Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

War and Remembrance

The Promise, a British miniseries about Israel at its founding and today, has been criticized by some Jewish groups as biased propaganda. But it’s a fair and compelling dramatization that deserves to be widely seen, not demonized.

Print Email
Claire Foy as Erin Matthews in The Promise. (Channel 4 Television UK)
Related Content

Blowing Smoke

A five-hour French biopic mythologizes 1970s terrorist Carlos the Jackal, who masterminded a glamorous and fetishized vision of senseless death and is still trying to shape his own image

Even though it is a work of fiction, The Promise—a four-part miniseries that aired last month on Great Britain’s public-owned but commercially sponsored Channel 4—is a strong candidate to redeem the perpetually abused category of reality TV. Weaving together the story of Len Matthews, a young sergeant serving in British Mandate Palestine in 1946, and his granddaughter Erin, a restless visitor to modern-day Israel, the series, eight years in the making, was shot entirely on location and features long stretches of dialogue, without translation or subtitles, in Hebrew and Arabic. Despite the occasional clunky plot turn and the artful cinematography—Israel frequently looks like a wild and oversaturated field of color hastily doodled by Matisse—the show often delivers the sort of emotional blows we associate not with television but with real life.

Which, Israel being the subject matter, is guaranteed to make some people mad. Amir Ofek, the press attaché at Israel’s embassy in London, told the Israeli press that the show is “an attempt to demonize Israelis” and the worst example of anti-Israeli propaganda he’d ever seen. Writing in the Jewish Chronicle, England’s premier Jewish publication, one columnist argued that the series’ script could have been written by Fatah. The institutionalized Jewish community in England issued strongly worded press releases. Pundits in Israel shrieked. By the time the show had finished its run, more people had read about The Promise than had actually seen it.

That’s a shame, because contrary to these howls of discontent, the show is a rare and riveting example of telling Israel’s story on screen with accuracy, sensitivity, and courage. It begins with Erin (Claire Foy), a recent high-school graduate, visiting her dying grandfather in the hospital in London 2005. The old man, we’re led to understand, had gone through life being somewhat of a sod, but then Erin finds his diary. In a series of flashbacks, we learn that Grandpa Len (Christian Cooke) had been among the liberators of Bergen-Belsen. This is conveyed via raw and harrowing documentary footage of the camp’s aftermath; seeing the skeletal corpses piled up, we understand every tormented line wrinkling Len’s handsome face.

But the plot soars once Len and Erin arrive in Israel, each in his or her own era, he as a rosy-cheeked British soldier and she as a contemporary tourist, reading the diary and doing her best to retrace her grandfather’s steps. After we see Len injured in the 1946 attack on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, Erin meets with an old Israeli who, as a member of the Zionist paramilitary group Irgun, was one of the attack’s perpetrators. This genial septuagenarian tells Erin that having lost his entire family in the Holocaust, he was happy to fight for the Jewish homeland by any means necessary. Erin—like presumably many viewers—finds the attack noxious, but the old man’s version of events is emotional and intelligent, ripe with the nuances that make Israel both deeply appealing and hopelessly complex.

The show’s writer and director, Peter Kosminsky, walks this tightrope of evenhandedness remarkably well. One moment we follow Erin as she survives a Palestinian suicide bombing and wanders, bleeding, through the corridors of a hospital packed with disfigured, writhing victims. The next, we follow her to Hebron, where the suffering of the Palestinian population—largely imprisoned by a small and vitriolic community of Jewish settlers defended by a large military force—is acutely felt. The same is true for Len, shown in pre-State Palestine between 1946 and 1948, as his sympathies shift between the Jewish underground operatives fighting for independence and the local Arabs with whom the Jews vie for land. To Kosminsky’s credit, nothing and no one in the series is simple, and even the most zealous characters are allowed moments of humanity, a few good arguments in support of their cause, and a few moments of grace.

One such moment comes toward the end of the series, when Erin, looking for one of her grandfather’s old acquaintances, makes her way into Gaza. Through a complicated set of circumstances, she ends up spending the night with the family of a female suicide bomber who had exploded herself in Tel Aviv the previous day. Erin is woken up in the morning by determined-looking members of the Israel Defense Forces (the show is set before the IDF’s withdrawal from Gaza in August of 2005), who inform her that the house, per Israel’s policy of combating terrorism, is slated for immediate demolition. Erin is angry—she doesn’t see the point of punishing the family for the actions of their fanatic daughter—and decides to chain herself to a post in an attempt to block the soldiers’ path. Enter Eliza (Perdita Weeks), Erin’s best friend and now a young IDF soldier serving in Gaza. Throughout her visit to Israel, Erin had been staying with Eliza’s family, supporting her friend—a dual citizen of England and Israel—as she finished her basic training. A plausible plot twist puts Eliza in the same condemned house with Erin, and a fierce dialogue unfolds between the two women. Erin weeps for the Palestinian family about to be rendered homeless; Eliza makes a compelling argument that reminds Erin—and the viewers—of the atrocities of terrorism and of Israel’s right to defend itself. What the English audience sees, then, is two young English women, one wearing a kafiyah around her neck and one in a tight olive IDF uniform, each making her point emotionally and eloquently, each convincing.

Viewed through the much narrower prism of the professional propagandist, however, it is not difficult to see why someone might take offense with the show. Several of Israel’s highly questionable practices are shown here accurately and unequivocally. In Gaza, for example, Erin and a local Palestinian child are grabbed and used as human shields by soldiers searching a nearby house; this controversial practice has been repeatedly deployed by the IDF in Gaza and the West Bank for the past decade or so. Similarly, the portrayal of Hebron’s Jewish settlers as violent aggressors is unflattering but not inaccurate. But as he’s done in his previous shows—about the radicalization of British Muslims, the lead-up to the war in Iraq, and other deeply controversial and multilayered subjects—Kosminsky never allows these harsh truths to steal the focus away from the story. Watching the show, audiences are likely to care as much or more for Erin’s personal drama—the beautifully mundane tale of a young woman emerging from the cocoon of childhood, blinking, blinded by sex and family and other impossibly bright lights—as they do about the morsels of reality planted here and there throughout the plot. This, perhaps, was what reality television was meant to be all along: edifying but never preachy, entertaining but seldom silly, a lesson in history and current events that realizes that for anyone to care, facts and emotions must be given equal footing and the opportunity to clash with each other for the viewer’s sympathy.

For the most part, and despite the vocal criticisms, English audiences seemed to embrace the show and its complexities. More than a million and a half people, or a strong showing of 7 percent of the television-watching audience, tuned in to The Promise, and there was occasional praise from across the political spectrum for the show’s even-handedness and thoroughness. If The Promise gets what it deserves, it will be given an airing here and in Israel, injecting a note of artfulness and subtlety into a debate too often dominated by the shrill.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

T/Ramat-Gan/Israel says:

‘The Promise’ is fair and accurate as ‘Jud Süß’.

Great job Tablet – evevry day you are moving closer and closer to become Mondoweiss 2 and maybe one day you will take the place of Stormfront.

Whenever I read the word “evenhandedness” in relations to Israel, I shudder. Invariably it means somehow that one can justify suicide bombings and any act against Israel by the Arabs, who do not wish to have Jews live among them and are pledged to destroy the Jewish state. Why are there no Jews now living in Arab lands? Answer that question before making any arguments using the term “evenhandedness.”

Europa says:

As someone who has actually seen this incredible series in London and also witnessed the ongoing nightmare that is reflected in the storyline – See this program for yourselves and don’t go into defensive posture on the basis of the blinkered and dishonest opinions of those with an agenda. This is an incrediblyhonest and thought-provoking production and Peter Kominsky a brave and intelligent director. It is truly even-handed to an incredible degree. The DVD from Amazon UK was sold out with 24 hours and I believe negotiations are underway to make the series it available on PBS.

Stuarta11 says:

Completely agree with T/Ramat Gan.
Quite simply, the case for Israel & the case for the Palestinians is not presented in a way that enables the neutral observer to rationally analyse the “facts” and draw even handed conclusions regarding the rights & wrongs of both arguements.
The proposition that no good can come out of the creation of the Jewish State on “stolen land” is stated categorically & as irrefutable fact and my 14 year old knows enough to realise that this oversimplifies a complex set of events triggered by Lord Balfour at the turn of the 20th century.
Make no mistake, The Promise jumps on the deligitimisation of Israel arguements and heads squarely into modern day neo-anti-semitism & it is galling in the extreme to find gullible Jewish media sucked into defending such transparent Pro-Palestinian propoganda.

Even in explaining how “evenhanded” Tablet feels this mini-series to be, it’s come off as seemingly endlessly staged for hate and rhetoric. As suggested by earlier comments, you have only enhanced an environment wherein you have given cause and depth to suicide bombing and heartless slaughters of innocent men women and children. Let me point out that Hebron’s tiny Jewish community holds no such iron control over the suffering Arab population “caged in” by their fear or any other ridiculous claim you’ve just made. I doubt that any other community in the world would sit idly by as foreign observers recorded the every coming and going of a small group from their own neighborhood while actively calling for their removal of it. Spending the night with the real victims of a suicide bombing, the perpetrators family proving that she was just one bad apple… doesn’t this seem wildly inappropriate? Apparently it won’t to the British either who were fed this garbage.

Please, offer a dissenting opinion, but don’t justify the spread of anti-Israel sentiment based on calculated efforts to undermine legitimacy. No other nation in the world would tolerate this and no other group of people would be demonized so repeatedly for attempting to exist.

T/Ramat-Gan/Israel says:


I surfed before two weeks to the Guardian web site reading the articles about it, the discussions( Muslims + Radical Left vs Israel fans ) and the interview with Kosminsky ( who the sources he based the series as he admited in the interview were radical to very radical organizations )

You will be surprised to hear that but you don’t have to actually see or read propaganda pieces in order to have a an opinion about them and the people who propagate them and if it wasn’t so 99.9999999999% of the people on earth shouldn’t say a word about ‘Mein Kampf’ and Hitler…

Peter W. says:

“Evenhandedness” is code term for a facile and lazy moral equivalence. It’s propounded by people who conflate “balance” and “neutrality” with objectivity. Would the author approve of an “evenhanded” portrayal of the German attempt to exterminate the Jews?

Did it show the absorption in Israel of hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees who had to leave their homes and their jobs in the Arab lands in fear for their lives in 1948? Did it show how Israel is the safe haven for so many Jews who were displaced in WWII? Did it show the Ethiopian Jews transported from a famine to safety in Israel? Did it show how many Arab refugees were kept in rudimentary refugee camps that were under Arab rulers for almost 20 years with no citizenship between 1948-1967? Please let’s get all this information understood before we consider the program “evenhanded.”

Reuvain says:

Imprisoned in Hebron !!!???

No one is imprisoned in Hebron. When Jews returned in 1967, 38 years after a massacre of Yeshiva students they did not imprison anyone. But when the grandchildren of those who rampaged in 1929 tried to force the Jews out again with violence and terror Jews refused to move.

You have made the victim the victimizer. The Arabs in Hebron attacked the Jews in the community. Thats why there is an army. Let the Arabs stop the violence and you can scale the military presence. If you take a look at the long history of Jews in Hebron for the last thousand years you will find that Arabs in every generation, expelled, killed and oppressed the Jewish community. Some Arabs also valiantly help save a few Jews during the 1929 massacre.

Let me add one more point. In no way I am defending the acts of Boruch Goldstein. They were wrong. He had not right to take innocent life.

Still at the core of the conflict is the centuries old hatred of Jews by the local Arabs.

Europa says:


I watched it with friends from Tel Aviv – one a former IDF Commander who found it moving and yes – evenhanded. Kominsky is an equal opportunity offender. So respectfully perhaps you ought to actually see it. If you have access to a multi system DVD player, I’d be delighted to send you a copy of your very own :).

T/Ramat-Gan/Israel says:

Sorry but I am not impressed – not from your friends( who probably belong to the fringe that worship europe and hate the Jewish culture and Judaism – don’t forget that I live Israel so I am very familiar with this type of creatures ) and bot from you suggestion. I am not affraid or something like that – I am absolutely immune to this kind of venum – but in my spare time I preffer to watch entertainment and not propaganda.

The discussions in the Guardian web site were enough for me to come to conclusion – they were tones of muslims & fanatical radical left-wingers who spew their hate toward Israel against I say 2 people who pointed the flaws, inaccuracies and lies in this series.

About Hebron in the film:

Anybody who has been to Hebron knows very well that the portrayal of the jewish settlers and their relations with the israeli army is totally correct. The above statements to the contrary are really quite disingenuous. -Anybody who see them in action, jew or non-jew, cannot help to experience that settlers are agressive, obnoxius, treat the israeli army with disdain and command them around, and behave like ugly bullies to the palestinians. with ugly expressions, always with the army at their back. and the palestininas have the army to contend with, so they say mostly nothing in return. why are you guys denying it?

But this is not to defend the mini-series:
– why are the only jewish characters we get to know stinking rich? Most Israelis do not live in villas such as those villas in Caesarea where every single modern Israeli character we meet in the series lives. WHy can’t we meet ordinary, not well-off israelis?
– even more important: -why is the Irgun presented as the ONLY jewish defense force, instead of the real legitimate defense force, the Haganah? this is like saying Hamas is the only Palestinian defense force, as the PLO and Fatah would not exist! -And those are only a few subtleties that result in a general picture of jews which pulls on old antisemtic clichees and mixes them with notions of negative, neo-colonial behaviour. Yes, it reflects A reality, but only the reality of groups of neo-fascist extremists. And in the case of the millionaire “average” israelis we meet, it really begs the question: why was that millionaire attribute really needed for the dramaturgy of the film?

The more real elements there are in any work of fiction, the more convincing it is in its negative portrayals. WHy did the Israelis all have to be super-millionaires?…Of course, that is dangerous. A pity that our own present-day extremists also really exist, beside any manipulative director.

Stuarta11 says:

Again, I agree with T/Ramat Gan.

However, I watched all four episodes of this series (I am a British Jew from Manchester, UK).

The series was nothing short of dramatised Palestinian standard propoganda and misinformation.

Showing fleeting film of camp survivors & their imprisonment on reaching British Mandate Palestine does not resonate with English audiences as much as the emotive depiction of the desperate young Palestinian boy as he is shot dead by Israeli cross-fire as the British troops leave Haifa.

Nor does the showing of a suicide bomb attack in a cafe (approximately 2 minutes film time) look balanced against the sympathetic treatment given to the family of the suicide bomber whose home is being bulldozed by deliberately depicted “hard nosed” and “evil” Israeli military as the Arab matriarch lies sick in bed in the midst of her home’s destruction having just been told of the fate of her little brother in 1947 at the hands of the Israeli’s equally abhorrent antecedants(approximately 30 minutes film time).

In fact, one English lady of no previous political position, was heard to comment “Well, maybe those Palestinians have a point…” after watching this series…now THAT is really upsetting as you can multiply that opinion across the 7 million viewers who watched this series.

By the way, can anyone please tell me how, in all credulity, Erin managed to find a chain with padlock in the terrorist’s family’s living room with which to chain herself to the building to prevent the bulldozing. Very evenhanded treatment, that one. Can’t recall Erin enquiring too much about the environment that the family provided in order to nurture the terrorist activities of their daughter,

David Star says:

I would like to comment on one small item in the story of the King David Hotel bombing. Len was injured not by the bombing but by typical British arrogance. A good friend of mine was the teen – aged lookout for the bombers. He told me that he was amazed that the building had not been evacuated. The British commander based at the hotel refused to acknowledge the warning sent to him by the Irgun and was set to explode at a certain time. He would not accept the fact that it was true because there was no way Jews could infiltrate his headquarters.

susanna says:

As far as I know, are the palestinians in Gaza who grabbed their women and children to use them as human shields. It’s unbelievable that you say the opposite

Justin says:

“The institutionalized Jewish community in England” maybe you are right. We are all living in a madhouse these days —-including Ms Liebowitz.

Todd O. says:

Aside: I’m not sure of the politics of Tablet, but just a heads up that in British English, “sod” is short for “sodomite” (from 18th and 19th century slang), and calling someone a “sod” is like calling them a “faggot.” (Hence also, “sodding” as an adjective and “sod off” as an imperative). For me personally, it was a bit glaring to read the word in the body of the text, and somewhat ironic in the middle of a debate about demonizing language and representation.

rivka says:


Interesting aside, but Tablet is an American publication. Nonetheless, my iMac built-in dictionary indicates that:

Sod 2 chiefly Brit., vulgar slang
an unpleasant or obnoxious person.
• [with adj. ] a person of a specified kind.
• something that is difficult or causes problems.


anyone who can write, after viewing the series, that the writer/director “walks this tightrope of evenhandedness remarkably well” is someone who must have a rather far-out left-wing non-Zionist agenda. Or someone who simply is ignorant of Mandate history. He couldn’t fit in the Ben-Yehudah St. bombing by British soldiers killing over 50 Jews? There is so much simply false about this docu-drama without dealing with Kosminsky’s own personal biases. Quite a disservice The Tablet has done here.

Try this blog post for another view, from the UK:

Europa says:

Richard Millet – PLEASE …..

Perhaps the Jews for Justice review might provide some balance
“Sadly, it’s the propagandists and shrill voices on all sides who grab most public attention, and it’s in their interests to oversimplify the arguments, even while disingenuously paying lip-service to the complexity of the issues. But in the last year or so, partly influenced by the significant emergence of much more even-handed attitudes among some pro-Israel leaders of the Jewish community, a more nuanced tone has perhaps crept into the public debate about Israel-Palestine. Kosminsky’s series is a contribution to that more reflective atmosphere and this is something Britain’s Jews should warmly welcome.”

stuarta11 says:

Jews for Justice for Palestine for a balanced view? Are you kidding? A bunch of self-hating Jews intrinsically attached to an anti-Zionist agenda, supporting boycotts, illegal “peace convoys” shipping weaponry to Gaza & affiliated to Neturi Karta who openly embrace Holocaust deniers. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Europa says:

“A bunch of self-hating Jews” – that hate-filled epithet is getting to be a badge of honour. Some people do consider Tikkun Olam important.

I did not know about the derivation of the word “sod”! Thank you, Todd, for the edification. It’s not as if I was going around saying it all the time (I don’t say lorry, courgette or snog, either) but I will certainly make sure not to use it now.

A friend in London raved about this show. I’d be curious to see it before condemning it.

JCarpenter says:

As in the case with most of human conflict throughout human history, there’s enough sin on all sides to condemn everyone and justify no one. Defensive positions deny grace which is sorely needed in this world.

Stuart says:


Unfortunately, Jews for Justice have decided that the Palestinian agenda should be supported. So tell me, who are our partners for peace? The people who massacred a whole family in their sleep? And before you say they shouldn’t have been in Hebron anyway, wasn’t this just a repeat of the 1929 Hebron massacre of 67 Jews, with hundreds more forced to flee to Jerusalem. And was the excuse Israeli occupation then?

I quote a recent blog from Emmanuel Navon:

“Nor are the murderers of the Fogel family social outcasts condemned by their people. The murder of the Fogel children and their parents was greeted with jubilation in Gaza. Carnivals were held in the streets as Hamas members handed out sweets. A society that celebrates when babies have they throat cut is sick and sickening. No less sick and sickening are those journalists who describe the victims as “settlers” and the killed baby as a “settler baby.” This language justifies the murder and blames the victims.

As for Abbas, he is a hypocrite. Just two months ago, he awarded $2,000 to the family of a terrorist who attacked IDF soldiers. Last week, the PA’s official daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida announced a football tournament named after Wafa Idris, the first female Palestinian suicide bomber. Three weeks ago, Abbas’ PA TV broadcast videos glorifying the terrorist Habash Hanani, who in May 2002 entered Itamar and murdered three Israeli students. Twice (in 2008 and again this past summer), the PA named summer camps after the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who in 1978 led the most deadly attack in Israel’s history in which 37 civilians were killed in a bus hijacking.”

So, again, tell me, who are we looking to partner to bring about Tikkun Olam (which, by the way, we recite 3 times a day in the Aleinu prayer, and means “repairing the world under Hashem’s sovereignty”

While neither a Jew, nor Christian,nor Muslim,but only a deracinated American with an intensely pro-Zionist point-of-view that goes back almost sixty years,I’d very much like to see this film but have little hope that it will appear on American TV…Israel and Israelis are human,and therefore imperfect,but I’m afraid that “evenhandedness” in America usually translates as pro-Arab…a film that engenders such disparate interpretations might be worth watching…

For Israel, Samaria means Security.

Read all about it here:

After reading the review, I got the miniseries and watched it. For the first 2-3 hours, I definitely thought it was fair. But when they interspersed scenes of the King David bombing and the cafe suicide bombing I already began to see the inequities. Eliza’s mother was able to say that the two bombings were “completely different,” the the series did not allow her to elaborate. Also, while Len falls in love with a Jewish spy, he decides to fight for the Arabs because of a promise he made to watch someone’s child?

Beatrix says:

I haven’t seen the program, but just from your review, Israel blows up the King David Hotel (I’m sure the Jewish soldier’s reasons will resonate with an English audience), followed by the Israelis and Palestinians fighting over the land. That’s the portrayal of equivalency when in fact the UN gave both sides land and the Palestinians attacked Israel for her share. And lost. And have been occupied since 1967 because they refuse a peace treaty. Arafat didn’t want one and Abbas doesn’t want to be assassinated for making the concessions he has to make for peace.

The Palestinian suicide bomber is female (much more sympathetic than a male although the first female bomber was forced into it by her husband when he discovered that she was cheating). The Israeli victims are relegated to the back burner while the program concentrates on the “innocent” Palestinian family (the ones who raised the bomber and instilled their values in her.

The subsequent argument isn’t between two English women, it’s between a Jew and a gentile—the gentile representing compassion and the Jew insisting on vengeance and destruction.

They could as easily show a play about America focusing on our treatment of Indians and blacks, and dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. Accurate, but hardly balanced.

Gene says:

I did not see the movie but judging by its description it is a propaganda in the best traditions of “social realism”. The same way (showing how Jewish bankers exploited German workers after WWI or how Jewish commissar from the Soviet secret police mistreated German POWs) you can make case for the Nazis in the “evenhanded” and “balanced” movie about their relations with Jews.
Showing few cases of using “human shields ” by the IDF (which are now illegal in Israel) as a general IDF tool in its fight against terrorists while, at the same time, not showing the use of the similar “human shields” by the terrorists (as well as their use of mentally sick people, “red cross” vehicles, hospitals, schools and other immoral methods of the warfare) represents gross distortion of the truth, or, in other words, pure propaganda.

Beatrix says:

England used to be a great power ruling a large part of the world. After WW2, her power diminished, but at least she had Israel until the Israelis tossed her out onto the back burner of history. Today, no one would pay attention to England if she didn’t have the scampy royals, and some damned good actors.

How objective do you think the English can be about the people who caused their diminution of power? How do you think they’re going to portray the soldiers who caused their humiliating defeat? Who do you think they identify with—the Jewish winners or the Palestinian losers?

Jews can trust the Germans before they can trust the English.

abunafha says:

liberals promoting “evenhandedness” and “bot sides” of the story are simply cowards, afraid of naming real reasons for eternal war of muslims against the jews.
just to remind you, my dear tablet friends, the most assimilated german jews were the first on trains…

Sean says:

Susanna and Beatrix are representative of the ignorance displayed in these posts. ignoring the outright racial supremacists, and proceeding on the assumption that Susanna and Beatrix are simply misinformed, I suggest that Susanna reads the Goldstone Report on human shields or the Israeli press on it’s long use by the IDF Beatrix seems to think that the Arabs attacked the Israeli part of the mandate. the majority of Zionist casualties in 1948 occurred inside the Arab part of the mandate, which was attacked immediately. No reputable historian claims otherwise, actually no historian that I know of. The facts are accepted by Israeli historians like Benny Morris and outlined in plan Dalat. This is no more in dispute than Darwinism is in dispute from creationists.

Gene says:

What a nonsense, Sean. “the majority of Zionist casualties in 1948 occurred inside the Arab part of the mandate,” So what? The majority of American casualties during WWII occurred inside Germany and not on the USA territory. Does that mean Americans were the aggressors? I don’t know what kind oh history books you are reading but conclusions you are making are quite ridiculous. And speaking your own language: Goldstone Report has no more credibility than assertions of creationists.

One of the major weapons in this propaganda war against Israel is the “Remember these Children” website which compares the numbers of Arab children who have been killed in the conflicts to the number of Jewish children murdered by terrorists. The Arab list totals 1,437 since 2000 and the Jewish list totals 130. Not withstanding that such reporting is unsubstantiated, After visiting the site, I noticed that according to this report, most of the Israeli children were murdered in drive by shootings and human bombs exploding themselves in restaurants, buses and markets. In other words, the Arab terrorists targeted those children and murdered them in cold blood. For all of the Arab children, on the other hand, the site identifies the causes of death as gun shot wounds or explosions during the firefights with Arab Hamas fighters. What were their children doing in the middle of a war zone? That is clear and convincing evidence that the Hamas thugs where using the local children as human shields. Soldiers are trained to return fire when fired upon. The bushwhacking urban guerrillas who fire at enemy troops from a neighborhood full of children are the ones causing the deaths of those children. More at

Most beneficial backlinks services – create Top notch serps along with tremendous website traffic with our powerful 1 way links offers. Most potent & thrifty 1 way links services of all time! – google – 1 way links – internet promotion – search engine optimization techniques – online communities

I get read your article. It’s actually helpful. We may benefit a lot from them. Fluent producing style and even vivid key phrases make usa readers delight in reading. I will share your current opinions with my associates.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

War and Remembrance

The Promise, a British miniseries about Israel at its founding and today, has been criticized by some Jewish groups as biased propaganda. But it’s a fair and compelling dramatization that deserves to be widely seen, not demonized.

More on Tablet:

A Tale of Three Twitter Feeds: Hamas Tweets in Arabic, English, and Hebrew

By Aaron Magid — Analysis of the social-media messaging of Hamas’ military wing reveals distinct voices for the West, the Arab Middle East, and Israel