Jake Wallis Simons v Craig Murray 245


I have been given legal advice that I am permitted to publish the formal claim and defence documents. These are much less informative than the witness statements, which I am not allowed to publish, but at least it gives you some idea what is going on.

Over 3,000 people have now contributed to my defence fund. I can not tell you how touched I am by this overwhelming support. I should add that the letters and communications from those sending good wishes but financially unable to assist are equally valuable in maintaining my morale.

This is the original Claim:

This is my Defence

This is the Reply to the Defence

This next document goes to the heart of the astonishing system of repression that is English libel law. These are the claimants’ judge approved costs of £104,000, which should I lose I might well have to pay, in addition to my own costs plus assessed damages. The wildly disproportionate effect of using a libel claim to bankrupt somebody and destroy their lives needs to be highlighted. This means for the wealthy to silence and ruin the poor needs to be exposed for what it is.

This interview with Mark Lewis, the lawyer suing me, is headlined “UK’s Foremost Libel Lawyer Sets His Sights on Israel’s Enemies.” It characterises opponents of Israel as “Nazis” and opines “I am quite happy to take their homes off them… at least they can be a homeless Nazi.” I sincerely hope he does not consider me a Nazi, though plainly this case is started by my falsely being smeared as an anti-Semite. But no matter how objectionable somebody may find my views on Israel/Palestine, how does it serve justice that “at least my” wife and 8 year old son “can be homeless.” That is however precisely what Mr Lewis seeks to achieve and to be plain, he has threatened me in person with bankruptcy. The money, of course, would go to Mr Lewis and his team still more than to Mr Wallis Simons.

English libel law is recognised throughout the world as a draconian affront to democracy. Its survival is due not only to the fact that it is an invaluable tool for the wealthy to use against poor radicals, but also to the fact that libel is a very wealthy industry, feeding money to rich and influential individuals, including of course not only the libel lawyers but also the judges and court system which are all part of this massive vested interest, which is extremely well represented in the Westminster parliament.

All of which I am afraid leads me to renew my appeal for funds for my defence, which despite the extremely generous response so far, do not yet match the scale of the threat. I should say that I was extremely depressed and humiliated a few days ago in having to ask for money in this way, but the response has been so overwhelming and so kind, and accompanied by so many warm words for my work over the years, that the feelings of deep shame have been completely displaced by gratitude, friendship and affection.





On a practical point, a number of people have said they are not members of Paypal so could not donate. After clicking on “Donate”, just below and left of the “Log In” button is a small “continue” link which enables you to donate by card without logging in.

For those who prefer not to pay online, you can send a cheque made out to me to Craig Murray, 89/14 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8BA. As regular readers know, it is a matter of pride to me that I never hide my address.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments will be closed on September 29, 2017.

245 thoughts on “Jake Wallis Simons v Craig Murray

1 2 3 4
  • Nati

    A long argument for a short commentary. You called him liar, he called you nazi. I am not interested so much as to what he sues you for as to what you could have sued him for and the results. Basically, you are criticizing a government’s policy and not a population culture, i think it’s all about the use of the word ‘tribal’ which could be misleading. As far as to what concerns me, you are right, he is a liar, he tried to frame you, there is no difamation. I am amazed a man of your prestige and knowledge fell in trap.

    • craig Post author

      As for your amazement, unfortunately we all have off-days Nati!

      I have not taken the obvious step of counter-suing for libel because it would be hypocritical of me, given my belief in free speech. I do realise in these circumstances that may seem ridiculously purist, but I have of course thought about it a very great deal over these last few months.

      • Rachael

        I agree with your stance. It is honourable.

        But afterwards.
        Counter suing a person who tries to shutdown free speech?
        A countersuit at that point would not limit that persons right to free speech, but to limit there ability to shutting it down.
        I would suggest.

        Bridges, crossing, times…

      • Shatnersrug

        Craig that is ridiculous, you could even drop the case should he agree to drop his. You are not going to beat the devil playing nice.

        • Harald Korneliussen

          You are not going to beat the devil with his own weapons, rather. UK libel law is so capricious and unfair, it works best in evil hands (with plenty of money)

      • Jack Shae

        Watched the interview, what struck me was that it was not a normal studio based face to face interview and you were at a disadvantage regards the time sound takes in order to respond to a question, this confusion added to the heat, people need time to digest and respond to a question or insult, and there is a wide margin in saying something in the heat of a debate as opposed to calmly writing something to offend. Also, unusual that in Libel the publisher or in this case the broadcaster is not included in the case.

  • giyane

    Thank you Craig for publishing this transcript
    Just skimming the first paragraphs I notice this:

    It seems to me that the presenter was deliberately trying to confuse Craig in this debate

    Firstly, I have never heard anybody make bedfellows of radical leftist feminists and Islamo-fascist/ ultra right wing jihadists before. Craig wisely ignored the bait of that outrageous suggestion in the heat of debate because the sheer outrageousness was intended to throw him off course. Nobody in the world can mistake the fact that the post-Communist Russia [ Left ] has been and still is routing the Right-wing West’s proxy Islamo-fascist terrorists in Syria and Iraq. Jacky Sutton, radical leftist feminist if ever there was one, was reportedly murdered by the leader of the NATO West’s Right wing, Islamo-Fascist dictator Erdogan in Istanbul when she was on a mission to expose the crimes of his proxy terrorists’ Islamic State. It was claimed that she panicked because she had no money, but police found ample money in her wallet.

    There follows another example of the presenter deliberately trying to confuse Craig in this debate,
    because it is quite different to claim, as the claimant does, that Israel the state “.. claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world ” to what Craig actiually said, which was that Israel has ” an aggressive theocratic overlay that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world. ” Nobody can deny that Jews claimed to be the chosen people historically. Craig was not claiming that Israel the state does that today, merely that it used to do it in the past. For example if I say that the High Court has an overlay of Medeival dignity that traces its origins back to the times of the Divine Right of KIngs, I am not suggesting that this theocratic awe applies to a modern court. I am using the language of simile and metaphor that talks to the emotional intelligence.

    It appears to me that the claimants’ side want to employ rhetorical tricks in their language while at the same time vociferaciously objecting to the oratory skills of their opponent. Not exactly a honey trap, more like a linguistic man-trap, in which one side shoots off into florid language and then objects to the florid language of the reply of their opponent.
    Pathetic

    • giyane

      or maybe: ‘ because it is quite different to claim, as the claimant does, that Craig had said that Israel ( the state ) “.. claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world ” to what Craig actually said, which was that Israel has “an aggressive theocratic overlay…

      • philw

        Yes, surely this is the key point. Craig did NOT say what Simons accused him of saying. It is a pity that Craig subsequently apologised as if he had said it.

  • Noonereally

    Justice and the law are distant cousins, generally not on speaking terms. However, every once in a while the judiciary will find for the oppressed and not the oppressor – let us hope that this is such an occasion. By the way I too found the interview interesting, though I too am reluctant to say why. What I will say is this: it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

    • Ishmael

      Not the same animal in this case and many others IMO.

      It’s a tool of injustice were good deeds are punished. A political weapon. At best it’s surly unfathomably disproportionate consequence to someone life for speaking an opinion “fact” or not.

      And it’s applied unequally as a rule, as me as an individual with no relative “influence” would not be held to the same standard not matter what I thought.

  • Ed L

    It’s absolutely preposterous. He, to be generous to him, elided a comment on your blog so it wasn’t a straight quote, didn’t mention the article it came from (“his blog”) then goaded you into responding. It was an ambush and to try to use it to ruin you will do him more professional damage than you calling him a liar. He comes out looking like petty and a crybaby. I’d personally rather be known as a liar.

  • Niall

    Enjoyed seeing you speak once at the ESU. This looks like a cheap trick to me. I’m sorry this has happened. Best of luck for the court case., have made a small donation.

  • PM

    There is very much a meaningful difference between Israel and the concept of Israel because the state of Israel is a fact in the world but the concept is apparent, to put it bluntly, in the difference between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and the outlook of these two cities. Many people are aware of the difference between the two cities and know that one has a hedonistic reputation and the other a religious one and that they disagree about what Israel is and what it should be. Theocratic overlay is fairly accurate in my view as a description of how the state functions as relates to marriage for example if memory serves.
    As for Simons reputation…I had never heard of him until a few days ago until I saw his picture and linked him with a few appearances on the Sky papers review segment. His reputation could be objectively measured by book sales etc. and by discussions of him and his work in the media. Surely if no harm can be shown objectively to have been caused to his reputation then likely future harm is unlikely. I would look to see if the JC picked up on any of this. I also think that his elision of your quote to mean that Israel effectively claims tribal superiority cannot be sustained by a natural and ordinary reader of your blog.
    I would fight this because it is without merit. Good luck!

    • George

      I too never heard of Simons till recently. He doesn’t appear to have a Wikipedia entry and only seems to be mentioned on Wiki in relation to articles on piped music and whisky. Also – when I try to click on his own website, I am greeted with a sign saying “Dangerous Website Blocked”. I noted an earlier Craig article about how one of Mr Simon’s previous comments was somehow completely expunged from the net. Is he some kind of shadowy media creature?

      But I did track down the video of the infamous exchange and I can’t help wondering how much Mr Simons had prepared for it. Was he hoping to be called a liar so he could then spring this little trap?

  • John-Albert Eadie

    This would be correctly called childish were it not so serious. The deeper message is that they will get you Craig, for trying to be fair. And your noticing the truth and pointing it out. I say, keep up the good work and be thou not silenced. For instance, and for sure, moneyed individuals ruining poor folks ought not to be allowed. From afar in Canada, I see your accuser as having a bad, very upper class smell about him.

  • Emblematic

    Why on earth did you admit saying “Israel”, or even “the concept of Israel”, “claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world” when it’s clear reading the original piece that what you actually said was that Israel’s “aggressive theocratic overlay” claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world.

    You weren’t accusing ‘Israel’ of claiming tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world, you were accusing what you called “an aggressive theocratic overlay” of doing so. There is a huge difference.

  • AAMVN

    I would hope given the at best tenuous case presented in these documents that the case is thrown out and the claimant is saddled with the costs.

    However you cannot rely on that, since the system is so fundamentally flawed. For now I’m not able to contribute to the defense fund but may be able to in a few weeks.

    I wish you success in the battle and implore you to remain positive in spite of everything. It is never nice to have to ask for help, especially as a Scot. Scots have a pride in self reliance and stoic acceptance of misfortune. But we can take that virtue too far.

  • Tom Kennedy

    As one of the many regular readers here, I’ve donated. It is shocking that the media chooses to argue over a verbal attack on Israel when there is complete silence on actual attacks by Israel against its Palestinian neighbours.

    Craig, you are an honourable and honest man, and not anti-Semitic. I hope this attempt to silence your voice fails.

  • Mark in Mayenne

    I am very tired of people who selectively quote from scientific papers, or other kinds of speeches or blog posts to try to imply that the author is or meant something other than what he is or intended to say.

  • Sharp Ears

    JWS – This is his recollection of his upbringing.

    Not a mention of the Occupation or of the Palestinians when he talks about his brother’s stint with the IDF apart from the fact that he didn’t injure anybody. That makes a change from the usual IDF activity.

    ‘I broke out of my orthodox cocoon
    Jake Wallis Simons grew up within a strict Jewish community, his life governed by religious doctrine. But once he left school, he joined the outside world and has never looked back

    Comments (12)
    Jake Wallis Simons
    The Guardian, Saturday 13 March 2010

    http://web.archive.org/web/20100418180317/http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/lifeandstyle/2010/mar/13/jewish-orthodox-jake-wallis-simons

    Nasty petty lot in the comments. They gang up to jeer at someone who did not understand the meaning of the word ‘temples’ in another context.

  • Phil E

    One might almost think you were deliberately set up in this interview in an msm conspiracy to shut you up by bankrupting you and making a few quid themselves. If so, these guys are truly despicable. It would be interesting to know if this same gang has extorted cash from other victims who have not had your courage to resist them Craig.

    If they want to close down the enemies of Israel a better target might be Bibi Netanyahu who seems to be doing a good job of taking his country into the criminal gutter. Fortunately it looks as if Israel’s forces of law and order may already have that task in hand.

    Fight the good fight Craig. Our keyboards and bank accounts are with you.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    I realise that nothing is certain in the court system, but I would be really amazed if Simons’s claim succeeds.

    In the first place, you did not say what he attributed to you. In the second place, what you did in fact say was fair comment on the words of a prominent representative of the Israeli state. Simons did not explain that, preferring suddenly to attribute the most ugly motive imaginable to you out of nowhere, with no context. Hardly surprising that you were shocked and denied such an accusation. Thirdly, you seem to have done your best to put matters right. Fourthly, you say that Simons deleted some tweets about the matter, which could be argued to show a consciousness of contributory wrongdoing on his part.

    An impartial court should not take kindly to entrapment, which seems a reasonable description of what Simons did, springing a vile accusation upon you with a quote wrenched out of context and without the supporting evidence you adduced to build your argument.

    I’ve been reading this blog a long time. I have never seen the slightest evidence to suggest that you are in the least anti-Semitic. Forthright criticism of the Israeli state, which is what you did in that posting, is not the same thing as anti-Semitism, and it was false for Simons to say that it was. And he is presumably intelligent enough to know that. Therefore his action speaks for itself.

    I wish you well, and I hope you will take heart. I understand your motives for not counter-suing a creature like Simons, but on the evidence before us I think you could, easily.

    Best.

  • MichaelK

    The point of this whole thing is to ruin CM financially, regardless of the outcome of the trial, because the costs of defending oneself, are astronomic, even if one succeeds and ‘wins.’ Then there’s the severe damage to CM’s reputation of being branded an ‘anti-semite’ by an English court. There’s virtually nothing that compares to such an outrageous smear in liberal /left circles and the media. One is almost exiled to Siberia. A friend of mine spent his entire life savings, several hundreds of thousands, defending himself against an allegation of ‘historic child sexual abuse’ relating to events that allegedly transpired over thirty years ago. He was found not guilty, but by then the damage was done. If one is Roger Waters from Pink Floyd, a multi-millionaire, one can do and say a lot in relation to Israel, this is a luxury that ordinary people don’t have. They are required and indeed have to choose their words very, very, carefully indeed and not be tempted to employ rhetorical flourishes in the heat of debates that can come back to bite one hard on the arse.

    ‘Freedom of speech’, is, I would contend, a liberal ‘fairytale’ which one always should have taken with a pinch of salt. As with virtually everything else in our kind of society, it’s a very selective and polarised form of freedom, like the ‘freedom’ to buy a Porche, that’s massively slanted towards those with the wealth and power to use it.

    Also, people have to realise, and have it written on their hands, that the media is and remains, ‘enemy territory’… always and forever. When one agrees to these kind of interviews one is entering the lion’s den at one’s peril.

    • Ishmael

      I see Craigs point on this. But at the same time the injustice caused by bringing this case against him? I can see the case for remedying that injustice also. It certainly seems it would be more just than the former.

  • Ruth

    If you don’t settle out of court, you’ll fall into another trap. UK courts are absolutely corrupt when it comes to sensitive political cases. I know through experience how they operate and even defence lawyers can be twisted. They might show a semblance of justice letting you win the initial court hearing but they’ll get you on appeal and you’ll have to pay far more. To have you silenced is, I believe, exactly what the Establishment want. We need you to carry on your brilliant quest for the truth.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    On the evidence you have supplied, you were not told that you were going to be interviewed in conjunction with anyone else, or be called upon to debate. I assume you did not even know that Simons was going to be there? On the other hand, Simons not only knew he was going to debate someone, and specifically you, but he had the time to dig out and prepare an out of context quotation of your own words to poke you with.

    If those are the facts, well, what a conniving, entrapping bunch of bastards. J

  • Ba'al Zevul

    I can only say that Craig’s opposition to antisemitism has been explicit, firm and consistent since i’ve been commenting here, and I will testify to that. The technique is a familiar one: wind the victim up, get him to say something ill-considered in his rage, sue. And I have little doubt that this is approved by BICOM.

    Bastards.

  • Jayne Venables

    Have read it all and feel exhausted for you. This is no reflection on your Defence, your forced participation, but I was left feeling as I used to feel years ago, sorting out playground arguments. The image of the game of ‘Pick up Sticks’ flashed momentarily, a precariously erected pile.

    Of course, though absurd this is no game and is terribly serious. What stood out for me was the most unexpected inclusion of a third party to the Sky interview and the impact that any suggestion of antisemitism would have on you. A body blow.

    I have read numerous of your blog posts and tweets, and see you as very obviously passionately anti-racism in all its darkest forms. Your commentary, and the healthy debate it ignites, has always clarified issues for me and bathed me in a sense of universal shared humanity. I listened to you speak in Leeds recently and heard only the voice of compassionate reason.

    I believe our donations, and the speed of response to your plea, reflect a chorus of support for the voice you so courageously give to our pursuit of truth and justice, reason and humanity, in a world spinning off its axis. I hope this case is dropped. It makes no sense to me.

  • MichaelK

    This does appear to have been a… ‘trap’, which CM, having an ‘off day’ walked into. Being an idealistic and decent person does have severe disadvantages when dealing with situations and people like these, who, as they are involved in a ‘war’ to defend Israel’s interests, have no scruples about the methods they employ.

    Journalists do this kind of thing, ‘trap’ an individual, usually someone with ‘radical’ or ‘non-consensus’ views… all the time. One thinks one is being interviewed about one thing then suddenly one finds one isn’t and is, in fact, being interrogated about something completely different and taking part in a ‘rigged’ debate where the host is manipulating the situation for all it’s worth to fit a hidden agenda. The script has been written in advance and the ‘story’ they want to tell isn’t the same one one signed on for. The host isn’t
    ‘neutral’ at all, but a partisan in a public humiliation which verges on character assassination, live and one air, witnessed by thousands.

    Can one learn from this appalling episode? Yes, one can. First, never, never, ever, call someone repeatedly a ‘liar’ on live television. That’s an incredibly stupid, unecessary and dangerous thing to do… even if it’s true. One opens oneself up to a world of pain if one does so. Second, don’t think that attacking people, or Israel, regardless of whether one is ‘right’ or not, is ever going to be a ‘fair fight.’ Attack somone or a place that’s vastly more powerful and with limitless resources, compared to oneself… and one is sooner or later going to get hammered. To procede, regardless, is asking for trouble; it’s also stupid and stunningly naive and dangerous.

    Relying on tainted and severely weakened bourgeois institutions and values, which are ‘fashionable’ anymore, as we move headlong into a totalitarian age, the age of ‘liberal totalitarianism’, is foolish. There is no great liberal, democratic, block or movement anymore that gives a flying fuck for freedom of speech. It’s over. Just examine the Guardian’s pages for the proof. So one has no allies there willing to cover the issues fairly and truthfully. Look at the way they’ve turned on Julian Assange for Christ’s sake!

    I feel profoundly sorry for CM and the situation he finds himself in. But I’m not surprised. For years I’ve been concerned, and I think I’ve even expressed my concerns to him, that he was ‘sailing close to the wind’ and was almost, for whatever reason, asking to be sued for libel by someone. This sounds harsh. I couldn’t understand why he’d do this so recklessly when the consequences could be so dire.

    Personally, I don’t own anything anymore as I’ve tranferred every property, investment and all the cash to my wife and kids, as a precaution. It means, I hope, that no one can really sue me for libel. So now I have to ask my wife to kindly send Craig a check for a couple of hundred as she controls the purse strings.

  • Robert Crawford

    Good morning Craig and fellow supporters,

    Is a degree in “creative writing” the same as creative accounting?
    I reckon all newspapers are masters of creative writing.

    Ruth hit the nail on the head when she wrote, “we need you to carry on your brilliant quest for the truth”. Well done Ruth.
    These people travel without ruth.
    They will not bankrupt you Craig, we will not allow it!

    My cheque is on it’s way to you to keep the pot boiling. More is available if needed. It is a gift you can use as you so choose.

    No surrender!

    FREEDOM!!!

  • John C

    This is Alice-in-Wonderland stuff whereby what starts as an egregious libel by the claimant (accusing the defendant of anti-semitism in a live TV debate) goes to court accusing the defendant of libel for his spontaneous self-defence!

    The claimant’s case rests on the denial of the definitional importance of context. Context is a casualty of twitter and also I dare say of time-poor network news debates, which promote dramatic confrontation, but context is the bread & butter of a High Court judge.

    I hope too that the High Court will dismiss Paragraph 2 of the Reply. This sleight of hand goes very much to the false heart of the claim. There is indeed a world of difference between Israel and [a] concept of Israel, namely, for example, the political concept adopted by Zionism. If this political concept is identified ontologically with the religious being of Israel, then political criticism of the state of Israel is impossible.

    English libel law is indeed renowned for the oppressive weight it gives to reputation. However, historically, those who have sought to use it as a sword have often come a cropper. Pity Oscar Wilde and Jonathan Aitken both. I hope Jake Wallis Simons comes to the same end as David Irving.

  • shugsrug

    I have watched the interview with Craig Murray and Jake Simons.
    It is hard to see where Mr Simons suffered any damage. He came through the accusation of being called a liar well. Any reasonable person watching would have been more impressed with Mr Simons than Mr Murray. As a ‘good’ journalist they would have confidence that he knew his brief, which he came across as knowing well. It is hard to see why anyone would post the interview on line to damage Mr Simons, as it is clear that Mr Murray has been well and truly caught out. If anyone did post it, then they have done Mr Simons a favour.
    I can understand why Mr Simons would dislike being called a liar, but it seems to me that he won the argument and if anything his reputation was enhanced. Craig duly apologised.
    Craig Murray on the other hand probably damaged his own reputation in front of the average viewer.
    I can only hope the judge can see through the whole charade.
    I can not therefore see that there is really a case to answer, but then I am no expert.

  • Peter Beswick

    I think I must be missing something here; a Minister in the Israeli government says something ludicrous, Craig quotes him and then gives his interpretation of the essence and meaning of the Minister’s statement.

    Then JWS purports, in a recorded interview, not only were these the words Craig used but Craig’s own “manifestation of the oldest hatred of anti anti-Semitism, which has been rebranded for 2016 anti-Zionisn.”

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/10/the-racist-concept-of-israel/

    And Craig’s link to the Minister’s quote

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/29/binyamin-netanyahu-a-chickenshit-say-us-officials-in-explosive-interview

    It is plain to me that the sentiment attributed to Craig’s beliefs were untrue. Craig made it clear that he found these sentiments repugnant;

    “It is rather a vicious racist construct, defined absolutely by race, refusing territorial limits, and with an aggressive theocratic overlay that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world.”

    Taking Craig’s words out of context, hijacking Craig in an interview and confronting Craig with this accusation as proof of his hatred, his anti-semitism albeit rehatched as anti-Zionism………………… was not, is not and will not ever be true!

    I think Craig was unwise to put himself into that situation but once in it he was justified, imo, in defending himself vehemently. Not having the precise mis-attributed texts at his fingertips did not dilute Craig’s fundamental instincts that the vile things that were being said about him were viscously untrue.

    • Rob Royston

      That’s how it looks to me as well, Craig needs powerful support to turn this round.
      Added to that, as someone has said earlier, he has already apologised for calling the claimant a liar but the claimant accused him of anti-Semitism first and has not apologised.

  • Foob

    This is petty stuff. A kinda “ma dah said this”. I am surprised the courts allowed such a petty moan on the part of the claimant. The one thing it does do, is prove your point. Any critic of current Israel are targeted in such a manner by way of shutting them down. And accusing people of anti-semitism is the way they do it. Even the tribal quote is not anti-semitic as in the context of it’s use doesn’t target that tribe, just the government for cynical use of it.

  • sarah scott

    Good Luck with this Craig. They are trying to legislate against free speech whilst controlling the narrative. A pox on all their houses, which they probably stole from their rightful owners. In fact him suing you and putting your home at risk is how they do business. Theft, rape and pillage.

  • Alpha Geek

    Why is it that he just “jotted it down”? Had he taken a screenshot, well that would be proof, but anybody can just “jot stuff down”. Is this man incapable of using a computer properly?

    • Peter Beswick

      “just jotted down this morning”

      This is crucial! If it was something researched on the morning of the interview and “jotted down” it should have become obvious to JWS that he had wrong footed Craig.

      JWS should have realised after the interview that the statement he made using his hurried notes constituted a monstrous insinuation on Craig’s character and reputation.

      When Craig apologised for his “liar” defence, JWS should have apologised for putting Craig into an impossible situation with the unfortunate implication that came accross as a false accusation that Craig was an antisemite.

      That’s how it should had panned out.

      So why didn’t it?

      Two egos had locked horns?

      Another explanation might be that the notes weren’t hurriedly written but rather well researched and execution planned. If there is evidence that JWS had been gunning for Craig he and his cause are in a very much worse place than Craig is right now.

  • Ishmael

    I just found the interview. It’s very worrying that someone users a subjective (& vague) opinion of “hatred” & overlays it on those who have options critical of Israel state actions.

    He is asserting this is true with no evidence to back it. And indeed there can be no evidence to back how someone perceives criticism. To then label it as “common sense” is imo trying to put smoke in the eyes by presenting it as some plane “truth”.

    I have lately been far more CRITICAL of the Yemen situation in previous tweets & public conversations than the Israel one, but such truths are obviously an anathema to people wanting to construct their own reality about things. And indeed this I do regard as harmful to people who should not feel “hated” just because because of a specific political stance against some policy. This drives an imaginary wedge between “peoples” …That is if you have such a fixed bordered view of cultural identity, which I don’t.

    But anyway this was just a personal spat that someone recorded on camera, it seems to me. Absurd to take it to this extreme, really absurd.

    • Ishmael

      That quote was taken out of context, It seems decency would require an apology, as I understand you did for the name calling?

      And this unfortunate event could be put an end to.

1 2 3 4