A requiem for British decency

Lizzy

"The language of protesters 'determines the issue before it can be discussed'."

I agree with everything Howard Jacobson says in that article. I don't understand what is wrong with these people. They are hysterically bitter and angry in such a personal way over something that is not personal to them. History, facts, reality mean nothing to them. You cannot reason with them. They are not interested in your view if you do not agree with them.

Since September 11, 2001, I have had to reassess many friendships. I have had to be true to my own self and what I know to be the truth. These are supposed to be our educated middle classes - and they know nothing, nothing at all.

GaryO

I had a lump in my throad when I finished reading Mr Jacobson's article. The tragedy is that it will not be even read by the people for whom it is meant.

Original Tony

Israel will one day be redeemed and all peoples of the Earth will know the truth.
This is not a battle of one ideology against another nor one religion against another, it is the battle between good and evil and in a very short space of time we will know who is evil and who is good, in this age-old clash.
Personally, I put my bet squarely on top of the Jews coming out winners in the end.

Mr Zee

The saddest thing Melanie is that, really when it comes down to it, the only people defending Israel & the Jews, are Jews. There are very few non Jews in the media the intelligentsia, who could give a hoot.

Vauxhall

How many of the so-called intelligentsia would condone Qaradawi's recent remarks justifying and even calling for an extension or consolidation of the Holocaust?

Intelligentsia? They wouldn't even be able to piss in a pot if it was held out in front of them. (Or beneath them - wouldn't want to leave out the 'sisterhood'.)

GaryO

Just read many of the comments on Mr Jacobson's article and you'll see for yourself where Independent and its readers stand on this issue. Independent is affiliated with Al-Jazeera, it links with the TV station's output and online articles.

David

Melanie should take notes from Mr Jacobson on how to write a considered argument. An excellent article.

Wilhelm

The Independent, Guardian , Channel 4 news and the BBC is hateful, its like the branch office of Iranian president Achmed Dinnerjacket

Why does the Left hate America Britain, Israel, Christianity and the west soo much ? because in the Lefts world they dont like and resent power and powerful countries, they will always side with the underdog even if that means the underdog is Hamas, PLO, Al Queda, IRA.

Its erroneous thinking and nutty logic from the Left.

Steve M

My family has loved this country and lived here for 120 years. Now my sense is that we'd better start packing soon.

I wonder if the price for having a Jewish State of Israel is that Jews will not be able to live anywhere else.

Carrie

OMG take a look at the comments section and anyone can see exactly what Mr. Jacobson is talking about. Britain looks to be headed in a very dangerous direction.

fulcanelli

It's not the first time history has been twisted to fit a perceived need, and it certainly won't be the last. The problem is that people really are stupid enough to believe these sort of lies, often perpetrated by individuals with twisted vested interests.

This type of behaviour and denial will only really hit home when the muslims inevitably turn their attentions from Jew to Christian, and resume an affirmed attack on the West. Where will the liberal left then hide? Probably bury their collective heads in the sand once more, ultimately before being forced to adhere to sharia law.

We simply cannot allow this type of behaviour and intellectual propoganda to continue. We must continue to fight against this evil that is overwhelming our very way of life.

Original Tony

Steve M...that's precisely it...Israel will be the only place left on earth for Jews; it's a pre-destined plan of God's for a pre-destined purpose; the culmination of a fight between good and evil, light and dark.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Mr. Zee: Some of Israel's most fervent and eloquent defenders are Christians.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear fulcanelli: What will the people who say the Israelis are acting like Nazis when ISRAEL defends itself against Arab annihilation have to say when, for example, ENGLAND is threatened with Arab annihilation? Wouldn't want to act like Nazis, would they? To be fair and consistant, they'll have to do what they apparently expect the Israelis to do, sit down quietly and let themselves be murdered.

Ros Morris

An excellent, sad, beautifully written piece by Howard Jacobson.

One comment to The Independent "well, look at the name..."

The Independent, The Guardian, the BBC, Channel 4 - you name it - have been complicit in this drip-drip-drip feed of casual anti-Semitism, masquerading as 'balance', towards Israel for years now.

Why should we be surprised to read the now blatent anti-Semitic responses when anything regarding Israel/anti-Semitism is written? I was shocked yesterday reading the comments at The Times regarding Vichy France's role during The Holocaust. It's no different at any of the other newspapers.

What is the point of Holocaust education? What is the point of Holocaust museums? No one is prepared to listen and learn.

Preaching to The Independent, it is too late. Jonathan Freedland, for years feeling he was 'safe' from it all while shooting arrows at Israel from his security at The Guardian, now professes shock at the hysteria of anti-Semitism.

Too litle, too late and, like in the 1930s and 40s, the supine Jewish leadership in this country is a party to it all.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Vauxhall: Thank you for acquainting me with a brand new, very colorful, somewhat vulgar expression.

Peninah

The question often raised is: Why do so many British and Europeans have such a raving pathological hatred of Israel and of America?

Writing as an American who became an Israeli, I will venture a suggested answer: Because Europe spent almost 2000 years trying to crush the Jews, and now Israel -- for all its shortcomings -- is vibrant and creative and thriving and courageous, while Europe is decaying and disintegrating.

Louise

Disgracefully and unconscionably, a rabbi (without a congregation but with a professorial post) also joined in this obscene and heart-rending equation of Israel's counter terrorist operations in Gaza with the Warsaw Ghetto.
http://thecynicaldragon.blogspot.com/2009/01/welsh-rabbi-gaza-is-warsaw-ghetto.html

Celtic Leopard

"Berating Jews with their own history, disinheriting them of pity, as though pity is negotiable or has a sell-by date ..."

I pity the Israeli democracy for their utterly pitiless attack on the people of Gaza.

Stephen Gash

An absurdity is Gerald Kaufman saying in parliament that the West must talk to Hamas, the most overtly Nazi party in the world, excluding Hezbollah. I wonder if he was willing to talk to Geert Wilders and whether he watched the House of Lords screening of Fitna?
Bigotry works both ways, but in broken Britain and declining Europe only the cake of anti-Western bigotry, baked in our own oven or anothers, and iced with anti-Semiticism, is ravenously consumed.

GaryO

@Miranda Rose Smith
February 18th, 2009 11:38am

"Dear Mr. Zee: Some of Israel's most fervent and eloquent defenders are Christians".

And the most fearsome opponents of the state of Israel are some very prominent Jews!

Michael B

The Intifada is Globalized further underscores and throws additional light on Howard Jacobson's well considered and evenly tempered piece.

Jacobson's is a needed piece. The malice, the programatic mendacities and the pernicious and ultimately malevolent character of so much of the rhetoric and praxis that has been advanced against Israel and against Jews and Jewish communities worldwide is no minor affair, is no minor or negligible set of events. Petro dollars and other realpolitik factors, a viciously hate-filled and deeply enculturated Sunni and Shi'a Muslim anti-Semitism, a variety of neo-Left corruptions in the west, other factors as well (e.g., the U.S. executive branch and state dept., the farcical and cancerous pretense at the United Nations, Samantha Power, et al.) have all combined to produce an intoxicating and even a halucinatory brew. Some sobriety is needed among the rank and file.

Jacobson's is a needed piece.

Peter L.

For some reason an earlier comment o fmine was not allowed on. I can't see why not. Here it is again in similar form - hopefully this will be published if only to add a different voice to the depressing chorus of approval for Jacobson's piece:
On Jacobson's reckoning it is now a "form of" Holocaust denial for someone to recognise that the term Holocaust has been used/manipulated in order to justify wicked behaviour (Jewish groups lying and fraudulently dispossesing impoverished Jews of compensation money, silencing critics (yes, critics - not Nazis) of Israel etc.). Therefore, on his reckoning, Raul Hilberg,a Jew and undeniable Dean of Holocaust studies, must be a "Denier", for he has recorded and complained of precisely this! It would appear that Jacobson himself, by extending the category of Holocaust Denial to include those who have done more than anyone to reveal its horrors - AND (unlike Jacobson) refuse to let this historical event be denigrated through manipulative misuse - is himself someone who, for all his fulminations, is quite prepared to use this massive tragedy for sordid political ends (e.g. silencing the likes of Hilberg). I would advise those who have read HJs self-pitying column to read instead the latest edition of Hilberg's 3-volume Destruction of European Jews.

Dixon

Lizzy
February 18th, 2009 9:23am
"The language of protesters 'determines the issue before it can be discussed'."
I agree with everything Howard Jacobson says in that article. I don't understand what is wrong with these people. They are hysterically bitter and angry in such a personal way over something that is not personal to them. History, facts, reality mean nothing to them. You cannot reason with them. They are not interested in your view if you do not agree with them."

Spot on...isnt this what I have been grumping about in past comments...why should these people value what happens to total strangers half a world away over their own immediate community? Like the inversion of cause and effect posited by Jacobsen, it is a perversion of all normal rules of emotional engagement and concern.

Whilst I generally reject the reduction of political positions to pathological disposition, I have to say that the attitude of such people as Liz refers to seems to be about a failure to face up to their personal issues with their own parents, displaced into the hatred of a substitute authority image ( Israel and The stereotype of a patriarchal Jew ).

Dixon

Wilhelm
February 18th, 2009 10:43am

Why does the Left hate America Britain, Israel, Christianity and the west soo much ? because in the Lefts world they dont like and resent power and powerful countries, they will always side with the underdog even if that means the underdog is Hamas, PLO, Al Queda, IRA.
Its erroneous thinking and nutty logic from the Left."

Its as I said, a displacement of the issues they have with their parents, onto other images ofd authority.

Simone Bacchini

Indeed a magnificent piece: brave, truthful, sad and moving; I'm quite surprised the Independent published it. This could be the final word on anti-semitism masquerading as "criticism of Israel".
As a Gentile, I agree with every word of this sober analysis and I grive for what it says about the state of Britain, a country that - as an immigrant - I so much love.

phil

A wonderful article by Howard ,wasted on a readership so indoctrinated by the writings of fitch-the comments section said much for the quality of its readership ,those that wrote in supporting his view are rolled aside by the most hateful of remarks -one even suggesting that perhaps he should move away from that paper.I will remain sustained by the "righteous Gentiles" who continue to offer comfort and support on these threads and I am sure we all are more than grateful to hear from them . Thankfully there are far more of them than there are of carl,s persuasion .

Paul L

It's instructive that a reasoned moderate article produces such an outpouring of effluent in the Indy. It's great that it's published but, judging from the majority of its readers, wasted on them.

There's a lot of ugliness on there which perhaps reflects the decline,not just of the paper but of the quality of it's readership.

Celtic Leopard

Jacobson says,

"In Gaza the innocent have suffered unbearably. But it is in the nature of modern war, where soldiers no longer toss grenades at one another from their trenches, that the innocent pay."

I find Jacobson's sophistry deeply unattractive. There was an alternative to Israel's vicious attack on a captive people - and behaving with an iota of common decency was one - but the democracy decided not to choose another way.

True Brit

Perhaps the British public will be more sympathetic to the plight of Israel when said country stops collectively punishing and/or murdering (delete as appropriate) Palestinian civilians.

As Brits, we side with the underdog. It is hard to side with Israel when it acts so abominably.

Wilhelm

Hamas fired 10.000 missiles into Israel over 3 years. None of this is reported by the UK media. You reap what you sow.

The British Lefts hypocrisy and silence is deafening.

Joshua

True Brit, How do you feel about Britain "collectively punishing and/or murdering (delete as appropriate)" Serbian, Iraqi and Afghan civilians?

when said country stops collectively punishing and/or murdering (delete as appropriate) Palestinian civilians.

Augustus

Oh no, of course not, it isn't anti-Semitism, it's criticism of Israel, it's anti-Zionism. Didn't you know? They as different as chalk and cheese. One has nothing to do with the other, like Mars and Venus. Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews, anti-Zionism is only motivated by political opposition to Zionism and Israeli politics. Yes, of course they believe that the only country in the world which should be destroyed is Israel, but the doesn't mean that they hate Jews.

Yes, they believe that the only children on God's earth who are allowed to be blown up are Jewish children, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews. Yes, they believe that Palestinians have a right to commit mass murder whenever they like upon Israel, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews. Naturally, they believe that the only people on earth who aren't allowed to defend themselves are the Israeli people, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews.

They condemn the only racist apartheid state in the Middle East, which isn't an apartheid state at all, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews. They will not recognise that Jews are a race, only seeing it as just a religion, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews. They have no answer to the fact that there are Jews who do not practice their religion in an orthodox manner, but that certainly doesn't mean that they hate Jews.

They definitely believe that everybody has the right of self-determination, except Jews of course, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews. They hate it when any responsibility is pushed on the victims, except of course when a jihad or a terror campaign against Israel makes only Israel responsible, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews. They believe that Israel which holds free elections is the only country in the Middle East which is Fascist and non-democratic, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews. They demand that the only country in the Middle East which has freedom of expression, a free press, and independent courts be destroyed, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews. They are strictly against military agression, except when it is aimed at Israel, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews. They understand and sympathise with suicide bombers who blow up bus loads of Jewish innocents, and they believe that their demands should be met, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews. They believe that there is only one conflict on earth where one of the parties should be wiped out, and that party is Israel, but they don't hate Jews as such.
They don't believe that Jews have any human rights at all, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews.

There are left-wing Jewish anti-Zionists which proves to them that anti-Zionists could not possibly be anti-Semitic, even those who cheer when Jews are murdered en masse. These are the only Jews who they believe should be listened to and afforded any respect, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews. They do not believe that Jews have any right to their own state, but should agree to a Rwanda-like minority within a bi-national state, although no such loss of sovereignty is ever expected of any of the other 22 Arab nations, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews. They believe that a Jewish majority in Israel, coupled with a star on its flag, shows that it is a racist apartheid regime. They don't think that an ethnic majority in any other country which put crosses and half-moons on its flag makes it racist and that it should be wiped out. But that doesn't mean that they actually hate Jews. They condemn the abuse of women in the only country in the Middle East where they are not abused, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews. They condemn abuse of minorities in the only country in the Middle East where minority rights are upheld and where minority groups are not murdered, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews. They believe in equal rights, but the only country in the Middle East where these rights exist must be destroyed, but they don't hate Jews as such. They don't have any problem with the fact that no Arab country under the sun allows freedom of religion, but they are greatly angered by Israel which does allow free expression of religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean that they hate Jews.

How can anyone say that these people are anti-Semites? They are only anti-Zionists. They strive for freedom and justice, that is all. And that certainly doesn't mean that they show any hatred towards Jews as such.

Michael B

Celtic Leopard and True Brit,
Referring to "common decency" while ignoring decisive realties, such as thousands of rocket and mortar and other attacks launched from Gaza into Israeli civilian populations since 2001/2002, reflects an unconscionable sophistry at best. Likewise, referring to "alternatives" that are nothing more than bromides - given the realities on the ground - is likewise an unconscionable sophistry.

Wilhelm

The British liberal left have got the media in its pocket, like the animal rights activists they are highly motivated and are proffesional agitators. Its the usual suspects Tony Benn, George Galloway, Ken Livingston are always squeeeeeling from the roof tops. They must spend their whole lives in demostrations protesting about this and that and other piffle.

gary

It used to be said about the Holocaust that the Nazis were Europe's alibi. Now - the Palestinians are Europe's alibi.

A common factor with Jew-hatred is that antisemites are willing to wreck their own society to satisfy their rabid hatred. It's happening again. Antisemitism turns rational and moral values upside-down.

Carl

From Jacobson's article: "their rights must “be guarded and honoured punctiliously,” Ben Gurion wrote in 1918", concerning non Jewish inhabitants.

Well, they seem to have been comprehensively trampled on by modern Israel.

The article was just another case of a supporter attempting to claim that criticism of Israel equates to anti - Semitism, which just does not wash and is merely an attempt at turning the blame onto the critic.

Dave M

I wouldn't say it's all going against Israel. The Government and BBC don't represent everybody in this country. My experience has been the working classes show more signs of actual racism against Arabs due to the increasing levels of immigration and mosques being built. Very rarely have I heard insults against Jews as that only tends to happen on BBC programs. Even in the case of the BNP, they tend to focus on the Islam issue and many BNP voters were actually defending Israel against Hamas. 9/11 is going to take some time to forget and no Jews were involved in that.

Jim Urquhart

I read and took heart from the Howard Jacobson piece in the Independent. I imagined its reasoned argument and quiet, thoughtful tone would go some way to clarifying the confusion ensuing from the shrill misreporting, and misuse of words like "massacre" and "genocide", of the recent Gaza conflict.I should have known better. Reading the comments which followed,a litany of ranting, hysterical, racist bile, was truly depressing. Being in the Independent these were comments, one assumes, from the better educated of the British population. Very scary. It is a sad sign of the times that I feel the need to add that I am neither Jewish nor Israeli, just a British citizen who is appalled by what is happening in the UK. and worldwide.

Linda Smith

Original Tony posted "it's a pre-destined plan of God's for a pre-destined purpose;.."

I find Original Tony's certainty in his Christian worldview every bit as frightening as that of any Islamic fundamentalist. They are both certain they know "God's" purpose.

It's their certainty that's frightening.

gary

Anti-Zionists are those who dispute the right of Jews to have their own state on their traditional land. They would consider Israel to be a travesty even if nothing was done to harm Palestinians. Their pretence that their criticism is purely about Israel's politics is shown up as fake.

When criticism of Israel goes hand in hand with anti-Zionism it is certainly antisemitism.

H. Allyson

Thank you for writing about this issue, and please continue to do so. I am an American and not Jewish, but have many friends who are and they have not yet opened their eyes to what is going on in the world. I pray that they will soon.

Linda Smith

Celtic Leopard (18 Feb 1:35pm) you posted : "There was an alternative to Israel's vicious attack on a captive people". Please elucidate with regard to Hamas's Charter which calls for the destruction of Israel and genocide of worldwide Jewry.

Linda Smith

True Brit (18 Feb 1:37pm) you posted "It is hard to side with Israel when it acts so abominably".

Please explain how you as a "True Brit" want Israel to act, in view of the fact that Hamas's Charter calls for the destruction of Israel on Islamic religious grounds and genocide of worldwide Jewry. Do not forget to account in your response for the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah are Iran's proxies and that Islamic fundamentalist Iran is predicted by to build a nuclear bomb by the end of this year. Iran's President has said he wants Israel wiped off the map.

As a "True Brit" you will be interested to know that John Hutton, Secretary of State for Defence, described Iran as "an international pariah state" and said "..its influence remains malign and it poses a significant threat not just to global security, but to regional security...there can be no regional security as long as Iran continues to support not just terrorist organisations in the middle east, but, for example, Taliban elements in Afghanistan, and as long as Iran continues to have active and close links with some of the terrorists and insurgent groups in Iraq." (House of Commons Questions on Defence, 12 January 2009)

gary ashton

Brilliant piece of writing from Howard. He's spot on.
The comments don't surprise me, the UK is now an islamic country, there's no turning back. i was reading mark styens book 'america alone' it paints a very disturbing picture for europe and remarkably accurate it appears.

Michael B

Linda Smith,
One person's "certainty" will, at most, influence their vote. Another person's "certainty" will lead them to supporting beheadings as retribution for minor offenses and launching rockets into civilian population centers. I.e. such equivocal standards are no standards at all, at least not in any very coherent sense. Additionally, you're failing to acknowledge your own "certainties" and the effects they have 1) practically, in the real world and 2) in terms of your judgement of others' "certainties."

Miriam

The rabid comments on the piece prove everything he was saying. I am scared to bring my (Jewish) children up in this country.

phil

carl you must tell us have you ever been to Israel ,HAVE YOU EVER MET ANY ISRAELI,S , why are you pretending to be an expert on all matters Israeli? You continue to make a fool of yourself day after day and I do not want you to stop ,but give the broken plastic record a break and write with something new lest people just pass over your posts,answer the above it will be a start,only a few of us know you love Jews and only hate Israelis,we know you had your barmitzvah at the wailing wall only two hours after your circumcision and invited all the people who were there except of course the Israelis to a wonderful party .We are grateful of course into the insight on Jewish life and morality of which as mere Jews we were blissfully unaware,but for an update of how we think why not go to the independent where many anti-Semites will gladly keep you informed.

Celtic Leopard

Miriam said,

"I am scared to bring my (Jewish) children up in this country."

I dare say it must be a bit scary trying to bring up children in Gaza.

boxermk

I agree, I thought the piece was good, but reading the comments left me way more depressed. The utter ignorance of history, of Jewish history (or the denial thereof) is bone-chilling! Read those comments. It's scary.

Original Tony

True Brit...you say Britons always side with the underdog...did you side with Israel in any of her earlier wars then? For example the 1967 war when Israel was vastly, vastly outnumbered by her Arab enemies did you stand on the hilltops of Britain shouting for her cause?
You hypocrite, quite often the strong today were the weak yesterday and vice versa, so how can anyone just support the underdog?? All you are doing is supporting an evil ideology in radical Islam. Never mind, send your wife for Sharia lessons now my buddy because your attitude is bringing that day closer all the time.

Allan Gay

I think Mr Jacobson's a very fine analysis.

The mindset which he dissects is deplorable and a stain upon our national character.

To form proper judgements requires true insight and wisdom.

Those who lack these prerequisites should shut up and mind their own business, lest they be complicit in a great injustice.

Linda Smith

Michael B: I don't have certainties. I am a pragmatist.

Mister B

“Simply magnificent” is short hand I presume for “absolutely in line with my perception of the matter”.

I gave Jacobson a chance, but he blew his own cover in the first few sentences:

“I was once in Melbourne when bush fires were raging 20 or 30 miles north of the city. Even from that distance you could smell the burning. Fine fragments of ash, like slivers of charcoal confetti, covered the pavements. The very air was charred. It has been the same here these past couple of months with the fighting in Gaza. Only the air has been charred not with devastation but with hatred.”

Quite clearly, Jacobson was not in Gaza. So much is obvious. The air in Gaza was indeed charred with devastation. It was charred with human remains. It was charred with smashed homes. It was charred with wantonly destroyed property. It was charred with death. This tiny territory had just received a visit from one of the world’s best equipped armies, venting the blind, pre-election rage of the government it serves on whoever happened to be in their way.

This cynical pro-Israel propaganda masquerading as a plea for humanity may score big on the Spectator/Melanie Philips clapometer, but that doesn’t make it “magnificent” in anybody else’s book.

Mister B

Original Tony

Israel has never been outnumbered, either slightly or vastly, in a war with its Arab neighbours. Look at the figures even for the 194748 war (as detailed in Benny Morris’s “Righteous Victims”, to name one good source) and you’ll see that the then nascent Israeli state had more men in arms than all its Arab neighbours combined. With each successive war, the imbalance has shifted further, in terms of men in arms and matériel.

And given that Israel started the 1967 war itself, shouting from the rooftops in support would have been a rather peculiar reaction. Or are you an advocate of cheering on the school bully whenever he decides to pummel the class weed?

boxermk

It's also interesting that these same people accuse Britain/America of murdering half a million innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is completely false! Those statistic come from the Lancet medical journal, supplied by a left-wing professor from John's Hopkins university, and who has been utterly discredited by the university itself! Those numbers are completely false. According to the Iraqi government itself, 50,000 civilians were killed so far in the conflict (no small number), and they have been killed largely by Al-Qaeda and Iranian proxies. So it really might not be anti-semitism, as these people spread the worst, most vicious and utterly false blood libels not only concerning Israel, but their own countries and societies.

I also love when people spew Arab propoganda, and then dismiss anything pro-Israel as inherently false.

boxermk

Mister B, the idea that in 1947, Israel had more men in arms than all of its Arab neighbours combined is so ridiculous, that you have just discredited yourself, and "Righteous Victims" or whatever left-wing screed you just sited.

Linda Smith

Mister B: Would you have been happier if the Israelis had waited until after Hamas had equipped themselves with some longer-range nuclear missiles supplied by Iran to fire into Israel? As a pragmatist, I believe that when your enemies, in this case Hamas supplied by a soon-to-be nuclear Iran, publish their intentions, ie destruction of your state and genocide of your people, pre-emption is the only sensible course to take.

I'm curious about YOUR anger, Mister B. Have you got a vested interest in this conflict, or are you just another antesemite who thinks Jews have no right to defend themselves?

phil

both true brit and celtic leopard scar their great heritage with the hateful comments they attribute to their fellow citizens -,say what you think but do not include all the respectable people you insult with your own ignorance .Neither of you were there and only "know"what you want to by reading the articles which tickle your prejudices---------No doubt neither of you raised your pens to help either Israel or the Jewish people in their hours of need,so what you think is an irrelevancy to all of us and in this case I believe I can genuinely say that -enjoy your hate it will consume you two not me or us .-----------

The retracted lies will not have bothered your consciences will they ?For those of us who do feel great sadness for the loss of life and destruction your words are even more sickening ,for not a word of mourning has passed your "lips" My words to you will be but a leaf fluttering in a storm but you will both know they have been said and you will feel the disgust of many .

phil

Peter L everyone else has ignored you and your previous epistle was moderated ,are you surprised ? Even I am reluctant to dignify what was one of the most discombobulated pieces of nonsense I have seen here for quite some time -You have attacked a heartfelt piece from one of Britains most articulate and intelligent writers with a piece of manipulation that at best was better left for Jews themselves to sort out.If you do not agree with Howard,s conclusions say your piece or for heavens sake cerrar la boca .

Paul, Cambridgeshire

Lizzy and GaryO,

It was so nice to read your comments as I feel exactly the same way. After reading the article which was so beautifully written, the facts so gently and accurately laid out, I made the mistake of reading the comments. It chills me to read such blind, naked aggression. The majority of commenters were clearly not able to present a reasoned argument and were just hysterical and nasty. People are either oblivious or uncaring about the historical facts of how things came to be the way they are in the Middle East. Everything is turned on its head. Israel has been the victim of relentless genocidal arab aggression for over 60 years, yet is a nation of innovation, justice and freedom in an region surrrounded by such darkness and oppression. Britain should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel and yet we see such rabid lies and libels against her.

I suppose at the end of the day, the fact is that as someone else alluded to, the struggle is not merely political and social but goes far deeper.

Truth, Justice and Righteousness will prevail.

Jason from AZ

A great article, but reading the majority of comments to the article was especially distressing. Jew hatred is so inbred in British society, indeed all of Europe, that I'm afraid there is no argument that can be made which will change things. Unfettered Islamic immigration and the spineless politicians who cater to them only exacerbate the problem. The future looks grim for British Jews - they should seriously consider emigrating to safer lands, such as the US, Canada, or Austalis. Yes, they have plenty of Jew haters in these countries as well, but not nearly as bad as the UK.

Meh

"Berating Jews with their own history, disinheriting them of pity, as though pity is negotiable or has a sell-by date, is the latest species of Holocaust denial"

This is beyond mockery. It's just stupid.

Wilhelm

Name one democratic muslm country ?

Er, um, there isnt one.

Oliwagino Alefava Yihiri

Lizzy, did you say our educated middle classes? you are not the only one seeing this, the middle class or the lefties in Britain are crazy, stupid unhappy and many of them are taking drugs or drinking too much, there was a time we all respected but now many people are changing their minds, if you want to make friends try other middle class from other parts of the world you will see how real they are

JJS

Celtic leopard said: "I dare say it must be a bit scary trying to bring up children in Gaza." He's correct, of course, but not for the "reason" he/she wants us to believe. It is scary for children in Gaza BECAUSE HAMAS HAS NO RESPECT FOR THEIR LIVES, PUTS THEM IN DANGER, USES THEM AS HUMAN SHIELDS, IS WILLING TO SACRIFICE THEM TO FUEL THEIR JEW-HATRED, ETC ETC.

Mister B

boxermk

The "left-wing screed I sited" [sic] is one of the most authoritative works yet published on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The notion that Morris is left-wing is the most ridiculous concept I've heard, however. An Israeli Jew, he advocates transfer of Arabs out of Israel. He remains a fine scholar, however.

Mister B

Linda Smith asks:

"Have you got a vested interest in this conflict, or are you just another antesemite [sic] who thinks Jews have no right to defend themselves?"

Answers:

My wife is a muslim, hence I am a militant Islamist on an Al Quaeda-sponsored mission against the West.

I am a gentile, hence I am an antisemite thug (and a lefty to boot) bent on the destruction of the Jewish people.

Or so your rather tired narrative goes, I'm sure.

Can I ask you what your vested interest is too Linda?

Floridian

Linda Smith says "I find Original Tony's certainty in his Christian worldview every bit as frightening as that of any Islamic fundamentalist."

Linda it is your kind of thinking that scares me. Seen any Christians blowing up buildings lately? How about beheading people? How about treating women as property? There is NO equivalence here (moral or otherwise) and your attitude is part of the problem we have across the western world.

Celtic Leopard

Paul, Cambridgeshire said,

"Britain should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel ..."

No, not after the blind, naked aggression Israel has demonstrated so cruelly. Israel committed a massive crime against Gaza and the British people must stand back from such criminality.

George Laird

Dear All

I took Melanie Phillips’ advice and read the whole of Howard Jacobson article right to the end. She describes it as a simply magnificent piece in today’s Independent by Howard Jacobson. I would call it very unimpressive like a PR man who has been told his PR campaign doesn’t tick the box and is being scrapped.

He starts off his piece with an impassioned plea for the support of systematic murder, as if anyone who has seen the dead kids being dragged out the Gaza rubble will buy that. Next; he is upset about failure of the Israeli PR which is headed by Regev, the Australian Jewish who like Gordon Brown cannot accept responsibility for anything at anytime.

We then have an odd concept that there is a dictatorship of all the people? Is he serious, plainly he can’t be! It then follows that we are asked to believe that English Jews have in effect come to the end of their stoical reserve, who is he kidding?

We then get a piece about I can only describe as a fair fight mentality from him missing out the fact that Israelis have planes, tanks and a trained army, Hamas has AK47s’ RPG and home made rockets, hardly a match of equals.

Hamas have a lot to answer for as well but since Israelis turned Gaza into the new “Warsaw ghetto”, they have destroyed the infrastructure so that civil government and due process cannot function. Howard it seems cannot recognise this as a problem.

Israelis have killed over 400 women and kids, non combatants; the response to the rocket attacks has been disproportionate. I dispute the justification for the author to describe the killings as in effect, ‘one of those things’. The firing of missiles into market places when killing Hamas leaders is a scandal because they know that innocent people, women and children will be killed in the process. That is a war crime!

Howard is upset that not many voices speak out against Hamas; people do condemn Hamas too; this is nothing new. I know that I have certainly done so in print and publicly.

The Gaza Government has been suffering because of the restrictions of Israelis, the legitimate government hasn’t been allowed to develop to allow moderate people to come through to set up and organize civil government.

The Israeli state has built up quite a reputation that encourages fanatics. So, is so strange that this spills over into the simple minded? People remember 400 women and kids murdered, the UN compound shelled and staff killed, humanitarian aid warehouses destroyed. If the Israelis hadn’t act by sealing the borders and set up a dialogue, these matters could have been take care. It seems to me that it is pretty hard to start a fight with people who are helping you.

Jacobson can ascribe some of the people’s criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic because that is what some people are, not all. This is the Golden thread running through his piece of wisdom, the sub text of people speaking out; they must be anti-Semitic, even if they don’t know it.

The Israelis have the only functioning government in the region missed their chance, time and time again. Is it any surprise that Gaza cannot function properly? Is it that the Israelis cannot understand that a Gazan civil government could put a stop to the rocket attacks by having a functioning military and Police force?

I would argue that Palestinians would have no problem with having Jewish neighbours; but what signal does having armed Jewish enclaves sends out? I would say the wrong message. On the subject of being magnanimous, The Israelis were so magnanimous that they torn down all the buildings leaving a scorched earth policy.

World War 2; I would suggest to Mr. Jacobson, we are looking at history and comparing the actions of the Israeli Jews with similar actions of the Third Reich since people make the comparison. As Gerald Kaufman, MP has said and I agree with him, the Israeli actions are an insult to the Jewish people who died in the concentration camps. Gaza is a walled ghetto; medical supplies, food and fuel into the ghetto are restricted by the Israelis. People die in the ghetto due to the harsh conditions. There is no need for gas chambers when the people can be starved and their own fabric of life destroyed. I would say the comparison is to let the Israelis know that they are acting in the same way as the very people they use to justify their actions.

Mr. Jacobson throughout his article wants to appeal to British Jews and provoke a sense of outrage, the Jews haven’t betrayed the Holocaust but the State of Israel certainly has. Israel like other countries has suffered a collapse of moral authority, if it hadn’t they wouldn’t be drowning in its own actions. When you see a dead Palestinian girl who has been killed with feet blown off exposing the two bones in the lower leg, you find the sympathy vote doesn’t go to Israel.

Mr. Jacobson wants to wax lyrically about the good old days; Israelis didn’t descend from a clear blue sky, they took over Palestine by acts of terrorism which the British couldn’t control. Does having a connection, 1,000 years old mean you have right to take over a country by means of terror? Less we forget, these people were mostly European foreigners.

Mr. Jacobson to get back to his Golden thread that we are all anti-Semitic uses a badly done one sided play based on the emotive language of the author. Is a bad word play, the entire defence of which to justify the Israelis actions?

I also find it disgusting that the Mr. Jacobson should try and rope British Jews as if they were the same as Israelis that is quite insulting to those members of the Jewish faith who live in Britain. These people may have the same faith but I would say that in the main, a different set of moral values exist.

Why doesn’t Jacobson just say that anyone who criticises Israel must be a jew hater, it would say writing a long article?

It seems that Mr. Jacobson is desperate to want to link all Jewish people together as this is an attack on them; I think he will find few takers. I think that he would have do better than a bad play and some author who cannot remember his work from week to week.

What does his ‘case’ prove, well nothing, except that people can write emotive pieces for their own benefit and for their own reasons.

Finally; I think Mr. Jacobson will find that cosy old lazy old easy-come easy-go England still has people who will speak out regarding atrocities and not be so easily fooled by a play on words and some trashy PR campaign to justify murder.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Carl

Try as he might, Howard Jacobson cannot conceal the ongoing Israeli crimes against the Palestinians. Trying to close down the argument with cries of "anti-Semitism", "Jew hatred" or even "Self - hating Jews" will no longer do. Israeli brutality has been demonstrated to the whole world. God willing, the world will now hold them to account.

Mr R

Mister B, your replies are pathetic.

HarleyDavidson

I've thought on this problem for some time. Perhaps I don't have the entire answer but it occurs to me the left can get away with antisemitism because they can. In Britain and Europe Jew hatred is an industry from academia to media to the halls of governmental power to the UN. It is institutional.

Perhaps most disturbing both British and European governmental officials including the UN have a habit especially in the last 10-12 years of using the left to further themselves, get elected, attend leftists marches further legitimizing antisemitism at the local, state, national, and international level. Consequently, it is no surprise to anyone paying attention when these same governments covertly in some cases and explicitly in others use their antisemitic marching in their streets as a blunt instrument to exert force against Israel in the blood sport of international politics. The same method is used over and over again.

Israel for the most part is a victim of its own chaotic governments. Weak, ineffectual, indecisive, and to be as kind as possible down right stupid. Strange as it may seem Israel could learn a lesson or two from Iran. One only need look at the world of the last number of years and quickly realize Iran has defeated all comers because Iran refused to get down on its knees and asked the man to please, please like me.

If Israel had any sense it too would get up off its collective knees and understand the world will never, never like you. Its time for a strong government to call in other nation's diplomats and read the riot act in no uncertain terms. You either defend your Jewish citizens inside your borders or we will expel you immediately. Its time Israel took steps to expel the BBC and and other antisemitic so called "news" groups. Iran would never tolerate such nonsense, never! Why does Israel? No Muslim nation does. Its time an Israeli government got up off its collective knees and publicly confronted each and every nation's tacit complicity for the antisemitic madness inside their own borders.

Israel its time to stop apologizing. Fight back as if you were the only safe speck of land Jews have left on the face of the Earth. Sadly enough Israel you are!

But antisemitism

Douglas Bass

Where will British Jews flee to when their safety can no longer be guaranteed?

I'm also commenting to let you know that I voted for you multiple times in the Best UK Blog Awards, and told others to do so. Keep fighting the good fight!

Jane

"I wonder if the price for having a Jewish State of Israel is that Jews will not be able to live anywhere else." Steve M

This is my fear; many will suffer for the appalling choices of a few and for many years to come.
What I can’t get over is how they are permitted to carry on with this out right slaughter of human beings.

Nature

On 06.02.09 I sent a complaint to the BBC about an interview of Sarah Montague and Mark Regev on BBC radio 4 on 06.02.09. What I find more alarming is Robert’s Wright (BBC complaints) response on 17.02.09 to my initial complaint, to which I responded again on 18.02.09.

Here is all the correspondence. It is long but it is worth reading.

My initial complaint submitted to the BBC on 06.02.09:

I was listening to the morning news show on Friday, 06.02.09 on BBC radio 4 at about 8:40am. An interview was held with Mark Regev, the Israeli spokesman and Sarah Montague. As a listener I was horrified to hear the hate and the revolt in Sarah Montague's voice toward mark Regev. She blatantly rejected his claim that Hamas was responsible to the collapse of the ceasefire, by saying “this is simply not true” this is a blunt and unprofessional statement of a journalist who do not accept the turns of events in Israel and tries to vilify the Israelis for the their reaction to Hamas terror attacks. I do not recall any journalists interviewing Hamas terrorists on BBC rejecting any of Hamas claims whether they hateful or fabricated, however, Sarah Montague did not have a problem claiming that Mark Regev was simply lying. Furthermore, this journalist had a silence too long in a sentence when she was trying to find her words to describe Hamas militants, this was almost to imply that she was trying avoiding calling Hamas as freedom fighters. She had to think hard until she was able to pronounce “Hamas militants”. I have grave concern of this horrible journalistic misconduct to show a biased and a blatant hate toward an interviewee, and I call for her resignation. This is too serious for just an apology.

*********************************
BBC response from Robert Wright on 17.02.09:

Dear XXXX (Nature)

Thank you for your e-mail regarding Radio 4.

I was sorry to learn that you feel the BBC reports of the conflict in Gaza aren't impartial.

The BBC is committed to due impartiality and across our programming we have tried to explain how the current situation in the Middle East started and has since developed. We have also given air-time to representatives from across the political spectrum and our correspondents are equally vigorous in their questioning of interviewees regardless of whether they are Israeli or Palestinian.

While the BBC agrees that political figures and others in positions of responsibility should be given the opportunity both to explain their thinking on matters of public concern and answer criticisms of it, the job of interviewers is to put the questions likely to be in the minds of listeners and to look for answers. Our interviewers' intention is always to ensure that their contributions are kept as relevant and useful as possible. The interviewer's job is to put the questions likely to be in the minds of viewers and to look for answers. Many interviewees and politicians in particular, are very adept at evading questions and following their own agenda when replying. It is part of a professional interviewer's role to ensure that they are reminded, when appropriate, of the original question or pressed on points that are of particular public interest.

We have reported the casualty figures from both sides: the fact is, however, that there have been many more Palestinian deaths than Israeli. We have also explained clearly and frequently that Israel sees this conflict as a necessary defensive action because of the rocket attacks it has faced for many years. It is for the audience, not the BBC, to judge whether, in its view, the action is justified.

The aim of our news reports is to provide the information across our programming in order to enable viewers and listeners to make up their own minds; to show the reality of a situation and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard. We are satisfied that this has been the case in respect of our reporting of the Middle East.

Nevertheless, I recognise you may continue to hold a different opinion about the BBC's impartiality. Please be assured that all of your comments have been registered on our daily feedback log, this is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

Thank you for taking the time to contact the BBC.

Regards

Robert Wright
BBC Complaints
____________________________
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

*********************************

My new response to Robert Wright (BBC Complaints) on 18.02.09:

Dear Robert Wright

Thank you for taking the time to response to my initial complaint about the integrity of the interview Sarah Montague conducted with Mark Regev on 06.02.09, which was only partially answered. Your response did not explain however why as an “impartial” interviewer Sarah Montague had a clear revolt and anger in her voice toward Mark Regev. This incident was not only picked by myself but was largely discussed on the Biased BBC website, as well.

I however would like to point out to a much more disturbing claim presented in your reply. You write: “We have reported the casualty figures from both sides: the fact is, however, that there have been many more Palestinian deaths than Israeli”. I find this statement to be particularly disturbing as it implies that the BBC disputes the classification of Hamas as terror organisation (by the EU, Israel and the USA). As it now has come to light, one thirds of deaths were of Hamas terrorists, one third were of Arab Palestinians affiliated with Hamas terrorists, and unfortunately one third were indeed Arab Palestinian civilians who paid the price of being used as human shield by Hamas. By writing “there have been many more Palestinian deaths than Israeli” you do not distinguish between the two thirds of the deaths to be attributed to terrorists who are in fact a legitimate target. The journalistic coverage of the death of Hamas terrorists should be equalled to the coverage on BBC of Al Qaeda terrorists deaths when is then considered to be a success and a positive progress. However, when you write “Palestinian deaths” without the specification of who actually were the dead it signifies the fact that the BBC defies the classification of Hamas as terror organisation- it actually implies that the BBC is masking Hamas terrorist deaths as Arab Palestinian deaths. This clearly demonstrates that the BBC has its own political agenda, in breach of partiality, which is most alarming.

I will finish with another quote from your response “The aim of our news reports is to provide the information across our programming in order to enable viewers and listeners to make up their own minds” if this was the case, why is then the BBC paid £200,000 from the tax payer money in 2007 to suppress the release of Balen report damming the BBC coverage of the Israeli - Arab Palestinian conflict as a constitutionally biased against Israel?

Sergey

"Why do so many British and Europeans have such a raving pathological hatred of Israel and of America?"
Inferiority complex, I believe. They see what really valiant people do and understand that in comparison they are cowards and hypocrites. Not a pleasant idea to swallow, that's for sure. So irrational rage and hatred follows. Not unlike what Vandals felt entering Rome and seeing all these marvels they have no hope to make themselves. But if people can forgive technical superiority of others, their moral superiority is an unforgivable insult. That is what most of anti-semitism boils down to: vandalism writ large and run amok.

Peter L.

phil
It's probably not a good idea to advertise your complete inability to understand a simple argument. This seems to be a recurrent problem of yours. Either you are a) too dim or b) deliberately trying to obfuscate points made. In neither case do you add anything. As to whether something is best left only to Jews to discuss, I've noticed that you and Melanie etc. only like a certain KIND of Jew to be in on the discussion, not Jews like me (oh, you assumed I was a Gentile did you?). How very convenient. Still, you've distracted from the argument so I suppose you'll be happy (insofar as you can be). Please publish this riposte in light of "phil's" latest assertions.

Sarah

The article was very good. Like others commenting here I am neither Jewish nor Israeli. But do remember that these pieces attract extreme and unrepresentative comments. I've given up commenting on pieces in the Independent because people can reply directly to your comments - this means they go straight into your email inbox which feels very intrusive. I once made some incredibly bland anti-anti-Zionist comment and got a tirade of abuse in return.

Lizzy

Dixon
February 18th, 2009 12:49pm
"Whilst I generally reject the reduction of political positions to pathological disposition, I have to say that the attitude of such people as Liz refers to seems to be about a failure to face up to their personal issues with their own parents, displaced into the hatred of a substitute authority image ( Israel and The stereotype of a patriarchal Jew )."

I think we agree on this, too. I have often thought the anger was displaced, an acting out of a perpetual adolescent rebellion. How else to explain that they never grow up?

jonnygold

As a former Brit, who moved to Israel nearly 20 years ago, I don't fully understand why Anglo Jewery would want to stay in such a poisioness climate.

Steve M

How much of the current public reaction against Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism how much driven by the media bias that has taken place over many years. I will never forget, for instance, Jeremy Paxman’s introduction to Newsnight when he bellowed out that Israel had massacred thousands of Palestinians in Jenin. However, I can’t remember his retraction when this ‘massacre’ was discovered to be a fabrication by the Palestinians. Perhaps he whispered it.

The media know full well that Palestinians have routinely exaggerated casualties and other information regarding the continuing conflict with Israel. They know this. It didn’t stop them from continuing to publish these figures, virtually unchallenged, as truth, in the Gaza conflict. It hasn’t stopped them from ignoring the recent casualty figures released by the IDF and detailed with a comprehensive list of names.

It’s natural that the British public’s reaction is to believe its own media.

Shortly after Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s Middle East editor, was given his promotion at the BBC a memo of his was leaked to The Times. In it he made clear his view that Israel was responsible for all the problems in the region and the Palestinians responsible for none. Jeremy Bowen the BBC’s Middle East editor? Why not?

The BBC commissioned its own report into its anti-Israel bias - the Balen report - and then suppressed its publication, spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of our money fighting the report’s publication, in the courts. Last week, the Law Lords decreed that the report should be made public and I believe that there will be another High Court case. I’m not holding my breath.

Is anti-Semitism at the root of the media bias? I don’t know but I’m sure it fans the flames. Is it at the root of the widespread anti-Israel sentiment in the country? I don’t think so but I’m sure it fans the flames.

Lawrence

the scary thing is that the viscious anti-Semitic comments in response to Jacobson's article at the Independent only prove the point that Jacobson is making - naturally the Jew-hating boneheads who repeat the lies that Jacobson has already refuted in his article, like the zombies that they are - just don't get it.

Those who pretend that lying about Israel and whitewashing the crimes of Muslim terrorists against the Jews (and their own people even) isn't anti-Semitic, just legitimate and fair criticism of Israel - are not all of a sudden going to do a U-turn, no matter how they are continually exposed.

Bone-headed Jew-haters: criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, but anti-Semitic criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Gettit? Noooo they don't that's for sure.

But they wouldn't now, would they? They are zombies, and you cannot reason with this army of the living dead, for they have no reason to speak of.

ahad ha'amoratsim

"The article was just another case of a supporter attempting to claim that criticism of Israel equates to anti - Semitism"

No, but when vicious and false slander about Israel relies on distortion, outright lies, ridicule of Jewish religion, misappropration of the Holcoaust, calssic anti-semitic myths and tropes, and conflates Jews with Israelis and vice versa, denies Israel's right to exist or to defend itself, whitewashes the deeds and goals of Israel's enemies, assumes the existence of peaceful options that Israel does not have (and that Israel would love to have and to pursue), and blasts Israel for not pursuing them, and then whines "Whenver anyone dares to speak the truth about Israel, you Jews immediately brand him an anti-Semite", that's a pretty good clue that the criticism has gone beyone legitimate criticism and has crossed into anti-Semitism.

P.J

I agree with True Brit`s observation that the British tend to support the underdog but what is so very worrying is the way he fails to realise how groups such as Hamas cynically manipulate the sentiments of liberal democracies to achieve the only victory they they are capable of,which is a propaganda victory.
It is deeply worrying that we in the west have become so susceptible to this form of manipulation.

MMBB

This extract shows that you can criticise Israels action without being anti-semetic or anti-jewish

Hansard 12/01/09
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): In congratulating my right hon. Friend on steering resolution 1860 through the United Nations Security Council, may I ask him what the international reaction would be if Hamas had slaughtered nearly 900 Israelis and subjected nearly 1.5 million Israelis to degradation and deprivation? Is it not an incontrovertible fact that Olmert, Livni and Barak are mass-murderers and war criminals— [ Interruption. ] Yes. And they bring shame on the Jewish people whose star of David they use as a flag in Gaza, but whose ethos and morals go completely against what this Israeli Government are doing.

Lizzy

Hello friends... and in the Jerusalem Post: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews, said Martin Luther King
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304788123&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Brian

Israel has nuclear arms and the support of the US govt and military behind it. By definition it can quite clearly never be 'the underdog'. Its very presence is vastly destabilising for the balance of power in the Middle East.

It lashes out with disproportionate force at the slightest imagined provocation (remember Lebanon?) and enforces collective punishment on the Palestinian people.

Is it any wonder that it is disliked?

country mouse

Two points: 1) I have rarely if ever read the Independent so had not realised what a poisonous group of people their readers are. and 2) the question why does the Left so hate this country, western values, christianity etc. is a very interestiung one. I do not know the answer, except it is often loathing of their own roots. I do not think that their hatred of power is the right answer. They seek power everywhere.

Celtic Leopard

Paul, Cambridgeshire said,

"Britain should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel ..."

Israel stands shoulder to shoulder with the 'Great Satan'. Better then that Britain stands apart.

Dave

No nation state is perfect. And no matter what terrible trials Israel faces surely there are limits? Surely if something happens that I think is wrong I can say so? Friends can be a useful source of critisism after all.
Oh yes and as a gay man anyone that disagrees with me is a homophobe

Andras

Ros Morris,

One reason to see so much antisemitic readers' comments in The Times - as you rightly say - is that they screen out who knows how many comments of a different kind. They certainly, by now predictably, and consistently prevent appearing such comments by me. I wonder why?

Suffolkbor

Can the world ever be free from Anti Semitism ?
Can a Celtic Leopard ever change it,s spots ?

Stephen in America

Re:"...better that Britain stands apart"...the "Celtic Leopard" seems more like a little kitty.

Joe Strummer

Howard is correct, of course. The British and European Left's malevolence is nothing to do with anti-Zionism or anti-Israeli prejudice but simple Jew hatred, and even I as non-Jew can observe that.

Where were the so-called liberal Left-wing marches and vociferous demonstrators in London and every other major British city when Robert Mugabe first began starving and torturing his people ? Or even marching against the genocide in the Congo ? These are apparently trivial ideological matters when the Left can attack the Jews instead.

The British Left that I was once proud of which stood up for equality for minorities, women, the gay community, has gone, only to be replaced by bigots aligning themselves with brutal and violent Islamofascists. The Left should hang their collective heads in shame for attacking the only democracy in that forever troubled part of the world.

Huw Thornton

George Laird -

"Hamas have a lot to answer for as well but since Israelis turned Gaza into the new “Warsaw ghetto”, they have destroyed the infrastructure so that civil government and due process cannot function. Howard it seems cannot recognise this as a problem."

George, could I say as calmly as possible that this is not an equivalence that you should assert. Perhaps you should examine any evidence you like about Warsaw, and reflect that perhaps the perpetrators of those obscene crimes there did rather more than destroy "the infrastructure so that civil government and due process (could not) function".

Celtic Leopard, True Brit, Carl, and Mister B, please try to reflect what it is that you are doing by supporting (I am sure not intentionally) anti-semitic forces in this country. You do not have to show your support for Palestinian people in this way.

I thought that Howard Jacobson's article was magnificent. I hope that all those who agree with him will be ready to fight pure evil in this country - as well as for justice in the Middle East - and I pray for the courage for this fight for me and other people who feel the same.

And for those who feel themselves threatened by this growing madness of anti-semitism in this country: you are most definitely not alone.

HarleyDavidson

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
The Gaza Government has been suffering because of the restrictions of Israelis and other trash.
==============================
Georgie boy, apparently Glasgow University is weak on geography as you appear to be, sonny.
Perhaps you aught to reserve one of your "human rights" blanket condemnations for Gaza's southern neighbor, Egypt. Maybe you could access a Google map and "discover" Gaza does indeed have an Arabic neighbor who shut its own border with Gaza.

Georgie, here's another weird occurrence "human rights" folks like you could possibly answer, why no "human rights" groups park themselves in Egypt and and demand of Egypt what you demand of Israel.

Notice another weird occurrence Georgie, why did ALL the reporters gaggle on the Israelis side of the border? None of the Egypt side.

One can ask, Georgie, where were ALL the "human rights" groups lined up with food on the Egyptian border? Matter of fact, why did Egypt close its border? Ever wonder, Georgie?

Perhaps you're not the brightest bulb in the house nor can one make the mistake of you being "neutral" as a so called "human rights" individual charged with the responsibility of providing accurate information based on a thorough investigation of the facts. No, not you. You have made a blanket statement FROM Glasgow never having investigated a single incident on the ground with the folks involved on BOTH sides. No not you. That's too much to ask of a "human rights" crusader like you.

BTW, Georgie, what newspapers and TV news groups did you use to unilaterally pass judgment never having seen a single event for yourself?

Owen Morgan

Mister B
February 18th, 2009 4:15pm

By your own admission, you didn't bother reading Howard Jacobson's excellent piece in its entirety and you plainly didn't understand the fragment that you did read. Howard Jacobson was referring to the atmosphere here, in Britain, which is Howard Jacobson's homeland. Sadly, the truth of his argument was proved many times over by the venom of the responses on the Independent's site. I don't believe that those who contributed those comments remotely represent the true opinions of bulk of the British public, but, like a rabid dog, they do make a lot of noise.

George Steiner

My parents decided to emigrate to Brazil before WWII. Then changed their mind with disastrous consequences. The meek shall not inherit the world. They will inherit something entirely different. Again.

Yehuda

MMBB: You seem to think that someone who happens to have a Jewish background cannot possibly be an antisemite.
An instructive case study which demonstrates your error is that of Karl Marx, who was a Jew both in Jewish law and in the general perception.
Karl Marx described the People from whom he sprang in terms that still warm the hearts of both Nazis and leftists; and he "prayed" for their disappearance.
Today there are Jews like Karl Marx, both on the right, such as the fur-hatted, black-coated brigade that love Yasser Arafat, and also on the left, like your Kaufman MP.
But, in any case, so what?
There are legions of non-Jews who support and live the values of Judaism. One of the most noble was the Afro-American Christian, Martin Luther King, who asserted that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
Why are you so concerned? In today's world antisemitism has once again become widely socially acceptable and politically fashionable in many circles, especially on the left.

Anne-Kit

To paraphrase Linda Smith: “I am absolutely certain that any kind of certainty is a bad thing!”

This is postmodernism in its most paradoxical manifestation . In this brave new world where there are no “absolute truths”, the most ardent adherents of this world view are blind to the fact that their very certainty that “there are no absolute truths” is as profound an absolute certainty as any of those they deny …

Anne-Kit

To paraphrase Linda Smith: “I am absolutely certain that any kind of certainty is a bad thing!”

This is postmodernism in its most paradoxical manifestation . In this brave new world where there are no “absolute truths”, the most ardent adherents of this world view are blind to the fact that their very certainty that “there are no absolute truths” is as profound an absolute certainty as any of those they deny …

Celtic Leopard

The Suffolkbor said,

"Can a Celtic Leopard ever change it,s spots ?"

The Leopard's livid spots betray his rage at Israel's outrageous betrayal of the Jewish people. The rash will fade if the Israeli democracy chooses to redeem itself by allowing the International Criminal Court to try its criminals, pay reparations and accept a just settlement with the Palestinians. Sadly, I believe Israel is now beyond redemption: the Leopard's spots will not be changing.

Hadas

Dear Mr. Laird
(The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University)

Human rights are in really, really sad condition if their leaders don't have one word of criticism against a genocidal terror organization.

Original Tony

Brian 9@05 pm..."lashes out with with disproportionate force at the slightest imagined provocation"
Why, this takes top award for the most incredibly biased comment I have ever read!
Would YOU sit still for EIGHT YEARS while someone shelled and rocketed your house? Would YOU like to see your kids wet their pants, have nightmares and have nerves so taught they feel like guitar strings? Would YOU like rushing you and your family into a bunker several times a day or night?
I lived at Victoria Falls during the Rhodesian bush war and the village was surrounded by a minefield to keep Mugabe's and Joshua Nkomo's terrorists out and I will never forget the dread, fear and anxiety caused by the mines going off all the time (mainly set off by wild aninmals) and that was only a TINY fraction of the fear the Israeli's have suffered for decades throughout Israel. And you call this an "imagined provocation"! You have no idea how stressful it is living under those circumstances because you read about world evenst from the comfort of your lounge or nearest coffee shop.
Go live in Sderot for a year, I challenge you to do that!

Ronnie

I'm sorry ahad but how can you 'misappropriate the Holocaust'?

It is one of the most important events in human history from which a great many profound lessons can be drawn, from all directions. Thus I reject the idea that it can be 'appropriated' in the first place.

What it cannot be is denied.

Louise

George Laird, you describe Mark Regev as "Australian Jewish" (alas, you left out the noun that you had in mind), in an evident attempt to delegitimise him as a spokesperson for the State of Israel. Mr Regev - your characterisation of him as "Jewish" was rather redundant, don't you think? -was born and educated in Australia, and following university emigrated to Israel, working on a kibbutz and becoming an Israeli citizen. He is not "Australian"; he is Israeli. Are we to understand that you do not approve of immigrants who become loyal citizens of the country of their adoption?
More generally: while on the subject of Mr Regev, the amount of antisemitic spleen regarding him that can be found on various websites is truly horrifying, and some of it is of a murderous nature. Frightening!

marwan

I love the irony. For year after year, left wing jewish writers peddled an orwellian news-speak, distorting the freedoms of western society, throwing the term fascist at any libertarian who dared to suggest that socialism is an basic evil.Well now they're up against real fascism, namely the islamic variety, allied with the bigoted ignorant leftism which they have done so much to foster.Israel does'nt need the support of these latecomers to liberty.

Mustapha Bunn

Ironic isn't it how the Left,who hate so much,are always banging on about racism from the so called fascist Right

Original Tony

Mister B 4:45pm..."Israel has never been outnumbered....Israel started the six day war..."
Oh really Mr B...The statistics for the 6 day war are as follows:- Combined Arab forces: 960 combat aircraft:Israel 196; Arabs 300 000 men (majority were regular battalions) : Israel 250 000 men(most reservists): Arab tanks 1500 vs 1100 in Israel.
Israel had dated equipment because of undeclared sanctions while the Arabs had state of the art equipment from Russia.
So Mr B....Israel has never been outnumbered...mmmm...well!!
As for Israel 'starting the six day war', you seem to forget Egypt had been preparing for war for an entire year and made many provocative moves like blockading the gulf of Aqaba. The Arab armies were poised for the word 'attack' to be given them and so Israel launched a pre-emptive strike.
In the military world a pre-emptive strike is perfectly legal if there is conclusive evidence your enemy is about to attack you. Therefore, Israel did not start the war, Egypt did and Israel WAS outnumbered.
So, Mr B you have just lost all credibility on this blog.

Derek BLADES

Melanie Phillips writes that "the equation of Israel with the Nazis and of Gaza with the Warsaw Ghetto" [is a] "new and vicious form of Holocaust denial".

"Holocaust denial" means denying that it happened or that it was not really a big deal. Let's not debase the language. Many of us have been struck by the ghetto-like conditions of life for the Gazans and I was appalled at Barak's electioneering charge against Lieberman that he was not fit to govern Israel because he had never killed anyone. Nazi-like? At least one of the louts currently running the Israeli government fits that description.

Vision Aforethought

Meanwhile, this just in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7898900.stm

Says it all really.

Brian

Original Tony - go live in Gaza for a year. I challenge you to do that.

The Palestinian rockets are relatively feeble firecrackers. I lived in the north of England during the IRA's bombing campaign in the 70s and early 80s. The Israelis have it easy in comparison.

Anne-Kit

To paraphrase Linda Smith (Feb 18 2.49pm (with whom I otherwise agree on the topic at hand):

“I am absolutely certain that any kind of certainty is a bad thing!”

This is postmodernism in its most paradoxical manifestation . In this brave new world where there are no “absolute truths”, the most ardent adherents of this world view are blind to the fact that their very certainty that “there are no absolute truths” is as profound an absolute certainty as any of those they deny …

Linda Smith

George Laird (18 Feb 6.33pm) You condemn Israel for penning in Gaza's inhabitants into what you describe as "the new Warsaw ghetto". Gaza has a border with Egypt, but you do not mention Egypt in your comments. I would be interested to know your thoughts on Egypt's role in creating this so-called "Warsaw ghetto" of Gaza. Why would Egypt pen its Moslem brothers and sisters into a "Warsaw ghetto"? I await your response with interest.

phil

Peter L.Thanks for your helpful insight into my problems ,now I can see that I am too dim to comprehend your outpourings -I probably join millions of others similarly stupid people .I do not give a damn whether or not you claim to be Jewish, a fool is a fool whether or not his private parts are complete as you have ably demonstrated.You must forgive me but I prefer to take the opinions of intelligent Gentiles rather than the likes of you -comprende.

Carl

I see that the chief Israeli propagandist, Mark Regev, has been mentioned. That odious man should not be allowed to air his propaganda in Europe.

Mister B

George Laird,

Now that, sir, really was a "simply magnificent piece".

Paul Freeman

Augustus: Terrific posting!

ahad ha'amoratsim: You sum it up perfectly.

Dixon, Lizzie: I'm grateful for the insight. It also helps explain the likes of Galloway, Livingstone, Benn. Indeed, the entire conflict might be summed up as one between manipulative victimhood and responsibility; between infantilism and moral maturity.

Ronnie

Anne-Kit, are you sure about that?

Wilhelm

Thank goodness for Mark Regev to set the story straight against the tide of muslim propaganda.

Hadas

Brian said
"Original Tony - go live in Gaza for a year. I challenge you to do that. The Palestinian rockets are relatively feeble firecrackers. I lived in the north of England during the IRA's bombing campaign in the 70s and early 80s. The Israelis have it easy in comparison."

Sure we have it easy. Until a few years ago, we were afraid to take the bus in our capital city, but we have it easy.

phil

HarleyDavidson-you are so right -I have thought for so long that I do not give a damn what people think of me if I have no respect for them and vice versa-I learned many years ago when I was in a sad part of my life that some people are wonderful and I care deeply what they think of me ,as for the rest, they never comforted me when I desperately needed that ,and ever since life has become more clear to me .Israel needs to learn that lesson and so do Jewish people , Christians ,Hindus,Muslims et al .--------

These threads are full of both types ,the wonderful Kate A ,Louise,Penny ,Adam B,Stanley J and others too numerous to name (sorry)and then we hear from carl ,patricia,the ridiculous george laird our new form of student ,the hate filled mister b ,should I worry what they think of me -the former absolutely and the latter not a bit ,if I was lying in the gutter dying of thirst they would not stop to give me a drink so sorry to the latter I do not give a fig what you think .

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Spot on HarleyDavidson ! The only practical, short-hand Israeli response should be 'the Finger' !

phil

Huw T your words show us the kindness and consideration that I have referred to in earlier posts as those of "righteous Gentiles " in fact of real human beings ,and I salute you for them -it is so heartening after we have to see posts like those of the Celtic leopard ,an animal that skulks in trees and attacks like a coward -he is aptly named-thank goodness he didn't call himself a British lion ,with apologies to all the real Celts .

Nehama

Brian said - "The Palestinian rockets are relatively feeble firecrackers. I lived in the north of England during the IRA's bombing campaign in the 70s and early 80s. The Israelis have it easy in comparison."

This is rubbish, kassam rockets are NOT firecrackers, they have a explosive payload of 10kg and a range of over 6 miles. A 10kg explosive charge will kill, and indeed kassams have killed. It is not for the want of trying that the kassams are so ineffectual, rather it is because the Israelis care for their people and build bomb shelters to protect them.

Furthermore, I too lived in the North of England in the 70s and 80s and your comparison with the IRA's bombing campaign is specious - there is no real comparison, while the threat or possiblity of an IRA bomb existed every day, actual bombings were rare but in Israel near the international border with Gaza rocket attacks are a daily occurance.

Wilhelm

George Lard a 6th form debating student, what an anti semitic piece.

phil

Derek BLADES I see you are back from your retreat from questions posed to you on numerous other threads ,peddling you usual smut .do you not realise that your credibility is bare ,or rather like carl you like a little flagellation -turns you on?

phil

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University-is that a degree course ?if so how many O level fails do you need to get on the course ? carl isn't busy at the moment and peter L has just finished his stint at the Gerald kauffman course for Israeli appreciation -well it was only two and a half minutes including signing in .

I hope you will be joining the literary society where eventually you will read "there are none so blind as those that cannot see", you may also learn to write concisely and with true facts rather than fiction unless you wish to take over from Jeffrey Archer-One thing I must ask you "are you willing to stand on the border awaiting the tourists from Gaza?"-I am not suggesting you should as you would no doubt never come back to finish your most important degree .I do not know what you are reading in Glasgow ,but common sense it certainly is not .

Perhaps if you ask him nicely Howard will come and give a lecture on writing and comprehension -interested? just drop a note (short if you can) to the independent -I,m sure you know where it is .

You know George when I was nobbut a lad one needed real brains to get into university and we studied real subjects in those days -we never had time for hate campaigns and racism .one had a pint or two and chased girls, boys , and most students actually came away with a proper degree ,got a job and became a useful member of society -how times have changed .

Johan

Carl (or whatever your real name is) you should not "be allowed to air [your] prpoaganda" either -- why are you better than Regev (and lest there be any confusion, you are not; He is bright, articulate, and intelligent. You, by comparison are ... well, you...)

BullCats

Original Tony - Amen to that!!

Johan

Mr B says 'George Laird,
Now that, sir, really was a "simply magnificent piece".' Why, so, Mr B? Because it is anti-Semitic?

Sweetie

Perhaps all you pro-Islamofacists out there would take a moment to consider this: when they have achieved their goal of wiping Israel off the face of the earth and ridding the world of Jews, next on their list of "things to do" is to kill the Infidels.........and that means you! You have been warned.

AGN

Brian, have you lived in Israel? No. So you don't get to opine on whether it is easy or not.

Dixon

Please folks, lets not get into this "whats your vested interest" "what conspiracy are you part of " "Who you are working for..." line. The thread on Wakefield ended up consisting only of such accusations. I was twice accused of being in the pay of pharmaceutical companies and ended up blowing my top.

Eqyually, lets not get sucked into this "have you actually been there" and "im an expert, you're an idiot" authority pulling rubbish. Which also warped the said debate.

That said, there is an awful lot of ruibbish being written by the diehards who want to portray Israel as Goliath among a million Samsons.

In 1967 Israel launched preemptive air-strikes precisely because their enemies were visibly massing to launch an invasion. So "he threw the first punch" really does not equate to "he started it". As anyone should know from real life anyway.

Secondly, in 1973, the Egyptians snuck an entire army over water and desert into position to attack Israel on their most vulnerable day of the year ( Yom Kippur ) ...newly armed to the teeth with Soviet armour and anti-armour guided missiles. So effective were the Russian Sagger missiles at decimating the Israeli armour that it was for a while thought that this meant the end of the tank in modern warfare.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to use second-hand, third-hand and recycled junk in its front-line arsenal. Whilst Its Arab neighbours continue to receive the most advanced US and British weapons systems that money can buy. So the stereotypes played by the love-thy-enemy left fraternity are actually back to front, upside down.

Finally, counting numbers of [personnel under arms is absurdly disingenuous. Everyone knows that Israel potentially can call upon every citizen as personnel under arms. During the Gaza attack most of the Israeli soldiers actually drove to staging areas in their own vehicles, parked up in the rear like they were at Tescos while their owners did their turn at service. Egypt and Syria have all along had gigantic standing armies.

Si, N

Hats of to you Mr. Laird - one point though – given the centrality of the Hamas ‘rockets’ as a stimulus for the latest massacre (let’s dispense with the sophistry Jacobson and call the slaughter ‘what it really is’) we ought to consider the aerial bombardment of Gaza by Israel prior to the festive blood-letting – an element that has been completely overlooked.

So, Hamas, as we have been told ad infinitum by the likes of Regev, fired 6,300 rockets and mortars into Southern Israel – that’s 6,300 projectiles each containing approx’ 2lb of low grade (fertiliser) explosive [12.6 tons in total] between 2005-2008 (during the 2008 ceasefire the rocket fire all but stopped, 8 rockets in a 3 month period – none of those fired by Hamas – all said to be in response to Israel’s breaching of the ceasefire conditions by tightening the deadly blockade of food /medicine into Gaza)

Overlooking the fact that Israel has been bombing Gaza for decades with deadly consequences – let’s look at the mortars/rockets fired by Israel into Gaza during the period of Hamas rocket fire. Between Sept’ 2005 – May 2007 Israel fired 14,617 projectiles into Gaza – that’s 14,617 155mm artillery shells containing military grade high explosive (actually, between Sept’ 2005 – May 2007 2,700 rockets were lobbed from Gaza).

During this period 3 Israeli’s were killed.

During this period 600 Palestinians were killed.

On 27 December 2008 Israel poured over 100 tons of military grade high explosive (including white phosphorus) into Gaza – that’s 8 times the tonnage Hamas delivered in 3 years.

Oh, and let’s not forget – it’s Hamas, as democratically elected leaders of the Palestinian people (at least Jacobson got that right – so much for Israel being the ‘only democracy in the region’), who are honour bound to remind the world that Israel is brutally occupying Palestinian lands and busily ethnically cleansing Palestinians – as we speak.

Reb Shlomo Silverstein

Thank you Melanie for directing me to this historic article. It left me almost in tears over the death of an England I once knew and loved. Then I started reading the talkback responses. Sitting here in my office in Jerusalem, it sent shivers down my spine. A cesspit of anti-Semitic filth below and ironic statement which read "Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission". Exactly how offensive or abusive do the comments have to be? An example of a comment that was accepted: "[You Jews should] Be responsible and start very quickly to make things right. Or else England (and the world) will be quite inhospitable to the likes of you."

What can I say my dear brothers? I've been through it so I know. It's difficult to leave the land of Churchill and Spitfires and "…is there honey still for tea?". The sophistication of London, its open air markets and department stores. The exquisite beauty of the Highlands. The little villages of England where cricket is still played on the green and time seems to stand still. However the time has come to pack up but this time, unlike 1938, you have a home to go to. We'll be here for you when you arrive.

Come and take a look at Jerusalem, Beit Shemesh, Maale Adumim or Modiin; all of which have sizable English speaking communities with a strong support group for families and singles. We're waiting for you. Come home.

Celtic Leopard

The Israeli Ambassador in London was not sent home during the vicious assault on Gaza. Melanie Phillips is wrong: it was this fact that sounded the requiem on decent Britain.

Peter L.

phil - given that you seem to accept you are too dim to comprehend my "outpourings" then it is extraordinary how you now declaim that I have proven myself a "fool". Understanding that would require "logic". Try reading some books on it - rather than making inane and incessant comments on MP's blog.
As to Jewishness - you appeared to bring it up presumably because you too "claim to be" a Jew (though clearly not an intelligent, thoughtful or temperate one). I too prefer decent Gentiles to people like you phil. Oh, and you never did address the point that you couldn't understand (I fear that millions of others could easily understand it - your assumptions are telling). Just for clarification - Jacobson's categorisation of Holocaust Denial would include Raul Hilberg for the reasons stated above.

Celina

I tried to post this in the Independent but failed.
information for those interested:
There was never a sovereign Arab state in mandatory Palestine, except for Jordan, which was created by the British in 1921. The British hacked off 80% of what the Balfour Declaration said was supposed to be the Jewish homeland, and gave it to Arabs. Later, in 1947, the U.N. voted to partition what was left of the Jewish homeland into Jewish and Arab states
. Israel was founded on land confiscated by the British from the Turks who supported the Nazis during the war, as did all the Arab peoples.
Prior to that the Palestine Mandate was a part of the defeated Ottoman Empire. In 1922, Winston Churchill gave 80% of this land to the Arabs - this became Transjordan, now Jordan. The Arab and Muslim world never question Jordan's right to exist or call it occupied by the minority Hashamites who rule it.

The remaining 20% was divided into two - one for Arabs and one for Jews. However, 1/6 of 1% of the Middle East for Jews was not acceptable for the Arabs, who then attacked Israel in 1948, and are still attempting to finish what they started.
After 48, Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank, part of Jordan. That land has never been under the control of Palestinians or indeed 'Arabs'. It always was a hybrid of many tribes and religions - Palestinians were Christian as well as Muslim - Jews have lived there for centuries, as well as Druse, Beduoins and countless other groups.
Most Palestinians in Gaza are Egyptian, as was Arafat. There are no ethnic Palestinians. They are Arabs from the surrounding countries who immigrated into Israel (at that point renamed to Palestine) and started calling themselves Palestinians even though there was no Palestinian country, culture, or language.
Hamas named its Terrorist wing after a Palestinian who fought the British. He was Syrian.
In 1937 a local Arab leader reported to the Peel Commission, ‘There is no such land as Palestine. Palestine is a term the Zionists invented.’
In 1946, Arab historian Philip Hitti stated to the Anglo-American committee of inquiry, 'There is no such thing as Palestine in history- absolutely not!’ To the UN Security Council on May 31, 1956, Ahmed Shukairy stated, 'It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.' He helped found the PLO in 1964.
The number Arabs leaving was about 700,000, and only a very small percent where driven out - most were warned to leave before the invasion by the Arab countries, and during the fighting to neighbouring Arab countries, or were urged by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to join the forces of neighbouring Arab states, in order to "push the Jews into the sea". The Arabs were not horded into Gaza, so there has been no justification for "fighting back" (or shooting rockets), but when they left they were sure that the Arab armies would conquer Israel and they would be back.
Prior to the reconstitution of the Jewish Nation State, ownership of the actual soil was divided as follows:
1. Some was legally owned by private Arab owners.
2. Some was privately owned by Jews.
3. The bulk of it was public land. Between 1922 and 1948, the public land was held in trust by Britain for the future State of Israel.
Upon Israel's attainment of independence in 1948, this public land became Israeli state land.
*The governments of Israel have never dispossessed private landowners (Arabs or Jews) of legally owned private land. The Jewish "settlements" are built on public land, which, under international law, should be part of the State of Israel. .
Of the 7 million people in Israel, 1 million Arabs are now equal citizens, most of the ones that left could have chosen that life but did not. Arab propaganda is as dangerous as the pre-war German.

Palestinians have been ignored and manipulated for over 60 years by their Arab brothers. Most of those refugee camps are in Arab countries. Like Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon WHY?
Furthermore, Israel has a government agency that holds in trust any Arab property that was abandoned when Arabs fled from the 1947-48 war which their leaders initiated against Israel.
As part of a definitive peace settlement, Israel has undertaken to compensate the owners.
It is highly unlikely the Arab states will ever compensate or give the right of return to the almost one million Jewish refugees whom they forced to flee from Arab countries where Jews had lived for centuries before the Arab conquest, yet in the interest of balance would the Jews have the same right of return to the Arab States? Israel housed all of its refugees all of whom have large families; the Arabs just abandoned their refugees.
Jews lived in what today is called Iraq at least 1,200 years before any Arab set foot there, and continued to live in what we term Israel since well before Roman times.
In 1948 the Iraqi rulers robbed them of all their property and expelled them after a year long series of nightly collections of 10 young Jewish men to be hung in the main square the following morning. Friends of mine lived through that ordeal, yet these atrocities were never brought to notice by the West. Similar pillage and persecution occurred all over the Arab Empire. They left behind assets valued today at billions of $, plus decades-old property deeds on a total area of 100,000 sq. km. That is 5 times the size of the State of Israel.

Mister B

@ original Tony

Tony, you got your figures straight from Wikipedia. While this is a wonderful resource, it’s open to manipulation and no substitute for real scholarship. Read “Righteous Victims” Tony. The author is Israeli, so you have no leftie/Arab subplots to fear in his work.

Your claims are all rather skewed.

“Israel had dated equipment”

Israel has never ever had dated equipment Tony. Theirs has always been state-of-the-art, or at the very least – as in the 1948 war – considerably superior to that of their foes. By the time the 67 war started, Israel was armed to the teeth with the best military hardware money can buy.

“undeclared sanctions”

While not being au fait with this type of sanction (I mean, undeclared means non-existent, no?), you’ll find the “sanctions” in most cases have hit Arab nations and not Israel. One of the reasons for the naqba was the arms embargo against Israel’s enemies. Israel circumvented this embargo by offering the Czechs badly needed dollars.

“Egypt had been preparing for war for an entire year”

True, but a defensive war. Check the record.

“The Arab armies were poised for the word 'attack' to be given them and so Israel launched a pre-emptive strike.”

No, the Arab armies knew themselves far too weak to attack Israel in a conventional war.

“Mr B you have just lost all credibility on this blog.”

I don’t know why, but of the many blogs I post on, this one wins hands down in terms of the level of purely hysteria-driven emotional fanaticism. A dissenting voice should be welcomed, yet you reply with playground language every time. The credibility problem is all yours if you can’t debate like adults.

Not Even Likely

It is as beautiful as you say. And what was even more disheartening, were the ignorant, hateful, blind comments that followed.

Adam B.

Derek Blades,

Did the Chinese government act like Nazis in Tibet? You know why I ask.

George Laird

Dear HarleyDavidson

“Georgie boy, apparently Glasgow University is weak on geography as you appear to be, sonny”.

Sorry but unless you put your real name up sonny, do you expect me to take you seriously? Who was talking about geography? I know I wasn’t in my post, you been on the cheap wine or do you just make it up as you go along?

“Perhaps you aught to reserve one of your "human rights" blanket condemnations for Gaza's southern neighbor, Egypt”.

Can you list the number of Military engagements that Egypt has had with and in Gaza?

“Maybe you could access a Google map and "discover" Gaza does indeed have an Arabic neighbor who shut its own border with Gaza”.

What does this prove? Very little indeed, the Egyptians have peace with Israel; I would think that the Egyptians are putting their national interest first.

“Georgie, here's another weird occurrence "human rights" folks like you could possibly answer, why no "human rights" groups park themselves in Egypt and and demand of Egypt what you demand of Israel”.

Simple enough, surprised you cannot think of it, Egypt is not attacking Gaza.

“Notice another weird occurrence Georgie, why did ALL the reporters gaggle on the Israelis side of the border? None of the Egypt side”.

Given nothing is happening on the Egypt side of the border, where is the news interest in that?

“One can ask, Georgie, where were ALL the "human rights" groups lined up with food on the Egyptian border? Matter of fact, why did Egypt close its border? Ever wonder, Georgie?”

Perhaps you should be asking them that question, are you asking me to mind read what their intentions are? I would hazard a guess and say publicity to raise awareness. How this helps and I am happy to help you out.

“Perhaps you're not the brightest bulb in the house”.

I think the expression you should have used is either smartest tack in the box, if you want to throw in witty then surely the more populist versions would serve you better. But perhaps you were writing in a hurry.

“nor can one make the mistake of you being "neutral" as a so called "human rights" individual charged with the responsibility of providing accurate information based on a thorough investigation of the facts”.

I have condemned Hamas and I have condemned Israel; you on the other hand have are nothing more than a cheerleader for Israel, pot and kettle come to mind.

“No, not you. You have made a blanket statement FROM Glasgow never having investigated a single incident on the ground with the folks involved on BOTH sides”.

Sorry but the buses in Glasgow don’t run to Gaza and beside Einstein, the borders are sealed. Can you tell me when you travelled across the sealed border? And, of course I expect to see proof, just in case you are a liar.

“No not you”.

Gosh; you really like using the phrase, “No, not you”, is the local buzzword catchphrase round your way?

“That's too much to ask of a "human rights" crusader like you”.

I think you will find the independent news reports from various sources including the United Nations are painting an accurate picture.

“BTW, Georgie, what newspapers and TV news groups did you use to unilaterally pass judgment never having seen a single event for yourself?”

I will be waiting for your third party irrefutable proof to back up your claims of being on the ground in Gaza with interest.

When can I and the rest of the board expect it?

Finally, I saw recently a picture of a Palestinian little girl dead with her feet blown off, leg bones sticking through the mangled flesh; can you tell me what her crime was?

She looked under five years old. You have obviously researched everything, when can the board expect to see that evidence too? Was she a terrorist?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Original Tony

Brian 11:10am...I would never even contemplate living in Gaza...the hell-hole that it's become is purely of Hamas' making, you cannot blame anyone else.

Louise

Carl wrote: "I see that the chief Israeli propagandist, Mark Regev, has been mentioned. That odious man should not be allowed to air his propaganda in Europe."
Carl, I do believe you're becoming a caricature of yourself! Or, rather, a caricature of a leftwing totalitarian fascist!
So, tell us, how would you prevent Mr Regev from exercising his right to free speech?
Would you also seek to silence the radical imams and to suppress the Hamas Charter (you do condemn the Charter's naked antisemitism, don't you?).

(Great letter in today's Daily Telegraph, everyone, from Maureen Lipman, Prof. Geoffrey Alderman, and many others.)

Hadas

"Finally, I saw recently a picture of a Palestinian little girl dead with her feet blown off, leg bones sticking through the mangled flesh; can you tell me what her crime was? She looked under five years old. You have obviously researched everything, when can the board expect to see that evidence too? Was she a terrorist?"

Was she one of the Palestinians girls who were killed by a Qassam, a few days before the war?

Vision Aforethought

Something worth viewing: I cannot remember how I found this 30 minute video discussion, but at the start, (based on the look of the panel and presenter), I made some very false assumptions that were shot down throughout - providing some optimism. I think readers of this blog from all sides will draw the same conclusions as I, that it's intelligent, unbiased, calm, dignified and thought provoking.

I wanted more, in particular over some of the issues raised by the panel with regards national bounderies and the need for society to slow down a little.

Here you go:

http://www.worldbytes.org/programmes/005/005_004.html

phil

Just before Harley wastes his intellect on you georgie boy !,Just let us know when you are ready to engage in FACTS with grown ups and not wishful nonsense from one still wet behind the ears and eyes that cannot yet focus on anything further south than the Clyde.So far you have demonsrated an ability to write both childishly and rudely but not with any intelligence

georgie boy as you like to be known Can you list the number of Military engagements that Egypt has had with and in Gaza? remember( re Gaza-1967-)--oh and btw did the journalists or you lot have any interest in the tunnels on the border ?-you were not there of course .------------

your quote---"Simple enough, surprised you cannot think of it, Egypt is not attacking Gaza" --You are not as daft as you seem georgie ,you have noticed !! " no war ,no shooting ,no rockets ,there is trade and visits too ,they are at peace -ah well I have said enough to a callow youth who only wishes to be sarcastic and obviously has no desire to see peace .lest you have nothing to be hateful about in future .-and I have to waste my tax payments on those like you .what a crazy world .

Antonia

Derek Blades, read an account of the visit to Warsaw Ghetto by Jan Karski and then speak on the subject.
You are obstinately refusing to understand why the comparison of the well fed and medicated Gazans to Warsaw Ghetto's Jews who were being literally starved to death and survivors transported to be murdered in the death camps is simply obscene.

Peter L.

What Mister B. says in re. Righteous Victims and Israel's wars is amply backed up by the thorough and definitive work on the subject Defending the Holy Land by Zeev Maoz (a Zionist by the way). I have yet to see this thoroughly documented work refuted by anyone - not even Wikipedia!

ahad ha'amoratsim

Israel had state of the art equipment in the 1948 war? Now I know that Mister B is delusional.

phil

peter L you are just confirming for all to see your stubborn stupidity -if this helps you read it -----"To obtain that, two opinions in favour of full publication were required. The work was duly submitted to two additional academic authorities in the field, but both judgments were negative, viewing Hilberg's work as polemical: one rejected it as anti-German, the other as anti-Jewish-----

"I do not demean this man but you do by bringing his name into your wanderings and in an attempt to put down Howard whose ping pong socks you are not fit to wash .We have enough of the kauffman variety without any help from you -I can only assume that Howard humiliated you at ping pong and that you are a bad loser .

I have a distinct preference for writing on the subject matter of the threads but I have to admit to quite enjoying showing idiots and racists up for what they are and this thread has certainly exercised my mind -I assume you are the former but no doubt you will disabuse me of that -plick plock -read his books

phil

Mister B you have your chance now to debate politely with CELINA -I look forward to your next post .

wonderer

Brian, I lived in London throughout the IRA bombing campaign (and btw during the German blitz). Misguided people love to compare Hamas and the IRA. Not only do they overlook the fact that the IRA never sought to overturn British rule in Great Britain and expel or exterminate the inhabitants but more often than not, though I recognise not always, they would issue warnings once a bomb was in place, so they were content to disrupt business or destroy property w/o necessarily taking lives.

George Laird

Dear Phil

Attacking the messenger? Surely, the proper thing to do is attacking the message?

I respect your right of free speech to be snide but must voice concern that you need to spend more time writing your drivel.

To address your points and concerns!

“The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University-is that a degree course ?”

No, you could have researched that easily.

“if so how many O level fails do you need to get on the course ?”

In Scotland, when I was in education, there wasn’t’ O levels, it was called O grades. Again poor research, the mind boggles about your abilities.

“carl isn't busy at the moment and peter L has just finished his stint at the Gerald kauffman course for Israeli appreciation -well it was only two and a half minutes including signing in”.

I think you will find the correct name of the Labour MP you are referring to is Sir Gerald Bernard Kaufman. Third time at bat and more properly prepared work needed.

“I hope you will be joining the literary society where eventually you will read "there are none so blind as those that cannot see".

Given your stumbling and bumbling attempt to be a superstar on here; I wouldn’t be signing up to your course, no offence.

“you may also learn to write concisely and with true facts rather than fiction unless you wish to take over from Jeffrey Archer”.

Is there such a thing as an untrue fact? What is this? Over egging a pudding or a short course in dumb 101? As for Archer; I understand he is a fiction writer when not in prison.

“One thing I must ask you "are you willing to stand on the border awaiting the tourists from Gaza?"-I am not suggesting you should as you would no doubt never come back to finish your most important degree .I do not know what you are reading in Glasgow ,but common sense it certainly is not”.

What is this paragraph but a load of drivel?

“Perhaps if you ask him nicely Howard will come and give a lecture on writing and comprehension -interested? just drop a note (short if you can) to the independent -I,m sure you know where it is”.

Will he throw in how to cheer lead as well? Surely; you need his help more that me?

“You know George when I was nobbut a lad one needed real brains to get into university and we studied real subjects in those days -we never had time for hate campaigns and racism”.

So, I am a racist? Is this a label? Surely you can do better than that? How pathetic of you but given the rubbish you have written here can anyone be rightly offend by an idiot?

“one had a pint or two and chased girls, boys , and most students actually came away with a proper degree ,got a job and became a useful member of society -how times have changed”.

I am sure that some people will be fascinated with your mini autobiography but I am not. The more important issues to address are why you can’t research properly and feel the need to trot out a load of absolute dross.

Given your use of “nobbut”, have you had difficult time down pit lad?

Finally; Phil don’t give up your day job; you will never make it as a comic or a blue sky thinker!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Cameron

Strangely, the comments forums on left wing publications are awash with right-wing American 'contributors' - What's the Spectator so scared of? Hardly a sniff of a dissenting voice here - Will this even make it onto the page?

Peter L.

phil - Oh dear. Don't know where that quote is from. But EVEN IF it were fair in its assesment (it isn't in the slightest as any bona fide scholar of the subject will tell you - Destruction of European Jews polemical!!!! - you really can't have read much) it would do NOTHING to refute my point. Are you saying that Hilberg counts as a Denier (as Jacobson must)? As you have failed to grasp the point on repeated occasions I have little hope of an answer. In fact, don't waste my time or yours. All of your other statements are irrelevant or worse. You do waste a lot of time doing this don't you phil (who claims to be Jewish). Why don't you devote it to reading some valuable books rather than making ludicrous comments. I expect you will insist on replying. If you must fill your days in such a way, try and answer the direct question with a yes or no. Save all of the other stuff for a confessional you are unlikely to attend.

Trumpeldor

All leftist here in their feedbacks are characterized by ONE thing : OUTRAGEOUS IGNORANCE in many fields,especially in history.
Is this ignorance a byproduct of varous leftist government in Britain that decided to throw serious education curriculum to the sewers ????

Joe Strummer

wonderer- The IRA are a sectarian fascist organisation whose aim indeed was to expel the British Protestant community from Northern Ireland. They've just about already accomplished this aim in the city of Londonderry.

When asked what was to become of the Unionist people of Ulster if the IRA succeeded in bombing their way to an United Ireland,the IRA's response was " they better learn how to swim back to Britain "

Both Hamas and the bigots of the IRA however do have something in common as in both are experts in propagandising their terrorism acts as "legitimate". Only a fool believes them.

HarleyDavidson

That's the spirit, Georgie boy! It's always gratifying when you "independent human rights" fellows come out into the open and declare yourselves for Hamas so blatantly.

Now, Georgie, let's deal with a fact or two. Hamas. Both Israel and Egypt tried to lock down Gaza in an effort to get Hamas to stop rocket attacks without the use of force. Result, even more rocket. Now, Georgie, here's where you "human rights" fellows could have done some good. Perhaps add you voices at this critical moment in time and maybe, just maybe, Hamas would have come to their senses and stopped the rocket attacks BEFORE Operation Cast Lead ever occurred. After all you are currently at university where individuals are supposedly thought to think. And in this particular case, even you had to understand Israel would have to defend their own citizens from those rocket attacks at some point in time. You had to know at that time when and if Israel did the outcome would not be pretty.

Had you "human rights" folks spoke up then and used whatever influence you had at that time there never would have been an Operation Cast Lead. Never would have been an innocent child on either side maimed and frightened. Had you all shown the courage then governments would have gotten the message and also brought pressure on Hamas knowing full well what had to happen if the rockets did not stop.

Here at this extraordinary moment in time, you did NOTHING! You didn't even try. Your collective voices went silent. You knew the rockets were falling inside Israel. You knew.

Unless of course, you all considered the Jewish people living under the rocket were not classified as "Human" and had no "rights" worth defending. Perhaps that is why your silence was so deafening.

barackobama

The rhetoric and anger obscures the tangible consequences of Cast Lead.
1 Right-wing Israeli parties have increased their representation in parliament.
2 The PLO is wildly unpopular.
3 Peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan are under pressure and moderate Arab states have effectively given up on the peace process.
American Middle East policy under eight years of President Bush has been invalidated in less than a month.
The Arab world, due to the oil price crash, is heading towards a period of turmoil. In contrast, Iran, which may elect a moderate president in June and open talks with the US, is poised to redefine itself as a stabilising force in the region as it was before 1979.

LaurenceF

Thank you Melanie for pointing us in the direction of this article, for two reasons. One, because it is as you yourself say, magnificent. Two, because the comments underneath the original article so clearly demonstrate the irrational, vitriolic, hateful anti-Zionism (as Mr Jacobson says, it's not anti-Semitism!) spewed out by the very type of bigot who the article describes. To paraphrase an old advert for the Independent - 'anti-Semitic. It is, are you?'

davo

if all those people who proclaim that 'We are all Hamas now' were Palestinians they would have to proclaim that they are all Shaheeds now or else.
Hamas leaders have told the west and you can easily google these numerous proclamations that they will not hesitate to make martyrs of all palestinians regardless of age.
In this they have been true to their word.
They fire from an apartment at the Israelis.The occupants are not allowed to leave for they must support the jihad and become martyrs if required.
The israelis return fire and women and children are killed along with the hamas fighters.
Why have these innocents been forced to die?
Because of the hunger by the western media for Israeli attrocities to feed to their rabid israeli hating readers.
It is this hunger to expose Israelis as brutal Nazis by much of the MSM which is driving the murder of these innocents.
Hamas themselves care nothing for the death of the innocents they have engineered but they know the propaganda value in the west is priceless because as they say we value death more than you value life.

A2D

"Finally, I saw recently a picture of a Palestinian little girl dead with her feet blown off, leg bones sticking through the mangled flesh; can you tell me what her crime was? " Yes -- her crime was being in the way of a hammas bomb! PS: I remember asking myself a similar question when Israellis were murdered by a suicide bomber. Childrens' body parts blown all over the street. Bet you don't condemn that, do you?, Georgie?

phil

George Laird well done sonny, another great job of cutting and pasting -can I assume you are on a decorating course?.but no questions answered-I am happy to have your childish patter on the thread as it shows what a silly boy you are and now nobody need take anything you say seriously.I usually manage to smoke out the lesser intellects here and I have managed it again without much trouble this time and with great fun for me, thanks sonny .I doubt that anyone else will engage with you now unless Harley was sleeping late ..

Silva

George should rename his organisation the Campaign for Bigots' Rights. It is highly disrepectful of HUMAN rights (unless Jews are not human, eh, George???)

phil

Peter L don't worry I never waste my time when showing an idiot up for what he is and you do not need to worry about whether I am Jewish or not .All those that I have regard for here know where I am coming from and I am sure they will view you with the same disgust as I do -if you wonder why I bother to reply .I took a valuable lesson quite some time ago from Adam B who told me never to let the likes of you have a free rein ,lest anyone should think silence made you right.
Smart asses never do well in Jewish society so I am confident you are viewed as an ignoramus wherever you live -You may like to reply but it will be received with same derision whatever you say ,and so far you have said nothing worth reading .

You could of course try making friends with young georgie in Glasgow but I doubt that a Jewish revisionist would go down too well with his little click -sad to say Peter that if and when the time comes they will deal with you just the same as me but with you kicking and screaming but ! but ! but ! -you need a real history lesson not your ridiculous revisionism .Go to Maccabi and get a game of table tennis it will make you a lot happier ,otherwise you may well finish sailing in the Flying Dutchman .

LaurenceF

Actually MMBB, your quote from the utterly odious Gerald Kaufman does not demonstrate that it is possible to be be anti Israel without being anti Jewish. What it does do however, is demonstrate that it is possible to be anti Semitic and a Jew.

The man claims to love Jews, yet was silent when thousands of rockets were being fired from Gaza into Israel.

In the same speech quoted above he also mentioned that Arafat was a friend of his(some of my best friends are terrorists!) - how any self-respecting Jew can call a man with so much innocent Jewish blood on his hands a 'friend' is astonishing.

It's not Israel's ethos and morals that Kaufman needs to be concerned about. It's his own.

Michael B

George Laird,

Your arguments reflect the intellectual and moral equivalent of the antics of a newly pubescent teenage boy attempting to impress the favored girl in the class. They barely rise to the level of tendentiousness. From silly misrepresentations of Jacobson's piece to emotional but otherwise uncomprehending appeals, it all results in an officious comedy of errors and moral incoherence. Hold tight to your titular bona fides because without that: poof.

zikomo

The first"comment"in reply to Harold Jacbson's column tells you all you need to know about the readership of The Independant.Indeed,it's exactly what one should expect from a "newspaper"which regularly publishes drek from,among others,the likes of Galloway,Fisk,Cockburn and Pilger.

Rob

Not a bad article. You can see the hate swelling up underneath in the comments, with people espousing the same propaganda coming from Gaza including the debunked bombing of children in UN schools. What else can you expect from Independent readers

logdon

I am sure that some people will be fascinated with your mini autobiography but I am not. The more important issues to address are why you can’t research properly and feel the need to trot out a load of absolute dross.Given your use of “nobbut”, have you had difficult time down pit lad?Finally; Phil don’t give up your day job; you will never make it as a comic or a blue sky thinker!Yours sincerelyGeorge Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

The idiot George Laird talks just like so many of his fellow left wing academics in unproved absolutes and ghastly sneering barbs aimed at his obviously self defined lessers. Where the hell does he think he is? On Planet Laird? Does he think he has a day job as blue sky thinker? (I love the discredited Birtian modes of expression these people use.) If so he’s the square peg in round hole comic in the tragedy of his own psyche. He marshalls tabloidesque factoids, the grislier the better as truth such as the tale of the Palestinian girl. The phoney induced rage just glows off that statement. So far so typical of this onanistic new tribe which is infecting our places of learning. His droning tirades indicate why our universities have to hand out degrees like confetti. Who would learn one jot from boring one sided morons like this? His reeking self regard infects any objectivity and he blatantly ignores comment such as the masterly distillation of Israel's history posted by Celina. Obviously not quite fitting his biased taste, or maybe truth is the first casualty when we allow Jew hating monsters like this to run riot in our universities. Remember the attempted ridiculous boycott by AUT from a few years ago? Organised by a Muslim lecturer in the Manchester Science and Technology building they almost fell over themselves in the rush to oblige. Not one question of her not so subtle motive. I knew one such lecturer and his knowledge of the subject of Islamism and Middle Eastern history was, putting it bluntly piss poor. It was kneejerk lefty tribalism, pure and simple. Get them on the subject of racism and it never ends. However tell them that antisemitism in the thin guise of Israel hate is a brand of racism which killed six million Jews, the worst distilled racist incident in history, and the convoluted spurious defensive rants pour forth. It is quite pathetic. Just like poor Georgie.

nosmo29

Vision Aforethought, you are quite right about that discussion, http://www.worldbytes.org/programmes/005/005_004.html, it was intelligent, calm, dignified and thought provoking. However, it was NOT unbiased and the leader of the discussion was a self confessed supporter of the Palestinians. No mention was made of the existential threat to Israel by Hamas and though much was made of Western intervention, nothing was heard about the baleful influence and intervention of Iran.

Carl

poor barckobama - you need to get a grip of economics. The Gulf States are very comfortable at oil being $55 a barrel. Russia etc are not. I guess there will be a few more useless economic migrants heading towards Israel that will boost the racist and apartheid State for a few more years until the inevitable collapse.

LaurenceF

George Laird. George, George, George. Oh dear, where should we start. In your most recent post, which took up a fair amount of space, it must be said, the only fact which you managed to bring up was that Gerald Kaufman's name is spelled with one 'f' and not two. The rest of your piece failed to address any issue raised by anyone else.

However you did try to "address (phil's) points and concerns!
“The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University-is that a degree course ?”
No,(you said) you could have researched that easily"

Based on your recommendation to research your organisation, I did.

Here's what I found: -

Wikipedia - nothing

Google - a selection of comments in the pages of the Spectator, New Statesman etc signed by George Laird of the TCFHRAGU (the rest of it is sooo tiresome to write).

Then I found it!! TCFHRAGU has a website, and here it is! http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.com/ It is a blog. With one entry from 2007. Written by George Laird.)Do the poor boy a favour and send him a comment - he doesn't have any yet.)

So, George, I have researched your organisation, and it consists of you. In your bedsit on your laptop. Well done.

In future, George mate, do yourself a favour and don't bother with the title, and definitely don't recommend that anyone research it. Because like your comments its empty.

And it's kind of sad.

Linda Smith

George Laird, In your comment of 18 Feb 6:33pm you wrote: "Gaza is a walled ghetto; medical supplies, food and fuel into the ghetto are restricted by the Israelies. People die in the ghetto due to the harsh conditions. There is no need for gas chambers when the people can be starved and their own fabric of life destroyed. I would say the comparison is to let the Israelis know that they are acting in the same way as the very people they use to justify their actions."

You ignored my question to you in my post of 19 Feb 11.26am regarding Egypt's border with Gaza: Why would Egypt pen its Moslem brothers and sisters into a "Warsaw ghetto "?

However, in your response at 4:16pm to Harley Davidson, you wrote "Gaza does indeed have an Arabic neighbor who shut its own border with Gaza. What does this prove? Very little indeed, the Egyptians have peace with Israel; I would think that the Egyptians are putting their national interest first..."

Now Mr Laird, you sign yourself "Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University. If you are really concerned about the Human rights of Palestinians. who you claim are penned into a "new Warsaw ghetto", I do not see why you accuse only the Israelis of doing this; I do not see why in your eyes the Egyptians are not equally at fault for penning the Palestinians into a "new Warsaw ghetto" as they have a border with Gaza which they can open or send aid through to their fellow Moslems as they see fit. I do not see why you are not condemning the Egyptians at the very least for colluding with the Israelis in abrogating the Human Rights of the Palestinians . Instead you make excuses for the Egyptians. I cannot see that a genuine Campaign for Human Rights would condemn one State for abrogating human rights but condone another State's abrogation of the very same rights to the extent of finding excuses for the second State's behaviour.

Mr Laird, you wrote "we are looking at history and comparing the actions of the Israeli Jews with similar actions of the Third Reich..." If your Campaign for Human Rights is not to be accused of antisemitism, you need to provide a credible explanation for your failure to also berate Egypt as well as Israel for creating what is in your opinion a "new Warsaw ghetto". Is your Campaign at Glasgow University really for universal Human Rights or does it have another agenda altogether,,,,,,,?.

Nehama

HarleyDavidson et al. Re. George Laird.

George Laird is not at Glasgow University, nor is he on faculty, his "Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University" is not a Campaign for Human Rights based at Glasgow University, it is a campaign calling on the university administration to implement Human Rights on campus. It seems George Laird has a bee in his (Scotch) bonnet and thinks the University administration are criminals. Don't waste your time with him.

Nehama

Carl, what race are these Israeli racists you talk about?

celina

It appears to me that many people on The Independents thread do not appear to be able to think critically. They seem to just repeat sound bites [emotionally sometimes] that one hears over and over on the media but which are just isolated pieces of information, mostly unproven and without context. Have we in this country forgotten the art of critical thinking, meaning are we all brainwashed?
I am aware that anyone who thinks from the outset that they may not agree with what I am going to say would just not bother to read it, even if there might be critical pieces of factually supported information that could change their view. The point being that they just are not going to change their view, no matter what came to light, end of story. Here is why we are so entrenched; there seem to be only 2 viewpoints, pro Israel or Against Israel. Before you say anything, anyone who is not totally 100% against Israel is, in other people's eyes condoning the "evil" Israel. But what about those who would have liked her to do something else but were told, heck we've tried everything else, suggest something!
It is understandable, for example that many reading The Independent would belong to the anti-Israel group as The Independent has a sister paper, Al-Jazeera. The Independent, despite its name would not have the freedom to swap its affiliation with a partnership like that.
How far are we all so completely sold to our story and why?
Mr. Jacobson does the important job of analyzing the all-important quality of the words the media give that lock into preset emotional triggers, the perfect propaganda.

wonderer

Joe Strummer, you're right, except that I didn't deny that the IRA wanted to expel the British protestants from Ulster. I said, "the IRA never sought to overturn British rule in Great Britain and expel or exterminate the inhabitants". GB is England, Scotland and Wales. That is the true analogy with the aims of Hamas.

George

Carl - please provide me with one fully documented example of the practice of apartheid within the state of Israel

phil

wow!!! well georgie boy you heard it first from me ,I do not think many people think much of you here .May I make a serious suggestion to you .-I will indulge myself anyhow --before you go out into the real world and try to earn an honest kopek you had better learn to control your mouth ,employers do not take kindly to loose cannons like you are presenting yourself here .You had better learn how to behave in a grown up world.

Mr R

Oh, Carl, what are you dribbling on about? You've lived neither in Israel nor in South Africa (and probably not even been to either) so your hysterical accusations do your "cause" no favors.

George Laird

Dear logdon

Thank you for cutting and pasting part of my previous post.

I never knew that you were so talented.

As to your other tripe, I would like to inform you that paragraphs have come back into fashion in the west.

I never bothered to read the content.

As to the other posters, who have mouthed off, what tripe also.

I don't claim to be a blue sky thinker but obviously my remark hit home to those who kid themselves on that they have that ability.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Mark Solomon

True Brit

"Perhaps the British public will be more sympathetic to the plight of Israel when said country stops collectively punishing and/or murdering (delete as appropriate) Palestinian civilians.
As Brits, we side with the underdog. It is hard to side with Israel when it acts so abominably."

What utter nonsense and a sad demonstration how reason and intelligent understanding have disappeared in modern Britain due to 30 years of socialist 'education'.

More than 20 Muslim states - one Jewish one. 200 million Arabs - less than 10 million Israelis - who are you trying to kid is the underdog?

Since when was 'supporting the underdog' the predeterminant of anyone's foreign policy - let alone Britain's? Shouldn't justice, decency and what is right play a role - not to mention the national interest? The UK should have no interest in supporting the side who have us as number 2 on the target list! The Arabs themselves made no more than ritual protests about Gaza - they know that any success for Iranian puppets Hamas spells doom for stability in the Mid East.

As to collective punishment and civilians, when 'civilians' blow themselves up in discos and bus stops and vote against a party in favour of peaceful co-existence and vote in favour of a party that denies Israel's right to exist and openly fires missiles at it, then sorry, but I don't see them as civilians.

By your 'argument' about the underdog, do you mean Britain should have switched sides in the Second World War in 1944 and supported the underdog Hitler because he was up against the combined might of the USA and USSR and couldn't possibly win?

Try some intelligent argument on here next time, this is not the Mirror!

nosmo29

Carl,
The economic migrants to Israel from Russia may include some doubtful elements, but have been anything but useless!
Regarding oil, whatever the variations in price, I think the Arabs have up to the next 50 years window of opportunity before the commodity, (and the Arabs) lose their significance in global energy use and consequent economic stranglehold of the rest of the world. Will they make the most of it? - we must wait and see but the signs aren't good. And at the end of that period they will still have an even stronger Israel to deal with.

Vision Aforethought

@nosmo29: Agreed, however, in view of his admitted bias, I felt his handling of the debate was the 'coolest' and least 'drama queen' like of any such event. I am sure that if the discussion had gone on for longer, Hamas and Iran would have come up.

Thing is, debate would go on forever probably!?

Shezza from Oz

Celina
February 19th, 2009 3:11pm

Great summary - but perhaps you should have expanded a bit more on the actual 1948 war for the historically challenged among the commentators. The ones who claim that Israel was never under existensial threat and always had state of the art equipment. You should have mentioned, for their benefit, that most of the "soldiers" fighting that war were survivers and refugees from the Second wolrd War.

Penny

Dear George Laird

In my view, being concerned with Human Rights is a worthy occupation, but one which also requires the scrutiny of all parties involved. Focusing on, say, Israel's role, whilst overlooking the abuse of human rights as demonstrated by Hamas, and those who preceded them, will not help the Palestinian people. And that must surely be the objective?

George - there are unscrupulous military and psychological strategies employed by Hamas. I'm sure you would agree that they are not fools who fired rockets into Israel over a period of years - and didn't expect a response. Of course they did and as such this strategy had to be part of a plan.

Whilst awaiting a response they had ample time to build shelters, devise evacuation policies for women and children plus a general, civilian emergency policy. They could have fought outside of civilian areas and not used children as human shields. Furthermore, they do not have to run summer schools in which 12yr olds are taught the glories of suicide bombing. But then, they are in for the long haul - as stated in their Charter.

From a psychological perspective, the Charter is important. If the aim is to wipe Israel off the map, then how do you ensure that the people will support you through all those long years of fighting? You create an emotional and physical environment in which they, too, want to fight - and a decent, welfare state will not support those aims. Hamas wants neither peace nor a decent standard of living for the people. The moment that happens, the Charter is in jeopardy.

The Palestinian people remain impoverished, despite the billions of dollars that has been given to them. Where did that money go? We know that Arafat was a crook who appropriated money for his own ends - such as building a casino in Jericho, opposite a refugee camp, in place of the hospital he promised. His wife's spending sprees are legend and he owned a private plane. Any attempts to end his corruption resulted in the deaths, exile or imprisonment of those who opposed him (one example would be the 29 Palestinian professors who, in 1997, gave it a try)

Khaled Abu Toameh is a Palestinian journalist who despairs of us. Of Israel, of America, of Europe....because we persistantly pump money and even guns into the hands of Palestinian leaders whose self-serving interests are paramount.

He says..

" My argument is as follows. The fact that Arafat was crooked didn't surprise us Palestinians. We were only surprised by the fact that the international community kept giving him money and refused to hold him accountable when he stole our money. Why didn't they invest something? They didn't want to believe it"

"By depriving these people of money, what did Arafat do? He radicalized the Palestinians who did not see the fruits of peace. So that's reason number one why Palestinian society is radicalized"

"Reasons number two is that you (USA) gave Yasser Arafat guns so that he could kill Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but instead he directed those guns against anyone who said they wanted reform or democracy"

"Reason number three. You gave Yasser Arafat money to open a TV and radio station. And on this TV and radio station Arafat said “Jihad, jihad, kill the crusaders, kill the Jews, kill the infidels, kill everyone but me.” Now you may ask yourself why Arafat was inciting against his peace partners in Israel, why was he inciting against the Americans and Europeans who were feeding him? It doesn't make sense"

"Well, to us it does make sense. This is how our Arab dictators survive. They constantly blame the miseries of our people on the Jews and the West and the Crusaders and the infidels and the Zionist lobby and the imperialists. They use all these slogans. Arab leaders always need to make sure that their people are busy hating somebody else, preferably the Jews and the Americans. Otherwise their people might rebel, and God forbid they might demand reforms and democracy"

So, that was Arafat's time. What is happening now? Nothing new, I'm afraid. As mentioned, despite the billions poured into the Palestinian cause, the people remain impoverished and embittered - as is required by their leaders. Even when they were given Gaza, they bulldozed the infrastructure.

If we only but widened our sights and looked at the corruption going on amongst those who would lead the Palestinian people; if we considered the possibility that there is much, much more going on than 'Israel' - perhaps they would stand a chance.

Yehuda

George of Glasgow University:
Your post has just provided empirical evidence in addition to that of Edward of Oxford's post, to support my contention that formerly great Britain is well on the way to becoming the world's biggest producer of buffoons.

barackobama

Carl,
The Gulf states may be comfortable, but they have not much more than 10 per cent of the total Arab population. The rest of the region will be seriously affected by the global depression and unemployment will rise, fuelling support for populist parties (which will be in the Hamas model in Sunni Muslim states).
The purpose of Cast Lead remains unclear. But its political consequences seem counterproductive. Despite having masterminded Cast Lead, Ehud Barack's Labour Party has never been so unpopular.
Moderate Arab states, including two with a peace treaty with Israel, are being Hamasised. Their governments are consequently withdrawing from any engagement with Israel. President Peres' persistent claims that moderate Arabs are ready to partner Israel against Iran, always fanciful, now look extremely silly.
The events of the past two months have delivered a hammer blow to US national interests. Bringing Israel and moderate Arab states has been the central goal of US Middle East policy since 1948 (that includes during the presidency of the saintly and underestimated George W Bush). It now looks impossible.
For a generation at least, the politics of the Arab world will be driven by Hamas-style political leaders.
Israel's future is with parties and leaders who tend to want to annex the West Bank and, logically, expel its non-Israeli population.
This is an option that the overwhelming majority of Israel's leaders since 1948 rejected, not because they didn't want the whole Palestine mandate, but because the consequences for Israel would be so dire.
The region is heading towards a period of dangerous turmoil. So the most important result of Cast Lead is that it has made it almost certain that the US will have to turn to Iran to help stabilise a region vital to US national interests. There is now no way that Washington (under Republicans or Democrats) will allow an attack on Iran, with or without nuclear weapons.
Anyway, we can all claim to be right.
But no one will be able to say that we weren't warned.

Derek BLADES

Nature
February 18th, 2009 7:33pm

Robert Wright's reply to your letter of complaint to the BBC was a model of courtesy and impartiality. It is particularly creditable that he bothered to reply at all to your own semi-literate letter. You have enhanced my respect for the BBC, for which I thank you kindly.

Ronnie

Penny, thank you for a very, very good post.

GC

I glanced at the Howard Jacobson piece (long and wordy) and what struck me was a passage you didn't quote where he suggested that the new paradigm of Holocaust denial is to suggest the state of Israel is an unworthy bearer of the sense of Jewish victimhood that brought it into existence in the first place - or something along that line as far as I can make from his overlong meditation on a quick glance.

I think something of the sort is so but of course it's historically inaccurate. The state of Israel has its origins in the Balfour declaration and the British need to finance the First World War, the latter I imagine not escaping Hitler's attention.

However I'm sure that many people are still anti-semitic, It's a centuries old tradition and old habits of thought die hard.

As for Holocaust denial that for the most part seems to me not so much motivated by anti-semitism as a desire to justify Hitler and Nazism.

But it's also plainly true that the rent-an-Annie mob resort to Holocaust denial in their inflamatory placards and the like and that shouldn't surprise us because they don't have a brain cell to speak of, rather than on behalf of, between them and we (I mean the media and especially TV) attach
far too much importance to them.

On a positive side it was very good to see Argentia giving Bishop Williamson the heave-ho and that from a nation that gave refuge to so many Nazi criminals. Be a while before we can expect the same favour from Egypt I dare say.

Celtic Leopard

celina said,

"... there seem to be only 2 viewpoints, pro Israel or Against Israel. Before you say anything, anyone who is not totally 100% against Israel is, in other people's eyes condoning the "evil" Israel. But what about those who would have liked her to do something else but were told, heck we've tried everything else, suggest something!"

A noted Israeli once said, "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives."

It is very clear that the Israeli democracy is far from exhausted.

stanley Jerusalem

Penny - well observed! The parallel between Arafat and Hamas on the one hand and Mugabe is quite notable. Each was assisted extensively by the World and each has brought death and impoverishment to their people. Since Mugabe provides little to World enrichment he is quietly tolerated and likewise for Arafat and Hamas who provide/ed the World with nothing and are therefore useful pawns for one side or another. Expediency disallows the West from proceeding against either tyrant.

Celina

I tried to engage with the blog on the Independent, But the hatred was so deep and entrenched that I had to give up. Just repeated sound-bites of toxicity completely destroying people's critical mind. I am sad for this country and our world and hope to see the day when people wake up from their media induced nightmare

phil

george laird in view of the doubt cast upon your status can you confirm whether or not you are a student of Glasgow University.or is your position a self appointed one -perhaps you can tell us also how many members you have -I am sure you will realise how unfair it would be to bring the university into disrepute with a false association with an unsponsored group.We await another few cut and paste,s from you with eager anticipation ,and an apology to Penny for wasting her time .

stanley Jerusalem

Phil - While you're at it please note that I shall be forming a Dalston Junction University Action Group against Hate and Race Intolerance.
I haven't decided yet whether [1] There is or isn't a Dalston Junction University and [2] Whether I'm for or agin the the movement.
I strongly believe that my B.Sc. in Filleting Herring will provide me with adequate credibility and the weekend is coming on.

שבת שלום
לכולם.

Linda Smith

Derek Blades (20 Feb 7:03am) Presumably according to your model of the world, Derek, the Philospher Kings are entitled to rule the rest of us semi-literate serfs by virtue of their superior literacy.

Adam B.

Surely Derek you were in love with the BBC and its anti-Israel agenda beforehand? Especially as the BBC never covers human rights abuses in China. Remind me, how long did you work for the Chinese government?

Celina

Reb Shlomo Silverstein, my eyes filled with tears when you called for us to come on home. I thought the Uk was my home. I thought I was safe. My mother brought me here from Poland and our family has perished. Thank you, I will certainly remember that.

Ann

"As for Holocaust denial that for the most part seems to me not so much motivated by anti-semitism as a desire to justify Hitler and Nazism."

Hardly. You have it back-to-front. The only reason extremist Islamo-fascists justify Hitler - and admired him during WWII - is because he killed a lot of Jews.

Ann

"Is this ignorance a byproduct of varous leftist government in Britain that decided to throw serious education curriculum to the sewers ????"

Yes.
Although I am sure some people are just plain stupid, and nothing will ever help them. I am thinking here, for example, of a certain self-important Scottish 'defender of human rights'.

davo

It should be plain to see, as PENNY mentioned in an earlier splendid post, that Hamas are playing the western media like a fiddle.
that know that by using their own women and children as human shields that they will raise even more hatred against Jews and Israel in the western psyche already well imbued with judeophobic malice.
When Hamas kills its own people, it is of little significance to western media. even when reported by reputable human rights watch organisation, indeed it is strongly opposed and challenged (see the comments in the Guardians CIF)
Hamas knows that the only mileage it gains in the propaganda war is when it is the Israelis, not Hamas. kills its own civilians.
So THEY MAKE SURE that Israel does kill as many of its civilians as Hamas can arrange.
Of course civilised and educated liberal westerners cannot possibly imagine that any human group could sacrifice its own innocent civilians to eventually deny complete support for Israel by the west and leave it ripe for the picking by murderous Arab neighbours.
But Hamas. who cannot keep their mouths shut have already told us many times that they have no qualms about doing this and that they consider it the duty of all Palestinians to become shaheed martyrs with or without consent.And they are keen to indoctrinate even their own children with this mindset.
There is no doubt that it is the aim of Hamas and other groups involved against Israel, to maximise their own civilian casualties and the roots of these engineered massacres lie in the huge anti israeli propaganda fed to westerners by their own media over many years.
If it were not for these western anti Israel hate fests which need to be fed like some latter day Greek Gorgon, they would have built bomb shelters and drawn up evacuation plans long ago for their own civilians.
SO yes, the western media including the independent, the BBC, France 2, the guardian etc must take their share of the blame for these horrific civilian casualties.

Celtic Leopard

Celina said,

"I am sad for this country and our world and hope to see the day when people wake up from their media induced nightmare."

In 1980, I spent six weeks as a medical student in Israel. I am so sad for what Israel has become .... and the danger Israel now poses to the world.

Suffolkbor

Celtic Leopard:
" In 1980 , I spent six weeks as a medical student in Israel.I am so sad for what Israel has become .... and the danger Israel now poses to the world " .
I think I,m getting spots before my eyes !

Si, N

Penny, when you say to George Laird, ‘I'm sure you would agree that they are not fools who fired rockets into Israel over a period of years - and didn't expect a response’, you too overlook the fact that Israeli rocket fire into Gaza has being going on longer, is far more deadly - and, as the statistics reveal, is equally less concerned about claiming civilian life.

Let’s see those Hamas rockets stats again:

Hamas fired 6,300 rockets and mortars into Southern Israel – that’s 6,300 projectiles each containing approx’ 2lb of low grade (fertiliser) explosive [12.6 tons in total] between 2005-2008 (during the 2008 Egypt brokered ceasefire 8 rockets in a 3 month period were launched at Israel – none of those were fired by Hamas – all were said to be in response to Israel’s tightening of the deadly blockade of food/medicine into Gaza – a grave contravention of the ceasefire conditions).

One would deduce from the commentary on here; from the proclamations by Israeli politicians/military personnel; and all mainstream reporting, that Israel was simply sitting on its hands during the period of Hamas rocket fire.

Absolutely not so.

Between Sept’ 2005 – May 2007 Israel fired 14,617 projectiles into Gaza – that’s 14,617 155mm artillery shells containing military grade high explosive (in the same period 2,700 rockets were lobbed from Gaza).

During that period 3 Israelis were killed.

During that period 600 Palestinians were killed.

Of course the murderous activities/house demolitions/vandalism to farmland/uprooting of orchards/wholesale arrests/ethnic cleansings committed by the Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank – now ably assisted by the collusion of the Fatah security force – continued/continues unabated.

Naturally supporters of Israel and the attendant ethnic cleansing/actual genocide of Palestinians would prefer to focus on the notional genocide of Israel as outlined in the Hamas charter – despite the FACT that Hamas’ acceptance of the Arab Peace Initiative trumps the outdated charter. Please don’t try to deny that – in doing so you merely demonstrate that you are not paying attention. One thing that the recent elections in Israel shows decisively is the rise of those seeking Eretz Israel – certainly a large proportion of the electorate couldn’t give a hoot if their candidate is an imported Russian Nazi-style thug (go on, count those votes cast by a hate-filled imported Russian populace who favour Nazi-style thugs – is that a model of democracy you aspire to?) - and of course ‘moderate’ (joke) Livni clammered to outdo Liberman by insisting that she too favoured ethnic cleansing – that is, the future for Palestinians is ‘somewhere else’. There isn't the slightest indication that Israel is moving towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict - take a closer look - Peres has asked 'right-winger' (cue pp football inanity)Netanyahoo to form the next government - so Libermonster will get to hold sway after all - such a terribly sad indictement of Israel - I utterly fail to see how this is going to further any peace in the region.

In future, do try to bear such details in mind when you attempt to convey that you are in some way a voice of reason.

Wilhelm

Why is it that guilt ridden liberals and the Facist Left can get away with anti semetic comments, Scot free on the Guardian, Independent, BBC ? but Carol Thatcher says golliwog and she is fired and cast out. Go figure.

LaurenceF

I am not sure why my previous post did not get posted, however, I have researched George Laird and his campaign, and surprise, surprise it is nothing more that a figment of his imagination. He has a blog which was updated once in 2007 http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.com/, and all other references to him in Google point to readers comments sections like this. If he is a student, then he has been there for a looong time, since he got his O levels (sorry, O grades!) which were phased out nearly twenty years ago.

C'mon George, 'fess up, you didn't think anyone would actually look into your organisation when you suggested that Phil do research it, did you?

Linda Smith

Celtic Leopard you posted: "I am so sad for what Israel has become...and the danger Israel now poses to the world."

It is fascistic militant Islamic fundamentalism that poses danger to the world - not Israel. Israel is fighting the Islamists on your behalf.

You remind me of those British antisemites in the 1930's who cozied up to the German Nazis - before Britain found itself fighting for freedom from the fascistic Nazi project.

Dixon

Mister B
February 19th, 2009 3:29pm
"Israel has never ever had dated equipment Tony. Theirs has always been state-of-the-art, or at the very least – as in the 1948 war – considerably superior to that of their foes. By the time the 67 war started, Israel was armed to the teeth with the best military hardware money can buy."

My last comment a few days ago beseeched all not to resort to " Iknow, you're an idiot". But already I have to break that by sayiong the above quote from "MisterB" really is absolute rubbish from someone who clearly knows nothing whatsoever about what he is talking about.

FACT, Israel during the 1967 war had as its main battle tank the Centurion ( 1948 model ) and the M$ Sherman...yes, its a fact, second-hand obsolete junk from WW2. Their APC was the second-hand WW2 M3 half track. The Egyptian army had the very latest Soviet T62 tank and BTR60 APCs.

TODAY: Israel STILL uses Centurions ( they are now 60 years old remember ) in frontline service, their turrets removed, as APCs. Their main battle tank is the Merkava, which was designed and built in Israel two decades ago. Their most numerous main battle tank is a modified M60 which are forty years old. THAT is the most "up-to-date" American armour in their army. THAT, is a FACT. The US M4 carbines which arm most of their infantry are second-hand ex-US army stock that are thirty years old. Many of them didnt even work when received. They are, quite literally, junk, and would have been melted down as scrap had they not gone to Israel. Isreal does have its own new hi-tech rifle, the Tavor, but they cannot afford to issue it to more than a handful of units. It has never been observed in combat.

Israel STILL USES T55 tanks ( fifty years old ) captured from Egypt and Syria thirty years ago.

We hear reports of attacks by Israeli "Apache " helicopters. That too is rubbish. As we see on the TV screen whilst the reporters twaddle about "Ap[ache" helicopters...they are actually Bell Cobras, also forty years old, ex-Viet Nam equipment.

Then are Israeli aircraft "state of the art". Hardly, F16s and F15s are now thirty years old and bordering upon obsolete. Aircraft of the same generation are now being retired to junkyards from US service.

Most Israeli equipment is OLD, obsolete, second-hand and by the standards of equipment in Arab arsenals, junk.

Just look at a few Westertn imports their arab enemies posess, "state of the art", well thats the Russian Spiral anti-tank missile ( even Hizballah has them )the French Mirage Rafale and 2000 and the Eurofighter to start with. Brand new built for export French battle tanks and French VAB infantry combat vehicles.

Please folks, when "Mister B " ( sounds like a dumbass DJ ) prates about "factual" assertions, just ignore him, its all rubbish.

Dixon

But there is hope folks...President "new broom" Obama has appreoved at least three deadly UAV attacks in Pakistan since coming to office and ( since its under his watch ) the media have stopped claiming the dead are all innocent women and children ...and he has appointed as CIA head a man who openly states that torture is not allowed - EXCEPT - where other methods have failed. Wow, thats a big change in policy...like closing Gitmo ( on paper, no action yet ) whilst permitting the continued detention without trial of suspects, SOMEWHERE ELSE. As well as continued "rendition".

Seems to me Obammie may shape up OK after all. But he is going to urinate-off an awful lot of his love-fest supporters!

wonderer

SiN, please supply the source of your claim that 14,617 155mm artillery shells were fired by Israel into Gaza in the period Sep2005 to May 2007 and that Israel killed 600 Palestinians (in Gaza?) in the same period. Can you confirm that no intra-Palestinian violence is included in the 600?

stanley Jerusalem

Si, N - You took so long to say so little and to quote bare-faced lies and propaganda to back up what ever it was you were trying to say.Sadly there's no hope for the likes of you.You will be subsumed by the very forces you claim to support and yet you persist in blaming anyone and anything bar your own skewered slant on reality. You poor deluded twit.

stanley Jerusalem

Celine - 42 years ago I was on a bus in the Galilee with my wife discussing whether the guest-house in Tiberias recommended to us would be OK. The driver of the bus interrupted our conversation by apologising for overhearing our relatively quiet conversation and suggested that if it was indeed unsuitable we could use their spare room for 2 or 3 days. That's Israel. Welcome to Israel whenever you want or need to come. You will always be welcome.

stanley Jerusalem

"Can you confirm that no intra-Palestinian violence is included in the 600?"
Internecine strife? Goodness me!
As Lady macbeth said on hearing the news " Duncan the King is slain!"
"Not in my house!"

Leslie

Si,N
If Israel has been practicing "ethnic cleansing," how do you explain the fact that the population of Gaza has increased by almost 40% in the last 10 years?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/16/2492071.htm

George Laird

Dear LaurenceF

I nearly burst out laughing when you wrote that you had "researched" me.

Can you give me and the board a published list of the people I have contacted?

The answer to this question is no, you cannot but let us have you come back and admit it.

Therefore your "research" into what I do, when I do it and all other relevant information is not something that you can provide.

Some researcher!

If the best you can do to try and have a pop at me is to highlight my exposing of people involved in discrimination and theft then you have a long way to go.

Can you give me and the board, the details of my Nuneaton Project; after all you say that you are a "researcher".

If not; we just have to accept that your "knowledge" is a bit sparse and not very impressive.

Finally; I don't get government funding to expose middle class thieves who prey on working class people, I have to do it myself out of my own pocket.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Peter L.

So phil, finally, let's get this straight. For Jacobson a "Denier" encompasses the Dean of Holocaust Studies - Raul Hilberg (not to mention Michael Burleigh, Arno Mayer, Ruth Birn, etc. etc.). You concur (or appear to, or, rather than actually concur bring up a lot of specious stuff about ping-pong, intra-Jewish discussions, your fears about how "George" might try and persecute me etc.etc. All very interesting no doubt, but nothing to do with anything I actually said. Apparently you are trying to ensure I don't get free reign. How exactly? By ignoring the one point made against HJ? By slinging mud? I'm afraid you appear to know very little (quoting from Wikipedia on Hilberg - the same entry calls his work on the Holocaust "seminal" - and you don't know that what you quote is held as an example of a generalised oppostition to Holocaust studies at the time!! - not a critique of scholarship - which NO scholar of the Holocaust, whatever their take, has doubted). So, in short, you fail to answer a simple point, make some hysterical and infantile assertions - and then go on about ping-pong. Doesn't really help us Jews does it. I don't particularly like those who claim to speak as Jews being so ignorant. It doesn't help anyone, certainly not Jews. As I said before - read some books.

Paul L

Obama and the Middle East? This tells you all you need to know about the way that's going:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/obama_reportedly_picks_israel.html

Carl

So Celina, if you do go "home", will it be to land or a house stolen from a Palestinian family?

Mr R

Si N : your stats. Where do they come from? Did you make them up? Or did Hamas? One thing I can tell you: they're pure fabrication. So they don't cut any ice here. Bring us verifiable facts, from a reputable source. Then let's talk, huh?

Celtic Leopard

"It is fascistic militant Islamic fundamentalism that poses danger to the world - not Israel. Israel is fighting the Islamists on your behalf."

What an intensely absurd thing to say! With intense precision, Israel is killing captive Palestinian women and children with DIME munitions and white phosphorous. But not in my name! I pity your obvious humanity, Linda Smith!

Penny

"In future, do try to bear such details in mind when you attempt to convey that you are in some way a voice of reason."

Dear Si N,

I have not attempted to 'convey' myself as anything at all. I was simply responding to Mr Laird.

With respect, my post contained many details other than rockets, which you have decided not to address.

I'm afraid the Charter IS relevant. It is normal for any group - be it a nation state, a political party or a local resident's association, to write a document of intent/policies which is subsequently referred to as a Charter or a Constitution - or similar. It is alterable ONLY via the process of legal amendment(s). It matters not a jot whether a member or members of the group speak for or against it in public, nor whether they agree or disagree with its contents. Nor whether they make promises that appear to be contrary to their charter. Until such time as the written article is amended to reflect the changed values of the group, the Charter or Constitution remains the legal position of that group.

Thus, the Hamas Charter - being unaltered since its inception - reflects their legal position.

I'm afraid I cannot engage with you in respect of 'genocide' or 'ethnic cleansing' since these comments are patently emotive and not based on fact.

However, I am happy to engage on a subject close to my heart, which is the ethnic cleasing and murder of Palestinians undertaken by their Arab brothers in Jordan, Kuwait, Syria - and so on. I am also confident in my knowledge of the ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians from Arab lands from 1950's onwards when some 800,000 plus were ejected and their assets (totalling $6 - $10 billion dollars)were seized. No reparations were ever made. My understanding of this situation is extremely accurate as my husband's family were amongst those exiled and who were stripped of all they owned - right down to the rings on their fingers.

Tsi

Celtic Leopard. You say: "With intense precision, Israel is killing captive Palestinian women and children with DIME munitions and white phosphorous."

I quote something else you said in response: "What an intensely absurd thing to say!"

Celina

Celtic Leopard, If you ask the Israeli government, they will tell you all the different peaceful solutions and offers they have put forwards. What people keep forgetting is that Hamas have repeatedly stated [ and it is in their charter]that it is their religious Duty to wipe out not just Israelis but all Jews. If the Palestinians vote for this they are putting their"religious Duty of genocide of the Jews [and they do state they are calling for a holocaust]
before the safety of their children. Do research this charter.We would all like to know how you get around that, any ideas. The Hamas leaders also state quite openly that they intend their religion to take over the rest of the world. That may sound far fetched but look around.

Celina

I have been told that David Miliband is in receipt of my letter calling for the dismissal of Rowan Laxton for his very public anti- Jew, anti- Israel tirade. It is not acceptable that a top diplomat and Foreign policy advisor can have such views and such power. I do advise others to call for the same..

Si, N

Wonderer, the stats come from HRW’s, ‘Indiscriminate Fire’ – the report carefully tabulates Palestinian and Israeli rocket/mortar fire – HRW drew from UNOCHA data – in producing the report HRW worked closely with Palestinians and Israeli military sources [eg UNOCHA noted 37 shells fired by Israel into Gaza between 14-20 May 2007, however, Israeli military claimed those 37 shells contained no explosives and were for calibration purposes only - hence, HRW discounted those 37 shells from the final tally of 14,617].

To be clear, the Israeli military have not, to the best of knowledge challenged the report. And why should they feel the need – the report remains for the large part buried. There wasn’t the slightest whiff of the 14,617 mortars fired by Israel into Gaza during the reporting of the Dec-Jan massacre in Gaza. So long as there are droves of willing apologists for the ongoing occupation of Palestinian lands and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land – and so long as mainstream media outlets such as the BBC keep those salient details out of sight – why would the Israeli military be concerned about such a report?

About the deaths: as you no doubt know, Israel has now reached a kill ratio of 100 Palestinians for every single Israeli killed - are you unhappy about that in any way?

For sure some Palestinians die at the hand of another Palestinian – if you are at all aware of history you’ll appreciate that these things happen in occupied territories – those who are seen to collude with occupying forces [here read Israel] do not endear themselves with the people suffering under occupation. That said, I said ‘600 Palestinians were killed during that period’ – I didn’t actually attribute the deaths to a particular party. However, given what is known about the conflict, any idiot could deduce that the majority of the dead Palestinians were killed by the Israeli forces who are occupying Palestinian lands and ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their land.

To be clear: the occupation of Palestine by Israel and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land by Israeli occupation forces continue apace – as we speak. Given the outcome of the recent elections in Israel (democracy?) and the ascendancy of neo-fascists in the Knesset it can only be envisaged that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians will be stepped-up somewhat. Further, Libermonster has declared that he will see to it that Israelis too will be stripped of their citizenship if they do not tow the fascistic party line.

And still they’ll say Israel seeks peace – pah!

Wilhelm

Celtic Kitty meeeeooows

''It is fascistic militant Islamic fundamentalism that poses danger to the world - not Israel. Israel is fighting the Islamists on your behalf''

Well said Kitty

Si, N

Penny, thanks you for the temperate response. I mention the rockets because they were cited as the reason why Israel massacred lots of Palestinian civilians – it’s relevant on this thread because Jacobson repeated the claim in his article – the claim was also mentioned by posters on this thread – yourself included.

I merely made the point that Israel also fired a heck of a lot of ammunition into Gaza during the period in question and in doing so killed far more people than did Hamas in Israel. Though I’ll never miss an opportunity to highlight the fact that Israel is occupying Palestinian land and is ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their land - as we speak. To those of us who are paying attention it sure looks like Israel is engaged in a genocidal project. Apologies if in stating that it appears emotive – it is after all a very emotive subject – no?

I leave the japery to jesters such as Staining Jerusalem and mr. r.

phil

stanley Jerusalem please count me in and I expect peter L would like to join ,we need a meshugganah on the board -he can be the one that sponsors cricket matches and cleans the herrings -georgie boy can clean the office now that he is out of work-what fun we can have shabat shalom chaver .fival

phil

peter L I have given you too much time and you cant afford my fees so give us a break your stupidity is overwhelming me and no doubt many others -write to Howard if you like,but I think he might swat you like a fly ,which is what I should have done in the first place .I had a client like you once ,eventually he was certified and he never paid his fees so geh kaken ok .let me know if you need translation ,Stanley can help I,m sure .

phil

Well I have found george laird it seems he calls himself a mature student and tries to sell weightlifting equipment,writes to Scottish newspapers where it seems his comments are mostly removed ,in fact we have a nutter in our midst or an impostor whichever you prefer -Laurence F is right this guy is off his chump ,I suggest we leave him be ,It was fun whilst it lasted but we have better fish to fry than him .goodbye georgie boy vaya con dios

Celtic Leopard

Celina said,

"I have been told that David Miliband is in receipt of my letter calling for the dismissal of Rowan Laxton for his very public anti- Jew, anti- Israel tirade."

Many people have been very upset by the sheer viciousness of the Israeli attack on Gaza.

Mo

Si N, Celtic leopard, Carl, Laird ... they all just say the same thing over and over and over ... impervious to reason ... simply repeating the same assinine idea that Israel, a beleagured country who has been forced into war by its neighbours since it was given its territory by the UN in 1948, is the bad guy and the others, are the good guys! You know what -- you're wrong, you're filled with hatred, and I'm bored with your utter nonsense. When you talk sense (and quote demonstrably unmanipulated facts) then maybe you'll be taken notice of. Right now you're losing credibility.

Ann

"With intense precision, Israel is killing captive Palestinian women and children with DIME munitions and white phosphorous"

That's a LIE.

Linda Smith

Celtic Leopard: you say you were a medical student in 1980. I very much hope you failed to qualify as a doctor because you lack intellectual rigour.

Hamas are militant Islamic fundamentalists and Iran's proxies; but in your opinion that is "an intensely absurd thing to say. The only absurd thing around here, Celtic Leopard is you. (by the way, funny name for a doctor).

You also wrote "I pity your obvious humanity, Linda Smith!" As this sentence has no meaning in the English language, please could you rephrase it.

You failed to respond to my post of 18 Feb 3:06pm (like all bigots when they have no answer), so I will repeat it again:

You posted "There was an alternative to Israel's vicious attack on a captive people". Please elucidate with regard to Hamas's Charter which calls for the destruction of Israel and genocide of worldwide Jewry.

Si, N

Mo, I don’t care a jot about how ‘bored’ you are in all your self-regarding pity – freak - I’m interested in countering the mindless repetition of Israeli propaganda that passes as intelligent comment on this blog.

‘[B]ad guys…good guys’, ‘beleagured country’ (sic), ‘forced into war’, ‘given its territory by the UN in 1948’: and you've got the neck to accuse me of positing asininities?

Dreadful is the thought of gaining credibility in a forum such as this.

davidka

in the old days you could say to your teacher 'excuse me sir, the earth goes around the sun, does it not?'
the teacher would reply 'that's right son'
today the reply is 'well that's a matter of opinion son'
that is what has produced the infuriating posters on this site.
All proof, scientific or otherwise no longer exists-its all a matter of opinion.
So why even bother to learn history if all facts are now been rendered worthless?

Carl

Ann, Israel is killing Palestinian women and children. This is the TRUTH.

Si, N

Linda Smith, in the interests of ‘intellectual rigour’ you ought to enquire:

why Israeli officials nurtured Hamas in the first place.

In view of that nurturing, would it not seem equally sensible to say Hamas were Israel’s ‘proxies’?

You might evenly ask, ‘what should Israel not have done’?

In what way did Israel’s grave contraventions of the 2008 ceasefire conditions bring the region closer to peace?

In what way did tightening the blockade of Gaza - denying food and medicine to 1.5 million people make safer the people of Israel?

Be honest – have you really considered the alternatives?

Hamas is agreeable to the Arab peace initiative - the best offer on the table - Hamas has effectively back-tracked on its charter - why does Israel flatly refuse to accept such desperate overtures for peace in the region?

Please don't default to rocket mode.

Ann

Israel is defending itself against unprovoked attacks on peacesul Israeli civilians. That is the TRUTH.
Arab women and children are placed in harm's way by Hamas putting rocket launchers among them, which is a WAR CRIME. That is the TRUTH.
All your Jew-hating screeching and lies won't change day to night and your lies to facts.

Ann

Celina, what do you expect from a rag that employs the likes of Fisk and Pilger?
Most of the media in this country have become sewers of antisemitism, festering with hate-filled and lying scribblers of whom the Stuermer would have been proud.

Peter L.

No need for a translation phil (amusing sugestion - I somehow doubt you actually know your Hebrew - I do because I actually care about Judaism - as opposed to my ethnic fellows (like you) who shame my religion with their moral and intellectual degeneracy). So many posts and nothing to say - but then it's evident your intelligence is inversely proportional to the frequency of your posts. But thanks for conceding my point so graciously. Given that it so obviously a correct one and irrefutable (pointing out that Jacobson's assertion results in a reductio) I doubt your "Howard" could disagree with me let alone refute anything (rather pathetic you have to call upon someone else after having conceded the point, but there it is). You are a sad case phil - incapable of argument or indeed much else. The sheer nastiness of posters on this site is like nothing I have seen. I recommend you all read this, by a wise Gentile with a rather better understanding of the Torah than "phil" the man who claims to be a Jew:
http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/hprweb/orsi_june08.htm

Carl

Si, N - the apologists carefully overlook the Israeli nurturing and support for Hamas, it is a logic bomb for them.

Linda Smith

Davidka you posted: "in the old days you could say to your teacher 'excuse me sir, the earth goes around the sun, does it not?....All proof, scientific or otherwise no longer exists - its all a matter of opinion."

There is no "proof" in science. There are only theories to explain observable events. The scientist's task is to falsify the theory. So that, in the old days you could say to your teacher 'excuse me sir, the earth is the centre of the Universe, is it not?' until that theory was falsified.

The major difference between scientific theories of the material universe and human "sciences" is that the human being is an active agent in the human "sciences" with beliefs, intentions and purposes motivating his actions and his interpretation of his and others' actions.

It is certainly worth learning the facts of history in order to confront "the infuriating posters on this site" with the falsity of the facts they offer up in support of their interpretation of events and/or the failure of their interpretation to account for all the facts in all the circumstances of the event under debate.

You may notice that when skillfully challenged, an infuriating poster will fail to make a response because any response will show up the falsity of his facts and/or the illogicality of his position.

Unfortunately, because we deal here in human affairs which are often driven by personal agendas and/or religious ideology, many posters will tenaciously hold to their position despite empirical factual evidence to the contrary in much the same way as the Catholic Church refused to accept Gallileo's empirical scientific evidence in the 17th century because it falsified Catholic religious doctrine.

CelticLeopard

"Celtic Leopard: you say you were a medical student in 1980."

Thank you Linda: yes I qualified as a doctor in 1981 and became a GP in 1986.

I remember my time in Israel - at a hospital in Haifa - with affection - it was a time of great hope. I remember the views of young Jewish colleagues and being startled at their burning hatred for the Arabs. I remember the generous hospitality of young Israeli Arabs. Incidentally, I don't remember being invited into the home of any Israeli Jews in Haifa. I slept on the beach by the Sea of Galilee, walked through the Garden of Gethsemane, visited the Dome of the Rock, bussed through the Gaza Strip and then took a cab to Cairo. Such times are past: Israel has killed all hope of such a future. I am so disappointed - I know that I shall never return to Israel.

Peter L.

Galileo's empirical scientific evidence did not falsify Catholic religious doctrine because a) The Church did not hold as a truth of faith something which Galileo's theory could refute b) Galileo was incapable of providing empirical scientific evidence for his hypothesis (he produced a ludicrous theory to do with tides). That he was later proved right is not the point here - and does not make true your statement re. Galileo.
I suggest you consult the scholarship here - Stanley Jaki is a good place to start - for a more popular history take a look at Koestler's The Sleepwlakers.
As for centre of the universe - it is unclear what this actually means, given what we appear to know about the universe.
Re. arguments and infuriating posters - I agree. My experience has been that, repeatedly on Ms Phillips' blog, historical facts are treated as irrelevant and any ad hominem attack will do. Ironic then that Jacobson classes as "Deniers" honorable Jews and others who rightly condemn the trivialation of the Holocaust.

Iqbal

"Dreadful is the thought of gaining credibility in a forum such as this," says Si. Then why bother writing anything here if you don't want it to be credible?

JJS

"Hamas has effectively back-tracked on its charter " How so, SiN? Can you please explain how they have "effectively" done this? Is this the same way in which they "effectively" want peace but continue to send rockets into Israel? Clearly I do not understand ME logic - perhaps you could enlighten me?

Linda Smith

Si, N, Your comment addressed to me found you firmly lost in the trees, unable to see the wood. You finally asked me "...why does Israel flatly refuse to accept such desperate overtures for peace in the region?" I direct you now, as I directed Derek Blades before you on another thread, to Con Coughlin's article of 4 Feb 09 on this Spectator website: "Iran Will Not Unclench Its Fist, Mr President" from which I quote briefly:

"...most of the turmoil, whether in Gaza or Iraq, can be traced back directly to the activities of Khomeini's heirs.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards, whose creation Khomeini personally authorised soon after his triumphant return from exile in Paris, have spent the past three decades developing an elaborate network of alliances with militant Islamist terror cells that today stretches from the Horn of Africa to the lawless tribal areas of the Hindu Kush, from the barrios of Buenos Aires to the more radical mosques located in the British Isles....

.......Forget Israel: with technology like this Iran could soon have the capability to threaten continental Europe."

I have more confidence in the learned analyses of seasoned commentators like Con Coughlin than I have in the bigoted twaddle spouted by Israel-haters like you and Carl. Your question "...why does Israel flatly refuse to accept such desperate overtures for peace in the region?" is just another load of daft nonsense. Israel is not the big bad bogeyman - it's Iran, stupid and all the other militant Islamic Fundamentalists who don't want peace - they want world domination. And I'm not a supporter of militant Islamic fundamentalism, even if you are.

Dixon

Linda Smith, the kind of knowledge you refer to is not "mpiriucal". "Empirical" literally means apprehended by the senses. History can never be apprehended by the senses. It is not empirical but, I suppose, "canonical".

I also think you are misunderstanding what is meant by "falsification" in science. You state it as a negative action. Rather, it is "falsifyability" that you are trying to refer to. The formulation of a scientific hypothesis ( as opposed to one in terms of "common" or other "senses" ) depends upon that putative "explanation" of a phenomenon being capable of being shown wrong if indeed it is incorrect, by experiment. Hence the term "falsifyability".As Karl Popper would have it.

Anna

Si Ni

Human Rights Watch?

Do you mean that so-called human rights protector that has become so infiltrated by Palestinians and their supporters that it now functions as a propaganda arm for terrorists - http://www.aijac.org.au/?id=editionarticle&articleID=5653&_action=showArticleDetails

Give us all a break please!

Anna

Si Ni,

Let's put to rest your ridiculous claims about Israel's so called grave breaches of the so-called truce.

Most of these false claims centre on the incident that took place on 4 November 2008.

What happened was that a gang of armed Palestinians was digging a tunnel from Gaza into Israel - much like the one that was dug when other Palestinians kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit 2 years ago. There is no logical explanation for the digging of such a tunnel except that it was for terrorist purposes. The Palestinians were sprung and in the ensuing gunfight, 6 Palestinian tunnel diggers cum terrorists were killed. There is no doubt that Israel is entitled to defend its territory (or are you suggesting that every other sovereign nation on the face of this earth bar Israel is entitled to this right?).

Meanwhile, in the 6-month truce period before and after the 4 November incident, Hamas did nothing to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Gaza and 300 missiles and 300 mortar rounds were fired at civilian targets in Israel.

When the ceasefire date expired, Hamas refused to renew it and started firing more missiles at Israeli civilian targets. The firing of every individual missile and mortar at non-combatants is an international war crime and Israel was entitled to say it had had enough after showing more than adequate restraint.

So tell us again, who breached the ceasefire?

Derek BLADES

Phil, 19 Feb 12:54pm wrote:"Derek BLADES I see you are back from your retreat from questions posed to you on numerous other threads ,peddling you usual smut .do you not realise that your credibility is bare ,or rather like carl you like a little flagellation -turns you on?"

To which I suppose the only answer is "Yarhoo to you too!".

I am bringing this to the attention of Melanie's staff responsible for filtering the comments posted on her blogs. I am quite prepared to see Phil make substantive points relevant to the discussion however ill-considered or mischevous his views may be. But playground name-calling has no place on a blog that pretends to be a platform for serious debate. Phil's letter should have been binned.

Derek BLADES

George Laird
February 18th, 2009 6:33pm. Your letter was an excellent critique of the Jacobson article highlighted in Melanie's column. It was thoughtful, well written and fair to all involved. I hope you will continue to contribute to this and other Melanie blogs.

Your mistake, George, was to answer the "questions" put by the paranoid bigots who inhabit this column. By answering them you lower yourself to their level. Nothing infuriates them more than being ignored and this can be a source of endless amusement.

Celina

Carl, it appears you missed the part in which I wrote;Israel has a government agency that holds in trust any Arab property that was abandoned when Arabs fled from the 1947-48 war which their leaders initiated against Israel.
As part of a definitive peace settlement, Israel has undertaken to compensate the owners.
It is highly unlikely the Arab states will ever compensate or give the right of return to the almost one million Jewish refugees whom they forced to flee from Arab countries where Jews had lived for centuries before the Arab conquest, yet in the interest of balance would the Jews have the same right of return to the Arab States?
My mother arrived here in the UK in the clothes she stood in, The Polish Gov. confiscated all we owned.
The sad thing is the poison that leaks from your post, an ongoing world phenomena.

Celina

Stanley in Jerusalem, Thank you also for the warmth of your welcome. The aspect that remains in my memory of Israel is the pervasive energy of love in yor country. It is through love that humans create and build.

MV

Peter L. is quite right re. the absurd extension of the term "Denier". "phil's" complete inability to articulate any kind of meaningful point in opposition is telling and depressing (see how he and those of like mind always change the subject in debates of this sort - a well-known tactic and a very very tiresome one). Don't worry Peter L. - I don't doubt that you are more representative of Judaism (I'm a Christian) than some of the smearers here (Melanie is irenic in comparison to them).
oh, by the way, I've corresponded with Howard Jacobson a couple of times. I strongly disagree with him on any number of things, but I do know that he wouldn't care for the "support" of some of his supposed "fans" here and that he knows how to condusct himself with warmth and charity. In spite of everything re. Israel he doesn't have time for smearers, bigots etc.
Meantime I suggest readers take a look at this:
http://www.bilin-village.org/english/articles/different-look/Erase-my-grandfather-s-name-at-Yad-Vashem

Lizzy

"All proof, scientific or otherwise no longer exists-its all a matter of opinion.
So why even bother to learn history if all facts are now been rendered worthless?"

Davidka, I couldn't agree with you more. It doesn't matter how well you research the facts, how much you know of what has really happened, the Left is still adamant in their beliefs. Wrong is always right to them. Evil is good. Because they cannot make decent moral judgements. Reason is the cause of all the world's problems to them, so don't reason. They will prefer an emotional response every time. It's all in John Lennon's nauseating song Imagine. Nothing to live or die for...

davidka

lizzy,
Emotions and prejudice trump all reason and logic.
the thinly disguised hateful rants on even this blogsite demonstrate that clearly and one thing more-it is wonderful that there are no more antisemites left in the UK, since they have metamorphosed into antizionists.
So the liberals can at least be proud of having eliminated one form of racism from these shores!

Ann

Dixon -

""Empirical" literally means apprehended by the senses. History can never be apprehended by the senses. It is not empirical but, I suppose, "canonical"."

Well, yes and no. There is empirical evidence in the form of written documents, buildings, artefacts etc. History can be studied empirically by investigating these physical objects.

davidka

woody allen i think wrote ' I would never want to join any club that would accept me as a member'
'the Left is still adamant in their beliefs. Wrong is always right to them. Evil is good. Because they cannot make decent moral judgements.'

This is the problem of original thinkers, the refusal to think within the boundaries set by tribal controller peers and forego the warm,comforting feelings of 'belonging' to a group.
The notions of what is right and what is wrong for those who conform are set by the morals of the educationalists. In the nazi state we saw how these notions were set in the minds of the Hitler youth. Is it any different for those who follow left wing nihilism like sheep today?
In cambodia, how easy was it for pol pot to transform thousands of innocent children into homicidal killers? and the same horrors in African countries.
In this context the rabid anti israeli hatred propagated by the media and educators, and taken to the bussom of so many is actually mild, is it not?

Brian Moshe

Brian wrote:
February 18th, 2009 9:05pm
"Israel has nuclear arms and the support of the US govt and military behind it. By definition it can quite clearly never be 'the underdog'. Its very presence is vastly destabilising for the balance of power in the Middle East.
It lashes out with disproportionate force at the slightest imagined provocation (remember Lebanon?) and enforces collective punishment on the Palestinian people.
Is it any wonder that it is disliked?"

This was NOT written by me, Brian Moshe. I don't expect 'Brian' to know that I am a regular poster here and I make no claim to a unique use of being Brian in posts to this blog, but I am entitled to post without having to worry that I am being confused with another poster.

'Brian' - will you please add some other appendage to your name if you are going to re-appear on Melanie's threads. I was originally just Brian on Melanie's threads, but with the arrival of Brian O'Connor and Brian from London I chose to give my other name of Moshe and became Brian Moshe.

Had I been on computer during the week I would seen your posts and have written this sooner. I am particularly annoyed as I am a passionate supporter of Israel and defender of Melanie and don't want anyone thinking I hold your views.

So please Brian would you do me the courtesy of making it clear your posts are not my posts by adding some other word/s to your name.

WEBMASTER - please note.

BRIAN MOSHE.

Si, N

JJS, Hamas has 'effectively' 'done' it by overtly signalling their approval of and willingness to adopt the Arab peace initiative – which calls for the recognition of Israel within the pre-67 borders. In agreeing to such conditions they ‘effectively’ backtrack on the odious elements of their charter – it’s a big deal and an Israel that truly favoured peace would snap it up.

But alas, Israel clearly favours expansionism over the peace – it always has.

Dixon

Peter L.
February 20th, 2009 11:04pm
Galileo's empirical scientific evidence did not falsify Catholic religious doctrine because a) The Church did not hold as a truth of faith something which Galileo's theory could refute b) Galileo was incapable of providing empirical scientific evidence for his hypothesis (he produced a ludicrous theory to do with tides). That he was later proved right is not the point here - and does not make true your statement re. Galileo.
I suggest you consult the scholarship here - Stanley Jaki is a good place to start - for a more popular history take a look at Koestler's The Sleepwlakers. "

By Golly Peter l, you do rate high on the pomposoty meter. Arthur Koestler was just a benighted journmalist, we all know what little they knoew, but he "knew a godd story" when he saw one, with the emphasis on "story". He also wrote about the "scientific proof" of ESP and things that go bump in the night.

Your pompous waffle is wrong because 1) It was Papal doctrine that the Earth was at the axis of motion of all celestial bodies, 2) Gali;leo, using the recently invented telescope, was able to SEE bodies moving AROUND Jupiter ( its moons ) and therefore 3) there are celestial bodies that do not have Earth as the axis of their motion.

As I mentioned earlier "empirical" means "apprehended by the senses". What Galileo actually observed is as pure an example of an "empirical" disproof of a supposition as any can ever be. Ie, he SAW IT WITH HIS OWN EYES.

Dixon

Lizzy, again, the point you make..."reason is the cause of the worlds problems for them " is rooted in their problems with their parents. "Reason", indeed, rationality itself, is regarded on the left as "patriarchal" and patriarchal is regarded as "bad". Clearly, rationality is neither patriarchal nor its opposite, it is simply a way of solving questions. It is in the mentality of the left to project a stigmatising fear of "patriarchy" upon anything that echoes parental authority. Be that the entire state of the USA, Israel, Jews ( they seem to have have an unconscious stereotype in mind of a bearded Old Testament authority figure ) or even rationality itself.

The problem is, they thereby find themselves compelled to reject "theirs and their own" and end up siding with the most despicable patriarchal systems in existence.

The nature of the underlying dissonance is intriguing. It seems that a great many somewhat educated people of upper and upper-middle class backgrounds cannot reconcile their relationship with their parents ( and forebears ) with the knowledge they have acquired of the supposedly dishonourable actions of those antecedent generations in their heritage ( The Empire, Slavery, WW2, "destroying the planet", generating wealth, etc, etc, etc ), but neither can they find a way of expressing such criticism of those to whom it ought be addressed ( their family, its lineage ). So they displace it onto OTHER authority figures and the concept of patriarchy itself.

Carl

Celina, your response is formulaic and pathetic - the usual "criticism of Israeli barbarity means you must hate Jews" tosh. Israel is a vicious, brutal occupier and aggressor.

Linda Smith

Derek Blades' posted at 21 Feb 3:22am "...I am quite pepared to see Phil make substantive points relevant to the discussion..." and then at 3:54am "..Nothing infuriates them more than being ignored and this can be a source of endless amusement..." .

Derek Blades condemns himself out of his own mouth and exposes himself for what he is - a deliberate bigot who is intellectually vacuous.

Si, N

Linda Smith, I see you’ve dispensed with all pretence of employing ‘intellectual rigour’ and have allowed yourself to be swayed an ABC of ‘militant Islamic terror’ which you laughably refer to as ‘learned analysis’.

Groan!

What about Israel nurturing Hamas – have you not got anything to say about that?

Seeing as you insist on waffling on about Iran – would you please explain to me what part Iran plays in Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land.

When you‘ve enlightened me on that point would you please answer this question: how will the rise of neo-fascism in the Knesset improve the chances for peace in the region?

Penny

Dear Si Ni

I agree that situations such as we speak of here are emotive. However, in my view there needs to be some separation of emotion - along with the honing of critical thinking skills - in order to see this dire situation more clearly. By the way - this isn't an ad.hom-type message to anyone! Just the way I approach matters. The views I set out below are in no way directed at any one here but are the result of my observation over a period of time.

It is natural for anyone who cares to view the situation with emotion. But emotion - along with its internalisation (in the psychological sense) can create pride and blindness.

A wonderful illustration of this is the character played by Warren Mitchell - Alf Garnet. Regardless of whether his position was demonstrably and woefully wrong or completely blind and bigoted, he would cling to it come what may, offering up more of the same instead of acknowledging that he was wrong. Alf lives in us all. We can all attach ourselves to a position and cling to it, even if we are proven wrong. The longer we hold it, the more internalised it becomes until the personal position itself is paramount, and not the actual truth.

I believe such occurs when matters of Israel and Palestine are raised, but it takes us no nearer to a solution. To be honest, there are times when it renders a very serious situation no more meaningful than a football match where supporters rally on either side to shout names at each other.

During the recent conflict I visited the odd blog or forum where 'truths' had no relevance; what counted was the teflon-like skill of the opponents to twist matters around to suit their own argument. Few really understood the history; preferring instead, to bandy about myths or cite articles from dubious sources. This demonstrates the 'pride in opinion' hypothesis rather than any real concern for the ordinary people of Gaza.

The ordinary Palestinian people don't benefit from this. They don't benefit from amateur human rights lecturers giving forth and they certainly don't benefit from students - who in all probability know no more than the current news headlines - staging sit-ins which serve only self-congratulatory, self-righteous purposes. I would go so far as to suggest that such actions are counter-productive to the long-term welfare of the Palestinian people.

We must differentiate between supporting a cause - which is actually a political stance involving the few - and supporting the people who are caught up in it - and who are the many. If we do this, we may find the solutions are different to those we orginally believed viable.

I have some understanding of exile from one's home land. As mentioned, my husband's family were ejected from the Middle East because of their ethnicity. Everything they had known and loved was taken from them. All that they - and previous generations had worked for - was stolen with no reparations offered to this day. Their refugee status, however, was applicable only to the first generation. Subsequent generations were expected to get on with life in their new country - as indeed, was the case for that first, exiled generation. This they did, and led productive, happy lives. To the best of my knowledge, none of the 800,000+ have waged an on-going war or found it necessary to strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent civilians.

My knowledge of their experience, along with my particular career background leads me to believe that conferring permanent refugee status on the Palestinian people and encouraging victimhood is disastrous for them. Generation after generation growing up dependant upon hand-outs from a global community is a crime - and not one that can only be attributed to Israel. It may be fashionable, it may have a few points in its favour, but it is incorrect to suggest that Israel is completely and utterly to blame.

The Palestinian's have been murdered and exiled by their own Arab brothers. The numbers are in the hundreds of thousands. Why? My understanding is that the root cause has been the Palestinian leaders - not the ordinary, everyday people. 'Black September'(in Jordan) being a case in point.

I am only suggesting to those who are vehemently anti-Israel that examining the psychology and strategies apparently used by Hamas to manipulate emotions, which in turn support both their on-going cause (as set out in the Charter) and the sympathy of the West, would be as productive for the EVERYDAY citizen of Gaza, as condmening Israel for Cast Lead.

wonderer

Si N, you say of the 600 Palestinians killed in the relevant period, "...any idiot could deduce that the majority of the dead Palestinians were killed by the Israeli forces..". One "idiot" with whom that particular penny hasn't dropped is The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), who state in their report, http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/d9d90d845776b7af85256d08006f3ae9/be07c80cda4579468525734800500272!OpenDocument
"More than twice as many Palestinians were killed by other Palestinians (415) in 2007 as were killed by Israelis (185)." I don't think UNOCHA or any other UN agency is renowned for pro-Israel bias.

Can you say how many of the 14617 artillery rounds were non-retaliatory? It is obviously relevant to any attribution of aggression.

Two things strike me. One, if as you suggest, the IDF cooperated in supplying the data, that suggests a level of opennness and even decency on their part that some of you might not wish to allow them. Second, the number of resulting deaths is extremely low for a bombardment on that scale with 155mm shells, which suggests a genuine, systematic effort to minimise non-terrorist casualties. It seems consistent with the comments of Britain's Col Richard Kemp previously quoted by Melanie, "I don’t think there’s ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza. When you look at the number of civilian casualties that have been caused, that perhaps doesn’t sound too credible: I would accept that. However, Hamas -- the enemy that they are fighting -- has been trained by Iran and Hezbollah to fight among the people and use the civilian population in Gaza as a human shield; and Hamas factor in the use of the civilian population as a major part of their defensive plan. So even though, as I say, the IDF is taking enormous steps to reduce these civilian casualties it’s impossible, it’s impossible to reduce these civilian casualties when the enemy is using them as a shield."

The performance of the Syrian army on their own territory at Hama in 1982 makes for an interesting comparison. Per Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre "Political insurgency by Islamic groups, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood beginning in the early 1980s culminated in an uprising in February, 1982. Government forces led by the president's brother, Rifaat al-Assad, quelled the revolt, but killed thousands of civilians and destroyed much of the old part of the city in the process. The town was shelled by the Syrian military, and the estimated deaths numbered more than 20,000 and may have been as high as 30,000 or 40,000, a big portion of them were women and children."

You're obviously an assiduous researcher, so if you can spare a moment from reviling Israel, perhaps you can find out and share with us how many rounds the Syrian army fired. As it happens, I understand the Hama episode took 3 weeks, so if the Israelis - ethnic cleansers in your view - only killed 185 or even 600 in two and a half years, that is a very low score compared with their neighbours.

While you're at it, may I put to you a question that I've raised in these fora in the past and has never been satisfactorily answered: which countries, faced with explicit and plausible threats of extermination over a period of over 60 years, have ever behaved as you would wish Israel to behave? Don't spend too much time on this, please. One solid precedent will do.

Donna Gardier

TO: SI,N
February 20th, 2009 1:14pm
regarding your comments to Penny's post...

...“In future, do try to bear such details in mind when you attempt to convey that you are in some way a voice of reason.”....

Oh dear Si,n! Not only are you having to desperately rifle through your towering piles of carefully cross-referenced facts and statistics at top speed, (which are no doubt always by your side wherever you may be) but you are having the resort to oily patronizing scorn where it is least appropriate.

To: Penny
February 20th, 2009 3:19am

Thank you for your very clear voice of reason, and thank you for conveying it with such clarity. A great post.

stanley Jerusalem

Peter L - "Eppur si muove!" Is what Galileo muttered after his confrontation with the Vatican " It still moves!"[the earth].
The Church has always been terrified of losing its advantage over the common man where it came to knowledge. It didn't want the printing press for fear that he would learn too much, i.e. out of the influence of the providers of the formulae of morals, ethics and right and wrong. Even the glorious King James version of the bible has deliberate solecisms designed to divert [pervert] the common man. A passage in Judges tells of Gideon's spies enquiring of a shepherd boy the names of the leaders a town they were about to beseige. The KJ version translates "And he told them the names of the leaders" the Hebrew original says [ totally unambiguously] "and he wrote down the names of the leaders". Now we couldn't have the man in the 17th century street thinking that a common shepherd boy in the time of Joshua and Gideon could read and write whereas 3,500 years later in London no-one except the intelligentsia, not even many of the aristocracy, could do so. Now there's mind-bending for you.

Ann

"Israel is a vicious, brutal occupier and aggressor."

To vicious Jew-haters, Jews defending themselves are the 'aggressor'. Every time you post, the Jew-hatred just drips from your words.

Ann

"would you please explain to me what part Iran plays in Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine"

There is no such political or geographic entity as 'Palestine'.

"the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land."

Screeching antisemitic lie.

"Hamas has 'effectively' 'done' it by overtly signalling their approval of and willingness to adopt the Arab peace initiative – which calls for the recognition of Israel within the pre-67 borders. In agreeing to such conditions they ‘effectively’ backtrack on the odious elements of their charter "

Complete lie. They offered a 10-year ceasefire - in return for complete Israeli withdrawal from land legally seized in a defensive war.

Hamas - and you - can dream on.

phil

mv "Peter L. - I don't doubt that you are more representative of Judaism (I'm a Christian) than some of the smearers here (Melanie is irenic in comparison to them)." --It shows how little you know on this subject -he is the least representative of all of us and a little analysis would show you that -Howard spoke for most of us whether you like it or not -your friend peter l speaks for himself and again it is pompous tosh -now that is plain language that I am sure you will understand from a Jew who supports all the wonderful ideals of Judaism and Christianity .so I will take no lessons from either Peter the revisionist or you -Feel free to be insulting ,better than you have done it before and I am still smiling .

phil

Penny you are a most patient and kindly lady and particularly so with the nasty piece of work SI,N that many of us have had to deal with for years --see what he has just written to Linda Smith

"Seeing as you insist on waffling on about Iran – would you please explain to me what part Iran plays in Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land.
What about Israel nurturing Hamas – have you not got anything to say about that?
When you‘ve enlightened me on that point would you please answer this question: how will the rise of neo-fascism in the Knesset improve the chances for peace in the region?"-----

He does this all the time and is not interested in debate ,only false accusations .and maybe you can remind him that it is due to the likes of him that Israel now has such a right wing Knesset -The Israelis have shown how sick they are of hearing the outrageous remarks of those that think like him .I cannot even bring myself to address him and he is lucky to have a lady like you to do so .

sorry if this is in a series of my posts as I have just come in from a day out playing golf away from these tirades of hatred -to all those with love in their hearts I wish you a happy weekend

Si, N

Anna, you roundly failed to ‘put to rest’ my claims – you simply trotted-out elements of the hasbara again.

When you say, ‘[m]ost of these false claims centre on the incident that took place on 4 November 2008’, you’re jumping the gun somewhat. The conditions of the ceasefire were broken by Israel way in advance of 4 Nov’, when it refused to ease the deadly blockade on Gaza – despite the fact that the rocket fire had all but ceased. None of those rockets were fired by Hamas – all were said to be a response to the tightening of the blockade.

So prior to 4 November Israel had clearly breached the ceasefire conditions.

Now, are you seriously suggesting that the Israeli military forces who were observing the digging of that tunnel had no alternative but to so blatantly breach to ceasefire again?

Why did they not simply remove themselves from the ambit of the tunnel?

Why did they not simply bomb the tunnel on the Israeli side.

Is this not 'the most humane army in the world'?

Truth is, a number of alternatives were available – but it’s clear – Israel always chooses violence. Remember, the state of Israel was realised through resort to violence - the ongoing occupation of Palestinian land and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land is maintained through extreme prejudicial violence.

Of course, during the ceasefire period, the activities of the Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank and Jerusalem continued apace: the ethnic cleansing/house demolitions/vandalism to farmland/uprooting orchards/arbitrary detentions/extrajudicial executions etc etc etc. Now it may serve your purposes to consider the West Bank and Gaza as separate entities, but the Palestinians resolutely view them as a single unit. Hence, the crimes Israel commits in one has a direct impact on the other.

By the way, Gilad Shalit was captured, not ‘kidnapped’. If you had a fibre of humaneness in your body you might spare a thought for the 10,000 Palestinians currently detained by Israel, mostly without charge and in direct contravention of Article 76 of the Geneva Convention.

JJS, Hamas has 'effectively' 'done' it by overtly signalling their approval of and willingness to adopt the Arab peace initiative – which calls for the recognition of Israel within the pre-67 borders. In agreeing to such conditions they ‘effectively’ backtrack on the odious elements of their charter – it’s a big deal and an Israel that truly favoured peace would snap it up.

But Israel clearly prefers expansionism over peace – there's no other way to view it.

Si, N

Penny, your post was appreciated. Yes, emotions are evident, but let’s not define this matter as emotional. Nor should we view it as we might a sporting event – true, lines are drawn – people take sides – dins are kicked up – but beyond the blason populaire - somewhere within the clamour - there is truth – the truth is, Arabs in the region of Palestine have been monumentally wronged – yes, Arabs too have a hand in the wronging – that’s why the Palestinians’ plight ought to be highlighted at every opportunity - shrugging ones shoulders will not help the ordinary people of Gaza – abandoning them to an uncertain future wrongs them all the more.

Carl

Ann, you have lost the plot. Israel gambled on getting a sympathy vote but blundered with the new Obama government and lost. Your hysterical screaming about Jew hatred is a well used but tired and now useless defence against a just and proper criticism of Israeli brutality and oppression.

In its current form and mindset, Israel does not want or deserve peace.

It is an odious regime, about to become more so.

Peter L.

Dixon
Well pompous or not (I didn't mean to be) I do have the virtue of being right. I mentioned Koestler because he is accessible for the amateur (I presume you are one such) - and his account has, to the best of my knowledge, never been refuted. However, tellingly you ignore the more scholarly source I gave you (perhaps it didn't suit your purposes) - Professor Stanley Jaki - no mere journalist. I could, of course, direct you to primary documentation which I have bothered to read in the relevant language - but for ease will direct you to one of the standard works on the matter WR Shea's Galileo's Intellectual Revolution:Middle Period, 1610-1632. The fact of the matter is that Heliocentrim, as proposed by Galileo, was a vision - its chief empirical evidence, the observation of stellar paralllaz due to the orbital motion of the earth, was still 200 YEARS AWAY. (I suggest you read up on Kepler while were discussing htis - somehow he failed to see the obvious "proof" "with his own eyes" along with everyone else! - it will throw into relief your overconfident claims re. Galileo's evidence (as opposed to speculation not in fact supported by the scientific evidence of the time.)Galileo held that no experiment performed on the earth could serve as proof of its motion. Two centuries later Foucault proved him wrong. We should also note that for more than twenty years prior to the publication in 1632 of his Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo hinted he had a proof BASED ON THE TIDES! - that "proof" (contradcting his stipulation re. the earth) was based on a confusion betweeb two coordinate systems, one pivoted on the earth's centre, the other on a point of its surface. Its all there if you bother to consult the scholarly literatur. Perhaps I will be acused of pompsity for doing so - but it does seem rather pompous to make bold and confident assertions without doing the basic research work that would back them up.
I don't know what you mean by "Papal doctrine" as such (magisterially binding teaching (falible or infalible - binding in conscience/binding canonically - you don't begin to make the necessary distinctions)- I referred to "truth of the faith" - the kind of doctrine you may be referring to is revisable of its nature and is not to be held bindingly as the latter are (I recommend getting hold of a copy of Denzinger's compilation of the Catholic Church pronouncements/encyclicals to get a clearer idea on the relevant distinctions - I think Jews, as well as learning far more about our religion, should explore these documents which, in ceretain areas, have interesting overlaps with rabbinic teaching). Again, you do not address what I said nor, it seems, know the history of the subject. But I suggest that you engage with the scholarship on this, it should disabuse you of your views fairly quickly, assuming you are possessed of the requisite humility.

MV - thanks for your kind words. Apparently I am a Holocaust revisionist for ...wait for it... asking (ASKING) whether it is just to label Raul Hilberg (and all the other excellent Holocaust historians I mentioned) as categorisable under the term "Holocaust Denier". I can't really see how such idiocy helps Jews in any way shape or form - and nor, deep dowm, do I think those who make the accusation think it does either (we should all, especially weak me, remember Leviticus 20.22).
stanley jerusalem - yo make some huge global claims. I'll just suggest reading Eamonn Duffy's Stripping of the Altars - it's a fascinating read and may give you some food for thought re. the Church and education of the common man. I wish there were a Jewish equivalent to this book - if anyone knows of a good one do let me know.

Dixon

Ann
February 21st, 2009 12:16pm
Dixon -
""Empirical" literally means apprehended by the senses. History can never be apprehended by the senses. It is not empirical but, I suppose, "canonical"."
Well, yes and no. There is empirical evidence in the form of written documents, buildings, artefacts etc. History can be studied empirically by investigating these physical objects."

There was an excellent example on TV tonight about the cannons in Elizabeth 1sts Royal Navy. The whole hypothesis hinged on the recovery of physical evidence and its evaluation in experiments. Oops, I've conceded now that there are occasionally still some good things on the BBC!

Dixon

Heepers, I jus noriced agan how aqfyl my typib is1

KateA

George Laird: A fine piece of anti-Israeli propaganda larded with wishful thinking.

Most deceptive of all the statement: "I would argue that Palestinians would have no problem with having Jewish neighbours; but what signal does having armed Jewish enclaves sends out?"

Would you now? Please name ONE Muslim state in the ME that allows Jews to reside in peace beside Muslim neighbours? Jordan is, of course, as you must know being so well-informed, 'Judenfrei'. No Jew being permitted to reside there.

Perhaps you would explain, in the context of your 'argument', the 800,000 Jews, forced out of Muslim states by pogroms, theft of bank accounts and property, post WWII?

Where does this 'fit' with the assertion that Palestinians would have no problem with Jewish neighbours?

Finally Mr Laird, the 'signal' that 'armed Jewish enclaves' sends out is that Jews have, after 2,000 years persecution and slaughter, learned to protect themselves against fanatics possessed by Jew-hate.

When the Muslims love their children more than they hate Jews there will be peace. (Golda Meir) Jewish history is not one of aggression. European/Christian and Muslim history is, on the other hand, one of relentless massacre and persecution of the Jewish people.

stanley Jerusalem

Peter L - It did,but seemed to deal more with a still active Catholic Church in an officially Protestant England. Even in the mid- 19th Century the powers-that-be were still arguing over the advisability of educating the common man in reading and writing. The 'engineering' built into mistranslation would have suited both churches equally well in allowing the masses to feel comfortable in their educational squalor.
As an aside, might I suggest that you modify your tone when addressing others on this blog. We are here to enlighten if we can, not to insult when we can.

Adam B.

Carl you are not simply a critic of israel's government, you are a supporter of the anti-semitic Hamas and Hizbollah terror organizations. You have expressed your admiration for these Nazis. You are an extremist.

Why don't you condemn the Hamas charter, which calls for the extermination of every living Jew?

Ann

LOL, Dixon.
Yes, the history programmes are usually good, and much of the natural history output.
As to the politics, you'd get far more maturity and truth in your average fifth-form debating society.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Celtic Leopard remembers "the generous hospitality of young Israeli Arabs" but doesn't remember "being invited into the home of any Israeli Jews in Haifa". Oh dear, another black mark against those terrible Jews ! I guess the explanation is that we Jews are a pretty perceptive bunch, and they must have "got his number".

CL knows that he "shall never return to Israel". I guess that Israel's "loss" is British bigots' gain.

phil

Dixon, I hope you do not mind me interfering with the learned discourse between you and the incredible peter L - I know his condition is a serious derangement but I do not know which one it is -I have googled mixing pomposity ,assertiveness ,stubbornness,,confidence,lack of attention to the subject matter and a desire to insult et al -it comes up with nothing-can you shed any light on this problem ?

phil

Celtic leopard "I don't remember being invited into the home of any Israeli Jews in Haifa." I think you must have exhibited your anti -Semites in spades ,you will have been the first guest ever not to have been invited into Jewish home -there is always a special place set for visitors ,so I think you have condemned yourself with your own words -We may not drink a a lot but by hell we eat and we share with all -what on earth were you doing in Israel anyhow with the attitude you have ?

stanley Jerusalem

Since there is a pressing need for it, we require a slogan to finish our postings analagous to Cato's "Carthaginem esse delendam!" at the end of every single speech he made in Ancient Rome but encapsulating the question to Carl requesting his acknowledgement of the content of Hamas' charter.

Linda Smith

Si,N
Regarding intellectual rigour, you display none,
I observe that you dismiss Con Coughlin's article in the manner of a Holocaust denier who finds the facts of the Holocaust inconvenient for his thesis. In that you have much in common with Iran's Islamic Fundamentalist antisemitic Holocaust denying President Ahmedinejad.

I am an Englishwoman. As such I am concerned about the threat to England's traditional freedoms by the creeping Islamification of the world and Iran's role in that. I do not know why you question me on Israel's actions. I am not an Israeli citizen. Israel is the central front of the self-proclaimed Islamic jihad for world domination and will do whatever it deems fit to protect itself from its enemies..

Suffice to say, your insistence on putting the onus on Israel to "improve the chances for peace in the region" is absurd given the self-proclaimed global fascist Islamist project.

Linda Smith

Dixon and Peter L: Interesting as they are, I am nevertheless perplexed that you are getting bogged down on this thread in discussions of history, philosophy of science and Gallileo, and missing the point I was making,

The RELEVANT point was that many posters will tenaciously hold to their position, despite being confronted with facts to the contrary, because they are motivated by personal agendas and strongly held beliefs, often religious in origin.

We all interpret facts according to our own worldview. So that, although many people are uncomfortable with this fact, we are all relatavists. Religious zealots claim authority for their own worldview, by claiming it is Godgiven.

Penny

The Palestinian plight ought to be highlighted, Si Ni - but in the true context of their various leaders use of them: as pawns in a deadly game.

With apologies to readers who have read this before, I'll restate the words of Zuheir Muhsin, Military Head of the PLO and member of its Exec.

"Yes, the existance of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel"

The Palestinian people are a tool; a political manouevre. I didn't say it; Muhsin did.

Muhsin is not alone. Various statements have been made by Arab nations asserting that Palestine is a) part of the Arab nation as a whole b) that it is part of Southern Syria. A Saudi UN delegate in 1956 said:

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria"

Prior to 1967 there had been no serious movement for a Palestianian homeland and there was no academic or international recognition of a distinct Palestinian people. There is no Palestinian language or culture and there has never been a land known as Palestine, governed by Palestinian rulers. The nearest one can get to such a rule is in the 6th century when Syria held the reins for 22yrs.

The Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguisable from Jordanians, Syrians, Egytptians (such as Arafat) Iraqi's etc. The Arabs control over 99% of the ME - Israel represents 1/10th of 1 percent of the landmass.

The West bank was not taken from Arafat's Palestine but from King Hussein's Jordan (who didn't want the Palestinian people) Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran - Mecca and Medina are. There is but vague mention of a temple in the 17th Sura. Arafat's uncle served as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 20's and 30's (forming an alliance with the Nazis). It was his uncle who concluded that Mohammed ascended to heaven from Temple Mount.

I could go on....and on. Suffice it to say that yes, I do feel for the people in Gaza but I feel for them because they are human beings who have been misled, used and abused by
the PLO, Fatah, Hamas and heaven knows who else hiding behind large curtains and pulling the strings.

Dixon

Peter L.
February 21st, 2009 10:40pm
Dixon
Well pompous or not (I didn't mean to be) I do have the virtue of being right. I mentioned Koestler because he is accessible for the amateur (I presume you are one such) - and his account has, to the best of my knowledge, never been refuted. However, tellingly you ignore the more scholarly source I gave you (perhaps it didn't suit your purposes) - Professor Stanley Jaki - no mere journalist. I could, of course, direct you to primary documentation which I have bothered to read in the relevant language - but for ease will direct you to one of the standard works on the matter WR Shea's Galileo's Intellectual Revolution:Middle Period, 1610-1632. The fact of the matter is that Heliocentrim, as proposed by Galileo, was a vision - its chief empirical evidence, the observation of stellar paralllaz due to the orbital motion of the earth, was still 200 YEARS AWAY."

Still being pompous.
No-one has "refuted" Koestler, so it must be true. Thats like saying NASA has not bothered to refute assorted cranks who think the moon landings were faked, therefore they must have been.

All you do is cite what is known as a "misdirection". The argument you attribute to Galileo is a straw man. He may or may not have proposed it, but it is irrelevant. His OBSERVATIONS, yes inded, WITH HIS OWN EYES, were of the motion of moons about another planet. Which, as I pointed out, in itself disproves the contention that all bodies orbit the Earth. Whilst you pompously declare "I was right", in fact you do not respond to that basic point anywhere in your loggorhea. So I am entitled to say, "You were wrong".

Dixon

phil
February 22nd, 2009 11:41am
Dixon, I hope you do not mind me interfering with the learned discourse between you and the incredible peter L - I know his condition is a serious derangement but I do not know which one it is -I have googled mixing pomposity ,assertiveness ,stubbornness,,confidence,lack of attention to the subject matter and a desire to insult et al -it comes up with nothing-can you shed any light on this problem ?"

Maybe a clue is represented by th "L", perhaps you should Google that.

Dixon

Ann
February 22nd, 2009 10:55am
LOL, Dixon.
Yes, the history programmes are usually good, and much of the natural history output.
As to the politics, you'd get far more maturity and truth in your average fifth-form debating society."

On the other hand, they also had a programme about photography last night which repeated the usual story that chemically fixed images were invented by Fox Talbot and Luis Daguerre in the mid 19th Century. In fact, the first agreed photographic print in the archives was created by Nicephor Niepce in 1819, four years after the battle of Waterloo.

I was not surprised, "experts" and "authority" figures telling the story of photography usually do that...attributing the invention of the chemically fixed image to two other people than its inventor, thirty years later. I now expect it.

Indeed, I use this in one of my books to illustrate the futility of citing "experts" and "authority" figures in an attempt to ram an erroneous viewpoint down someones throat...like Peter L does in his pompous twaddle earlier. Alongside numerous other examples: that the brick arch was invented by the Romans "experts" tell us ( it wasnt, Egyptians had been using them centuries before ), "authorities" repeat over and over that the revolver was invented by Samuel Colt ( it wasnt, revolvers were in production in London decades before his and the first were almost a century earlier ).

Then there is of course my favourite, the great "expert" and figure of "authority" Robert Mack, professor of Psychiatry at Harvard medical school who assures us for a fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans are suffering a form of PTSD caused by alien abduction!

It's really the hallmark of a true intellectual microphore to make assertions endorsed by citing "experts". The putated mind can argue the facts on its own behalf. If you re-read his tranche of words you'll notice that Peter L does not.

Si, N

Wonderer, we’re on the back of a massacre in Gaza which saw the Israeli military employing the ‘Dahiya doctrine’ – are you familiar with that term? It involves the complete erasure of entire villages – all life within the chosen area being snuffed-out – comparisons have been sensibly drawn with the Nazi atrocity at Lidice. Israeli commander Yoav Galant explained that the aim was to "send Gaza decades into the past".

The head of Israel’s Northern command, Gadi Eisenkot, expanded:

‘[w]e will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. This is not a recommendation. This is a plan".

Adoption of the ‘Dahiya doctrine’ makes a mockery of Colonel Richard Kemp’s assertion that the Israeli ‘army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people’.

Sure, there are those, such as General Yossi Kuuperwasser (retired), who questioned the efficacy of the ‘Dahiya doctrine’. As Kupperwasser stated:

‘The ethical-moral considerations, which are also reflected in
international laws of war accepted by Israel, have crucial importance
in determining the strategy and its means of achievement. The idea of
damaging civilian infrastructures, not as a direct part of the operations
for achieving military objectives but as a means of increasing the cost
exacted from the enemy, stands on shaky legal and moral ground
because it clearly has an element of collective punishment’.

One thing is absolutely clear, the Israeli military long ceased distinguishing between Palestinian fighters and civilians – if indeed they ever did make such distinctions.

About your closing question to me: ‘which countries, faced with explicit and plausible threats of extermination over a period of over 60 years, have ever behaved as you would wish Israel to behave?’ I’m not surprised it ‘has never been satisfactorily answered’; it’s nonsensical. Here’s a tip: include in your special little question a clause about Israel brutally occupying another’s land, and mention that Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestinians from the land it is occupying, then you may find a willing respondent.

Peter L.

Dixon - I tried ,I really did. Galielo offered no disproof - NO-ONE who says so knows anytrhing about the history of science of the time did not carry with it the implication (funny how no-one - NO-ONE in the history of science thought that Galileo had a DISPOOF at the time (nor could he produce one) - but Dixon just KNOWS that it was (although the theory was PROVED later - without using Galielo's observatiuons!!!. Again all standard in the standard (not crank) literature. So you are wrong - and demonstrably so (if you care to research). I read and addressed every point you made (theological ignorance noted, history of science ignirance noted)- you - who didn't take on mine or dig up the refs, or consult Jaki etc. etc. didn't. Standard fare but sad. You talk of "facts" versus "experts" but your "facts" are wrong because you don't know the subject - hence the argument kicks off on the wrong premise. In sum Galileo had no disproof - merely a feling of certainty which, according to the scientific canons ofthe time, he could not demonstrate (prove) - Koestler a krank - so apparently are ALL major specialist historians on Galileo - they do not disagree with him (again you don't touch the others I mention - Jerome Langford is another of the very many you might want to consult). You merely reassert your original contention which is, er, false. Apparently false statements of yours can't be countered by reference to actual research. Must remember that next time Hamas claims something as a FACT - don't listen to anyone who cites authoritative sources saying otherwise - Dixon will accuse you of "misdirection" etc. As to misdirection - No - if you bothrerd to follow the scholaship you would have found your claim about observations/disproof refuted. I directed you to the appropiate place. In sum you do what you falsely accuse me of, because you don't know the subject (please look it up and then keep your peace). Stick with phil -about your level.

Peter L.

stanley: "As an aside, might I suggest that you modify your tone when addressing others on this blog. We are here to enlighten if we can, not to insult when we can."
I appreciate these comments and do not set out to insult - I hope that Dixon and others read your note too.
"putated mind" - well, don't know about that Dixon - but I am concerned with the facts in a way in which he isn't (I check them he doesn't). Perhaps that explains why he makes the errors he does (mainstream schoarship = krankery// errors re. description of Church doctrne//central mistake re. "disproof" etc. etc.). Basta!

phil

Dixon nothing has turned up and I am sorry to get you into such bother with you know who, but I am reminded of a visit to my client(referred to in an earlier post) in the asylum -he seemed ok and was working well in the garden ,we had a pleasant chat and as I was walking down the path to the car park he hurled a brick at me and shouted - "don,t forget to tell everyone I am much better now " I don,t know why but I thought of Peter L ,who can,t spell either :)

btw I havn,t worked out what poor Howard ,s article had to do with Galileo nor how he fell victim to this nutter ,but I hope you have read his book "the mighty walzer" published by vintage in 2000-its the funniest book I have ever read and all of our posters will do well to get a copy .Any of our Jewish posters will fall on the floor laughing as they will definitely see characters in it that they will "know"-I assure you I knew a lot of them and our "friend" did not figure in it despite his protestations of ethnic origin .

stanley Jerusalem

Peter L.
Did you conclude in Italian or was that a typo?

Dave

"who can,t spell either "
- spot the irony folks! As to the brickthrower - sounds like he was much better!

Linda Smith

Dear Phil, "I havn,t worked out what poor Howard,s article had to do with Galileo nor how he fell victim to this nutter...."

I just fell on the floor laughing. Your post made my day. Thanks!

PS doesn't your computer have an apostrophe?

Ann

Dixon,
Talbot and Daguerre? Oh, dear. I should have watched it, I would have sent a very stiff letter to the producer (I happen to know a bit about the history of photography). Of course it was Niepce. Talbot's invention of the negative came after the positive, invented by Niepce, was effectively stolen by Daguerre (Niepce's view from the famous attic window is hanging framed in my house).

But then, these days ignorance reigns supreme. Here we have the demented Sin and Carl recycling the nonsensical blood libels that have been thoroughly discredited. They probably believe that there was a Jenin 'massacre'. Or don't they, and are simply lying their heads off? And which is worse? But either way, their seething hatred makes them post these lies over and over again.
Take care,
Ann

Si, N

Penny, I have no reason to doubt your sincerity – you certainly argue a good point. But you ought to bear it in mind: all that stuff about spurious nationhood, and there being no such thing as a Palestinian pre-whenever; it’s largely a smokescreen.

With respect, in bolting directly to the proclamations of Zuheir Muhsin you miss out quite a lot of very important context.

A good grasp of the events of 1947/48 can be gleaned from the writings of Benny Morris, Uri Avnery, Ilan Pappe, and many others. Certainly a clear narrative emerges that diverges radically from the Zionist version of events that held sway for decades. So, a Zionist such as Morris freely admits that ethnic cleansings did happen – but from his perspective the job should have been more thorough. Conversely, Pappe decries the methodology for bringing the state of Israel into being. Pappe is particularly good on details of the ‘Consultancy’ [Ben-Gurion, Rabin, Dayan et al] plotting at the Red House – just ahead of dreadful attacks on Arab villages such as Sa’sa, Sasaf, Ayn al-Zaytun, and Deir Yassin. Are you aware of the slaughter that took place in these villages? .Those so appallingly wronged during this period are painfully aware. Obviously it would have been easier on Israel had the Arabs just shut up and slinked away. But they didn’t; they eventually mustered and resisted – hence, PLO, Hamas, Hisbollah. Did/do these groups have any legitimacy? This is what David Ben-Gurion had to say on the matter:

‘[i]f I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?’

In other words, Ben-Gurion recognised Muhsin’s ‘continuing battle against Israel’ as a legitimate struggle. Those who continue to struggle surely believe in their legitimacy too. Who are we to tell them to shut up and slink away?

All that stuff about the Palestinians, Jordanians, and Syrians being indistinct is I fear purely specious. When the chips are down we all value our identity – however local or esoteric. You should have seen the shit-storm that kicked-off about the changes made to the Yorkshire/Lancashire County boundary in the Saddleworth area – there were no massacres; no ethnic cleansings – just villagers in Yorkshire refusing to accept a sign that suggested they were Lancastrians.

The stakes for Arabs in the region of Palestine, and the people of Israel are far far higher. The best way forward has to be the Arab peace initiative – if there’s a problem with the words; ‘Arab peace’, then re-brand the blasted thing - say it was your idea – show some goodwill – Hamas has – really it has, stopping as it did suicide bombings – it was only in the face of the crushing blockade of Gaza did we see ‘Hamas representatives…not ruling out a renewal of suicide bombings in Israel’ (Hamas mulls renewal of suicide bombings in Israel, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz). Remember too, Hamas was far more observant of the 2008 ceasefire conditions than was Israel. Disregarding these actions/inactions and single-mindedly pointing to the words of a pathetic document is serving no purpose other than to prolong the conflict.

Huw Thornton

Si,N
"....comparisons have been sensibly drawn with the Nazi atrocity at Lidice"

Si,N - No, not "sensibly" in my opinion if you are trying to equate any action by Israel to Lidice.

To resort to such stuff makes anything else you write sound absurd.

Michael B

Whether it's an idealogically based zealotry and piety evidencing itself or something else, I'm not sure, but Peter L. has it right as far as Galileo and the Catholic Church is concerned, at least essentially so. The history and the scientific developments of that period are typically depicted in a tendentious fashion, similar to Dixon's and stanley Jerusalem's depictions herein. As pertains to Galileo Galilei, the two condemnations of the church (in 1616 and 1633) were not primarily concerned with enforcing church doctrine. They represented a set of three interlocking concerns: 1) scientific conceptions per se (e.g., epistemological issues related to hypotheses and broader theoretical conceptions), 2) philosophical conceptions (prominently, Aristotelian) and 3) religious doctrine. For example, Nicole Oresme, prominent in the church in the 14th century (more than two centuries prior to Galileo), openly postulated/theorized a heliocentric solar system without any condemnations, formal or otherwise, from the church. Similarly, Ptolemy's geocentric conception itself was widely considered hypothetical/theoretical, not a statement of fact. Another example is the fact that Tycho Brahe's system was still competing with the Copernican view at that time. That excuses none of the excesses committed by the church, but the history is not at all as it's typically depicted. Two additional authors that can be consulted are Feyerabend and Pierre Duhem.

Linda Smith

Si, N, I thought you might be interested in this quote I found in Wikipedia from Benny Morris, Israeli historian:

"there are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing."

phil

Linda Smith honestly I don,t know where one is I have never been trained to type either always had a secretary-where is it on the keyboard ?:)

Gavin

Si, N... I note you only quote the (few) authors whose narrative fits your jew hating world. Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe were utterly torn apart by the likes of Ephraim Karsh , Morris so much so that he publicly recanted his more extreme claims about ethnic cleansing. Pappe persisted with his ridiculous Ben Gurion conspiracy theory despite the fact that the Dalet Plan is (now) a public record and says nothing of what he claims. Ben Gurions biographer, who has also read Ben Gurions diaries, also completely rejects Pappes wild conspiracy theories which were constructed almost entirely from his own highly subjective reading of those diaries.

Nearly all of the 'new historians' work has been thoroughly debunked by real historians. Even Qaddafi in his recent NY Times Op-Ed said that there was no ethnic cleansing by the Israelis in 47/48. But that won't interest you will it, your favouriite authors say what you want to hear & no amount of sanity & reason will change your view of the evil Jews.

As for the ceasefire, you persist with a blatant lie. The ceasefire wasn't between just Hamas and Israel, all of Gaza were bound to it so every time a rocket was fired the ceasefire was broken. Israel made it clear right from the beginning that ceasefire meant NO firing no matter who it was from. Added to that Hamas only stopped firing rockets with their logo on them, they broke the ceasefire numerous times with mortar and sniper attacks long before Israel attacked the tunnel diggers.

One of the problems jew haters have is that the true facts are readily available. You can preach your hatred but reasonable people can easily find out the truth for themselves.

Linda Smith

Dear Phil, the apostrophe on my keyboard is two keys to the right of key marked "l" . But as I don't deal in certainties, if I am factually wrong in the case of your own keyboard, then I suggest you take the pragmatic approach and tap each key of your keyboard in turn until you find the apostrophe.

Dixon

Michael B
February 22nd, 2009 9:47pm
Whether it's an idealogically based zealotry and piety evidencing itself or something else, I'm not sure, but Peter L. has it right as far as Galileo and the Catholic Church is concerned, at least essentially so. The history and the scientific developments of that period are typically depicted in a tendentious fashion, similar to Dixon's and stanley Jerusalem's depictions herein. As pertains to Galileo Galilei, the two condemnations of the church (in 1616 and 1633) were not primarily concerned with enforcing church doctrine."

So, tell me then...what was the statement that the Vatican demanded that Galileo "recant"?

It was that "It moves.." ( a sattelite of a gas giant, observed for the first time by telescope ).

Hence, you fail to address my point entirely. Irrespective of any of the irrelevent sophistry that you adduce, Galileo saw that bodies orbit other bodies than the Earth, therefore the Earth was no the centre of all rotations.

Or do you have another convoluted rationalisation of these very SIMPLE statements ( by Galileo ) and responses ( by the Vatican ).

Dixon

Peter L.
February 22nd, 2009 5:18pm
stanley: "As an aside, might I suggest that you modify your tone when addressing others on this blog. We are here to enlighten if we can, not to insult when we can."
I appreciate these comments and do not set out to insult - I hope that Dixon and others read your note too.
"putated mind" - well, don't know about that Dixon - but I am concerned with the facts in a way in which he isn't (I check them he doesn't). Perhaps that explains why he makes the errors he does (mainstream schoarship = krankery// errors re. description of Church doctrne//central mistake re. "disproof" etc. etc.). Basta!"

First he forswears insulting others then does it huimself. I think third parties will note how everything he writes is insulting.

But, you dont win an argument by simply saying "I am right, you are wrong". On the contrary, if you are all that you pretend Peter L, simply address my VERY SIMPLE and simply VERY FACTUAL point: Galileo observed the movement of moons about another planet, and this was, indeed, incompatible with the geocentric world view. How can it be otherwise?

I notice that you spout a load of pompous guff but that you are neither honest nor capable of actual reasoning.

Lets set it ouit simply: Are you saying Galileo did NOT make that observation.

If so, WHAT was it that the Vatican demanded that he "recant"?

Those are very simple questions.

He wont answer them will he?

stanley Jerusalem

Why is there a discussion about what someone thinks Galileo did or didn't say?
It's not a matter of conjecture and if the stance of the Vatican at the time is such then time has shown us wherein the truth lay then and now. What a waste of energy!
"Eppur si muove!"
Yes, it's in Italin.

Peter L.

I never denied G. didn't make an observation. The point of the mattter was that Galielo made a claim of proof. He had no proof - nor was one provided - the observation of itself, did not disprove - nor did other observrs, even those impressed and sympathetic to Galileo's assertions, think it did. You made a claim he had "disproved" a "Papal doctrine" (see earlier). In both instances you were and are mistaken. Questions answered - your mistakes, though understandable, shown (again the literature, as Michael B appreciates, support my statements not yours).
As to rudeness - well, sorry, but I haven't been too impressed by your tone either, and your persistent rudness combined with error and a refusal to study doesn't make it better.

Peter L.

Dixon: I further note that NOT ONCE have you shown a single error in my reasoning OR a single instance of my alleged dishonesty (yet you appear to think I, not you, am rude). I think our posts amply demonstrate who is actually concerned with accuracy and who isn't. At least the other poster, Michael B, seems, unlike you, to be familiar with the case - it shows in the accuracy of his remarks.

ahad ha'amoratsim

""I would argue that Palestinians would have no problem with having Jewish neighbours" Then why does the PA demand that all Jews be removed from the area that the PA claims to want for its state? And why does the Hamas charter call for the death of Jews wherever they may be? And why does the PA have a law on its books making it a capital crime to sell land to a Jew?

Linda Smith

Michael B: you say "...Nicole Oresme, prominent in the church in the 14th century (more than two centuries prior to Galileo) openly postulated/theorized a heliocentric solar system without any condemnations..."

The point about Galileo, who is regarded as the father of modern science, was that he did not merely theorise; he tested his hypothesis. As I recall, Galileo was able to make his observations because he had the aid of the recently invented telescope.

As an undergraduate I was required to submit an essay on the Copernican revolution. More than 20 years later, I am bemused to find that my educational travails have now sparked off an intellectual debate on the Spectator website.

stanley Jerusalem

Linda Smith - I wouldn't actually go so far as to call it an intellectual debate.
More like two or three individuals who once read a book recalling the bits they think they remember and arguing with the others without relating to the theme of the blog.

phil

Linda Smith
February 23rd, 2009 11:01am

Dear Phil, the apostrophe on my keyboard is two keys to the right of key marked "l" . But as I don't deal in certainties, if I am factually wrong in the case of your own keyboard, then I suggest you take the pragmatic approach and tap each key of your keyboard in turn until you find the apostrophe.

THANKS LINDA I HAVE WORKED OUT WHY THERE ISN;T ONE ITS A SPANISH KEYBOARD ,I CAN GIVE CARL AN - OR A Ç but apart from a kick up the pants he will have to make do with those :)

Michael B

This is far from the best forum for a still more detailed discussion of Galileo Galilei and related matter, not least of all because the primary focus herein would be better directed to Howard Jacobson's piece - moreso because the subject matter, beyond an extremely rudimentary level, quickly gets into arcane and abstruse matters related to the developmental history of science and the philosophy of science. (Though I "adduced" no sophistries or misdirections whatsoever and, Linda, you're not following the reasoning herein, I merely invoked Oresme as an earlier, counter example, not to slight or detract from Galileo's empirical data any more than I'd wish to slight or detract from Tycho Brahe's own methodology and system, relevant to that specific period - but all that begins to get into more arcane subject matter, as noted.)

Again, however, Howard Jacobson's piece is what is germane herein.

Ronnie

Forget it ahad, we've well and truly moved on to Galileo.

'Galileo,galileo,
Galileo galileo
Galileo figaro-magnifico-

But Im just a poor boy and nobody loves me-

(All) He's just a poor boy from a poor family-
Spare him his life from this monstrosity.........'

Ronnie

No it isn't Michael B. We are utterly fed up with Howard Jacobson's piece.

He's had over 300 comments. Don't you think that's quite enough?

Ronnie

Phil! Come on now, you are losing focus here. Its either Howard Jacobson's piece or Galileo.

I hope you are not going to muddy the waters even further with your Spanish keyboard.

Penny

Dear Si Ni,

I guess we could ping-pong about this for days - if not months! I suspect in the end we shall have to agree to disagree.

There is more than one way to interpret Ben-Gurion's remarks, although I note most anti-Israeli people tend to jump on it as an admission of some sort.

If you take a moment to analyse the comments, you will probably see that he was simply exercising an ability to see the everyday Arab perspective; this is not the same thing as agreeing it to be wholly valid.

This is quite clear when BG states "...we have taken their country" and " They see but one thing: we have come and we have taken their country ".

This is how it must have seemed to many Arab people - I can't disagree with that. However, the truth is that a)there were always Jews in Israel, and b)Israel wasn't 'stolen', or 'taken' or invaded; it came about via a legitimate UN resolution. Much of the original land granted under the Balfour declaration greatly reduced (I believe by some 80%)

So BG wasn't making an admission here - because he wouldn't have used the words 'stolen' or 'taken' when he, himself clearly knew that the Jewish state had arisen in a legal fashion. He was honestly stating that this is how its inception must have appeared to Arab people (note, BG doesn't use the term 'Palestinian' people!) I see nothing amiss in this and nothing to seize upon - it is psychologically normal and desirable to take on the perspective of others. It doesn't mean you share or legitimise it.

I was interested in your comment about nationality being specious and that we shouldn't ask (them) to shut up and slink away. As I have mentioned before, this is precisely what was expected of people like my husband's family when they were thrown out of the ME. The family was Syrian and Egyptian by birth, (different branches) by culture, by language and by 'heart'. These countries were 'home', as much as the UK is to us. They weren't politely asked to go either. They had 48hrs to get out and were allowed to take a suitcase of non-valuable belongings. Anything that smacked of value - even a camera, a stamp collection or a piece of jewellery (which, like a wedding ring is often meaningful) was taken from them at the port. So they were quite literally penniless and homeless. Their names were placed on a 'black list' and they were never able to return for so much as a holiday or to meet old friends. Perhaps the list exists to this day - I don't know.

What should they do, Si Ni? Should that 800,000+ re-band, form a separate nation and demand slices of Egypt and Syria back - perhaps even all of it? And what should they do about the $6 - $10 billion dollars worth of assets seized by Nasser? Are their rights any less legitimate than those of the Palestinians?

It's worth noting that had these 800,000+ not been thrown out, Israel's population might have been fewer. Nasser et al made their contribution!

With regard to 'Peace' - it occurs to me, Si Ni, that the individual Palestinian factions need to sort themselves out first. In Gaza we have Hamas seeking out Fatah, ordering summary beatings and executions. Meanwhile, in the West Bank, we have Fatah kidnapping and torturing people they believe are dealing with Hamas. They can't seem to make peace even amongst themselves so being somewhat wary of their notion of 'peace' is understandable, surely?

As an aside, Khaled Abu Toameh the Palestinian journalist I mentioned in an earlier post claims that Israel can't pull out of the West Bank because it would simply collapse in a mess of conflicts.

Anyway - I expect we'll agree to disagree. I still maintain that the various leaders of the Palestinian people have done them no favours whatsoever and are very culpable. If peace came tomorrow the problem still wouldn't go away because their tactics of embittering people, their indoctrination of children, their self-serving tendencies and their sheer lack of care for women and children would give a veritable flood of psychologists work for many years to come.

As for the Charter - well, Hamas wrote it. No one is putting a gun to their heads and telling them not to change it. They could do so tomorrow and end the speculation as to their long-term intentions!

wonderer

Gavin, Penny et al, I'm glad to see that some of you are focusing on Si N's diatribes, as my co-conspirators remind me that I have been taking too much time out from the Little Satan's World Takeover Plan, especially as the Great Satan has suddenly become such a pussycat.

I would just mention that Si N seems now to have tacitly accepted that the majority of the 600 Palestinian deaths he mentioned were caused by other Palestinians.

Dixon

Peter L.
February 23rd, 2009 2:14pm
I never denied G. didn't make an observation. The point of the mattter was that Galielo made a claim of proof. He had no proof - nor was one provided - the observation of itself, did not disprove - nor did other observrs, even those impressed and sympathetic to Galileo's assertions, think it did. You made a claim he had "disproved" a "Papal doctrine" (see earlier)."

You still havent addressed the point. I never said he "proved" anything, but that his observation dis-proved the doctrine that all bodies orbit the Earth. I never contested whether or not geocentrism was FORMALLY expressed as a view of the Vatican...but your response leaves the central question that your contention poses: Putting it bluntly, if the Vatican didnt dissaprove of the
contradiction of geo-centrism, what was it they demanded that he recant?

Dixon

Peter L.
February 23rd, 2009 2:18pm
Dixon: I further note that NOT ONCE have you shown a single error in my reasoning OR a single instance of my alleged dishonesty (yet you appear to think I, not you, am rude). I think our posts amply demonstrate who is actually concerned with accuracy and who isn't. At least the other poster, Michael B, seems, unlike you, to be familiar with the case - it shows in the accuracy of his remarks."

But you have not USED any reasoning, only references to the opinions of diverse others whose word you regard as writ. Your "argument" is nothing but "Im right, you are wrong, because I read that in a book and Im repeating it."

For a starter, you conflated disproof with claims of proof. noone need prove anything in order to dois-prove something. thats what Galileos OBSERVATIONS did. They DIS-proved the geocentric model. He didnt NEED to prove anything else, whether he claimed to or not.

Dixon

Michael B
February 23rd, 2009 5:51pm
" I "adduced" no sophistries or misdirections whatsoever"

You ADDUCED what you regard as authorities...which was in itself a MIS-DIRECTION, into aspects of the topic irrelevent to the claim.

phil

Dixon is winning by three games to nil with a rubber pimpled bat against fourteen dictionaries 22 history books ,3 rocks from the garden I referred to yesterday and a monstrous ego -PeterL has been withdrawn by popular demand and sent to play his table tennis in the fourth division -Howard has offered him free lessons -plick plock ,buy his book ,its a lot funnier than this .

btw latest scores Spinoza wins over Galileo by 2 games to 1 at the Jewish lads brigade home match ,The great WALZER having won the top match with his cardboard bat against carl jones .

Gorgeous George was first reserve ,but was led crying from the team room after Linda Smith accidentally hurt his feelings .

no more to follow :)

stanley Jerusalem

Galileo uses the telescope to substantiate Copernicus' heliocentric model of our solar system, which is highly incompatible with both popular belief and church doctrine.
Galileo is brought to the Vatican for interrogation. Upon being threatened with torture, he recants his teachings- Bertolt Brecht

Ronnie

Thank God the Champions' League is back this week.

Peter L.

Dixon
Some points. You accused me of certain things - but now reveal that such accusation must have been baseless. So, by your own admission, you were flinging around falsities.
Your "point" has repeatedly been dealt with. You were given references to a) help you assess the validity of your claim b) instruct you on basic terms re. Church doctrine c)crucially, give you an idea of the state of science at the time of Galileo's claims.
Had you done this you would realise that the mere observation DID NOT "disprove" (prove the falsity of geocentrism - do I really need to spell that out) geocentrism (why, oh why, do you think people celebrated a genuine proof (disproof of geocentrism) far later. Why did Kepler not think Galileo had disproved geocentrism??? Given that he had an even more accurate model and was apprised of the whole issue it would be extraordinary indeed for him not to simply accept the disproof. All of this is uncontroversial, except to those ignorant of the topic. So at present it's "Dixon" on one side - presenting as "facts" things which the scholarship utterly dismisses (Dixon regards his own ill-informed words as Holy Writ), and all of those who have actually read the transcripts of the debates, know the science and the history of science and have put pen to paper and revealed the results of their studies in consistent fashion.
As your questions have been answered and you have been urged to do some more research I suggest we leave it there.
stanley Brecht is, surprise, surprise, wrong - Galileo was never "threatened with torture" for starters. The rest has been dealt with above (one of the reasons sources need to be given is because the topic is huge - anyone examining it will find that Dixon's crude caricature is an historical travesty - apparently the great Pierre Duhem, a truly great scientist and a truly great historian of science missed what Dixon found - strangely he, like Galileo's contemporaies and those following on for up to 2 centuries! - did NOT hold that the observations "disproved" geocentrism - and, on the scintific grounds of the time, were correct (regardless of what was demonstrated later).
Finally, when you make an historical claim, it seems right and proper to refer you to historians. As I said before, you start from a wrong remise and keep repeating a false claim. That, apparently, is your reasoning. The historical claim is just that - I direct you to sources that deal with the actual writings and words of Galileo and the proper context and the Observations - apparently that's misdirection!!! I see you are no historian (or scientist I'll wager). I do not accuse you of dishonesty (though I note you fling that tem at me) but I do suggest that you investigate the case. I don't think ALL of the names thus far mentioned post-Galileo were idiots unable to see an obvious disproof. Nor does the scholarship you appear to ignore. Happy reading (as to "something I read" - I wonder how you chanced upon your alleged "fact"? In a work of poor (and much refuted) 'scholarship' I don't doubt. I wonder what you make of Columbus' "disproof" of the flat earth theory.
Finally, the Vatican objected to Galielo teaching the Coeprnican system AS TRUE - as opposed to a hypothesis (which was allowed). So the condemnation centred around a claim of Galileo's that he had disproved geocentrism - that claim was, as such, based only on the "observation" false - the observation did not disprove it at all (see point re. Kepler above etc.). That the CHurch acted in a woeful manner is not to be doubted. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't get the story right.
There. Hope this helps.

Michael B

stanley Jerusalem,

I essentially agree with that 8:44pm comment, as far as it goes. As I stated previously, none of the material I took note of "excuses [any] of the excesses committed by the church." Though I should change my earlier comment to read as follows, changing a single term (substituting "simply" for "primarily"):

"As pertains to Galileo Galilei, the two condemnations of the church (in 1616 and 1633) were not simply concerned with enforcing church doctrine. They represented a set of three interlocking concerns: 1) scientific conceptions per se (e.g., epistemological issues related to hypotheses and broader theoretical conceptions), 2) philosophical conceptions (prominently, Aristotelian) and 3) religious doctrine."

(Also, the "E pur si muove" is myth, I believe it's derived from Bertolt Brecht, who was a playwright and theater personality, not a historian. Galileo was not tortured, even the "threat" of torture is debated by serious historians, and when he was imprisoned he was imprisoned under house arrest with the Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, himself an enthusiastic supporter of Galileo, in the palace of Niccolini, the ambassador's residence.)

wonderer

Why on earth are you people banging on about Galileo in this way? Not only is it off topic but I am reminded of the line in "Blazing Saddles", "Are we accomplishing anything or just jerking off?"

Linda Smith

For those seeking to connect Galileo's conflict with the Catholic church with Howard Jacobson's article...

Ms Phillips wrote "At the centre of his hearbroken and anguished requiem for dear old decent rational Britain which is dying before our eyes lies his identification of a new and vicious form of Holocaust denial and Jew-hatred - the equation of Israel and the Nazis and of Gaza with the Warsaw Ghetto..."

The rational empirical scientist Galileo represents "dear old decent rational Britain which is dying out before our eyes"
The irrational ideology of the Catholic Church represents the irrational ideology of "a new and vicious form of Holocaust denial and Jew-hatred...."

Galileo represents the rational posters.
The Catholic Church represents Carl, George Laird, Celtic Leopard, Si,N, Derek Blades etc clinging obstinately to their viewpoint and ignoring any facts that falsify their irrational ideology.

John Edwards

Howard Jacobson has been using his Independent column to peddle the "criticism of Israel = anti-semitism" argument for some years now. I am surprised he was given a two page spread to do it yet again.

A good response form Caryl Churchill though, which put matters into perspective. As she says we ought to be able to disagree politically without such tedious accusations.

hadrian

Anti-Semitism stinks- and it stinks all the more when it wafts and is fanned by the Left. It gives the lie to leftist spurious concern for 'justice'. That our nation is losing its glorious record of liberty goes without question. As the onward, self-loathing march of anti-Protestant belief advances so will the loss of right reason and freedom and security. Our mad urge to accommodate an ideology armed to the teeth against all our hard won Western values and which espouses a society so repressive it wouldn't be tolerated for a second were it not seen as a 'religion' - this mad blindness will see not just Jew but Christian utterly subjugated. The sophisticates laugh- but the time WILL come, unless we wake up- when they'll be the very first to cry foul!!
We need another Glorious Revolution-only then will our Jewish friends be able to feel safe again!

stanley Jerusalem

I love this Blog! Linda Smith, Bless her, sums it all up perfecly.
Wonderer doesn't know why we are dicussing Galileo.
Michael B. is still examining the entrails and joy of joys, Peter L continues to bark though the caravan has moved on.
Only Ronnie has noticed the all-important Champions' League's return
"Please, just one more Schnitzelgrube, Sherif Bart!"
[Madeline Kahn in Blazing Saddles.]

Stanley Johnson

Peter L.

To say something on topic (!) - it would be interesting to find posters reactions to Caryl Churchill's letter responding to Jacobson's criticisms. Any takers?

phil

I must admit that I am beginning to doubt my own sanity when reading this thread -I thought it was something to do with Howard's article but it seems to have become a battle between the forces of right and wrong represented by Dixon and peter L who is reminding me of a wonderful film named THE RAINMAN-Dustin Hoffman an expert on numbers and clueless at anything else including crossing the road brings to mind one of these participants and it is not Dixon -I will again implore you to read Howard's "the great walzer" it will help you all to recover from this assault on our senses -you too Dixon ,we need you back on your normal sensible writing -I have no hope for the other man .

phil

john edwards ,you keep turning up like a smelly sock to say something nasty and utterly unconstructive -perhaps you should read the words of wonderer above who seems to have you made --"Are we accomplishing anything or just jerking off?" what a wise man !

Perhaps you could perform a useful service here and tell us why you dislike all things Jewish so much and why you cannot evaluate each person seperately -I know a number of Jewish people who I do not like but it is not beacuse they are Jewish .The mindset that you represent continues to baffle all who do not have it ,so you could do a great service to this world by explaining it -but will you ?-I doubt it so I will not be keeping your chicken soup warm for you .

phil

Peter L--.yes I have read it and my suggestion to you is to go and sit in the audience with a placard attached to your back proclaiming that you are a JEW ,maybe then you will find the truth that you are seeking -You have read a lot of books and can churn out many quotations but you have not acquired any common sense and I am sure I am not the first to have told you that.Without doubt you are the strangest man who has ever written on these threads .There has been a mix of wonderful people and also those that come to hate but you stand alone as the most confused of all .

On the whole I try to write my thoughts in pursuit of a better and fairer world as most do here ,and I admit to making fun of the likes of the laird and carl ,but with all the copious comments you have made I have no idea what you are trying to say ,or what you are and I really wonder whether you do either .

phil

apologies for so many posts this morning -there was much to say

Mark

For the record, here is Caryl Churchill's letter in today's Independent:

''My play, Seven Jewish Children, to which Howard Jacobson referred, shows the difficulty of explaining violence to children. In the early scenes, it is violence against Jewish people; by the end, it is the violence in Gaza.

It covers many years in 10 minutes and is, of course, an incomplete history. It leaves out a great deal that is favourable to Israel and a great deal that is unfavourable. It shows people being persecuted, some of them going to a homeland (where others have been displaced) and the defensiveness of their threatened position, leading to further violence.

Howard Jacobson seems to see the play from a very particular perspective so that everything is twisted. The characters are “covert and deceitful”, they are constructing a “parallel hell” to Hitler’s Europe, they are “monsters who kill babies by design”. I don’t recognise the play from that description.

Throughout the play, families try to protect children. Finally, one of the parents explodes, saying, “No, stop preventing her from knowing what’s on the TV news”. His outburst is meant, in a small way, to shock during a shocking situation. Is it worse than a picture of Israelis dancing for joy as smoke rises over Gaza? Or the text of Rabbi Shloyo Aviner’s booklet distributed to soldiers saying cruelty is sometimes a good attribute?

Then we have “chosen people”. Some people are now uncomfortable with a phrase that can seem to suggest racial superiority. But George W Bush, speaking to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, talked about “the homeland of the chosen people” without anyone suggesting he was accusing Israelis of racism or was anti-Semitic. Some supporters of Israel still use it with enthusiasm.

Finally, the blood libel. I find it extraordinary that, because the play talks about the killing of children in Gaza, I am accused of reviving the medieval blood libel that Jews killed Christian children and consumed their blood. The character is not “rejoicing in the murder of little children”. He sees dead children on television and feels numb and defiant in his relief that his own child is safe. He believes that what has happened is justified as self-defence. Howard Jacobson may agree. I don’t, but it doesn’t make either of them a monster, or me anti-Semitic.

If one of the main pieces of evidence for the rise of anti-Semitism is this play, I don’t think there’s much to worry about. If it’s really on the increase, then we should all stand up against it. But calling political opponents anti-Semitic just confuses the issue.

When people attack English Jews in the street saying, “This is for Gaza”, they are making a terrible mistake, confusing the people who bombed Gaza with Jews in general. When Howard Jacobson confuses those who criticise Israel with anti-Semites, he is making the same mistake. Unless he’s doing it on purpose.''

Caryl Churchill

Suffolkbor

Galileo ?
I prefer Garibaldi .
Nice biscuits, even though they get a bit soggy when you dunk them in your Tea .

stanley Jerusalem

I'm sorry Suffolkbor but Galileo was the first to dunk his biscuits in his tea when observing [[I wanted to say Uranus but anachronism prevented me] the transit of Venus - the girl who lived in the apartment opposite. She was 17 and couldn't see the old bugger in the dark. He naturally dropped his biscuits in the tea when her transit was exposed .

Dumb blonde

BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Michael B

stanley Jerusalem,

Save your "entrail" and other snide insults for someone else. I pointed out the fact that you're relying upon a playwright rather than a historian, much less an intellectual historian, such as a Feyerabend or a Pierre Duhem. The fact is, it does not reduce to your or Bertolt Brecht's pious conceptions, not remotely so because the attendant fact is philosophical issues, including philosophy of science issues, were at issue. If you need someone to play a part in your pre-scripted conceptions, find someone else.

Linda Smith

Peter L asks

"Why did Kepler not think Galileo had disproved geocentrism???"

Maybe Kepler didn't want to be upstaged.

"Finally, the Vatican objected to Galielo teaching the Coeprnican system AS TRUE - as opposed to a hypothesis (which was allowed)...That the CHurch acted in a woeful manner is not to be doubted.."

The Catholic church didn't want to be upstaged either.

The point about Galileo is that he TESTED his hypothesis. The testing is what gave Galileo the edge. Everybody from the early Greeks onwards had hypotheses, but they didn't TEST them. As long as you don't TEST a hypothesis, nobody can say anyone else's hypothesis is false. Galileo challenged the authority of the Church. The Catholic church could not countenance its authority being challenged.

As Howard Jacobson says in his article "Deviate a fraction of a millimetre from the prevailing orthodoxy and you are either not listened to or you are jeered at and abused..."

stanley Jerusalem

Michael B - The fact is, it does not reduce to your or Bertolt Brecht's pious conceptions, not remotely so because the attendant fact is philosophical issues, including philosophy of science issues, were at issue.

In a word [2] 'Round objects'
Galileo was right, the Church didn't like it and tried to marginalise him to 'prove his error' everything else is subsequent verbal masturbation including the 'snide' accusers who are so far up their own fundamental orifices that they cannot perceive th perspective of the situation. BTW I'm told the flights of geese ar a good alternative to entrails for explaining the incomprehendable

Ronnie

Yes, Linda Smith, but what Howard didn't say is that there are a great many competing orthodoxies to choose from and thus numerous sources of jeering and abuse.

Peter L.

But the Chuch allowed for the heliocentrism hypothesis to be taught as a hypothesis! Galileo never came close to disproving the geocentrism hypothesis (that was to come in large part through observation and knowledge much later) and his observation (which needs to be read about to asses exactly WHAT Galielo said he observed) did not constitute a "test" for that hypothesis. Read Robert Bellarmine if you have any doubts about the Church and hypotehsis.
As to your speculation about Kepler (you don't mention all the great scientists and historians of science who thought as Kepler did and were and are in do danger of being upstaged centuries later!!) and the Church - I really would read the literature in order to properly assess whether such speculations are reasonable or not.

Ronnie

Man. Utd. did well last night, Inter were quite poor and I was surprised that Barcelona were held by Lyon...

Peter L.

stanley: Not aware that anyone has disputed that, ultimately, Galileo's hypothesis was right. But that was never what was at issue. Various posters made false claims. People tried to correct them. They persisted - hence the tedious length of this. Those going on and on are merely those who persist in error. THAT is the source of the waffle - and it doesn't come from those merely correcting error.

stanley Jerusalem

No, of course it doesn't Peter L., does it?

stanley Jerusalem

Ronnie - Arsenal put up a good show despite a tedious game. I wonder whether my beloved Spurs will still be in the ring after Thursday.
Schwer tzu zein a Yid!

phil

Ronnie
February 25th, 2009 11:55am

Man. Utd. did well last night, Inter were quite poor and I was surprised that Barcelona were held by Lyon...AND PETER L did not go to see the play ,nor did he answer the question -perhaps he was choking on it or maybe one of his galliwhatsit biscuits

stanley Jerusalem

Gallimaufrey Phil.

Peter L.

What was the question phil - happy to answer (or try to) any question you want me to on these topics. Fire away.

stanley Jerusalem

BTW Phil, I'm surprised Atletico let a 2 goal lead slip, aren't you?

phil

stanley Jerusalem :whichever one it is it turns into chazerei

stanley Jerusalem

Phil PLEASE don't 'fire away. PLEASE!

stanley Jerusalem

Gentlemen. I feel a glossary coming on.....

Peter L.

stanley - if someone accuses me of failing to answer a question they are either saying something true/false. If true I won't to show that I am not avoiding their question (which presumably they think is bad form - otherwise why bring it up) if false then perhaps, in all decency, they should withdraw the remark. Basic really (and very very tiresome to have to point out).

stanley Jerusalem

Peter L. - won't ???

Peter L.

ooops - I meant "want". Perhaps delirium is seeting in!

phil

Peter L.
February 25th, 2009 2:36pm

ooops - I meant "want". Perhaps delirium is seeting in!
question what do you mean settling (seeting) in? ,and did you attend the play with the placard on your back?----NO will not do .

phil

stanley Jerusalem-I only lob alkies

Linda Smith

Peter L: You focus on facts but fail to understand the wider historical, psychological and sociological issues including the human lust for AUTHORITY AND POWER. As I recall, Galileo lived at time of the Protestant Reformation. Rome was losing power. Galileo lived in Italy - harder for him to oppose the church's authority. Kepler was German. The further away you were from Rome the more freedom you had to oppose the Catholic doctrine.

"In 1610 Kepler heard about Galileo's discoveries with the telescope and wrote a long letter of support which he published as 'Dissertatio cum nuncio sidero (Conversation with the sidereal messenger). Later that year, he presented his own observations of Jupiter's moons. These writings gave tremendous support to Galileo, whose discoveries were being widely doubted and denounced by church authorities." (Internet Encyclopedia of Science.")

Similar power battles have been going on for years between people for or against string theory. If theoretical physicists wanted a job, or to keep their job, they had to toe the line and not criticise string theory.

Whoever is in power, whether its the Catholic, the String Theory Professors, Gordon Brown's Labour government, the Greens, the Islamists - they cannot allow themselves to be shown to be wrong, because they lose funding, Authority and Power. I

Please don't start a debate on string theory!!!

Ronnie

I would prefer not to hypothesize on the likely fate of Spurs at the hands of Man. Utd. on Sunday.

I am happy to wait for the proof, which I think will be devastatingly self-evident to the point of being beyond dispute, even by the Church.

Peter L.

Linda
All very well - but the central fact is to do with the nature of Galileo's observation and whether it disproved geocentrism or not. The claim was made that did - it didn't - so the story/cliche is false. C'est tout.

phil

Ronnie even Galileo cannot save them they will be Berbatoved to a crisp and then Rooneyed and covered in Ronaldo -their best chance is if peterL is the ref -his pre match instructions might take them past closing time.

Stanley are you coming? ,bagels and lox at half time which will probably be 3AM if a late licence is granted .

Peter L.

Moreover - Kepler did not oppose the Church insofar as he postulated a hypothesis (actually a far more accurate hypothesis than Galileo) - so the point re. distance is not to the point.

phil

Linda everything PL is writing here is obiter dictum and I would rather be on Howards wave length ie -ratio decidendi -why are we feeding his frenzy for ingratiating himself to himself -the whole point of this thread was "‘deranged and irreversible’ hatred of Israel that has engulfed Britain’'s intelligentsia and poisoned the environment for so many British Jews"-------------
Does anyone know where Galileo davens(prays)?

MV

phil - I for one have learnt some things frojm the discussion of which Peter L. has played such a part. I'm afraid that I have never read a single post of yours that actually contained any valuable information. I am sorry that that is the case, esp. as you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time on these things.
I hope you don't waste more resonding to this post. All I advise is to look at the quality of your posts before berating others.

Linda Smith

Peter L.

At the outset of this debate on Galileo on Friday last, I referred to Galileo's dispute with the Catholic Church only to illustrate a point. You have run off at a tangent which may be interesting to you, but is totally irrelevant to the subject of the thread which is about people denying and twisting facts of the Holocaust in the service of antisemitic ideology.

So, although in your opinion, "the central fact is to do with the nature of Galileo's observation and whether it disproved geocentrism or not", for the purposes of this thread, this is not the "central fact" at all.

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss facts in the history and philosophy of science but to discuss the reasons for people's beliefs and behaviour. So unless you can apply your "central fact" to the subject of the thread, it is totally irrelevant.

You remind me of a student who, instead of answering the question on an exam paper, answers one he substitutes himself.

phil

MV I dont know how to" resond "-who asked you for an opinion anyway and where will you be speaking tomorrow ?

nevertheless you may have learned something about galileo but nothing about the reason for this thread ,but do not worry my son we have many shmucks like you here .

Peter L.

Linda
I simply responded to an erroneous claim of yours. My apologies for assuming accracy mattered here. And of course the truth or falsity of beliefs is crucially important- how otherwise are we to assess in any valuable way. You made an error - and errors can't be usefully applied to anything (or ill-thought points re. Kepler). I pity any student who has as a teacher someone uninterested in the 'truths' on which he/she bases her speculations.
As to the thread I discussed it at the top - and invited more comments on Churchill. You chose to ignore that and keep making points about Galileo which only proved your inability to read posts or history.

Michael B

stanley Jerusalem,

You've cited a playwright; by contrast, in Feyerabend and Pierre Duhem, I've suggested two intellectual historians in support of my argument. Further, while agreeing with you to the degree that agreement is warranted, I also took note of the fact that beyond a rudimentary level the subject matter quickly gets into arcane and arguably more abstruse territory, due to the fact that the concerns of the church did NOT simply involve doctrine in some abstracted or isolated sense. To the contrary, the concerns of the church involved a set of three interlocking concerns: 1) scientific conceptions as such (e.g., related to hypotheses and conceptions of theory, epistemological concerns), 2) still broader philosophical conceptions, essentially Aristotelian - in addition to 3) religious doctrine.

You also add invective to your "argument," such as it is. Who's the next playwright you'd like to add to your storytelling, a guy by the name of Hochhuth, perhaps? The irony is, you're an intellectual and doctrinaire based bigot, and contentedly incurious.

stanley Jerusalem

Michael B
"The irony is, you're an intellectual and doctrinaire based bigot, and contentedly incurious."
Got it in one sunshine!
I'm not so certain about the incurious bit though.
Also literate or no,concepts as opposed to conceptions, are nowhere near as enjoyable in my experience.
BTW What do episstemological mean?

stanley Jerusalem

Michael B
One more question. Did the Church or did the Church not attempt to stifle Galileo's finding in order to preserve their grip on the dogma to which they required their adherents to follow? Were they once again guilty of mind-bending or am I missing a bigger picture here. I speak as a self-confessed doctrinaire based bigot with a one-take view on the World. [How did you know I am a bass?]

Linda Smith

Michael B: Your 3 points re the Catholic church express my point re power. The religious doctrine was that the earth was the centre of the Universe. If that doctrine was falsified, then the rest of the church's doctrine was open to doubt. Result loss of power. Put your arguments in context of the Reformation going on at the same time as Galileo's dispute with the church. Protestant versus Catholic alliances and wars across Europe.

The argument going here requires an interdisciplinary approach. Church's concerns need to be seen in context. Sadly an interdisciplinary approach is lacking in most of English education. Result: tunnel vision

Michael B

stanley, comparable insults have been edited in a selective and one-way manner here, so proceed apace and sneer away, but it seems I'm hobbled in that vein. Apparently, British Decency requires such selectivity.

phil

Stanley is this really you that Michael is talking about?---"-The irony is, you're an intellectual and doctrinaire based bigot, and contentedly incurious." I,m buggered if I know what he means as I had you down as an ordinary !yiddle from da middle" send him a latke and an ugeke ,it will calm him down -he is the nice michael isnt he ?and maybe nishtome it vos flattery ---vot do I know I only vent to da cheder in da hamerois ,never learned no big vords like dat :)

stanley Jerusalem

Phil - It is indeed I towards whom he directs his sword of truth and prepuce of righteousness. Since I clearly recall the last two-faced cad who misused those words one can only speculate on their common source.

However,your descent into the vernacular displays a deep acquaintance with our brethren the Chutkies from the Tenter Grounds in Spitalfields from where my Zeider purchased onions and potatoes in 1902.
Just think; that so-called working -class Jewish accent was not a thousand miles from South African English with Amsterdam the common ground between the two separated by a mere 300 years.
I'll give 'im contentedly incurious!
Now where was I? Oh yes.
Play the music! Open the cage!

phil

stanley Jerusalem-I have not forgotten where I came from ,if some of these posters have ,I was dangled over a shmaltz herring barrel every sunday and was used for fishing them out -you do not forget that even if mr galileo has forgotten -I am waiting for his report on the play where he will attend with a placard "I am A jew" on his back and clutching a lokshen pudding to his breast.They use big words but use no sense .

Peter L.

Linda
Given the errors you've made thus far your theory re. power isn't really based on much. After all, if the Church and the top scientists of the time (and a long time after etc.) rejected Galileo's professed proof (which wasn't one) then the Church may have had other reasons than "power" to reject the proferred "proof". As to the status of the "religious doctrine" - well it was never infallibly held (remember the Church allowed the teaching of the hypothesis). So such a doctrine would NOT at least logically, have led t oa generalised doubt about doctrine (the very fact that the Churh allowed for such teaching is evidence that the doctrine was not held as infallible!). I agree about the need for an interdisciplinary approach - but without basic knowledge of the subject matter no progress is likely to be made - speculation without that knowledge is not going to help.

Linda Smith

Peter L. "without basic knowledge of the subject matter no progress is likely to be made ...".

I was required to study the philosophy of science and the Copernican revolution as part of my honours degree in Psychology. Does that count as basic knowledge?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

stanley Jerusalem

Phil - Psalms CXV and CXXXV. "They have mouths and speak not, eyes and they see not.."

Michael B

stanley Jerusalem,
As you yourself stated in another thread "... never let the truth get in the way of a good story," a particularly ironic observation given the "good story" of a playwright serves your own premeditated ends. In that same comment (of yours) you go on to say something about "not listening but rearranging their prejudices."
Listen, stanley: read - and comprehend. I.e. you've been little more than a dissimulator herein, so you might consider taking your own medicine. It wasn't enough that I agreed with you (and repeatedly stated so, three or four different times) to the degree that agreement is warranted. No. You require total and absolute agreement, no matter how critical, how pivotal, the caveat - and no matter that sound and conscientious intellectual historians need to be ignored in the process.

stanley Jerusalem

Michael B - If you really think that I'm a dissimulator,whatever that is meant to indicate, then maybe you are looking at my comments with your fists figuatively raised in defence of what you have already said. I was endeavouring, obviously unsuccessfully in your case, to put the point of the Church's mind-bending motivation in the case we discussed as well as others with other Churches. I don't demand anything of you. That is clearly something you demand of yourself, over which I have no control nor do I wish it.That others at different times in history have put forward differing theses to the same event is natural. We all view events with both the benefit and the disability of our own prejudices. No-one is neutral.

Peter L.

Linda
I was inferring from some of the statements you have written which suggest that you do not know the subject very well. I do not say this to insult you - I think that this particular period of history is, like Middle East studies, surrounded by various agendas. The best way to find out what's going on is to go straight to the primary sources. The sources I suggest (and the poster Michael B.) are a good place to start. Believe it or not I agree with a fair amount of what you say - I just think the discussion made certain presuppositions about Galielo's observations/their "dispoof" of geocentrism, the state of science of the time and the level and nature of the Catholic Church's objections. If those things aren't right the other speculations aren't going to lead anywhere. That said, I do agree with you about narrowness - and I think we can see the results in much political discussion (esp. Middle East) - and they ain't pretty. My apologies for the harshness of tone in earlier posts. I am sorry for that.

Ronnie

Ah, Linda Smith, now you've really hit the nail on the head.

And yet...how big is the pin? How small are the angels. Would the Church resist the hypothesis that angels do a no such thing?

Its never as simple as you think.

Linda Smith

Dear Peter L, Michael B, Phil, Stanley Jerusalem, Ronnie, Dixon, and everyone else who joined in the debate on Galileo and the church,

Thank you for a wonderful week. I have laughed till I split my sides (figuratively speaking of course). I have walked down the street in hysterics (laughter I mean) so that passers by must have thought I was mad.

Peter L, you hit the nail on the head when you said

"I think that this particular period of history is, like Middle East studies, surrounded by various agendas."

It took a week, but we finally got there.

My philosophy tutor, Adrian, would be delighted to know that Galileo landed up on the pages of the Spectator.

phil

Linda Smith -lINDA, thank G that some of us are still sane -when I was really wondering I went and read a chapter of Howard's "the great walzer"there was no Galileo there -there was a George who always wore a raincoat ,no time for that fancy stuff ,he came from a family on the river bug near letichev and they spent most of their time dodging Cossacks -never saw Galileo or Peter L,s relatives ----------

.I have to admit that I thought Galileo was a song by Abba ,but there was a guy in our ping pong team who played number three just below ogimura ,an ex world champion who we borrowed from a local sushi bar for difficult matches .Peter l ,couldn't get in the team but was allowed to make the sandwiches ,unless it was foggy ,then he could drive the car :))

I could ask my dear friend who posts here as "sweetie "if she had ever heard of Peter ,her family came from a shtetl in Lithuania and I seem to remember her saying they lived in Galileo street or something like that -enjoy the weekend ,I think he has gone ,possibly to the Royal court with the placard on -