Jake Wallis Simons v Craig Murray 252

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.

252 thoughts on “Jake Wallis Simons v Craig Murray

1 2 3 4
  • giyane

    My ex was a Mond, the vast family portraits painted for stately homes having been scissored into mere postcards for humble Holland Park size house. She also had an advisor who was a leading Zionist diplomat through the first and second world wars. From my own experience you will get chewed and spat out by a hurricane of lies touching on the law, the police, your personal reputation, your personal sanity and much more in this contest.

    However it is often said that what doesn’t kill you will make you stronger. The Qur’an has some verses to the effect that humans are made in the best mould, and then can be broken down to the lowest of the low, Except for those who believe and trust in God, and for these is a promise of eternal reward.
    What is God’s purpose for this devastating trial? It is so that after you have found a connection to God, nobody will be able to come along and persuade you to be a murderous terrorist, or a multiple mortgage contributor to Bankster compound interest. If you survive this test, all other tests will be easily trashed.

    One thing I am 100% convinced of is this: The hearts of man/womankind are in the absolute control of God. If He wills He can place a judge at the hearing who will instantly and crushingly dismiss the absurd pack of lies of the Claimant and make them or the Daily Mail pay all the costs. Have faith in the possibility of justice. the world is full of professionals cowering in silence to maintain their positions and their jobs, but not all of them are the same.

    You can never lose if you hold onto the truth, in fact other verses of the Qur’an state that All man/woman kind is in 100% loss except those who proclaim truth and are patient with the backlash. You are on a total win-win.
    Satan’s plan is weak. 1/ it intimidates you with having secret knowledge about you. That is why spying is Satanic. 2/ it scares you with catastrophic loss, which is not going to happen because you’ll be able to live in a nice Scottish council house 3/ it makes you fear the power of theocrats who distort the meaning of the scriptures for personal power and wealth. 4/ it lies/distorts the truth.

    God is on the side of the victims of oppression and the speakers of truth. But our purpose on this earth is to be put to the test, sheep and goats, to see if we acknowledge our Creator and all the myriad blessings of life given us. Kick satan, its plan is weak. Anyway Craig, you’re the best.

  • MichaelK

    I’m not an idealist, or much of a believer in the syubstance of the core liberal bourgeois ‘freedoms’, but we all have our faults. The central point is how much it’s gonna cost to prove one’s innocence of the charge one is, in fact, not anti-semetic. This could easily become… prohibitive, both in time, money and stress. The truth is, as, with so much in life, one gets the justice one can pay for.

    I’m also a bit uneasy about the number of people who seem to want to see CM take on the mantle of the ‘hero’ or ‘martyr’ whilst they watch safely from the sidelines. Be your own fucking heroes!

    There are so many grotesque ironies here. Israel repeatedly demanding that it has a right to exist, whilst at the same time refusing Palestine the right to exist by occupying, controling and subjugating its people and territory. Israel’s brazen ‘anti-semeticism’ directed at another semetic people… the Palestinians. The pretense that Israel’s myths and legends… the entire Old Testament, gives them real legal rights to territory and legitmacy in the modern world. And on, and on, and on.

    Israel and Israel’s supporters are engaged in a campaign designed to conflate criticism of the Israeli State and its crimes and actions, an opposition to the central tenets of Zionism… with anti-semetism… Nazi style. They have been remarkably successful in recent years. Virtually the entire western media has been cowed except for a handful of increasingly marginalized figures. There’s very little money in confronting Israel and its myths and legends, however absurd they are.

  • MJ

    The comment from Simons that really got Craig hot under the collar was, apparently quoting Craig: “Israel, quote, “claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world””.

    This is indeed a lie. Craig does not say or mean that. He is not referring to Israel. Simons makes that bit up.

    • Geoffrey

      This is a good point. Craig, you did not say in your blog that “Israel claims tribal superiority over the rest of the world “. You were correct to say that this is a lie. He misquoted you . It is also out of context. The meaning that claimant attempts to imply by the incorrect quote ie that you are saying that Israelis claim they rule the world. Whilst what you said in your blog was that it was ludicrous that Netanyahu could claim to speak for all Jews around the world.
      The difference is obvious and clear.
      Your reaction in the interview was unfortunate though,you appeared to be caught off guard,and you over reacted to a clever taunt. You also looked like you hadn’t been up too long,and no one had bothered to tell you that shirt collar was stuck under your jumper !
      Good luck.

  • Caroline

    Please don’t feel ashamed or humiliated in asking for money. Instead be proud that you are brave enough to stand up for what you believe in and speak the truth. This whole thing stinks to high heaven and looks like a set-up to me. I’ve made a minuscule donation of a fiver (times are hard!😊) but hope that all the smaller donations add up and help. I saw you speak at the Chomsky Conference in February and thought you were terrific. Stay strong and don’t let the bastards grind you down.

    • craig Post author

      I think the key point is that there is no jury (sadly) to be influenced. I am allowed to publish the above docs. If people comment, they comment.

      It is worth saying that while I accept the jurisdiction of the English High Court over the Sky News broadcast, which was transmitted by an English based broadcaster, I do not accept the jurisdiction of the English High Court over this blog, which is not written, hosted, registered or anything else in England. I might end up having to go to prison over that one.

      • Trowbridge H. Ford

        You haven’t answered my questions, Craig. A judge can be influenced by public opinion in his ruling, and even make up law as he goes along.

        I certainly would have thought twice about allowing posters here respond to any libel case I confronted in the UK, though I too believe in free discussions. That’s why I have always relied upon the sites of others to post my comments. Edward Chanter who ran codshit.com told me he could not afford the process when i got interested in what happened to the al-Hillis et al. Then I came here. Think it was the real beginning of your problems back in 2012.

        • craig Post author

          I thought I answered them. It understand that he general presumption the law takes is that a judge isn’t going to be influenced by blog comments. I don’t think any of this has anything remotely to do with the al-Hillis.

      • Neil

        How come there is no jury? I’d always thought libel trials were decided by juries? Or do you have to take it to a higher court to get a jury trial? With yet more expense?

        Otherwise all the govt. has to do is have a quiet word with the legal authorities, who will appoint a raving military-Zionist judge, who will of course be careful not to reveal that affiliation too obviously.. And then you’re fucked. Fucked Big Time.

        These vile people must not be allowed to get away with this outrage. You have my support 100%.

      • nevermind

        Hmm, in my personal view you are still and EU citizen and hence subject to their laws, as much as to the ancient levers of establishment, the libel laws.
        Could you ask for the case to be thrown for as being lodged in an inappropriate court, as the claimant clearly refers to your Dutch based blog?

        merely thinking aloud.

  • Willem

    Fighting for a good cause was never so easy.

    I just made a donation and feel very good about it. I am happy to send more, when needed.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    Yes, you called him a liar. And he’s a noble, upright journalist, who will be reduced to begging in the streets as a result. I await with interest the multiple prosecutions of Donald Trump by American journalists for doing exactly the same thing.

  • Jon

    It is odd that a claimant who cares about his reputation would be willing to take on such a mercenary lawyer. I mean, if this lawyer is threatening people (and by extension their families) with bankruptcy, one would hope a fine and upstanding journalist would be concerned about that. Even if they work for the Daily Mail.

    • Ba'al Zevul

      If he’s threatening, it’s a fair bet he’s unhappy about the solidity of his case. I imagine he’d make more out of a conviction than a settlement.

    • Ishmael

      This was my thinking on this. It makes him look like a real nasty bit of work. I don’t know if it was a “set up” and even giving the most generous interpretation of events, that calling him liar could be “technically” untrue, it still makes him look like one for pursuing this.

      Eg, ‘O someone did what iv done, let’s destroy him totally & him his whole family for speaking his opinion’… Clearly this kind of thought and action is akin to brutal authoritarians, that one would assume someone claiming high moral standing would be against having associated with them.

      • Jon

        My other related thought was that calling someone a liar could only be libelous if it is found the speaker knew the statement to be untrue at the time they said it. I presume the fact that Craig was speaking the truth to the best of his knowledge at the time is not being contested.

      • Shatnersrug

        The problem is Ismael, that it’s extremely hard to prove that someone is a liar and not just misguided – in public life you must say that some told an untruth. Liar is technically an insult.

        Were this a juried trial it might be possible to to convince a jury that the plaintive is a liar, although there is a great difference between telling a lie and being a liar – a liar would be someone who cannot ever tell the truth. Funnily enough I think the only human that might be able to fit that description would be a Daily Mail journalist.

        However with a judge and no jury I don’t expect Craig would get a fair hearing.

        Maybe craig should consider selling his worldly goods to his wife for a fiver and go bankrupt now. It only lasts 7 years.

  • RC

    On the face of it, and based purely on the video, I would say that “technically” they will find you liable.
    Save them the pleasure of bankrupting you and settle out of court using the donations so far.
    You are up against a machine with far more influence than good people could imagine.

    • Ishmael

      Even if this was the case to justify this kind of sum as “damages” ? …Justice? That is a mockery of justice, worse.

      It was Craig who was misrepresented here, and is that not in fact lying? Are people really saying a judge is going find this journalist did not know the context of the quote? It is surly the job or duty of one to represent a full truth when making the alligation he did.

      What he said was a untruthful, a lie,

  • Tony_0pmoc

    Having just watched the video of The TV Broadcast, it is completely obvious, that the critical legal point, the Claimant has been defamed, is complete and utter total nonsense. To any impartial observer, the Claimant came out of the debate exceedingly well, and his reputation would have been enhanced.

    Meanwhile, Craig Murray, was dressed appallingly, looked terrible, and fell into the trap, hook, line and sinker, that had almost certainly been pre-prepared for him to fall in.

    To sue him, under such circumstances, is the equivalent George Soros, suing a tramp, cos the tramp said to him, that you stink.


  • Julian

    It’s very odd and I believe unusual not to sue the “publisher” of the alleged libel, as well as the person that did it: i.e. Sky News. I expect your defence team will make the court aware of this.

    I also agree with the other commentators that a countersuit is in order. This is not Queensberry rules, but an attempt to bury you, so fighting back is the best way.

    With best wishes, we are all in your corner!

  • Suhayl Saadi

    It’s absurd. This ought never have come to court. Yes, the choice of words on air perhaps were ill-judged and the mistake was made. A simple retraction and apology would have been sufficient. Might there be a political agenda here? The absurdity becomes Voltairean when one thinks about how often truth and The Daily Mail have been coterminous.

  • Phil the ex-frog

    Donated. Good luck.

    Obviously Craig is still a self-important liberal defender of capital with a laughable position on free speech.

  • David Halpin FRCS

    There is something especially obscene about the crucifixion of Craig in our ‘justice’ ”system”. The silks, the wigs and the ‘Miluds’, and all the guineas debate mere words whereas there is no justice for the subject people for its unending and terrible suffering by the Jewish State (its preferred title.)

    Any doubts, including those of Mr Simons might be banished by Abby Martin, a journalist who was on RT
    Or this, a certain garrotting, written up by me.
    The masters insisted on suicide as the verdict.

    • Tony_0pmoc

      David Halpin FRCS,

      I discovered the truth, re some of the content of your post, about 6 years ago a few days before Christmas. I knew it was true, because it was backed up, by an official EU report. To me, it was very personal. I found it incredibly hard to handle, that such evil existed. I couldn’t tell my wife, and I certainly couldn’t tell my ex. I was obviously in emotional distress, and I tried to tell a very good professional friend of mine, who deals with trauma on a daily basis. Even she couldn’t handle it. She said, “Tony – I can’t handle this. please don’t tell me any more”

      It ruined my Christmas, but some of the human race are that evil, and it is still going on now.

      Craig Murray’s “Cook in Pot”, has nothing on this.


  • frankywiggles

    Just seen the sky interview this legal case is based upon. This country is finished if its laws would allow such an obviously good man as Craig to be ruined for such transparently ill intentions. As for Mr Wallis Simpson, he fits to a tee Liam Neeson’s description of Tim Roth’s character in the movie Rob Roy: “A stoat of a man”.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    This is a link to the TV Broadcast. Neither my Mum, nor my wife, would let me out of the house looking like that – and yet Craig Murray appears on live TV. Is your collar half in or half out, and when was the last time your red jumper had a wash? The background is also appalling. It looks like you are on your way to jail. You would look better if you had just been released wearing an Orange jump suit.

    Smarten up, wear a tie, and sue the bastards. Sometimes the best, only, means of defence, is to attack. It is you who have been defamed. Your defamation is potentially very much more, than what The Claimant is claiming from you. You have been accused of the most atrocious things (of which you are completely innocent) yet you immediately admitted your mistake, and apologised.

    Go for £1M – potential loss of earnings, and when you win the case, apply for your old job back, but wear a suit at the interview.

    “Jake Wallis Simons on Sky News”


    Good luck,


      • Tony_0pmoc

        Sharp Ears.

        I am not knocking Craig. His appearance adds massively to the legal argument, in his Defence. Craig can look, and behave completely Magnificently in The Highest Courts of Law in The UK.

        “Craig Murray – Torture 1 of 7”
        Published on 28 Apr 2009
        Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Provides Evidence on UK Government Complicity in Torture.
        UN Convention Against Torture
        Joint Committee on Human Rights”



      • Shatnersrug

        Why are people on this blog obsessed with Craig’s clothes? I’ve like that he’s relaxed in his dress.

        • Tony_0pmoc


          Well, (despite my age) I think I look pretty cool in my birthday suit, but only when it is incredibly hot, and there is a nice warm sea to swim in, and everyone looks the same.


          Have you ever arrived, at such a place, and you had no idea and almost everyone is nude?

          The social pressure to conform is overwhelming…and the vast majority of us comply.

          Its a tribal thing.

          I do have a suit and tie. I bought it from Asda for about £40…

          but most of the time, I look like how Craig Murray dressed himself before going on TV.


    • nevermind

      Good to hear from you Suhayl, would have liked to buy you a G/T at DTRH, but you are a busy man…..

      @Tony, you might have been brought up in school uniform and with many BBC headlines pointing to the attire of royals etc.PM’s etc, and how nice they all looked in their Amani suits, judder judder, a shot of leopard shoes and blue dresses, blah blah blah. INCONSEQUENTIAL!
      The perception of the public by looking at Craigs cloth might have ticked him off as a scruff, but your reiteration of utterly useless points to suit your ancient Zeitgeist, twice over is rather boring.
      but we like you, not always, but anyway……

  • Jon

    Do please keep us updated with your tally of donations Craig, by way of post updates, if there are no strategic reasons that you should not do so. I suspect people will be more inclined to donate if they can see progress being made.

    On a general note, does anyone know if Paypal will charge fees for donations? It would perhaps be a good idea for cheques or bank transfers to be preferred, if Paypal are going to take a cut.

    • Node

      On a general note, does anyone know if Paypal will charge fees for donations?

      Yes, probably 2.9% plus 20p per transaction. These are relatively moderate charges in the grand scheme of usury, so this is probably as good a method as you are going to find to make it quick and easy to donate. However larger donations would be better

      It would perhaps be a good idea for cheques or bank transfers to be preferred …

      Good idea for larger donations. Craig should publish his account number, sortcode, and a reference phrase (such as “LEGAL FUND”) so that donations made by direct bank transfer can be easily recognised.

      • Jon

        Hey Node. Yeah, 3% is a whole bunch better than was expecting – I was thinking more than double that rate.

  • Ian

    What preposterous set of claims. It seems that the heart of the matter is that you mistakenly called him a liar. However, since you admitted your mistake three days later, publicly, and apologised, and had no power to compel Sky News to issue a correction, then the only remaining issue is the damage he suffered. It is of course notable, that he is unable to evidence any damage at all to his reputation. Apart from the relatively low viewing figures (i.e. nothing compared to say BBC or ITV news), there would be evidence on electronic or published media of people repeating Craig’s claim and taking it to be true, and thus repeating the slur. In addition he would be able to offer evidence of financial damage in less commissions and published writing. I strongly doubt there is any such evidence.
    Of course, in line with the usual tactics of the Israel lobby, he will try to major on the antisemitism charge. However, there is no supporting evidence for this either, since antisemites will have a history of antisemitic statements and activities. It is obvious to anyone reading the contested phrase in context that Craig is referring to the influence of one sector in israel – the fundamentalist, hardcore religious right. If it is not permitted to observe and discuss this factor in Israeli politics, then this superhero lawyer will have to sue half of the Jewish people in Israel, many of whom are equally concerned at the growing influence of the religious right. Just have a look at Gideon Levy’s recent demolition of zionism in Haaretz as one tiny example. Clearly Craig was making a political point, concerning the views and influence of one section of Israeli society, and not one about either Jewish people in general, or even israel as a whole.
    This is the most frivolous claim, and a good judge would recommend a token amount paid to this claimant in order to recognise the mistaken accusation of being a liar (and perhaps Craig should make an offer, so that the judge can see he has done everything to correct his admitted error) and everything else should be thrown out, as political debate and analysis is emphatically allowed in this country, even if you disagree with it.

    • Ian

      Furthermore, the attacks on Craig’s reputation via this Sky interview and this claim, are far more egregious than Craig’s initial mistake.

      • Suhayl Saadi

        Very few people would’ve known about any of this – but the Doctor of Philosophy from the Mail has made it certain that many, many more will know. So, in the end, by amplifying the whole silly affair, and going after a media whistle blower in this way, it could be argued, or alleged, that he has damaged his own reputation. Perhaps he should sue himself.

        • lysias

          But the point isn’t to save his reputation, it’s to destroy Craig, and thus to intimidate anybody else who might consider uttering heretical opinions.

  • Dec

    It is puzzling you do not defend the accusation of lying itself.
    He said you said Israel claimed tribal superiority whereas you said the concept of Israel had an overlay that claimed it, which is not the same thing, just as saying that someone has a small dick is not the same as saying someone is small. Worse, the journalist’s distortion is itself malicious, as it is coupled to the equation of anti-Semitism and anti-zionism, and is clearly a misreading of what you said.

    • Ishmael

      “is clearly a misreading of what you said”

      My impression so far is a judge is going accept an effectively juvenile panting of a persons mentality, even if he’s a grown man and a journalist who’s job it’s meant to be to consider one sentence related to another.

      Wouldn’t be surprised if recess for dummy sucking was also allowed.

    • craig Post author

      I don’t have any choice over the Sky interview. Sky is an English based broadcaster and the broadcast was therefore published” in England. But as regards the proposed injunction on my blog, which is published in Scotland, not they cannot do that. They would need to go to a Scottish court.

      • Suhayl Saadi

        In such situations, on cannot help but posit whether one aim might be to tie-up – and hence, inhibit the effectiveness of – the activist in years of ‘Bleak House’ legal wraggles. At the risk of seeming paranoid, it might be interesting to hypothesise that this may not be simply one man’s wounded ego but an organised attack, with one or more states involved?

        • Deepgreenpuddock

          Have been hesitating to pass comment but you are echoing my thoughts.

          I think it s important to remember that an appalling injustice has been inflicted on the Palestinians over decades, and that an attempt to redress this by speaking out in their support, even if the words are clumsily constructed, is not an appropriate target for what looks like a malicious, contrived, and vindictive, attempt to suppress a legitimate perspective.
          In relation to the possibility that this incident was contrived as an ‘ambush’ with the intention to to provoke-it seems that the matter revolves around the partial sentence that was in the blog (and Craig did not remember writing) ,it seems to me that it was naive of Craig to go on air without prior warning that he was to be asked about the meaning of his particular phrase/words. In other words, it is also mendacious to spring such a question on someone without a prior warning.
          The point being that , in terms of understanding what other people are saying, or trying to say, it is important to approach this process with good faith, and it seems that such a tactic does not indicate good faith on the part of the complainer, and does not show proper control , fair -minded and sincere attempt to provide an unbiased platform. IOW, Sky news has exploited this situation for its sensational potential, and may even have colluded with the complainer to place Craig in a difficult position. It seems inconceivable that having set up this interview, Sky news did not ask the complainer about the nature and quality of his question and exercise some degree of judgement to not place an interviewee in an iniquitous or difficult position.

  • Ishmael

    Maybe this is just for me. But was just thinking we should allow our hears to be warm, and consider the companionship and support we have.

    Though I would never now wish it on another human now (yes I used to be full of hate, though it still has it’s place less personally directed) Let those who have chosen to worship Mammon or whatever other superficial or illusory things be chilled. It’s hard to accept but it is a choice we all have to some degree.

    Even when things are meant to personally harm I think people can extend themselves past such intentions. I certainly feel it healthy to do so no matter what situations we face.

  • Sharp Ears

    From Jonathan Cook 7 HOURS AGO, in the belly of the beast, Nazareth.

    Criminal indictments loom large for Israeli PM
    Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife are both facing potential charges, raising questions about the prime minister’s future.


    It is a litany of greed and corruption but as the Attorney General is a Netanyahu appointee, I bet nothing happens to the horrible twosome.

    Jonathan Cook concludes by quoting Warschawski (an Israeli political analyst) who ‘ warned that a cornered Netanyahu could prove dangerous. “He desperately needs distractions from these scandals,” he said. “A ready-made target is always Gaza. The danger is that he tries to heat up things there and starts a war.”‘

    We hope not for the nth time. They were given names – Protective Edge, Summer Rains, Pillar of Defence, Cast Lead.

  • Pete Barton

    Craig, I may not always agree with your viewpoint, I may not want to defend to the death your right to express your views, but I’m damned if freedom to debate will be snuffed out.
    If it’s transpires you have defamed him, my fifteen quid will go some way towards nullifying the consequences.
    If not, you can serve me a pint at the Doune next year.
    Cheque forwarded to you; now stop worrying, you will always have a place to stay, even if it’s at my hoose.

  • Ed Dingilian

    Lewis should be sued for libel, except that whatever the outcome, it would be a of fool’s mission because of the cost.

    Nonetheless, your blog with these posts and their dissemination put the record straight and inform the rest of the world as to the draconian efforts of Lewis and Simons to gag any opposition to Israel’s gross violations of human rights.

    Keep up the good fight. There are many of us in the States who are grateful for your principled stand against torture and your bearing witness (albeit not reported in the US mainstream media) that in July, 2017, that the DNC emails were ‘hacked’ not leaks to put the lie to this whole manufactured Russia-gate mess.

    God bless you.

  • Andrea

    What’s the latest update on how much you’ve managed to raise? I second Jon in that receiving more updates on the fundraising progress might well influence its momentum.

    I hope you can overcome your embarrassment about asking your readers for money. This is easily one of the most refreshing blogs/ media outlets out there, it’s free and you’ve never asked for anything. You’ve constantly put yourself out on the line. You’ve earned this, it’s the least we can do.

  • Dugarbandier

    What the Claimant stated:

    “Israel, quote, “claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world.””

    What the Defendant wrote in the blog post:

    “This extraordinary remark by Bennett lays bare the fundamental flaw in the very concept of Israel. It is not a modern state, defined as a territory and comprising all the various citizens of whatever descent who live within it. 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.”

    The original paragraph can be read in two different ways:
    1) the concept of Isreal makes the claim of tribal superiority
    2) the theocratic overlay makes the claim of tribal superiority

    The Claimant has used the first interpretation (while treating the term ‘concept of’ as redundant), whereas the second interpretation is equally if not more valid.

    If the Defendant originally penned the paragraph with the second interpretation in mind, then it is entirely reasonable that he would fail to recall making a statement with the first interpretation.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    Here is another instance of Simons’ methodology. A classic bait-and-switch on Piers Corbyn, during the demonisation of Jeremy C,

    Scroll down to ‘Jake the Fake’ and note the reference to this blog, too.

    I make no claims for the sanity of other pieces on the site, but the record seems clear enough in this instance.

      • Sharp Ears

        Good find.

        Btw the CST have been given special treatment by the charity commission.
        The CST trustees were granted anonymity.

        Its operatives are/were trained by the Met.


        The CC chair is Sir Wm Shawcross.

        ‘In 2008 he became a Patron of the Wiener Library and in 2011 he joined the board of the Anglo-Israel Association and was appointed to the board of the Henry Jackson Society.’

        Income £14m. !!!

      • giyane

        I have never given any thought to Israel’s internal politics, but the ambush of Piers Corbyn by Jake the Make in your link reminds me of a group of left-wing journalists I met in Israel in 1973. I had been invited to join an Australian on his visit to Israel on his way to university in the UK. They took me all the sites, including Quneitra, with a running commentary on everything from their micro-political point of view. They joked about family breakdown in Palestine and about Israeli politics.

        As soon as I myself arrived at university I applied to join the Arab society, because their talk had sickened me. Their political left-ness seemed to have no bearing on their attitude to the Palestinians. It seemed as though their leftist cause was opposition to the moral orthodoxy of both Islam and their own religion. Their Israel was a glorious sexual free-for-all. Maybe that’s how in some small Israeli political cliques, leftism, feminism and Islamic jihad all get dumped into the same category. Leftism uses the slogan of rebellion, feminism uses the slogan of heterosexuality and Islamic jihad creates a justification for Israel being armed to the teeth and continuously repressing its own citizens.

        intellectually, these Israeli cliques are just kids messing around with big words they don’t know the meaning of, which somehow capture their vision of Israel, as a beach-bum society protected by a vast supply of armaments, with only occasional forays into military service. Jake Lewis meets the job criteria of the Daily Mail perfectly. No intellect whatsoever, no compassion or reaching out to others’ lives, instant gratification of desires, a love of spying and peeking into others foibles. No wonder he has risen high.

        How the heck did Craig Murray political analyst and fearless truth-seeker manage to get his bum landed on by this intellectual mosquito who doesn’t have the smallest shred of reputation to defend anyway?

      • Ishmael

        Someone needs to get on top of this shit (no not him personally but the stuff that incudes him) and nail it down.

        I guess all this coming to light as a result is a good thing.

        • Ishmael

          Fact is these people are totally isolated, compare the twitter account with Craigs.

          Someone in the press, do your dam job. It’ll feel good I promise.

      • Tony_0pmoc

        Ba’al Zevul,

        Fascinating link, very eloquently written, and highly relevent to the topic under discussion, to which your own contributions have been very impressive. I am a big fan of Piers Corbyn, and anyone clever enough to get into Imperial College to study physics. I used to go gliding with some of them at Lasham.

        I suspect ‘Jake the Fake’ will soon become a cropper. Such nonsense cannot go on for much longer.


  • Stew

    You should set a bitcoin payment option, people might be inclined to donate if they thought they could remain anonymous

  • Nick Kollerstrom

    Craig Murray sort of asked for it – first of all he gave what has to be the
    best definition ever of the state of Israel – “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.”

    Jake S. then avers that CM has said, Israel ‘claims tribal superiority over
    the entire rest of the world.’
    Craig then flatly denied this and called Jake S a liar. On Sky TV, peak
    viewing. He cooked his goose.

    • Ishmael

      He asked for his life and his families to be turned upside-down, bankrupt, for expressing an opinion. Did he?

      How long before it’s straight up execution.

      I find this attitude abhorrent.

    • John Spencer-Davis

      I don’t think that’s true. Simons’s statement was, in fact, false. Simons denies that there is a difference between “Israel” and “the concept of Israel”. I do not agree. The “concept of Israel” is what is apparently in the mind of Bennett and similar state functionaries, that is clear from the blog post. Murray in fact draws a sharp contrast between that and a “state”:

      “This extraordinary remark by Bennett lays bare the fundamental flaw in the very concept of Israel. It is not a modern state, defined as a territory and comprising all the various citizens of whatever descent who live within it. 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.” It is this overlay that claims tribal superiority, and Murray provides direct evidence of this overlay in the words of Bennett.

      A court may not accept this argument, but actually I would be surprised if it did not. Simons is trying to weasel out of a verbal trick he played on Murray by twisting his words to mean what they did not in fact mean. I don’t think a court will be impressed. J

    • Ba'al Zevul

      That issue is simply one of grammar. Let’s parse it, in outline.

      It (Israel) is a rather vicious racial construct …subject, verb, object.
      defined absolutely by race – subordinate adjectival clause, subject is ‘It’
      refusing territorial limits – ditto
      and with an aggressive theocratic overlay – ditto
      that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world. – subordinate adjectival clause. Subject is clearly indicated by ‘that’ and can refer to nothing other than the ‘theocratic overlay’. Not ‘It’

      The question of for whom or for what the ‘tribal claim of superiority’ is made, remains open. But it is the ‘theocratic overlay’ which makes it. Which is entirely consistent with the Old Testament’s frequent references to the favoured status of the Tribes (sic) of Israel.

      I refer you, M’lud, to this electronically generated page on what young people, I believe, call the ‘internet’ :


    • Deepgreenpuddock

      I think this may be an important point.
      The quote is prefaced by ‘Israel’ quote ..” claims ………tribal superiority..etc ”
      In fact the quotation misses out ‘who’ claims superiority-and falsely inserts ‘Israel’.
      It is the ‘theocratic overlay’ that CM says ” claims tribal superiority etc” (not Israel)

      That is quite different to the claim and it is not unreasonable to suggest that theocratic elements within Judaism claim might some kind of superiority. (i.e such claims are frequently associated with extreme religious convictions or interpretations.

      Also important is the qualification to the quote used. That is : the assertion by the claimant that ‘anti-semitism is masquerading as anti-zionism’. However that assertion is made by reference to the partial quote and ascribed wrongly to ‘Israel’ by the claimant.
      It would be legitimate for CM to not recognise the meaning of the quote as his own, removed as it is from all the qualifying argumentation provided in the blogpost.

      It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the claimant has been carefully and selectively provocative and therefore duplicitous and has contrived this incident for some purpose other than a sincere exploration of the meaning of the quoted phrase.

    • John Spencer-Davis

      It’s not as clear as one might like, but in my opinion the most obvious meaning of “claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world” means that Bennett, on behalf of Netanyahu, insolently claims the allegiance to Netanyahu of the whole Jewish world, including Jewish citizens of other countries, whose allegiance to Netanyahu is certainly not obvious and who may well regard their primary allegiance to be to their country of birth or residence. That’s how I interpret the phrase. J

      • Ba'al Zevul

        O god. We’re doing semiotics now. The nature of the ‘aggressive theocratic overlay’ is not stated in the sentence. You may regard Bennett as part of the overlay. But there’s no need to appeal to that to justify ‘tribal’ and there’s nothing in the sentence to indicate sneering at it, either. The tribal nature of Israel (as a nebulous conceptual whole, as invoked by its nationalist demagogues) is inherent to it, and a matter of record in its sacred texts. And the ‘aggressive theocratic overlay’ is by no means confined to Bennett. Or even new.


        • John Spencer-Davis

          I don’t quite see the need to be so offensive about the matter, and since you obviously have not understood the purpose of my posting, I’m not going to argue with you. I’m just going to give my opinion that the clear sense in which Craig is using the phrase is not to claim that the modern concept of Israel thinks itself superior to the rest of the world, but that it thinks that its claim to the allegiance of Jewish people worldwide is superior to other allegiances. As evidenced by the words of Bennett, which Craig cites. That distinction may turn out to be an important one for Craig, Ba’al. Think it over. I’m not going to comment further. J

          • Ba'al Zevul

            I’ll think over yours when you (read and) think over mine. I wasn’t even discussing Bennett’s remark, which is representative only of Bennett’s views and not necessarily those of the state, the concept or the people of Israel. The theocratic element is fundamental to Jewish identity, and a lot broader than Bennett’s opinion, and the use of the phrase can be justified if he had said nothing. And as soon as we enter the realm in which a ‘concept’ can be said to ‘think’, we are departing that in which rational debate operates.

            Anyhoo, here’s Ha’aretz on the rapidly-fading sense of allegiance held by American Jews towards that concept/state. Note the contribution of young Yair Netanyahu here, And wonder if Simons will sue him:


  • Kevin Laughlin

    I have sympathy for your case, but I would wonder what the effect of weakening the libel laws would be, and surely that would increase the ability of the powerful to defame and ruin the character of somebody they disagreed with?

    • Ishmael

      The “powerful” don’t ruin people. We do, the people.

      libel laws should not exist, they are predicated on the notion (and work within a propagandised society promotes it) that people don’t think for themselves. That’s up to the opinion makers in this oppressive system, that manipulates the people to ruin whoever is deemed as unworthy by the opinion makers.

      It only “works”, makes sense, in a system where people accept the opinion of others without question.

      • Ishmael

        This is something I kept trying to get through to Craig, they don’t have the power, they could not operate without public consent.

        Thus they spend most all their time making sure people think “right” thoughts, because they know were power is.

        • Ishmael

          I think Criag appreciates this in action if not opinion. Because furnished with some facts we will try not to let him be ruined, even given (& because of) the nature of the oppressive unjust system he faces.

      • Kevin Laughlin

        I’m afraid that the powerful do ruin people, in fact this is one of the desires to become powerful, so you have the ability over your rivals to crush their dissent. I think you would have to deal with this fact when making the case for the abolishment of libel laws.

    • Deepgreenpuddock

      Rich and powerful people within the authority of the state or other large vested interests or even ‘authorities’ and public institutions can already do that. It is one of the ways that dissent is inhibited. That is what power and authority(and money ) is for! Wake up!

      • Ishmael

        I am awake.

        Dissent is inhibited via acceptance by the masses, via “large vested interests” (eg the media, law) that people accept without much question.

        I know what money is used for, to manipulate power (the public) eg, by demonising the few who do think for themselves, and allowing them to be persecuted. Eg Craig is (enter slur) Or Julian is a- etc. Why do you think the press and dark players need to constantly demonise them in the PUBLIC EYE. ?
        You know that moment that sometimes happens, when the playground turns on the bully.

        • Ishmael

          Institutions (and money) are quite formless in themselves. They are given ‘power’/form by people, “vested interests” eg a few have taken hold of many of these things. But this is simultaneously striping them of power to operate with legitimacy. like a shit school, nobody gives fuck about the teachers or rules who ain’t helping anything, we know it’s empty and get on ourselves.

          Yea, so I go to prison, stay in detention, big deal. It’s a con.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.