Zionist terror plot exposed by the BBC! (Panorama take note) – A Date with Bevin – broadcast 24 July 2006

After the  broadcast of the disgraceful BBC Panorama programme ‘Death in the Med’, scepticism towards the BBC`s coverage of Israel has further increased.  But, away from the glare of a primetime TV scheduling slot, some of the historical truth about Zionist terror was told in this programme broadcast in 2006 on BBC Radio 4: 

A Date with Bevin (click to listen to archived programme)  

BBC journalist Mike Thomson investigates Jewish insurgency in Palestine after WWII and a plot to assasinate Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin.

Photos from the Stern Gang Museum (also known as the Lechi or Lehi in Israel)

"Preparing letter-bombs and sending them to personages in England. Preparing sabotage operations against British objects"

Underground weapons maker, Stern Gang Museum, Tel Aviv

Stern gang weapons in Stern Gang Museum

Text from BBC web page describing the programme:

In 1946, not long after the Second World War was won, Britain was again under threat. Jewish insurgents, who had long been fighting a bloody insurgency campaign against British troops in Palestine, were about to take their war to London. Previously top secret documents reveal that assassination squads were being sent to the capital armed with a hit list. On it were the names of several top government figures. These included Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin. Extremist groups like The Stern Gang (or Lehi) and Irgun, were determined to end the British mandate in Palestine and replace it with a Jewish homeland. Hundreds of their fighters, along with many British soldiers, were killed or injured in a struggle that escalated after the end of the war. Desperate to achieve a breakthrough after the arrest or deaths of many of their members, the two groups set up underground cells in Britain. It wasn’t long before British security services got wind of what was happening and in early 1946 they issued this top secret internal warning: “Members of the Stern group are now being organised and are under training. It is expected that they will be sent to the United Kingdom to assassinate important members of his majesty’s government, particularly, Mr Bevin.” In the months that followed a number of bombs exploded in London and an attempt was made to drop on a bomb on the House of Commons from a hired plane. This last effort was only stopped after French Police discovered Stern Gang members preparing to cross the channel in a plane containing a large bomb. Mike Thomson and the Document team track down the assassin sent to kill Ernest Bevin and the man who gave him the explosives to do it. 

Exchange with Uri Avnery

A brief exchange with Uri Avnery, of Israeli peace group Gush Shalom, following his most recent article, accessible here: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1282429124/


Dear Uri,

A couple of questions re your latest article…

1) Why do you describe the UN partition plan as “very sensible”. Was not a unitary democratic state (something the UN also considered at the time) eminently more sensible, not just in theory, but – with the benefit of hindsight – also in practice? Partition, by any measure, has been disastrous for the Palestinians. This being so, could you clarify why you consider partition to have been “sensible” please.

2) In what realm is it appropriate to describe Herzl’s “vision” as “humanist”? I can’t claim to be an expert on Herzl, but it’s clear from just a cursory glance at the available evidence that he was well aware that establishment of a “Jewish State” would entail transfer (aka ethnic cleansing) of the indigenous population. This being so, could you clarify what you mean by “humanist” please.

Look forward to your comments.




Dear Joe,


The unitary state is nonsense. Have written about this often.

Herzl never advocated transfer in Palestine. His humanist vision is set out in “Altneuland”.




Thanks, Uri. I’m left to assume you mean nonsense in practice, not theory. Correct? Regards Herzl, how then to explain the oft-cited entry in his diary: “We shall endeavour to expel the poor population across the border unnoticed,procuring employment for it in the transit countries, but denying it any employment in our own country”. A momentary aberration? An unfair decontextualisation, perhaps?




Dear Joe,


Sure, nonsense as a practcal solution.

The oft quoted words are a falsification. Before becoming Palestine-centered, Herzl thought about a state in South America. In that context, he wrote those (ugly) words.




Hi again, Uri. Thanks for the response. One final question, plus a comment, if I may…

1) You’ll be aware that a relatively small group of zionists, including one Noam Chomsky, advocated a single binational state until as late as the early 70s. This seems an awfully long time to be engaged in nonsense. Did you stop to consider that binationalism might actually have been more “sensible” than partition?

2) Re the Herzl quote, by “falsification” I assume you mean conscious citing to imply he was referring specifically to Palestine? Fair enough – I agree it’s always important to be clear about the precise context, which I understand was Argentina in this instance. And yet, this rejoinder sits rather uncomfortably nonetheless, since Herzl’s words are a clear indication of the measures he knew would be necessary to establish a settler state on land where an indigenous community was already present. In other words, the quote betrays Herzl’s understanding that his settler colonial project would invariably violate the most basic right of the indigenous people, wherever they may be: the right not to have their land taken from them. There’s nothing humanist about such a project, no matter how it’s packaged.

Best wishes,



Dear Joe,

Bi-nationalism in the 1930s was basically a plan to get Arabs to agree to Jewish mass-immigration, when we were less than 25% of the population. Noam was in the country for some time, and later had a lingering longing for this idea, which he, however, realized was quite unrealistic. I spoke with him about this several times.

Herzl was a complex person, and the subject is far more complex than meets the eye.



Israel and Matthew Offord, the new Conservative MP for the London constituency of Hendon

 Matthew Offord, the new Conservative MP for the London constituency of Hendon, recently asked Justice Secretary Ken “cancer sticks” Clarke in parliament whether he proposed to change the law so that: 

“only the Crown Prosecution Service will be able to initiate prosecutions for universal jurisdiction offences” 

Due to the frequency of human rights abuses by the State of Israel, the frequency of visits of Israeli politicians to the UK, and the infrequency of those politicians being held to account, it is clear that as Michael Mansfield QC wrote in the Guardian: 

“Where states have failed to comply with international law, private citizens must have the right to instigate transgressors’ arrest” 

 A recent trip to Israel 

 In light of Offord`s parliamentary question on Universal Jurisdiction, a recent high-powered visit to Israel seems especially relevant. On 1st July 2010 the website of the Hendon Conservatives mentioned that: 

“Last week Matthew Offord, Hendon’s MP, visited Israel as part of a delegation from the JNF charity” 

 and that 

“After a breakfast meeting with David Horovitz, the Editor-in-Chief of the Jerusalem Post, Matthew attended a private meeting with the Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman where the issues of the Gaza blockade, Iran’s nuclear capability and America’s foreign policy were all discussed.” 

Matthew Offord, MP, planting a tree at the Lord Sacks Forest near Jerusalem

The constituency of Hendon has a large Jewish population and its preoccupation with Israel was well illustrated by Israeli daily Haaretz`s coverage of an election debate in Hendon United Synagogue: 

The three candidates were sitting up on the stage last Wednesday night: One wearing a skullcap (though he is not Jewish), the second waxing poetic about his trip to Israel, and the third furious about anti-Semitism in Europe and twice mentioning his personal role in getting Holocaust Remembrance Day put on the national calendar.  

and as the debate started the focus of the audience became apparent: 

They seem generally uninterested matters of community hospitals, transport or the like. Its all Israel and Jews, all the time. And the candidates have no choice but to oblige. “Do you support the terrorist organization Hamas?” an elderly gentleman asks, getting the debate going. The candidates practically fall over each other in their rush to answer in the negative. “Look at what they have done to their own people!” begins Matthew Offord, the Tory contender. “Despicable,” charges Matthew Harris, of the Liberal Democrats. “I am in despair what I see what they are doing in Gaza,” pipes in Andrew Dismore, the current Hendon MP, a Labour man who has represented this constituency since 1997. 

(“British candidates court UK Jews ahead of election” – Haaretz – 03.05.10) 


Marcus Dysch, writing in the avowedly Zionist Jewish Chronicle viewed the same phenomenon in a rather more positive light: 

“While Hendon voters are concerned over local matters such as hospitals and transport, candidates are likely to face tougher questioning on Jewish doorsteps over their handling of wider issues concerning Israel.” 



An earlier trip to Israel  

 Matthew Offord was one of the 17 Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPC) who went to Israel in November 2007 on a trip organised by the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). Readers of this blog may remember a previous reference to this trip, which was notable because 10 of those PPCs went on to receive donations of £2000 or more from CFI sponsor, the Lewis Trust Group, including Cheltenham candidate Mark Coote and Stroud candidate (now MP) Neil Carmichael. After the trip Offord said: 

“The trip with CFI has given me an opportunity to see first-hand how people live their lives and as a result it has helped me to better understand the frustrations terrorism has created – both in the country itself and the Middle East as a whole.” 


 Unlike Mark Coote and Neil Carmichael, Offord did not receive a donation from the Lewis Trust Group in the months that followed the trip. Since he was a PPC for a constituency with a large Jewish population clearly his support for Israel could be relied upon without a financial incentive! 

A BBC connection 

 According to this tantalising snippet of info from Barnet Today (22 April 2010), before representing Israel Hendon in Parliament, Offord earned a crust at the BBC: 

“Mr Offord, who has worked as an analyst for the BBC, now works formulating the broadcaster’s long-term strategy and is currently a ward councillor for Hendon.” 



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.