The Limits of American Power: Israel and Iran Editions

ndm

I assume it to be willful ignorance that makes Melanie Phillips unaware that the High Contracting Parties for the Fourth Geneva Convention issued the following declaration:

-- The participating High Contracting Parties reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. Furthermore, they reiterated the need for full respect for the provisions of the said Convention in that Territory. Taking into consideration the improved atmosphere in the Middle East as a whole, the Conference was adjourned on the understanding that it will convene again in the light of consultations on the development of the humanitarian situation in the field.

Every responsible politican and legal authority outside Israel views the Paelstinian Territories as being occupied within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Consequently, the Israeli annexation and settlement of the Palestinian Territories is a war crime. Indeed, it is probably the most serious war crime committed by any Western Nation since WW2.

I assume it to be willful ignorance that makes Melanie Phillips unaware that the most pervasive and pernicious form of anti-Semitisim in the Western World today is the Zionist Anti-Semitism which absolves Israel of all responsibility for its war crimes because it is a Jewish State. In doing so they seek to make all Jews share the blame for the calumnies committed by those living in Israel - a state whose definining project over the last four decades has been the oppression of the Palestinian people consequent to its settlement of 5% of the Israeli population within the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

I assume it to be willful ignorance that makes Melanie Phillips unaware that the most prevalent form of neo-Nazism in the Western World today is that of the Israeli settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They are war criminals who wantonly destroy the Palestinian birthright aided and abetted by state-sponsored terrorism of the Israeli security forces. Indeed, the latter are the most significant agent of state-sponsored terror in the World and it is long past time when they should be held responsible for their terrorism

But, of course, Melanie Phillips needs remain willfully ignorant because to do otherwise would be to accept how tight are teh constraints on her view of Israel is - constrained as it is by the cbounds of war crimes, anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism. Better, then, to ignore the constraints and pretend they do not exist and that she bears no responsibility for those Zionist anti-Semites and neo-Nazis who commit war crimes and acts of terror for and on behalf of the State of Israel. There is nothing Jewish about them and their supporters. As Shakespeare put it they are hiding their bigotry behind their cloak of religion. Andrew Sullivan made the definitive response to their likes a few days ago.

Ronnie

Oh why does Melanie say the things she does?

Because her agreement with Likud stipulates that she must, at least three times each week.

YA

Author under-estimates both Americans' abilities and growing power of emerging New Europe.

Considerable civilizational changes are on the way in EU. It looks like time of appeasement is shrinking.

Ban of minarets in Switzerland.
Declaration of jihad on Switzerland.
Burka ban in France.
Geert Wilders' trial and electoral victories.
Publication of Mohammed cartoons in Swedish press.
Decisive actions of French Navy against Somali pirates.
Cooperation against arms smuggling (yes Dubai).

Another thing is significant increase of militsary-technical cooperation between Israel and EU/USA, that is - marketing of Iron Dome systems for NATO, US/Israeli production of Namer/Namera, Green Pine radar + Aegis/Arrow integration, German corvettes and submarines for Israeli Navy, and so on.

In this emerging situation, the imposition of peace in Palestine, on conditions of Israel/West looks inevitable, with or without or with delayed Palestinian state - simply because forces interested in peace are much stronger.

ndm

-- I agree with Melanie Phillips that the principle reason there's no middle-east preace prcess worth the name is the Palestinian's reluctance to recognise and guarantee Israel's security.

Spencer Ackerman, whose day job appears to be generating script ideas for South Park, writes:

-- If you were to ask me, “Should the Arab world just accept Israel as Jewish?” I would of course say “Yes, of course.” But what I care about most is getting to a separation accord, and as such I have to recognize that despite what I think the Arabs should think, they consider a full-on recognition of Israel-as-Jewish-state is something they’d like to dangle out for later in the process. If I say they should give me what I want when I want it, they’ll just say no. And if I say that their decision to do that means they’re not interested in peace, then I just put off what I want.

This seems a bit more sensible than a declaration that Palestinian intransigence is the primary cause of the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.

Patricia Shaw

Phillips' writing is inflammatory, provocative and I wonder what the law says about those who promote illegality? Have the Spectator's lawyers read her blog? If anyone wrote the same way about Jews or Israelis as she does about Palestinians, there would be an outcry.

Ian C

Patricia Shaw

Take a history lesson and discover how ignorance WAS bliss.

Beefeater

ndm:

Zionist Anti-Semitism is the most pernicious form of anti-semitism? I would say not. I think that your statement is the most pernicious form of anti-semitism, but only because it is the old form of it, disguised in UN newspeak. Jew-hatred has always been premised on Jews causing Jew-hatred. Jews have always been their own worst enemies, have always given themselves a bad name, have always brought down the neighbourhood. And here I refer to Jewish Jews - not the self-hating Jews, of which there have always been a vociferous number.

The vehement accusations against Israel (Zionism = Nazism) always expose the inability of the accusers to get past the outrage of Jews defending the Jewish nation as a Jewish nation. "Nazism" is just the modern substitution for the old blood libels.

By the way, accusations of anti-Semitism no longer insult the accused, or chill criticism of Israel. "Anti-semite" holds no outrage any more, because anti-semitism has returned to its cultural niche. No-one is ashamed of hating Jews, because they are not hating Jews, they are hating Nazis, just as they hated the old god-killers, baby-killers, and well-poisoners. Righteous hatred. Moral indignation. Good people everywhere feel it.

Thanks to the immunization program whereby the anti-semite pre-emptively cringes at being accused of it ("my criticism of Israel will bring down upon me accusations of anti-semitism by Zionazis trying to bully me into silence"), anti-semitism has now gone the way of small-pox. A small vial of it is kept for scientific research.

A last point. Every outrage against the Jews throughout history was perpetrated under color of law. That the Geneva Conventions should be the latest in the laws singling out Jews is ironic, but offers no more cause for alarm than usual.

Beefeater

Patricia Shaw:

- "If anyone wrote the same way about Jews or Israelis as she does about Palestinians, there would be an outcry."

Have you read ndm? Have you read the Guardian? Tony Judt? UN resolutions? Have you read Palestinian text books? Seen Palestinian TV? Have you read comments in the leftist and Islamist blogosphere? What about your own posts?

Take this as an outcry.

ndm

Ian C -

It is, perhaps, you who need the history lesson because Patricia Shaw is absolutely right to point out the inflamatory and provocative nature of Melanie Phillips' posts.

Phillips is an ardent supporter of Zionist Irredentism through her advocacy of Occupation Denial. The practical expression of this irredentism through the Israeli colonization of the Palestinian Territories is a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention and her support of Zionist Irredentism through her occupation denial amounts to the advocacy of a war crime that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians, and a far lesser number of Israelis, along with the decades-ong immiseration of the Palestinian people. She offers no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and offers nothing but the Zionist Irredentis dream of a virtual holocaust in which the Palestinian people are wiped out of history.

There is little difference between the Zionist Irredentist advocating war crimes and the Islamist advocating terrorism. The main difference is that the moral succour the Zionist Irredentist gives to the Israeli opression of the Palestinian people has been responsible for far more deaths and misery than the Islamist advocating terrorism. The other big difference is that Zionist Irredentists have not been condemned for their actions and are still routinely published in major media outlets.

Nuremeberg is known for two things: the rallies where Hitler infused and enthused the faithful; and the war crimes trials where the faithful finally met their fate when the West finally invoked international humanitarian law. Through her constant denial of the applicability of international humanitarian law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and her constant attacks on international human-rights organizations intent on bringing to light a truth she hides from, Melanie Phillips shows she would have been much more comfortable in the crowds at the Nuremmerg rallies than in the crowd observing the Nuremberg war crimes trials.

The World will be a far better place when those responible for the Israeli colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories are ensconsed in the dock in The Hague. And Judaism can then get back some of the morality that those who advocate war crimes in the name of the Jewish State have done so much to squander.

ndm

I will regard Beefeater's comment as the hasbarbaric twaddle it is. One piece thousgh is so egregious it demands special attention. Beefeater writes:

-- A last point. Every outrage against the Jews throughout history was perpetrated under color of law. That the Geneva Conventions should be the latest in the laws singling out Jews is ironic, but offers no more cause for alarm than usual.

This truly beggars belief not to mention morality. The Geneva Conventions apply to all nations, regardless of nationality, and every competent legal and political authority has decided that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territories including East Jersualem. Consequently, the Israeli civilian coloniaztion of the Palestinian Territories amount to a war crime committed by almost 5% of the Israeli population with the popular support of the people of Israel. Had any nation done to Jews what the Israelis have done to Palestinians over the last four decades the World would long ago have stepped in ended the inhumanity and prosecuted the perpetrators in The Hague. The World, to its eternal shame, has held Israel unaccountable and allowed Israel to continue to commit war crimes against the Palestinian people. Along with the invasion of Iraq and the arming of the Afhani freedom fighters this appeasement ranks as one fof the greatest foreign policy disasters the West has committed since WW2.

Israel has had a glorious and valiant past. But it squandered that past when it allowed the germ of racist hatred to infest Zionism and convert it into something the World has seen many times before. Those who support Israel as a Jewish State are trapped in a history of their own making because they failed, or refused, to prevent Israel morphing from a religious state into a nationalist state - whose actions befoul civilization just as they befoul the religion of those Jews who support it. If Israel seeks a glorious and valiant future it needs to cast aside the nationalist bigotry that is the foundation for Zionist Irredentism and the evil that derives from it.

Beefeater

ndm:

"Zionist Irredentism." Responsible for "far more deaths and misery than the Islamist advocating terrorism." ?? Numbers not your strong point?

You must be fresh from attending a campus rally. Are you perhaps a student at UC Irvine?

I recall student days. Communism was fun. And when Marx could not provide an answer, one could always turn to the insult list: "landlord" was always effective. "Irredentist" had some initial impact, but that fell off after people read the definition.

Do you receive credit for these posts of yours?

ndm

In responding to Patricia Shaw's correct assertion that there would be an outcry if anyone wrote about Jews the way Melanie Phillips writes about Palestinians, Beefeater writes:

-- Have you read ndm? Have you read the Guardian? Tony Judt? UN resolutions? Have you read Palestinian text books? Seen Palestinian TV?

The difference is that Tony Judt, The Guardian and I strive to tell the truth while Melanie Phillips struggles with even half-truths and frequently no truth. The primary goal of the hasbarbaric commmentator is the spreading of untruths to mask the truth that is so uncomfortable.

I don't know much about Palestinian TV and Palestinian text books because I don't have easy access to them. I find it hard to believe that they can be worse than Melanie Phillips' columns which I do have easy access to them. It requires a truly deranged and depraved mind to write as Melanie Phillips did the other day: a final solution being imposed by America upon democratic and beseiged Israel. Associating President Obama with Adolf Hitler is so despicable Melanie Phillips should have been fired by The Spectator. But much attracts flies and the editor of The Specatotor appears to think flies shit gold.

ndm

Beefeater mocks my use of the word irredentist - defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as:

-- a person, esp. in 19th-c Italy, advocating the resoration to his or her country of any territory formerly belonging to it.

Irrdentist strikes me as the perfect word to describe those who seek the creation of a Greater Israel because the Occupied Palestinian Territories were part of Israel 100 generations ago.

Beefeater might want to look up the definition of obfuscation because that is the intent of his twaddle.

Patricia Shaw

Beefeater,

Your problem is that you cannot take any criticism in any form, even when the rest of the world thinks you re in the wrong.

Criticism of Israel's Right Wing and the settlers is not racism. It is criticism, particularly well merited in the case of the settters whose actions and arrogance defy belief.

It is Phillips who sets out deliberately to inflame opinion, drive intolerance and create racism. Not against a person, but against an entire People.

She is the worst poster child for Israel and the sooner other Jews stand up and dissassociate themselves from people like her, the better off Israel will be

Ian C

ndm

The history lesson referred to is the history of Israel and the League of Nations/Un. It is inherently self-contradictory in what it has ruled in favour of and aginst over the past 90 years and Israel has had to muddle through to a reality in spite of its own worst excesses and the intransigence of the arabs surrounding.

It is not helpful to reduce the whole truth to the micro-details of a battle between "irredentist Zionism" and a people who lost a war but will not accept peace terms with the victor because of those very inherent contradictions in the attitudes and interfences of the international community.

History is alot easier to understand with an open mind.

ndm

The modern history of Israel is defined by irredentism, colonization and the dream of anschluss that so fervently enthuses the nationalism of Melanie Phillips.

What is not helpful is the appeasement and apology for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people because Israel is a Jewish state. This attempt to share the blame for Israeli calumnies among all Jews regardless of their opinion of these calumnies is fundamentally anti-Semitic.

ndm

And once again today we have Melanie Phillips, doyenne of British Zionism, erasing Palestinians from history:

-- The only people for whom this ever constituted their national homeland were the Jews.

An evil lie. from an utterly deranged Melanie Phillips. Thankfully this virtual Holocaust has not yet cost as many lives as did the Nazi Holocaust. Although, who knows how things would stand were there not enough in the West willing to condemn the midnless bigotry of Melani Phillips and her like.

I grew up being taught a same rosy-eyed view of hard-scrabbling Israelis. I first realised something was seriously awry with the Israeli psyche when the day after the Israeli-abetted camp massacres I overheard an Anglo-Israeli saying Britain should solve the Irish problem the way we did by killing them all. For the Zionazi it is not sufficent to kill all the Palestinians - now they must be erased from history.

Beefeater

Patricia Shaw:

"Your problem is you cannot take any criticism in any form, even when the rest of the world thinks you're wrong."

Who, precisely, is the "you" who has this problem?

"Criticism of Israel's Right Wing and the settlers is not racism."

It often is. But so what, eh? Criticism of criticism of Israel's Right Wing and the settlers is not by itself an accusation of antisemitism, much as the critics of Likudsettlerzionazis would like it to be.

As I've said, being accused of antisemitism seems to be a mark of honor in certain quarters - like a dueling scar on German frat boys of not too long ago. None of the intellectual left believes that the accusation of antisemitism amounts to a palpable hit, particularly in light of the restatement of antisemitism as what Jews do to Jews in the name of Jews, or, more succinctly, as what Israel does (see ndm ). Sure, moral critics of Israel pretend to be hurt by accusations of antisemitism, to show solidarity with the swelling ranks of the victims of semitism. How can one be racist towards racists? Stands to reason.

"It is Phillips who sets out deliberately to inflame opinion, drive intolerance and create racism. Not against a person, but against an entire People."

So, your inflaming of opinion against Ms. Phillips (which you do frequently) is acceptable because she is a person and not an entire People?

How about your inflammatory remarks against political parties and settlers? More than one person, less than an entire People. How about the "other Jews" that you speak of later in your post (the ones you say should disassociate themselves from Ms. Phillips). Are they an "entire People," sufficient to qualify you for your own Inflammatory Bigot Test?

Ms. Phillips represents for you Likud, settlers, Israel, Jews. She is a "poster-child" you say, a stand-in for an entire People. As individual, group,or nation, the Jew should be subject to special legal injunctions (though I doubt that the Spectator lawyers could do it) - what they can write, what opinions they should have, how sensitive to hate or how hating they should be, how they should defend themselves, what policies they promote, which enemies they should fight, how they should fight them, where they can live. Stands to reason.

"...the sooner other Jews stand up and disassociate from people like her, the better off Israel will be"

Yes, but have the courage of your instincts. If only Jews would disassociate from each other, there would be no Israel at all, and all would be well. Just as Europe has been saying all along, for thousands of years. Stands to reason.

And now, of course, I see who the "you" is I queried above. Silly me. It is not Beefeater v. World. It is Jews v. World. And, you're right, they do have a problem with criticism.

Brava, Ms. Shaw.

Beefeater

ndm:

"What is not helpful is the appeasement and apology for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people because Israel is a Jewish state. This attempt to share the blame for Israeli calumnies among all Jews regardless of their opinion of these calumnies is fundamentally anti-Semitic."

Yes, yes. We get it that you think prosemitism is the same as, worse than, antisemitism because it indiscriminately likes Jews.

Did you mean "calumnies"? I suggest another quick consultation of the Concise Oxford.

djw2009

Why does Melanie give a damn about Israel? If she in the UK, is a British citizen and her family have lived here for generations - then why doesn't she just identify with the UK? She is a textbook example of "dual loyalty" - she hasn't fully integrated in the UK until she begins to see the UK as her only focus of loyalty, and Israel as just "foreign". The fact that communities can live in the UK for many generation without fully integrating is a chilling reminder of what multiculturalism means. Israel is an ally of the UK - and we need allies in the world - so we should side with Israel while recognising a terrible wrong has been done to the Palestinians. Of course- OF COURSE- the Palestinians don't recognise Israel - as their country has been taken away from them. If parts of a future Asian-dominated Britain split off to form a separate state, British people probably wouldn't recognise the legitimacy of that either. But whatever the rights and wrongs of the Middle East, we need to pick allies on the basis of cold hard interests - and so we should side Israel. But Melanie is making a prize chump of herself by making so clear her loyalty to a foreign power.

Beefeater

djw2009:

Your test for full integration to Britain is having the United Kingdom be the "only focus of loyalty" and all other countries be "foreign".

What does "focus of loyalty" mean? How is it demonstrated?

Who will administer the test, and what are the consequences for failing it?

Will it be applied to everyone born or residing in the United Kingdom?

If you are the exemplar of the fully integrated Briton, I cannot imagine Britain being the focus of loyalty. Bemusement perhaps. Embarrassment.

The calumny (I use the word correctly) of "dual loyalty" is one of the traditional British - European - antisemitic tropes. Perhaps you are not aware of this, or nobody has educated you.

As a point of historical fact, the Palestinians have never had a "country". The focus of their loyalty was either to the Ottoman Empire, to Syria, to Arabism, to Dar el Islam. The focus of their loyalty now is to the criminal gang which most efficiently extorts it.

You also need to get with your national program. Britain does not see its "cold, hard interests" as being aligned with Israel. It pretends to a loyalty to a fellow democracy, but its interests - and sympathies (is it the horses?) - lie with the oil-blessed, numerous, and culturally imperialist Arabs.

ndm

Beefetar writes:

-- As a point of historical fact, the Palestinians have never had a "country". The focus of their loyalty was either to the Ottoman Empire, to Syria, to Arabism, to Dar el Islam. The focus of their loyalty now is to the criminal gang which most efficiently extorts it.

The people who refer to themselves today as Palestinians have lived on that land for thousands of years under the control of others. The idea that the Palestinian people have no rights to their land and no historical connection to their land is the centerpiece of the Zionazi virtual holocaust epitomized in the old Zionazi slogan that the Palestinian Mandate Territory was a land with no people for a people with no land.

It seems that Beefeater shares the evil desire of Melanie Phillips to erase Palestinians from history. Hitler did not manage with Jews so perhaps there is yet hope for Palestinians.

djw2009

Beefeater,

calumnies are only calumnies if untrue. I would not wish to see someone fully loyal to the UK accused of dual loyalty, but where someone is clearly working to a small group agenda, where that small group is defined by loyalty to a foreign power owing to an ethnic connection to that power (and lack of any ethnic connection to the UK), it would simply be dishonest to claim there was no dual loyalty being exhibited.

Your claim that even noticing the dual loyalty constitutes anti-semitism is the calumny in fact. The idea that people in our country can wield this weapon against us depends on the theory of multiculturalism, where ethnic groups originally from abroad gain the right to suppress any comment by those of us who trace our ancestry to the British Isles. It is the same with all these groups - black, Asian, Muslim etc - the only difference is that the Jewish community is genuinely part of the British Establishment, while still claiming to be an excluded group with a cultural grievance to which we are required to genuflect the same way we do with all the other ethnic groups.

Melanie Philips should identify with Britain, not Israel, and see more in common between her and the British nation than there is between her and the Israeli nation. If she doesn't she is just the same as Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and all the others of the same ilk. Yes we can admire Israel - they have successfully made their country in the Middle East (and we should not forget that conquest is ultimately how every country in the world was won), and things like the Raid on Entebbe etc are admirable, partly because they remind us of how the UK ought to be, but sadly isn't. But Israel is in the end a foreign country.

ndm - the taking of Palestine by the Zionists is all in the past now - and the Israelis are going nowhere. The Palestinians have been shabbily treated, but they have to a certain extent played their own hand badly - they should not be aiming for independence, but for the full integration of the Palestinian Territories into Israel, which would give them roughly 50% say in Israel. If they are misguided enough to except Bantustans in their own country, then that is likely to be all they will get!

djw2009

I wrote "except" for "accept" in my last post. I am afraid this is a very basic error.

Beefeater

ndm:

This is very well traveled ground. The Palestinians have attempted to appropriate Jewish history - particularly, sickeningly and ironically, given Arab sympathies with Hitler, the holocaust - as their own "narrative". Despite that, far from erasing the narrative of Palestinian nationhood, Israel has been prepared to realize it, by offering the Palestine Mandate-residing Arabs a state (in addition to the one already given to them by the mandatory power.)

You must distinguish between national claims to territory and individual property rights. The latter are not absolute nor held in perpetuity. They are dependent on the law of the sovereign (which might or might not respect those laws).

Confiscation, forfeiture, abandonment or eviction in war, are some of the way Piers may be wrested from the acre he ploughs. The Jews evicted by Arab nations may wave their land deeds, the Palestinians may wave their door-keys, but there is no right to get back their property - in fee or by tenancy. Israel has, in fact, paid compensation for, offered compensation for and permitted some thousands of Arabs to return to their property.

National claims to a territory are vindicated by power - always and everywhere. A state's boundaries are at the limits of its defense of them.

National claims to territory do not legitimate claims by individuals to specific property. Nor do claims to property - even those worked for "thousands of years"- bootstrap national claims. The idea of generational loyalty to the land of the family who husbands it a feudal European one, good for rousing sentiments of honor and dynastic pride to be projected onto the Palestinians. No doubt tenant farmers formed an attachment to their fields, olive groves, goats and village life, and many nomads settled to scratch out a living, but "thousands of years" of memory of tilth and a national, rather than a personal or tribal, loyalty attaching to it, is a long stretch of the European (orientalist, even, pace Edward Said) imagination, not to say a porker.

You allege that Israel is genocidal - a calumny - because you think that will give plausibility to your panting moral outrage under cover of which you can support the Arab war against Jews in their midst. Your moral outrage is indistinguishable from irrational hatred.

Alex Massie:

I am saddened to see that your space has been used for bigoted attacks on Melanie Phillips. She is, of course, used to them on her blog, but that is her territory to defend.

Beefeater

djw2009:

Many people use "dual loyalty" when they mean "divided loyalty". The latter implies lack of patriotism - treason - fifth columnists. If it doesn't imply that, what does divided or dual loyalty matter? Why mention it?

Of course, "dual/divided loyalty" is code for "not one of us." It is another door to ethnic purity and jingoism as we see from your comment.

Really, it is past time for the Groucho Marx principle on club membership to be universally applied by Jews to British nationality.

ndm

djw2009 writes:

-- and we should not forget that conquest is ultimately how every country in the world was won.

This may have been true in the days before the creation of a solid body of international law over the last 100 years. I suggest to those who absolve Israel's claim of conquest as a historical right that they also support the German "right" to commit a holocaust because the decimation of a losing tribe in a war was how things used to be done.

I find it instructive that the German occupation of Europe lasted 6 years and the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait lasted 1 years. Yet the West has appeased Israel to the extent that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories has gone on for more than 40 years. Never Again must mean Never Again.

djw2009 continues:

-- The Palestinians have been shabbily treated, but they have to a certain extent played their own hand badly - they should not be aiming for independence, but for the full integration of the Palestinian Territories into Israel, which would give them roughly 50% say in Israel.

In an ideal world this would indeed be the best solution but we do not live in an ideal world. Tony Judt wrote an article espousing this idea in the New York Review of Books and has been condemned as a self-hating Jew ever since because a single-state solution would lose its Jewish character. I don't think there is any serious observor who believes this to be a practical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A. MacAulay

My goodness! Who defines whom as what? The Israelis are Jews, define themselves as such and follow their wonts as such. That which they understand to be in their interests is not really what I feel to be in mine or our interests. I'm fed up with the feeling of being held to ransome by this conflict and its never ending trail of international damage. Israel is several dimensions more powerful than all its neighbours put together, which it has demonstrated on several occasions, and as such has the leeway to find peace if it really wants to. The Israeli political class seems be though a, "parcel of rogues", opportunist and bigots. In stating this I fear I may open myself to the accusation of being anti-semitic and this makes me actually very angry.

Much of Jewish culture is is foreign to me, the Bible is for me the dullest story ever told at greatest length, but Hey! I'm a Scot and I love my culture and am perfectly aware of the sometimes bizarre, projections people place on Scotland. I say this to demonstrate that nothing human is foreign to me. It's just that magnamimity, forsight, tolerance, fraternity are also human qualities and seem to be utterly lost in Israel.

djw2009

Beefeater,

you are quite the troublemaker. No one has launched a bigoted attack on Melanie. I enjoy all her columns on non-Israeli topics, and I agree totally with her that the problem with Cameron is a fundamental understanding of what conservatism is. I would prefer Melanie to be leading the Conservative Party in the coming election.

But what troubles me is your willingness to instantly invoke the shibboleths (I think the word is well used here) of political correctness - as if you are a "community within a community", always with the weapon of PC against the host community. That is totally wrong. And if the Muslims or blacks or Asians tried it on - Melanie would, thank goodness, be on the case, and she would point it out.

No one has been bigoted against Melanie, and it is quite wrong to allege that that is the case. How I long for the whole framework of PC to be dismantled and outlawed. In the England that I envisage, the people alleging discrimination would all be sued for "discrimination fraud" and closed down - because are you are or aren't part of society, and it is just totally wrong to maintain a "community within a community" that prevents any criticism of any of its members with instant smears. What you are doing is utterly evil in fact, the smearing of people who criticise you, on the base that any community that establishes itself in the UK from outside should always have the whiphand over the native British.

I have no idea what the Groucho Marx principle of club membership, and don't care to look it up. But there is something wrong where British citizens do not look at British society and another foreign society, and feel greater identification with the latter. It is not a question of how many years the community has been in Britain. It is a question of the attitude to this country of the individual person. Are you saying in 100 years' time when the Pakistani community has been in Britain for more than 150 years that we should be prevented from comment if that community clearly identifies more with Pakistan than Britain (as is certain to be case, by the way)? Multiculturalism is totally wrong, in concept and in practice. People coming in from outside should integrate totally - where are the Vikings who settled in Britain? Where are the Flemings? Where are the Huguenots? All integrated.

djw2009

>>>Tony Judt wrote an article espousing this idea in the New York Review of Books and has been condemned as a self-hating Jew

Well, the accusation of someone being a "self-hating Jew" actually exposes Beefeaters' accusations for the fraud they are. There is such a thing as anti-semitism - Hitler was clearly anti-semitic - but one thing it is not is "anyone criticising anyone Jewish", and the edifice of multiculturalism encourages some (not all) Jews to use the latter definition in the furtherance of their own interests. It is analogous to "Islamophobic", defined as "anyone criticising Muslims", and "racist", defined as "anyone criticising any minority ethnic group", and "homophobic", defined as "anyone criticising homosexuals".

Jewish people cannot be "self-hating Jews", unless they are subject to rare identity disorders. If Jewish people are being accused of anti-semitism, it shows that the definition has widened well beyond what can reasonably be described as anti-semitism. Daniel Finkelstein, son of Holocaust survivors and author of a book on how Jewish organisations defrauded Germany and Switzerland of billions, claiming they would give the money to Holocaust survivors, but instead keeping the money for themselves, has been subject to the most astonishing hate campaign. But I thought we were lucky enough in the UK not to have such hate campaigns?

ndm

Beefeater writes:

-- I am saddened to see that your space has been used for bigoted attacks on Melanie Phillips. She is, of course, used to them on her blog, but that is her territory to defend.

The only bigotry here is that of Melanie Phillips and her acolytes. She is being thrashed here, and rightfully so, because she does not accept criticism on her blog. Instead, she appears enthused by the proto-Nazism and neo-Nazism of many of her commenters - allowing bigotry to compound on bigotry. I regard her occasional condemnations of the BNP, espoused by so many of her fans, as being little more than crocodile tears. Melanie Phillips certainly betrays Britain by setting above all else her support of the nationalist, racist and militaristic project that Zionism has reduced itself to. With each word she writes in The Spectator she befouls the magazine.

Beefeater

jdw2009:

"But what troubles me is your willingness to instantly invoke the shibboleths (I think the word is well used here) of political correctness - as if you are a "community within a community", always with the weapon of PC against the host community."

So, within this commenting community, I am the troublemaking Jew and ndm, Patricia Shaw and you are the "host" community?
Virtual metaphorical geography. Melanie Phillips' space must be Israel. Massie's the United Kingdom. A defender of Israel in the United Kingdom must be a Jew with divided loyalties, already.

PastramiBeefeater, the metaphorical Jew, at your service.

And in furtherance of my troublemaking duties, I shall turn to

A. MacAuley:

Israelis are Jews, Muslims, Christians, black, white, swarthy, Arab, European, African, Asian. They are all citizens of the Jewish State, where semitism is their wont. You can call their government what you like: "parcel of rogues", opportunists, bigots, without "magnanimity, foresight or tolerance." Why should being called an antisemite for saying this make you angry? Would being called a rogue, an opportunist, bigot, ruthless, blind and intolerant make you angry? Of course not, you understand that bizarre projections cannot harm you. You are a Scot, who loves his culture - without, it seems appreciating the influence of the Bible on it. A broad-minded Scot takes no more offense at being called an antisemite than at being mistaken for a Jew. A Jew would not be angry at being called anti-Scot for characterizing those in Scotland, a-doing their Scottish thing as is their wont, as money-grubbing opportunists.

I am thinking of writing a pamphlet:

"Taking Offense to Give It: Creative Passive Aggression In Our Politically Correct Age."

Beefeater

djw2009:

Just noticed this -"People coming in from outside should integrate totally - where are the Vikings who settled in Britain? Where are the Flemings? Where are the Huguenots? All integrated."

I recommend you read the history of Jews in England? Hard to integrate when you are accorded such special treatment. Hard to integrate from exile. Nevertheless, when permitted, they have contributed to the common good and fought for their sovereign.

Glad to hear you are a supporter of Melanie as Conservative leader. Disraeli had to convert to enter political life.

Beefeater

jdw2009:

You do not mean Daniel Finkelstein. You mean Norman Finkelstein. You've read the hate campaign, now read the book.

Historiam

As one who has published at length on the history of the region I have to say that Beefeater is right: there has never been an independent state of Palestine, and the Palestinians have only become a distinct nation since Israel came into existence. (You don't have to take my word for it - go and try to find evidence to the contrary.) As for ndm claiming that the Jews want to destroy the Palestinian people, that is fantasy. It indicates that ndm is concerned with this issue as a matter of emotion, not history, and when a view is not arrived at by reason it cannot be argued away by reason.

ndm

I remember reading a wise editor suggesting one should never trust an article starting with "As someone ..." since it presupposes that such a claim provides authority - which it clearly doesn't in this case. I have no doubt that there has never been a Palestinian nation just as I have no doubt that the majority of the population of that region through most of the last 2,000 years has been Arab - and non-Jewish. The idea that the Old Testament and 2,000 year old history is sufficient to give Jews the right of supremacy over the Arab peoples who have viewed this land as their homeland for thousands of years is facially ludicrous. It is, frankly, racist.

The World decided - in a casual response to colonialism - that there should be a Jewish State in the Middle East regardless of the opinion of the people already living there. The World and Israel had deep moral obligations to the original inhabitants of the region to minimize their suffering consequent to the violent creation of the State of Israel. The World and Israel have failed spectacularly in this goal.

I note Historiam is reduced to the following lie:

-- As for ndm claiming that the Jews want to destroy the Palestinian people, that is fantasy

I never say that Jews want to destroy the Palestinian people. I do say that Zionazis, hiding behind cloak of Judaism, seek to erase the Palestinian people from history, in some cases figuratively - but, all too oten, literally. Historiam, of course, partakes in that old slander by conflating Israel with Jews - that is a mistake I never make since I know there are many Jews who are repulsed by what Israel does "in their name."

Patricia Shaw

Beefeater,,,

If, and only if, please, (some of us have busy lives), you can contain yourself to one paragraph, please spell out your ideal scenario for a settlement with the Palestinians.

Mel never does.
Few of her supporters do.

What do you want to see happen in gaza, west bank, settlements etc.

Thanks.

ndm

This Petraeus CENTCOM story is an indication of changes to come in US-Israeli relations.

Patricia Shaw

I ll tell you what's really funny.

Seeing Phillips keep her head low when the proverbial hits the fan.

Instead of blogging about OB1 and Netanyahoo, her last two blogs, uncommonly, are completely unrelated to Israel.

People with sympathies like hers get Israel into this mess and then run and hide.

djw2009

Patrica Shaw, I welcome Melanie's decision to blog about other subjects as well. Her blogs on other subjects are good - and I think she should avoid being seen to be a single-issue campaigner.

ndm

Here is the deranged Melanie Phillips' latest lie about President Obama:

-- Middle America, those millions of mainly Christian souls who are Israel’s staunchest supporters in the world, should be made aware of what their President is doing – turning the United States into a betrayer of democracy, human rights and the Jewish people to become no less than an accessory to terror.

And here is General Petraeus, Commander, U.S. Central Command, pissing all over Melanie Phillips and her like:

-- The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.

I suspect the screams of derangement from Melanie Phillips to intensify as her world view gets further discredited.

ndm

I should have credited Matthew Yglesias for finding the Petraeus statement.

A. MacAulay

Worthy Beefeater, I take offence at being called, "anti semitic", because (wait for it) some of my best friends are Jews! More importantly, to categorise politicians as being rogues is no more than they can expect and usually what they deserve, but they can always point to their service of the public good, noble intentions and a pure belief that taking anything that isn't screwed down isn't stealing. This is universal. If however, I were to believe that being a rogue is a quality inherent in being Jewish, then I would be party to a predjudice that has proved to be disasterous for the Jews and a danger to civilisation itself. That's the difference and that's my point. So a broad minded Scot takes offence at a putative accustaion of anti-semiticism and doesn't believe for a minute that you believe that being an opportunistic money grubber is part of the Scottish character. Or lurks there in your mental recesses an anti-Caledonian predjudice?

Scotland and the Bible? Of course, but presbyterian piety and broad-mindedness do not go well together and it is to all our wellbeing that as the former has waned the latter has grown. We have made our experiences with Ayatollahs.

A. MacAulay

And, by the way and just to give you a friendly nudge in the right direction concerning Patricia Shaw's question, the settlement between Israel and the Palestinians will be based broadly on the pre-67 borders and there will be 2 states.

Patricia Shaw

too right.

phillips' attempts to turn the ethnic cleansing by the Israeli Right of Palestinians inot a sob story for poor little 'Israel Alone' is the worst sort of PR spin. It backfires on practically all cylinders. It embarasses real, not ideological, Israeli Patriots, treats observers as idiots and insults common sense.

Why do the Brothers Grim, 'Brazil Nuts' Neil and 'Baby Face' Nelson feel the need to use Phillips to cosy up to the Israeli Right?

Israel yes. By all means. But exremist racists? no.

Maybe, finally, we should be told.

ndm

-- Why do the Brothers Grim, 'Brazil Nuts' Neil and 'Baby Face' Nelson feel the need to use Phillips to cosy up to the Israeli Right?

Money. Melanie Phillips brings thousands of page views to The Spectator. Advertisers don't seem to care that most of the viewers are bigots.

Patricia Shaw

Well of course, Phillips and Co Fear the onslaught of Islam cos they are fully wised up to Zionism. NO other reason. It is inevitable that Zionists like her will lose the influence they protect so ruthlessly before long.

So the Spectator should look to the future, ditch the Jews and get an Islamist blogger. Good bizzz move, baby face.