The independent London newspaper

Gulliver is an anti-Semite

05 October, 2017

• HOW dare John Gulliver claim that what Miko Peled actually said, as opposed to denying that the Holocaust ever happened, was to imply that what had happened to the Palestinians could be likened to a “holocaust”, (Fringe meeting of the day, but was I the only reporter there? September 28).

John Gulliver claims, by the whole tenor of his article, to be reporting facts, but by only reporting on what was implied by Miko Peled, and by his specific choice of words, John Gulliver is clearly an anti-Semite.

When do we use the words “a holocaust”? Was the dreadful fire at Grenfell referred to as “a holocaust”? Were the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica referred to as “holocausts”?

Surely there is only one reference which is used; namely to “the Holocaust”; being the systematic, engineered, and state-run murder and torture of predominantly Jews as well other ethnic and political groups by the Nazi regime during World War II.

John Gulliver’s article takes me back to the mid-1970s when left-wing activists often used to say that Israelis were Jews who had been through the Holocaust and these Jews were now doing the same to Palestinians.

I am not defending the Israeli government’s actions against the Palestinians. Nor do I defend Britain’s sometimes appalling treatment of its subjects during its imperial past; but has this ever been referred to as “a holocaust”?

Anti-Semitism is insidious, and passes through words. John Gulliver has made a great contribution to that process.



Share this story

Post a comment