michael Oren's excellent history of the same war ("Six Days of War"), this book turned out to be a disappointment. Like so much of the reporting from the region (Bowen was a BBC journalist), it is unscholarly and superficial. One can't help suspecting that Bowen's main motivation might be something other than just an interest in history. Oren's book was highly praised so Bowen, by choosing an almost identical title, may have seen a chance to make a quick buck. But mostly he probably wanted to give his own version of events -- he is famous for his strong anti-Israel bias and his tendentious "reporting" for the BBC. Don't bother with this book; it's not a serious history. For now, Oren's book remains the definitive work on this war.'

 

I could carry on with the one star reviews. 

 

I could also post some favourable reviews to make this a fair and balanced article on Jeremy Bowen's book but if he's not unbiased about Israel why should I be unbiased about him? Also I'm not a BBC employee

I do wonder what the Balen Report said about Jeremy Bowen, don't you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Renowned British Historian Simon Schama agrees with me that Anti-Semitism Causes Anti-Zionism not the other way around

For years I have been arguing that many hate Israel because of the Jews, not Jews because of Israel.

It would seem that the eminent British historian Simon Schama has come to a similar conclusion.

'The antipathy displayed by many on the Left towards Israel is not an example of anti-Zionism morphing into anti-Semitism, but a sign that anti-Zionism is caused by anti-Semitism, the distinguished British historian Simon Schama argued in the Financial Times Friday.'

More here http://www.thetower.org/3000-renowned-british-historian-anti-semitism-causes-anti-zionism

Israel, Jews, and Judaism: The entire bogus history of Palestinian Arab nationalism exposed by a stamp

http://linkis.com/blogspot.co.il/lcNGL

Do read the whole article, you can learn a lot from a stamp, if you are willing to keep your mind open.

This is the sort of article that journalists at the institutionally anti Israel BBC should be made to read, that MPs current and past like Richard Burden, Lynn Jones and Gerald Kaufman should be questioned about when they make their claims of Palestinian sovereignty, and that every pro Palestinian/anti Israel campaigner should be made to read as well.

Hold on I keep being told by pro Palestinians (really anti Jews) that Jews are immigrants to the land of Palestine

'The story began in 1898, when a wine import and marketing company was opened in London by the Rishon Lezion & Zichron Ya'acov Wine Cellars. Their British subsidiary initially traded as The Palestine Wine & Trading Co. Then the word "Palestine" was the term used for local enterprises. There were some other notable examples. The Anglo-Palestine Bank was founded and later renamed Bank Leumi, and the quality newspaper for English speakers The Palestine Post was later renamed The Jerusalem Post.

The Palestine Wine Company started marketing wines with the name Palwin, which was an abbreviation for "Palestine wine." Palwin was the first brand sold in export markets by the Israeli wine industry and is arguably the oldest wine brand still in existence in the kosher wine world.

...

Upon the establishment of the State of Israel, the company name was changed from Palestine Wine to the Carmel Wine Co., and the name Palwin became specifically associated with a brand of kiddush wine rather than the full portfolio.'

You can ask Adam Montefiore of Carmel Winery for information -  adam@carmelwines.co.il

You could ask any passing anti Semitic scum how they reconcile their assertion that Jews are immigrants to the land of Palestine with the history above.

the BBC explain the causes of the Temple Mount dispute in their usual biased way

Watch this piece of video, it's 1:44 long.



Shall we give Yolande Knell's report a fisking?

The opening still is of just the Muslim site with a tiny Israeli flag fluttering beneath. Could not an overhead shot that gave a better idea of scale not have been used? A shot like the one shown at 0:45?

Both the historical and the naming explanations  are given Muslim first, Jews second and the accompanying graphic has Islam above Judaism. Some might argue that the older of the two religions should be first.

Yolande Knell starts her modern history with what happened after the 6-Day war of 1967. There's no mention of the position prior to 1948 when Jews lived across Jerusalem or 1948-1967 when the eastern part of Jerusalem was occupied by the Jordanians. The only time ever in history that Jerusalem has been split was in that period 1948-1967. When the Jordanians occupied the eastern part of Jerusalem they stopped Jews from worshipping there and destroyed synagogues. Oddly this is not something that the BBC see fit to tell their viewers.

Yolande Knell tells us that Israel occupied East Jerusalem, might not the above context have been useful?

So the evil apartheid state of Israel ceded control of the holiest site in Judaism to a Jordanian Waqf and agreed to prevent Jews from praying at their holiest site. That seems odd for a country characterised by the BBC as unreasonable, aggressive and expansionary.

What naughty Jews praying at a holy site. The Muslims see Jews praying at their holiest site as provocative? Well cry me a f***ing river, I see a Muslim mosque built on top of the site of the Jewish temple as provocative.

Many Palestinians are suspicious... what a load of bullshit, The Muslims have been trying this line since the 1920s, they know that if they claim that the Jooooos are trying to do something against the Al Aqsa then they will get the support of the Muslim world and the anti-Israel (and often anti-Semitic) West too.

Spot the imagery used for the intifada section. An heroic Palestinian youth throwing a bottle (or rock) and then five Israeli soldiers and a Land Rover. The odds are just so unfair. Imagery is important, it sets the scene and that's just what is being done here.

Yolande Knell then says that 'Most of the recent attacks have been carried out by individuals acting alone'. If 'most' have been then which have not and how does Yolande Knell know that most have not been? Has she not seen the videos encouraging such attacks put out by Fatah and Hamas?

Whilst Yolande Knell wonders what the current situation will become a split screen is shown again. On the left religious Jewish men, maybe praying, on the right weeping Muslim women - once again the image is more important than the words and the BBC know that.

A history of Islam, not the sort of history that the BBC and Politically correct, left wing media propagate

William J. Federer with a history lesson. 46 minutes you should spare.

The Holocaust - "Let no one say that these things were not real"

English MP Mrs. Mavis Tate shows proof of the holocaust with shots from her visit to a German concentration camp. Taken from the original 1945 British Pathe newsreel "German Atrocities - Proof". This Pathe newsreel showed the world at the time what atrocities had been committed. The MP, Mavis Tate describes eloquently what she saw at Buchenwald concentration camps.

The Holocaust - "Let no one say that these things were not real"

Maybe the holocaust deniers who occasionally infest my Twitter feed should learn some history.

But what about The Crusades?

Here's some facts to put the 'What about The Crusades' excusers of Jihad in their place.


Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades

Joan Peters And The Perils Of Challenging The Palestinian Narrative

This articleshould be required reading for journalists at the institutionally anti Israel BBC.

Here's an extract:

'The recent death of Joan Peters recalls one of the most intense and bitter literary controversies in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Her 1984 book From Time Immemorial set off a memorable scuffle between both Israeli and Arab writers. But like many such controversies the ultimate impact of the discussion did more to obscure the truth about the origins of the conflict over Palestine than to shed light on it.

The moral of the story is that while Peters's book was flawed, it might have prompted an important debate about one of the key assumptions of Israel's critics. Instead, the angry pushback her volume received from liberals and Arab apologists served only to demonstrate that anyone who seeks to challenge the Palestinian narrative of dispossession by the Jews does so at their own peril.

Peters's intention was to write a book sympathetic to the Palestinian refugees. But in the course of her research, she stumbled across an important fact that had hitherto received no notice from Westerners who opined about the Arab-Israeli conflict: though the Arabs claim to have possessed Palestine for many centuries, a significant percentage of their population in 1948 could trace their origins to immigrants who crossed into what is now Israel during the last years of Ottoman rule and during the era of the British Mandate for Palestine.

The idea that Arabs rather than just Jews arrived in the country during the period when Jews were working to build it up contradicts the basic conceit of all attacks on Zionism. Instead of the 

Palestinians losing a country that had been theirs "from time immemorial," this revelation placed both sides in the conflict on a somewhat equal footing.

If a great many of those Arab refugees who fled the country during Israel's War of Independence were, at best, second-generation immigrants to Palestine then surely it would not have been so difficult to reintegrate them into other Arab countries just as Jewish refugees from Arab countries were resettled in Israel.

But to admit that not all Palestinian refugees had roots going back for many centuries to what had become Israel undermined the basic critique of Zionism. To those who wish to cast the struggle over the land as one of Palestinian victims and Jewish aggressors, the narrative of dispossession has taken on the aspect of a catechism that may not be questioned. Thus, by calling into question one of the basic Palestinian myths, Peters had committed an unpardonable sin for which she had to be punished.'

Powerful stuff and indicative of how the pro Palestinian narrative holds such sway amongst 'liberals'. I just cannot imagine the BBC ever repeating such information.

Crusades vs Jihad in European, Middle East and North African history

How many times Muslims invaded Europe vs Christians invading the Middle East 

 Not quite the way that the BBC and other politically correct fools portray this part of history, is it.

Israel is built on Arab land

Israel is built on Arab land, Palestine was an Arab country. 

Those are two of  the lines that ignorant anti Semitic bigots use all the time. That they are not true doesn't bother them, so what I'm about to show here will have no effect on them either. 

However facts are important, so here's a photo of a page from a French encyclopedia from between the two World Wars. Can you find Palestine? What's on its flag? Right-hand page, third row,, one from the right... A flag that's split in half vertically: the left half a pale blue, the right half white and in the middle a gold/yellow Mogan David or Star of David - The Jewish symbol...

The funniest man in London (part 3)

William "Bill" Callaghan, this time with some marriage guidance, a decent Yoda impression and some opinions on women - "my God she looks like a horse and not one I'd like to ride"

The funniest man in London (part 2)

More from William "Bill" Callaghan, a Yeoman Warder at HM Tower of London with a fine line in comic quips and a great way with children.

The funniest man in London...

A Yeoman Warder, William "Bill" Callaghan, imparts a fair bit of historical knowledge with great humour during a tour of the Tower of London. Not a great fan of children though..., nor the French, Italians and quite a few others.

Give this man his own history series, he's comedy gold!


Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

Debunking The Map that Lies about Palestinian 'loss of land'

Read learn and then remember when anti Semitic scum try and lie about the poor Palestinians loss of land. 

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/debunking-map-that-lies.html?m=1

Because Israel is different

'... the massive population displacements in Europe at the end of the Second World War are forever, but those in Palestine a mere three years later must be corrected and reversed. On the Continent, losing wars comes with a territorial price: The Germans aren't going to be back in Danzig any time soon. But, in the Middle East, no matter how often the Arabs attack Israel and lose, their claims to their lost territory manage to be both inviolable but endlessly transferable.'

Mark Steyn making perfect sense in a piece that should be compulsory reading for the anti Israel brigade including the BBC. 

More good sense here http://www.steynonline.com/6485/the-man-who-never-calls

On today in history - 1987

Ronald Reagan back when the world looked like it might be getting better.

"Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall"

Are you revising for your History A'Level and having problems with the First World War?

Are you revising for your History A'Level and having problems with the First World War?

This may help...

The First World War explained as a pub fight...

Germany, Austria and Italy are stood together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria's pint.

Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit, because there are splashes on its trouser leg.

Germany expresses its support for Austria's point of view

Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.

Serbia points out that it can't afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for cleaning Austria's trousers.

Russia and Serbia look at Austria.

Austria asks Serbia who it's looking at.

Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone.

Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so.

Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene.

Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?

Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action.

Britain and France ask Germany whether it's looking at Belgium.

Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone.

Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium.

France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other.

Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it's on Britain's side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.

Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings, because Britain made Australia do it.

France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change.

Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting.

America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself.

By now all the chairs are broken, and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany's fault . While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends.

Glad to be of service, please credit me on your A' Level history paper.

Open letter to the Presbyterian Church USA from an Iraqi Jew

For the idiots and liars who say that Jews and Muslims used to live together peacefully before Israel was recreated.

Some facts... http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/open-letter-to-the-presbyterian-church-from-an-iraqi-jew

Not that the anti-Semites, including those that pretend to just be anti-Zionists, will take any notice of such inconveniences as facts.

How many people were killed by Saddam Hussein's regime?

How many people were killed by Saddam Hussein's regime? This is a question that it is hard to answer, there are many answers none of which are 100% accurate (how could they be?) but there are ranges that are agreed upon.

Wikipedia reports that:

According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule". Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million, including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion.Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.

About.com  reports 'Top 5 Crimes of Saddam Hussein', which include:

...it is estimated that up to 182,000 were killed during the Anfal campaign. Many people consider the Anfal campaign an attempt at genocide. 

... As early as April 1987, the Iraqis used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq during the Anfal campaign. It is estimated that chemical weapons were used on approximately 40 Kurdish villages, with the largest of these attacks occurring on March 16, 1988 against the Kurdish town of Halabja.

Beginning in the morning on March 16, 1988 and continuing all night, the Iraqis rained down volley after volley of bombs filled with a deadly mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents on Halabja. Immediate effects of the chemicals included blindness, vomiting, blisters, convulsions, and asphyxiation. Approximately 5,000 women, men, and children died within days of the attacks. Long-term effects included permanent blindness, cancer, and birth defects. An estimated 10,000 lived, but live daily with the disfigurement and sicknesses from the chemical weapons.

...
At the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, southern Shiites and northern Kurds rebelled against Hussein's regime. In retaliation, Iraq brutally suppressed the uprising, killing thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq.

As supposed punishment for supporting the Shiite rebellion in 1991, Saddam Hussein's regime killed thousands of Marsh Arabs, bulldozed their villages, and systematically ruined their way of life.

Stanford University  reports:

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

The Iraq Foundation  reports:

DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 — surely a gross exaggeration — but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country.

Casualties from Iraq's gulag are harder to estimate. Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000. As long as Mr. Hussein remains in power, figures like these will be uncheckable, but the huge toll is palpable nonetheless.

Scaruffi has a handy table listing The worst genocides of the 20th and 21st Centuries:
Saddam Hussein appears at number 13 on the list after Mao's Communist regime in China (49-78 million), Hitler's Nazi Germany (12 million), Leopold II massacre in The Belgium Congo (8 million), Stalin's Communist regime in Russia 9& million), Japanese Emperor Tojo's World War 2 massacres (5 million), The Ottoman Empire's massacres of Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks (2 million), Pol Pot's Cambodian regime (1.7 million), Kil Il Sung's North Korean regime's purges and concentration camps (1.6 million), Menghistu's Ethiopian regime (1.5 million), The Biafran killings (1 million), Leonid Brezhnev's Soviet regime's massacres in Afghanistan (900,000) and the Rwandan genocide of the 1990s (800, 000. The figure attributed to Saddam Hussein is 600,000.


So we have, excluding those victims of  war, estimates of between 250,000 and 600,000 people killed by Saddam Hussein's regime. We have an agreed range. Well not totally agreed because @The_Mitch92 claims that only 5,000 were killed. Of course @The_Mitch92 has an agenda, he's claimed that