Still think Brits loyal to the Crown run Britain?
Ed Milliband’s dad once wrote,
“The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world . . . you sometimes want them almost to lose [the war] to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the Continent. To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation.”
So just who do the Millibands ally themselves with?
This series of articles pasted below-taken from the Mail, Telegraph, Times, Jewish Times and EKP will tell you where the Milliband klan’s loyalties lie, and where their hatred is directed at.
1. The Man that Hated Britain – Daily Mail
2. Milliband’s Zionist Dinner Guests
3. Milliband’s Tribute to Israel
4. Milliband’s Visit to his Family living on an Illegal settlement (current share)
5. Milliband’s Dad Lied to Enter Britain
7. Marxist Historian Claims the Millions that Died because of Marxism were Necessary….Did we mention he was Red Ed’s Dad’s Best Mate? (EKP original)
and many many more
If you’re looking for more real news, please subscribe to our free newsletter.
Zion in Britain
The man who hated Britain: Red Ed’s pledge to bring back socialism is a homage to his Marxist father. So what did Miliband Snr really believe in? The answer should disturb everyone who loves this country
Solemnly, he stood at the grave of Karl Marx at a moment when, in his own words, ‘the cemetery was utterly deserted . . . I remember standing in front of the grave, fist clenched, and swearing my own private oath that I would be faithful to the workers’ cause’.
The year was 1940. The young man was Ralph Miliband, a Jewish immigrant who, with his father, had fled to London from Belgium just weeks earlier to escape the Nazi Holocaust.
The Miliband boys: David with Ed (centre) and father Ralph
Miliband, father of Ed and David Miliband, died in 1994, aged 70, soon after the publication of his last book, Socialism For A Sceptical Age. In it, the venerated Marxist philosopher and academic continued to espouse his lifelong ‘socialist’ cause.
One voice, however, vehemently informed him that he was still pursuing a lost cause. It was that of his elder son David. He did not mince his words.
Having read the manuscript before publication, David wrote to his father asking, ‘whether you are restating a case that has been
The word ‘traduced’ – which means ‘disgraced’ or ‘denigrated’ – was surely rather harsh, considering his aged father had always included his two sons (even when they were small), in the trenchant political discussions with ever-present academics and Left-wing thinkers that took place round the basement dining table of the family home in Primrose Hill, North London.
Indeed, some family friends feel this episode, not long before their father died, could have been a contributory factor towards the younger – and considerably more Left-wing – son Ed unexpectedly deciding to fight his elder brother for the leadership of the Labour Party in 2010, and, of course, beating him.
On holiday: David (centre) and Ed, pictured with their mother Marion, their aunt Hadassa and father Ralph in Scotland, 1987
In his explosive memoirs, serialised last week in the Mail, Gordon Brown’s spin doctor Damian McBride argued that Ed Miliband was obsessed with maintaining his father’s legacy. Winning the leadership was Ed’s ‘ultimate tribute’ to his father – an attempt to ‘achieve his father’s vision and ensure David Miliband did not traduce it’. Again, that word ‘traduce’.
Ed is now determined to bring about that vision. How proud Ralph would have been to hear him responding the other day to a man in the street who asked when he was ‘going to bring back socialism’ with the words: ‘That’s what we are doing, sir.’
Ed’s victory over David, made possible only with the unions’ block votes, was perfectly in step with his father’s fervent and undimmed conviction that ‘alliance with the trade unions is not only one of the party’s great strengths; it is by far its greatest strength’.
Ralph’s Marxism was uncompromising. ‘We want this party to state that it stands unequivocally behind the social ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange,’ he told the 1955 Labour conference, as the delegate from Hampstead. ‘We are a socialist party engaged on a great adventure.’
This was the immigrant boy whose first act in Britain was to discard his name Adolphe because of its associations with Hitler, and become Ralph, and who helped his father earn a living rescuing furniture from bombed houses in the Blitz.
As for the country that gave him and his family protection, the 17-year-old wrote in his diary: ‘The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world . . . you sometimes want them almost to lose (the war) to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the Continent . . . To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation.’
This adolescent distaste for the British character certainly didn’t stop him availing himself of the fine education that was on offer in this country, or spending the rest of his life here.
‘The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world . . . you sometimes want them almost to lose (the war) to show them how things are . . . To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation.’
Quickly learning English, he got a place at the London School of Economics (LSE), which had then moved temporarily to Cambridge to avoid the bombing, and there he was taught politics by Harold Laski, a giant of Labour’s Left, whom some Tories considered to be a dangerous Marxist revolutionary.
Laski was Miliband’s mentor, his inspiration, the figure who encouraged his growing interest in Karl Marx.
Ralph Miliband then served three years in the Royal Navy, returning when the war was over to his studies at the LSE, and within a few years was teaching there himself.
He was already on his way to becoming a heavyweight thinker in the kind of political and academic circles whose pronouncements often attracted attention.
Joyfully, Miliband described Labour’s 1945 post-war election victory as ‘the country’s capture from its traditional rulers’.
He relished what he called the ‘genuine sense of outrage . . . of bourgeois England’, adding that ‘the nationalisation proposals of the government were designed to achieve the sole purpose of improving the efficiency of a capitalist economy’.
In later years, he chose to ignore the lamentable performance of nationalisation, which proved to be anything but efficient.
But how passionately he would have approved today of his son’s sinister warning about some of the policies he plans to follow if he ever becomes Prime Minister. Such as giving councils draconian new powers to seize into public ownership land held by developers who fail to build on it.
Miliband senior’s academic career took him away for several years to be professor of politics at Leeds University, where he missed the stiffer intellectual clashes he enjoyed in London, and to America.
Meanwhile, in 1961, he had married Marion Kozak, one of his former students at the LSE, and their first son David was born in 1965, with Ed following four years later.
David was given a second name, Wright. As Miliband’s biographer Michael Newman explains, this was in honour of his father’s American friend, the sociologist C. Wright Mills, whose 1956 book, The Power Elite, suggested that the political, military and economic elites control power at the expense of ordinary people.
‘Ultimate tribute’: Ed, pictured with Ralph in 1989, is determined to bring about his father’s vision of socialism
Mills claimed that these elites see themselves as separate from, and superior to, the rest of society, and manipulate events to suit their own interests.
Ralph Miliband himself, in his 1969 book The State In Capitalist Society, declared: ‘Advanced capitalism is all but synonymous with giant enterprise; and nothing about the economic organisation of these countries is more basically important than the increasing domination of key sectors … industrial, financial and commercial … by a relatively small number of giant firms, often interlinked.’
So he would also have applauded his son Ed’s proclamation that, as Prime Minister, he would cap energy prices – an announcement that has already knocked billions off share prices, affecting many ordinary workers’ pension funds.
As for the class war, Ralph Miliband declared: ‘Class success means the ability of a dominant class to maintain its position in society, and to contain and subdue any challenge to its power and privileges. This is what has happened in Britain.’
He also made plain his disdain for the Establishment, which was, to his mind, nothing less than the old boy network.
This included, he wrote in a letter to his old friend Wright Mills, ‘Eton and Harrow, Oxford and Cambridge, the great Clubs, the Times, the Church, the Army, the respectable Sunday papers . . . It also means the values . . . of the ruling orders, keep the workers in their place, strengthen the House of Lords, maintain social hierarchies, God save the Queen, equality is bunk, democracy is dangerous, etc.
‘Also respectability, good taste, don’t rock the boat, there will always be an England, foreigners, Jews, natives etc are all right in their place and their place is outside . . .’
‘Class success means the ability of a dominant class to maintain its position in society, and to contain and subdue any challenge to its power and privileges. This is what has happened in Britain.’
Given this tirade, one is entitled to wonder whether Ralph Miliband’s Marxism was actually fuelled by a giant-sized social chip on his shoulder as he lived in his adoptive country.
He opposed the Falklands War with such a ferocity that he even swore – a rare occurrence – at the sight of Margaret Thatcher’s soaring popularity.
‘I won’t write about the f****** Falklands now. It’s a most depressing and bitter business and it seems to have turned Thatcher into a major political figure,’ he said.
‘I mean that her brand of Toryism may now come to predominate. The Falklands has served her well . . . if she is returned at the next election England will look a very different country than even in 1979.’
Though they were friends, he never agreed with his fellow Marxist Eric Hobsbawm over the latter’s refusal to condemn Stalinism’s 30 million dead, or the brutal Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, on the grounds that the socialist end always justified the means. Relations between them deteriorated when Hobsbawn suggested in an article in Marxism Today in 1983 that the Left might prefer ‘a Thatcher government to a reformist Labour government’ in which they had lost faith.
Hobsbawn was invited to the Milibands’ for New Year’s Eve and the two ended up having a terrific row, but they later made it up.
Like all Left-wing thinkers, Ralph Miliband knew how to explain away awkward events.
Mikhail Gorbachev’s dismantling of Soviet socialism and the worker state should have shocked Miliband, but he managed to find an argument welcoming it.
He proclaimed that the Cold War had always been a useful ‘bogey’ for the Right, and that, ‘the success of Mikhail Gorbachev in democratising Soviet society . . . would deprive conservative forces of one of their most effective weapons’.
Of course, both his sons went to the ‘Establishment’ Oxford University. And in recent times there have been embarrassing allegations involving how the ownership of the family house was altered – albeit perfectly legally – which experts say enabled his sons to avoid death duties.
Hardly the behaviour of tax-loving socialists.
The fact is, with all his brilliance, his Marxist teaching and his books, Ralph Miliband died a disappointed man. Labour, he conceded, remained ‘a party of modest social reform in a capitalist system within whose confines it is ever more firmly and by now irrevocably rooted’. No party or grouping existed that was ‘capable of posing an effective challenge’.
But right to the end, he hadn’t entirely given up. Nothing had changed in his mind since his pilgrimage, in 1940, to Karl Marx’s grave.
Significantly, his own tombstone now lies just 12 yards from it in Highgate cemetery.
It is engraved with the three-word inscription: ‘Writer Teacher Socialist.’
Years after that early visit to the cemetery, he wrote: ‘I have not, from that day to this, departed from the view that this was the right cause and that I belonged to it.’
Even his adoptive country, Britain, could still one day realise his Marxist dream. There was, he said, ‘no reason for the resigned acceptance’ of defeat.
‘On the contrary,’ he wrote, ‘what it requires is to begin preparing the ground for the coming into being of such an alternative.’
As his son, Red Ed – who lives less than a mile away from Highgate cemetery in a £1.6 million townhouse – talks of ‘socialism’ being the key word for the next Labour government, perhaps that ground is indeed now being prepared.
Britain´s previous Jewish Foreign Secretary
Britain´s Jewish Foreign Secretary David Miliband with skullcap during a visit to Israel
Two main European powers have Jewish Ministers of foreign affairs. In France Bernard Kouchner acts as France´s representative abroad and directs France´s foreign policies including its stance on Israel, the Arab world and Iran (in cooperation with his Jewish boss and President, Nicolas Sarkozy). In Great Britain Prime Minister Gordon Brown – who according to Jewish sources has Jewish economic backing – has chosen a Jew in the form of David Miliband to take over the rudder of Britain´s foreign policies. In the case of Britain one should note that the predecessor of Miliband also was Jewish, the Labour-Jew Jack Straw.
In this document we will demonstrate some information collected to prove Miliband´s Jewishness and in the same time remind our readers that Jewish leaders over and over again repeat that Jews all over the world have a special responsability to help the Jewish state of Israel and that Jews should have a first loyalty to this Jewish state, regardless of whichever non-Jewish majority country they are citizens in.
It is in this perspective David Miliband´s connection to the Jewish mafia becomes interesting and thus deserves investigation and exposure.
“Every Jew is an Ambassador for Israel”
– Australian Rabbi Aron Moss, Arutz Sheva, Israel National News, 07/25/2006.
“I consider that all Jews in the Diaspora, and thus it is true in France, should everywhere they can lend their support to Israel. This is why it is also important that Jews take political responsabilities. […]. In sum, in my functions and in my everyday life, through the whole of my actions, I try to make so that my modest stone is brought to the construction of the land of Israel.”– Dominique Strauss-Kahn, French Jew, politician and chief of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as stated in Passages, N° 35 – February/March 1991.
“Every French Jew is a representative of Israel… Rest assured that every Jew in France is a defender of that which you defend.”
– French Chief Rabbi Joseph Sitruk in a declaration to Israel´s criminal leader Yitzhak Shamir, Le Monde, 9 July, 1990.
“I have dual allegiance. My loyalty to Israel is part of me and there are many Jews who think and feel likewise.”
– Rabbi Joachim Prinz, former president of the American Jewish Congress, July 23, 1969 issue of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency Daily News Bulletin.
” The Zionist leaders didn’t hide the role of their lobby. Ben Gurion stated clearly: “When a Jew, in America or in South Africa, talks to his Jewish companions about ‘our’ government, he means the government of Israel.” “– “Rebirth and Destiny of Israel”, 1954, p. 489.
Britain´s Jewish Foreign Minister
France´s Jewish Foreign Minister
Miliband is considered Jewish
David Miliband comes from a Polish-Jewish family with political connections. His brother Ed Miliband is also a British Labour party politician and is the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
The family´s Jewishness is completely outspoken. As we show below he has himself used the term “us” when he spoke of the Jewish people at a Jewish “High Holy Days” ceremony in 2008, something that really made fellow Jews happy, “giving the clearest indication yet that he identifies with the Jewish community”:
The Jewish ChronicleSeptember 29, 2008
Foreign Secretary David Miliband has issued a special message for the High Holy Days. The wording is unusual: he speaks of “us” in his greeting, giving the clearest indication yet that he identifies with the Jewish community.
“These days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are the most sacred in the Jewish calendar. The entire Jewish people takes an honest look at the previous year, tries to make amends for any harm done, and reinforces the bonds of family and community that sit at the heart of its identity.
“It is right that at the dawn of the New Year, we also re-dedicate ourselves to the search for security and peace in the Middle East. All will share my hope that this year is the one that brings close the peace and security its peoples deserve.
“To the people of Israel, the Jewish community of Britain, and all the Jewish people, I wish us all Shana Tova U’Metuka.”
The Jewish Chronicle, October 7, 2008, writes in a revealing manner:
Foreign Secretary David Miliband (according to his Rosh Hashanah message now officially one of “us”) remained in his post and the reshuffle gave further advancement to his brother Ed.
Henry Grunwald, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, lets David Miliband
light a Jewish hanukkah candle.
And in Israel they also consider him part of their exclusive Jewish group. The Jerusalem Post, June 28, 2007, writes:
One official in Jerusalem said that Miliband, who is Jewish, was expected to follow Brown’s policies toward Israel. Brown is considered to be a friend of Israel.
In official biographies Miliband´s Jewishness is noted. BBC News, 2 July 2007, writes in its profile of David Miliband:
Educated at a comprehensive school and at Oxford, he is from an immigrant family of Polish Jews.His father Ralph changed his name from Adolphe when he arrived in England, and escaped from Belgium – to which his family had moved from Poland – by getting one of the last ships across the Channel in 1940.
Ralph Miliband became a leading Marxist writer, yet David emerged as one of the main thinkers behind the phenomenon known as “New Labour”.
David Miliband’s brother Ed is also a member of Gordon Brown’s cabinet.
David Miliband’s Jewish background will be noted particularly in the Middle East.
Many Israelis and Jews around the word will welcome the fact that someone with his dramatic family history has made it to one of the high offices in British and world diplomacy.
Somewhat controversially, Mr Miliband had been “parachuted in” from outside to fight the 2001 general election.
He has been tipped as a future leader of his party, but stood for neither the leader nor deputy leader posts now occupied by Mr Brown and Harriet Harman.
The new foreign secretary was working in Mr Blair’s policy unit in the mid-1990s when Labour was still in opposition.
After his party’s landslide victory in 1997, he became head of the 10 Downing Street policy unit and, as such, was a key figure in the prime minister’s so-called “kitchen Cabinet”.
Since then he has moved quickly through the government’s ranks.
David Miliband is himself open about his Jewish connection. In an article written by him specifically for The Jewish Chronicle, July 2, 2009, “How I found life in a graveyard”, he writes about his trip to the Jewish cemetary in Warsaw, Poland, “when I took time out from my official programme of meetings and speeches for a private visit into my own past”. Miliband continues:
By 1945, only 250,000 of Poland’s 3.5 million Jews had survived the Holocaust. One of them was my mother. She was born in Czestochowa. My father’s parents were also born in Poland but left for Belgium after the First World War. Many of their relatives are buried in the Warsaw cemetery. Sixteen Milibands, Milebands, and Milenbands have been found so far, going back to the early part of the 19th century.
This was my first visit to Poland. There must have been a deep ambivalence at the heart of this delay. Poland is my roots. […] The Milibands are not a big part of that story. But, like so many Britons of Polish Jewish origin, it is an important and unforgettable part of us.
The Jewish Chronicle comments in another article, June 25, 2009:
Officials from the proposed Museum of the History of Polish Jews had earlier met Mr Miliband in Brandt Square, where the museum is to be located. “He’s gone to visit the family grave,” said Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, leader of the museum’s development team. “This is quite a homecoming.”
Miliband shows his Jewish colours
The Jewish networks and contact systems ride across all spectra of society. Business-Jews and so-called Leftist-Jews interact without problem. In the Telegraph article below we can read about a “dinner hosted by Miliband in the Foreign Office’s Locarno Room for patrons of the United Jewish Israel Appeal – a charity funding educational programmes for Jews in Britain and Israel”. Here we can see Miliband misusing his position as Foreign Secretary to lend support to his Jewish brethren and their racist state of Israel. And the Jewish capitalist donor David Abrahams turns up at the event…
Miliband’s dinner guest raises eyebrows
David Miliband entertains controversial Labour donor David Abrahams
Mandrake by Tim Walker
The Daily Telegraph, 04 Aug, 2008
After a busy few days of not campaigning for the Labour leadership last week, David Miliband’s every move is being scrutinised as never before.
So I am intrigued to discover that last month the Foreign Secretary welcomed into the bosom of his department none other than David Abrahams, the reclusive businessman and Labour donor who controversially channelled hundreds of thousands of pounds into party coffers through a series of conduits.
He was among the guests at a dinner hosted by Miliband in the Foreign Office’s Locarno Room for patrons of the United Jewish Israel Appeal – a charity funding educational programmes for Jews in Britain and Israel.
Abrahams was cleared by the police of any wrongdoing over the “Donorgate” affair, but wouldn’t Miliband be best advised to keep him at arm’s length in the current febrile political environment?
“The guest list was not a matter for the Foreign Office,” said Miliband’s spokesman.
And in speeches to the representatives of this state of Israel, it´s all sweet words. Adopting their rhetoric and lamenting their fallen soldiers. And Miliband is “determined to ensure” that the new conference on Racism 2009 will not point out Israel as a racist state, “we are very concerned to not have a repeat of Durban I” (the conference where Israel was under attack for its racist policies, see appendix below).
Milliband tribute ahead of Israel trip
By Daniella Peled
The Jewish Chronicle, May 15, 2008
Foreign Secretary David Milliband delivered an unscripted tribute to Israel’s achievements and search for peace at the Israeli embassy Independence Day Party this week. Expressing his delight at participating in the celebration, held at a central London hotel with 2,000 invited guests, Mr Milliband praised Israel’s free press and achievements in agriculture and technology. Referring to recent meetings with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, he said their message was that “there was an unwritten chapter to Israel’s history that still has to be written and that is peace with their neighbours”. Mr Miliband also quoted Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-gurion, who said “if we have to defend ourselves against our enemies, then we can only count on ourselves…but when there is a chance to make peace, we must mobilise all our allies to achieve it”. Last week, in a briefing with Jewish and Israeli media, Mr Milliband insisted that “the next six to eight weeks will come to be seen as very important in the search for a sustainable two-state solution”. Mr Milliband is to visit Israel next month, while Prime Minister Gordon Brown — who also attended the embassy party — is scheduled to go there in July. Mr Milliband said that recent unrest in the region, including the violence in the Lebanese capital, Beirut, was cause for concern, along with the situation in the occupied territories. “It’s very important to address the human crisis in Gaza,” he said, while stressing that the Palestinians were becoming aware of who was ultimately responsible for their situation. “Hamas has killed two israeli civilians trying to deliver fuel — yet another reason to be under no illusions as to what Hamas is doing. “The attacks show who is trying to make a political point.” He also expressed concerns over the forthcoming UN Human rights conference, which has been dubbed Durban II and scheduled to be held next year. The previous UN human rights summit in Durban, South Africa, in 2000 was marred by a series of antisemitic incidents and a wave of anti-Israeli rhetoric. “We are very concerned to not have a repeat of Durban I,” he said. “We are engaged but determined to ensure it doesn’t become Durban II.”
Miliband´s Jewish settler relatives in Israel
The article belows reveals that Miliband even has relatives who are Jewish settlers: “… most of Mr Miliband’s relatives in Israel are Orthodox, including some West Bank settlers”:
David Miliband denies visiting family in West Bank settlement
By Bernard Josephs and Simon Griver Tel Aviv
The Jewish Chronicle, 22/11/2007
A report that Foreign Secretary David Miliband took time out to dine with relatives at a Jewish settlement in the West Bank threatened to overshadow his visit to the region this week.
The report, strenuously denied, was broadcast on Israeli Army Radio and comes in the run-up to the Annapolis peace summit next Tuesday. The British government has made clear its opposition to the building of settlements in the occupied territories, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has pledged a settlement freeze.
A spokesman for the British embassy said that, although Mr Miliband had relatives in Israel, he dined with them in Tel Aviv. “The Foreign Minister was in Jericho on Saturday to meet Palestinian Authority leaders. He certainly was not at any West Bank settlements.”
One of the relatives, David Landau, an insurance agent, said he was at the Tel Aviv dinner. “We are very proud of the Milibands, even if we do not always agree with their political positions on Israel,” he said.
Mr Landau added that most of Mr Miliband’s relatives in Israel are Orthodox, including some West Bank settlers. “But he has no direct connection with them,” he insisted. Both British and Israeli officials declared that Mr Miliband’s visit — the first since he became Foreign Secretary — had been productive.
After meeting him, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni described talks about the summit and on the threat posed by Iran as “very fruitful”.
Mr Miliband said that the opportunities presented by the summit “don’t come along very often”, and that it was very important that the international community provide “practical and political support for the two parties”.
Miliband aligns Britain´s foreign policies to those of Israel
Miliband tells UJIA that Britain ‘won’t duck’ Iran’s nuclear threat
By Jenni Frazer
The Jewish Chronicle, July 17, 2008
Foreign Secretary David Miliband paid a warm and emotional tribute to the Anglo-Jewish community on Wednesday, along with a trenchant warning that Iran’s nuclear ambitions were “a challenge that Britain will not duck” for the sake of stability for Israel and the whole of the Middle East.
The Foreign Secretary was the guest of honour at UJIA’s annual patrons’ dinner, held in the Foreign Office’s Locarno Rooms, where, he reminded guests, the seven Locarno Treaties had been signed in December 1925.
“The Locarno Rooms are testimony to the catastrophe of attempts to build a brighter, more peaceful future in Europe in the inter-war years.
“As a result of the treaties signed in this room, Germany was admitted to the League of Nations. The consequences were desperate: the treaties were seen as an excuse for Germany to attack Eastern Europe as the price for stability in Western Europe. The lesson is very clear: nations cannot be built on false promises, on fudged commitments, on insecure borders, on promises made on paper but which are vapid as thin air.
“Nations are built through the toil and graft of a people, through a commitment to a common dream — and that takes something else”.
Praising UJIA, he said its spirit was to unite people behind a common cause. “Britain need look no further for a model of how to mobilise people for a common cause than its Jewish community. This is the community, with its institutions and its leadership, its philanthropy and its values, which so many in this country take so much pride in, whether or not they are Jewish.” He went further, saying that the whole of Britain could learn from UJIA’s values.
It was, he added, “important to say loud and clear that a strong and independent and secure Israel is actually the foundation of stability in the Middle East, not a threat to it. That’s what nation-building is about.”
But there was an “unwritten chapter, in which Israel and its neighbours are permanently written into the book of peace. In some ways, it’s the most significant chapter of all.
“It’s the hardest to write because it involves big responsibilities for Israel. And there are responsibilities for its neighbours.” These included Iran.
“The Iranian nuclear programme is not a marginal issue, it’s fundamental, not just for Israel but also for the whole region. The message to Iran is simple: your people need economic growth and investment, your region needs stability, not a nuclear arms race. There is a very clear offer on the table if you want to engage. If you don’t want to engage, there will be further sanctions, and the challenge is one that Britain and the other countries will not duck.”
It was, he said, a shared ambition of Britain and Israel to bring the time of peace closer.
Mr Miliband began his remarks with a tribute to the families of the two dead soldiers, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, whom he had met in New York at the UN last year. “We are grieving with Israel,” he said. He hoped for a speedy conclusion to the Gilad Shalit hostage crisis.
In another article in The Jewish Chronicle, it is revealed how David Miliband misuses his political clout – as does his likewise Jewish colleague Ivan Lewis in the FO – to attack anti-Israel dissent within the Labour movement:
Stop boycotting, Miliband tells unions
By Leon Symons
The Jewish Chronicle, June 25, 2009
The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, has expressed dismay that Israel boycotts are being discussed by trade union congresses and conferences.
He said this week: “Ivan Lewis, minister of state responsible for the Middle East, is meeting representatives of leading British unions in order to make clear the government’s firm belief that calls for boycotts of Israel cannot and do not contribute to peace.
“British people of all backgrounds are distressed and frustrated by the Arab-Israeli conflict. Many wish to take action to advance the goals of peace and justice, a response I understand and share intensely.
“But I am saddened when this proactive energy is channelled into boycotting economic and academic events, as well as cultural events which seek to increase understanding.
“Such boycotts would, I believe, obstruct opportunities for co-operation and dialogue and serve only to polarise debate further. Boycotts would only make it harder to achieve the peace that both Palestinians and Israelis deserve and desire.
“Rather than seeking to boycott, I urge the British unions to help find a shared solution to common challenges, and I am encouraged that they are ready to do so. […]
Miliband bonding with the pro-Israel mafia
David Miliband adresses UJIA – United Jewish Israel Appeal
Jewish Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Jewish youths that are supported by the UJIA
– United Jewish Israel Appeal – all happy faces
David Miliband and UJIA chairman Mick Davies
Brown and Miliband both appear at LFI fringe event
By Anshel Pfeffer
The Jewish Chronicle, September 26, 2008
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has reiterated Britain’s commitment to the diplomatic campaign against Iran’s nuclear programme.
Speaking at the annual reception of Labour Friends of Israel on Monday at Labour’s conference in Manchester, Mr Brown said that Iran had only two alternatives – to comply with the demands of the international community or steadily to isolate itself.
The packed reception at the Midland Hotel was the only event on the conference’s fringe circuit attended by both Mr Brown and the man widely seen as his main leadership rival, Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
Mr Brown spoke of his own close family and personal ties to Israel, and called Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who resigned this week, “a personal friend”.
He had, he said, been very pleased that he had been the first British PM to address the Knesset when he visited Israel earlier this year.
Mr Miliband elaborated on the speech he had given earlier in the conference in which he had spoken of the need for a secure Israel next to a viable Palestinian state. The Foreign Secretary told LFI supporters that he had thought at length about that particular part of his speech. All supporters of Israel, he said, had to realise that there was a closing window of opportunity to reach a two-state solution.
The reception was also attended by Israeli ambassador Ron Prosor and MK Colette Avital. The representative of the Israeli Labour Party, she thanked Mr Brown for his speech to the Knesset.
Long-time LFI leader Mike Gapes, chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said later: “The fact that both Brown and Miliband attended the event is very significant, and shows this government’s support for Israel’s future.”
At the conference itself, in a session devoted to crime, the Jewish Labour Movement’s Mike Katz highlighted a recent rise in antisemitic incidents and called on the party to do more to counter the campaigning by the British National Party, which polled more votes than Labour did at the Henley by-election.
The Holocaust Educational Trust also held a well-attended fringe meeting at the party conference.
And Miliband gets praise from his Jewish pals in Israel…
Israeli leaders ‘satisfied’ with Miliband’s pressure on Syria
By Anshel Pfeffer
The Jewish Chronicle, November 20, 2008
Israeli leaders have expressed their satisfaction with the results of Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s visit to the Middle East this week.
In Israel he met Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Likud Leader Binyamin Netanyahu.
In a show of solidarity, Mr Miliband also visited the town of Sderot which this week was once again under fire from Kassam rockets from the Gaza Strip and talked about “the suffering of the Israelis on the one hand, symbolised here, but the suffering of the Palestinians as well.
But some dark family backgrounds haunts him….
David Miliband’s family ‘lied’ to enter UK
By Brendan Montague
The Sunday Times, April 6, 2008
THE family of David Miliband, the foreign secretary, was branded untrustworthy and misleading by Home Office and Foreign Office officials when it tried to migrate to Britain, documents to be released tomorrow will reveal.
The foreign secretary will find his department thought that his father and grandfather played fast and loose with the truth and lied to immigration officers.
The government papers accuse Miliband’s late grandfather, Samuel, a Polish migrant, of exaggerating the antisemitism he faced in Belgium after the second world war in order to move to Britain. A hand-written Home Office report from March 8, 1949, doubts the Milibands’ honesty, stating: “Mili-band, father and son, have so misrepresented the case in the past, I am afraid we can place no reliance on their statements.”
Samuel’s claim that he faced “Nazi” style antisemitism were dismissed as “very thin”. His son Ralph (the foreign secretary’s father) was accused by the Home Office of making repeated “misrepresentations” to support Samuel’s application.
The files also reveal that when embassy officials interviewed Samuel directly he admitted the claims of Nazi-style persecution were untrue and that he was not being expelled from Belgium.
The revelation of the way in which the foreign secretary’s forebears talked their way into Britain is particularly piquant given Labour’s record on migration. When David Miliband took up the post last year, he said immigration would remain a key issue. Since then, however, Labour has continued to preside over record levels of immigration despite concern among voters that the rate is too high.
The documents, obtained by The Sunday Times under a freedom of information request, reveal how a struggle over migration played a key part in the fortunes of the Miliband family.
When the Germans overran Belgium in May 1940, Samuel and Ralph fled because they were Jews. They were given refuge in Britain. Ralph stayed and later became an influential Marxist academic and close friends with Tony Benn and other Labour grandees until his death in 1994.
Samuel returned to Belgium in 1946. Finding his business destroyed and refused a work permit, he tried to return to Britain. Between 1948 and 1954 he applied nine times to be made a British citizen or to have six-month visas extended.
The documents, which include reports from Special Branch, show that immigration officials recorded Samuel had “misrepresented the case” when he claimed there was growing antisemitism in Belgium.
They also cast doubt on his claims that he needed to visit his son Ralph in England because the young academic was suffering “nervous depression”.
A letter sent on behalf of Ernest Bevin, then foreign secretary, in May 1948 stated: “Mr Miliband was interviewed by a representative of His Majesty’s embassy and stated there had never been any question of his expulsion from Belgium.
“The suggestion the Belgian authorities are adopting a ‘Nazi’ or antisemitic policy . . . seems to be without foundation.”
After the war, hundreds of thousands of Jewish people were left homeless and stateless and millions of people were beginning to understand the enormity of the Holocaust. In 1948, however, Belgium was under the relatively liberal rule of Paul-Henri Spaak, the Socialist.
Martin Conway, a historian at Balliol College, Oxford, said there was almost no evidence of government or police persecution of Jews in Brussels after the war. “It could not be said they were forced out of Belgium because of antisemitism,” he said.
Harold Laski, the eminent intellectual, came to the aid of the Milibands. In personal correspondence with James Chuter Ede, then home secretary, Laski asked him “as one socialist to another” to allow Samuel residency to show the world that the West was more compassionate than “the Russian way”. In the end Samuel’s application was successful.
Yesterday David Miliband and his brother Ed, the Cabinet Office minister, declined to comment. The Foreign Office said: “This is a personal matter for the foreign secretary.”
The documents have echoes of the position Michael Howard found himself in when he was Tory leader. While his party was opposed to mass immigration, Howard was forced to admit that his father had lied about his circumstances when he applied for British citizenship in 1947.
Milliband’s Dad’s Best Mate
British writer, Andrew Norman Wilson, writes that Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, awarded a Companion of Honour by Tony Blair, “took part in one of the most extraordinary conversations ever on British television. Speaking in 1994 to the author Michael Ignatieff about the fall of the Berlin Wall five years earlier, the historian was asked how he felt about his earlier support for the Soviet Union.
If Communism had achieved its aims, but at the cost of, say, 15 to 20 million people – as opposed to the 100million it actually killed in Russia and China – would Hobsbawm have supported it? His answer was a single word: ‘Yes’.”
Like Joe Slovo, Nadine Gordimer and the vast majority of the Jewish Marxist intellectuals behind the fall of South Africa, Eric Hobsbawm was born Jewish in ‘Hitler’s Europe.’
Like the aforementioned fiends, he despised his host nation with a passion that burned as brightly as the Kwa-Zulu Natal sun, writing
I have read most of Eric Hobsbawm’s books. In fact they were REQUIRED reading for the 19th century European History course I took at Princeton.
Hobsbawm had a brilliant mind, albeit and evil Marxist agenda.
Although I have always been staunchly conservative, his books made sense and certainly impacted me. Age of Empire was in fact one of my favourites, in spite of the fact it was riddled with Marxist rhetoric.
That’s why I wasn’t all that surprise to read in the Daily Mail that “Leading Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm left more than £1.8million in his will.”
Like his good mate and fellow Jewish Communist, Ralph Milliband (Marxist Labour leader, Red Ed Milliband’s dad), the man made a mint while he bashed capitalism.
John Stevens of the Daily Mail wrote that,
“Hobsbawm, who died aged 95 in October 2012, was one of Britain’s most eminent historians, but he was widely criticised for his defence of communist regimes. Accused of being apologist for the totalitarian evils of Soviet communism
According to Brighton probate office records, he left assets of £1,835,341
He was accused of being an apologist for the totalitarian evils of Soviet communism and labelled a ‘useful idiot’.
According to records held at the Brighton probate office, Hobsbawm – who joined the Communist Party at 14 and once described himself as an ‘unrepentant communist’ – left an estate with assets totalling £1,835,341.
The bulk is to be held in trust, with the income going to his second wife Marlene. The couple were married for 50 years.
Hobsbawm left the capital of the trust to the University of Warwick and his two children from his second marriage – digital entrepreneur Andy, 50, and PR guru Julia.
His son Joshua Bennathan, 55, who was born from an affair with Marion Bennathan that took place between his first and second marriage was left just £3,000.
Hobsbawm, who lived in a six-bedroom semi-detached house in Hampstead, north London, was born in Alexandria, Egypt, and lived in Vienna and Berlin before his parents died.
He moved with an aunt and uncle to England in 1933. He later became friends with Ed Miliband’s father Ralph Miliband.
The will was drawn up three months before Hobsbawm died at the Royal Free Hospital in London where he had been suffering from pneumonia and leukaemia.
Hobsbawm, who died in October 2012, was one of Britain’s most eminent historians, but was widely criticised for his defence of communist regimes
On Monday evening, the BBC altered its programme schedule to broadcast an hour-long tribute to an old man who had died aged 95, with fawning contributions from the likes of historian Simon Schama and Labour peer Melvyn Bragg.
The next day, the Left-leaning Guardian filled not only the front page and the whole of an inside page but also devoted almost its entire G2 Supplement to the news. The Times devoted a leading article to the death, and a two-page obituary.
You might imagine, given all this coverage and the fact that Tony Blair and Ed Miliband also went out of their way to pay tribute, that the nation was in mourning.
Yet I do not believe that more than one in 10,000 people in this country had so much as heard of Eric Hobsbawm, the fashionable Hampstead Marxist who was the cause of all this attention. He had, after all, been open in his disdain for ordinary mortals.
Hobsbawm came to Britain as a refugee from Hitler’s Europe before the war, but, as he said himself, he wished only to mix with intellectuals. ‘I refused all contact with the suburban petit bourgeoisie which I naturally regarded with contempt.’ Naturally.
If the name Hobsbawm rings a bell at all, people might recollect that it was also the name of Julia Hobsbawm, a PR expert who, in collaboration with the future Mrs Gordon Brown, was one of the spin doctors who sold New Labour to this country.
There is a world of difference between the ideology of Julia’s sleek, modern New Labour ideas and her father’s hard-nosed Stalinism, but one of the things they had in common was contempt for ‘ordinary people’.
Eric Hobsbawm took part in one of the most extraordinary conversations ever on British television. Speaking in 1994 to the author Michael Ignatieff about the fall of the Berlin Wall five years earlier, the historian was asked how he felt about his earlier support for the Soviet Union.
If Communism had achieved its aims, but at the cost of, say, 15 to 20 million people – as opposed to the 100million it actually killed in Russia and China – would Hobsbawm have supported it? His answer was a single word: ‘Yes’.
Just imagine what would happen if some crazed Right-winger were to appear on BBC and say that the Nazis had been justified in killing six million Jews in order to achieve their aims. We should be horrified, and consider that such a person should never be allowed to speak in public again – or at least until he retracted his repellent views and admitted
that he had been culpably, basely, wrong.
Yet the awful thing about the phenomenon of Eric Hobsbawm is that the exact opposite to this is what happened.
He was awarded a Companion of Honour by Tony Blair – one of the highest accolades it is possible to bestow upon a British intellectual. A professor of history, he was regularly lionised on the BBC and in the liberal newspapers as our ‘greatest’ historian.
It is true he modified his hard-line support for Stalin and his death-camps as the years went by. The elderly Hobsbawm was not the same person who, in 1939, co-wrote a pamphlet defending not only Stalin but Hitler, too – and justifying the Nazi-Soviet pact to carve up Poland and dominate Eastern Europe.
Hobsbawm suggested that the millions of deaths in gulag work camps were justified
Hobsbawm suggested that the millions of deaths in gulag work camps were justified
But as far as the history of the 20th century was concerned, he never learned its lessons. The tens of millions dead, the hundreds of millions enslaved, the sheer evil falsity of the ideology which bore down with such horror on the peoples of Russia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Germany, never occurred to this man.
He went on believing that a few mistakes had been made, and that Stalinism was ‘disillusioning’ – but that, in general, it would have been wonderful if Stalin had succeeded.
Any barmy old fool is, thank goodness, entitled to their point of view in our country. Unlike Stalin’s Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany, Britain is a country where you can more or less say or think what you like.
What is disgraceful about the life of Hobsbawm is not so much that he believed this poisonous codswallop, and propagated it in his lousy books, but that such a huge swathe of our country’s intelligentsia – the supposedly respectable media and chattering classes – bowed down before him and made him their guru. Made him our ‘greatest historian’.
In 1939 Hobsbawm co-wrote a pamphlet defending not only Stalin but Hitler, too – justifying the Nazi-Soviet pact to carve up Poland
In 1939 Hobsbawm co-wrote a pamphlet defending not only Stalin but Hitler, too – justifying the Nazi-Soviet pact to carve up Poland
The truth is that, far from being a great historian who sometimes made mistakes, Hobsbawm deliberately falsified history.
In his book The Age Of Extreme, published in 1994, he quite deliberately underplayed the Soviet Union’s attack on Finland in 1939-40, saying it was merely an attempt to push the Russian border a little further away from Leningrad. He also omits any mention of the massacre of 20,000 Polish soldiers by Russian Secret Police at Katyn.
In the same book, he dismisses the appallingly violent suppression by the Nazis of the Polish resistance in the 1944 Warsaw uprising – when a complacent Soviet army ignored desperate pleas to come to the Poles’ aid – as ‘the penalty of a premature uprising’.
These are not mistakes – they are wicked lies.
In his 1997 book On History, he wrote the following: ‘Fragile as the communist systems turned out to be, only a limited, even minimal, use of force was necessary to maintain them from 1957 until 1989.’
This again is a blatant lie. A huge and ever-growing Soviet armaments industry ensured there was continued violence in most of the major trouble-spots of the world through those years before Communism collapsed.
Thanks to the provision of Soviet support, weapons and armour, there was continued violence in Africa and, closer to home, in Ireland, where the IRA used Soviet arms.
Ask the inhabitants of Prague, where Soviet tanks rolled into the streets in 1968, if they agreed with Hobsbawm that this was ‘minimal use of force’.
Ask the millions of people who were taken from their homes by KGB thugs and forced to live, often for decades, in prison-camps throughout the Gulag, whether force had been ‘minimal’.
Nor were Hobsbawm’s rewards merely the sycophantic praise heaped on him by Lefty academics and silly chatterers at London dinners. Having cultivated his group of Left-wing protégés at Birkbeck College in London, where he dominated the history department and went on to become President, he was showered with accolades by academics of the Left.
Minimal force? Hobsbawm appeared to ignore the tactics used by the Soviets, such as when they invaded Prague in 1968
Minimal force? Hobsbawm appeared to ignore the tactics used by the Soviets, such as when they invaded Prague in 1968
In 2003, he won the Balzan Prize for European History, worth one million Swiss Francs — about half-a-million pounds at that date. The Leftist Sir Keith Thomas, a former president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, was on the board that awarded him the prize.
There is also an intriguing question which hangs over Eric Hobsbawm. When he was at Cambridge during the Thirties he knew Anthony Blunt, Guy Burgess and the other Soviet agents, who were recruited there by Marxist academics. Was he ever an agent himself?
In extreme old age, four years ago, Hobsbawm attempted, under the Data Protection Act, to read the files kept on him by MI5. When talking about this, he used a very revealing phrase. He said he wanted to find out who had ‘snitched on him’.
It was always asserted by his pals that Hobsbawm was harmless, that he was not a traitor to Britain, and that he had certainly not recruited traitors.
But if that was the case, why did he use the word ‘snitched’? Why did he not say: ‘It was monstrous that MI5 spied on me, and I’d like to see what is contained in the files’?
Instead, he implied that he had done something of which the authorities were entitled to take a dim view – possibly something actively criminal.
We, the petit-bourgeois of the suburbs whom he so despised, shall probably find out the truth one day.
Hobsbawm himself will sink without trace. His books will not be read in the future. They are little better than propaganda, and, in spite of the slavish language in the obituaries, are badly written.
What his death tells us, however, is that the liberal establishment that really runs this country has learned no lessons from history. It is still prepared to bow down and worship a man who openly hated Britain – and who knowingly wrote lies.