Another banana moment?

An American

Melanie,
Your last statement doesn't surprise me. We knew if Obama became president, that Israel would be in real trouble...as if it isn't already. And other countries such as the UK would feel free to follow suit.

Obama was secretly making deals with Hamas before he was elected President...just as he was doing in Iraq. He even repeated the private conversation that he had with Pres. Bush in his welcoming and tour of the White House. Obama used this information to try and force Bush to sign off on billions of taxpayer's money to help Detroit's failing car industy.

One of Obama's character flaws is that he has no honor. He cannot be trusted. And it won't take long for world leaders to learn this, if they haven't already.

While Bush is still in office,
Israel needs to act now...use those bunker-busting bombs... before it's too late.

Roslyn Pine

It is important to stress that it was the League of Nations, whose members, without exception, designated the entire area that is now Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and present day Israel, to the future Jewish State. In 1922, as a result of implacable Arab hostility, Churchill redrew the map, so that the area now known as Jordan, be excluded. However, he made the point forcefully that the Jews are in the Holy Land as of right.
When the League of Nations was replaced by the UN, its designation of those mandated territories for Jewish Palestine was incorporated into the UN charter, and remains legally binding to the present day.
One could also mention that in 1970 Stephen Schwebel, who headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, ruled in 1970 in relation to the legal status of the West Bank, that "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defence, has, against that prior holder, better title".
Moreover, every Israeli government of every hue since 1967, consulted the specialist lawyer Plia Albeck, to assess the legal status of the land in the West Bank before they allowed settlement activity,in every case. Her rulings were based on her expert knowledge of British, Ottoman and Israeli law.

The Foreign Office is, and never has been, interested in the truth. It is only interested in its "interests", namely, access to lucrative Arab markets, in particular the export of British armaments to the Saudis, as well as guaranteed supplies of oil.

The lie of the "occupied territories" has been repeated ad nauseam for the last 40 years, and so is perceived as the truth by the majority, who are ignorant of the facts.
It must be challenged at every opportunity.

Well done!

Alcuin

Well done, Melanie.

What never seems to be appreciated is that Arabs may live in Israel under the full protection of Israeli law and its agents. Jews may not live in the West Bank - even though they may have lived there for generations, or may have legally bought land - without suffering attacks from the local population, its militias, and even its forces of law and order. In order to survive, they require Israeli protection because the local authorities are unwilling to supply it: such protection is the only reason for Israeli forces in the West Bank and does not constitute "occupation".

George Steiner

It is not quit as bleak as that Ms. Philips. Although it has taken me some time to see it.

You see if Israel is really abandoned by the Obambi administration which as you say is possible, Israel will find other allies. Who? Well the Chinese and the Russians.

Israel has maintained good relationship with Putin and with the Chinese. The Chinese are particularly impressed with Israeli technology and with Israel in general.

The Russians have good military hardware, planes and some missiles for example but not so good electronic warfare systems. Which in turn the Israelis poses in spades. Both have veto at the UN. Neither are great friends of the US.

Neither is as dependent on the Arabs as the US is and are no friend of Muslims. To cut a long story short, I see some hope. Lastly of course Congress will not cut off Israel completely even if Obambi tries to. Courage.

PS. The British don't matter.

Howard

Your last paragraph is unsubstantiated rubbish and so full of bias that it could have come straight from the BBC, those shilling you still take with open arms!

Frank P

Where is the hand of Malloch-Brown, the eminence grise behind Miliband, in all of this? Given Malloch-Brown's close relationship with George Soros, is this article by Soros in the New York Review of Books any help?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20030

Does the hand on the ice-cream cornet decide Foreign policy in the UK, or is it the hand behind the back of the person with his hand behind Miliband's back that calls the shots?

Just a thought. No expert myself on Israel's history, though deeply interested and very sympathetic to our staunchest ally in the Middle East, I would be grateful if someone could enlighten me, or at least speculate on just what is going on within our Foreign Office. Given his power M-B maintains a very low profile.

Vision Aforethought

M, I did post a similar comment a few months ago (never made it through the moderators for some reason - they probably thought I was nuts), but to comprehend why this is happening, one really does have to accept that even the current resident of the White House planned to and is now betraying Israel - because it is part of his religious doctrine.

You (and a fair number of those who read/post on this here forum) are of a level of intelligence rather higher than a frighteningly large proportion of the dimwits occupying and running this planet. You get it, you see what is going on and want honest to goodness justice. Not justice for Israel, nor just the Jews, but (common sense lead) justice wherever it is needed and subconsciously desired.

Unfortunately, the majority are not driven or lead by such concerns. For they are thin skinned, naive, easily swayed, short-termist, disloyal, corruptible and worst of all, completely and utterly untrustworthy - not even comprehending or trusting their own instincts. A characteristic that goes with the territory, no pun intended.

To return to my original point, Christians believe that the Jews will return to Israel, something apocalyptic will happen (the last 'hot' war?) and then the Jews will (somehow) convert to Christianity. Bush and other evangelist Christians believe this - it is what drives them in their simplistic innocence. And something has to trigger all this. Something rather big.

Israel, cornered, and the last bastion of conscience driven justice on Earth, is going to be forced to fight back with all the consequences that go with taking unilateral action. And after the Iranian and Syrian missiles have finished detonating, and various parts of the Middle East and even parts of the rest of the world lie in ruins, this new world order that so many really believe in will blossom. And somewhere, the 'Jews' will fit in. "The meek shall inherit the Earth." ? (I have always been intrigued by that expression and long term meaning.)

What we are seeing unfold before our appalled/puzzled/surprised/not surprised at all/horrified eyes is self fulfilling Biblical prophecy in the making.

Our foreign secretary is just a slippery tool in the machinery of history who has absolutely no idea of his station.

Are you ready?

Terry

Melanie, I don't know why you bother. It appears taht international law means what PC left wingers want it to mean. The inconvenient truth that no arab palestinian state ever existed (never, never ever) doesn't even register in what passes for minds in today's version of pre-nazi europe. We are seeing a re-run of the 1930s and the arabs and islamonazis don't even pretend otherwise. They don't have to when mainstream western intelligencia and gormless governments like yours are on the side of the nazis. Ultimately, Israel will have to survive on its own resources. When its back is to the wall it will have one final dice to throw. Most of the world's oil reserves are within its nuclear range. If they have to throw that dice, then blame those like Millebrand who thought the Jews were expendable. I don't care any more. If world wants us gone, then we have the right to take the world with us.

Marcus from the USA

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English, and France to the Frech".
- Mahatma Gandhi

A little food for thought Mel.

The West Bank belongs to the Arabs for the simple reason that they own it. Just like how the Arabs owned most of the Holy Land before it was usurped from them.

Grumpy the Zionist

Not if I understand the Israeli spirit as I do.
Right now most Israelis are pretty disenchanted with the current Kadima government, and Bibi is reaching across the many isles, to put together a new coalition to take on Kadima/Labour.This includes bringing on board luminaries such as Moshe Yaalon (ex head of the IDF)a kibbutznik and labour member.
When this newly formed party takes on Kadima and wins, we will see a total change in Israeli policy, one which I'm sure will have no intention of 'cutting its own throat', but will be more likely intent on 'cutting the throat'(figuratively or literally) of those intent on putting Israel's life on the line.

Shy Guy

Saw this several days ago on the Israel Matzav blog. Here's what I commented:

Britannia, a dying Roman kingdom, a shadow of its former self, soon to succumb to Islamic overlords.

One can faintly make out the voice of Churchill's soul begging not to be left behind.

"Remember, O Lord, for the sons of Edom, the day of Jerusalem, those who say, "Raze it, raze it, down to its foundation!"
O Daughter of Babylon, who is destined to be plundered, praiseworthy is he who repays you your recompense that you have done to us.
Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock."
- Psalm 137:7-9

stanley Jerusalem

There's a wonderful put-down to illustrate the F.O's and Milliband's stance.
"You're not listening to me. You're just rearranging your prejudices."
Whether they truly believe it or whether they just want us to believe it, the big lie still flourishes and Israel will have to trust no-one [except the usual One] and keep its gunpowder dry as always while fighting its own internal and external political battles.Why indeed should Israel modify its needs to preserve its citizens to 'please' the rest of the world? What have they done for us apart from trying to undermine our status as a democracy, even to the point of questioning our right to exist as a sovereign nation, while pouring billions of aid into the coffers of enemies who have sworn to obliterate us? Fortunately those enemies are so institutionally corrupt that little of this aid reaches the arms dealers to whom it might have been sent. Ever wonder why Israel appears to hold the rest of the world in such apparent contempt? Just listen to the pathetic Milliband cosying up to friends of friends of oil sources. It was ever thus.

Charles

The League of Nations did not "instruct" Britain with regard to the Palestine Mandate. "Rubber stamped" would be a better phrase. It was for Britain to decide how it chose to implement the commitment it made in 1917. Britain, as a victorious power, told the League what it wanted and the League signed on the dotted line.

HarleyDavidson

The British Government is merely realigning their Israeli position to be in compliance with the new Sharia Laws for their Muslim friends.

I have to ask is there any sanity left in Britain? You all vote those idiots in office so none of this should be any surprise to anyone who followed British politics from afar.

The fact is the UN is the most corrupt body known to modern man. That place is overrun by third world "diplomats" if one could call any of them that. However, I prefer to call those fools "whores" who sell themselves to whoever pays the most.

There are enough Muslim nations along with their third world allies to pass anything they wish in the United Nations. And that is the best we can do on this planet? Rule by dictators and thugs?

What ever happened to the Britain of Churchill?

David

I'm sorry, you cannot seriously be supporting the settlements. And you say you want peace?

David

And opposing settlements does not make one an enemy of Israel. Any mnore than opposing Gordon Brown makes one an enemy of Britain. Unless of course you agree with him that criticising the government is unpatriotic......

David

And of course, the point is that you can make claims on history, but so can lots of people, and where do you stop? The sensible thing is to do what the original leaders of Israel did, and work from the granting of land under the auspices of the UN. If this is legitimate, then the land given to the Palestinians is equally legitimate. If the land given to the Palestinians is not legitimate, then niether is there any legitimate basis under current interpretations of international law for Israel as it is; this therefore leaves it open as fair game. I don't beleive this to be the case.

If you do, fine, but that's not very pro-Israel.

Huw Thornton

I do not know enough about international law to comment. One (genuine) question though, for which I would be interested in contributors' views, is this:

Won't continued settlement of the West Bank encourage those who are seeking a one-state solution?

Indeed, wouldn't it actually be a one-state solution, with the question of long-term civil rights for all inhabitants becoming more and more of a pressing issue?

eh-oop

Marcus from the USA - in what sense do immigrants from Hejaz and the Nejd, i.e. Arabs, or later Levantine ones from Syria and Egypt own "Palestine"? Ottoman land law did not give them ownership of the land. The internationally recognised British Mandate for Palestine was, as Melanie reminds us, for the purpose of facilitating "close settlement" by Jews. The Arabs' ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gush Etzion, Hebron, Gaza and parts of Jerusalem of course gave them control. But "ownership"?

Kroton

Melanie appears to have overlooked the following:
Recalling the U.N. Charter principle that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war, the International Court of Justice declared in a landmark 2004 opinion that Israel's settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the wall being built to annex them to Israel were illegal under international law. It called on Israel to cease construction of the wall, dismantle those parts already completed and compensate Palestinians for damages. Crucially, it also stressed the legal responsibilities of the international community:
"all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. It is also for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end."
A subsequent U.N. General Assembly resolution supporting the World Court opinion passed overwhelmingly. However, the Israeli government ignored the Court's opinion, continuing construction at a rapid pace, while Israel's Supreme Court ruled that the wall was legal.
A subsequent U.N. General Assembly resolution supporting the World Court opinion passed overwhelmingly. However, the Israeli government ignored the Court's opinion, continuing construction at a rapid pace, while Israel's Supreme Court ruled that the wall was legal.

Geoff M

Please be more specific Melanie.

Its the LABOUR government. The overwhelming majority of the British population didn't vote Labour.

Labour's opinions are shaped by their dependence upon muslim votes and financial support in the UK.

Traitors!

leo solomon

The Hashemite bedouins ,driven out of the Arabian peninsular by Iban Saud, illegally occupied what was designated by the League of Nations to be part of a projected Jewish homeland and called it Transjordan.These people ,with no historical connection to the land east of the Jordan river forbade the presence of even a single Jew in a land they now call Jordan in which the Jews have had a presence and strong historical connections for thousands of years.

David

"Jews lived in many parts of it for centuries "

So did Palestinians. You can't revert to folk history as a claim for the future because that applies to both sides.

"in what sense do immigrants from Hejaz and the Nejd, i.e. Arabs, or later Levantine ones from Syria and Egypt own "Palestine"?"

In the same sense as imigrants from Europe, the US and Africa own Israel- the UN mandate providing the land to the Jews and providing the land to the Palestinians.

David

"Labour's opinions are shaped by their dependence upon muslim votes and financial support in the UK"

You are joking? Everyone knows it's the Jews and their control of world banking that....oops. It doesn't work the other way does it? You get accused, rightly, of being anti-semitic. Funny it seems fine to do it with regards to muslims.

David

"Which is why the UN’s famous Resolution 242 was deliberately drafted to refer to Israel withdrawing from ‘territories’ rather than all the territories "

Actually, the French version, which like the English language is also official, actually says *the* territories. I.e. all of them. Of course, both are valid so this poses a problem.

It's an interesting lesson of ensuring accurate drafting......

Robbit

Brilliant Melanie! Yet another utterly masterful analysis. I never ceases to amaze me how Labour manages to conjure up and endless supply of ever more loathsome twerps, and ever deeper political and moral degeneracy. Each time one thinks the bottom of the barrel must surely have been reached, one is proved wrong by some new initiative or individual crawling out from under some feoetid stone, to trump all the horrors that we have already been treated to. Unbelievable.

eh-oop

Kroton - Israel is the only successor state to the Mandate (as it existed in 1947) and is therefore entitled to possession of the Weest Bank as part of its sovereign own territory. Had Israel's enemies accepted the partition resolution in 1947, that would have been different, but they did not. Israel has every right to retain the West Bank and even to retake Gaza, because of the aggression mounted from there, if it wants to. The fact that the ICC ruled against it and that the General Assembly continues to give vent to its illogical and unbalanced views only shows what a cesspit they have become. And the FCO wallows with the best of them!

sauce and sources

Okay so the occupied terretories aren't occupied terretories. Fine, give the people who live their the same rights as those who live in the remainder of Israel.

Michael

Good Lord.

If you're that passionate and 'connected' to the whole process, can I suggest you abandon your digital soapbox and take up a more direct role in this ongoing and seemingly neverending dispute?

Why not see whether or not you, yes you, can actually make a tangible difference to the lives of those you seem to care so dearly about, rather than pandering to the whims of the acolytes who lap up the loaded bile you bring forth on here?...

Its well and good playing paper politics and whipping up a storm of positive reaction on the comments pages here, but if you care so dearly about the supposed abandonement of the Israelis, why not became a more direct agent and help your cause through political action rather than empty rhetoric and distorted argument?

At least then the utter rubbish you come out with here could be contextualised to a greater degree by the fact you are stood in the middle of it.

Might give you a bit of a credibility boost as well.....

wrighty

nice one Michael.

David

"Had Israel's enemies accepted the partition resolution in 1947, that would have been different"

That doesn't negate the fact that land was allocated to the Palestianians. It merely goes to them having no claim over bits that weren't allocated.

Verity

An American writes: "One of Obama's character flaws is that he has no honor. He cannot be trusted. And it won't take long for world leaders to learn this, if they haven't already."

You are right. It won't take long for most world leaders to recognise that he is one of their own and start cutting personal deals to ensure continued lashings of extracurricular income and handy retirement funds come gushing into their Swiss bank accounts.

Anyone who can't figure out how to do it can, for a not insignificant sum, consult Tony and Cherie Blair or Robert Mugabe, according to taste.

Quaintly Political

Miliband is more jewjune than Jew(ish). To say the least, he is as foolish as his face !! Take him at face value. Even his younger brother looks older than him !

raymond joseph douglas

Melanie,you must not let our government get away with this!Apart from any thing else,do they not know that those who bless Israel shall be blessed,and those who curse her shall be cursed Gen 12v3.Between you and me,I have had enough of the cursing this awful government is bringing down on us!

phil

To michael ,david ,howard and the very silly wrighty (who obviously knows nothing )-it is spiteful,people like you who condemn this g-d forsaken part of the world to continuing misery -you know nothing about the area except what bits you read or hear from those that also do not comprehend or do not want to . ONE NATION WANTS PEACE -ISRAEL !! and most of its implacable foes do not--- even the local warlords ,who will have nowhere to go on the Monday after peace is signed ,no status no ability to rule ,no one to steal from -I will just remind you of the withdrawal from Gaza and what happened next -do I really need to ?-it didn't bring peace did it ,the fools knocked down all the structures that would have helped to a better life and used it to send rockets on helpless civilians .

Some I know feel they should support what they perceive as the underdog ,I actually have friends who do precisely that and for sure they do not hate Jews ,but nevertheless their knowledge is in soundbites unlike those like Ros Pine and many others who have spent their lives with the history of this problem -in fact I do not think the west bank settlements do any favours for Israel and as for religious fanatics delving into time gone by I believe they are very wrong -The time now is for pragmatism and care for all human beings whatever their faith ,and the possibility of a future for the children at least of those unfortunate people in that area. .

There are so many Palestinians as well as Israelis who crave peace and might have a chance if people like the above did not foment anger and instead put their energy to promoting understanding and compromise .I have said this here before but I will say it again (because I can)-I have Palestinian ,Lebanese and Syrian friends who want no part of this hatred and want what I want but their voices are drowned out.

I have no doubt we will hear from the hatefilled SI,N soon and of course the crass idiot marcus ,flying in tandem on the back of patricias broomstick -so after countless years of hopes being dashed my conclusion is that we will never see peace until"the meek inherit the earth"and with people like the above I am not holding my breath .For those waiting for our foreign office to learn some sense in this area -forget it .its history precedes it as does that of Ernest Bevin who will never be forgiven by all that do remember .
For Melanie who I have not been in agreement with over the course of the US election ,you are back on a subject of which you are both masterly and passionate and I salute you for it .

Stephen

The whole arab world seems to be obsessed with 'victory' over Israel. The Palestinians do not seem to want to settle down and become carpenters or builders, they seem to only think about their miltary victory that they one day hope for. It is something to do with their way of thinking and their concept of 'honour' which I and many westeners cannot understand. For example we cannot understand how 'honour' means that they can be respected for stabbing their own teenage daughters to death for marriage-related offences.

Just look at the size of the land and the oil wealth the arabs have. Look at the size of Israel. Is the land that arabs have not enough?

Imagine a hypothetical offer of a house and large piece of land and a generous grant to an arab if he were to settle amongst fellow arabs a few hundred miles away from Judea, or the other choice which is a small shack with no grant and a future of poverty in Israel together with military victory. I wonder, what proportion would choose the second option?

David

Phil old chap, this is not a zero sum game. Just because one is against settlements, and considers that the Palestinians have a right to the land allocated to them in the same way it was allocated to Israel does not mean one supports rocket attacks, suicide bombs or thinks the Palestinian government does not wrong.

I appreciate that this is a rare thing in Melanie's world, but one holds a nuanced position that considers both sides.

ploniella

David
November 18th, 2008 9:26am

"I'm sorry, you cannot seriously be supporting the settlements."

Do you have trouble reading english?

the piece says:
I do not condone the actions of some of these settlers against their Arab neighbours, nor their attitudes; and I would like them to leave most of these territories, in Israel’s own interests. But the claim that Israel has ‘stolen’ Palestinian land is simply a lie."

Ivor, Chelmsford

Vision Aforethought, you are not nuts! Most people own a bible yet it doesn't occur to them that all the prophecies they will find therein have already come to pass, or will do so in time. You need only read Zechariah chapter 12 to discove that 'all the nations will turn against Israel'.

We are well into the end times. As Vision Aforethought says: Are you ready everyone?

Paul Freeman

David:

"That doesn't negate the fact that land was allocated to the Palestianians."

I'm afraid it does. The legal principle is that once you reject an offer (with violence), that offer ceases to be on the table.

It has to be this way for both reasons of morality and pragmatism. If there were no disincentive to rejecting compromise, there would be nothing to stop belligerents carrying on fighting till they got everything they wanted. Such a state of affairs rewarding violence would only encourage it.

The truth is, each time the Palestinian Arabs have rejected offers made to them of land and sovereignty they've annulled those offers.

David Lindsay

Rahm Emanuel (an Isreali citizen) as Chief of Staff, possibly Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and still you're not happy.

Oh, well, let's assume that you are right about Obama.

If so then spare a thought for those listed on the websites of either or both of the Euston Manifesto and the Henry Jackson Society, as well as for certain others mysteriously absent from one or both of these lists, such as Douglas Murray, and indeed Tony Blair and his dwindling rump of admirers.

From the inauguration of President Barack Obama, these poor souls will have no surrogate fatherland to which to look because they hate their own so much. Or, if they happen to be American citizens, they will have no fatherland at all.

Many of them went through this when the Soviet Union collapsed, and are now about to go through it all again. It would take a heart of stone not to ... well, finish off that sentence for yourself.

But I have an idea.

Very few of them are Jewish (very few neocons in general are, and most Jews are certainly not neocons). But those who are, as Ashkenazi, like the beleaguered old secular, Zionist elite in Israel, which now looks out over a land full of Arabs, Sephardim, ultra-Orthodox, and people falling into two or even all three of those categories. There is much wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

And as for the rest, they are exactly as Jewish (i.e., not at all) as the Russians who will not eat kosher food and who insist on taking their IDF oaths on the New Testament alone, the Russian Nazis, the East Africans who have invented a religion based on the Old Testament brought by Christian missionaries but who make no claim to Jewish descent, the Peruvian Indians "converted to Judaism" and put on the plane as a single act, and all the others whom that elite has shipped or flown in as part of its desperate attempt to prevent Israel from becoming a country in which the majority is formed by one or more of the Arabs, the Sephardim and the ulta-Orthodox, all of whom so very vulgarly continue to have children.

So I propose that the above-named persons, and others of like mind, be transported to Israel.

In return for each one that we sent, we would receive a family of Palestinian Christians, the better to shore up, and indeed to renew, our own authentically Western identity.

They know about the pseudo-West, and they know about the Dar al-Islam, having lived between the two for decades. Bring them over.

Just so long as those sending them over take our pseudo-Westerners in return.

David

"I'm afraid it does"

I'm afraid it doesn't.

"If there were no disincentive to rejecting compromise"

What's the incentive to dismiss a compromise in refusing to give any more than what they were given to start with.
Where's the reward? They were given X, they fought, they died, they are still only have X. What reward?

M Lester

To Stephen "The whole arab world seems to be obsessed with 'victory' over Israel" and Paul Freeman:
This is unfortunately exactly the case; Arafat said quite plainly (albeit not to his western admirers) that "peace negotiations" were just one vehicle along with terrorism to achieve their aims - which was & is a unified Palestine devoid of Jews. Their maps shown on their TV and in the kids (now redoctored ) text books don't include a Jewish state.
Unfortunately, the West & the Israelis think that this status can be continued & contained by Police action - rather than recognising that Hamas, Hizbollah are in plain, declared war whilst the "moderate arab" leadership will accept a 2-state solution.
They might - in the same way as Robert Mugabe accepted in ?1982 a system which severely constrained him via parliamentary procedures - which he proceeded to dismantle or circumvent at the earliest opportunity.
An Israel leadership which ignores this reality & bargains away chunks of the Land including the most holy of Jewish sites should be hung out to dry by the electorate.
BTW, Melanie, you missed the point that the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem was officially recognised by 2 countries: Pakistan and Great Britain.
So that's all right then .....

Kroton

Let's simplify. eh-hoop is demonstrably wrong. Simply read the judgements rather than your ad hoc assumptions (are they culled from that fraud Alan Dershowitz). As you seem to regard those who disagree with you as wallowing in a cesspit I fear rational discourse is beyond you. Simply consult the volumnious literature and various rulings - the conclusions are clear and uniform.
As to Melanie's ignorance - I've come to expect it. No legal body in the world accepts her interpretation of the Geneva Convention. Even Theodor Meron, Israel's legal advisor to the army in 1967 said that settlements are illegal. Even Thomas Buergenthal, the only dissenting judge on the International Court of Justice, said he agreed the settlements are illegal. Article 49 says, "deport or TRANSFER." Eugene Rostow had nothing to do with the formulation of 242. Everything she says is nonsense.

Conservative Cabbie

David Lindsay

"Very few of them are Jewish (very few neocons in general are)"

You mean apart from the pioneers of the movement. Neoconservatism was a liberal jewish movement. Have a look at the Wikipedia entry to see the preponderance of Jewish names: Irving Kristol, Norman and John Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz. Their influences too are largely Jewish writers, Leo Strauss, Lionel Trilling.

I like Irving Kristol's line that a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality".

Neoconservative foreign policy is based upon the idea that democratic nations rarely instigate a war, therefore it is in the best interests of the world for America to encourage democracy - not a bad theory really. however, I suspect by your tone that you are using it in it's liberal anti-american cliched sense which is a shame because I find it interesting that liberals so disgusted by the 60's counter culture could shift so dramatically to the right.

Windsong

Yes we are writing to our Israeli friends apologising for our idiot F.Sec. Lucky for Gordon the electorate do not understand money - or they would boot him out immediately. Moles are such a nuisance, in the Beeb, In the Telegraph and probably even in the Tory Engine room..sometimes things you say get to the news quicker than they should! ..and you think mmmmmm

nosmo29

To David Lindsay:

The demographic outlook for the Jews in Israel is better in the long run than you and most others think. The Jewish birth rate has increased since 1996 by 10% and over the same period the Muslim Arab birth rate has declined by 25%. In the immediate past year there have been 111,000 Jewish births - considerably more than in the whole of the Jewish diaspora. Within a generation the Jewish population of Israel will outnumber the diaspora population.

Augustus

A sovereign state of Palestine did not exist before 1967 or 1948, nor was a state of Palestine ever promised by UN Security Council Resolution 242. Contrary to popular understanding a state of Palestine has never existed, ever. Even as a non-state legal entity 'Palestine' ceased to exist in 1948, when Britain relinquished its League of Nations mandate. In 1947 the newly formed United Nations, rather than designate the entire land west of the Jordan river as the long promised Jewish national homeland, enacted a second partition. Curiously, considering that this second fission again gave complete advantage to Arab interests, Jewish leaders accepted the painful judgement, but the Arab states did not. On May 15th, 1948, exactly 24 hours after the state of Israel came into existence, the Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, declared to a tiny new country founded upon the ashes of the Holocaust, "this will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre."

David Lindsay

"The demographic outlook for the Jews in Israel is better in the long run than you and most others think."

Only if you count the ultra-Orthodox.

And even counting the Sephardim is not really what the Zionist great and good have in mind. (It never was - rather like giving the whole Commonwealth and Empire a right of abode in Britain after the War, no one thought that they would actually take it up.)

If they did, then they wouldn't be shipping in all manner of people, of no Jewishness whatever.

Our own neocons should be next, and we'll take a Palestinian Christian family for each one.

Adam B.

Marcus from the USA, you've used that quote before, and I told you that Gandhi also said that it was immoral for the Jews to resist the Nazis. He did spout some rubbish you know. If we're doing quotes, how about this:

"When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. you're talking anti-Semitism."

Martin Luther King.

Chew on that for a while.

Tim Early

1)Israel started the 1948 with Operation Pitchfork to take Jerusalem, which was designated an international city.

2)Israel has never been attacked by Palestinians, in fact, when Arab armies enetered into Palestine they actually disarmed the Palestinians.

3)Settlers have occupied not "empty space" but farming land belonging to Palestinians for centuries.

4)Jews have lived in Palestine for centuries as well but they constituted only 2% of the population before Zionism. Most Israelis are descended from foreigners, mainly from Eastern Europe.

5) The Zionists got 55% of land (despite only making up 7% of the population)under the Mandate, the rest was given to the Arabs of Palestine to make their state.

Augustus

Tim Early writes: 'Israel has never been attacked by Palestinians'. But at a summit convened by the Arab states in Khartoum in 1967 they concluded, "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it..." The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was, however, formed three years earlier in 1964, before there were any 'Israeli Occupied Territories'. Exactly what was it, then, that the PLO sought to 'liberate' between 1964 and 1967?

George

Tim Early,

So according to your logic, it should be the descendants of Chief Sitting Bull about to succeed to power in the White House, and not Barak Obama who is the descendant of foreigners.

Marcus from the USA

A little bit of research on the part of the Zionists will yield some uncomfortable truths.

On May 14th, 1948 Jewish ownership of Palestine accounted to less than 6% of the area.

Wikipedia has an excellent table on the land ownership based on official British records. It can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine#Land_ownership_of_the_British_Mandate_of_Palestine

Not very comforting info for Israel supporters.

Adam B.

Tim Early:
1. Jerusalem’s Jewish population was being besieged by attacking Arab forces. When the Arab Legion of Jordan captured the Old City of Jerusalem, a fact you seem to ignore, (for it wasn’t allocated to Jordan either, was it?) the Jews were banished from their holiest site on earth. The Jordanians then systematically destroyed the ancient synagogues, and vandalized the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Under Israeli rule, there is freedom of worship for all faiths and denominations. In fact, access to the Temple Mount is (bizarrely) forbidden to non-Muslims at the moment.
2. Israel has indeed been attacked by “Palestinians”, who are in fact Arabs from the area, not an independent entity. The “Palestinians” fought against Israel not only at its birth, but against Jewish inhabitants as far back as the 1880’s. Who do you think committed the pogroms in Hebron and elsewhere, decades before Israel even came into being? Who do you think has launched all these suicide bombings?
3. What is your source for land inhabited by Jews in Judea and Samaria as “belonging to Palestinians for centuries”. This is an outright falsehood. Do some research.
4. Most Israelis are actually descended from Jews who fled Arab and other Islamic nations. Jewish refugees one hears nothing about – in fact, a larger number than Arab refugees.
5. The Zionists did not get 55% of the land – 80% of Palestine had been made into a new country called Transjordan in 1922, with a Hashemite Royal family (imported by the British colonialists) from Saudi Arabia. Of the remaining 20%, the Jews got about half, most of which was the inhospitable Negev desert. The Arabs were allocated the more fertile highlands. In any case, the Arabs rejected any Jewish state, no matter what size, and launched a genocidal war of extermination against the Jews, which, unfortunately for you and your like, they lost. Tough.

Adam B.

David, tell me - are you concerned about the plight of the Germans from Prussia and the Sudentenland, who were ethnically cleansed from land that had been theirs for centuries, when Poland and (the then) Czechoslovakia redrew their borders at the end of WWII? Do you believe their lands should be returned to them? Or do you think as I do , that perhaps they shouldn't have started a genocidal war in which they sought the total annihilation of these countries, a war they subsequently lost?

hadrian

The place of the Ancient People, the Jews and their land in Christian theology is quite complex but at base most evangelical Christians do hold that the Jewish people occupy a major role in the unfolding of world history and are predicted to turn to Christ in vast numbers. This is mainly derived from St Paul's discourse in his Epistle to the Romans in the portion marked Chapter 9v22-Chapter11. The context makes it clear Paul sees this miraculous movement as a result of spiritual renewal, a voluntary response to the preaching and persuasion of the Gospel message Chap11v14-17.Some think Paul seems to imply this mass turning will occur when the gentile churches are at a very low ebb-he writes:'For if the casting away of them[his fellow jews] be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?' chap11v15. None of this need have any zionist element to it and many evangelicals think the land question is irrelevant-except so far as any form of genocide, Jewish or gentile, is an offence to a just God who now calls all men everywhere to repentence. Anti Semitism is intolerable. Israel is not perfect and her treatment of some of the native peoples less than admirable but their implacabliity( or rather that of those who dominate them, often in the name of Islam) in turn makes it very hard to sympathise with them. But one day peace WILL be ushered in however impossible it may seem to us today. Meanwhile one can only deplore sloppy thinking that blames Israel for all the woes of the region and fails to detect underlying and sinister anti-Semitism at work.

rinpoche

I'm sure you're right in insisting that the settlements are not illegal in international law.

The fact is however that Britain and the EU has long held them to be illegal and they are a major stumbling block in reaching a peace accord (and thus incidentally not marching in lockstep with Obama but rather Obama with us).

Israel committed to freezing settlement building last year at the Annapolis summit but has not honoured its pledge.

But we do need to get rid of David Miliband as Foreign Secretary. He's a completely loathsome and utterly shallow creep and I look forward to a swift garotting moment in the very near future.

Jeff

Michael, your comment activated me. Right after reading it I email Beyamin Netanyahu's campaign headquarters asking them how I can make a monetary contribution to help get him elected.
Well done. It'll be better done when BiBi gets in

Adam B.

Marcus, what was Arab ownership?

Adam B.

Marcus and Tim, perhaps this will explain it.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404769705&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

John Edwards

There is absolutely no doubt that the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (including in East Jerusalem) are illegal under international law. This was confirmed unanimously by the International Court of Justice in their advisory opinion on the Separation Wall. A decision which carries rather more authority than Melanies Phillips' blog!

It is also worth recalling the explanation of UN Resolution 242 by Lord Caradon (the main framer of the resolution) of the reason the definite article was omitted from the operative paragraph "occupied territories" as opposed to "the occupied territories".

"Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line [based on where the Israeli and Arab armies happened to be at the time of the 1948 armistice], I wasn't prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was "the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war" and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent "secure and recognised" boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind of course, the inadmissibility principle."

Bronx Tale

I'm new to this blog and am amazed at the attention paid to the leaf rustling while the tree is dying from a fatal disease. There are no subtleties here. The reality, and gravity of the situation, is quite simple. As stated many times before: If the Arabs lay down their arms there will be peace. If Israel lays down its arms, there will be no Israel. Start there and figure it out. Next!

Dave M

This stuff about "occupied territories" I find pretty much irritating. The BBC uses the phrase all the time. The fact of the matter is Jews lived in these lands for thousands of years as we all know. The Palestinians exist in the same region as a result of Imperialist interventions throughout history that caused Jews to be displaced. There are similar situations that came about in the Caucasus as a result of Stalin's ethnic cleansing. Ingush populations, for example, were driven out and other ethnic groups settled in what are now disputed territories. Even Estonians were heavily displaced. The only way to settle the Middle East crisis is for the Palestinians and the E.U. to recognise the historical reality of Israel but work out some kind of peace agreement which both sides will support.

An American

Harley Davidson,
I disagree with you on the United Nations only in that I possibly have more disdain for this organization that you.

I'm amazed at the bloggers here who tout the UN as if it were a peace-rendering organization.
Who are they kidding?
What of any value has the UN achieved....ever?

The US gives the UN over a billion dollars a year of taxpayer's monies to this infested group of democracy-hating, racist dictators. And our reward to is to have every vote turned against us...with some very nasty words thrown in for good measure.

Viewing UN procedings remind me of scenes out of the Star Wars bar scene.

Most 'thinking' Americans would like to unload the UN...maybe that crazy, gringo-hating, democracy-hating dictator... Hugo Chavez will take it off our hands.

Benjamin

I think that part of the problem is that in the 1930's Western powers had even less respect for the aspirations/rights of Arab poplations in teh Middle East that they did for people of Jewish origin. Jewish political activists being well organised articulate and versed in Western ways of thinking and doing politics - had an enormous advantage. Decades later, people of Arab origins began to raise their voices, claiming they have been treated unfairly. So MP can can make the claim the all was done in perfect legality - when at the time nobody gave a damn what the Arabs thought or felt. Both parties are still suffering the consequences.

Jack

"The BBC's apparent ignorance of international law derives from its own innate political hostility to Israel"

From the BBC's charter...For the BBC accuracy is important it is often more than a question of getting the facts right. All the relevant facts and information should be weighed to get at the truth. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered.

We aim to achieve accuracy by:

the accurate gathering of material using first hand sources wherever possible.
checking and cross checking the facts.
validating the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material.
corroborating claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible.

charles

Jack, who are you trying to kid? The BBC, especially the world service, has been deeply anti-settler and anti-Zionist, soft-pedalled jihadism and apologised for Islam in general for a long time, and it's worsening. Just a look at the images of Sharon (ogre before, smiling nice guy after his slashing of Gaza, would show its extraordinary and persistent bias).

phil

David Lindsay hav,nt I heard this form of ethnic cleansing suggestion some where before ?in the thirties perhaps.everything you write and I mean for last few years are based on your own interpretation of your religion ,which many would find bizarre .I CANT ACTUALLY WORK OUT WHAT YOUR MESSAGE IS ,so maybe you will rephrase it in clearer terms as I and others would not want to misunderstand you.

phil

Tim Early which modern day reinvention of "der sturmer" did you copy that from?

phil

An American,having castigated you on your opinions re the American election ,as a fair minded person(I hope) I applaud you on the comments on this column and your views on the ME .Whilst Iam posting this may I welcome back AdamB Who I feared had gone missing ,and who always writes well researched and sensible pieces ,also sorry to duplicate all those who told tim early what a fool he is .I HADNT SCROLLED DOWN -NOW FOR JOHN EDWARDS WHO PONTIFICATES WILDLY ON 242, perhaps sir you should consider borders, when the attackers of a peaceful nation decide to end the wars that they alone started and maybe then we will be able to consider calmly where the borders should be -like most your knowledge is from soundbites -I SUGGEST YOU START WITH THE HISTORY OF JERUSALEM and when you have done that we can give you a little more research to do -like who always attacked who -ready?

I have been busy here this morning so I will rest now ,but this is an emotive subject as you all know :)

Tony

If the Bible is accurate, which I believe it is, as it has never been disproved; it says that in the last days of humanity, that the whole world will turn against Israel and here, before our eyes, is another prophecy being fulfilled.
But it is not for Israel I fear, as she is protected by God almighty, but the people and countries that come against her. How sad for Britain Mr. Miliband! How sad for the USA Mr.Obama!

The Truth Hurts

Much obfuscated waffle from Melanie to gloss over the bare fact that:

The West Bank is illegally occupied by Israel.

phil

The Truth Hurts--AT LEAST THE OTHERS TRY TO BACK UP THEIR STATEMENTS WITH FACTS .
the moon is blue, and Arsenal will win the league and John Sargeant can dance -comprende?

Adam B.

The so-called "Truth" hurts - what a well written, researched piece of writing. Your persuasive reasoning would overwhelm the most entrenched critic. PS I'm being sarcastic. Did you take in one single word from Melanie?

Adam B.

John Edwards, where is east Jerusalem? Do you mean the Old City, in which case, when did the Jewish and Armenian quarters become exclusively Arab?

barckobama

International law is a radical, modernist liberal/socialist invention that conservatives should always reject as a matter of principle. It undermines national sovereignty, a fact that has been a source of lasting conservative angst in the UK since Britain was forced into the EU. It is inconsistent and underdeveloped with little practical application to the world as it was, is or ever will be. Anybody who depends on the protection of "international law" should be made a ward of court. Finally, where does the authority to frame "international law" reside and who enforces it? Surely, not the UN? Or the EU? "International law" should be dismissed by conservatives as worth than less than the paper it is written on.

David Lindsay

""Very few of them are Jewish (very few neocons in general are)"

You mean apart from the pioneers of the movement."

Yes, but most Marxists, or Freudians, or monetarists aren't Jewish, either. Nor are most Jews Marxists, or Freudians, or monetarists.

Look at the list of signatories to the PNAC. Is Jeb Bush, or Dan Quayle, or Francis Fukuyama, or Dick Cheney Jewish?

Even, say, Donald Rumsfeld, or Gary Bauer, or George Weigel, and of whose names looks as if it might be Jewish, turns out not to be.

Look at the signatories to the Euston Manifesto or the HJS, and the point is, if anything, even more strikingly made.

Trying to depict opposition to neconservatism as anti-Semitic is cheap, wildly inaccurate, and perfectly simple to disprove.

Marcus from the USA

What is Arab land ownership???

Arab land ownership refers to the land owned by both Arab Muslims/Druze and Arab Christians in the Holy Land.

Arab land owners not only included Arabs living in the Holy Land (Palestinians) but also other Arabs like Egyptians who owned land in Palestine.

Hope that helps clarify things Adam.

jerry

Regarding David's comment: "And of course, the point is that you can make claims on history, but so can lots of people, and where do you stop?"

Here is where you stop, David: From the point of view of tort law, Israel holds the West Bank, and so changing its status to "Palestinian" requires incontrovertible proof of ownership. "Folk history" no matter which way the Palestinians slice does not provide proof of ownership. Palestinian arguments, to the contrary, are dubious, partial, not legal, and will be productive of more problems than their ownership will solve.

Even the Palestinians know the value of living under Israeli law rather than their own Arab-style system. Today's news of the residents of Ghajer on the Lebanese borders fighting to retain their Israeli identity cards shows better sense than David's theory ownership that these Muslim residents eschew. As well, the Muslim residents of East Jerusalem fight to retain their privileges under Israeli law and do not favor transfer to the Palestinian Authority, in spite of their public rhetoric about desiring the demise of Israel.

David, what problems are you suggesting will be solved by ownership transfer? What problems will be exacerbated by your approach, should it, God forbid, become reality?

Adam B.

I note that Tim and David and other assorted Israel bashers have fled the discussion, as they always do when faced with facts they have never seen on the BBC or read in the Guardian.

Dixon

After having to disagree with Mel on so much lately, Im glad to find she is back on form.

This is a superb, succinct dismantling of so much of the hogwash about Palestine that is spewed out by the media as "received wisdom".

Brilliant!

Conservative Cabbie

David Lindsay

What exactly about my reply to you suggested I was accusing you of being anti-semitic. You need to be seriously over-sensitive to reach that deduction. My comment was written as more of an (hopefully) interesting aside about the origins of neo-conservatism. I also made the point that despite what liberals seem to think, not everyone on the right is neoconservative, that it is a clearly defined 'idealogy' in it's own right that differs significantly to a whole host of other right wing beliefs.

Try not to be so quick to "cry wolf".

phil

Bronx Tale-you may be new here,but you do get to the point -sadly yuo will not have too many agreein with such a sensible solutioon -we have a lot of fools who post here -dont go away

shark

Off topic: Any diplomat on foreign territory eating an icecream while walking in a public space is a disgrace to the British. Miliband displays here in this photo, his pathetic knowledge of good manners, the very first requirement of a diplomat. What a ghastly specimen he is. This is a typical example of a member of the lower orders who has risen above his station without bothering to learn simple good manners.

phil

bronx tale it looks from my previous effort that i,m having difficulty spelling today -confused .com :)

Dixon

There was one point that, maybe I should read it again to be sure, but it seems was missed out. That is the way in which "anti zionist" has come to be a disguise for anti-Jewish. If you actually look at who prates against "Zionists" and the formulations within which they use that term, it becomes apparent that in reality they are repeating age-old anti-semitic articles of faith. It utterly astonishes me how in this age of media sensitivity to anything remotely racist these people are allowed to keep making on TV and in print "Protocols" style assertions about the world being controlled by secret conspiracies of "Zionists". Its just one word removed from the repetition of the most basic, biggest and ultimately bloody racialist rallying cry in all history! Yet how many times I have heard it unchallenged spouted by guests on the BBC and Channel 4?

Maven

Those who use this pathetic argument that "Palestine only had 2% Jews" are to be laughed at. so pathetic is the point! Since Palestine was The Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, West Bank and Gaz (just to use the latest names) then "2% of WHAT?! Given that the intention of the Mandate was to recognise that Jews had been driven from this land (hence a low number) then they would create a place where the 12m or so Jews of that time could return to. If you have to use "2%" then the implication is "Are you saying that a 98% occupancy of Arabs can't tolerate the return home of a few Jews?" How many Jews in Syria, The Lebanon and Jordan? Is it 0%? Remember that Palestine was a vast land of few people and no-one, except a few bedouins lived in the Negev

JW

Some intelligent reading for you re. Israel, anti-Semitism and much else.
http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Moral_Squeamishness.htm

JW

Adam et al. Perhaps they gave up because you didn't address the points made by e.g. Kroton.
Dixon - perhaps if the ADL/Southern Povery law Center/AIPAC weren't so desperate to shut down debate through libelling people you wouldn't find people adopting florid conspiracy theories of the sort you dislike. Given that they destroy people who make reasonable claims they can hardly be surprised that some react by going to the extremist edges (of course the above organisations are themselves extreme, dishonest bullies and frauds - and it's all been well-documented).

Stan

"This was designed to prohibit inhumane practices such as by the Nazis and the Soviets before and during the Second World War in forcibly transferring or deporting people into or out of occupied territories."

To be fair, the Allies did it as well - most notably in forcibly returning the (German supporting) Cossacks back to Russia where they were systematically persecuted and murdered, but also with hundreds of thousands of others. In fact, the fledgling UN (UNRRA) actually faciliated this forced repatriation. Admittedly UNRRA was formed before the UN officially came into being, but continued to repatriate "displaced persons" long after.

Adam B.

JW, an example please? One single example of a libel against an innocent party would suffice.

Adam B.

JW, Kroton is impressed by world bodies dispensing "international law." I am not so impressed. Where are the rulings on China's invasion of Tibet, and brutal suppression of its culture? Whilst the UN has seen fit to condemn Israel 1000 times, not one single reprimand has been uttered against China. Likewise, no harsh judgments on all the lousy dictatorships of the Middle East, who routinely torture their people whilst "rights" are non-existent, and apartheid against minorities is widely practised. Perhaps you are impressed with this, and think of such international bodies as "impartial." I do not. The fact remains that there is no such thing as an impartial and equally applied international law, there are simply politically driven "interpretations." Perhaps, instead of condemning Melanie, you could demonstrate where she is wrong in this article?

phil

ADAM B I know you feel it is necessary to engage with people who like to disparage Jews but Jw IS A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME ,I WENT TO THE WEB SITE HE TOLD ABOUT it is the dream site for those that want to enjoy anti jewish nonsense -just tell him he talks rubbish and leave him to it -let him engage with her on a broomstick ,although Ithink she has flown away after the ridicule she received -your mind is too valuable for bufoons like this one .

Davod

"The British Government is merely realigning their Israeli position to be in compliance with the new Sharia Laws for their Muslim friends."

No. They, and the Europeans are aligning their positions with with those of the Obama Administration.

Jeremy Wilkinson

Adam B and Phil
I wrote a lengthy post giving examples and referring back to Kroton's adumbrations of Melanie's errors. The post was rejected by the moderator despite being calm in tone and not resorting to personal abuse/guilt by association (the tactics of "Phil"). As this is neither a fair or serious forum (ripostes rejected etc.) I suggest you write to the author of the article Moral Squeamishness with your request for examples. He has been accommodating with enquiries. It seems I am disallowed from posting examples so go to him. Pharisaical "guilt by association" Phil shouldn't bother though - his comments are beneath contempt

Adam B.

Jw, perhaps the "examples" you wish to provide would be libellous! I have yet to see a single example from any of these accusers.

Adam B.

JW, the link you provide advocates the destruction of the Jewish state. Apparently it's OK for 37 Muslim states to exist in the world, and 50 plus Christian ones, but not one Jewish one. Aren't Jewish people entitled to self-determination, like everyone else? If not, can they all come and live where you do?

JW

Adam B
There are many examples as you must surely know.
I already directed you to an article dealing with some aspects of the problem.
The Parliamenrary Report on Anti-Semitism defines as as anti-Semitic incidenct anything the Jewish community "perceives" to be one!
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-0215-rise_of_militant_christophob.htm

Try reading the previous link too - or contacting it's author.
Melanie meantime has said that the Gospels are "anti-Semitic" and by implication Christ Himself. Perhaps you should concede such absurdities (endliessly repeated) - or, if you must, defend them. have a look at Finekstein's Beyond Chutzpah paperback edition for numerous examples of further absurdities (please do - rather than dismissing him as an "anti-Semite - try and judge what people write - tackle the ball not the man!). Hope this helps.

Oh - and former "revolutionary" david Horowitz called Jimmy Cater a "Jew hater" for writing a book that Horowitz didn't like.

JW

What? Could you tell me where exactly it says that. I've read it more than once and have not seen that - nor anything even closely resembling it. Chapter and verse please!

phil

Jeremy Wilkinson its good to see somebody reads what I write -Adam B and I say it how it is and if we go over the top we are moderated ,so it seems you have had that fate ,should we wonder why ? Should we in fact believe that you with all your wisdom are right and Melanie is wrong -I think not

There have been many over the years that have come here to indulge their anti Jewish and anti Israeli bias and they have been allowed their say -you will never have seen anti Christian remarks here nor I hope you ever will -we Jews are pretty tolerant on the whole ,but when you come to say what is demonstrably untrue or quote from sources that are "beneath contempt" you will read what we think of it .whether you like it or not -in fact Adam will probably tell you himself that he is not Jewish but is an upstanding Christian as are most who post here and a person who sees the world as it really is without the bias that you obviously suffer from .If you want to know the truth read what Roslyn Pine or Kate A writes ,one from each religion ,but please do not post here from anti Semitic sites and think you will be dealt with kindly..

The fact that you are obviously educated makes your remarks even more shameful.Nevertheless you obviously can study too ,so try reading this .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242- then you may tell us whether all states are allowed to live in peace in accordance with that resolution .

I do hope you will not find what I have written here beneath contempt ,but if you do I will not worry too much as it is the truth

phil

JW as you seem to have reverted to-I have just seen the updated web site and your replies to Adam -you certainly are on "expert" on Jewish matters aren't you -may we ask why ?it is strange isn't it ?
Your reference to Christ is beneath contempt (well that is an expression of yours)as you know he was born and died a Jew ,hardly would be anti-semitic would he ,and certainly did not write the gospels as any scholar would know -why not take up your accusations about Melanie with her personally ,she is better equipped to deal with the likes of than us .You may also tell us why you read so much writing by Jewish authors -are you setting up an office ?This sort of discussion demeans us all but if you are allowed to post it ,you will get a response .

JW

Phil
Calling me a buffoon was "beneath contempt". I haven't done that to you.
Re. Christianity - Melanie said it of the Gospels and any Christian must believe that the Gospels are Divinely inspired. My point was that if someone thinks that Christiniaty is "religiously anti-Semitic" then they should, in all consistency think that Christ is. Yes Christ is a Jew. Yes, calling Him anti-Semitic is obscene. So Jewish people (or anyone else) shouldn't do it! That hasn't stopped Jews calling Jews anti-Semitic. Take it up with Melanie. I tried to but she had no response - rather like the Jews that debated Donin.
Phil - look I have nothing against you but you simply haven't produced a single argument in relation to the sources. It's just a waste of time to continue if you don't do that. Neither of you has addressed the first linked article (though Adam has made a claim about it he can't back up). The post rejected by the moderator has been repeated in the subsequent posts I have made - unlke you I have not resorted to personal abuse.
As to reading - yes Christians should know about Judaism just as Jews should know about Christianity. As the linked article shows Melanie knows next to nothing about Christianity (as the article demonstrates) and so sews discord. I am not aware I have said anything controversial about Judaism - let me know if I have and I'd be happy to be corrected.
Happy to read replies but only if you address arguments/sources etc. Thus far you appear to reject anything offered instead of refuting it.
Remember Melanie holds a core belief about the Covenants to be anti-semitic - Christ brought that belief to the world. Read the article!!! You will not a find a single serious Catholic theologian who will dispute (don't know about Protestants).
btw I'd be delighted if you immersed yourself in Christian books. I'd be happy to recommend some.

Adam B.

Jw, your last comment gives you away. here to convert some Jews are you? Perhaps you should immerse yourself in Jewish theology, an area in which you appear to be quite ignorant. Your links have demonstrated nothing at all, other than you like reading extremist authors who advocate the destruction of the Jewish state (see my previous post, to which you unsurprisingly haven't responded). As for your moan about David Horowitz and Jimmy the Ninny, what exactly does this prove? That an individual attacked Carter? The claim is that Jewish organizations, or the Israeli government, routinely use the race card against anyone criticizing the Israeli government, and you STILL have not provided a single instance. Anyone can find a quote from an individual saying almost anything - so what? Personally, I am sceptical about Carter's motives, as his claims are decidedly selective and also utterly inaccurate, prompting even left wing members of his own Foundation to resign, with sharp criticism for his bias.

Adam B.

By the way JW, if you read this blog regularly, you would find Phil is extremely tolerant (more than I am) and it takes a lot to make him be harsh, a fate you surely deserve with your condescending comments about religion. Incidentally Phil, I'm not Christian either, just someone who wants to stick up for what's right.

JW

Adam
Please do me the courtesy of reading what I have written. I supplied you with a Remnant link dealing with the SPLC. It's up to you whether you read it but if you don't you can't claim your question hasn't been answered (yet to STILL perpetuate this untruth). That's simply dishonest.
I have made claim about Jewish theology so your point there is beside the point. I have made a pouint about Catholic theology which is absolutely standard and which you appear to be unaware of. The article Moral Squeamishness, which I am beginning to suspect you haven't read, deals with the issue. Nowhere does that article call for what you say it does and you have not once cited where it does.
In short I have met your challenges - you have ignored/not read the responses and then repeated your challenges! What chutzpah!

As to me being condescending about religion - I didn't mean to be and apologise if I was. I merely was pointing out that while I would be happy for Phil to read Christian literature he seems to have a problem with me reading Jewish. How strange.
As to conversion - God converts - but surely you know that Christianity is a proselytising religion. just as you presumably want to convert people to the truth so do Christians (and they believe Christianity to be true).
Let's not waste time by missing all the points. And lets not confuse linking to an ARTICLE and the content of an entire Website (I've linked to articles from the Guardian - without endorsing the entire paper!!).

JW

Oops. Should have "you STILL" and "I have made NO claim about Jewish theology".
re. 242 - don't see that the Wiki entry necessarily supports your case - but I think that 242 is not really the point. What happened on the ground in '67 is (Melanie brought up Internation Law). I am not a great fan of Int. Law either but don't dismiss it utterly.
I presume btw that Adam you reject the Nuremberg trials.
Re. Phil - he seems to have resulted to personal abuse and CAPITALS long before any supposed condescension. Perhaps it's the subject - people seem to get rather touchy about it, a convenient kind of touchiness though.

Adam B.

JW, were the Nurenberg trials held under "international law"? My understanding is that the Allied powers were in charge of law and order, as there was no national German judiciary in place at that time. As for your article calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, the author has written at the top "For one democratic state in the whole of Palestine (Israel)". I.e. he advocates the "one-state solution." Have you ever heard of it? It means an end to Israel as a Jewish nation state, and consequently the end of Jewish self-determination, which is simply a racist viewpoint. I find that loathsome.

phil

JW your quote

"My point was that if someone thinks that Christianity is "religiously anti-Semitic" then they should, in all consistency think that Christ is. Yes Christ is a Jew. Yes, calling Him anti-Semitic is obscene" -- those are your words and I am not getting involved in a stupid discussion like this save to say Jews have great respect for Christianity and its followers and I have never heard anyone say that Jesus was antisemitic ,certainly never a Jewish person -you would do well to keep your ridiculous opinions to yourself and stop nudging people into a row .You need to remember that the Catholic church has made immense strides towards reconciliation with Jews ,a position that the vast majority of Catholics would be very happy with ,They do not need your input to negate all the work that has been done to bring together two great religions and the people that adhere to them .

You have not answered any points that I raised so I will afford you the same courtesy -Every place you point us to has something objectionable and inflammatory to say. You are here only to annoy us and I cant be bothered OK .

Adam ,sorry I knew you were not Jewish as you have said it many times but wrongly assumed you were a Christian -you know it does, nt matter to me ,just that you are a decent human being and you have proven that many times over ,best regards to you .Phil

JW

Adam
That not what the ARTICLE says - that part of a banner of the WEBSITE (for which the ARTICLE wasn't written FOR). And please address the ARTICLE. And the other one re. the SPLC. And all the other points.
Re. Internation Law - well it's arguable. re. territores - this could go on forever but I don't see that security interests are served by holding on to territory over the green line - quite the reverse. But let's stick to the other points where we might get some resolution - and the religious points I still hold to re. Covenants etc. which, of course, "Phil" ignored.

Linda Rivera

ALL STOLEN JEWISH LAND & PROPERTY MUST BE RETURNED TO JEWS!
The inalienable rights of Jews to the Biblical heartland must not be violated! No one is demanding Muslims surrender THEIR top religious areas of Mecca and Medina!

In 1948, Egypt invaded Gaza, ethnically cleansing all Jews and in 1948, Jordan invaded Judea, Samaria and east Jerusalem, ethnically cleansing all Jews.

In violent opposition to G-D, Muslim Jordan destroyed 58 synagogues in Jerusalem. The jihad is against the Holy One.

When Israel won the Arab war of aggression in 1967, Jews returned to the areas of their ancestral homeland they had been ethnically cleansed from for 19 years. Anti-Israel propaganda DECEITFULLY calls Jews' legitimate return "occupation".

Jews have had a continuous presence in physical and spiritual homeland Israel for 4000 years.

Jewish ownership of the land, homes and buildings stolen from the Jews in the 1948 Islamic invasion must be restored!

Linda Rivera

JEWISH REFUGEES MUST BE COMPENSATED IN LAND & FINANCES!
Around, and after 1948, one million Jews suffered VIOLENT religious Jew cleansing from Arab countries. Arab governments seized the land, farms, homes, hospitals, schools, businesses and bank accounts of the Jews.

Most Jewish refugees fled to Israel where the religious terror war against Jews NEVER stops.

Cruel Global war is fought to subjugate all humanity under merciless Islamic sharia law where defenseless non-Muslims have NO human rights-it is unacceptable to Islamics for Jews to have self-rule in TINY Israel.

The 1948 Jewish refugees and their descendants who make up about half of Israel's Jewish citizens MUST be compensated in land and finances!

See:
http://www.theforgottenrefugees.com/

Linda Rivera

Arabs first started calling themselves "Palestinians" in 1967. Egyptian Arafat was the first leader of this new people.

Before 1948, Jews were known as the Palestinians.

The Jewish newspaper, the Jerusalem Post was called the Palestine Post. The Jewish-founded electric company was Palestine Electric. The Palestinian Symphony Orchestra was all Jewish. During World War II, the British army had a Palestinian Brigade made up entirely of Jewish volunteers.

After Jews migrated to Palestine in significant numbers in the late 1800s and miraculously transformed desert and swamps into rich, agricultural land, Arabs came in large numbers from Arab countries for jobs from Jews.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of Arabs resided only briefly in Palestine is attested to by a one-time special UN decree: that any Arab who had resided in Palestine FOR ONLY TWO YEARS BEFORE 1948, and then left, would be considered a refugee and so would his descendants!

In all of history, people were NEVER regarded as refugees if they had resided in a country for ONLY two years because they were clearly CITIZENS of OTHER COUNTRIES!

Linda Rivera

To the Jew-hating racists who don't believe Jews should be allowed to live in the Jewish ancestral homeland of Judea and Samaria: where else do you want to viciously ethnically cleanse Jews from - New York, Paris, London?

If it is unacceptable to you for Jews to live in Israel, it is clear it is also unacceptable to you for Jews to live anywhere on earth.

10,000 Jews were ruthlessly ethnically cleansed from Gaza for the SOLE REASON THEY ARE JEWS AND NOT MUSLIM - from Land that NEVER belonged to Arabs.

Muslim mobs celebrated by desecrating and destroying sacred Gaza synagogues. International Jew-hater ruling elites applauded.

Driven into poverty, many Gaza Jews were forced to live for a long time in tents.

JEWS and OTHER NON-MUSLIMS MUST HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS!

JW

Phil
If I haven't answered a point of yours please let me know which one/ones and I will. If not I can only assume bad faith on your part.

Re. Christ - I was merely pointing out the logic of a particular position. You haven't faulted the logic. Given that Melanie Phillips (and others) DO hold that position then you are plainly mistaken.
As to the Catholic teaching - I accept all of it fully. Perhaps you could show me where I have contradicted it (I fear you know little of Catholic theology anyhow - you are plainly mistaken if you think Nostra Aetate contradicts previous Church teaching, which is what is implied by your remarks (have you actually read it?)).
You seem to find it hard to be civil and for that I am sorry. You have never once addressed the points I make/made - not least because you can't.
As I said I am happy to address any points. Your intemperate tone is, I fear, not conducive to good Catholic/Jewish relations. Actually engaging with problematic areas is, provided one is honestly seeking the truth. Looking forward to you ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THE ARGUMENTS MADE! And do remind me of those points I haven't answered. I actually do like to address arguments (and no, I don't think you are here to "annoy").
As to inflammotry links etc. - could you please point out ONE inflammatory comment (if not I fear a career with the SPLC beckons - and I wouldn't wish that on anyone). Best Wishes JW.

Dante Abruzzi

though some of those who have submitted comments are blithely ignorant of this, the fact is that the land is filled with evidence of ancient and sustained Jewish habitation. in contradistinction, palestinian national identity is novel and synthetic. the arabs who, since the Jewish reconstruction of Israel, have called themselves "palestinians" can point to no ancient tradition of the borders of Palestine; they use the borders defined by the British. What does the ancient Palestinan Arab flag look like? Who are their national poets from, say, a century or two ago? What was its ancient currency? On what date does the ancient Palestinian national festival fall? There is nothing. Nothing, except an Arab, then, Ottoman, military conquest that was not "palestinian." Even the name "Palestine" was borrowed [from Romans who attempted to destroy the Jewish identity of the land]. BUT AGAINST THAT EMPTY RECORD, WHEN ONE SCRATCHES THE SOIL OF ISRAEL, ONE SEES EVIDENCE OF THE SAME PEOPLE, SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGE, OBERVING THE SAME FAITH, AS 3,000 YEARS AGO. and, so, faced with these facts, the "Palestinians" have felt compelled to assert that there was no Temple in Jerusalem, the Jews did not live in Palestine, the Jews have no connection to Israel, etc. And, disgracefully, there are fools who believe the distortions and delusions of the enemies of the Jews. Palestinian land? Jerusalem? Hebron? Jericho? Katzrin? Bethlehem? Not even close!

phil

JW ,my case is closed and I do not doubt the posters views on the outcome.my many Catholic friends would be disgusted by what you have done here -has anyone come to agree with you ?-I think not -we are an argumentative lot here but we do not argue on issues like this ,those like you who arrive and say these things are given short shrift whichever religion is being insulted ,so I have nothing more to say to you -continue to make a fool of yourself if you wish -I will leave it to the moderator .

JW

Phil
Sorry you're so angry. As you have never addressed the issues, nor shown how anything I have said is opposed to Catholic teaching (or inaccurate with regard to Jwish people) I can only conclude that this is an issue which you cannot, for whatever reason, discuss. Your Catholic friends, if they are at all fair-minded, could not find anything I have said objectionable. Not even you can identify a single thing (unless it is the logical implication of what Melanie (not me) wrote re. so-called replacement theology). I merely asked for an explanation. You gave none and merely relied on insults, never bothering to address any of the arguments calmy put to you.
I wish you well in overcoming your problem. What I have done here is ask some pretty fundamental questions - not at all disrespectful to Judaism (and hey - my Jewish friends have no problem with what I have said).
I really am sorry it has to end like this but I do find your accusations unjust. Perhaps we all need to do some soul-searching.
I'd be happy if you're Catholic friends could tell me what is so "disgusting" about what I have said. You haven't - you've merely flung around strong words inside contentless posts. I had better ask my Jewish friends if they're disgusted by you. I suspect it will pity - they're decent people.

JW

Sadly Phil your case never opened. Basta!

Adam B.

JW, your link is merely a badly written, hateful rant. What exactly am I supposed to comment on? It reads as a stream of consciousness. You seem to have some kind of chip about Christianity. I am not remotely interested in your hang-ups. It is utterly unrelated to this thread and Melanie's article. You can have a conversation with yourself.

Adam B.

Phil, this guy doesn't even make sense - not worth bothering with!

hadrian

When Adam pointedly makes the remark that there are umpteen Moslem and Christian states in the world and but one single Jewish one he makes a very good point! As has also been observed there has been continuous Jewish presence in the area roughly designated as Israel for centuries. If liberals want them extirpated where are they to go to? It's as absurd as saying Scots took over Northern Ireland centuries ago so their latterday Ulster descendants need driving out to 'give back' their heritage to people who never created it in the first place. Any sane person can see injustices have happened but genocide is not the solution just yet more sloppy, shallow leftist, socialist thinking ( and not that far removed from the national socialist madness of the Hitler regime)
There can but be three longterm outcomes- mutual annihilation; destruction of one side; a measure of reconciliation and mutual respect.

David Sternlight, Ph.D., LSE '62; Los Angeles

"Thus HMG is now marching in lockstep with its joyfully welcomed comrade across the pond -- who will shortly enter the White House and leave Israel abandoned, undermined, and under pressure to cut its own throat."

I think Melanie has got this one wrong. First of all, we in America give new Presidents the benefit of the doubt, even those of us who voted for the other candidate.

Second, early signs (Rahm Emanuel, Hilary Clinton) suggest that far from 'abandoning' Israel the new administration will strongly support it. Scowcroft is perhaps an exception, but his role with respect to Israel will likely be peripheral.

Additional evidence for this view can be seen in the abrupt reversal of early rejoicing among many Moslem extremists in the Middle East and their sympathizers.

The man is not even in office yet; can we show the fabled British fairness in this matter?

As for your own foreign secretary and his department, your comments seem spot on.

JW

Adam/Phil
I have repeatedly asked you for a single argument to back up your claims. You have distracted attention from the fact that you provided not one.
Adam asked for an example of a libel - I gave him one in a link. He shows no sign of having read the link. He brought the subject up by asking for a link. The link related to anti-Semitism and accusations thereof. I pointed out that a Melanie Phillips article (I was referring to her Christian who hate Jews) if properly understood would mean that Jesus Christ is an anti-Semite. My logic was never faulted (the logic was laid out in the article I linked to).
Instead of ever dealing with the article (either article) comments about the website that linked to the article were made - another distraction. Phil got upset about the Jesus Christ point. Fine - complain to Melanie. Adam asked a question which I answered. He had no reply to it except more distraction (badly written etc., rant (because you disagree with it?) - in spite of the fact that it directly addressed the Jesus point and made a numnber of points specifically addressing anti-Semitism accusation - a subject he brought up). Neither ever identified a single statement in either article that could be construed as hateful. Finally I am told I have hang-ups am a buffoon etc. in spite of repeatedly offering to answer any points I kight have missed. Meantime Phil and Adam praise each others virtues while dissembling and distracting telling me how hateful my comments must be to Catholics though again refusing to identify any such comments or in any way showing how/why they are contrary to Catholic teaching. I am told I am ignorant of Jewish theology (not true in fact - and Adam and Phil seem to be ignorant of the entire subject we are discussing!) even thugh I didn't mention it.

I will leave you to backscratch, smear and pretend that you have something to contribute. The facts speak for themselves despite what you might pretend. You were given every chance to respond ,makew an argument, instruct (if not me other readers). You refused to do so repeatedly. I did not and even asked for assistance in making sure I did not.
I don't know if you have any "hang ups" - I suppose Adam is a qualified as any judge.

Why you bother commenting (regularly!) when you cannot argue or respond to those you ask questions of I don't know.
Nor, I fear, do you.

Adam B.

JW, this is truly one of the most Pythonesque conversations in which I have engaged. YOU are the one talking about Jesus, I am not. I am not remotely interested. I am talking about the topic of Melanie's post, the legal status of Judea and Samaria, and the role of international law. I have no idea what you're talking about. As for your "evidence" of libels, I have been unable to find it in your link, published on a racist website with which you seem enthralled. Please elucidate.

jj

Melanie:
YOU ARE WASTING YOUR BREATH. I DON'T BLAME YOU FOR TELLING THE TRUTH BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE COMPELLED TO, BUT REALLY? THESE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND FULL WELL WHAT THE RIGHTS ARE OF THE PALESTINIANS AND THE ISRAELIS. THEY WILL ALWAYS TAKE THE SIDE OF THE PALESTINIANS. THIS PHILOSOPHY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD, AND EVERY BELIEVER HAS BEEN SO DUPED AND BRAINWASHED THAT BY THIS TIME THEY DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UP/DOWN, RIGHT/WRONG, TRUTH/LIE.

JW

Adam
Firstly please explain how The Remnant is a racist website (now you're libelling them along with the SPLC). You asked for an example of libel. I gave one - how on earth can you miss it. You then proceeded to obfuscate the issue again and again. The other article you mistook for the "racist" website more than once and never addressed its content of the article which dealt again and again with the issue of false/libellous accusations of anti-Semitism. And of course the article has been posted on the website from another source - neither I nor you know whether this was done with permission of the author. And of course you have never addressed a single point in that article that relates to false accusations (made by Govt. committees etc.). SO in both cases I have answered your question. The point about Jesus Christ is explained in that article - its relevance should be clear - those who fling about false/libellous accusations be they groups or individuals do enormous amounts of damage. Melanie (unwittingly) did so in her article re. Christians. You seem to find it surpising that certain organisations (or presumably Melanie) could libel people re. religion etc. I included this to show how this is not the case - it related to your original challenge.
Major groups do the same as she re. Christianity. Your response thus far has been to fling around baseless allegations against websites I have no interest in (I explained this before!).
Oh and re. International law - check out Alan Dershowitz's case for Israel - ch. 4. I I fear the arguments you use against international law rule out rather more than you think.

I shouldn't need to add that you have never once referred to the content you claim to have read, never once provided a quotation etc. to prove your point (usually not so much a point as a label/smear) - appear not to have read the very piece (Remnant) provided in answer to your questions. Don't ask questions you don't want answered properly )or were you hoping that no-one would dare answer such a question).
I'll leave it there. I don't want you to disgrace yourself again. Unless you can actually address content there is no point in continuing this exchange (the repetition that has to be made due to your ignorant (arrogant?) obstinacy is becoming rather tiresom).

steve mann

I am afraid Israel has to take some blame for the "Occupied" term being used.
She has, along with the rest of the world, acknowledged the stateless refugees in the West Bank as "Palestinians".

Adam B.

JW, for the last time, I asked for a single example about Jewish organizations using the race card against those who criticize the Israeli government. The topic of this thread was about Israel and the international status of Judea and Samaria. You have changed it to a topic which has no interest for me, i.e. Catholic groups airing their grievances. It is obvious you have this problem as well. As I have no interest in it, I'm not going to wade through it and research it. I know about the Middle East, I don't know about Catholic groups, nor do I want to. But if we're on the topic, I would say that it seems to me, (I'm not Catholic or Jewish) that the Jews have far more reason to feel wronged by the Catholic church than the other way around!

phil

Adam B.
November 22nd, 2008 12:13am
"Phil, this guy doesn't even make sense - not worth bothering with!"-well you said it and you are right -Im sure he does not represent normal Catholic people anyway -certainly no one has come here to support him

-lets leave him to debate with himself -he no doubt will think he is doing so with a better class of person and will not get into any disputes either :)

Ann

"Rahm Emanuel (an Isreali citizen)"

Do try to get your facts right. Your rants would look very slightly less silly if you did that.

Ann

"Israel started the 1948 with Operation Pitchfork to take Jerusalem, which was designated an international city."

Nonsense.

"when Arab armies enetered into Palestine they actually disarmed the Palestinians."

Nonsense.

"Settlers have occupied not "empty space" but farming land belonging to Palestinians for centuries."

Nonsense.

"Most Israelis are descended from foreigners, mainly from Eastern Europe."

Antisemitic canard.

"The Zionists got 55% of land (despite only making up 7% of the population)under the Mandate, the rest was given to the Arabs of Palestine to make their state."

I see that someone has been busy visiting neo-Nazi websites.

JW

Adam: You originally asked your question re. libel in relation to my post re. groups libelling individuals on the subject of anti-Semitism. I provided one, which happened to be a Catholic group. You ignored this in all of your subsequent posts except this latest. I merely answered your question. I supplied another link which sought to demonsrate and give further evidence that this kind of thing (inflation of the definition of anti-Semitism to include things such as criticism of Israel)is not exactly rare. This too has been utterly ignored (but much ink spilt about the website it appeared on (but was apparently not written for!) etc. etc. - all irrelevant). And in neither case was anything from the links actually quoted (called hate-filled etc. but no evidence supplied for this either).
So both links were entirely relevant. I further made the point that the kind of acusations that Melanie has made (as well as the ADL) re. Christian theology would, logically, mean that they believe Christ Himself is an anti-Semite. This upset some people. It is upsetting. It is also true that the logic of certain positions must end by holding that to be the case. A simple reductio is all it was.
So the ADL and SPLC do libel people. You asked for evidence of libel at least in the context of anti-Semitism. I gave it. The Moral Squeamishness article also provides links to and supplies evidence of the term anti-Semitism being expanded to include things which amount to criticism of Israel. I didn't particularly want to go down this line and I'm sure you didn't (esp. as we probably agree somewhat re. international law). But you seemed to miss the point I was making at every turn. If I wasn't clear I apologise. I do hold that both links provide answers to your original question - I brought out the Christ point to demonstrate how silly some accusations are. It was your comments that brought me to the post rather than Melanie meanderings about international law.
Re. the CHurch - of course the Church has done wrong to the Jews - it is gratifying to see Catholic historians point this out - just as it is gratifying to find some brilliant Jewish historians delving into the darker areas of Jewish history.

Re. Phil - arguments are not won or lost by how many people decide to come on to comment boxes to support you! That's elementary and you must know that it is so why do you strike (please don't vocalise an answer!)? I am sorry that you think I have been offensive etc. etc. As I say, nothing I have said could possibly be construed as being in any way contrary to Catholic teaching. And sinful man that I am, I am pretty careful about such things. If you do find that I have said something contrary to such teaching, let me know and I will thank you and make confession of my inattentiveness. If not...well I'll leave that with you.

I fear that we have all exhausted each other quite enough.
Best Regards to you both
JW

P.S.
Two more example I'll leave you with. I don't see that these types of group help ISrael or Jews generally (I know some Jews who loathe the ADL - Jackie Mason is another person who sees through these groups).

See:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5087/is_/ai_n18475899
And here Foxman makes some most revealing comments.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1182409629306&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Adam B.

And for your information JW, my question referred to the topic of this thread (silly me!)not some other grudge you obviously bear and I see you have now accused Jews of using the race card regarding criticism of Israel, but your links show how empty that accusation is.

The Hasbara Buster

"But the claim that Israel has ‘stolen’ Palestinian land is simply a lie."

Not so. Earlier this year, Israeli PM Haim Ramon publicly acknowledged that the settlement of Ofra had been built on privately-owned Palestinian land.

And in 2004, the Sasson report found that the State of Israel has supported the establishment of Jewish outposts in the West Bank that are primarily built on Palestinian-owned land.

Last, but not least, the separation wall, most roads and almost all of the infrastructure (aqueducts, etc.) are built on privately-owned Palestinian land.

JW

Adam B.
This is getting very tiresome indeed. You asked for libels made by these groups in answer to my statement (NOT that of the article (silly you)). I answered. You failed to read what I had said or directed you too many times (adding numerous distractions). The articles demonstrated that the groups mentioned DO libel people as anti-Semites. You then tried to focus the debate on Israel. The Moral Squeamishness link showed clearly how the anti-Semitsm has been expanded to deal with mere criticism of Israel (Manifestations report relies on ADL documents - the ADL has backed the report etc. etc.). In charity I should assume that you never read the article - but if not your apparent sloth should prevent you from commenting further. The Christ point also relates to ADL libels in this area (repeated by Melanie). So I dealth with libels (which you asked for without specifying the Israelie condition) - and I err gave you examples of BOTH (so I also answered the question you now claim to have originally asked)-and provided more for you in the last post. Apparently you believe that Abe Foxman calling the work of Walt and M. "anti-Semitic" is fully justified - even though they restricted their criticisms to the Israel Lobby in the US (as defined in their book). Unless Foxman or you can see inside the heads of W/M you cannot possibly infer that their work is "anti Semitic" other than that they are critical of US/Israeli policy and self-described pro-Israel groups. So you have now been given numerous examples, haven't tackled a single one, keep making out no-one has answered your question (even though BOTH interpretations of your question have been answered thoroughly and repeatedly). I don't want to say you are acting in bad faith (unlike the ADL I don't presume to know people's deeper motivations) but you have acted in an extremely disingenuous manner.
I have little reason to doubt you'll post another reply that won't deal with anything that has been said, reference anything etc. etc. As you seem unprepared to do that I wonder why you bother commenting on certain issue. Perhaps it beats reading, studying etc. The evidence is all out there now - I'll let readers who are actually concerned to look for the truth judge for themselves.
I wish you luck in your future research.

Jake in Jerusalem

Melanie Philips' repeating of inconvenient facts will always upset the anti-Israel mob. It never ceases to amaze me that those who rail against Israel's supposed "occupation" of "Balestine" never complained when those same territories were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. Also, if Jews aren't supposed to live in "Balestinean" land, then what are over 1,000,000 Arabs doing living as citizens inside Israel? And why is it that 100 Arab families living somewhere - even inside Israel! - are always called a "village" but 100 Jewish families living somewhere are called a "settlement"? Oh, and what about the occupation of Palestine by Jordan? Three-quarters of historic Palestine is on the Jordanian-occupied East Bank, or do you know nothing of the history of the Hashemites? People who have problems with the facts would be most comfortable just sticking with Islamo-fascist propaganda and not reading Melanie Philips.

Adam B.

Yes JW, anti-Semitism is tiresome. What on earth do you mean by "darker areas of Jewish history?" To be blunt, your moral equivalency with the crimes of genocide perpetrated by the Catholic Church is grotesque. And it is INDEED an old anti-semitic canard to claim that Jews control the world - W and M merely updated an Old Lie. shameful taht you indulge in it. Good luck to you in your thinly disguised hate.

Adam B.

Jake, agree with you entirely. Unfortunately, Israel haters like JW don't care about facts, cognitive dissonance is a way of life for them.

Adam B.

You want a reference JW, read The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz chapter 31. I have not found a single credible source or shred of proof in any of your so-called "evidence." You merely transpose your own hatred into what you want to see - sad, really.

JW

Well, I tried.
Didn't make any equivalence (but you don't read do you, which doesn't exactly make your claims 'credible')- merely pointed out that Jews have also behaved badly in their history (about which you appear to know nothing). Read Israel Yuval and Elliot Horowitz for starters (check out 614 etc.). Not sure about 'genocide' as such re. Catholic Church. Certainly some disgusting pogroms at ground level - unfailingly condemned by Church authorities who offered protection (as did the Vatican States) to persecuted Jews. As you, again, show that you are incapable of reading I wonder whether directing you to books is worth it.
W and M make clear in their book that very many Jews are no part of any Lobby whatsoever. My point was not whether WM are right or wrong but that one cannot, on that basis alone, accuse them of anti-Semitism (btw a huge number of Jews do not think them anti-Semitic in the least -but are appalled by the bigotry of their accusers). But had you properly read the earlier pieces you should have been able to work that out.
As to Dershowitz - yes I know that book well and have exchanged correspondence with him. He continually offers this challenge (interestingly in a far more restrictive formulation that you now do - presumably so as to ignore the great mass of evidence that refutes the point he is generally hoping the wider world gets from him). His book has, as you well know, been thoroughly refuted historically, empirically etc. He has also claimed that Raul Hilberg is on the spectrum of 'Holocaust denial'. That is the work of a crude and ignorant smearer pure and simple. I see that you are now adopting a similar tactic.
As you continually refuse to deal with the evidence put before you (afraid scare quotes don't really refute it) I think that we should stop. You asked for evidence of the ADL libelling someone. I gave it to you (including an actual libel case). You asked for evidence of the ADL or similar libelling someone who criticises Israel. I gave it to you in spades (Manifestations backed by ADL (and other refs in article, WM, etc. etc.). Yes, it is sad. I am sorry that you see hatred and anti-Semitism even where they are not.

Adam B.

JW,
1. What do you mean by "darkest areas of Jewish history"? You haven't answered that one yet. And please be specific, say it yourself.
2. Your moral equivalence was clear, your admission about Catholic wrongs had to be "balanced" by baseless accusations about Jewish ones.
3. "Not sure about genocide" - tell that to the original natives of Cuba, every last one murdered in the name of Jesus, with papal blessing.
4. "unfailingly condemned by Church authorities who offered protection (as did the Vatican States) to persecuted Jews" - what planet are you on? Even today, there are Catholic inspired demonsrations of hatred in Poland, where Radio Marija broadcasts, and a senior cardinal who shall remain nameless spews venom about Jews. The Church has not condemned any of this. And will the vatican open its archives so we can find out the Pope's role in WWII? What is there to hide?
5. "incapable of reading" - yes, I'm illiterate!
6. W and M are immune from such accusations are they? Explain why they talk in the most poisonous terms about Jewish support for Israel, but have no problem with the biggest lobby of all, Saudi oil. The endless singling out of Israel by W and M is indeed open to the accusation that it is motivated by anti-Semitism. Contrary to your view that I see anti-semitism everywhere, you would have us believe that anti-Semitism isn’t anywhere. Not all critics of Israel are anti-Semites, but all anti-Semites are critics of Israel, and the characterization of a Jewish Lobby which wields unnatural powers which controls non-Jews like puppets for their own ends is indeed anti-Semitism of the vilest order, especially in the absence of any exploration of other lobbies, of which there are many.
7. dershowitz's book is "thoroughly refuted" is it? By whom? I can also say the work of W and M is also "thoroughly refuted", but that wouldn't fit your world view, would it?
8. I'm glad you're not on a jury. The evidence you supply for "libel" is non-existent. Your "evidence" proves nothing other than the fact that anti-Semites don't like being called anti-semitic. In fact, there are many cases of anti-semitism dressed up as anti-Zionism (which itself is racist, but you wouldn't know that being in thrall of racist websites)in which the state of Israel, and Jewish groups are very careful NOT to call anti-semitic. I am sorry that you can't see the genocidal war being waged on the Jews of the world.

JW

Adam
1. I mean what I said – periods of history where a people has behaved very badly etc. (in the same way the Catholics have). Pretty much every people has had these periods. I pointed you towards 2 sources and I gave you a date to look up. Had you read the piece I referred you to before you would have found there some useful references.
2. My moral equivalence was not clear because it was non-existent. If I want to equate I will. I merely pointed out that different peoples/religions have their dark periods – I made no comment on the scale of the wrongdoing done during such periods.
3. But we were talking about Catholic/Jewish questions where my point still stands. As to Cuba much more to say – but not here as it will take us too far afield. But if you want me to say that the Catholics have done terrible things – yes, the Church Herself admits as much and has asked for forgiveness for its wrongdoing.
4. I was referring to periods where pogroms were becoming widespread. Radio Marija has been disciplined by the Church and the Bishop of Gdansk removed. Even if this were not the case RM is not promoting pogroms and I am unaware of any pogroms in Poland at present. As to PPXII – well according to Michael Burleigh, Martin Gilbert, Rabbi Dalin, Pierre Blet, Ronald Rychlak etc. etc. Pius was a great friend of the KJews responsible, at some risk, for rescuing hundreds of thousands of Jews during WWII. He was greatly admired by prominent Jews of his time (including the chief Rabbi of Rome). The campaign against him is a much later development. Take your questions to the above historians (who are either Jewish or sympathetic to Israel). As to the archives I believe most of the relevant ones have been opened and the very few people that have seen the remainder are doubtful they could reveal anything new. Thus far the archives have proved very favourable to PPXII. And on the subject of archives – I don’t know whether you have ever done archival research – but it’s hardly surprising that institutions are bound not to open their archives until an appropriate time. Ask the Israeli government.
5. Incapable of reading (or reading carefully) what is set before you. Don’t read would have been the better formulation.
6. I didn’t say WM are immune from criticism. I certainly have major disagreements with the contents of their tome. But all I am trying to do is to say that their work is not in itself anti-Semitic (it may be wrong, sloppy etc. – but I do not think the AS description is sustainable). They do discuss Saudi Arabia in the book – and they never once deny that the Israel lobby is not a perfectly legitimate exercise of power – such as any group is entitled to. They also say that they believe Jews in the US to be amongst the most patriotic citizens. They do not claim anyone is a puppet. The two scholars do not claim that Israel is an exceptionally evil state but rather that there was no overwhelming moral reason for the United States to back the positions of Israel. Mearsheimer and Walt explicitly reject the idea of a Jewish "conspiracy" and never claim that Jews "control" the media and government. Rather, the authors focus on the quite open pro-Zionist efforts to dominate American Middle East policy, which represent the actions of a successful lobby. Why the hell can’t they do that (even if they do it badly) without being accused of anti-Semitism by self-appointed detectors of ‘hate’ like the ADL? I don’t know whether you’ve read the book (not just the article) – your criticisms match exactly those of Mr Dershowitz – but I think the fact the ADL calls it anti-Semitic (in itself!) is exactly an example of what you asked for. As to other cases – well Norman Finkelstein, a controversial man who has made some questionable statements to be sure – has been denounced by the ADL as a “known Holocaust denier” (read anti-Semite). This is a blatant lie – and a blatant lie one can only assume made against him because of his persistent criticism of Israel. You can say a lot of things about NF but to call him a Holocaust denier as the ADL is to engage in libel of a critic of Israel for, presumably, being a critic of Israel (there is no other ground). This example alone (although I’ve given many others “Manifestations” etc.) answers your question.
7. Read Beyond Chutzpah. Demolishes Dershowitz’s claims on torture, wider human rights and his distortion of his Benny Morris source – together with much else. I read both books and was surprised how poorly Dershowitz came off (I say this as someone radically opposed to Finkelstein’s politics). As to my ‘worldview’ – you have very little idea of what it is – I can only presume that this is part of what looks like an attempt to depict me as an anti-Semite (“in the thrall of racist websties” – “darker side of Jewish history” (which you seem to gloss in a sinister way) “worldview” – fairly crude and uncharitable but par for the course I suppose – and rather proves my point).
8. Well, a good juror will try and try again even with the most obstinate fellow juror. I have supplied much evidence – you clearly haven’t read even the original essay sent because it covers so many of the other issues you now ask about. But even this post should supply you with enough evidence. It DOES supply you with enough evidence. I have answered every one of your questions and given you numerous sources to go and follow up. The libel case – well I don’t know if they’re anti-Semites or not – but if a reasonable (never before seriously criticised) judge and group of lawyers think they might not be then you shouldn’t go around saying that they definitely are – esp. as you are not in possession of the evidence! So you distinguish anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism but then say anti-Zionism is racist (and presumably racist against Jews!). Hmmm – not that much of a distinction then. And of course in doing so you now condemn the vast majority of world Jewry as racist (for Herzl’s contemporaries were certainly anti-Zionist) along with people like Martin Buber, the residents of Jerusalem/ultra Orthodox rabbis (see Yakov Rabkin’s The Threat from Within) etc. etc. As for your earlier formulation re. Anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism – well there are anti-Zionist (above) who are not anti-Semitic (or ‘racist’) and there have been (are) people accused of being anti-Semites who we re pro-Zionists (e.g. GK Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc). You really do need to read some history – and I mean that in all charity. As to your stuff about websites – well I have said repeatedly I sent a LINK to a piece external to the site. But then you like bringing up racism and anti-Semitism while telling people that the ADL would never do such a thing unless it were entirely just (I can’t stop you from ignoring the evidence). As to genocidal war on Jews – of course there are fanatics out there – but genocide across the world? In Europe? In the US? In Australasia? etc. etc. No, I don’t see it – nor does that great Zionist and expert of AS Walter Lacquer – who sees anti-Semitism as almost entirely an Islamic problem these days.
I thank you for the discussion Adam but all good things must come to end. I am presently reading Samuel Katz’s Battleground – a very Zionist tome (Katz was an follower of Begin). Perhaps when I have finished I will return to these comment blogs with some new thoughts.
Peace
JW