An Ode to Joy this is not

d1carter

So this is what "Community Organizers" do...?

Suki

Quite. If Israel does have to fend A'jad off choking it to death, the global repercussions will be seismic.

Many thought Obama would bring war to the Middle East and he could yet bring civil war to America. Many ordinary Americans will get more angrier the tighter Obama allows Iran to fasten its grip around Israel's throat.

LGuapo

As Barack stated just the other day while dashing out for a quick burger in his heavily armored limousine amid a small eco-friendly coterie of armed guards, sharpshooters, close-combat specialists, medical staff, food taster, and teleprompter operator, “It is possible for one side of the garden to be flooded, and the other side to be dry. Some plants do well in the sun, and others grow better in the cool of the shade. It is the gardener's responsibility to take water from the flooded area and run it to the area that is dry. It is the gardener's responsibility not to plant a sun-loving flower in the shade of a high wall.”

gary ashton

now is a good time for israel to cut ties with the US, yeah the relationship has been very strong but it would send a powerful message to the world, israel cannot sell its soul and spirit to the threat of obama. perhaps it will be economically tough for israel but the time is come for the country to stand on its own feet as an independent nation mature enough to make its own decisions.

Terry, Eilat - Israel

Who expected better from Obama? Only the 78% of American Jews who voted for him, swallowing whole the pre-election lies & promises. The Obama apology tour, starting in Cairo, shows where Obama's priorities lie.

Michael

a little linguistic point. there is a difference between "unspeakable" which has the connotation of so disgusting that a thing cannot even be spoken of (as in the characterisation of foxhunting as the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable) and "ineffable" which referst to something so sacred, like God's true name, that it cannot be uttered. So "the ineffable Tzippi Livni" does not work - I presume you mean "unspeakable". This in turn begs the question of why, even if you disagree very strongly with Ms Livni's views and approach is she rendered thereby unspeakable.

Andre

As our own government dissolves (in Britain)it is alarming to behold the US presidency trashing itself on the world stage - kowtowing to terrorist fedayeen, the despots of north Korea, the islamo-fascists of Arabia. As he speeds through the poverty stricken barrios of Cairo Mr Obama should reflect that it was from these streets that the ancient Israelites set out on their long march for freedom, a march that even now informs our own aspiration to be reconciled with God. Whose side is Obama on? The good or the bad. The pharaohs or the children of the promise? I believe he has yet to chose. I wish Israel well. The US president may not have grasped this but many of us Christians in the west understand all too well that our freedom from oppression and sharia authoritarianism is bound up with the continued success of Israel.

Miranda Rose Smith

When people compare the Israelis to the Nazis, its an open-and-shut case of projection. They want the Jews finished off (they just want somebody else to do the messy work) and they project that onto the Israelis-the decentest people on the planet.

Shaun Harbord

No mention of the people of Gaza who suffered immensely from the recent Israeli assault, which not only killed some 1,400 and injured 5,000 but destroyed or heavily damaged mosques, schools, hospitals, universities, and industrial and other business establishments, in addition to thousands of private homes.

Derek BLADES

Ms Phillips was shocked and appalled by “[President] Obama’s irrational beliefs that a) removing the settlers is the route to a Palestinian state and b) such a state will end the Arab war against Israel and help defeat Iran,..." Let's take those points separately.

a) It is patently obvious that continued Israeli settlements are one of the main obstacles to the establishment of a Palestinian state. All of us would rightly be shocked and appalled at Ms Philips' ignorance if she believed otherwise.

Point b) is a mixture of half truths and misunderstanding. Not many of us have noticed an “Arab war against Israel” lately. Perhaps this is a typo and she means Israel's war against the Arabs - in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza for example. In any event I am sure that Obama does not think that removing the settlers would bring peace to the Middle-East but he is surely right to believe that it is an essential precondition. As regards the curious claim that this will help the United States to "defeat Iran", Ms Phillips should study the President's recent speeches more carefully. Defeating Iran is certainly not his objective: "defeat" is what we do to an enemy but Obama has made it clear that he wants to treat Iran as a partner in the peace process. “Defeating” Iran plays no part in America’s current, and more enlightened, policy in the Middle East.

MD

Yes. And it takes wiser heads than at the BBC to appreciate that going back on presidential understandings, in this instance regarding the natural growth of towns, such as Ariel, has the effect of invalidating the Road Map, which relied on them. Learning that the word of a US administration can no longer be relied on will have the effect of encouraging that nation's real enemies and facilitating their aims.

Kimberley

Melanie--Who in the Obama administration would know their history sufficiently to plan something with the symbolic significance of the Dresden-Buchenwald tie-in you suggest? Hillary got pretty good grades, I guess...But for a group that gave a pile of DVD's to your Prime Minister? They must have some hoary-headed old history buff hiding behind the young progressives heading up that administration to conceive of something so devilishly clever.

Original Tony

I think Iran going nuclear and being attacked by Israel and /or the USA/Nato will precede any of the events described in Mel's article. I believe that Iran will put Obama fairly and squarely in his place. He will HAVE to act one way or the other and this will show his true colours.

However, things may not be so gloomy...did you notice the content of Obama's speech at the defence secretary's nomination? He was talking about building up missile shields again (after saying he was cutting finance) and that he was increasing the army's budget and giving the go-ahead for new equipment. This is something you dont do if you are expecting a positive spin-off from cosying up to tyrants.

On another point, I think it's disgusting that Obama has to keep apologizing for the USA, a country that has helped liberate millions of people, often without thanks.

And he is starting this crusade of apology from Cairo, when only about 25% of Muslims are Arab. He should be talking to Islam in Jakarta rather.

Anyway, events will soon rapidly unfold that will reveal the true Obama to all of us.

Nannette

It looks like Obamas policies could ignite WW3.

Roy

Obama is living up to his Muslim forbears by showing a definite liking to predominantly Muslim countries along with his discreet application of far left ideology. He can only show sympathy for his own, putting up with others to make the team look good, whilst sending chokingly condescending messages to his team cohorts and public following. He continues to offer comfort to counties inherently hostile to western freedoms because they are his cousins. He doesn't and never will have a passion for Euro-Americans, and seems, will continue to ignore their way of looking at things and basic cultural practices along with the inherited American freedoms.

Truthtriumphs

The Jerusalem Post reported that Israel and Russia have entered a new dialogue.
The American Administration needs to understand that Israel is an independent country that cannot be dictated to, and that it has other options.

Pitsmoor

"In other words, a thinly disguised requirement for ethnic cleansing through a policy of slow strangulation."

Sounds familiar...

tommy

The speech he should be making
http://tinyurl.com/m6vppv

Linda Smith

It has been said that the Second World War was fought because the Germans did not understand that, because their army returned home in reasonable shape, they had not been beaten in the First World War. That was one of the reasons for flattening Dresden...to make sure the Germans knew they had been well and truly beaten.

Dresden could also be interpreted as a warning.

Joshua

If you want to read a transcript of that interview of Obama by the BBC's Justin Webb, follow this link: http://tinyurl.com/prghj4

Richard Pearce

"ethnic cleansing through a policy of slow strangulation" has been practiced in the Jewish State since it's inception in 1948. It has also been practiced in the Palestinian territories since military occupation by the Israeli Army in 1967.

It appears that Obama can see through the smokescreen of hypocritical histrionics that are expurgated by Israel's more sensitive supporters.

I suspect that rather than Iran, Obama is more concerned with the nuclear threat posed by North Korea or indeed the opacous Israel.

Stopping further settlement activity is a sensible step towards creating an environment where realistic talk about peace in Palestine can commence.

The Palestinians will also have to make their concessions regarding the recognition of Israel's right to exist and renunciation of terrorism.

The quest for peace has to start somewhere and given the huge amount of financial aid that Israel receives from the US, I do not think that it is unreasonable for Obama to ask Israel to make the first move.

George

Michael,

Firstly,ineffable is a synonym for unspeakable: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ineffable

Secondly, Tzipi Livni is indeed unspeakable. One example of her behaviour was shown this week when she refused to allow the candidacy of one her party members to go forward for the post of the negotiator for the release of Gilad Shalit, even though he was obviously the most suitable person for the job. Her reason was that if he succeeded, Netanyahu would be the one who reaped the political gain. Any party leader who puts narrow party-political interests above those of the national interest indeed deserves the epithet of "unspeakable".

Andre

Shaun and Derek
The main obstacle to peace is not the Israelis who have always sought peace but the Arabs - including those of Gaza - who refuse to recognize the state of Israel, vilify Judaism and continue to foment hatred and violence. Why do they not sue for peace? As for settlements the sight of Palestinians smashing up Israeli buildings vacated in Gaza is hardly reassuring; theirs is a message hatred and destruction. Israel stands for peace and prosperity, decency and the rule of law, concepts sadly lacking in the terrorist-controlled Gaza - strip. The Arab war you claim not to have noticed has been boiling on for over 60 years and is about to add a nuclear chapter. It has claimed the lives of thousands and has gained the Arabs precisely nothing. Why not try giving peace a chance for a change?

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Mr. Harbord: If the people of Gaza hadn't spent years shooting at the Israelis, the Israelis wouldn't have gotten fed up and shot back and if the people of Gaza hadn't used their women and children as human shields, there wouldn't have been 1,400 killed and 5,000 injured and if the people of Gaza hadn't put their rocket launchers among the mosques, schools and hospitals, then the mosques, schools and hospitals wouldn't have been so heavily damaged.

Linda Smith

Richard Pearce: Funny sort of "ethnic cleansing" you claim "has been practiced in the Jewish State since it;s inception in 1948" - the Arab population is fast increasing and is over a million people. Where do you get your "facts"?

Certainly the "Palestinians" want their putative State "ethnically cleansed" of Jews. Any Jews in Gaza? Any comments on the "ethnic cleansing" of Jews by Arabs since 1948? Let's start, say, with the "ethnic cleansing" of the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.

"On 28 May 1948 the Arab Legion completed the capture of the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, which was the site of numerous ancient synagogues and the Western Wall of the Temple, destroyed by the Romans in year 70 AD. (These were and remain the holiest sites in the Jewish religion.) The Legion's commander, Abdallah el-Tal, recalled tht "The operations of calculated destruction were sent in motion. Only four days after our entry into Jerusalem the Jewish Quarter had become a graveyard." (Abdallah el-Tal, Disaster of Palestine, Cairo 1959). The Jews that survived surrendered and were forced to leave their homes.

After the Jewish Quarter was captured, the destruction, desecration and systematic looting of Jewish sites continued. 57 ancient synagogues, libraries and centers of religious study were ransacked and 12 were totally and deliberately destroyed. Those that remained standing were defaced, used for housing of both people and animals. Appeals were made to the United Nations and in the international community to declare the Old City to be an 'open city' and stop this destruction, but there was no response. This condition continued until Jordan lost control of Jerusalem in June 1967. (Terence Prittie, Whose Jerusalem? Frederick Muller Limited London 1981; Peter Schneider and Geoffrey Wigoder, Jerusalem Perspectives 1976 .) In addition, thousands of tombstones from the ancient cemetery on the Mount of Olives were used as paving stones for roads and as construction material in Jordanian army camps. After the 1967 war, Israelis who visited the cemetery on Mt. of Olives and saw the desecrated graves and smashed gravestones noted "that Jordanian soldiers and local residents had helped themselves to the stones to use as building materials." Graves were broken into pieces or used as flagstones, steps, or building materials. In 1967, graves were found open with the bones scattered. Parts of the cemetery were converted into parking lots, a filling station, and an asphalt road was built to cut through it. The Intercontinental Hotel was built at the top of the cemetery. Sadar Khalil, appointed by the Jordanian govt. as the official caretaker of the cemetery, built his home on the grounds using the stones robbed from graves to build it. In 1967, the press published extensive photos in which Jewish gravestones were found in Jordanian army camps, such as El Azariya, as well as in Palestinian walkways, steps, and pavement."

The "Palestinians" will certainly also have to make concessions, starting with their unreasonable demand that East Jerusalem (ie the Jewish Quarter/Old City) should be their capital, and presumably "ethnically cleansed" of Jews again.

After all, in "the quest for peace" we mustn't be hypocrites, nor must we deal in double standards.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Mr. Pearce: Just exactly when has ethnic cleansing through a policy of slow strangulation been practiced in the Jewish state, where Arabs get the same medical care Jews do, where they vote, sit in the Knesset, attend universities, have their propaganda taught, at government expense, in schools? Arabs in Israel are the freest in the Middle East!

Augustus

The Two State Solution constitutes a phase in the permanent jihad to eliminate the Jewish State, the outpost of
Western democracies. It rewards terrorist regimes, fuels Arab expectations and demands for an all out war, further destabilizes the Middle East, and damages the pursuit of long-
term peace, thus undermining US
national security interests.

Islamic law favours war against non-Muslim enemies - only desisting from war against them when the non-Muslim enemy is too strong. Hence, by weakening Israel by giving away territory strategically necessary to Israel to her enemies, the Western powers, especially the US and UK, are encouraging the Arabs to make war on Israel. An Israel weakened by territorial loss and partly demoralized for that same reason.

Some historians have suggested that the bombings of Dresden in WW2 shortened the war. About 40,000 citizens perished. Some people have suggested that theses bombings constitute a war crime. But these people usually make these statements during the luxury of peacetime. However, the best people to judge these matters are the politicians in power when the war itself is raging, and not politicians who were not even born when the event itself took place.

gary

Israel should make the world aware that East Jerusalem under Palestinian control would include yhe Old City with all its Christian sites.

peter watkins

Aren't the settlements illegal?

BillM

Hillary who?

Peter from Paulborough

To Miranda Rose Smith:

Thanks for your great posts which are excellent ripostes if ever I read any!

Times are sure a troublin' but it does lift ones spirits somewhat when you see that there are still good folk with good old common sense around.

Best wishes.

Raymond in DC

Melanie: "If the US were to punish Israel for not agreeing to commit national suicide, the real Israel lobby in America -- the Christian heartlands – would go nuts."

Unfortunately, Obama is not beholden to this group. He brushed them away during the campaign as those who "cling to their guns and religion". To paraphrase James Baker's reported remarks about the Jews, "F*** 'em. They don't vote for us anyway."

And Richard Pierce claims Israel has engaged in ethnic cleansing "since it's inception in 1948. It has also been practiced in the Palestinian territories since military occupation by the Israeli Army in 1967."

Total rubbish. Israel's own Arab population is some five times bigger today than it was in 1948. And the Arab population of Gaza and the West Bank has also exploded since 1967. Israelis clearly are very bad at this "ethnic cleansing" thing. It should be noted that it was Israel, starting in 1967, that built most of the medical facilities and colleges in Gaza and the West Bank, and life expectancy, education levels and GNP per capita all increased consistently until Oslo brought Arafat and his PA to run things.

Jennie

Melanie Phillips always, always hits the nail right on the head. She has never failed to say the things people only think but are afraid to say. She is fearless and has become one of my favorite columnists

Drakken

Obama is going to get us into a shooting war, All this groveling to the savages makes us look weak.
As much as I didn't like a lot of Bush's policies, at least they feared us.
Good luck Isreal, don't count on the US govt to help, but you can count on the citizens.

John Edwards

The two state settlement requires a complete withdrawal by Israel from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, subject to mutual adjustment of the border along the Green Line (as originally envisaged by the drafters of UN Resolution 242).

The Palestinians are entitled to nothing less under international law. Therefore the illegal settlements have to go. If the penny has finally dropped with the current American administration then there is a chance of progress on resolving the Israel\Palestine conflict.

Also I note that Linda Smith has nothing to say about the destruction of the ancient Moroccan Quarter of Jerusalem by Israel in 1967, an act of desecration which destroyed four Muslim religious sites and evicted 1000 residents.

hadrian

Really, Mr Blades, Obama's wanting to be Iran's friend is a bit like wanting Hitler for your best mate. Just recall what their ineffable/unspeakable/insufferable president has recently been saying about blowing Israel off the map. And Israel is supposed to cuddle up to such vipers?!

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Peter: Thanks. You should see the postings they don't print!

Andre

John Edwards is quite wrong. The two state solution is no solution at all - look at the mess the so called Palestinians have made of Gaza - and the corruption endemic in the West Bank. There never was a Palestinian state, or capital or government. It's a false construct, a reaction to the historic inevitability of the return to Zion. The solution is the Arab recognition of Israel's right to exist with Jerusalem as its capital. Jordan and Egypt - newly ennobled by democracy - should retrieve Gaza and part of the west bank. Israelis, far from withdrawing from settlements in Judea and Samaria, should be encouraging the good work of reclaiming the desert and progressing the local economy. Israel is a vibrant, exciting country which can really help energize the moribund middle east once hatred and rascism are eschewed.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, Is your comment of 3rd June at 12.46 not disingenuous? You say "Funny sort of ethnic cleansing" - yet just the other day you endorsed the argument made by Benny Morris that ethnic cleansing was justified in 1948 by the "existential threat" Israel faced, and that such ethnic cleansing would be justified in future if Israel again faced an existential threat, because the Arab citizens of Israel were a threat both to security and "demographically".

(The notion that citizens of a state could be a "demographic" threat to that state is very peculiar. I think Benny Morris believes it follows from his regret that Israel did not finish its ethnic cleansing more thoroughly in 1948, and left some Palestinian Arabs in their villages, who then had to be made citizens of Israel - Israel after all is a liberal democracy - although clearly citizens of a different sort, subject to military law, and since the mid-sixties to discriminatory civil law, and now threatened with expulsion. And the "demographic" threat? These citizens who are not proper citizens have more children on average than do proper citizens! - Israel, remember, is a liberal democracy.)

You must also know that there are many in Israel, including the current Foreign Minister, who believe that Israel should not wait until it believes it faces an "existential threat", but should expel these citizens now. Ethnic cleansing, expulsion, transfer - what's in a name?

Richard Pearce

Have the responses I posted yesterday been censored?

Original Tony

Richard...half the posts I submit dont get through so dont take it personally.

It is really annoying actually and has tempted me to look for blogs elsewhere

blue_&_white_avenger

According to John Edwards, "Also I note that Linda Smith has nothing to say about the destruction of the ancient Moroccan Quarter of Jerusalem by Israel in 1967, an act of desecration which destroyed four Muslim religious sites and evicted 1000 residents".
I'm not surprised Linda Smith didn't mention it since it didn't exist. What did exist was a series of ramshackle shacks butting up against the most holy Jewish site -the Western Wall- the remains of the Temple.
BTW what were 4 holy Moslem sites - they seem to abound everywhere ?

Jonathan Gold

As an Israeli citizen, the prospect of Tzippi Livini becoming PM is deeply troubling. Although I do not share her world view, what scares me is her indecision and lack of leadership skills.

Let's not forget that Mrs Livni failed to create a coalition and triggered an unecessary election. After winning the election, she failed to create a coalition. But even if Barry manages to pull this off, Tzippi's incompetence will ensure Bibi's swift return.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, Just to be sure you are up with the debate:

The best place to start when looking for definitions of ehtnic cleansing is in a couple of articles:

"...ethnic cleansing is a well-defined policy of a particular group of persons systematically to eliminate another group from a given territory on the basis of religion, ethnic or national origin. Such a policy involves violence and is very often connected with militry operations. It is to be achieved by all means possible, from discrimination to extermination..." Drazen Petrovic, European Journal of International Law 5/3 1994)

"...ethnic cleansing can be understood as the forced expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory as a result of religious or ethnic discrimination, political, srategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these..."
Andrew Bell-Fialkov Foreign Affairs 72(3).

(I am told these articles are on Wikipedia.)

I note that you are able to use the
words "massacre", "expulsion" and "ethnic cleansing" appropriately when Jews, the Yishuv, or Israel are the victims, or when the crimes are committed in other times and places. There are a couple of ethical principles apply. If it is ethnic cleansing when against Jews, then it is ethnic cleansing when against Palestinian Arabs. And, if a crime has been committed without penalty by someone, that does not justify others in committing a similar crime. If the Nazis attempted the ethnic cleansing of the west of Poland or the Soviets of East Prussia, that does not justify Israel in cleansing Palestine.

I note also that your argument relies on the assumption that Israel fought a defensive war in 1948. First, a defensive war does not justify ethnic cleansing. And, secondly, you know that the assertion that the war was defensive is highly contentious. You have been presented with prima facie evidence that your assertion is at the very least not the whole story. You could easily find more such evidence for yourself. So you cannot simply use the assertion as an assumption as if you did not know that it is contested.

I also note that you approve of Benny Morris and his future hypothetical wars. The notion that the presence of partisans or fifth columnists, or whatever you wish to call them, justifies the punishment of an entire population has through history been embraced by very unsavoury sorts you should not wish to associate with.

I should also mention that I am puzzled by the notion that the citizens of a state can undermine that state by demographics.

Finally, you make great play of the benefits of academic training. Can I remind you that you quoted a couple of writers (or rather lifted the quotes from a partisan web-site) to convey the opposite of what the writers intended. We are all fallible.

stanley Jerusalem

LGuapo
June 3rd, 2009 1:41am
Are you the real Chauncy gardener or have you been watching Peter Sellers' 'Being There?'

Henry Sidgwick

Blue&White Avenger, I take it you are sneering at the demolition of the Mughrabi Quarter with the eviction of 1000 residents. I have read that the Israeli cabinet intended the eviction of the other Muslim and Christian inhabitants of the Old City. However, the official put in charge of East Jerusalem prevailed, arguing that it would not look good to the international community. His solution was to expropriate Palestinian land and establish settlements - a process that continues.

You may have noticed that another fervent supporter of Israel, Linda Smith, repeatedly cites Jordan's eviction of the Jewish inhabitants of East Jerusalem as ethnic cleansing and reprehensible, which it is. Would you agree that the eviction of the Arab inhabitants in 1967 is a similar sort of action? Or do you agree with Linda Smith that ethnic cleansing only happens to people who are not Palestinian Arabs? Perhaps 1948 was just land management and 1967 town planning on a large scale?

Linda Smith

So that other readers are not misled by Henry Sidgwick's Israel-bashing anti-Zionist distortions, I am posting here the quote from Benny Morris that I posted a few days agon on the still active thread "The Real Lesson of This History":

"The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then.

If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified..."

Richard Pearce

Tony,

That is disappointing, this type of censorship doesn't even exist in Israel!

In a notice regarding resident and visiting foreign correspondents in Israel, we are told;

"The Military Censor is interested exclusively in information relating to the security of the State" (their emphasis).

We are also informed;

"On those subjects the correspondent must present the substance of the message which he/she wishes to transmit, in writing in two copies, before the transmission abroad is made. This is stressed in order to avoid unpleasantness for correspondents who act in contravention of these directives and attempt to transmit items that should have been presented to the Censor in advance"

I do hope that Melanie's censors haven't dispatched the heavies to come round and dish out some "unpleasantness".

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Mr. Pearce: As I said to Peter, you should see the postings of mine they don't print! I see quite a few of your uncensored postings.

Linda Smith

Blue & White Avenger: you forgot the toilet abutting the Wailing wall.

Kiwi

Richard Pearce: "Have the responses I posted yesterday been censored?"
I too am experiencing the same 'system denial' - let's try one more time (3rd today)...
Derek BLADES wrote: "It is patently obvious that continued Israeli settlements are one of the main obstacles to the establishment of a Palestinian state. All of us would rightly be shocked and appalled at Ms Philips' ignorance if she believed otherwise."
Wrong. Before 1967 there were no settlements, and there was no peace either. You talk of ignorance; what makes you, and naive others, believe the settlements are the main obstacle?

Pete Hoskin

Richard Pearce, Original Tony et al: comments are pre-moderated, but sometimes they don't get through to us for technical reasons. If any of your comments goes missing, you can always email me on phoskin @ spectator.co.uk and I'll look into it.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick has now taken to duplicating on two threads comments addressed to me. I am therefore obliged to duplicate my response to him here, although it has just been printed on "The Real Lesson of this History:

Henry Sidgwick, "....the assertion that the war was defensive is highly contentious"
As you have previously declared yourself an anti-Zionist, as have Wm Hazlitt and Alandale, I rebutt your Israel-bashing arguments that emanate from your animosity, Arab apologist cherrypicking, and denial of context, by quoting from Academic Seth J. Frantzman's paper based in empirical fact: "Review Essay: Flunking History":

"Among many Israeli academics and Western revisionists, it has become fashionable to examine Israel's war of independence from an Arab perspective in which Jews were the aggressors and Arabs the victims.....

Many of these so-called New Historians and their fellow travelers may have embraced the notion of reverse victimization in order to rationalize the unexpected survival of Israel in the 1948 and 1967 wars. They present every massacre of Jews as an understandable response to a Jewish offense, for example portraying both the April 13, 1948 Mount Scopus convoy massacre and the May 15, 1948 murders of fifty Jews who had surrendered to the Arab Legion at Gush Etzion as an Arab reprisal for the April 9-11, 1948 Irgun attack on the Arab village of Deir Yassin.....

Pappé would have his readers believe that in the years before the Israeli declaration of statehood, the Arabs living in Mandatory Palestine were lacking in the hostility to Jews that made Jewish war-planning necessary. To take just one time period, between the U.N. General Assembly vote to partition Palestine on November 29, 1947, and Israeli independence almost six months later, Arab irregulars killed 1,256 Jews in Palestine—almost all of whom were civilians. Pappé might be onto something if Plan D had been drafted in the absence of Arab violence against Jews, or if the Arab states surrounding Palestine were not so serious about answering the declaration of a Jewish state with a war of annihilation. But inconveniently for Pappé, those were the realities of the time—realities that undermine the thesis of his book......

Nor should historians ignore context, as Pappé willfully does. Those who read The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine will not learn that in the first week after the passage of the U.N. partition plan, Arabs murdered 62 Jews. In the following month, Arabs killed an additional 200. By March 1, 1948, 546 Jews had been murdered and, by Ben-Gurion's declaration of independence, the total was over 1,000. Arab paramilitaries, militias, and terrorists besieged Jerusalem and cut the Jewish neighborhoods' water supplies and surrounded Jewish villages in the Negev. Arab snipers attacked Jews in Haifa and other mixed villages. A sniper from Beit Dajan shot a 14-year-old girl, and Arab fighters attacked more than a dozen kibbutzim between December 1947 and March 1948. Massacres were common: Arab rioters killed 39 Jews at Haifa's oil refinery on December 30, 1947, and two weeks later Arab irregulars killed 35 Jews trying to reach Gush Etzion. On February 1, 1948, an Arab terrorist blew up The Palestine Post building and, three weeks later, a terrorist's bomb killed 44 Jews on Jerusalem's Ben Yehuda Street. Massacres continued for weeks both inside Palestine and in the neighboring states. On March 21, the bodies of 11 missing Jews were found; three had been burned. Local Arab villagers or Bedouins may have precipitated the autumn 1947 violence, but by spring 1948, Arab volunteers from Iraq and Syria were increasingly participating. On April 11, 1948, for example, Egyptian members of the Muslim Brotherhood attacked Kfar Darom near Gaza City......

As a work of scholarship, Pappé's book falls short, and it does so in a particularly damning way. He ignores context and draws far broader conclusions than evidence allows by cherry-picking some reports and ignoring other sources entirely. He does not examine Arab intentions in the five months between the U.N. endorsement of Palestinian partition and Israel's independence, nor does he consider the widespread public statements by Arab officials in Palestine and in neighboring states declaring their goal of eradicating the Jewish presence in Palestine. It is obvious why a polemicist such as Pappé would cleanse—so to speak—his narrative of any such references: To avoid doing so would strike at the core of the reality that he wishes to foist upon his readers, one which precisely inverts the historical record and turns a coordinated Arab attempt at ethnically cleansing Palestine of its Jews into a Jewish attempt at ethnically cleansing Arabs."
http://www.meforum.org/1886/the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine

I note that you have still failed to respond to my repeated questions to you on another thread: If the Arabs had won the 1948, 67, 73 wars, what State would the Arabs have conceded to the Jews? What would they have done with the Jewish population? Channel hopping will not get you off the hook.

Richard Pearce

Thanks Pete,

I will re-post my comments (with some moderation to avoid this occurring again) and will let you know if they do not get through.

Richard Pearce

As the term ethnic cleansing has only recently been used since the war in Yugoslavia, I will revert to the term genocide to illustrate my point.

I would suggest that you read the articles of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Without going into too much detail, Article 1 states that;

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2 states that (my emphasis);

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

There is no doubt that Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs have been indiscriminately killed by the Israeli Army and by Israeli Settlers.

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

I would postulate that shooting at and killing or injuring unarmed Arab farmers whilst they tend the crops on their land would cause serious bodily and mental harm. I would also postulate that the imprisonment of 1.5 million people in Gaza and denying them access to urgent medical treatment would cause serious bodily and mental harm.

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Here I would refer you to the annexation of Arab towns in the West Bank, preventing their inhabitants from going to school, working on their own land or even visiting their own families and friends. I have already mentioned Gaza but I did not mention the disease and malnutrition subjected on the Palestinian Arab population because of the lack of basic running water and food that is denied them by Israel.

In regards to hypocrisy, I also note that Israel has signed and ratified the treaty. I am not declaring that Israel's behaviour is genocidal, however, I believe that it could be described as "ethnic cleansing through a policy of slow strangulation".

Richard Pearce

Dear Miranda Rose Smith,

I believe I have addressed my opinion regarding the "ethnic cleansing through a policy of slow strangulation" of the Arab populations in Palestine, however, I would also like to discuss the treatment of the "equal" Arab minority population in the "democratic" State of Israel.

Let me quote Ehud Olmert, the previous Prime Minister of Israel; "There is no doubt that for many years there has been discrimination against the Arab population that stemmed from various reasons".

I would also point you towards the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law of Israel which prevents tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs from living with their Israeli Arab husbands and wife's in Israel.

I could also mention the lower standards in curriculum that are used to teach Israeli Arab children, the roads that Israeli Arabs are not allowed to use or the areas that Arab Israeli's are not allowed to live in.

Do I need to go on?

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, Not MeForum AGAIN!

I take it by "rebut" you mean the legal sense of "refute" - but refute implies success i.e. that you have disproved my contention. Yet you claim to have done so by quoting from MeForum (yet again) which is one of Daniel Pipes' outlets. He is, is he not, a zealot for the cause, a propagandist, not an historian? And what does this refutation comprise? A list of atrocities against members of the Yishuv which no-one denies but which are here presented as if they justify the atrocities of the Yishuv against the Palestinian Arabs and the grand strategy of the Yishuv's high command of territorial expansion and expulsion of the population; and some ineffectual attempts at criticism of one particularly controversial historian (who, contra, Academic Frantzman provides plenty of context in his work "The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1947-51" and who is not the only source of versions of history different from the official Zionist version. In other words, if Academic Frantzman were, per impossibile, to see off Pappe, he would still not have addressed the criticisms of the Zionist version.) If you have indeed been able to "rebut" me should it not be obvious? And yet it isn't. Please explain wherein lies the rebuttal?

On the question of Benny Morris, you quote again the paragraphs you endorse, as if it is self-explanatory that I have, as you assert, distorted them. It is not self-explanatory - please explain wherein lies the distortion.

You repeat yet again your Question, which you appear to consider a killer question, but for which I provided an answer, such as it deserved, several days ago. You likened yourself to Jeremy Paxman in his pursuit of Michael Howard. Mr. Paxman had the modesty to admit that he kept repeating the question because he had no clue what else to ask. I suspect you lack Mr. Paxman's modesty.

You have yet again sidestepped all the points raised and resorted to name-calling and propagandizing. It is disappointing that you do not debate in good faith.

Adam B.

John Edwards, where is the "Moroccan Quarter"? Please elucidate.

Why are Palestinians "entitled" to East Jerusalem under international law? Where is that stated? And when did the Jewish and Armenian quarters become exclusively Arab?

I won't hold my breath for answers...as your whole posting makes no sense.

Sergey

When President of Chechoslovakia Benes ordered expulsion of all ethnic Germans from Suddetes, and Poles made the same in Danzing, Russians in Western Prussia - 15 mln total - nobody protested. Even now only Neo-Nazi demonstrate to commemorate these acts of ethnic cleansing. Lost wars have consequencies for those who launched them, and unruly, treacherous ethnic groups can be transfered, or expeled, if they constitute obvious danger to national security.

Sergey

"The notion that the presence of partisans or fifth columnists, or whatever you wish to call them, justifies the punishment of an entire population"
Punishment - no. But expulsion is not a punishment, it is a security provision, and if strategic situation demand this, it can be in principle justified. It is better than low-intensity civil war, and when only these two options exist, it is wise to chose lesser evil.

Derek BLADES

Kiwi (June 4) No, I did not say that "the settlements are the main obstacle [to peace in the Middle East]”. I said they were one of them. Fortunately the Obama administration sides with me on this one - the settlements must be stopped before any meaningful peace talks can start. I would be interested to learn why you think that they are not an obstacle bearing in mind that I was not talking about the pre-1967 period, but about the present position.

Henry Sidgwick

Sergey, Joseph Stalin thought it necessary for national security to transport the ethnic Germans to Siberia. Similarly with the Crimean Tartars. He also had the bizarre idea of persuading soviet citizens who happened to be Jewish to move to a "homeland" in the back of beyond,and to exile all succesful farmers to Siberia. Do you seriously consider this a proper way for a state to treat its citizens?

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, yet another load of meretricious Israel-bashing hyperbole from you. You write nothing but anti-Zionist propaganda, as does Ilan Pappe, who freely admits he writes fantasy not fact.

Since the San Remo Resolution of 1920 specified the British Mandate's purpose to create a National Jewish Home, the Jews have been defending themselves against Arab aggression. The War of Independence 1948 was a war of defence. These statements are supported by the empirical evidence.

Facts are either true or false. Therefore it is irrelevant if I quote facts from articles published on MeForum or any other pro-Israel website.

As I am off for a few days holiday, sans computer, I will not be able to respond immediately to any comments addressed to me.

Adam B.

Derek Blades, you say settlements "must be stopped" (whatever that means in reality) BEFORE negotiations can start. What about Palestinian violence, does that have to stop before negotiations start as well? Or is that exempt?

Derek BLADES

Adam B (June 5) asks me whether Palestinian violence has to stop before negotiations start. Palestinian violence - by which I assume he means rocket fire from Gaza - is in response to the continuing violence of the Israeli state against the Arabs of occupied Palestine and the vicious embargo by the Israeli army of the Gaza strip. In an ideal world violence by both sides should stop before negotiations begin but in the real world we have to accept that will not happen. The negotiations will be, among other things, about stopping the violence.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, I hope you have a pleasant holiday. On your return, whenever you have a moment, please consider this, in no particular order.

Your point is very well taken that a fact is a fact whether reported by Daniel Pipes or anyone else (even Ilan Pappe). I was wrong to insinuate that your "rebuttal" could be dismissed just because of its provenance. In my defence, however, I did then go on to discuss the substance of the rebuttal, and to point out that it comprised only those facts that supported your case while ignoring the facts that told against it - which is not a rebuttal. I asked how you considered yourself to have rebutted me.

You quoted Benny Morris again as a demonstration of how I had distorted what he said. I still cannot see what the distortion is. I asked you to tell me.

Over the course of our debate you have repeatedly accused me of being an anti-Semite, anti-Zionist, and anti-Israeli. I think you scan my contributions for things to vent your righteous indignation on and miss what I actually say.

Melanie Phillips and most of the contibutors to the discussion here are fervent supporters of one faction in Israel with a very clear and coherent picture of history and agenda for Israel's future. I happen to think that the picture of history is one-sided in the extreme and the agenda for the future unlikely to achieve security for Israelis but very likely to cause the further immiseration of the Palestinians and to endanger the whole region. Since Ms. Phillips and others, like you, put one side of the story, I put the other, to show that the reality is more complicated than you appear to think, and to shift you from your fixed position (we know with what success).

I am no anti-Semite, and have given you no pretext for the slur. I have said that had I been around when it was a live question I would have been an anti-Zionist, because I think the project was artificial and ill-advised (although of course I can see its attractions). It is no longer a live question. Israel exists as a sovereign state with the same rights and responsibilities as any other state. I discuss the history of its founding and its subsequent behaviour because it seems to me that your version encourages an exaggerated sense of grievance, righteous entitlement, and aggression. A more realistic assessment would encourage some humility and willingness to compromise. This is the opposite of anti-Israeli.

In a previous thread you made a very good point. You said that it was all very well for me in comfort and safety to pontificate on the history of Palestine/Israel and to give unwanted advice to those who support Israel's current actions, but something else again for those in the middle of the conflict and in genuine danger. I think this is true. Our comfort and safety does induce smugness and complacency. However, if the motives are right, there is some use in intervention by outsiders. It is easy for us to talk of compromise, but it is in the interests of the parties to the conflict to risk it.

Derek BLADES

Linda Smith (5 June) writes "Facts are either true or false. Therefore it is irrelevant if I quote facts from articles published on MeForum or any other pro-Israel website." Not quite Linda. When you quote from pro-Israeli sites we are not at all sure if they are facts. That is why those of us who are interested in the truth avoid quoting from both pro-Israeli and pro-Arab sites. Best to stick with sources like the BBC, Le Monde, the Independent, CNN, Wikipedia and other sources that depend for their existence on being seen as impartial and factual. Pro-Israeli and pro-Arab sites depend for their existence on catering to the prejudices of those with closed minds; truth is a secondary consideration.

Adam B.

A predictable answer Derek Blades - and indicative of a double standard. You seem to be under the impression that the only Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians is the indiscriminate rocket fire from Gaza. It also includes repeated attempts at suicide bombings (several attempts a week are intercepted) and sniper attacks against agricultural workers in their fields, axe attacks against children aged 8 and frequent stabbings against any Jew. Did it occur to you that the Israeli restrictions you seem so upset about may in fact be a response to the endless Palestinian violence directed against Israelis, rather than its cause?

Sergey

"Joseph Stalin thought it necessary for national security to transport the ethnic Germans to Siberia"
Why mention Stalin? Everybody knows he was a bloody tyrant. But truly democratic leaders of democratic countries, as Benes in Chechoslovakia and Roosevelt in USA did the same (expeled Germans, interned Japan). It all depends on seriousness of a threat.

Henry Sidgwick

Sergey, On a point of history, Stalin had every reason to suspect the loyalty of large parts of the population in the West in the South (many in the West were new victims of Stalinism, and in the South old victims), and still it does not justify transporting whole ethnic populations. The territory of the United States was under no serious threat. The fact that Roosevelt was democratically elected does not justify interning a whole ethnic population. The fact that Germans were raped, slaughtered, or expelled without international protest has much to do with the circumstances at the end of the War and nothing to do with justice. With the Axis powers defeated, and the victors and victims seeking vengeance or to ensure that a repeat was impossible, who was there to protest if the populations of Axis powers were punished, even if the punishment itself was criminal?

In any case, as I understand it, the Israeli Foreign Minister and others advocate expulsion, not because they fear attack from Damascus or Cairo (pace Benny Morris), but because these citizens of Israel have too many children - a problem faced by all liberal democracies (and no doubt there are some) that segregate their citizens.

Kiwi

Derek BLADES: Kiwi (June 4) No, I did not say that "the settlements are the main obstacle [to peace in the Middle East]”. I said they were one of them. Fortunately the Obama administration sides with me on this one - the settlements must be stopped before any meaningful peace talks can start. I would be interested to learn why you think that they are not an obstacle bearing in mind that I was not talking about the pre-1967 period, but about the present position.

Derek, the settlements are not an obstacle, just another Red Herring, along with all the others put up by the Palestinians and their gullible supporters. Unlike the Palestinian leadership, you may well be siding with the Obama administration on this one, but the real obstacle is the Palestinians failure to accept Israel’s right to exist. Immediately after Obama’s grovelling Cairo speech, a Hamas statement posted on the group’s website said the speech “lacked policies and practical steps” to stop Israel’s “aggression” and support the rights of the Palestinians. Hamas politburo member Ezzat Rashq said, “the speech signalled no change in U.S. policy”, and he “rejected Obama’s call on the group to renounce violence and recognise Israel’s right to exist.”
So you see, the basic premise of the various claims - that the 'occupation', ‘the settlements’, etc etc, cause terrorism, and are obstacles to peace - is historically flawed. Arab and Palestinian terrorism against Israel existed prior to the beginning of Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza as a result of the Six Day War of June 1967, and even prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948. I know of at least 56 documented, serious terrorist attacks on Israel between 1948 and 1967. It matters not one jot whether it is pre-1967, or today’s present position, Hamas (and Hezbollah) repeatedly declare that even if Israel would fully withdraw from the territories, they will continue their attacks, since they refute Israel's basic right to exist. How can peace be achieved in the face of such intransigence?

Derek BLADES

Adam B (5 June)

Thank you for your courteous reply. I do try to see the other chap's point of view. Finger pointing and arguing about who started it belong in the playground not the adult world. It is good to see that America has a President who accepts that both sides to the dispute have legitimate complaints about the other. He is looking for a practical solution instead of trying to decide whose case is strongest.

Sergey

Henry Sidgwick:
Avigdor Lieberman does not advocate expulsion of anybody, neither Arabs nor Jewish settlers, he advocates territory swap between Israel and PA, so that everybody can stay in their homes and be ruled by their co-nationals, and also to ensure territorial continuity within each ethnic enclave as far as possible. It is a slander compaign against him that creates an image of a racist and war-monger, which ignores and distorts all real facts about his proposals and public statesments.

Adam B.

Derek Blades, you seem to have misunderstood my posting. It isn't about "who started it" but rather who perpetuates it. I believe this to be the Palestinians, andthe wider Arab and Islamic worlds, who are more concerned with destroying Israel than establishing a propserous and successful state.

Derek BLADES

Kiwi (June 6) tells me "So you see, the basic premise of the various claims - that the 'occupation', ‘the settlements’, ...are obstacles to peace - is historically flawed." To be honest I don't see it although I must confess that historical flaws are not my strong point. Israeli settlers are continuing to nibble away the land destined to become Palestine under the peace plan. That looks to me like it could present a problem. Even if a Kiwi can't see it, Obama, Mitchell, Abbas, Miliband and Kouchner all can which is why there is unanimity here in the real world that settler activity must stop.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B. I agree that "They started it" is a playground ploy. However, I am intrigued by your notion of cause and effect. Does it apply to the whole history of the Palestine/Israel conflict?

If Palestinian Arabs had not been violent, would European Zionists have stopped emigrating to Palestine announcing their intention to form a majority and establish a sovereign state of their own?

If Palestinian Arabs had not been violent, would Israel have been satisfied with the territory granted it in the Partition, despite what Ben Gurion argued in persuading his colleagues to accept Partition as an interim measure?

If the Palestinian Arabs had not been violent, would Israel not have occupied the West Bank and Gaza or perhaps relinquished them after the war?

If the Palestinian Arabs had not been violent, would Israel not have built its settlements?

And if the Palestinians now cease their violence, will Israel give up its settlements?

Adam B.

Henry, I do not agree with the premise of your questions, which espouse the idea that Arab violence against the Jews was simply a means for stopping what you view as something awful – the establishment of the Jewish homeland. To answer your questions comprehensively would take forever, but I'll try to condense it into this:

Jews had a right to emigrate to Palestine and build communities. It was not an Arab country, and never had been. I accept that there was a struggle for power, but you ignore widescale Arab immigration into Palestine as well during this same period. It is worth noting that at this time, there was Arab violence against Jews, (including several pogroms in the Holy land). The violence was not occurring the other way round. If a few more “European Zionists” had indeed emigrated to Palestine, then maybe some more Jews would have survived the Holocaust – a Holocaust supported and directly encouraged by the Palestinian Arab leadership.
The Jews did accept the Partition, the Arabs did not. Not only did the Arabs reject the UN proposal, they rejected the notion of any Jewish state, of any size. In truth, they still reject it, hence Hamas’ rejection of any peace talks or recognition of Israel, and Fatah’s refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Israel would not be present in Judea and Samaria or Gaza if the Arabs had not been violent. Israel is present in these areas precisely due to Arab violence and attempts to annihilate Israel. Israel did indeed offer to leave these lands after the Six Day War, but the Arab League replied with the three No’s at its Khartoum Conference, No negotiations, No recognition and No peace.

As for settlements, would ask you why any future Palestinian state is incapable of having any Jewish residents? Are you saying that there wouldn’t be Arab violence if not for the settlements?

Henry Sidgwick

Sergey, An example from 2004: Lieberman told a crowd of supporters that 90% of Israel's Arabs should be expelled. "They have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost." If he has since refrained from such pronouncements, well and good.

I take you to be saying that his propsed land swap is equitable and made in good faith.

Israel has in effect annexed the best bits of the West Bank. Israel has in effect confined the Palestinian Arabs to a series of cantons or ghettoes or reservations cut off from each other and unviable on their own.

As I understand it, the proposed land swap allows Israel to keep what it wants of the West Bank and incorporate it into Israel proper. It also selects bits of Israel where there are the largest concentrations of Arabs and incorporates them in the already existing West Bank cantons, ghettoes, or reservations.

The purpose of the whole exercise is to ensure that Arabs can never constitute anything approaching a majority in Israel. They are not only disenfranchised, their citizenship is revoked - but they will not have to move house and they will have the "state" they say they want. Ingenious? Yes. Equitable? No.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B. I think we have both shown in earlier discussions that we can go over and over the history without making any impression on each other.

I could comment on some of the errors in what you say about the history. But the main question has to do with the nature and causes of Palestinain Arab violence.

When others encroach on their territory, I think any community has members who lash out. There is therefore a very basic reason why Palestinian Arabs would react violently to the Zionist newcomers. In addition, as I said, the Zionists came with the express intention of becoming the majority and founding a state. And the imperial power, which for some reason thought it had the right to determine the lives of the inhabitants, for some reason supported the newcomers in their ambitions. There is nothing mysterious in the Palestinian Arab revolts against Britain and the Yishuv. Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky are among those who well understood, and admitted that they would have done the same. So my question is, What was the violence about, if not about the founding of a Zionist state against the wishes of the vast majority of the population of Palestine?

I do not know what to make of your last paragraph. Israel has illegally annexed the best bits of the West Bank - taken the land, taken control of the water sources, built large settlements, built roads that the locals are not allowed to use, built checkpoints that disrupt the locals' lives and keep them isolated from each other. The settlers live in affluence (subsidised by the rest of Israel and the US) and the locals live in poverty. And you ask why any Palestinian state should object to these settlements?

And, no, I do not think Palestinian Arab violence would stop if only the settlements were removed. Violence from both sides would be more likely to cease if there were a comprehensive and just settlement.

Adam B.

I agree Henry, we have a completely different reading of history. I believe you are labouring under several misapprehensions which lead you to form an erroneous view. For example, the imperial power at the start of the first influx of Jews was the Muslim Ottoman Empire. It did not "encourage" the Jews, as you suggest. Again you ignore the influx of Arabs from neighbouring territory. The land which Jews settled was not Arab, as you suggest. Arab land was not forcibly taken from Arabs and given to Jews - if so, by whom? |Yet Arab violence was already being directed against Jews. This has nothing to do with something being "taken away", and everything to do with xenophobia and religious bigotry. Jews did not go around slaughtering entire villages of Arabs and mutiliating the bodies - unfortunately, the Arabs did. Similar pogroms against Jews occurred in other Arab countries, where Jews were living as dhimmis.

However, all of this is irrelevant. The past should not determine the future. The question is: how is the violence being perpetuated NOW? If you want to believe it's all Israel's fault, go ahead. But to me it is clear that Hamas has no interest in negotiations or peace, that Hizbollah has no interest in negotiations and peace (both openly reject any peace moves, and also call for the genocide of all the Jews on earth), that Iran wants to annihilate Israel, parading missiles in the streets with "death to Israel" written on the side - what does this tell you? The anti-semitic blood libels on PA television - do you see equivalents on Israeli TV? No you don't. Israel has negotiated peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and made concessions to make these treaties work. What is Hamas, Hizbollah or Iran offering, except more bloodshed and racist bigotry?

Who is perpetuating the violence?

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B. You are right that the history is now relevant mainly insofar as it affects current attitudes. Your version of history shows little understanding of the other side and offers little hope.

Adam B.

Au contraire Henry, I understand the intolerance and bigotry which leads to to the perpetuation of this conflict only too well. Hope and peace will come when the Arab and wider Islamic worlds begin to accept difference, and the possibility of a non-Islamic country in the Middle east.

There may be two sides to every argument, but that doesn't mean they're both legitimate.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B. It is difficult to have a conversation, as so many responses disappear into the ether.

"I understand the intolerance and bigotry which leads to the perpetuation of this conflict only too well." Savour the irony! (I am not being too snotty - we're all guilty of an own goal once in a while.) Do you not consider that there might be a risk that you do not understand intolerance and bigotry as well as you think, but may well exemplify it? (I can comment only what you say here.)

"There may be two sides to every argument, but that doesn't mean they're both legitimate." True, but not apt. This is quite clearly and indisputably a conflict where there are rights and wrongs on both sides. One of the problems I have with your version is that you seem to find this self-evident truth impossible to acknowledge. If this is replicated among those in power, it will perpetuate conflict.

Adam B.

Henry, I see. So by condemning the racism of Hamas and Hizbollah and the Iranian leadership, I "exemplify" intolerance.

You're right Henry. I don't tolerate such unabashed racism and anti-semitism as openly espoused by these groups, nor for their rejection of negotiations, nor for their call to exterminate the Jews and/or Israel. Nor should you.

Of course neither side is perfect, no-one is ever perfect. I never said Israel was perfect. Britain isn't perfect either. The problem here is that you seem unable to see perspective in faults. Simply saying that there are faults on both sides, without analysing such faults, is simply moral relativism, the kind which Melanie exposes so well.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B. I did attempt an answer, but it has disappeared, like so many before it. I will try to recall what I said (in brief), because you raised interesting points.

Of course Hamas et al. are to be condemned for the poison in their propaganda and for their terrorism. I have done so more than once. I accept that it serves a useful purpose to repeat the condemnation, to keep us all honest.

However, I tend to agree with those who suspect that Israel and its supporters use this condemnation as they use the charge of anti-Semitism to foreclose discussion: "They are poisonous, so don't dare criticise us." This is clearly not a good argument.

It is also important to judge deeds. If their terrorism kills hundreds, Israel's state terrorism kills thousands. If you find this outrageous, consider a thought experiment. Imagine Lebanon, or Hamas, had one of the biggest armies in the world. Imagine they rained destruction on Tel Aviv because the IDF had positions there which they were using to shell Lebanese civilians or Palestinians. Imagine they justified the complete destruction of whole neighbourhoods by saying that the population had to be taught a lesson. Imagine they justified the "collateral damage" by saying that the civilians had only themselves to blame because they supported the Israeli terrorist state. Imgine thousands of innocent Israelis were killed or maimed. What would be your reaction? I doubt it would be your reaction to the destruction of Gaza or Beirut.

It is the opposite of moral relativism to hold both sides to the same standards.

Peace will remain elusive while each side claims that it is wholly virtuous and the other pure evil. The real world is somewhat more complicated.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick (7 June 12:17pm) "And, no, I do not think Palestinian Arab violence would stop if only the settlements were removed. Violence from both sides would be more likely to cease if there were a comprehensive and just settlement."

The argument is ideological, not territorial.

The only "comprehensive and just settlement" PLO/Fatah and Hamas will accept is the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel.

You go to great pains in your comments to explain the "grievances" of the Palestinian Arabs and justify their violence against "Zionist newcomers" founding "a Zionist state against the wishes of the vast majority of the population of Palestine." Well, hear this, nearly half the Jewish population of Israel originates from Muslim/Arab countries. The Jews have suffered centuries of dhimmitude, persecution and slaughter under Muslim rule, only somewhat alleviated under European colonialism. That religious oppression alone is sufficient reason to justify a Jewish State of Israel in the Middle East for any person who professes to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And I cannot see any legitimate reason why the Jews should put their State at risk, or allow themselves to be outnumbered by Muslims in Israel, and be returned to dhimmitude and persecution under Muslim rule.

Linda Smith

Derek Blades (5 June 4:01pm) "When you quote from pro-Israeli sites we are not at all sure if they are facts.....Best to stick with sources like the BBC.. that depend for their existence on being seen as impartial and factual."

The BBC is not seen as being impartial and factual. It is seen as being highly selective and biased in its reporting. For example during the Gaza conflict earlier this year it uncritically reported all "facts" from Hamas controlled Gaza. Dr Mads Gilbert appeared frequently on BBC reporting "facts" from a Gaza hospital, but:

"According to Fox News, Dr. Mads Gilbert is a high-profile Norwegian doctor who has said the September 11 terrorists were justified in their attack and is now treating patients in Gaza. Dr. Gilbert is accused of presenting "hard-core propaganda" to TV interviewers in his telling of the conflict between Hamas and Israel.........The video is both funny because it is so fake, and infuriating because Dr. Mads Gilbert, shown on NBC Nightly News as this caring physician just trying to help the Palestinian people, is part of the fakery. All you have to watch is the first 45 seconds of the chest compressions on the child to see the fakery:
Read the full article at http://michaelbrowntoday.com/journal/2009/1/9/shame-on-you-dr-mads-gilbert.html

Adam B.

Henry, I appreciate your condemnation of Hamas and Hizbollah. However, you are, to be frank, putting words in my mouth. The argument that Israel’s critics are always accused of anti-Semitism is groundless, and itself an attempt to pretend that endlessly singling out the Jewish state for vitriol and hatred is NEVER anti-Semitic. I have not accused you of anti-Semitism, so why bring it up here? Not every critic of Israel is anti-Semitic, but every anti-Semite is a critic of Israel. That’s quite a few of them, Henry.

Melanie goes out of her way to avoid accusations of anti-Sermitism, unless it is patently obvious.

You then launch into the all too familiar numbers game (more Palestinians have been killed in the conflict, therefore they must be the victims and the Israelis the aggressors). This is both intellectually and morally lazy. You lay several accusations against Israel, accusing them of using arguments I have never heard. Please give me one example of an Israeli spokesperson saying that “whole neighbourhoods need to be taught a lesson,” or that “civilians only have themselves to blame”. Part of the trouble with this conflict is the imprecision of language, and false accusations such as yours simply add to misunderstandings and hatred, which is ironic considering you claim to be working towards peace. As for holding both sides to the same standards, that is true. Unfortunately, the world expects very little from the Arab world, and instead holds Israel under a microscope with the intention of finding fault.

Linda has said that you are simply anti-Zionist, which means you are against the existence of a Jewish homeland altogether. Is this true?

Linda Smith

Adam B, Antisemites single out Israel for criticism saying that the Jews stole the Arabs' land. You will notice that the people who study the history and politics of Israel and (mis)quote it in great detail do not equally harangue the "Americans" for stealing the Native Americans' land, the "New Zealanders" for stealing the Maoris' land, the "Australians" for stealing the Aborigines' land, the "South Americans" for stealing the Aztecs' etc's land. Nor do they say that all those colonising Europeans are usurpers and murderers and should give back the USA, New Zealand, Australia, South America to native rule.

That is how you recognise an antisemite.

Adam B.

Linda, I agree completely. Obsessively criticizing Israel, and Israel alone, (as you point out in the examples you provide)is indeed anti-Semitic.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B. I tried to reply, but yet again it got lost. I will try again.

My condemnation of Hamas et al. is not new.

If you read what I said I did not accuse you of using the "anti-Semite gambit" here. I said the gambit of saying "They are poisonous, so don't criticise us" is used to similar effect in attempting to silence critics. (I did not say that either gambit is "always" used.) If you read Ms. Phillips comments and the debates here, you will find that one or other is used with tedious regularity (and Ms. Phillips is anything but careful in her accusations).

You try to turn my argument against me by saying that it is itself "an attempt to pretend that endlessly singling out the Jewish state for vitriol and hatred is NEVER anti-Semitic." A moment's reflection will show you that this doesn't work. I pretended no such thing.

Your next argument doesn't work either: "You then launch into the all too familiar numbers game (more Palestinians have been killed in the conflict, therefore they must be the victims and the Israelis the aggressors). This is both intellectually and morally lazy." As you know, my point was that both sides should be held to the same standards. (So, if the murder of hundreds of Israelis is a crime, as it is, then so is the murder of thousands of Palestinians.) As you know, I was not here arguing that one side or the other was the aggressor. I'm afraid that to charge me with moral and intellectual laziness on the basis of a misrepresentation of what I said is...well, lazy.

President Shimon Peres said that the people of Gaza had to be taught a lesson. So did the commander of one of the IDF's regions (I could retrieve his name, with some difficulty). As to the destruction of whole neighbourhoods, this is no mystery or secret. It is now standard "counter-insurgency" doctrine in the IDF and, I believe, the US Army. The IDF has a name for it, the "Dahiya doctrine". All this is readily available information. Indeed, it is surely intended to be part of the efficacy of such counter-insurgency tactics that the victims know what to expect.

The idea that "the world" turns a blind eye to what "the Arab world" does, and uses a microscope to find fault with Israel is, I'm afraid, laughable, and not up to your usual standards.

As to anti-Zionism, I will quote what I said:

I am no anti-Semite, and have given you no pretext for the slur (Linda Smith frequently resorts to it). I have said that had I been around when it was a live question I would have been an anti-Zionist, because I think the project was artificial and ill-advised (although of course I can see its attractions). It is no longer a live question. Israel exists as a sovereign state with the same rights and responsibilities as any other state. I discuss the history of its founding and its subsequent behaviour because it seems to me that your version encourages an exaggerated sense of grievance, righteous entitlement, and aggression. A more realistic assessment would encourage some humility and willingness to compromise. This is the opposite of anti-Israeli.

In other words, Zionist or anti-Zionist is a question mainly for history buffs. Israel exists, like any other state, and its citizens have the same right as anyone else to strive for a good life. I am not "against" Israel (it seems an odd idea), but I am against some policies of the state of Israel, which is altogether different, and something that can reasonably be discussed as you and I have done here.

If I could just comment on the odd definition of "anti-Semite" you appear to endorse. Ms. Phillips "obsessively" defends Israel's actions. To engage with her necessarily involves criticising specifically Israel. It would be odd to devote a response to Ms. Phillips to the history of the USA etc. As it happens, I have pointed out the iniquity of European empire in the "new" world. In accepting this analogy, you would appear to accept that Israel is in some sense another episode in European colonization. An anti-Semite is surely someone who hates Jews, all Jews, simply because they are Jewish.

Adam B.

Henry, it was you who brought up your so-called “anti-semitic gambit”. I merely wondered why, when it seemed irrelevant to our discussion. You will find that it is rarely used, (at least not by Jewish bodies or serious writers). Melanie has written extensively about the dangers of throwing the term about, and she is very careful not to, unless it is simply a reflection of reality. There are times when it would simply be stupid not to call something what it is – and so-called “anti-Zionism”, in my experience of individuals, is usually accompanied by anti-semitism.

You use the term “murdered” for civilian casualties in Gaza, and it is on this you base your thesis that Israel is even worse than Hamas, as it has “murdered” more. I utterly reject your argument. The IDF does not target civilians, and if it did, there would be 1000 times more casualties in Gaza. Civilians killed whilst targeting terrorists who hide amongst them is truly tragic, but it does not constitute “murder.” If you think it does, then you will doubtless regard the 100,000 French civilians killed during the liberation of Normandy as having been “murdered” by the Allied armies in WWII. It is a symptom of the moral confusion prevalent in the left, which makes no distinction between intentions. Hamas sets out to murder civilians, and openly rejoices when it succeeds. Israel reacts by targeting Hamas, and takes measures to avoid civilian casualties. When civilians are killed, as is inevitable in war, Israel does not rejoice, and expresses sorrow. But Israel has a right to respond to 6000 rockets fired at her civilians. The blame for such deaths lies with Hamas, which not only creates the situation, but even encourages the deaths of its population for propaganda which western lefties devour.

Your “quotes” are misleading, and I believe you haven’t provided a context, which, experience has taught me, is everything. In fact, you haven’t provided the specific quote, and instead paraphrase. I therefore am skeptical about what you attribute to Peres etc.

I’m sorry you regard the re-establishment of the Jewish homeland as a necessary evil. I think it is something wonderful and miraculous. If you support a “Palestinian” homeland, despite there being no historical precedent for it, may I ask why you would have been against a Jewish one?

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B. Again you ask reasonable questions. I reply at inordinate length.

I mentioned the "anti-Semite" gambit because it is used with great frequency both here and elsewhere to silence criticism of Israel, and the "they are evil" gambit is used in the same way. I mention them because they obstruct debate. (I am astonished that you say they are used sparingly - that is not my experience.)

You may interpret the professed intentions of the Israeli military and civilian elite differently from me, but here is some more of the evidence:

Here is a statement from Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai on Army Radio: "The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves." (The right to self-defence does not entail the right to inflict a "shoah".)

In Lebanon in 2006, Dan Halutz, the Chief of Staff, explained the war aim as to "turn back the clock twenty years." Yoav Galant, who is I believe the head of the southern command, explained the war aim in Gaza this time as to "send Gaza decades into the past".

Gadi Eisenkot, the head of the northern command, explained in October last year the new military doctrine common to both Lebanon and Gaza, unofficially called the Dahiya doctrine: "What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen to every village from which Israel is fired on (in practice that has proved to mean any area or position the Israeli military believe may have been a source of enemy fire or may prove to have the potential to be so in future, or which they assert to be so). We 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."

The doctrine was given a more scholarly gloss by Gabriel Siboni, a colonel in the reserves, in an article published by Tel Aviv's Institute of National Security Studies in October last year. To paraphrase: Conventional military strategies for waging war against states and armies cannot defeat sub-national resistance movements that have deep roots in the local population. The goal instead is to use "disproportionate force" thereby "inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes." Siboni identified the chief target as "decision makers and the power elite" including "economic interests and the centres of civilian power that support the organization." The best Israel can hope for from these tactics against Hamas and Hisballah, according to Siboni is a ceasefire on improved terms for Israel.

Then there are the orders to the ground troops. See the article in The Times on 28 January this year. The order to the troops in the Givati Shahed battalion was to "fire on anything that moves in Zeitoun". I recommend the whole article. There is similar testimony from other soldiers to the effect that they routinely reduced any area they had to enter to rubble with heavy artillery fire before risking an advance. (For the soldiers, in extreme danger, these are clearly rational tactics.)

Finally there is a matter less frequently remarked on. For this I refer you to Ha'aretz 26 January and 8 February this year, and to Yesh Din and Breaking the Silence. What is the effect on soldiers who are orthodox Jews of the booklet of advice provided by the army Rabbinate before the invasion? I believe that the IDF has conceded that the booklet was inappropriate. Orthodox Talmudic advice on how to treat Gentile combatants and non-combatants can be very severe and is not generally considered consistent with the rules of war.

Given all this (and more - for example, the use of weaponry inappropriate for built-up civilian areas, the testimony of witnesses and victims, etc.) are we to accept that the civilian deaths in Gaza were all either caused by Hamas or simply an unfortunate but unavoidable accident of war?

You are again careless in what you say I have asserted: "It is on this you base your thesis that Israel is even worse than Hamas, as it has “murdered” more." That was not my thesis in my original comment, and I corrected your misapprehension in my previous comment.

(As it happens, I do think there is a case to answer in Caen, and in the aerial bombardments of Germany and Japan.)

It is not a productive method of disputation to impute to your opponent the weakest possible version of his position. "It is a symptom of the moral confusion prevalent in the left, which makes no distinction between intentions." I have already said that I think it can reasonably be inferred from what the Israelis said and did that they intended to kill civilians.

Your description of the conflict and who started it and who did what to whom brings us back to the playground. I think you know that there are very strong grounds for disputing your account, even if you do not agree with them. Rehearsing your account again does not advance the discussion.

If you were to be precise, you would not say my quotes are misleading. What you mean is that you don't know whether they are or not until I provide more context - which is fair enough.

I should preface my remarks on Zionism by repeating that I consider it a purely historical question now; and I am aware that my opinions carry very little weight. I think Zionism adapted a form of nationalism which has unfortunate consequences. The late nineteenth century European nationalism which posited a mystic bond between the "people" and the "land" (a bond which only the "people could feel and understand) is exclusive and encourages hatred of others who are not the "people". I think it unfortunate that Zionism could only be realised on the coat-tails of imperialism, and was thus identified as an imperialist proxy establishing an imperialist outpost among the native population to keep that population under control (which unfortunately was one of the reasons why Britain supported Zionism). I think it unfortunate that the Zionist homeland was thus to be established among a hostile population. I believe that the leading Zionists knew that their project would be opposed by the indigenous population (I mean no more by that than the population already living in what Britain called Palestine). I think the leading Zionists knew that the fulfilment of their project would require violence. I still do not think they understood how odd their project looked from the outside (the idea that 1300 years after Jews were expelled from their native land, Jews from Europe should come and establish a state in "Palestine" disregarding the then resident population, and expect everyone to accept this as right because their holy book told them the land was theirs - I intend no disrespect to the Bible, but simply question the notion that people of other faiths, and none, should accept this authority.) I think the argument from the guilt of Europe to the justice of giving the Zionists a state in "Palestine" is not a very good one. I know many find it persuasive. But it seems to me that Europe's guilt does not allow it to impose payment for that guilt on the people then living in "Palestine". The fact that eleven million Jews were left at the mercy of the Nazis is a fault not of the people then living in "Palestine" but of the rest of the world, and in particular Britain and the US who were arguably in a position to do most about it. I can understand the power of the argument that those persecuted as Jews have been should no longer be beholden to anyone else for their safety since they have been betrayed so shemefully so many times. I still do not think that this argues for the establishment, by force if necessary, of a state among a hostile population. These are some reasons I think tell against the Zionist project. Nevertheless, I can appreciate what an astonishing achievement it was to establish the state of Israel. And I hope that Israelis continue to flourish.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, although you claim that you consider Zionism to be "a purely historical question now, your depiction of the relationship of the Jews with the land of Israel typifies the arguments of the anti-Zionist, Arab apologist.

Your contention that Israel is an "artificial" state exemplifies my statement above: Until it was conquered by invaders, Israel was a sovereign Jewish State, the Kingdom of Israel. The Palestinian Arabs whose "rights" to the land you champion so vigorously are descendants of invading Arab conquerors who stole the land. The Jews, expelled, hated, persecuted, and murdered throughout their forced dispersion by Europeans and Muslims alike, had every right to resettle their erstwhile territory. Their right is not "because their holy book told them the land was theirs" as you assert; their right is based in historical fact.

The Jewish Calendar is marked by holidays commemorating historical events. Tisha B'Av, the Fast of the Ninth of Av is a day of mourning to commemorate the many tragedies that have befallen the Jewish people, many of which coincidentally have occurred on the ninth of Av (usually occurs during August). Tisha B'Av primarily commemorates the destruction of the first and second Temples both of which were destroyed on the ninth of Av (the first by the Babylonians in 586 BC the second by the Romans in 70 AD .

The Western Wall of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (also known as the Wailing Wall) is the Jews' "Title Deed" to Jerusalem. The Muslims' claim to East Jerusalem as their Holy City and Capital is therefore hollow as the Jewish Temple incontestably predates any Muslim association with Jerusalem.

The Jews have a prior "Right of Return" that supercedes any others' alleged "Right of Return".

In your comments you espouse a Utopian new world order governed by fair and just arbiters of fair and just International Law. Your dismissal of the validity of ideas dictated by a "holy book" is certainly not shared by millions (billions?) of imperialist Muslims and their spiritual and temporal leaders around the world who would laugh in your face while stamping on it with their jackbooted Sharia law.

That there is no "God's Eye View" of what constitutes "fair and just seems to have escaped you."

Linda Smith

Your Arab apologist stance that Israel was unfairly imposed on the innocent Arabs as a consequence of European guilt for their mistreatment of the Jews is a load of hogwash. The Jews have suffered from Islamic persecution since Islam was invented. One of the first actions of the State of Israel beginning in December 1948 was to rescue from pogroms nearly the entire Jewish population from Yemen (40,000 to 50,000 Jews) in Operation Magic Carpet. Or are you suggesting that the Jews of Yemen were Europeans?

Linda Smith

I erroneously misplaced my last inverted comma in my comment printed at 12.34pm. Last sentence should read:

That there is no "God's Eye View" of what constitutes "fair and just" seems to have escaped you.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, I hestitate to get embroiled again: your "academic training" will no doubt allow you to best me as before.

The rights and wrongs of Zionism are indeed mainly historical in the sense that the state of Israel patently is now in existence.

I am not clear whether you intend a rule that can be applied universally when you talk of the ancient kingdom (or kingdoms) of the Jews, and the priority of Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem. Have you ever looked at a map of human migration over the last several thousand years? Which peoples are to be allowed to claim what territories on the grounds that their putative ancestors once had a kingdom there? And how far back into the mists of time are they allowed to go to assert their claim? And does temporal priority determine holiness? Does Stonehenge take precedence over Salisbury Cathedral? Are the descendants of the Druids to evict the Bishop? I do not see how your rule can in practice be applied universally. I therefore cannot see why it should be applied specifically to Israel.

You say I "espouse a Utopian new world order governed by fair and just arbiters of fair and just International Law." If you recall our previous discussions you will know that I do not espouse any Utopia. However, what I am curious to know is what it is about the notion of international law you find troubling. It is as if you reason as follows. You are aware that Israel does things that would not normally be considered lawful (e.g. under the Geneva Conventions). But you feel they are justified because you think Israel's enemies can be expected to do something even more unlawful. That being so, you argue, let's just forget this idea of what is lawful and acceptable behaviour. Let us simply allow Israel to do whatever it considers necessary. The trouble with this argument, of course, is that the other side can apply it with equal justice.

I have nowhere asserted the existence of a God's-eye view, but nor would I endorse the extreme relativism your comments imply.

It does not follow from any persecution of Jews in Yemen that Israel was not imposed on the majority of the population of what the Mandate Power called Palestine. I am therefore not clear what your point is.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, I am bamboozled by the Spectator's technology. Either this will appear several times or not at all.

I hestitate to get embroiled again: your "academic training" will no doubt allow you to best me as it did before.

The rights and wrongs of Zionism are indeed mainly historical in the sense that the state of Israel patently is now in existence.

I am not clear whether you intend a rule that can be applied universally when you talk of the ancient kingdom (or kingdoms) of the Jews, and the priority of Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem. Have you ever looked at a map of human migration over the last several thousand years? Which peoples are to be allowed to claim what territories on the grounds that their putative ancestors once had a kingdom there? And how far back into the mists of time are they allowed to go to assert their claim? And does temporal priority determine holiness? Does Stonehenge take precedence over Salisbury Cathedral? Are the descendants of the Druids to evict the Bishop? I really do not see how your rule can in practice be applied universally. I cannot see why it should be applied solely to Israel.

(... And if by some remote chance, DNA confirmed that there were survivors of the tribes, or kingdoms, slaughtered by the Jews in acquiring the territories of their own kingdom or kingdoms, would they have prior claim over the ancient Jews? ... No, I really cannot make your implied rule work!)

You say I "espouse a Utopian new world order governed by fair and just arbiters of fair and just International Law." If you recall our previous discussions you will know that I do not espouse any Utopia. However, what I am curious to know is what it is about the notion of international law you find troubling. It is as if you reason as follows: You are aware that Israel does things that would not normally be considered lawful (e.g. under the Geneva Conventions). But you feel they are justified because you think Israel's enemies can be expected to do something even more unlawful. That being so, you argue, let's just forget this idea of what is lawful and acceptable behaviour. Let us simply allow Israel to do whatever it considers necessary. The trouble with this argument, of course, is that the other side can apply it with equal justice.

I have nowhere asserted the existence of a God's-eye view, but nor would I endorse the extreme relativism your comments imply.

It does not follow from any persecution of Jews in Yemen that Israel was not imposed on the majority of the population of what the Mandate Power called Palestine. I am therefore not clear what your point is.

Adam B.

Henry;
1. Jews had always remained in the Land of Israel, they didn't all arrive with the various waves of aliyah.
2. There was widescale Arab immigration in conjunction with immigration by Jews (precisely because the Jews were developing the land, and consequently brought employment with them). Many claiming to be "Palestinian" had in fact been relative newcomers from neighbouring Arab nations.
3. The land in question had never been an independent entity, except as a Jewish nation.
4. The idea of "Palestinian" nationalism was invented in the 1960's.
5. The holy sights of Jerusalem are holy to others precisely because they were holy to Jews, long before the other religions even came into existance.

6. The partition plan of the UN was accepted by the Jews, and rejected by the Arabs, who launched a war of annihilation against the Jews, which, to their surprise, they lost.

Six facts Henry. In light of these, why do you endlessly question the right of the Jews to their homeland?

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B. Six facts that either have no bearing on the question or are insufficient ot settle it.

I also note your silence now on Israel's methods of waging war on civilians. On the assumption that your silence is a grudging acknowledgement, should we perhaps move on to Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens over the last sixty years, and then to its treatment of the population in the illegally occupied territories? And then we can try the simple ethical test again: if a fictional Palestine treated its Jewish citizens like that and illegally occupied Israel and treated the population like that, what would your response be?

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, you ask "what it is about the notion of international law you find troubling." I find all law troubling. No law, in common with any other human endeavour including science, is value free.

In your comments you throw out notions such as "normal" and "justice" and "lawful and acceptable behaviour". Although you opine "nor would I endorse the extreme relativism your comments imply", all the notions you bandy about are relative to the worldview (value systems) in which they are embedded.

For example the Islamic states reject the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in favour of The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI), a declaration of the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which provides an overview on the Islamic perspective on human rights, and affirms Islamic Shari'ah as its sole source. CDHRI declares its purpose to be "general guidance for Member States [of the OIC] in the Field of human rights". This declaration is usually seen as an Islamic response to the post-World War II United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948.
The Centre for Inquiry in September 2008 in an article to the United Nations writes that the CDHRI: "undermines equality of persons and freedom of expression and religion by imposing restrictions on nearly every human right based on Islamic Sharia law."

So, when you say "Let us all simply allow Israel to do whatever it considers necessary. The trouble with this argument, of course, is that the other side can apply it with equal justice." you ignore the fact that there is no commonly held international view of "justice". Indeed, as Sharia law underpins the Muslim/Arab view of "justice," the only "justice" Sharia law endorses is the dhimmification of non-believers, the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel and the subjection and slaughter of Jews.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, You are troubled by all human endeavour because it is not value free. This is an odd reason to be troubled. I do not understand what you mean.

You say the notions I bandied about ("norms", "justice" etc.) are all relative to the worldview (value systems) in which they are embedded. True. I did say that the notions I was bandying about are relative e.g. to the Geneva Conventions.

All society is founded on mutually beneficial conventions. Some are confined to a small group. Others in principle apply to all people (or even all sentient creatures). I would argue from certain basic needs and interests that in some instances a wider application of a convention is better than a narrow application.

So, as I said, I have claimed no "God's-eye view" but I do not agree with the extreme relativism I take from your remarks.

The Cairo Declaration goes only so far in the conventions it endorses. Liberal atheists would object to some of it. Many theists would object to the same bits. But other theists would at least recognize what it attempts, but may believe that this particular attempt misinterprets God's will. (This is a fundamental problem for theists: they believe that God's law trumps Man's, but can't agree what God's law is.)

I would object to the Cairo Declaration on a number of grounds. One is that it discriminates against citizens because of their religion. It may have been possible to flourish in the dim and distant past while accepting the subordinate position of a dhimmi. But now it is abhorrent to discriminate simply because a citizen is of the wrong religion (or ethnic group etc.)

You say, "Indeed, as Sharia law underpins the Muslim/Arab view of "justice," the only "justice" Sharia law endorses is the dhimmification of non-believers, the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel and the subjection and slaughter of Jews." As I understand it Sharia law is a large and ancient body of law, doctrine, and exegesis that has given rise to many different interpretations at any given time, including the present. I doubt very much that what you say is accurate as a summary of what Sharia law has to say.

I have to say that I still do not have your answer: do you infer from your extreme relativism that Israel is permitted by its "value system" to do whatever it deems necessary to achieve whatever it wishes to achieve; and that no-one else can interfere even if their "value system" does not permit them to stand idly by? (Is Israel allowed to stop them interfering, perhaps because Israel's "value system" permits Israel to interfere with other people...but then what if other people's "value systems" allow them to interfere with Israel?) Please clarify how your relativism works in practice.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, you wrote:
"It does not follow from any persecution of Jews in Yemen that Israel was not imposed on the majority of the population of what the Mandate Power called Palestine. I am therefore not clear what your point is."

The "majority of the population of what the Mandate Power called Palestine" were Muslim Arabs, And what exactly was being "imposed" on those Muslim Arabs - Israel, a democratic Jewish Middle East State in which Muslims would be unable to persecute and demonize Jews under Muslim law.

You treat history like a supermarket in which you can pick and choose to support your prejudices. You ignore the fact that there has been continuous tenacious settlement by Jews in their homeland since "biblical" times, despite repeated expulsions, persecution, and harsh Islamic rule under Arab and Turkish conquerors for 1300 years. The Jews have as much right as the Arabs to live in "Palestine".

I find it paradoxical that you who endlessly bleats on about some notion of universal "international law" and "justice" should at the same time act as an Arab Muslim apologist championing the "right" of the majority Muslim Arab population of "Palestine" and the other majority Muslim/ Arab lands, having stolen the Jewish homeland by jihad, to persecute the indigenous Jews in perpetuity in "Palestine" and throughout the Middle East:

"a fatwa written January 5 1956 by then Grand Mufti of Egype, Sheikh Hasan Ma'moun, and signed by the leading members of the Fatwa Committee of Al Azhar, and the major representatives of all four Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence, elaborated the following key initial point: that all of historical Palestine having been conquered by jihad, was a permanent possession of the global Muslim umma (community), "fay territory" (booty), to be governed by Islamic Law." http://sheikyermami.com/dr-andrew-bostom/

You certainly inhabit a topsy turvy world.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, Again, this will appear more than once or not at all. It is a response to your comment of 12.12pm on the 13th.

You are troubled by all human endeavour because it is not value free. This is an odd reason to be troubled. I do not understand what you mean.

You say the notions I bandied about ("norms", "justice" etc.) are all relative to the worldview (value systems) in which they are embedded. True. I did say that the notions I was bandying about are relative e.g. to the Geneva Conventions.

All society is founded on mutually beneficial conventions. Some are confined to a small group. Others in principle apply to all people (or even all sentient creatures). I would argue from certain basic needs and interests that in some instances a wider application of a convention is better than a narrow application.

So, as I said, I have claimed no "God's-eye view" but I do not agree with the extreme relativism I take from your remarks.

The Cairo Declaration goes only so far in the conventions it endorses. Liberal atheists would object to some of it. Many theists would object to the same bits. But other theists would at least recognize what it attempts, but may believe that this particular attempt misinterprets God's will. (This is a fundamental problem for theists: they believe that God's law trumps Man's, but can't agree what God's law is.)

I would object to the Cairo Declaration on a number of grounds. One is that it discriminates against citizens because of their religion. It may have been possible to flourish in the dim and distant past while accepting the subordinate position of a dhimmi. But now it is abhorrent to discriminate simply because a citizen is of the wrong religion (or ethnic group etc.)

You say, "Indeed, as Sharia law underpins the Muslim/Arab view of "justice," the only "justice" Sharia law endorses is the dhimmification of non-believers, the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel and the subjection and slaughter of Jews." As I understand it Sharia law is a large and ancient body of law, doctrine, and exegesis that has given rise to many different interpretations at any given time, including the present. I doubt very much that what you say is accurate as a summary of what Sharia law has to say.

I have to say that I still do not have your answer: do you infer from your extreme relativism that Israel is permitted by its "value system" to do whatever it deems necessary to achieve whatever it wishes to achieve; and that no-one else can interfere even if their "value system" does not permit them to stand idly by? (Is Israel allowed to stop them interfering, perhaps because Israel's "value system" permits Israel to interfere with other people's "value systems"...but then what if other people's "value systems" allow them to interfere with Israel?) Please clarify how your relativism works in practice.

Adam B.

Henry, I apologise for not replying in more detail, my work commitments have been insane at the moment and I'm simply writing quick posts when I can grab a moment - hardly satisfactory, considering the length of your posts and the number of points which need addressing.

I don't accept your version of how Israel wages war at all, and the quotes you provide do little to back your claims. Saying that an area would be set back 20 years is not at all the same as saying we want to kill civilians or indiscriminately flatten neighbourhoods. It simply means that there is a price to pay for aggression, and that the progress of an area can be put back. Hardly a new tactic in war, wanting to penalise the enemy is it? Or do you think wars can be "nice" and tidy? They are messy and horrible - always. But then again, Hamas didn't need to provoke Israel's response by firing 6000 missiles at Israeli civilians. Utterly irresponsible, and morally repugnant. Yet I don't get that sense from your posts - yes, when directly asked, you condemn it (and I appreciate that), but you never willingly bring it up, you simply aim all criticism solely at Israel. I notice you aren't using the word "murder" any more - and your examples of Caen, and Germany and Japan miss the point - in all wars, civilians get hurt (especially in built up areas, and when faced with the cynical tactics of terrorists like Hamas and Hizbollah). It does not constitute murder - and again, the intent seems to have passed you by. You say that you think israel does deliberately target civilians - well, in that case, shouldn't the civilians casualties be much higher?

Now you are claiming that Israel discriminates against its minorities - this really puts my back up, I'm afraid, considering Israel is the most tolerant and inclusive country in the entire region. Is there social injustice in Israel? Yes. There is in the Uk as well. That hardly constitutes "apartheid" or any other of the invectives aimed at Israel, usually by people who have nothing to say about the treatment of minorities in Saudi (what minorities) Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait...

However, I get the sense that you're not a hater, unlike some of the knee-jerk obsessive anti-Israel crowd - I just think you're mistaken.

Anyway, must dash!

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, "The "majority of the population of what the Mandate Power called Palestine" were Muslim Arabs, And what exactly was being "imposed" on those Muslim Arabs - Israel, a democratic Jewish Middle East State in which Muslims would be unable to persecute and demonize Jews under Muslim law."

I see that we agree that Israel was "imposed " upon the "majority of the population". We disagree only on how to describe Israel.

However, I am now completely confused about the rule you use to justify the imposition of Israel on the majority of the population. Britain scooped up the territory as the spoils of war, and felt justified in doing what it wanted with it. Before that the Turks had it. Some time before that, wicked Arabs invaded the territory. The comic book version is that Allah told them to... Some centuries earlier the Romans invaded the territory. I think the generally accepted explanation is that they were driven on by the dictates of empire... Some centuries earlier, it appears that the Jews invaded the territory and slaughtered as many of the inhabitants as they could. Apparently their God told them to. No doubt those slaughtered by the Jews had themselves previously slaughtered earlier inhabitants. So tell me, what is the rule that determines which of these events bestows the right to the territory in perpetuity?

As a footnote, I thought you boasted about your "academic training" - and yet you quote me Sheikyermami? You do know that academic standards require not just citation of sources but also the use of reputable sources in the first place, not trash from the gutter. I know Prof. Dershowitz has defended his citation of comic books, but Sheikyermami is surely even more tawdry.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B. I would like to clarify what I said and comment on a couple of things you said. But do not let me prod or provoke you into a reply - it sounds as if the demands of your work are exorbitant.

I agree that war is by its nature hellish: that is why it should be the very last resort and why rules of war have been agreed (to reduce the incidence of atrocity by instilling constraints on natural instinct in the heat of battle).

Now look at Israel's invasion of Lebanon and Gaza.

Israel has made regular incursions into Lebanon since it withdrew. Does this justify Lebanon in sending Israel back twenty years? Hizballah made its first incursion in some time to get hostages to barter for the release of the many Lebanese held by Israel. Does this justify Israel in sending Lebanon (not Hizballah, but Lebanon) back twenty years? And look at the methods: to direct indiscriminate fire on populated areas, villages, towns, whole quarters of cities, to reduce them to rubble as happened to Dahiya, to treat them as battlefields, knowing that the inhabitants are still there. This is a crime. It is intentional. I would say it is bloody murder.

This has been Israeli strategy from its inception. Here is Abba Eban responding to a review by Menachem Begin of attacks on civilians instigated by the Labour government (I think Begin was justifying similar attacks by Likud): "There was a rational prospect... that the affected populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities."

What about Gaza? A ceasefire was in place, which Israel acknowledged to be working, and which Hamas sought to extend. Rocket fire was minimal, although Israeli shellfire continued. Is this a pretext to inflict a "shoah"?

Israel uses military force when the need is highly questionable, to say the least. And its strategy and tactics, as described by its high command and common soldiers, fall under the definition of war crimes. They quite deliberately flout the laws of war.

You say I should volunteer a condemnation of Palestinian crimes more often. Israel is the aggressor against the people in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon. Israel has overwhelming force. Israel is in a position to make concessions for peace. I think it more urgent that Israel and its supporters acknowledge Israel's part in prolonging the conflict, and change their behaviour. The claim that they have to demolish Lebanon and Gaza and throttle the West Bank to avert an existential threat is humbug.

You question the significance of Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens. Few other countries have kept a large part of their population under martial law for decades or systematically expropriated their property (I suggest a more detailed examination of the history of the Arab citizens under martial law and under predatory civil administration before dismissing their grievance, and I suggest you hold Israel to higher standards than you appear to). The treatment of the people of the Occupied Territories needs no elaboration.

My point is that Israel and its supporters apply a double standard. I find it extraordinary in the face of the evidence that they deny it. If they were to recognize it and acknowledge it, they might be more likely to consider negotiating in good faith, instead of temporizing while they take what they want. This I think it is a legitimate exercise to illustrate the point.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick: no time now to respond fully to your post addressed to me. Just to say right now that, if you had followed the link I gave, you would have discovered that it was to an article written by Dr Andrew Bostom.

Dr Bostom writes well argued fully referenced articles (available online) and books on Islam and Jihad.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, You found this article on a web-site no self-respecting scholar (no objective reader) would touch with a bargepole, an article, you nevertheless maintain, by a scholar, who happens to have no formal training (no training) on the subjects he holds forth on. Your academic training was not very strong on sources - you have so far cited only the web-sites of the chronically factious, biased, and bigotted, and now from the gutter-press.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, your comments are intellectually muddled, self contradictory, and hypocritical .

On the one hand you admit you have no formal training on the subjects you "hold forth on" on these threads but at the same time you denigrate others who "hold forth on" subjects for which you claim they have no training.

You demand a level of scholarly standard of debate from other commenters from which you exempt yourself. You give personal opinions without reasons. You state "facts" without sources. Your own standard of intellectual "debate" fails to meet the standards you demand from others.

An example: you wrote " I would object to the Cairo Declaration on a number of grounds. One is that it discriminates against citizens because of their religion. It may have been possible to flourish in the dim and distant past while accepting the subordinate position of a dhimmi. But now it is abhorrent to discriminate simply because a citizen is of the wrong religion (or ethnic group etc.)"

You then wrote, "You say, "Indeed, as Sharia law underpins the Muslim/Arab view of "justice," the only "justice" Sharia law endorses is the dhimmification of non-believers, the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel and the subjection and slaughter of Jews." As I understand it Sharia law is a large and ancient body of law, doctrine, and exegesis that has given rise to many different interpretations at any given time, including the present. I doubt very much that what you say is accurate as a summary of what Sharia law has to say.

Your second paragraph in which you assert "I doubt very much that what you say is accurate as a summary of what Sharia law has to say" contradicts your first paragraph which.evidences your very clear understanding of Sharia Law, the basis of the Cairo Declaration.

You say "I do not agree with the extreme relativism I take from your remarks" but ignore the fact that your own opinions are relative to your own worldview. For example your personal opinion: "I would object to the Cairo Declaration on a number of grounds. But now it is abhorrent to discriminate simply because a citizen is of the wrong religion (or ethnic group etc.)" is evidently not shared by the Islamic supporters of the Cairo Declaration. Obviously they do not believe that discrimination on grounds of religion is abhorrent. Nor do they agree with your view of holy Islamic conquest: "the comic book version is that Allah told them to.."

Islamists are as firmly convinced that their worldview is the only legitimate one as you are that your worldview is the only legitimate one.

If you had the formal training on the subjects you hold forth on, (which you demand from other commenters, scholars, and readers) you would know that no human being is "objective". Each human mind selectively and unconsciously constructs its "world" from its own experiences, If you had the formal training on the subjects you hold forth on, you would know that you are as "chronically factious, biased, and bigotted, as all those you criticise.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, You will recall telling me that you had the advantage of me because of your "academic training". You will also recall deprecating my lack of rigour in writing comments on a blog without what might be considered the apparatus appropriate to a scholarly monograph (that is, citations for every borrowing or quote). I think in requiring such an apparatus in this setting you set the bar too high. At the same time, however, you set the bar too low for yourself in allowing yourself to cite exclusively from propaganda web-sites, and, in this latest instance, an article from a site that promotes contempt for other religions and hatred of other peoples. You somewhat miss what it is I object to in your citation of Dr. Bostom. What is he a doctor of? - not anything relevant to the subject in question. Why then insist on the honorific title of "Doctor"? - to give him bogus authority. What authority does he have? - none. He is no more an authority than you are or I am, so your citation of him adds nothing to your argument, and your use of Sheikyermami as a source seriously damages your credibility.

You make an effort to convict me of inconsistency in criticising the Cairo Declaration while disavowing any great knowledge of Sharia law. If you reread the Declaration you will find that knowledge of Sharia law is not requisite to criticise it as I have done.

You then revert to your extreme relativism. I am sure that you are aware that the relativism you express verges on the self-refuting: You appear to assert that it is a truth that should be universally acknowledged that there is no universal truth. I hinted at the sort of arguments that would support the contention that it is possible for conventions to be agreed by two parties even when they do not share all of the same beliefs and interests. There may indeed be various forms of relativism, but this need not preclude agreement on common norms. You have, I notice, again avoided telling me what your extreme relativism permits Israel to do. Can it do whatever it wants?

You have also again avoided telling me how your rule works for determining who can claim perpetual ownership of what particular piece of real estate.

Just to be clear, I have not insisted on any contributor here attaining any particular academic standard - that is not the point of these discussions. I have not insisted on citations. I have accepted that it is reasonable to ask for the source if a quote appears dubious. And I have criticised you for avoiding replying to points raised and for citing as authorities I should accept as definitive authors and web-sites whose purpose whether avowed or not is propaganda.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, "I hinted at the sort of arguments that would support the contention that it is possible for conventions to be agreed by two parties even when they do not share all of the same beliefs and interests, but this need not preclude agreement on common norms."

The rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference on the grounds that it is a secular understanding of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law falsifies your assertion that there are "common norms" that can be agreed.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, I don't think it does falsify the claim I made. Are you not too absolute in denying the possibility of (partial) mutual understandings and practical compromises? I agree that theisms competing with each other, and with secularism, make it very difficult, but not impossible. (Is this not also a problem within Israel itself?) I would be interested in your thoughts.

And what am I to take from your silence on all other issues? How does your relativism work, and how do you determine who has perpetual right to a territory? I am interested.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick "And what am I to take from your silence on all other issues?"

You just wrote " Are you not too absolute in denying the possiblity of (partial) mutual understandings and practical compromises? I agree that theisms competing with each other, and with secularism, make it very difficult, but not impossible."

Please justify your assertion in the context of the incompatibility of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.

By definition Human Rights in Islam cannot be Universal Human Rights, so where is the mutual understanding?.

By definition an absolutist religion, Islam, cannot compromise. Are you advocating that the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be compromised in order to fit in with the dictates of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights In Islam, a Declaration you have said you abhor because it is discriminatory?

"And what am I to take from your silence on all other issues?"
Sorry Henry, got other things to do. Don't you?

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, '"And what am I to take from your silence on all other issues?"
Sorry Henry, got other things to do. Don't you?'

This is not an appropriate response to legitimate questions. If you weren't serious, you should perhaps not have entered into the discussion in the first place. Is that really and truly all you could think to say?

After all the righteous indignation, the slightly whiffy quotes from "authorities", the lectures on what a formal education might have taught me, this is the best you can do: "I could defend what I've said if I wanted to, I just don't want to, I'm busy"?

Or, "I'm not afraid to fight you, I just don't want to, because...because...I just don't, so there" (while walking off trying to look superior)!

I've forgotten the precise definition of a "busted flush" but I think I've just met one.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, where is the evidence that I am "walking off"?

I have continued to debate the issues you have raised in my post of 17th June 6:14pm. It is you who have chosen not to continue the discussion by failing to respond to the substantive points I made in my last post.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, With all due respect, in your post of 6.14pm you add nothing knew to the discussion of the only point of substance you address; and for the rest you explicitly decline to make any further comment at all. "Snide" is the adjective that best describes your tone.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, you pepper these threads with comments and questions built on false premises using false logic.

You wrote "in your post of 6:14pm you add nothing knew to the discussion of the only point of substance you address":

False.

The point of substance I choose to address is your false premise that there are "common norms" that can be agreed. I address this issue because it is germane to your other comments and questions on International Law and compromises between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

In my post of 6:14pm I highlighted the false premises and false logic in your question "Are you not too absolute in denying the possibility of (partial) mutual understandings and practical compromises? I agree that theisms competing with each other, and with secularism, make it very difficult, but not impossible."

I also pointed out that as an absolutist religion, Islam, cannot by definition compromise its principles, then the only way "mutual understandings and practical compromises" could be made with the States subscribing to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, a document you have said you abhor as it is discriminatory, would be for you to advocate that the principle of Universal human rights as set down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be compromised, ie abandoned, in favour of the authoritarian discriminatory ones acceptable to the Islamic States subscribing to the CDHRI.

Do you advocate abandoning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in favour of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam in order to achieve your goal of a mutually agreed Convention based on a practical compromise?

I ask this question because the principle is generalisable to your comments and questions on International Law and nogiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs to achieve peace.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, The point you made in your 6.14pm post is the same point you made in several previous posts. When I said that it added nothing new it would appear I was saying nothing controversial.

You say I frequently make mistakes in logic. For all I know you may be right. You have never yet pointed one out to me.

You say I frequently start from false premises. Again, you may have identified some. So far you have only pointed out assertions you disagree with, which is not quite the same.

You say my assertion that it is possible to establish common norms is false. For proof you appear to offer the suggestion that no common norms are possible between signatories of the Cairo Declaration and other signatories of the Universal Declaration because each cannot agree to absolutely everything asserted by the other. As it happens, I spoke of partial mutual understandings and practical compromises, which I still say are possible in the absence of complete unanimity on first principles. I would have thought Israel offers an example you would understand and appreciate. Some forms of ultra-Orthodox Judaism are as absolute as some interpretations of Islam. The ultra-Orthodox have significant political influence. Yet there is, at least for now, a workable accommodation between absolutist Orthodox believers and secularists. Similarly, there is still peaceful co-existence among the citizens of Britain. The number of norms and international laws the Islamic countries participate in is very large.

I think you will find your assertion that common norms are impossible is very difficult to sustain.

Can I mention two recent books on the subject. Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence and Kwame Anthony Appiah, Cosmopolitanism. Both books are about the complexities of peaceful coexistence.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, sorry no time till Sunday for a full response to your latest post. As a preliminary repost, here is an extract from a Spectator review of Amartya Sen's book that finds his arguments do "not quite answer the case":

"This is not the place to argue whether or not there is something intrinsic to Islam that makes it inimical to modern notions of equal rights and genuine religious and cultural plurality. Suffice it to say that I personally think Professor Sen is too sanguine on this matter. Appeals to the memory of the Mughal Emperor Akbar, who was open-minded to the point of tolerating outright atheists, but who was not universally acclaimed by his fellow-Muslims, does not quite answer the case: I don’t think he would survive long nowadays."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/24216/part_2/sorting-out-the-selves.thtml

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith has taken the trouble to make some good points. I have tried to reply four times now. What is the problem?

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick you opined "I think you will find your assertion that common norms are impossible is very difficult to sustain" and mentioned two books in support of your opinion.

Following on from my "preliminary repost (riposte!), an extract from a Spectator review that found the first of the two books you "submitted in evidence" failed to "answer the case", here is another review from the Spectator that demolishes the second book:

"The author’s recollection of a pre- lapsarian world, in which every kind of believer rubbed along with every other kind of believer in perfect amity, leads him to a rather rosy-spectacled view of Islam, according to which (as he quotes) ‘there is no compulsion in religion’. Yes, but what about the well-known punishment for apostasy, which is surely somewhat coercive? While custom can accommodate contradiction, doctrine cannot — which explains why those inspired by doctrine are so often exceedingly cruel. We live in a world in which ever more people feel the need for a doctrine to call their own: an unintended consequence, no doubt, of the vast expansion of education in the last 50-100 years. If Democrats and Republicans cannot now meet comfortably over the dinner tables of New York, what chance is there that secularists, let alone atheists, and Salafists will come to an amicable arrangement about how the world should be governed?

In the end, this book doesn’t answer the hard questions because it doesn’t ask them. I don’t expect the Israelis and Hezbollah to reach an agreement when they come to realise that they share 99.99 per cent of their DNA, as well as all the physiological needs of human beings. Sometimes differences are what count."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/24503/part_2/rubbing-along-together.thtml

Linda Smith

I have posted a response to Henry Sidgwick twice today that has not been printed. Was it the word "demolished" that the moderator objected to?

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, "You say I frequently start from false premises. Again, you may have identified some. So far you have only pointed out assertions you disagree with, which is not quite the same."

False. I have pointed out that by the rules of logic, Islam, an absolutist religion cannot by definition compromise its principles.

You deny the rules of logic and, attempting to justify your denial, you falsely assert that Jewish "absolutist Orthodox believers" compromise their principles by making "practical compromises" in order to achieve "a workable accommodation" with secularists in Israel.

Your assertion is false: one of the basic principle of Judaism to which Jewish "absolutist Orthodox believers" adhere is the Jewish doctrine that all human beings are created in the image of God. The Jewish doctrine that all human beings are created in the image of God provides Jews with an absolute mandate and imperative for universal human rights. Therefore Jewish "absolutist Orthodox believers" by engaging in political discourse on an equal footing with secularists in Israel, do not compromise their basic principles.

I am not in a position to say if your argument by false logic is intentional on your part. But from my point of view, I cannot engage in the serious debate you request with an interlocutor whose style of debate is characterized by the bombardment of his opponent with a barrage of false logic.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, I am afraid my comments are not appearing, despite repeated attempts. I have to assume, with regret, that our discussion has been terminated. Despite the odd rap over the knuckles you administered, I found your contributions thought-provoking.
Best wishes,
Henry.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, My comments do not appear, despite repeated atempts to post them. I have to assume, with regret, that our discussion has been terminated. Despite the odd rap on the knuckles you administered, I found your contributions thought-provoking (which I think is the main purpose of these exchanges).
Best wishes,
Henry.

Linda Smith

Dear Moderator, please append the following paragraph to my comment posted a few minutes ago. I think I left it off. Thanks

That I have not pointed out every instance of your application of false logic is not because I agree with the validity of your assertions, but rather that I have resisted being distracted from the crux of the discussion.

Pete Hoskin

Henry Sidgwick: if one of your comments doesn't show, you can always email on phoskin @ spectator.co.uk and I'll look into it.