Saturday, September 29, 2007

The Times produces anti-Israel propaganda for schools


This is a slide from a Powerpoint presentation produced by The Times Educational Supplement for use in Britain’s schools. It parades under the guise of encouraging students to ‘compare their own lives with those of children in Palestine’.

They might as well say that their objective is to manipulate students into accepting that Israel is an illegal entity, that the land should be named ‘Palestine’, and that the students’ comfortable life in Britain is a relative heaven compared to the hell caused by Israeli occupation and military acts of terrorism. This slide gives more than the impression of oppression; it conveys the distinct sense of an Israeli police state, covertly monitoring 'every breath' that Palestinans take. There are no balancing arguments at all, and absolutely no mention of the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism executed by Palestinians against Israelis. And as Melanie Phillips observes, neither is there any mention of the reality that ‘what actually enslaves Palestinian children is an ideology which indoctrinates and brainwashes them into fanatical hatred and then pays their parents to turn them into human bombs’.

This has nothing to do with education, and is reminiscent of anti-Semitic propaganda of Nazi Germany. Its sole purpose is to inculcate into the nation’s most vulnerable hearts and minds that Israel is illegitimate and that Israeli Jews are evil.

That this presentation is being offered free of charge to teachers is a cause of great concern; that it is being offered by The Times is appalling; and that it is being taught in Britain's schools is outrageous, not to mention a flagrant violation of the law. Such lessons are actually illegal under Section 407 of the 1996 Education Act which forbids school children being fed political propaganda of any sort, and requires that secondary school students be given balanced views of controversial subjects.

Dare Cranmer hope that one, just one, of the nation’s teachers might rise to challenge this appalling piece of blatant anti-Israel propaganda?

37 Comments:

Anonymous m.d. said...

Israel is illegitimate in most people's eyes. Also, inferring that the plight of the Palestinians is solely caused by their 'ideology' is fatuous and just as biased as the Times article, it requires no intellectual investigation or critical thinking to make such bland statements. Anti-semitism has become a label which encompasses any criticism of Israel or indeed of Jewish people in general.

29 September 2007 at 10:01  
Anonymous Fred said...

MD, As we are clearly approaching the "end times" can I suggest with all humility that you review your position.

God repented of sending the flood in Noah's time.

God has never repented of making the Children of Israel his own people. God has never repented of giving them the Land of Israel.

Therefore to support the current Palestinian line (that the presence of Israel is an illegal occupation) is to oppose the one true God. Are you sure that you wish to oppose Him at this time?

The President of Iran correctly interprets the Koran when he asserts that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. This merely indicates that the current propaganda by the Times on behalf of the Palestinians is only a staging post and should not be taken as their only claim.

Watch the Valley of Meggido. Be on the side of the one true God.

29 September 2007 at 10:19  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Fred,

What are you talking about? Which 'position' ought His Grace to reconsider?

He suggests to read and re-read his posting very carefully, and then reconsider your humble demand that he reconsider his position.

29 September 2007 at 10:25  
Blogger Hettie said...

Your Grace

Fred was directing his points towards commenter m.d.

We're all getting jumpy these days, and for a reason too. I'm totally appalled by this slide show and the Times.

I come from an ex-communist country and this is the kind of propaganda we used to be fed, but there was a huge difference: We were aware of the deceitful nature of the regime and believed the opposite of what they said. This time there's no reason for people to doubt the Times or the BBC in theory so the propaganda is effective. And that really scares me.

29 September 2007 at 13:51  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Your Grace - Hmm yes. I saw this resource recently and it made me pause to think how odd it was. Your attack and analysis are justified. I am not sure how one challenges teaching resources produced by the TES. There are many that are useless or inadequate and one tends to simply ignore them, as did I with this Palestine nonsense.

The Left loves a victim. And teaching is filled with Lefties. What is sad is that while I chose to ignore it, I suspect that there are many teachers who will not.

29 September 2007 at 16:09  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Your Grace
You inspired me. I have written an email to the TES demanding the removal of this resource. But I doubt they will take much notice!

29 September 2007 at 16:17  
Anonymous Ultraviolets said...

This is all part of a wider campaign of demoralisation that has been happening across the board.

That Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and has a much better record on human rights is of no concern to the self proclaimed Universalists who believe they are all things to all people and that ultra cosmopolitan Israel is a obviously Racist terror state with an Arab minority of almost 30% surrounded by Mein Kampf quoting enemies.

29 September 2007 at 16:54  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Ms Snuffleupagaus,

His Grace admires your action.

It will possibly be unique among your profession, though His Grace somewhat suspects that emails to The Times are not treated as seriously as are letters.

However, he would be most interested to hear of any response you may receive.

Ms Hettie,

If Mr Fred was talking to Mr MD, he ought to have addressed him directly. That, after all, is precisely why His Grace discourages anonymice. One presumes quite naturally that anything without a specified addressee written in the second person upon this blog is addressed to His Grace.

29 September 2007 at 18:12  
Blogger the doctor said...

After reading the post , by His Grace , and the comments , I still ask the question , what is wrong with the TES
powerpoint , is it not truthful .

29 September 2007 at 19:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't understand the problem. Isn't this that exactly what the highest point of Nabius is for?

Surely the entire history of Israel/Palestine need not be regurgitated every time the conflict is referred to.

Rather insecure of posters on here to treat educational materials as indoctrinating. Surely such materials' purpose is to stimulate children to read further. In which case the truth will out - whatever it is.

Anything else is indoctrination of your own.

29 September 2007 at 19:30  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

Thank you very much for this posting. I have spent some time posting on your blog about the dire situation of education in Britain.

I have also posted on my own blog about life in Israel and relations between the different religions and ethnic groups in particular.

And I say again that in my view Muslims and Christians get a very good deal out of Israel, which though not perfect, has a great deal going for it from which Britain could learn.

By the way, the threatened UCU boycott of Israel has been deemed illegal. It doesn't half make Britain's educational elite look stupid, as well as barmy.

29 September 2007 at 19:46  
Blogger ygreif said...

Anonymous 29 Sept 19:30,

Maybe the entire history of the conflict need not be regurgitated in a newspaper article, but surely at a school it ought to be? Would you teach the history of WWII by only mentioning the Japanese internment camps and Dresden? Facts without context are often propaganda. In the Times supplement, they didn't limit themselves to facts even.

-YG

29 September 2007 at 20:34  
Anonymous Fred said...

My apologies for having been away from this comment section for some time. As Hettie has already noted Your Grace, my comment was aimed at m.d. who said "Israel is illegitimate in most people's eyes." I wished to state that regardless of what he (or we) might think, Israel is legitimate because the one true God ordained it.

I have no argument at all with Your Grace's own posting, and apologise for wording that gave rise to concern.

29 September 2007 at 23:15  
Anonymous Augustine said...

"I wished to state that regardless of what he (or we) might think, Israel is legitimate because the one true God ordained it."

Only if you choose to adopt a particularly heretical view of the Gospels, and heresy is, as always, a matter of personal choice.

30 September 2007 at 20:56  
Anonymous Fred said...

@ augustine

It has nothing to do with the Gospels, and everything to do with Moses. Are you implying that God has disposed of the Jews in favour of the Christians as His Chosen People? Why not the Mohammedans?

30 September 2007 at 22:10  
Anonymous Augustine said...

Because they are not Jews, stupid, and it only has to do with the Gospels and with nothing prior to the Truth Revealed. Christ brought the Truth which superceded any and all territorial claims previously made by Jews or on the behalf of Jews.

1 October 2007 at 00:55  
Blogger Didactophobe said...

"Dare Cranmer hope that one, just one, of the nation’s teachers might rise to challenge this appalling piece of blatant anti-Israel propaganda?"

- As one of the nation's teachers, I find this appalling. Sadly, it is typical of the rampant anti-semitism which exists these days among those of a left wing persuasion.

The TES message board in the last 18 months has contained some (in my opinion) hideously hateful, anti-semitic, anti-Israeli remarks from those identifying themselves as teachers, whilst simultaneously censoring with an iron fist any right-wing posters who are perceived to have gone beyond the point of decency.

I hope that those of your communicants who are parents will make clear to any school planning to use this material that it is absolutely unacceptable.

1 October 2007 at 05:53  
Blogger Straight Mike - tells it as it is said...

All the armies of the world are gathering against her, be they governmental, journalistic, educational and ultimately military. Here is another -

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/jimmy-carters-war/

1 October 2007 at 11:55  
Anonymous Augustine said...

"All the armies of the world are gathering against her, be they governmental, journalistic, educational and ultimately military."

If only... But one day it will happen as John the Revelator says because so much evil invites destruction. This is what God has ordained.

1 October 2007 at 12:15  
Blogger Hettie said...

augustine:

Jesus didn't come to supercede the Old Covenant, he came to fulfil it.

1 October 2007 at 13:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The British People might get behind the Jewish People iof they could convince their Press to STOP DEMONISING the Indigenous British People...

According to our Govt,and Press Indigenous White British People are Lazy, Evil, Racist, Murdering Paedophiles.
Telling us this repeatedly month after month with Govt Statements and with their Media Stories.
In fact, The British people are the most civilised, tolerant law abiding people.

Here's the Mets 12 Most wanted list..Remember I didn't compile this list, the Police did
http://www.met.police.uk/wanted/

Here's their 15 Most wanted
http://www.met.police.uk/wanted/othercases.htm

Here's west Midlands most wanted.
http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/wanted/index.asp

More Imported 'Europeans'.
http://iamanenglishman.com/rogues_gallery.php

We never see these in our National News Either.
http://newnation.org/NNN-UK-Europe.html

So now, are we British as bad as our Govt and the Majority of their Newspapers makes us out.

1 October 2007 at 13:30  
Anonymous Augustine said...

Hettie, you seem to regard blasphemy to be of little account, and the New Testament of Jesus Christ as even less:

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

1 October 2007 at 18:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Given the circumstances under which many Palestinians live and the manner in which they were displaced from their lands, their behaviour is surprisingly placid. Suppose our country had been colonised by force as their's has been - I would like to think we would be doing rather more than firing off home made rockets.

1 October 2007 at 19:46  
Blogger Hettie said...

augustine: and how did the pronouns them and their started to denote people other than the Jews as we read from verse 9 to 10? Would I supposed to be able to see it if I was a really really good Christian?

anonymous: funny how those displaced Jews from the Middle East at the end of the 40's and their descendants are somehow more preoccupied with running a democracy and building economy and a multicultural society. Now that's placid.

Suicide bombing and rocket launching is not placid. Beating their own women for not wearing head cover isn't either. Beating young Palestinian Arabs for singing a Fatah song in Gaza, squandering the aid pouring in, well that's just criminal activity. Destroying the glass houses and the vegeatble beds are pure self-destructing. If your opinion is that the Palestinian Arabs are only capable to react what you really mean is that they have no agency to act out of their own initiatives. Do you think of them this *highly*?

But the point of importance is that lying and distorting in a study material is to be condemned, not dismissed as life is bad enough, the material conveys that so it's ok. Charles Enderlin tried this with the Mohamed Al Dura case. He's currently defending himself before the court in France.

2 October 2007 at 01:29  
Blogger Didactophobe said...

"Suppose our country had been colonised by force as their's has been"

The Arabs of Israel are the descendants of earlier invaders and colonisers. The Holy Land has spent most of the last 2500 years in the hands of foreign invaders.


"the manner in which they were displaced from their lands"

Anyone who was head of a household 'displaced' from their land in the 1940s must now be in at least their 70s and probably 80s. If Israel were facing attack from a Dad's Army of octogenarians, there would be some validity in what you say. It is as bogus for young Palestinians to claim this as a reason for terrorism as it would be to attack young Germans in revenge for the Nazis.

2 October 2007 at 05:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Given the pro-Israel bias of most news media in our country and the blatant agitprop and hate speech that emanates from the US media and government, I think we could do very much more in the UK to show our children what the world looks like from the Palestinian perspective. So, on that basis, I suggest we should thank the TES for this initiative and the educational balance they have introduced into the subject.

I should add that I am neither pro-Arab nor anti-Israel, but just roundly fed up with the rabid Neocons and their ilk who conspire to get others to fight (Israeli centric) Middle Eastern wars on their behalf.

2 October 2007 at 08:45  
Anonymous Augustine said...

"augustine: and how did the pronouns them and their started to denote people other than the Jews as we read from verse 9 to 10? Would I supposed to be able to see it if I was a really really good Christian?"

I think one of the problems of speaking in tongues is its unintelligability to others, Hettie. However, I will be more than happy to answer your question if you render it in a less opaque form.

I must say, though, that I find using the New Testament - and particularly Hebrews - to justify the Jewish political project of occupying the Holy Land at the expense of Palestinian Christians and Muslims not merely tendentious but a most vicious blasphemy in the service of a foreign power.

2 October 2007 at 11:12  
Blogger Hettie said...

augustine: I'm talking about the pronouns used in the text you kindly provided to demonstrate your point. When did those pronouns started to refer to people other than the 'House of Israel'?

"I must say, though, that I find using the New Testament - and particularly Hebrews - to justify the Jewish political project of occupying the Holy Land at the expense of Palestinian Christians and Muslims not merely tendentious but a most vicious blasphemy in the service of a foreign power."

You're making massive assumptions about me here which is all the more puzzling given that you cited Hebrews. For me the legitimacy for the state of Israel lies in the political process that created it, which culminated in the UN resolution in 1947. Whether the modern state of Israel was willed by G-d or was a result of human disobedience is not for me or you to determine.

2 October 2007 at 13:19  
Anonymous Augustine said...

Hettie, you said::

” augustine: Jesus didn't come to supercede the Old Covenant, he came to fulfil it.” (01 October 2007 13:04)

After some toing and froing you say:

“You're making massive assumptions about me here which is all the more puzzling given that you cited Hebrews. For me the legitimacy for the state of Israel lies in the political process that created it, which culminated in the UN resolution in 1947. Whether the modern state of Israel was willed by G-d or was a result of human disobedience is not for me or you to determine.” (02 October 2007 13:19)

I make no assumptions about you, I merely respond to your argument and the way it is framed. As it happens, I agree with you on the matter of temporal legitimacy and the legitimacy of the borders established by the United Nations Resolution 188(II) on 29 November, 1947. However, as one of the claims in support of the Jewish State in Palestine is that God willed it, then you are self evidently wrong when you assert, “Whether the modern state of Israel was willed by G-d or was a result of human disobedience is not for me or you to determine”. Is willful ignorance of God’s intention your perception of the Christian Way?

On the matter of pronouns, I think we must refer to the Ministry of St Paul and specifically to those who accepted the Old Covenant but chosed not to accept the New Covernant.

In general, the major assumption I am inclined towards is that you all too clearly reflect your childhood experience and you equally clearly wish to replicate it in a liberal democracy: “I come from an ex-communist country and this is the kind of propaganda we used to be fed, but there was a huge difference: We were aware of the deceitful nature of the regime and believed the opposite of what they said. This time there's no reason for people to doubt the Times or the BBC in theory so the propaganda is effective. And that really scares me” (29 September 2007 13:51) . Well, your desire to censor that which you find disagreeable really scare me, Ma’am.

2 October 2007 at 14:26  
Anonymous Boycotted British Academic said...

I thank his Grace and Miss (Snuffy the teacher) for their excellent efforts to stem this horrible period of politics. You make it somewhat more survivable.

I agree with Irene's comments re the boycott. Sadly, though, the people behind the boycott are still messing around & given the atmosphere in which this TES incident arises, they'll probably manage to continue their damage. I still don't feel 'liberated' from the shadow the boycott has cast and persist in feeling like a Boycotted British Academic. Obviously re the boycott, it's a positive development but the struggle against this sort of nonsense continues, which is utterly draining.

And it's on many fronts. As the term kicks into gear, I have to dread an horrendous campus road-show by Walt & Mearsh., the modern-day Protocols-propogators, whose thesis an anonymous poster above reproduces (today at 08:45). More or less. Tragically, since I think the poster was trying to estabish balance & reasonableness.

2 October 2007 at 20:56  
Anonymous Boycotted said...

Oh, ok, ok, I should have said "whom I perceive to be the modern-day Protocol-propagators, and..."!

2 October 2007 at 20:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the Protocols do represent an honest attempt to approximate and engage with reality, after all? Very interesting, I must say.

2 October 2007 at 21:28  
Anonymous Boycotted said...

Anonymous, I'm afraid you do nothing but reveal paucity of logic here, and no doubt much else... I see no approximation and engagement with reality - quite the contrary, as confirmed by the many critical reviews the book's received, which detail the frauds and dangerous arguments it contains. I would urge you to read them before you hold so fast to this bigoted line (use the Engage search engine - links on my blog).

3 October 2007 at 00:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, I'm afraid you do nothing but reveal paucity of logic here, and no doubt much else...", and I suppose the "much else" is an implicit accusation of anti-semitism: worse, even, yet another Jew-hating Jew.

I read Walt and Mearsh's article in the LRB and it certainly conformed with my understanding of the scope and influence of the Israeli lobby in the United States. It is a well researched, well argued paper which accurately predicts, inter alia, the postings you have made on this thread.

3 October 2007 at 10:38  
Blogger boycotted said...

Oh dear, Anonymous, you're digging yourself deeper... The Protocols also seemed plausible to many in the toxic environment in which it was disseminated. What's worrying is precisely the fact that you think this modern-day version IS plausible, even well researched (in spite of the MANY errors in scholarship which experts on IR have revealed it to contain). Before you go looking for someone to blame for our wars, at least do the reading I suggested in my last - or do you think it's OK to pick on a scapegoat on the basis of specious, tendentious 'scholarship'?

As to what you claim W&M predictably predict by way of response, let me ask you this: would you think it acceptable to make a blanket anterior claim that we should understand all Muslim claims of Islamophobia as merely deflection of justified, reasonable criticism? How does that leave space for victims of bigotry to struggle against their oppression? Surely, you must agree, such an argument thereby condemns them to their oppression & takes away protections for which we've long struggled. I hope, therefore, that you'll not apply such disarming arguments in the case of other minorities, including, yes, Jews.

3 October 2007 at 16:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh dear, Anonymous, you're digging yourself deeper... The Protocols also seemed plausible to many in the toxic environment in which it was disseminated."

I take it that you are suggesting that meaning is a function of environment but I am not sure whether you think we should or should not take that into account when assessing the actual plausibility of the seemingly plausible.

The rest of your implausibly silly argument (presumably based directly on your reading and empathic understanding of the Protocols of the Elders of Islam) seems to be a function of your predictably overwrought imagination.

3 October 2007 at 18:28  
Blogger Boycotted British Academic said...

Your Grace, I just wanted to explain my silence: I refuse to proceed with this particular thread, since there can be no 'debate' on the terms your communicant (Anonymous) imposes. I asked that this communicant read the great weight of evidence pointing out the many weaknesses & flaws of the claims tendentiously advanced by W&M. But what's evidence got to do with it when we're meant to be marching to the bigot's tune? Instead, and predictably, your communicant prefers to make racist assumptions about me based not on my written word (which actually conflicts with your communicant's assumptions) but on ethnic stereotypes.

I shall close simply by noting that the record stands to show just the sort of reader likely to give W&M's thesis a sympathetic reading. Your communicant unwittingly makes my point perfectly for me without my having to say another word!

6 October 2007 at 22:05  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older