Commemoration of Dresden: Why an Apology from Britain to Germany is Due


Having had no need to be seduced into a war with Germany in the first place in September 1939, the British government then moved through three stages of self-inflicted and aggressive injustice under the bellicose Prime Minister Churchill:

1. in May-August 1940 – for, instead of pursuing peace offers from Germany, Churchill set out to incite total war, goading Germany into a wider air war by dropping the first bombs on German civilian areas; and

2. from March 1942, by adopting the Lindemann Plan’s deliberate targeting of German workers’ homes – the so-called “de-housing” policy – rather than supposed industrial targets; and

3. by 1944-45 during the last year (and even closing months) of war, mounting mass scale terror bombing of Germany when it was virtually defenceless, culminating in February 1945 with the gratuitous fire-bombing destruction of historic Dresden plus that 36 hours’ long burnt alive mass holocausting of its civilians and Soviet-fleeing refugees. Thus an apology from Britain to Germany is due.


Hess Brought Hitler’s Peace Offer to Britain in 1941

It was one of the most perplexing episodes of the Second World War which, more than 70 years on, remains shrouded in mystery.

But a new book claims to have solved the riddle of the flight to Britain in 1941 of Rudolf Hess, Adolf Hitler’s deputy. Hess’s journey to Britain by fighter aircraft to Scotland has traditionally been dismissed as the deranged solo mission of a madman. But Peter Padfield, an historian, has uncovered evidence he says shows that, Hess, the deputy Fuhrer, brought with him from Adolf Hitler, a detailed peace treaty, under which the Reich would withdraw from western Europe.

The existence of such a document was revealed to him by an informant who claims that he and other German speakers were called in by MI6 to translate the treaty for Churchill.

The figure, who is not named by Mr Padfield, was an academic who later worked at a leading university. He has since died. Before his death, he passed on an account of how the group were assembled at the BBC headquarters, in Portland Place, London, to carry out the task.

The academic said Hess had brought with him the proposed peace treaty, expressed in numbered clauses and typed on paper from the German Chancellery. An English translation was also included, but the British also wanted the original German translated.

The informant said the first two pages of the treaty detailed Hitler’s precise aims in Soviet Union, followed by sections detailing how Britain could keep its independence, Empire and armed services, and how the National Socialists would withdraw from western Europe. The treaty proposed a state of “wohlwollende Neutralitat” – rendered as “well wishing neutrality”, between Britain and Germany, for the latter’s offensive against the Soviet. The informant even said the date of the Hitler’s coming attack on the east was disclosed.

Mr Padfield, who makes the claims in a new book, Hess, Hitler and Churchill, said: “This was not a renegade plot. Hitler had sent Hess and he brought over a fully developed peace treaty for Germany to evacuate all the occupied countries in the West.”

Mr Padfield, who has previously written a biography of Hess as well as ones of Karl Dönitz and Heinrich Himmler, believes the treaty was suppressed at the time, because it would have scuppered Churchill’s efforts to get the USA into the war, destroyed his coalition of exiled European governments, and weakened his position domestically, as it would have been seized on by what the author believes was a sizeable “negotiated peace” faction in Britain at that time. At the same time, since the mission had failed, it also suited Hitler to dismiss Hess as a rogue agent.

There is no mention of the treaty in any of the official archives which have since been made public, but Mr Padfield believes this is because there has been an ongoing cover-up to protect the reputations of powerful figures. The author says that his informant broke off contact with him after approaching his former masters in the security services.

Mr Padfield has also assembled other evidence to support the existence of the treaty and its contents – as well as the subsequent cover-up.

He has established that two inventories were taken of items carried by Hess when he was arrested after parachuting out of his aircraft, a Messerschmitt 110, on the evening of May 10 1941, near Eaglesham, outside of Glasgow. Neither has ever been released.

He has found witness statements from a woman living near where Hess had landed, which indicate that police were “ordered to search for a valuable document which was missing”. The item, according to the witness, was found “over near the wee burn in the park”.

Mr Padfield also points out that Hess had used a specialist translator from the German Foreign Ministry – even though he had the use of another, fluent English speaker – when drawing up documents for his negotiations with the British, before his flight. This suggests, Mr Padfield claims, that approved wording was required for the documents.

Hess was kept captive in Britain until the end of the war when he was returned to Germany to stand trial at Nuremberg. He was sent to Spandau Prison where he killed by British agents in 1987. The authorities said he had committed suicide, although his son and some historians have claimed the British state had him murdered to protect secrets.

Read more: Martyr Rudolf Hess was Murdered by British Agents in Spandau Prison

Britain again breaks ranks with Europe — this time over Israel

(JTA) — Two days after delegates from more than 70 nations attended the Paris summit on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is clear that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was wrong to label the meeting “useless.”

Admittedly the France-initiated event, which neither Israel nor the Palestinian Authority attended, did not change the international community’s understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nor did the gathering take any concrete steps to end the dispute.

But it was neither insignificant nor useless from Israel’s point of view. The summit saw Great Britain break ranks with the countries that did attend in a move that pleased Israel and perhaps the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

Instead of demonstrating international consensus as intended by France under President Francois Hollande, the summit turned into a showdown between France and the United Kingdom over Israel. In an unprecedented manner, the rift exposed disagreements within a brittle European Union that is bracing for potentially turbulent relations with the United States under Trump.

The first sign of dissent happened before the summit even began, when the United Kingdom dispatched only junior diplomats. By contrast, Hollande attended, as did 36 foreign ministers, including the U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry.

Then, the United Kingdom, along with Australia, declined to join 70 other nations in co-signing a relatively mild statement about preserving the two-state solution, even though it matched positions long supported by the British government – including in its rejection of “continued acts of violence and ongoing settlement activity” and the call for “meaningful direct negotiations.”

It was a stunning about-face that even caught longtime observers of Anglo-Israeli relations by surprise.

“I was gobsmacked,” Jonathan Hoffman, a former vice chair of Britain’s Zionist Federation, told JTA on Monday.

“It was a watershed moment for U.K.-Israel relations and a huge change from anything I had seen before,” he said, adding that the United Kingdom typically sides with its allies on policies toward the Jewish state.

The British “snub” — as The Guardian termed it — of the Paris peace summit pleased Israeli diplomats, who openly dismissed the event as doomed to fail because it did not address the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to negotiate without preconditions — in this case, a public commitment by Israel to halt construction in eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank.

The summit “turned as flat as a failed soufflé,” Emmanuel Nahshon, the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s senior spokesman, wrote Sunday on Twitter. “A big show is no replacement for direct negotiations between the parties.”

In previous statements, Israeli officials described the summit as “laughable” in light of Western inaction on the humanitarian disaster in Syria.

The British position was highly unexpected — especially in light of Britain’s leading role, as Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson described it, in drafting and passing on Dec. 23 a U.N. Security Council resolution critical of Israeli settlements. Using far harsher language than that of the summit declaration, the U.N. resolution condemned Israeli settlements as a “flagrant violation of international law.”

Trump has called for the United Kingdom to veto any further action on Israel at the United Nations. A midlevel British diplomat, who spoke to JTA on Monday under condition of anonymity because he is not allowed to brief journalists on this matter, said his country will not support any further attempts in the near future to pass another resolution on Israel.

So did the United Kingdom’s decades-long policy on Israel radically change sometime between Dec. 23 and Jan. 15?

Unlikely, according to Yigal Palmor, a former top spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry who currently works in a similar capacity for The Jewish Agency.

The British move in Paris, he told JTA, is the result of a mix of factors, including a “desire to assert independence from the European Union” — which the British government under Prime Minister Theresa May is committed to leaving as per the result of a June referendum over the issue. May replaced David Cameron as prime minister last year as a result of the Brexit referendum.

Hoffman, meanwhile, said the apparent conflict between the British support for the U.N. resolution and its opposition to the Paris summit declaration could stem from power struggles between May and the country’s Foreign Office, which does not share her relatively pro-Israel politics.

In explaining its refusal to cosign the declaration, the British Foreign Office dropped another clue: A written statement objected that the summit was “taking place just days before the transition to a new American president when the United States will be the ultimate guarantor of any agreement.”

The Foreign Office statement also pointed to “risks” that the conference “hardens positions at a time when we need to be encouraging the conditions for peace.”

Whereas Kerry avidly supported the summit, members of Trump’s transition team signaled their disapproval to French officials, according to The Guardian. The newspaper suggested that May ordered the Paris snub to align her policy with that of Trump.

Hoffman also attributed the apparent British about-face primarily to a Trump intervention.

“It’s such a dramatic departure from what we have seen in the past that a Trump intervention is the only thing that makes sense,” he said.

Ever since Obama spoke out last year in favor of Britain remaining in the European Union, Anglo-American relations have become strained. Johnson, a former London mayor who became foreign minister following the Brexit vote, accused Obama of meddling in British internal affairs and of harboring anti-British sentiment connected to the president’s Kenyan roots.

The Paris summit was not the first time that Israeli diplomacy benefited from those recent tensions. On Dec. 29, a spokesman for May openly criticized Kerry’s Dec. 28 speech defending the U.S. abstention on the Security Council’s anti-settlements resolution. The spokesman chided Kerry for “focusing on only one issue” of “construction of settlements,” and for saying that the Netanyahu government is the “most right-wing” in Israel’s history.

“We do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally,” May’s office said in its unusual criticism of the Kerry speech.

The cracks in the positions of Israel’s allies offer the Netanyahu government “some relief from international pressure” over some of the Jewish state’s policies, Palmor observed.

In that regard, the dissent benefits Israel, he said, but “ultimately it is not about Israel, not really.”

White People in Britain Resisting Propaganda to Racially Miscegenate, Official Figures Show

Recent figures from Britain’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) have revealed that white people seem to be resisting the deluge of media propaganda encouraging racial miscegenation, and despite being an outright majority of the population, are the least likely to be in a relationship with a nonwhite. 

(New Observer Online)

The report, which has been widely misinterpreted – possibly deliberately – by many of Britain’s media outlets to suggest that interracial miscegenation is affecting white people, was released by the ONS after analysis of the recent national census data.

According to the figures, nearly 1 in 10 people (9 percent, or 2.3 million) who were living as part of a couple were in an inter-ethnic relationship in England and Wales in 2011. This has increased from 7 percent in 2001.

* However, the analysis also showed that people from the “Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups” (as defined in the census) were most likely to be in an inter-ethnic relationship (85%).

* People from the Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups were the most likely to be in an inter-ethnic relationship with over 8 in 10 people (195,000).  People in these groups are themselves likely to be the result of inter-ethnic relationships that have emerged in the last 60 years (from postwar immigration patterns). They have a much younger age profile than some of the other ethnic groups and 80 percent of the group were born in the UK.

* Of all the mixed race ethnic groups as defined in the census, “White and Caribbean,” “White and Black African,” “White and Asian,” and “Other Mixed” were the most likely to be in an inter-ethnic relationship.

* White British couples were the least likely to be in an inter-ethnic relationship at around 1 in 25 (4 percent). This group is estimated by the ONS to be 81 percent of the overall population.

The ONS also has an “Other White” category. Under this classification falls all Europeans who are not “white British.”

The ONS analysis counted different white groups such as ‘white British,’ ‘white Irish’ and ‘other whites’—including people from parts of Europe, America and Australia—as ethnically different.

The ONS defines these “other whites” as a separate “ethnic group” for their classification purposes, and this is where the controlled media has made one of their biggest interpretative errors: by classing all ONS “ethnic groups” other than “white British,” they have drawn the incorrect conclusion that racial miscegenation amongst white British people is far higher than it is in reality.

The ONS report specifically says that “of all people in inter-ethnic relationships, 4 in 10 (40 percent or 933,000) included someone who was White British” but then goes on to point out that the “most common [“inter-ethnic relationship”] being between Other White and White British (16 percent); Other White is the second largest ethnic group in England and Wales (4 percent of the overall population).

In other words, even though there is massive media promotion of interracial relationships, the latest figures seem to indicate that the majority of British people have not miscegenated, and that it is nonwhites or those who have already miscegenated in some way, who make up the majority of the “new” mixed-race population.


Jerusalem heaved a sigh of relief on Monday when the 28 EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels adjourned without issuing a statement adopting either UN Security Council Resolution 2334 or the declaration that emerged from the Paris conference on Sunday.

The Council of the European Union met for a discussion on the Middle East peace process without issuing any conclusions. Israel has in recent days worked to prevent the council from issuing a final statement that would adopt the language of the Security Council’s anti-settlement resolution that also declared the Western Wall as ‘occupied territory,’ or the Paris declaration.
The Jerusalem Post has learned that France was pressing inside the meeting for the EU to adopt the Paris declaration, but these efforts were rebuffed by Britain and some Balkan states keen on getting off on the “right foot” with US President-elect Donald Trump when he takes office on Friday.

The British Foreign Office gave voice to this sentiment on Sunday, when it refused to endorse the Paris declaration.

“We have particular reservations about an international conference intended to advance peace between the parties that does not involve them – indeed, which is taking place against the wishes of the Israelis – and which is taking place just days before the transition to a new American president, when the US will be the ultimate guarantor of any agreement,” a Foreign Office statement said.

The Paris declaration reaffirmed support for a two-state solution, and called for a stop to the violence and “ongoing settlement activity.” It also called on each side “to refrain from unilateral steps that prejudge the outcome of negotiations on final-status issues, including, inter alia, on Jerusalem, borders, security, and refugees, which they will not recognize.”

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said at a news conference after the meeting of the foreign ministers that while no conclusions were formally adopted, the ministers “strongly reconfirmed our consolidated position on the two states, and on the trends that are endangering this perspective,” namely “the settlement expansion, the violence and the incitement to violence, and the situation in Gaza.”

Mogherini said that the Paris declaration “reflects fully the EU consolidated position.” She added that UN Security Council Resolution 2334 “also reflects the EU consolidated position.”

She denied that the British blocked the adoption of the Paris declaration, saying the purpose of the meeting was an “informal exchange” on the issues. Although there was “some exchange” about whether the foreign ministers should issue conclusions on the Middle East peace process, she did not exclude the possibility that this may take place at a later time.

She said that the Paris conference was “useful” in gathering a large international community and “reconfirming the commitments of the international community to the two-state solution, [and] keeping this as a top priority for the international community.”

Regarding the possible movement of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Mogherini said that the EU will “continue to respect the international consensus embodied in UN Security Council Resolution 478 from 1980.” In that resolution, taken after Israel annexed Jerusalem, the Security Council strongly censured Israel for the move and called on countries with embassies in the city to remove them.

“We will for sure not move our delegation – that is in Tel Aviv,” she said. “And we hope that there can be reflection on consequences on any move that is taken. I believe it is very important for us all to refrain from unilateral actions, especially those that can have serious consequences in large sectors of public opinion in large parts of the world.” She specifically mentioned the Arab world, Africa, Asia and parts of Europe.

Britain denounced for defending Israel in international forums (VERY VERY VERY GOOD!!!)

Palestinian and European officials on Monday slammed the UK’s apparent readiness to defy international consensus and stand up for Israel, accusing London of aligning with Jerusalem to garner favor with the incoming Trump administration.

“We were expecting the United Kingdom, in particular, to play an effective role in the international system that rejects the Israeli occupation and its settlement enterprise,” Palestine Liberation Organization Secretary-General Saeb Erekat said in a statement released Monday evening, mere hours after Britain blocked a French effort to have the European Union endorse a peace conference it held Sunday.

“The United Kingdom should revise its positions by holding Israel accountable, as well as support the Palestinian and international initiatives. It is time to end the historic injustice that befell our people who will soon mark the anniversary of the infamous Balfour Declaration.”

Hanan Ashrawi, another senior PLO official, charged that instead of “rectifying its historical responsibility” for the Palestinian “tragedy,” London is “compounding its culpability.”

Ashrawi: Instead of rectifying its historical responsibility, UK is compounding its culpability by undermining initiatives

On Sunday, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson attended the Paris peace conference but refused to sign the joint declaration issued by all but two participating countries (Australia also refused to sign the document).

A spokesperson for the British government later criticized the meeting for its inopportune timing ahead of a new US administration, and for the fact that neither Israelis nor Palestinians were present.

While reaffirming London’s support for a two-state solution, the spokesman indicated that the Paris conference might end up being unconstructive and liable to harden Palestinian negotiating positions.

On Monday, the UK successfully blocked France’s effort to have the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council adopt the Paris conference’s final communique, which calls on Israelis and Palestinians to take concrete steps to promote a two-state solution.

Based on the same concerns voiced in Paris, Johnson argued against endorsing the text that came out of the Paris conference. A handful of Eastern European nations supported London’s stance and since EU Foreign Affairs Council conclusions require unanimity, the text was not adopted.

However, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, Monday, that the Paris declaration “reflects fully the EU’s consolidated position that we reconfirmed today.”

The Palestinians weren’t the only ones who took issue with what appears to be a British pivot toward positions close to those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Several European diplomats said the UK’s sudden departure from its traditional positions is an effort to endear the country, which last year voted to leave the EU, to President-elect Trump. The new US leader has signaled that he intends to reconsider positions that have long been an international consensus regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

For instance, he was vowed to relocate the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — a move Palestinian and European officials have warned could have profound negative effects — and appointed advisers and emissaries that support Israel’s settlement enterprise and do not consider settlements an obstacle to peace.

In a recent interview with Bild and the Times of London, Trump said he hoped the UK would veto any anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council.

“The Brits read what Trump said and implemented it immediately,” an unnamed European diplomat who attended Monday’s EU meeting

“It’s madness. Just three weeks ago the Brits pushed for UN Security Council resolution 2334 [which criticized] the settlements and voted for it, and now they’re blocking resolutions on the matter at the Foreign Affairs Council. With all due respect to the British, you can’t run foreign policy according to someone’s tweets.”

Mark Hendrick, a lawmaker for the British Labour party, told the Financial Times that Johnson’s decision not to sign the Paris declaration was “alarming.”

“The UK is changing a 20-year policy on the Middle East and settlements for the sake of a good trade deal with Donald Trump,” a European diplomat . “They’re basically changing 20 years of international consensus.”

By all accounts, the UK’s refusal to sign the Paris declaration and its subsequent effort to prevent the EU from adopting the text, was highly unusual.

On Sunday, participants from 70 other countries endorsed the conference’s final communique, which even Israeli officials said was “softened” compared to last month’s Security Council resolution — which Britain supported.

London expressed “particular reservations” about the Paris meeting since the confab took place against Israel’s expressed wishes and “just days before the transition to a new American president when the US will be the ultimate guarantor of any agreement,” a Foreign Office spokesman said. “There are risks therefore that this conference hardens positions at a time when we need to be encouraging the conditions for peace.”

Due to these concerns, Britain had attended the Paris talks as an observer only and refused to sign the joint declaration issued after the conference, the spokesman said.

This surprising statement appeared to align London’s position on the conference with Israel’s. Jerusalem repeatedly decried the event as a futile exercise that, if anything, will make peace harder to achieve.

“The conference convening in Paris today is a useless conference,” Netanyahu said earlier on Sunday. “Its goal is to try and force terms on Israel that conflict with our national needs. Of course it pushes peace further away because it hardens the Palestinian positions and it also pushes them away from direct negotiations without preconditions.”

On December 23, the UK voted in favor of a UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed after Washington refrained from exercising its veto. Johnson admitted to playing an instrumental role in drafting the resolution, which was fiercely criticized by Israel, though Jerusalem focused its condemnations on the United States.

Netanyahu contacted Johnson before the Security Council vote, but did not speak to British Prime Minister Theresa May.

Days after the vote, May’s spokesperson issued a highly unusual rebuke of US Secretary of State John Kerry for overly focusing on Israeli settlements during a post-vote December 28 speech, in which he defended the US abstention, bitterly attacked the settlement enterprise, and set out his thoughts on how to advance the peace process.

Just a week and half before the Security Council vote, May delivered a speech overflowing with praise and support for Israel. Addressing the Conservative Friends of Israel, the prime minister hailed the Jewish state as “a remarkable country” and “a beacon of tolerance.”

Ties with Jerusalem were “crucial,” she said, promising to raise the bilateral trade relationship to new heights and describing the Balfour Declaration as “one of the most important letters in history.”

Cultural Marxists Persecute 3-year Olds for “Racism” in Britain

Some years ago, the British Daily Mail reported that “toddlers should be taught about racism and singled out for criticism if they have racist attitudes, a Government-funded advisory group said”. 


It told nursery teachers, playgroup leaders and childminders to record and report every racist incident involving children as young as three. These could include saying ‘Yuk’ about unfamiliar food.

Even babies should not be ignored in the hunt for racism because they can ‘recognise different people in their lives’, a new guide for nurseries and child care centres said.

The instructions for staff in charge of pre-school children in day care have been produced by the National Children’s Bureau, which receives £12million a year, mostly through taxpayer-funded organisations.

The NCB, which describes itself as ‘an umbrella body for the children’s sector’, has long used its resources to campaign on controversial issues, for example in favour of a legal ban on smacking by parents.

It also runs the Sex Education Forum, a campaign for more sex education in schools.

The new 366-page guide, Young Children and Racial Justice, warned that ‘racist incidents among children in early years settings-tend to be around name-calling-casual thoughtless comments, and peer group relationships’.

It said such incidents could include children using words like ‘blackie’, ‘Pakis’, ‘those people’ or ‘they smell’.

Children might also ‘react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying “yuk”.’

Nursery staff are told: ‘No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist intent, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action.’

If children ‘reveal negative attitudes the lack of censure may indicate to the child that there is nothing unacceptable about such attitudes’.

Nurseries are encouraged to report as many racist incidents as possible to local councils.

‘Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution,’ it said. ‘In fact, the opposite is the case.’

The guidance said that anyone who disagrees is racist themselves.

It also suggests cultivating the home languages of new immigrants – despite Government anxiety to promote the learning of English.

It said: ‘English is now viewed as the major language of the world but this is not because it has any innate linguistic advantages – it is because English is the language of power in a world dominated by English-speaking peoples.’

Critics of the race programme for pre-school children labelled it ‘totalitarian’.

Author and researcher on family life Patricia Morgan said: ‘Stepping in to stop severe bullying is one thing, but this is interference in the lives of children. It smacks of totalitarianism.

‘It is regulation of private speech and thought. They intend nursery staff to step into children’s playground squabbles and then report them to the local council as race incidents. Who would ever have thought that the anti-racism crusade would go so far?

A boy of ten has already been taken to court for calling a mixed race 11-year-old ‘Paki’ and ‘Bin Laden’ in a school playground argument.

The pair subsequently made up and became friends again, yet the Crown Prosecution Service decided to go ahead because the victim’s mother made a complaint.

The ten- year- old eventually appeared at Salford Youth Court in 2006 where he denied a racially motivated offence under the Public Order Act of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause another person harm or distress.

But District Judge Jonathan Finestein ordered the authorities to review their decision to prosecute.

He said of the defendant: ‘I shouldn’t think he understands Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. I’m not condoning what he supposedly said but there must be other ways of dealing with this apart from criminal prosecution.’

Prosecutors later decided not to pursue the case.

In Britain, Awards Only for Films That Propagating “Diversity”

Films will not be eligible for two of the main Bafta Awards from 2019 if they do not meet new “diversity criteria”.


Films will be nominated for outstanding British film or outstanding debut by a British writer, director or producer only if they meet two of four criteria.

The “significant change” will bring in more people from minorities, women, people with disabilities and from lower socio-economic groups, Bafta said.

It aims to improve access on screen, behind the scenes and among audiences.

To be eligible for the two awards, films must prove they have worked to improve diversity in two of the four following areas:

On-screen characters and themes

Senior roles and crew

Industry training and career progression

Audience access and appeal to under-represented audiences

The measures comply with the diversity standards the BFI (British Film Institute) uses to guide its activities and the projects it funds.

The changes show Bafta’s determination “in increasing the representation of under-represented groups in front of and behind the camera”, a statement said.

‘Not just who you know’

Meanwhile, Bafta has also changed the rules for admitting new members to join the panel that votes for award winners.

From this year, those working in the film industry no longer have to be recommended by two existing members in order to join.

“This widens the pool of potential members and ensures that it’s only talent, and not also who you know, that enables Bafta membership,” the statement said.

Of the 375 members admitted in 2016, 43% were female, 18% were from a minority ethnic group and the average age was 44, Bafta said.

Before the new intake, a survey found that 41% of voters were female, 13% were from a minority ethnic group and that they had an average age of 52.

Britain and the US in deepening war of words over Kerry’s anti-settlement speech

The outgoing Obama administration and the British government of Theresa May are engaged in an unprecedented war of words over Secretary of State John Kerry’s blistering critique of Israeli settlements.

Britain voted in favor of last Friday’s UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which condemned settlements as illegal and called for a halt in all settlement activity, while the US abstained. But a spokesman for May, who has expressed robust support for Israel in a series of recent speeches and messages, on Thursday castigated Kerry’s subsequent speech, accusing him of a wrong-headed approach and of being unfair to Israel.

In his address Wednesday, Kerry defended America’s decision not to veto the resolution and focused overwhelmingly on settlements as a central cause of the failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He warned that Israel’s agenda was being set by extremists, criticized the composition of Israel’s government, and declared that the future of a two-state solution was being jeopardized by Israeli policy.

Hours after Britain issued its rebuke, the State Department hit back furiously, denying that Kerry’s speech was unfair, hailing the support the secretary had received from other leaders, and implying that Britain was behaving hypocritically.

The diplomatic tussle is highly unusual between the US and UK, and Britain’s decision to attack Kerry for ostensible unfairness to Israel is still more extraordinary, echoing as it does the criticisms of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

May’s spokesman on Thursday rebuked Kerry for what it said was his speech’s singular focus on the settlements as a major impediment to reaching a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, and his commentary on the more right-wing members of Netanyahu’s coalition, whom Kerry accused of dragging Israel into more extreme positions.

US Secretary of State John Kerry lays out his vision for peace between Israel and the Palestinians December 28, 2016, in the Dean Acheson Auditorium at the Department of State in Washington, DC. (AFP PHOTO / PAUL J. RICHARDS)

US Secretary of State John Kerry lays out his vision for peace between Israel and the Palestinians December 28, 2016, in the Dean Acheson Auditorium at the Department of State in Washington, DC. (AFP/Paul J. Richards)

According to the UK’s Jewish News website, a spokesperson for May said: “We do not believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this cases the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is so deeply complex.

“And we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally,” the prime minister’s spokesman added. “The Government believes that negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between the two parties, supported by the international community.”

The Guardian further quoted May’s spokesman saying: “We continue to believe that the construction of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is illegal, which is why we supported UN security council resolution 2334 last week. But we are also clear that the settlements are far from the only problem in this conflict. In particular, the people of Israel deserve to live free from the threat of terrorism, with which they have had to cope for too long.”

The US State Department hit back in bitter language of its own, denying that Kerry had been unfair to Israel, and implicitly accusing the UK of being hypocritical in voting for the UN resolution and then criticizing the secretary. “We are surprised by the UK Prime Minister’s office statement given that Secretary Kerry’s remarks — which covered the full range of threats to a two state solution, including terrorism, violence, incitement and settlements — were in-line with the UK’s own longstanding policy and its vote at the United Nations last week,” a State Department statement said.

Plainly branding Britain as an isolated voice of dissent, the statement also said: “We are grateful for the strongly supportive statements in response to Secretary Kerry’s speech from across the world, including Germany, France, Canada, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and others.”

Reuters noted that May’s critique moves British policy closer to President-elect Donald Trump than its other European allies such as Germany and France, pointing out that “Trump has denounced the Obama administration’s treatment of Israel and promised to change course when he is sworn in on Jan. 20.”

“We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the US, but not anymore,” Trump said in a series of tweets on Wednesday, just before Kerry spoke. “Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!”

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (AP Photo/Andrew Taylor)

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (AP Photo/Andrew Taylor)

Along with the UK’s objections to Kerry’s speech, Australia has condemned the UN resolution as one-sided and “deeply unsettling.” Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull made plain that Australia would not have voted for Resolution 2334, and pledged support for Israel, “the only democracy in the Middle East.”

Laying out his “comprehensive vision” for the future of Middle East peacemaking, Kerry on Wednesday said that a two-state solution was the “only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state,” but promising that the US would not seek further UN action on the conflict.

In a speech that lasted well over an hour, Kerry described settlements as a central obstacle to achieving an agreement and declared that Israeli actions in the West Bank were putting the two-state solution — which he said was the sole path to peace — “in serious jeopardy.”

Kerry argued that settlement construction in the West Bank was being “strategically placed in locations that make two states impossible” and said the “the status quo is leading toward one state, or perpetual occupation.”

Settlement expansion, he declared, “has nothing to do with Israel’s security.”

Castigating the Netanyahu coalition, Kerry said it was “the most right-wing in Israel history with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements. The result is that policies of this government, which the prime minister himself just described as more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history, are leading … towards one state. In fact,” he added, “Israel has increasingly consolidated control over much of the West Bank for its own purposes.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers a statement to the press in response to US Secretary of State John Kerry's speech on the Israeli government and his vision for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. December 28, 2016. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers a statement to the press in response to US Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech on the Israeli government and his vision for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. December 28, 2016. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Netanyahu responded furiously to the speech Wednesday night, delivering a heated statement in English in which he accused Kerry of ignoring Palestinian terrorism in order to attack Israel.

“In a speech ostensibly about peace between Israelis and Palestinians, Secretary Kerry paid lip service to the unremitting campaign of terrorism that has been waged by the Palestinians against the Jewish state for nearly a century,” Netanyahu said.

“What he did was to spend most of his speech blaming Israel for the lack of peace by passionately condemning a policy of enabling Jews to live in their historic homeland and in their eternal capital, Jerusalem,” the prime minister said.

Censored History: Britain put Jews in Concentration Camp During WWII

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was a letter from Britain’s Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Walter Rothschild to be read before the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.

It announced British support for Jewish immigration into the Palestinian Mandate. The Zionist Federation had promised the British government they could mobilize Hollywood and other assets to push America into WWI on the side of the Axis. America entered WWI on April 6, 1917. The Balfour Declaration was made on November 2, 1917. It was widely viewed in Europe as a thank you for American Jewish support for America’s entry into WWI.

The Balfour Declaration was considered a major step towards the creation of the Jewish state of Israel.

The fallout however, was not good for European Jews. Germany had been a safe haven for Jews for hundreds of years. Jews were thriving so much so, that the average Jewish income was significantly higher than that of the average German. Germans felt the Jewish community as a whole had betrayed them. German Jews quickly became stigmatized as disloyal, draft dodgers, war profiteers, and more.

If that wasn’t enough, European Jews soon felt the sting of betrayal from Britain. In the 1930′s the German government offered to move European Jews to the Palestinian Mandate. The National Socialist regime encouraged Jews to obtain Palestinian passports and argued that Jews would be much happier living in a country of their own in the Middle East. The German government promised the Arabs in the Palestinian Mandate free Volkwagon trucks and construction supplies to pacify them. Ideological Zionists living in the Mandate embraced the idea and some even openly supported the National Socialist regime.

Britain immediately capped the number of Jews who could move to the Palestinian Mandate to only 15,000 a year, so they would not change the balance of power.

In 1940, the National Socialist regime sent the first wave of Jews to the Palestinian Mandate. The first convoy was three ships full of Jews from Prague, Danzig, Vienna, and Tulcea, Romania. The British immediately blockaded the ports and declared that the Jews were illegal immigrants. The Jews were all arrested by the British army and placed in quickly erected concentration camps. Once WWII started many Jews tried to reach the territory to avoid being sent to Nazi run concentration camps. Britain captured tens of thousands and imprisoned them in concentration camps in the Palestinian Mandate, Cyprus, and Mauritius. The British concentration camps looked the same as the dreaded camps run by Germany, Croatia, and Romania. When inmates arrived at the British camps they were forced to strip naked and then sprayed with DDT.

In 1944, the government of Hungary collapsed. The arrow cross party seized control of Hungary to keep the Hungarian army fighting on the Eastern front. To pay for the Hungarian army, Jewish owned property in Hungary was seized. The National Socialist regime made another major attempt to send Jews to the Palestinian Mandate. They had Turkish cooperation to transport Jews to the territory by train. One train was even filled up with Hungarian Jews and ready to leave, but the British said the Hungarian Jews would be refused. The passengers were ordered to switch trains to be sent to concentration camps in Poland. At that time Britain knew full well that the IRC was the sole provider of food and supplies to the camps and it was only a matter of time until access would be cut off due to the advancing red army.

What is even more shocking is that after the Allies and the IRC began liberating the concentration camps, Britain continued to imprison Jewish refugees who tried to enter the Palestinian Mandate. Many survived WWII in concentration camps, only to be imprisoned by the British.

The main British concentration camp was in Atlit, north of Haifa. Many Jews were imprisoned in Atlit before being transported to Cyprus or Mauritius. Over 70,000 Jews were imprisoned there between 1940 and 1945. The camp was shut down when it was attacked by Zionist guerrillas in 1945. Yitzhak Rabin allegedly masterminded the operation, but he did not lead it.

It took a very violent guerrilla war and major acts of terrorism to convince the British to give up the Palestinian Mandate after WWII was over.

by Jason Swartz