The Moral Inversion of Richard Goldstone

Martin Le Jeune

It does not help the debate abpout an unbalanced UN report to write an equally unbalanced piece about it, to be honest. This is a waste of a good opportunity to examine the bad conduct of which both sides are clearly guilty.

tiki

I would NOT like to stand in the shoes of this supposedly "independed judge" who became the "accusing procecuter" on the eve of the Jewish "judgement days" and be
judged by the "UPPER JUDGE" for moral behaviour.He has a lot of praying to do.

Adonis

What a pathetic figure Goldstone is - totally in hock to the Muslim lobby at the UN.

He does not even have the fig-leaf of intellectual probity to hide the sheer nakedness of his warped judgment.

Raymond Joseph Douglas

Typical stuff from the U.N. I'm afraid ! More surprising would have been a U.N. report that honestly tried to look at BOTH sides of the story without prejudicial preconceptions ! The world wants rid of Israel and the Jewish people !Either in the hope of a quiet life, or for Oil etc ! For those in despair over this, read Isaiah chapter 62 ! It certainly gave me a better perspective on things !

Maurice, MD

The terms "International Human Rights Law" and "International Humanitarian Law" are regularly invoked in promoting [false] accusations against Israel.
1. What exactly are these laws? Where are the texts?
2. What bodies passed them? Ratified them?
3. Most importantly -- when ever in the past 2,000 years has any kind of "humanitarian law" or similar concept been invoked on behalf of the Jews?

Carl

Well done Judge Goldstone, an honest report to which Israel must now be held accountable. Your reaction to it speaks volumes.

John

Martin - quite right. Melanie gets two crucial things wrong in the first paragraph. Rocket firing is not the only war crime that Hamas is accused of (and indeed the report criticises the Palestinian Authority too). And Goldstone says that the UN Security Council should refer either or both parties to the ICC should they not conduct credible investigations themselves over the next six months. I'd refer anyone who wants a sensible debate on the report to read it first rather than rely on her analysis. She hasn't got the credibility to be impartial or the intellectual capacity/legal background to really grasp the issues (see her flailing around over whether Gaza is occupied or not - a pretty complex set of considerations come into play which I don't think she really understands). There are certainly faults with this report and both they and it need serious consideration. MP can't do that, sadly.

Vision Aforethought

Reports like this actually prove the bias against Israel, making it easier to validate in any discussion. Meanwhile, why isn't Mr. Goldstone investigating:
a) The atrocities against white farmers in his home country
b) The campaign in Iraq/Afghanistan or any other of the approx 40 wars currently under way around the world?

I thought the West had used depleted uranium weapons in one of our wars, with consequences for both locals and our own military? Why isn't he looking into this?

Israel is being spotlighted by democratic and non demoratic nations alike to detract from their own (possible) dubious actions in the same was the bully at school will pick on the bespectacled kid to detract from the fact he (the bully) is thick as a brick.

If Israel had oil, which the West needed, no one would bat an eyelid. It's disgusting.

David

Carl,

It would appear that you either didn't read Melanie's post or alternatively didn't understand it, or alternatively aren't interested in hearing what she has to say (in which case, what are you doing on this site?)

Nicole S

Martin Le Jeune: Israel is not guilty of bad conduct. The IDF was fighting an enemy embedded in residential areas and took care to warn civilians of impending attacks. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 but rocket attacks continued. The prime responsibility for provoking the war and for the high rate of casualties lies with Hamas.

Joshua

Risible that the Jews, extreme left-wingers all, who gave "evidence" to Goldstone's kangaroo court are now demanding that Israel pay heed to this scurrilous report. It just goes to show the kind of "witnesses" that Goldstone was relying on. Also, attempting to provide cover for Goldstone, is his daughter who claims that Goldstone is a Zionist who loves Israel. Ah yes, just like all other former board members of Human Rights Watch.

Israel, the only state that is not allowed to defend itself against attack. Can you just imagine what Britain's response would have been if a small town in England had been bombarded not thousands of times like Sderot, but just once? Can you say "Dresden" or "General Belgrano" or "Bloody Sunday"? Truly Israel is the Jew of the world, grudgingly allowed to own property but not defend it.

Dvar Dea

His main functions are those of a fig leaf and a loudspeaker. The focus of the criticism should be the content, the other members and how independent Goldstone really was.

Joshua

Another excellent piece about this over at Harry's Place:

UN Human Rights Council Report Distorts Gaza War

http://tinyurl.com/n3jfro

wonderer

Was there ever even as much as a muted squeak from the sanctimonious left at Syria's conduct of military operations at Hama in 1982?

According to Wikipedia, "the Hama massacre occurred on February 2, 1982, when the Syrian army bombarded the town of Hama in order to quell a revolt by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood. An estimated 25,000 to 40,000 people were killed, including about 1,000 soldiers."

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Ms. Phillips: This is off-topic, but I wish you and all your Jewish readers a good and sweet year.

logdon

Mannah from heaven for el-Bowen last night.

His stentorian smugness knew no bounds as he reeled off his 'facts' from Jerusalem.

Which begs the question, why in the belly of the beast rather than Gaza where he'd, no doubt be welcomed with open arms?

No nice digs?

These armchair liberals really take the cake, swaddled within the security of Israel yet never failing to take any pot shot offered.

And when they do venture out as in the case of the NYT, it takes an all out assault to rescue them, during which the Afghani interpreter and a British soldier are killed.

How many tears did that bastard shed?

patricia

Hey - Josh - part of Mel's immediate or outer circle?

We should be told!

charles soper

Thank you Melanie, I don't wholly agree with your assessment of Goldstone, though who can read his heart? It would be interesting if the same punctilious standards applied to Israel (albeit often inaccurately) were as strictly applied to the UK and US in the conduct of the Afghan war, let alone Sri Lanka's horrors against the Tamils - all of them justifiable wars - but hideously incapable of keeping to the new standards in an assymetric conflict. As to Russia and Georgia, China and Tibet, Yemen and its neighbours etc etc. The UNHRC has one insatiable itch, despite the deadly wounds in the world's polity.

Laura

The institution itself is now the problem. It's stuffed more full of bad guys than it is good guys but because it's all under one umbrella it gets the name 'United'.

United in what? Chicanery.

El Bowen, yes. And Jon Snow, too, who spent all of yesterday's interview with the Israeli spokesman shouting at him and interrupting him.

The BBC and Channel 4 couldn't get away with this in the free market. They'd be leaking money like the New York Times.

Both must be sold off and stripped of our money.

Pinkie Brown

My recollection is that Hamas said unequivically at one point that while they would not fire rockets, they would do nothing to prevent other groups from doing such. So who should Hamas investigate, their own people who fired rockets when they shouldn't have, or the people they gave permission to fire rockets. But better yet, how can Goldstone be so high minded that he would not investigate unless both sides were investigated (no doubt so as to appear fairminded), and then submit a report that will be judged by the likes of Libya, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and their ilk. Kinda like the man who claims to be just an honest investigator doing his job, and now let us look to Stalin's justice ministry for a fair trial.

Mailman

Jushua,

Sadly Englands response would be nothing more than a harshly worded letter while the left blames ourselves for the bombing.

Mailman

Truthtriumphs

John.
"regarding the occupation of Gaza, a pretty complex set of considerations come into play which I don't think she really understands".
It's interesting that whenever the answer is clear, such as in this instance, the apologists for the calumny will always hide behind the word "complex" or "complicated" to mislead others.
As Churchill once said "From intense complexities, intense simplicities emerge".
Israel completely disengaged from Gaza, even removing the bodies of Jewish deceased from the graveyard there.
It was the choice of Fatah and then Hamas to continue the bombardment of Israel, which has been ongoing for years and without provocation, so that Israel was forced to take preventive action to stop the inflow of illegal weapons into Gaza.
Do you not ask why Fatah and Hamas played at war when they got back every last centimetre of land from Israel? (and lots of goodies that went with it----you know, like the lucrative greenhouses paid for by Jewish donors and trashed within days).
As to not understanding the legal status of Gaza, and all its "complexities", even if it were beyond Melanie's ability to "understand", she has a very able legal expert close at hand (her husband) to explain it to her, should that be necessary----unlikely!

Crappy little country, crappy people in it

John

Please explain to those of us without your sparkling capacity for complex international legalities, how exactly Gaza is occupied by Israel.

Henry Sidgwick

Would it not have been better for Israel to cooperate with the inquiry and publish all the evidence it thinks disproves the allegations?

Charles Soper makes an excellent point on the double standards of the international community in turning a blind eye to what China is doing to Tibet, the US and UK to Afghanistan and Iraq, Russia to Chechnya, Sri Lanka to the Tamils... However, this does not affect the truth or otherwise of the findings of Goldstone's inquiry.

Brindle

United Nations, united in jew hatred and the proud successor organization to Hitler's Third Reich.

Theme song? Kiss My Kleister Goodbye! as the Goldstone report inches the world along toward a final conflagration.

logdon

Two from Arutz Sheva which offers light on the pre-ordained prejudice of this show trial

1. Behind the UN Curtain: Goldstone Napped During Film of Rockets
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu UN Napped during Kassam Evidence

United Nations Human Rights Council Judge Richard Goldstone, whose 500-page report on Wednesday condemned Israel for war crimes, fell asleep while he was supposed to be watching a film showing Sderot children fleeing from rocket fire. Noam Bedein, head of the Sderot Media Center, told Israel National News Wednesday morning, “I screened a film showing the rocket explosions, and Goldstone fell asleep before my eyes."

Bedein and five others, including the mayor of Ashkelon and kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit’s father Noam, were the only Israelis to testify on the country’s behalf during the U.N. hearings. Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon explained that the government refused to cooperate with the Council because it was prejudiced against Israel from the outset. He said that an official Israeli appearance at the hearings would have given more justification to the report but would not have changed damning and foregone conclusions.

Bedein said he appeared as a private citizen and was not discouraged by the Foreign Ministry. “The U.N. asked me to appear because the Sderot Media Center is the only operation on the ground that has been presenting the rocket reality to the country.”

However, he added that he was given “30 minutes to present eight years of being attacked from rocket fire and mortar shelling.” While Goldstone was napping, the other three judges, Christine Chinkin, an Irishman and a Pakistani, sat silently.”

Bedein wrapped up his presentation by asking the panel. “What other democracy in the world would tolerate rockets in its territory?” He added, “That is how I finished, but all they said was ‘Thank you.’ I was expecting tough questions, but there were none.”

Hamas has attacked the western Negev with approximately 12,000 rockets and mortars since 2000, including nearly 8,000 missiles since the expulsion of Jews and the IDF withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

Since the end of the Operation Cast Lead counterterrorist campaign, southern Israel has sustained 250 attacks, not including dozens of sniper shootings at soldiers and roadside bombs aimed at IDF vehicles at the Gaza separation barrier.

However, Goldstone’s lengthy report devoted only nine pages to the rockets, Bedein said. “Its comparison of Gaza with Sderot is ridiculous,” he added. “We teach children to run to bomb shelters in 15 seconds, and they teach their children to run to rooftops and be human shields” during Israeli retaliation.

The Goldstone Report blamed Israel for allegedly killing hundreds of “non-combatants,” including approximately 250 Hamas policemen.

2. UN Investigator: Israel, Hamas Committed War Crimes in Gaza
by Hana Levi Julian UN: 'War Crimes' in Gaza

A report listing the findings of a United Nations investigation has accused the Israel Defense Forces of committing "actions amounting to war crimes" during Israel's counterterrorist Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.

The U.N. probe was led by former South African judge Richard Goldstone, whose report said Israel's actions might also be considered "crimes against humanity."

Goldstone added in the report that the incessant rocket attacks on southern Israel's civilian population that had sparked the military operation in the first place might also be considered war crimes.

"There is also evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity" by firing rockets and mortars at Israeli citizens," according to the 575-page report. "Where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into civilian areas, they constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population," said the report. "These actions would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity."

Report Called Hamas Buildings 'Civilian Objects'

The report, which cited seven incidents in which IDF soldiers allegedly deliberately gunned down PA Arab civilians as they ran for cover while waving white flags, will be presented to the U.N. Human Rights Council later this month.

The report also alleges "a director and intentional attack" on Gaza City's Al Quds Hospital and the ambulance station next door. It also cited an incident in which it said that the IDF fired at a mosque during prayer services, killing 15 worshippers, and had shelled a house where soldiers had forced PA civilians to assemble in the Samouni neighborhood of Zeitoun, south of Gaza City. Also cited were accusations by PA Arabs that they had been used by IDF soldiers as human shields while their houses were searched.

In addition, the report condemned the IDF for attacking "buildings and persons of the Gaza authorities," saying "there is no evidence that the Legislative Council building and the Gaza main prison made an effective contribution to military action," and referred to both as "civilian objects."

The investigators disregarded the fact that the Hamas terrorist organization that governs the Gaza region -- and the buildings in question -- were the source of the endless rocket and mortar attacks on Israel's citizens that had sparked the military operation.

Israel: Mission was a 'Kangaroo Court'

Israel's Foreign Ministry, which had refused to cooperate with the investigation from the beginning, rejected the accusations.

"The mandate of the mission and the resolution establishing it prejudged the outcome of any investigation, gave legitimacy to the Hamas terrorist organization and ignored the deliberate Hamas strategy of using innocent Palestinian civilians as human shields for launching terrorist attacks against Israel," said the ministry in a statement.

However, it added, "Israel will read the report carefully." NGO Monitor President Gerald Steinberg had harsh words for both the probe and its conclusions, and told CNN in an interview that the mission had been tantamount to a "kangaroo court."

The Foreign Ministry also explained in its statement that Israel felt it could not participate in the investigation committee "because of the one-sided mandate given to Judge Goldstone, which ignored the thousands of missiles fired by Hamas against Israeli citizens, which made the operation in Gaza necessary."

The statement was distributed to the United Nations in Geneva by the Israeli mission to the U.N.
Comment on this story

logdon

So much for impartiality?

From the Israeli Arutz Sheva site

Behind the UN Curtain: Goldstone Napped During Film of Rockets
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu UN Napped during Kassam Evidence

United Nations Human Rights Council Judge Richard Goldstone, whose 500-page report on Wednesday condemned Israel for war crimes, fell asleep while he was supposed to be watching a film showing Sderot children fleeing from rocket fire. Noam Bedein, head of the Sderot Media Center, told Israel National News Wednesday morning, “I screened a film showing the rocket explosions, and Goldstone fell asleep before my eyes."

Bedein and five others, including the mayor of Ashkelon and kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit’s father Noam, were the only Israelis to testify on the country’s behalf during the U.N. hearings. Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon explained that the government refused to cooperate with the Council because it was prejudiced against Israel from the outset. He said that an official Israeli appearance at the hearings would have given more justification to the report but would not have changed damning and foregone conclusions.

Bedein said he appeared as a private citizen and was not discouraged by the Foreign Ministry. “The U.N. asked me to appear because the Sderot Media Center is the only operation on the ground that has been presenting the rocket reality to the country.”

However, he added that he was given “30 minutes to present eight years of being attacked from rocket fire and mortar shelling.” While Goldstone was napping, the other three judges, Christine Chinkin, an Irishman and a Pakistani, sat silently.”

Bedein wrapped up his presentation by asking the panel. “What other democracy in the world would tolerate rockets in its territory?” He added, “That is how I finished, but all they said was ‘Thank you.’ I was expecting tough questions, but there were none.”

Hamas has attacked the western Negev with approximately 12,000 rockets and mortars since 2000, including nearly 8,000 missiles since the expulsion of Jews and the IDF withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

Since the end of the Operation Cast Lead counterterrorist campaign, southern Israel has sustained 250 attacks, not including dozens of sniper shootings at soldiers and roadside bombs aimed at IDF vehicles at the Gaza separation barrier.

However, Goldstone’s lengthy report devoted only nine pages to the rockets, Bedein said. “Its comparison of Gaza with Sderot is ridiculous,” he added. “We teach children to run to bomb shelters in 15 seconds, and they teach their children to run to rooftops and be human shields” during Israeli retaliation.

The Goldstone Report blamed Israel for allegedly killing hundreds of “non-combatants,” including approximately 250 Hamas policemen.

logdon

And there's more.....

UN Investigator: Israel, Hamas Committed War Crimes in Gaza
by Hana Levi Julian UN: 'War Crimes' in Gaza

A report listing the findings of a United Nations investigation has accused the Israel Defense Forces of committing "actions amounting to war crimes" during Israel's counterterrorist Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.

The U.N. probe was led by former South African judge Richard Goldstone, whose report said Israel's actions might also be considered "crimes against humanity."

Goldstone added in the report that the incessant rocket attacks on southern Israel's civilian population that had sparked the military operation in the first place might also be considered war crimes.

"There is also evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity" by firing rockets and mortars at Israeli citizens," according to the 575-page report. "Where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into civilian areas, they constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population," said the report. "These actions would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity."

Report Called Hamas Buildings 'Civilian Objects'

The report, which cited seven incidents in which IDF soldiers allegedly deliberately gunned down PA Arab civilians as they ran for cover while waving white flags, will be presented to the U.N. Human Rights Council later this month.

The report also alleges "a director and intentional attack" on Gaza City's Al Quds Hospital and the ambulance station next door. It also cited an incident in which it said that the IDF fired at a mosque during prayer services, killing 15 worshippers, and had shelled a house where soldiers had forced PA civilians to assemble in the Samouni neighborhood of Zeitoun, south of Gaza City. Also cited were accusations by PA Arabs that they had been used by IDF soldiers as human shields while their houses were searched.

In addition, the report condemned the IDF for attacking "buildings and persons of the Gaza authorities," saying "there is no evidence that the Legislative Council building and the Gaza main prison made an effective contribution to military action," and referred to both as "civilian objects."

The investigators disregarded the fact that the Hamas terrorist organization that governs the Gaza region -- and the buildings in question -- were the source of the endless rocket and mortar attacks on Israel's citizens that had sparked the military operation.

Israel: Mission was a 'Kangaroo Court'

Israel's Foreign Ministry, which had refused to cooperate with the investigation from the beginning, rejected the accusations.

"The mandate of the mission and the resolution establishing it prejudged the outcome of any investigation, gave legitimacy to the Hamas terrorist organization and ignored the deliberate Hamas strategy of using innocent Palestinian civilians as human shields for launching terrorist attacks against Israel," said the ministry in a statement.

However, it added, "Israel will read the report carefully." NGO Monitor President Gerald Steinberg had harsh words for both the probe and its conclusions, and told CNN in an interview that the mission had been tantamount to a "kangaroo court."

The Foreign Ministry also explained in its statement that Israel felt it could not participate in the investigation committee "because of the one-sided mandate given to Judge Goldstone, which ignored the thousands of missiles fired by Hamas against Israeli citizens, which made the operation in Gaza necessary."

The statement was distributed to the United Nations in Geneva by the Israeli mission to the U.N.

Yehuda

The Jewish KAPOS in the Nazi death camps perpetrated shameful, vile deeds upon fellow Jewish inmates, but they were under threat of execution if they failed to collaborate;
what excuse does Goldstone have?

Augustus

Justice Goldstone himself has admitted that Israel can't rely on the neutrality of the UN Human Rights Council. In an interview with Al Jazeera he said: "I can understand Israel's suspicion with regard to the Human Rights Council - it
has been partial with regard to Israel for years."

Of course it has, consistently singling out Israel, while consistently failing to address the true violators of human rights. It has devoted more resolutions to condemning Israel
than to all the other countries of the world combined. Needless to say, no fact-finding mission was ever initiated by the Council concerning the firing of 12,000 rockets and missiles on Israeli citizens during all those years prior to Cast Lead.

Could this Report, primarily based on NGO statements and publications, constitute yet another step in the Durban Strategy of 2001, using the language of human rights and international law as a weapon in a political war to isolate and demonize Israel, and in the process seek to restrict legitimate responses to terror?

There are many distortions in the report, including the false legal claim that Gaza remains 'occupied'. Then there is the classification of the Gaza police force as 'civilian',
when independent studies have shown that over 90% of members were members of Hamas' military wing and active combatants. The list of falsifications goes on and on. Goldman insisted that his work was not judicial "this is not a court". But legal judgements are nevertheless being applied and issued without any evidentiary procedures in place, including the right to cross-examination or guarantees of due process.
The word kangaroo court comes to mind - Oh, well done Melanie!
You already said that.

John

To Crappy and Truth Triumphs

The complex issues revolve around the degree of effective control that is exercised over a particular territory: this includes utilities, access for goods and people etc. Having troops on the ground is not a prerequisite for a territory to be considered to remain under occupation. Were Israel progressively to divest itself of control of certain elements of contol then one would need over time to re-evaluate whether it remained an occupying force. That is what Liebermann is suggesting (though since he is not advocating the removal of naval blockade it is not clear that it would change the final determination). All countries in the world but one currently regard the Gaza Strip as occupied by Israel: this includes the UK and the US. Israel considers it to be "hostile territory". Paras 275 to 285 of the report give a fuller exposition of Justice Goldstone's legal argumentation. Feel free to disagree with any of the arguments he advances there - but in detail please, not with the usual simplistic assertions.

My point is that since the vast majority of the world's international lawyers consider Gaza to be occupied it is at least worthy of a little bit more debate than Melanie Phillips can muster. Her husband, Joshua Rozenberg, does not, as far as I am aware, claim to be an expert in international law. He has never practised as such nor studied beyond a BA.

None of the above is to say that the Goldstone report is faultless. Just that it is probably due a little bit more serious analysis than Melanie or (up till now) either of you have been capable of exhibiting.

John

Augustus

"...independent studies have shown that over 90% of members were members of Hamas' military wing and active combatants".

Genuinely interested in this. Have you a link to these reports. I'd be keen to test the words "independent" and "shown" in particular. If you (as I'm sure you have not) ever saw Gazan policemen (a callow looking lot by and large who stand around directing traffic in yellow bibs) I suspect you'd be equally wary of such assertions. There is doubtless some cross-over between the Hamas police and the Izzedin Al Qassam brigades but not that much. The former is a much larger group than the latter: and the IDQ members are sufficiently well funded and motivated not to require day jobs. Goldstone's finding was that it is not acceptable to drop a bomb on a hundred people because you know that at least some of those hundred people might be terrorists.

I repeat, again, that there is much to debate/criticise in this report (I agree, for example, that the clean slate for Hamas over the deliberate use of civilians and civilian infrastructure to shield or conceal military activity is hard to swallow). But hysterical and poorly argued interventions such as appear on this thread add little.

ISAAC

YOU miss the central point - of course we did a big invasion of Gaza, that is the point, to wipe out these nobodies. That is the whole point, the inconsequence of views such as that of Goldstone is what is important. Nobody cares or will act on what he says anyway. Soon we can go in and carry on. No change.

Augustus

John, forgive me for butting in between Crappy, Truthtriumphs, and yourself, but you cite complex issues in relation to the Gaza Strip being 'occupied'
by Israel. It's now about four years since Israel withdrew from Gaza and cleared out all the settlers. That being also the first time that Jewish settlements were ever evacuated by Israel voluntarily in its history. By doing this Israel abandoned all claim to that territory. Is that abandonment of territorial claim not in itself effectively and legally and end to occupation? Surely, such matters as naval blockades,
tunnel controls and what have you are not the same as an enemy occupation of territory? Who are all these international law experts who think otherwise?

Paul

In response to John's dishonest argument:

Beforev US troops invaded and occupied large parts of Iraki territory there were "no-fly zones". The control of Iraki airspace was thus restricted - but this was not argued to make Irak occupied territory.

The fact, therefore, that Israel operates a partial blockade to prevent dangerous weapons from being smuggled in does not change Gaza's current occupied status.

P.S When Egypt occasionally restricts access into Gaza from its borders, is it "occupying" Gaza?

P.P.S. I phoned and got through to Goldstone at the time of the antisemitic orgy which was Durban 1 to ask why he did not publicly condemn it. He already had a substantial international reputation. He did not reply.

john

Augustus

A fair question.

I agree that in layman's terms it does seem harsh to say Gaza is still occupied. The reason why physical presence on the territory is not a necessary condition of occupation is because of the definitional problems that would present. Was Vichy France considered occupied, for example? Or Denmark for that matter? In both cases the answer was yes even though the presence of occupying forces was limited. If an occupying army is based in Birmingham, is Cornwall occupied? It's easier to talk of effective control rather than physical coverage. In this case, it is fair to ask the question - does Israel have no obligations towards the people of Gaza. Would it be acceptable for them to allow no food, supplies or electricity/fresh water etc. into the Gaza strip? Many people would say that this should all come from Egypt. That is a reasonable point but the counter-argument is that because of the historical legacy of the past 40 years (e.g. how the utilities network and crossings have been managed), it is not possible for Israel to divest itself from all responsibility for Gaza overnight (most international lawyers agree that Gaza remains occupied but they also differ on the extent of the obligations Israel retains). As I say, over time it might be. But, as I also say, it would probably involve having to allow free air and sea passage into Gaza something which the Israelis are (very understandably given the history of terror emanating from the strip) reluctant to do.

None of this, by the way, is to suggest that because Gaza remains legally occupied the Palestinians are automatically the victim or that Hamas has the right to try to murder Israeli citizens. It does not.

As I keep saying, this is a complex (and flawed) report. It is worthy of mature debate.

In terms of "who are these international lawyers", the answer is pretty much all of them. When, for example, the UK states that it considers Gaza to be occupied territory (or to be very precise that Israel retains some obligations as occupying power towards protection of the civilian population in Gaza) it is the result of in-house international lawyers picking through the relevant texts and looking at the current situation.

You are absolutely free to disagree as the Israeli MFA lawyers do. But it requires a deeper level of analysis than Melanie's dismissal of the argument.

Scipio

Great job of Fisking!

wonderer

Augustus, "That [Gaza]being also the first time that Jewish settlements were ever evacuated by Israel voluntarily in its history." What about Sinai when peace was made with Egypt?

Anyway, Israel is entitled to control the borders under the Oslo Accords.

John Edwards

Thanks for the very useful link to the UN report which I will study with interest.

Melanie also refers readers to "reputable and authoritative facts" on the attack on Gaza which turns out to be a link to a document published by the government of Israel, who of course, refused numerous invitations to co-operate with and provide these "reputable and authoratitive facts" to the UN Mission.

Then they complain about a one sided and biased report!

Derek BLADES

Congratulations Ms Phillips!

The 575 pages of the "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" was issued on 15 September and you felt able to comment on it in your column of 16 September. That is quite a feat of speed-reading but I wonder how much of it you have really digested. Paragraph 1684 for example, which reads as follows.

“The timing of the first Israeli attack, at 11:30 am on a week day, when children were returning from school and the streets of Gaza were crowded with people going about their daily business, appears to have been calculated to create the greatest disruption and widespread panic among the civilian population. The treatment of many civilians detained or even killed while trying to surrender is one manifestation of the way in which the effective rules of engagement, standard operating procedures and instructions to the troops on the ground appear to have been framed in order to create an environment in which due regard for civilian lives and basic human dignity was replaced with the disregard for basic international humanitarian law and human rights norms.”

I think you analysis of that single paragraph would be well worth a column from you.

Alistair

If Israel is right then why cant the country have its day at the Hague to prove that it is innocent of war crimes.the world will see the truth from an un biased view in the Hague

Nachman

To all those who claim that Israel is occupying Gaza Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."
The IDF exercises no authority in Gaza which is under the control of Hamas so please stop with the "Occupation" thank you.

Nachman

Mr Blades - very interesting but the first attack took place on 27 December which was a Saturday - anymore gems to share with us?

C. Gee

John:
You say: "None of this, by the way, is to suggest that because Gaza remains legally occupied the Palestinians are automatically the victim or that Hamas has the right to try to murder Israeli citizens. It does not."

This would disappoint the "international lawyers" who have laboured so hard to classify Israel as an occupying power in order precisely to place Palestinians as a protected population and to legitimize the "resistance".

You support deeper analysis. Behind every legal conclusion is advocacy. The "international lawyers" advocate for Palestine. Israel must defend itself from lawfare and warfare.

GeoffM

It seems that Israel has joined the ranks of terrorists - just like Churchill, Montgomery, Bomber Harris, Nelson and Wellington.

Thank God the West still has Pres. Carter.............

Lenny K.

I salute you Melanie. A genuine icon who never flinches from fighting for truth and justice, however unpalatable this may be to Israel's detractors.

CDoyle

"It is, however, only Israel which is required to conduct investigations into such claims -- and thus only Israel which Goldstone recommends should be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court if those investigations aren’t carried out to the satisfaction of the UN. So much for even-handedness."

This is not true. Goldstone calls on the Palestinian authorities to do exactly the same thing.

YA

Goldstone or not, here are the main messages from Cast Lead - it is possible to bomb many mosques to garbage, destroy fortifications and rocket positions prepared for years, destroy hundreds of best trained jihadi fighters, enter their territory, and to do it fast and without casualties.
Practically it says "your God is great but we have greater things". Hamas got heavy losses and humiliation, and stopped rocket fire - just because they understood they can't afford it anymore.
Europeans has a template, thanks Israel. Let us be prepared. Maybe in the future Goldstone will be hired by Iranian-sponsored NGOs to investigate a disproportionate response to rockets launched at Westminster from Harrow. Goldstone, a torpedo of Islamic terrorism.

ahad ha'amoratsim

John, you say that Melanie hasn't the credibility to be impartial, yet you stand by the impartiality of a report compiled by judges who announced the verdict before they began the investigation? Fascinating.

Augustus

wonderer, you're absolutely right. I had overlooked the fact that the Sinai peninsular was voluntarily evacuated following the peace agreement with Egypt, at a heavy cost in
compensation and bad feelings, I seem to recall. I believe that Sadat was a good man, the ME was a lot poorer without him.
Btw, one of the main reasons Sharon decided to withdraw from Gaza was a demographic one. The birth statistics in the West Bank and Gaza are far higher than in Israel, and would after a generation or so make settlements less tenable. the irony is that waging war against Israel actually creates more Israelis, as families have an extra child as an 'insurance
policy', but the converse may also be true in that Israeli repression creates more Palestinians to conquer Israel.

DOV KORET

What I'm looking for is how many of the gaza terrorist (dead or alive) are on any u.n. payroll?? DK

jerusalemwalks

Mr Goldstone is such a fair judge that he would like to see the terroritst get a fair chance to win their heinour war against Israel and the civilized world.
Tell Mr. Goldstone that Israel doesn't intend giving terrorists a fair chance and they'd better understand that the most extreme forms of warfare is legitimate in the world's effort to wipe them out and may God and Mr. Goldstone help the terrorists and anyone aligned with them.
The the Jews have done such a great job of preventing terrorism and the contravention of human rights while at the same time protecting the innocent Palestinians.

Israeli

DOV KORET: Many teachers in UNRWA schools are Hamas activists, including the military wing.
UNRWA also helps label and teach children to be "refugees" to prolong the conflict.

Richard

Read Jonathan Sack's interview in Standpoint magazine. He makes an interesting point that the dominant discourse of every age is turned against the Jews. In the 18th Century, this was religion, the 19th Century it was science and in the 20th century it became the language of human rights. All these were inverted and exploited to delegitimize Jews and the Jewish people.

Frederick Sheer

You are an uncritical supporter of Israel and that is all that needs to be said.
I've read your articles over the last few years and they are simply uncritical of anything Israel does.
Why don't you write a breezy, personality piece on Avigdor Lieberman as I am sure you regard this racist an the epitome of enlightenment.

Laura

Indeed it is a perverse world we live in when the UNHRC, composed of the world's most vicious human rights violators stands in judgement over the conduct of a democratic country. Out of all the conflicts and massive human rights violations and the slaughter of innocents around the world by various tyrannical regimes, the UN chooses to only investigate Israel's military operations, a free country merely defending itself against terrorists who have waged war against it. The further irony is that Israel has the most humane armed forces in the world. One in which the lives of its own soldiers are risked in order to avoid killing enemies civilians. What other country on earth does that? The Goldstone Report turns reality on its head as it falsely accuses Israel of deliberately killing civilians while denying hamas uses human shields. I've come to the conclusion that Israel is foolish to be humane, it should fight its wars like every other country does, ruthlessly and without regard for the lives of the Arabs of Gaza or anywhere it may be forced to fight. Israel should no longer be deterred by terrorists using human shields and should strike regardless and fight till the enemy is defeated. So long as the Arabs support terrorists, they ought to suffer the consequences of the choice they have made. To hell with sparing them. Where does it get Israel? Only international condemnation anyway.

Miranda Rose Smith

If Bibi Netanyahu is ever tried and convicted by the International Criminal Court, for crimes against humanity, it will be the worst miscarriage of justice since Pontius Pilate. It will also set the precedent that it's a crime against humanity to shoot back when Arabs are shooting at you. Any head of state who shoots back at Arabs will risk a Star Chamber show trial by the International Criminal Court. Very few heads of state will be willing to risk that, and the Arabs will, basically, walk in and take over Europe. Then all those Europeans who gobbled up P.L.O. propaganda like ice cream, who passed that resolution in favor of suicide bombings as a means of attaining Palestinian statehood, after Ehud Olmert had offered the Palestinians a state-something Jordan, for example, never did-all those Europeans who forbade El Al planes carrying arms from landing on European soil during the 2006 Lebanon War, all those academics who voted to boycott Israel, will find out what the Israelis have been fighting against for more than 60 years.
The U.N., as a whole, is totally indifferent to war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity. The General Assembly applauds the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

wonderer

Israeli, I share your concerns about UNRWA but there is some evidence, tentative at best, I admit, that they are trying to pull their socks up. Hamas, who flatly deny the Holocaust, are angry over a report that UNRWA want to teach the history of it in the schools they run in Gaza: see http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE57T1JW20090830

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Mr. Sidgwick: Would you ask a Black man to co-operate with a Ku Klux Klan inquiry?

lior

Wow, *clap clap clap*.
And i'm saying this without any cynism - i live in israel, and we're already used to the fact that most of the public is being misled by incorrect (in the best case) information set loose by people such as goldsone.
It is great to see that there are others who can see through the lies and propeganda.
You've made my day. thanks.

Linda Smith

What would Goldstone have made of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Truman was lucky not to have been sent to the Hague to be tried for "war crimes".

I note that more than sixty years after those "war crimes" a report has finally quashed the claims (also made on these threads recently) that Japan was on the point of surrender when the US dropped the Atom bombs on it.

Will it take sixty years to quash the Goldstone report?

Mladen Andrijasevic

From Ha’aretz:
Ari Shavit / UN must hold Obama to same standard as Israel
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115242.html

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, I have read several books on Japan's surrender, but not the report you mention. I would be very grateful if you could give me the reference. Thank you.

Bruce

You forgot to mention how HRW was recently in Saudi Arabia, lobbying for money by promoting it's anit-Israel position.

Simon Wolfendale

I would try to post my views , but as they were never accepted in times past because they weren't in line with the racist, anti- Palestinian tripe that fills this site, I'll not bother.

Simon Wolfendale, Israel.

Augustus

M'dear Simon Wolfendale, how sad! Let me try for you.

Your views are simply that Israel is always wrong in the contest between good and evil.
Israel is the guilty party who refuses any form of peace process. The Palestinians are a trapped people who only wish for a just peace. Israel must be forced to come to a peaceful solution by sanctions against it. The only agreement possible is that which is laid down by the Arab League: Israel withdraws from all occupied territories. The Palestinian refugees get what is their right
under UN resolution 194: Creation of a Palestinian state,
including Jerusalem. And then there will always be peace.

But all over the world there have been groups of people making demands. Saying that this, or that, was a mistake, and making other peoples lives a misery (IRA, ETA etc.) Right is always on their side, and if they can't get what they want by
political means, they resort to violence to try to get it. This always produces a spiral of violence, and counter-violence, leading to a loss of many lives
and misery.

But if you were to say: It is an outright scandal that, in such a wonderful area, a paradise on Earth, a Biblical land of milk and honey, so many people are forced to live in fear and poverty. Away with the past! Away with a mindset which only serves to hate and take revenge. Long live the future! Long live democracy for everyone in the Middle East, where everyone's right, opinion, belief, and freedom, is guaranteed and respected, I would agree with you.

wonderer

Simon Wolfendale, when you say your views weren't accepted, do you mean that others disagreed with you? Very possible. If you mean that they did not find their way on to the site, I'm sure that would have been the result of a technical glitch. Some of the views posted here are violently hostile to Israel. I am pro but some of mine have failed to make it. You should email the moderator if your post doesn't appear. It used to be Peter Hoskin but it may be someone else now. If so, perhaps he could announce himself.

logdon

Miranda Rose Smith
September 17th, 2009 10:21am

Spot on!

victoria williams

Congratulations to Richard Goldstone for his courage in producing a report that he knew would be vilified by Israel. It is extraordinary that Israel chooses not to contribute towards a report that it obviously intends to reject whatever the conclusions. In fact Goldstone's report will be recognised for what it is - a valuable and fair assessment of Israel's guilt.

Truthtriumphs

Victoria Williams.
"A report Israel intends to reject, whatever the conclusions"
That's the whole point, but you have pointedly missed the point.
The report came to its conclusion in advance, just as Melanie described above.
Perhaps you should improve your comprehension skills.
As to the appointment of Goldstone, a Jew, to chair the commission, what better way of giving this antisemitic charter credibility, (Israel being the collective Jew),can there be?
Sadly, there will always be a few Jews like him willing to prostitute themselves in the interest of self-promotion, and to satisfy their craving to inflate their egos.

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt: the report I mentioned was cited by Oliver Kamm in his article "Hiroshima Myths" http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/rss.xml

La Cumparsita

"Residents of southern Israel said Wednesday that a report published by the Goldstone committee largely ignored their
testimonies.Noam Bedin, a resident of Sderot said "When I stood up and started to testify before the judges, Justice
Goldstone fell asleep in front of me. It was an embarrassing moment but I continued talking, realizing that I should not
have high hopes," he added.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3778063,00.html

C. Gee

Victoria Williams:

Courage is usually associated with standing up for something despite the jeopardy entailed. Where is the jeopardy for Goldstone in his vilification of Israel at the behest of the UN? Contempt for Israel is the surest and safest way to international acclaim and moral superiority.
You should give yourself a little pat on the back for fearlessness too.

Derek

Nachman

Thank you for citing the black letter law on the definition of "occupation" which in usual circumstances should end the matter.

John appears to be arguing however that Gaza can be occupied by Israel even if it is not occupied by Israel, because of other factors. It's a short step from that position to saying that it is to the contrary Israel which is occupied by the palestine terrorist organizations and their providers by virtue of the attacks on Israel's people and territory and the constraints placed by that enemy on Israel's freedom of action.

It won't wash, John, how ever many lawyers you get to dance on the head of your pin.

Brian

Not surprisingly, I guess, these comments are filled with people who obviously believe Israel can do anything and be justified and that Israel could never do anything disproportionate, despite its overwhelming military power. Such people have a right to their opinions, but they are no more credible than the opinions of people who see evil in everything Israel does.

Arianna Doxis

Incredibly strange analysis. How do you account for the difference of 100 times as many Gaza deaths as of Israeli deaths? Reminds me of the 100:1 Nazi retaliations.Gaza has been under siege. When it was the Warsaw uprising, we thought it was brave. Why don't the same moral rules apply to Israelis?

C. Gee

Arianna Doxis:

Come, come, I am sure if you try you can see why the Warsaw Uprising is not analogous. Hint: the location of the genocidal intent. Or do you feel sorry for the Warsaw Jews solely because they were disproportionately weak? If they had had the weapons to defeat the Nazis by 100 to 1, and had done so, where would your pity or admiration lie?

The Warsaw Uprising gave rise to a legal principle at the Nuremberg trials. It was established that, despite legal precedent to the contrary, the Germans could not use the defense that they were legally putting down an insurrection. In an absurd irony, this has been distorted by the Arab apologists (and let us not forget that the Arabs supported Hitler) to establish a "right to resistance" and so to kill Jews. Another example of how the Jews are never the beneficiaries, legal or emotional, of the world's moral posturing at their mass murder.

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, Thank you for the reference.

Of course, you will be aware that the question of whether the use of the atom bomb, or America's bombing campaign in general, was a war crime is independent of the question of whether Japan was about to surrender.

Henry Sidgwick

C. Gee, September 18th, 2009 9:10am:

While I agree that analogies between Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto at the time of Operation Reinhardt and the Uprising are dubious, unhelpful and distasteful, I do not follow the reasoning of your second paragraph. The Palestinians have a "right" to resistance like anyone else (indeed it is implicit in the preamble to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights). That right does not extend to the slaughter of civilians. However, insofar as it is Israel the Palestinians are resisting, it does extend to killing Israeli combatants. Your analogy between this and the killing of Jews in Warsaw is dubious, unhelpful and distasteful.

C. Gee

Henry Sidgwick:

Distasteful? Perhaps you think the analogy of Israelis to Nazis is clear, helpful and tasteful?
Invite Arianna Doxis to dance.

Danny Simkin

We posted a thorough rebuttal of Goldstone report at Samson Blinded here: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/goldstone-report-the-rebuttal.htm
There are dozens of factual errors in the report.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick: the Jewish Israelis have been resisting the Muslim/Arabs' (aka "Palestinians") endeavours to return them to dhimmitude in a "Palestinian" Islamic State since Israel was created.

I find it strange that you are a supporter of dhimmitude.

john

The ICRC has a handy guide on what constitutes occupation:

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/634KFC

I am not, as Derek suggests, saying that a country is occupied when it is not occupied. That would be silly. I am defining what to be occupied means. The "black letter of the law" Nachman refers to introduces the concept of "authority". If you look at the rest of the ICRC site you will see reference to the concept of "effective control". As I have repeatedly said, it is possible to argue that Gaza is not occupied - that is what the Israeli MFA does. But they do so understanding the law and arguing a more sophisticated case than Melanie Phillips or Dim Derek do. Dismissing Goldstone, as MP does, on the grounds that he is plainly wrong on this matter as a "cursory glance" will show is just base ignorance. Derek may not agree with the opinion of e.g. US State Department and UK Foreign Office lawyers on this point - but he and MP need to find rather more sophisticated arguments and rebuttals.

I wouldn't call the report impartial (as Ahad claims I do). Indeed in my original post I agreed with Martin who had called it unbalanced.

Henry Sidgwick

C. Gee, I am sure you can read, and understand what you read, so I find your retort puzzling. Is it that you see only what you expect to see, and not what is there?

Derek

The great advantage of “international law” for casuists is of course that it does not exist. This is why no one arguing that Israel continues to “occupy” Gaza can point to a final authority in support of the conclusion at which he has already arrived – but only to “opinions”. International law is what independent sovereign legal systems have agreed to enforce – and it is therefore a body of conventions. Some may not agree with the convention; some may agree for a while and then cease to agree, and those who agree have no sanction – except of course such sanction as they may among themselves as independent sovereign systems agree to apply and have applied against them.

The casuist may therefore cherry pick his route to his destination. He may for instance offer in support of his position the views of those notably unbiased gentlemen, the lawyers in the British FCO and the US State Department – and of course by implication dismiss their counterparts in the Israeli government and elsewhere, who, unlike the former, lack all objectivity on the question.

If one allows oneself to admit this polemic based on the principle of effective control, it will be a short walk from there to believing, for example, that the Continental System was the means by which Napoleon engineered the occupation of Europe by the United Kingdom between 1806 and, say, 1812 in creating an embargo which gave effective control of access to Europe by sea to us; or that the Republic of Ireland remains occupied by the British because, etc.; or, and here perhaps the argument grows stronger, that England is occupied by the principals of the present nomenklatura in Brussels, etc..

It also gives scope for a thesis that Judaea and Samaria are part of Israel occupied by the “Palestine Authority” - for which no doubt some sophisticated arguments and rebuttals can be found, and which I personally find rather attractive. It is however unlikely to meet common agreement among “international lawyers”. We have probably all at one time or another been exhausted by debating UN Resolution 242 and the expression “occupied territories” (without the definite article). Let’s resist John Bright’s invitation to further unendingly sterile argument over “what to be occupied means” - with its the sub-text which is the adoption of yet another stick to beat Israel with.

Henry Sidgwick

Derek. "International law...is a body of conventions". I would be interested in what you consider national laws to be, other than bodies of conventions. I would also be interested in what you think follows from your dismissal of intrnational law - that the Israelis and Palestinians can try to acquire whatever they think they need in the way of living space and resources by whatever means they deem appropriate? Of course, that is convenient for Israel as a client of the US, which has given it the wherewithal to field one of the three or four strongest armies in the world. Is your argument, then, one of principle or simply the expedient justification of brute force because Israel is in a position to wield it?

Df

To John: What you are doing is confusing two terms: occupation and blockade. What Israel is doing is blockading the entry of material that could possibly be used to enhance Hamas' ability to carry out more attacks against Israel. This is not occupation which was defined in the 1907 and pointed out in a previous post. To my knowledge, this has not been changed by any legal body having the international authority to supersede the Hague Convention. If I am wrong - please post the details, and don't give me links to any NGO statements.

Another point to remember - whether or not you agree, there is a war going on in the south between Israel and Hamas (and other groups). Blockades are a recognized tactic in war and there is nothing illegal about them.

Df

John: Thank you for your reference to the ICRC. If you actually read what is said, Gaza, by their legal experts is not occupied. Even the paragraph defining when occupation ends negates your point.
1. What is occupation?

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.

The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an “invasion”, “liberation”, “administration” or “occupation”. As the law of occupation is primarily motivated by humanitarian considerations, it is solely the facts on the ground that determine its application.

Remember, there have been no Israeli troops in Gaza, other than the last Gaza operation, since the evacuation by Sharon. Therefore, what is really happening on the ground does not fit the definition of occupation.

5. When does occupation come to an end?

The normal way for an occupation to end is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it. However, the continued presence of foreign troops does not necessarily mean that occupation continues.

A transfer of authority to a local government re-establishing the full and free exercise of sovereignty will normally end the state of occupation, if the government agrees to the continued presence of foreign troops on its territory. However, the law of occupation may become applicable again if the situation on the ground changes, that is to say, if the territory again becomes "actually placed under the authority of the hostile army" (H R, art. 42) – in other words, under the control of foreign troops without the consent of the local authorities.

If I remember, upon pullout, all governmental functions, without exception, were turned over to the Palestinians. In 2007 Hamas took over Gaza in a bloody purge of Fatah supporters and since then has exercised total control over the strip.

Lnda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, of course national laws are nothing but conventions. For example, as I recall, not so many years ago homosexuality was a crime in the UK, now it is a crime to discriminate against homosexuals.

By the way, brute force has always ruled the world. I am reminded of a song..."Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves, Britains never,never, never shall be slaves!"

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt commented "Of course, you will be aware that the question of whether the use of the atom bomb, or America's bombing campaign in general, was a war crime is independent of the question of whether Japan was about to surrender"

I am mighty glad we did not depend on the likes of "Wm Hazlitt" to defend us in World War II - doubtless he would have been a conscientious objector, more worried about killing German civilians than defending us from the Nazis. Now,I wonder where the Nazis would have built the British Auschwitz....

Linda Smith

Crikey! just saw my typo - should of course read

Britons, never, never, never shall be slaves!

John

I feel I have won the argument. The last two posts of Derek and DF were cogent and well argued. I'd still disagree with DF (para 5 includes the phrase "full and free exercise of sovereignty" - that is the counterpoint to the concept of "effective control" by the occupying forces. The argument is over whether Hamas exercises full and free sovereignty or whether the IDF exercises effective control. Most people come down on the side of the latter - but it is reasonable to argue the former. Where I agree with Derek (and I apologise for my earlier intemperant post) is that international law at this level and where it impinges directly on matters of national security is of limited utility in all of this anyway. There is no final arbiter (except in a very limited sense the ICC and ICJ- more so in Europe in the ECJ and ECtHR) and it is rarely enforceable. For me the value of Goldstone's report is less the legal judgements he makes and more the factual findings he comes to. Again, feel free to disagree with him in those. It would, as others have noted, been a more sensible tactic by Israel to have engaged in the detail of individual allegations. The wider point, though, is surely that it is possible to have a mature debate in detail on these points, as we now are rather than MP's opening gambit of: "For Goldstone to say that Gaza is still occupied demonstrates either an ignorance of international law quite remarkable for a professor of international law, or that he is signed up to the ideology which deliberately uses such mis-statements to delegitimise Israel." All that statement shows is her own lamentable grasp of the complexities of international law.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, It may be that you miss the point. Derek appeared to be making a distinction between international law and any other law by saying that international law is only a body of conventions and that it thus does not exist. Set aside the contradiction between these two assertions. I asked how national laws differ - are they not also bodies of conventions. As I read your comments, you would agree.

I am interested to note how frank you are in asserting that Israel's right to do what it has done is a right bestowed purely by brute force.

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, I said, "Of course, you will be aware that the question of whether the use of the atom bomb, or America's bombing campaign in general, was a war crime is independent of the question of whether Japan was about to surrender."

I appear to have assumed too much. Yet the difference between the two questions is straightforward.

In light of your comments, would you say that the belligerents can do whatever they like to achieve victory? And would you say that we can have no complaint about what they do, even if it is the deliberate slaughter of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of civilians? Would you say that what they do is only a crime if they lose?

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, in writing "I am interested to note how frank you are in asserting that Israel's right to do what it has done is a right bestowed purely by brute force." misrepresented my earlier comment.

I made a statement of fact: "brute force has always ruled the world". The notion of "right" is irrelevant.

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt, here are the answers to your questions:

"would you say that the belligerents can do whatever they like to achieve victory?"

I say, the belligerents WILL do whatever they like to achieve victory - who's going to stop them?

"And would you say that we can have no complaint about what they do, even if it is the deliberate about what they do, even if it is the deliberate slaughter of thousands."

I say you can complain away all you like, who's stopping you?

"Would you say that what they do is only a crime if they lose?

Well, obviously the Nazis wouldn't have tried themselves at Nuremberg. They thought murdering millions of Jews, gypsies and others was the "right" thing to do.

It's all relative you see......I note that you didn't deny you would have been a conscientious objector.

Derek

Henry Sidgwick The distinction between conventions and laws is, roughly speaking, that conventions are a body of rules which some people observe, like table manners, whereas laws are rules which people are compelled to observe. In general, one is compelled to observe national laws by, in John’s words, a final arbiter; whereas a breach of table manners, depending where and with whom you are having your meal, may pass unnoticed or merely provoke a raised eyebrow or a failure to issue another invitation.

I notice that you initially ask if I think “that the Israelis and Palestinians can try to acquire whatever they think they need in the way of living space and resources by whatever means they deem appropriate?” (yes, I have stopped beating my wife) but immediately shift your focus to comment on Israel alone as “a client” (‘ally” not in your vocabulary?) of the United States. What are “Palestinians” by the way, do they include the inhabitants of Jordan for instance, and why did you not couple your question about the states for whom THEY are “clients” (or one might say “puppets”?) –which happen to include the United States by the way? Oh dear, I am afraid that your post speaks more than it says, so please don’t trouble yourself about my principles until you have sorted out your own.

John. It is perfectly reasonable for Melanie Phillips to spurn the view that Gaza is still occupied by Israel and many have done so. The attempt to extend the definition of “occupation” to include “effective control”, especially when effective control and certainly “occupation” in the common sense meaning of the word (if common sense is not an outlaw to international lawyers) would seem clearly to be in the hands of the terrorist gang called Hamas which binding resolutions of the United Nations’ Security Council requires all members to work to disband and to give no quarter to the gang members and supporters. Furthermore, on this conveniently extended definition, “effective control” and thus “occupation” may be shared by Egypt, which as Mrs. Phillips notes, has chosen to shut its border with Gaza. These overlooked considerations give force to Mrs. Phillips’ questioning of Judge Goldstone’s standing as an expert in international law. Of course she offers an alternative explanation to ignorance of the law when she suggests that his stand is taken because “he is signed up to the ideology which deliberately uses such mis-statements to delegitimise Israel”. Take your choice..

Anyone who really wants to spend more time in the arcane world of legal wranglers on points of “international law” could really muddy the waters by observing that Gaza is included within the definition of “territories occupied in the recent conflict” (not “occupied ARAB territories” by the way) in UN Resolution 242 so that even if the Arabs or the gangsters purporting to represent them in Gaza themselves declared themselves to be “in effective control” of the Strip, Israel would still be “an occupier” until the status of that part of the occupied territories was included in a “just and lasting peace in the Middle East” to the satisfaction of the promoters and defenders of liberty, equality and fraternity in the UN. No wonder Mrs. Phillips avoids getting involved, other than in the passing comment under Goldstone’s Error #1, in “the complexities of international law” on this point and moves on to spotlight the other bias and factual inaccuracies of the Goldstone Report.

John

df

A minor point but funnily enough while most international lawyers agree that Israel retains some responsibilities as an occupying power in Gaza, they are much more wary about using the term blockade which has a very specific meaning within the laws of war (though ironically the IDF uses the term somewhat loosely itself in relation to Gaza). If you want the full legal argument on occupation, I refer you again to Goldstone's own text (paras 275-285). As I say, people have every right to dispute his legal argumentation. But I think that Melanie makes herself look silly by dismissing it without an even basic understanding of it.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, Fair enough - I misrepresented your comment.

I note with interest how frank you are in asserting that Israel relies on brute force to get what it wants.

There is some truth in what you say about brute force ruling the world. However, it is not the whole truth. And there is no reason not to encourage efforts to reduce its role.

I wonder that you devote so much energy to denouncing those who do not support Israel in its resort to brute force. Are they not in your eyes merely fools who make the mistake of sympathising with those who do not possess sufficient brute force of their own?

Wm. Hazlitt

Derek, Thank you for a very reasonable reply - but you avoid the question.

Your definition of "convention" and of "law" does not entail that international law is not law, merely that you believe sovereign powers to have greater ability to enforce laws than confederations of sovereign powers in instituting international bodies of law, courts to administer them, and sanctions to punish breaches.

What do you think follows, in the context of the Israel/Palestine conflict, from your dismissal of international law?

The reason why I focus primarily on Israel is clear in what I say. However, my question could indeed be posed using the states that have Hamas and Hizballah as clients. My focus on Israel, which I think appropriate in this context, does not provide you with a sufficient pretext to avoid clarifying your position.

The "who are these so-called Palestinians anyway" gambit is closely akin to the "there's no such thing as Palestinians, just Arab interlopers" gambit, used to pretend the conflict is an artefact of Arab malice supported by "Lefties" and anti-Semites. It is not a gambit I would expect of you, but I do not know then what purpose your comments serve.

(You are quite right to pick me up on my tendentious use of "client" - I meant it to indicate that any other ally of the US would love to receive the financial, military and diplomatic largesse that the US bestows uniquely on Israel.)

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, I did not ask what you think belligerents do, but what you think they should do (if you will, within the moral, cultural etc. framework you grew up with).

My language was ambiguous. When I said, "We can have no complaint..." I hoped to clarify whether you think there are no standards of behaviour we can hold others to, and they us, because it is merely a matter of taste (or a particular moral framework, which has hold only on some human beings, never on all).

Do you therefore think that condemnation of the Nazis is merely a matter of taste; that those not directly threatened were under no obligation to intervene; that the Nuremberg trials were merely a charade, and that there is no such thing as a crime the victors can hold the vanquished to account for? These are all positions that have been argued for, and no doubt could be applied to Israel, the Palestinians, Iraq, the US, Great Britain, etc. - I just wonder whether you share them (if you will, within the moral, cultural etc. framework you were brought up in), as they appear to follow from what you assert. Of course, it does not follow that you are not permitted to make whatever moral noises you wish about the Nazis, just that it is indeed merely noise. Your relativism comes at a price - it empties many of your beliefs of content.

(I had assumed you were aware that the questions of Japanese surrender and possible US war crimes were distinct. I also assumed you were aware that your jibe about conscientious objectors was irrelevant to the discussion.)

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick: Yes of course Israel relies on brute force to get what it wants - SURVIVAL - as do all other nations. That's why they maintain armies.

In answer to your other question- Yes in my eyes non-Muslims who do not support Israel are fools, particularly those would-be-dhimmis who in your own words "make the mistake of sympathising with those who do not possess sufficent brute force of their own."

Any sensible non-Muslim, the world over, should be supporting Israel and fearful of Iran, and its proxies Hamas and Hamas, getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Only a dummy wants to be a dhimmi.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick,

I note that you support the Muslim Arabs, some of whom call themselves "Palestinians", in their jihad against the Jews of Israel by couching your arguments in terms of "right".

I should be interested to read your views on the following statements with regard to the fact that as the Palestinian Authority has Sharia as its Basic Law, it has, as the mooted Palestinian State will also have, a theocratic Islamic government:

"An Islamic government is government by Divine Right and its laws cannot be changed, modified, or challenged (p.19).
The legislative power is held exclusively by the Holy Prophet of Islam and none other than he can impose a law; any law that does not stem from him must be rejected (p.20)
Holy War (Jihad) means the conquest of non-Muslim territories. It is possible that it may be declared after the formation of an Islamic government worthy of the name, under the direction of an imam or at his command. It will then be incumbent upon every adult able-bodied man to volunteer for this war of conquest, whose final goal is the domination of Koranic law from one end of the earth to the other...." (Ayatollah Seyyid Ruhollah Khomeini (Principes politiques, philosophiques, sociaux et religieux, 1979)

Arafat in a cable to Khomeini (France-Soir, Paris, 13 February 1979):

"I pray Allah to guide your step along the path of faith and Holy War (Jihad) in Iran, continuing the combat until we arrive at the walls of Jerusalem, where we shall raise the flags of our two revolutions."

ZS

Great job fisking the UNHRC's report.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, If Israel decides its survival is at stake, it resorts to brute force. There is no constraint on what counts as a threat to its survival (Israel itself defines whatever it wants to be a credible threat); and there is no constraint on the nature of the brute force it resorts to, other than Israel's calculation of costs and benefits. Every other player who possesses any brute force at all adopts the same sophistry and similarly acts on it. Is this an accurate representation of history? - not quite. An accurate representation of current affairs? - not quite. A recipe for perpetual slaughter and desolation? Yes.

I am not surprised you consider your opponents fools. I was interested in why you devote so much effort and vituperation to parrying what they say.

I assume you are aware that I do not support any "jihad" by anyone. Perhaps, like Wm. Hazlitt, I assume too much.

Wm. Hazlitt, I can save you time and fruitless effort. Linda Smith is quite satisfied with a primitive form of relativism which allows her both to condemn her enemies and duck their arguments. Her moral, cultural, and intellectual framework does not require her to question a doctrine that renders her prejudices and self-conceit impervious to reason.

John

Henry Sedgwick/W M Hazlitt

For what it's worth (and if you didn't guess already) Linda's solitary "fact" in her previous post is not true. The PA does not have sharia as its basic law (not actually a statement that makes sense if she understood what is meant by Sharia). The amended basic law makes reference to the principles of Islamic law being the basis of all legislation. But the rest of the document is very closely aligned to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (even to matching article numbers). There are Sharia courts in Palestine - they deal mostly with family cases. The PA is about to promulgate a new family law and new gender laws which are pretty progressive e.g. by raising the marriage age to 18, making it illegal to pay women less than men for the same work and introducing equitable alimony arrangements. Indeed, as someone living here I think I could very conclusively argue and back up with evidence that the most fundamentalist government in these parts is Hamas, that the next most fundamentalist is the Israeli coalition - particularly Shas (read Yishai or Yaalon on their divine right to the West Bank), and that the most liberal and secular is the Palestinian Authority.

Linda is right that there is a danger of growing religious fundamentalism among Palestinians, however. But that is largely because the Palestinian Authority has no partner for peace on the Israeli side and so the secularists are losing ground to the extremists. It will be a catastrophe if that happens - and Israel will, tragically, take much of the pain as well as the blame.

Augustus

John, you appear to know a lot about the Palestinians' fundamentalist laws etc. If the PA's laws are non-Sharia, But Hamas wields the power in Gaza, what do make of reports circulating just before Cast Lead that they had introduced the penalty of crucifixion for 'the enemies of Islam'? But anyhow, I suppose, if the world can put up with them stoning people, what does the odd crucifixion of religious miscreants here and there matter?

Wm. Hazlitt

Henry Sidgwick, Thank you for the advice. I will be sure to take it. I suggest you do too.

John

Augustus

I think the reports about crucifixion (or stoning) for that matter are not true. I haven't seen any evidence of either.

But please don't assume that someone who argues against Melanie Phillips must love Hamas. I don't. The two principle problems I have with Goldstone's report are (i) that whereas it has around 50 paragraphs on each individual allegation against Israel it has only a few cursory paragraphs both on the rocket attacks and on the internal brutality carried out by Hamas. (ii) it takes at face value the suggestion that Hamas did not use human shields or use civilian infrastructure to launch attacks. In fact the great tragedy of Cast Lead is that many of those killed were young men from mosques who were sent out to fight by Hamas while the IDQ hid in bunkers. The number of hardcore Hamas killed was probably in the low tens.

Hamas are a murderous, socially reactionary, religiously fundamentalist organisation which has brought nothing but misery to the vast majority of Palestinians.

Linda Smith

John wrote: "The amended basic law makes reference to the principles of Islamic law being the basis of all legislation. But the rest of the document is very closely aligned to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.."

I note that John says "closely aligned" not "identical". The Basic Law cannot be identical with the UDHR because Sharia is inherently discriminatory. As the principles of Islamic law - Sharia - are inherently discriminatory they are inimical to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is confirmed in the OIC Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam of which the "State of Palestine" has been a member since 1967 (see OIC website). The preamble to the Cairo Declaration makes it clear that sharia law has supremacy over the UDHR for Muslims.

John then goes on to say "There are Sharia courts in Palestine - they deal mostly with family cases."

I quote from The Amended Basic Law 2003:
(Article (4) "...Islam is the official religion in Palestine. ...The principles of Islamic Shari'a shall be the main Source of legislation."

http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/misc/Amended_Basic_Law.pdfI

John, if, as you say, the Sharia courts in "Palestine" deal mostly with family cases, who is dealing with the CRIMINAL cases and what principles of law are they using if not Sharia. I repeat: the Basic Law states "THE PRINCIPLES OF ISLAMIC SHARI'A SHALL BE THE MAIN SOURCE OF LEGISLATION."

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt wrote " I hoped to clarify whether you think there are no standards of behaviour we can hold others to, and they us, because it is merely a matter of taste (or a particular moral framework, which has hold only on some human beings, never on all)."
Yes, Wm Hazlitt, that's exactly what I think. Both you and Henry Sidgwick, the epitome of English pomposity both, think the whole world must believe/agree/conform with your own value system and moral code. Surprise! surprise! they don't!

Did you read my quote from Ayatollah Khomeini "An Islamic government is government by Divine Right...." Do you think that the value system, moral code, rights/obligations of Muslims who believe in Islam/Sharia are the same as yours? Assuming you're not a Muslim of course.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick (19 Sep 11:47am) "Of course, that is convenient for Israel as a client of the US, which has given it the wherewithal to field one of the three or four strongest armies in the world...."

"Wm Hazlitt (20 Sep 10:28am to Derek) "You are quite right to pick me up on my tendentious use of "client" - I meant to indicate that any other ally of the US would love to receive the financial, military and diplomatic largesse that the US bestows uniquely on Israel."

Scrolling back, it is self-evident that the discussion re "client" was between Henry Sidgwick and Derek; Wm Hazlitt took no part in any discussion using the word "client" and did not use the word.

Therefore Henry Sidgwick and Wm Hazlitt are one and the same person. What larks!

Wm: Hazlitt to Henry Sidgwick (20 Sep 8:44pm):

"Henry Sidgwick, Thank you for the advice. I will be sure to take it. I suggest you do too."

Henry Sidgwick to Me (Linda Smith) "I am not surprised you consider your opponents fools"

Too right Henry Sidgwick alias Wm Hazlitt. I haven't laughed so much for years!!!!

patricia

Why can we not report comments on this site, as we can now on Massie's?

Most of the racism and religious hatred the Spectator revels in is to be found in Mel's blogs.

So why no 'report a comment' here?

patricia

The really telling thing about all the Zionist's comments here is that they seek only to slander Palestine, while asknowledging no criticism of Israel.

Glass houses?

Or do settlers only use fortified concrete these days?

Wm. Hazlitt

Dear G*d, Linda Smith is right - I am beginning to channel Henry Sidgwick!

"Both you and Henry Sidgwick, the epitome of English pomposity both..." I certainly agree with what Henry says, but I had always thought him more pompous than me (sorry, Henry).

Scrolling back, I note you dodge his questions as often as mine. Something else we have in common.

Augustus

patricia, what's there to report? It shouldn't be forbidden to call the racism and religious hatred of those such as the Hamas terrorists, or the Taliban, or the 9/11 hijackers; Islamic terrorists. To pretend that their shared religious identity is only coincidence would be absurd. Mel's blog doesn't say that these people represent all Muslims everywhere, or every aspect of Islam. It may be convenient for people like you to de-Islamicize suicide terrorism and other forms of violence against Israel, but then you should also be consistent and not call all commenters who are pro-Israel
'Zionists' who 'seek only to slander Palestine' (wherever that might be).

Linda Smith

Oh, dearie me, William Hazlitt also known as Henry Sidgwick appears to be unaware that he is suffering from Multiple Personality Syndrome, or maybe he is just trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Stop playing games Sidwick/Hazlitt, you've been tumbled.

Mr Sidgwick/Hazlitt is also prone to projective identification, ie attributing his own actions to others. In his latest comment he wrote "Scrolling back, I note you dodge his questions as often as mine. Something else we have in common."

But I answer Mr Sidgwick/Hazlitt's questions, it is he who evades answering my questions that expose the falseness of his premises. True to form he has responded today only to my comment on his pomposity and studiously ignored my substantive questions on the issues under debate. Stop evading the issue Mr Hazlitt/Sidgwick and respond to my question of 9.30 last night. Here it is again:

'Wm Hazlitt wrote " I hoped to clarify whether you think there are no standards of behaviour we can hold others to, and they us, because it is merely a matter of taste (or a particular moral framework, which has hold only on some human beings, never on all)."

Yes, Wm Hazlitt, that's exactly what I think. Both you and Henry Sidgwick, the epitome of English pomposity both, think the whole world must believe/agree/conform with your own value system and moral code. Surprise! surprise! they don't!

Did you read my quote from Ayatollah Khomeini "An Islamic government is government by Divine Right...." Do you think that the value system, moral code, rights/obligations of Muslims who believe in Islam/Sharia are the same as yours? Assuming you're not a Muslim of course.'

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith & Wm. Hazlitt,

Given the choice of dignified silence or pompous intervention, I of course opt for the latter.

If I could be allowed to speak for myself. The pair of you find this ventriloquism funny. No doubt it is. It is also unnerving. I would rather have remained unaware of it.

I had thought Derek's reply to me left our respective positions clear. It is a welcome change to read the opinions of someone you disagree with expressed with sense and without rancour.

One point I would make, however pedantic you may think it: I do not think the term "client" tendentious. I used it to mean "dependant". Israel has certainly been a dependant of the US.

While I am at it, I do not agree with the talk of "gambits" with reference to Derek's comments on Who are the Palestinians? I would simply ask him if he is familiar with the concept of a diaspora.

Wm. Hazlitt, I enjoy your contributions, but please confine yourself to making them in your own name. Thank you.

C. Gee

Henry Sidglitt and Wm Hazzwick:

The Tweedletwins! Linda Smith and many of us are enjoying a monstrous crow at having discovered your true identity.

Derek

Henry Sidgwick & Wm. Hazlitt

"...Do not forget one thing: there is no Palestinian people..."

This was a "gambit" by the former president Asad in a meeting with leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization.(http://www.danielpipes.org/174/palestine-for=the-yrians)

Henry Sidgwick

Derek, I know. I don't think any of the states in the Middle East have allowed the interests of the Palestinians to get in the way of their own.

Verity

Linda Smith, I liked your joke with poor Tweedledum and Tweedledee. But I hope you will keep answering Messrs. Hazlitt and Sidgwick. I have only recently started reading this blog. I don't think they should get an easy ride. I don't think you should either - it makes for a better discussion.

One thing. Was it Humpty Dumpty who said words mean what he wants them to mean because he has the power to insist? Your way with ethics etc. reminds me of his with language, both social constructs, both able to be translated more or less.

I suppose I'm saying don't let Tweedledum and Tweedledee get you mixed up in such obscure stuff. Stick to the question of Israel and what I think we are to call the Palestinians.

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, I will hide my embarassment as best I can, and ignore good advice: Yes, I read the quote from the ayatollah. No, I do not "think that the value system, moral code, rights/obligations of Muslims who believe in Islam/Sharia are the same as yours?" I am not sure what you think follows from this.

Yehuda

If Israel had flushed out the Hamas leaders from their refuge in the basement of the Gaza Hospital, and put them on trial for crimes against humanity, there would have been no Goldstone commission. There's a lesson for the future in that.

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt/Sidgwick: why did you write God with an asterisk instead of the "o", ie G*d?

Percy Magagula

If Goldstone were a true jurist of the calibre he is purported to be, he woud have recused himself from serving on the commission. Is he totally in denial of the fact that he is a Jew and his perverse actions would affect the entire Jewish people?

Linda Smith

Verity, there is no doubt that Wm Hazlitt and Henry Sidgwick are one and the same person.

Derek named Henry Sidgwick when he picked him up on his 'tendentious use of "client". The relevant discussion was between Henry Sidgwick and Derek; Wm Hazlitt did not use the term "client"or participate in that discussion. There was no rational reason for "Wm Hazlitt" to comment to Derek on 20 Sep 10:28am:.

"You are quite right to pick me up on my tendentious use of "client" - I meant to indicate that any other ally of the US would love to receive the financial, military and diplomatic largesse that the US bestows uniquely on Israel."

Evidently Mr Sidgwick/Hazlitt forgot which of his hats - the "legalist" or the "moralist" he was wearing when he inadvertently unmasked himself.

Linda Smith

Who are the ?real? "Palestinians" - Why the Jews of course:

Visit to the Jews of Hebron (1836) by John Lloyd Stephens, the later discover of the Maya civilisation:

"..I was among the unhappy remnant of a fallen people, the persecuted and despised Israelites. They were removed from the Turkish quarter, as if the slightest contact with this once-favoured people would contaminate the bigoted follower of the Prophet. The governor, in the haughty spirit of a Turk, probably thought that the house of a Jew was a fit place for the repose of a Christian....If I had had my choice, these were the very persons I would have selected for my first acquaintances in the Holy Land. The descendants of Israel were fit persons to welcome a stranger to the ancient city of their fathers; and if they had been then sitting under the shadow of the throne of David, they could not have given me a warmer reception. It may be that, standing in the same relation to the Turks, alike the victims of persecution and contempt, they forgot the great cause which had torn us apart and made us a separate people, and felt only a sympathy for the object of mutual oppression. But, whatever was the cause, I shall never forget the kindness with which, as a stranger and Christian, I was received by the Jews in the capital of their ancient kingdom; and I look to my reception here and by the monks of Mount Sinai as among the few bright spots in my long and dreary pilgrimage through the desert...."

Stuart Adair

Linda Smith

Whether the Palestinians were a 'real' nation in the past or not is no longer relevant - they clearly are now. Much the same things were said of the Ulster Scots re. Ireland or Ukrainians re. Imperial Russia or Kosovars re, Serbia or of countless other peoples the world over throughout history. Whether you like it or not, they are a very real entity now and at some time both nations are going to have to sit down together & make a deal. Eventually the rest of the world will force the issue if need be. The big wide world will eventually tire of this ugly little, local conflict and put the brakes on it. The Real Politik of wider interests will eventually prevail.

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, It is a traditional, if ineffective, way of avoiding giving offence to the faithful by blaspheming. I meant nothing more. I should have simply deleted the exclamation.

Verity

Linda Smith, Thank you for telling me what you think of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It looks like you're right. But I'll remain agnostic coz it doesn't really matter one way or the other. You will keep giving him/them a hard time I hope.

I was told to read this blog to get the Israeli rebuttal of Judge Goldstone. It's a bit odd there isn't more on what he said. Is there somewhere I can look for detail?

I didn't know he was a long-standing friend of Israel. What's going on?

Linda Smith

Stuart Adair opined "Whether the Palestinians were a 'real' nation in the past or not is no longer relevant - they clearly are now..... The rest of the wide world will eventually tire of this ugly little local conflict and put the brakes on it. The Real Politik of wider interests will eventually prevail."

"Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles." (Wiki) - not applicable here.

The so-called "Palestinian nation" defines itself in its Amended Basic Law thus "Article 1 - Palestine is part of the large Arab World, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab Nation. Arab Unity is an objective which the Palestinian People shall work to achieve." The National Religion is Islam; the foundational principles of law Sharia. The so-called "State of Palestine" has been a member of the OIC since 1967 (see OIC website).

"The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam", was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Now a 57 state collective which includes every Islamic nation on earth, the OIC, currently headed by Turkey's Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, thus represents the entire Muslim umma (or global community of individual Muslims), and is the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations (UN). .......

....The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism, (Koran 3:110; "You are the best nation ever brought forth to men...you believe in Allah"), and states,

"Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation..."

The preamble continues,
"Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible -- and the Ummah collectively responsible -- for their safeguard......

......-- the Cairo Declaration claiming supremacy based on "divine revelation," which renders sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels. Thus we can see clearly the differences between the Cairo Declaration, which sanctions the gross inequalities inherent in the Shari'a, and its Western human rights counterparts (the US Bill of Rights; the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights), which do not refer to any specific religion or to the superiority of any group over another, and stress the absolute equality of all human beings."
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/apostasy_and_the_islamic_natio.html

"Little local conflict" I think not - to be accurate the "Palestinian"/Israeli conflict is the central front of the global jihad for the Islamification of the world.

Truthtriumphs

Verity.
"I didn't know he (Goldstone) was a long standing friend of Israel".

He isn't.
That is often the line anti-Israel or anti-semitic Jews adopt to give their weak and spurious arguments some form of credibility, and to mislead the uninitiated.
It follows a well-defined pattern.
Often they will say that they are doing it for "Israel's own good".
Don't be fooled.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick/Hazlitt (21 Sep 6:00pm) "..with reference to Derek's comments on Who are the Palestinians? I would simply ask him if he is familiar with the concept of a diaspora."

On earlier threads Mr Sidgwick/Hazlitt admitted he was an antiZionist, He ignored the empirical historical facts of conquest which created the Jewish diaspora - the Jewish nation evicted from their homeland and condemned to oppression and dhimmitude - the eternal wandering Jew. He focussed his antiZionist arguments on European Zionism, that those European Jews were part of the Jewish Nation - a diaspora - a dispersed people - was irrelevant to him.

Mr Sidgwick/Hazlitt claims he doesn't support jihad or share the value system, moral code, rights/obligations of Muslims who believe in Islam/Sharia, but he did not support the creation of a Jewish state, despite the fact that half the Jewish population of Israel is of Middle Eastern origin:

"Independent of the legal disabilities of the Jews, they are in Algiers a most oppressed people; they are not permitted to resist any personal violence of whatever nature, from a Musselman......There is a very affecting practice here with these people, which cannot be contemplated without feelings of respect, and even of tenderness, for this miraculous race. Many, aged and infirm Jews, sensible that all their temporal concerns are drawing to a close, die as it were a civil death, investing their heirs with all their worldly substance, with the reserve of only the small pittance necessary to support the lingering remnant of their days in Jerusalem, where they go to die. In the year 1816, I witnessed the embarkation of a number of ancient Hebrews, on this last earthly pilgrimage, on board of a vessel chartered expressly for the purpose of transporting them to the coast of Syria."
(William Shaler, American Consul General in Algiers (1816-1828)

That the Middle Eastern Jews were not free to openly express their Zionism eludes Mr Sidgwick/Hazlitt despite the explosion of Jew hatred and violence that erupted in the Arab world against their Jewish populations before and after the creation of Israel. Rather than champion the creation of a Jewish state where the Jews of the Middle East could live free of the yoke of Islam, he champions the "Palestinian" cause, ie the "right" of the Muslim Arabs to rule over all the territory and people of the Middle East, in effect condemning the Christians and Jews to perpetual dhimmitude under Shari'a.

Stuart Adair

Linda Smith said

"Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles." (Wiki) - not applicable here.

I never mentioned, ideals, morals or princlples - don't put words in other peoples mouths.

Firstly, let me make it clear, I am a supporter of Israel. As a Scot, I admire any small nation that defies the odds and the Jewish, Israeli and Scottish contribution to the world, for such small nations/peoples is nothing short of staggering.

My points, both about the reality of present day Palestine and the interests of the powerfull nations are completely valid.

Re. Palestinians as a real entity that will have to be reckoned with - this is fact not opinion. Denying this is the equivalent of standing before some great mountain or river and pretending it's not there. You are perfectly free to do this but if, at some point, you wish to advance, you will have to negotiate the obstacle.

Re. Real Politik. In the long run, genuine stability in the Middle East will undoubtedly become an issue for the powerful nations, especially if conflict involving Iran becomes a real possibility - do you seriously imagine that the USA, Russia, China and eventually India and others will stand back and allow a major conflegration involving the possible use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East? That the rest of the world will allow a local conflict to possibly threaten the wider world and ultimately their own peoples and interests? As I've already said, much as I and others throughout the world admire Israel, you are living in a fantasy world if you think it's that important that, if push came to shove, these big powers would allow their own interests and peoples to be damaged in favour of Israels.

Verity

Linda Smith, I'm here to read what others say not sound off myself, but I have been thinking about the Sidgwick/Hazlitt thing. Behind the pseudonyms there could be one or two or a whole gang, taking it in turns. I read in the paper the Israeli government's information department or press office or whatever has set up lots of blogs to look like private individuals. But none of that matters - it's what is said, not who is behind the pseudonym saying it.

You seem one of the more knowledgable here, so can I ask you where I can find a rebuttal of Judge Goldstone's findings? And could you tell me if Truthtriumphs is right about the Judge. I thought he was a trustee of an Israeli univesity and his daughter is an enthusiastic Zionist. How can he be an anti-Semite because of his report?

Linda Smith

Verity, I don't think Mr Hazlitt/Sidgwick is an antiZionist gang. Quite the opposite, I think Mr Hazlitt/Sidgwick was trying to swell the ranks of the antiZionists who he thinks are under-represented on these threads by pretending to be two people. He has often said he comments here to challenge the Israel supporters.

You ask me "How can Judge Goldstone be an anti-Semite because of his report?" I don't know anything about Judge Goldstone, but I think Jews would say he is an anti-Semite because he took on the job of judge in a Kangaroo Court. Mary Robinson turned it down:

Extract from letter to Goldstone from Israeli Ambassador Leshno-Yaar 2 July 09:

".....You will understand Israel's reluctance to cooperate with or give legitimacy to a Mission mandated to investigate the lawful use of a State to protect its citizens, yet required to ignore the illegal use of force by terrorist groups which made such action necessary.

Indeed it was this prejudicial and one-sided mandate which prompted many States, including the European Union, Canada, Japan and Switzerland, to refuse to support the Resolution and which led to a distinguished list of human rights experts to decline the invitation to head the proposed Mission. As Mary Robinson, former High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated in explaining her refusal to serve as Head of the Mission:
"I am afraid the resolution is not balanced because it focuses on what Israel did, without calling for an investigation on the launch of the rockets by Hamas. This is unfortunately a practice by the Council: adopting resolutions guided not by human rights but by politics. This is very regrettable" (Le Temps, 4 February 2009),
.......
" .......Some aspects of the conduct of the Mission have, in Israel's view, supported its decision not to cooperate with this initiative. Reports that the members of the Mission were accompanied at every stage of their visit to Gaza by Hamas officials gives serious reason to doubt that any true picture of the situation in Gaza, and especially of the cynical abuse of the civilian population by Hamas, can possibly emerge.
Israel is also concerned and confused by the decision to hold public hearings, broadcast on television and internet, as part of the fact-finding process. As you yourself have noted, this procedure is unprecedented as part of fact-finding operations. The very point of a fact-finding mission is that a team of experts bring their experience and judgment to bear in assessing the available evidence and drawing responsible conclusions – not that raw evidence, perhaps of questionable authenticity, is directly broadcast into the public arena. Such a trial by public opinion, which of necessity cannot give any weight to confidential or sensitive information, can serve little purpose in ascertaining the truth, and is only likely to prejudice public opinion in advance of any other conclusions."

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israel%20and%20the%20UN/Issues/Letter_from_Israel_Ambassador_Leshno-Yaar_to_Goldstone_2-Jul-2009.htm

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith
September 23rd, 2009 4:18pm

I read this over a few times and worked out you are making a couple of excellent points.

The first is that just as the Palestinians form a diaspora, so do the Jews some of whom have come together to constitute a large part of the Israeli population. So I am guilty of double standards if I talk about one diaspora but not the other. A very fair point. It also raises a problem I do not know an answer to. There presumably has to be some statute of limitation on how long a dispersed population can claim to be justified (i.e. can claim outside support or at least acquiescence) in reconsituting themselves as a nation state, or in constituting a nation state to replace their lost polity, whatever it was. This statute of limitation would be required simply as a practical matter, geven the continuous flux of population over the centuries and millenia. You are suggesting a right for the Jews persisting over at least thousands of years. I do not know what a resaonable period would be. I suppose it comes down to what you have said in the past - kill enough of the current population to persuade the rest to submit (which I believe is how the Israelites, like most other peoples, first acquired their territory).

Your second point I am less sure of. Is it that Jews in Muslim countries were unable to express their views and so, just as you cannot say they were Zionist, I cannot say that they were?

Linda Smith

' "Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles." (Wiki) - not applicable here."
I never mentioned, ideals, morals or princlples - don't put words in other peoples mouths.'

I did not put words in your mouth. I pointed out that your use of the term "realpolitik" is inappropriate in the context of the Jewish Israeli/Muslim Arab conflict, which is predicated on religious conflict, ie ideals, morals, principles. The definition of "realpolitik" makes clear that ideals, morals, principles are not the stuff of realpolitik.

Your comments are conceptually confused. You equate human beings with physical objects - mountains and rivers. The "USA, Russia, China and eventually India" you invoke are not the physical landmasses of geographical territories, they are groupings of ideologically motivated human beings.

Interestingly, the populations of USA, Russia, China and India are predominantly non-Muslim and all are engaged with opposing the threat to them of Islamic totalitarianism.The Russians have been fighting the Chechens for years, China has the Uighar problem, secularist India, predominantly Hindu, has a nuclear standoff with Islamic Pakistan and problems with its own Muslim population. India is a staunch supporter of Israel. Its Hindu population identify with the Jews of Israel and the Islamic threat they live under..

"genuine stability in the Middle East will undoubtedly become an issue for the powerful nations."
There can only be "stability in the Middle East" if it totally succumbs to the Islamic jackboot.

"you are living in a fantasy world if you think....if push came to shove, these big powers would allow their own interests and peoples to be damaged in favour of Israel's"
The last thing any of "these big powers" want is for Israel to be swallowed up in the Islamic ummah, to see an Islamic flag flying over Jerusalem. Another encouragement for the Islamists on their own doorsteps. Another nail in their own coffins.

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, For what it is worth, I well finish my last sentence: "Is it that Jews in Muslim countries were unable to express their views and so, just as you cannot say they were Zionist, I cannot say that they were"...anti-Zionist.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick/Hazlitt: you posted

"Fact: something that has really occurred or is the case...Opinion, what one opines, a judgement resting on grounds insufficient for complete demonstration...It is simply how Linda Smith manages to be confident that she can separate fact from opinion."

As a fact is "something that has REALLY occurred, it is backed up by empirical evidence. That is why I am confident that I can separate fact from opinion. I always provide references/sources for my factual statements in my posts or when requested.

If you wish to challenge the veracity of a "fact" on which I base my arguments, it is for you to provide evidence to back up your challenge. Your default position is to cry "Zionist" source as if this in itself is sufficient proof of duplicity.

As you find yourself unable to credibly falsify the facts on which my arguments are based, you now resort to attempting to deceive Spectator readers by asserting that there is no difference between fact and opinion. But all you are doing is pointing up your own duplicity

I note that your own antiZionist comments are short on fact, and long on hyperbole -nasty Mr Sidwick or overwheeningly polite Mr Hazlitt - absolutely Jekyll and Hide.

Stuart Adair

Linda

Mm, if one thinks that the entire Muslim/Arab population of the world are all a bunch of crazed, religious fanatics totally uninterested in living a normal life, then I suppose you are right. I, for one, do hold to this view. I cannot really believe that your average Palestian Arab Muslim (to use your term) spends their time, not working out how to carve out some normal existence in a very abnormal situation, but trying to work out a plan for the total destruction of Israel. Such everyday matters as trying to earn a living, the future of their kids etc., are of no concern to them, only driving the Jews into the sea matters. I don't think that view holds water. In many ways, taking this view of millions of individual human beings (not physical objects) is doing the mad Mullah's job for them, as clearly that is exactly what they want the world to believe.

You deny that Real Politik is at play in this conflict and them go on to give very Real Politk reasons why, correctly, the mentioned powers will indeed not let Israel fall. The idea that, say, what is going on in Chechnya, from the Russian (those historically great friends of the Jewish people!) pespective, has got anything to do with religious/ideological or moral princples and not simply about hanging on to terratory and resouces is naive in the extreme. Ditto for many other similar terratoral/resource disputes the world over. You use the term 'Uighar problem' in relation to China, perhaps not the best choice of term from yourself, I'm sure you would agree on reflection. Reminiscent of another 'problem' that people used to thoughtlessly talk about in Europe not so long ago. You do not suppose for one moment, that the 'War on Terror', the 'Clash of Civilisations' or whatever label is put on it, is not being used as a convenient cover for some very old fashioned practices of suppressing troublesome minorities, keeping/grabbing terratory/resources etc., in a very obvious, naked, example of Real Politik?

It is indeed an indisputible fact that a minority of Muslims are persuing a global jihad against the West and all its values. It is also an indisputable fact that Israel has indulged in naked land grab and expansionism since its creation and has its own share of religious, ideological, fanatics. None of this is worth arguing about (except, of course, for those who enjoy the perverse merrygoround of tit for tat 'debate'). It is also clear that the Palestian Muslim Arabs and their brethren in the wider world will have to recognise Israel for any progress to take place. It is also equally clear that many Israelis will use the global jihad aims of a tiny minority as an excuse for never allowing the creation of a Palestinian state and, indeed, have their own aims for the creation of a Greater Israel. This is liable to continue even after the recognition of Israel. Are a minority of fanatics on either side to be allowed to permantly destroy, disfigure and ruin the lives of the clear peace loving majority? This is an old narrative, played out endlessly in countless other conflicts. Peace will only come when each side isolates its own extremists and nay sayers. This requires great moral courage and genuine leadership, the kind that might've have came from Yitzhak Rabin if some crazed fanatic had not assassinated him. It seems obvious, to those of a less parnoid and conspiratorial bent, that Obama was trying to appeal to moderates in his recent speech in Cairo, and yet many of the posters on this site pilliored him for it. Call me old fashioned but surely it is better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all. His predecessor seemed to think that sending armies into Arab lands (on false pretenses and strengthening Iran's position in the process) in a very, very clear example of Real Politik would somehow help the situation - the mind boggles. In short making peace requires both sides to accept some blame for the situation they find themselves in. For Israeli's to pretend that they've never done any wrong in this conflict is both demonstrably untrue and frankly, ridiculous and serves no one except the extemists.

Anyway, we could no doubt spend months discussing the role of Real Politik in the Middle East, how deep some of these alliances really are and how much they are just allegiances of convenience which can crumble as quick as they were formed (I seem to remember the Nazi's and the Soviets were the best of friends for a while and look where that led!) etc.

I've had a look through other releated threads on this site and you seem to spend a lot of time here Linda - I don't, I'm just passing through so to speak. So I'll summarise my basic, simple point which remains valid, whatever the nit picking on details and terminology.

As I've said, I support Israel so my motives are not in question. Do you not think that it is a dangerous game for Israel to put all its eggs in one basket in foriegn policy terms by relying on American support? What if that changes? Unlikely at the moment or the near future but still possible in the longer term. The Muslim population of the USA is growing*. At some point they are bound to become a political factor in USA domestic politics just as Jews are. And of course, there is the constant fact of oil (and all the Real Politk that comes with it). What then for Israel, turn to those fine democratic nations China and Russia for support? I don't know if you play cards, Linda, but play your aces when you've got them, they may not come round again.

Take care.

* I'll save you the bother of bombarding me with figures - I am aware that the exact Muslim population of the USA is a matter of dispute, what is not in doubt, however, is, it is growing.

David Ben-Ariel

Self-hating Jews, like all treacherous liberal Jews, are a danger to themselves and others.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

On Stuart Adair's "Palestinians as a real entity that will have to be reckoned with", I and no doubt many other Jews insist upon the right, for whatever it's worth, to reject that contention. The concept of the 'Palestinians', a hoax perpetrated by the terrorist and arch-villain, Yasir Arafat upon an "international community" that is largely prejudiced against the Jewish people and would be delighted to see its nation state, Israel founder, has been foisted upon us. Since that "entity" has repeatedly declared its intention to annihilate Israel and the rest of us, we must resist it at all costs, and I sincerely hope that the government of Israel will decline to have any dealings with it.

Mr Adair is absolutely right on one count. The "big powers" will not hesitate to throw Israel to the wolves.

Linda Smith

Stuart Adair, I have come to the conclusion that you are an alumnus of the Ahmadinejad school of antiZionist rhetoric - or possibly the Gaddafi branch. I heard Gaddafi (however he's spelled) speaking at the UN last night - something about Arabs loving Israel. As I recall Libya expelled all its Jews.

Can't be bothered to respond to your daft piffle about "peace loving Palestinians", so I'll just walk out, leaving you with a link to Palestinian Media Watch for a reality check.

PA schoolbooks: WWII without a Holocaust http://www.palwatch.org/pages/news_archive.aspx

Verity

Linda Smith, I tried to ask you something but it seems to have disappeared. I hope you don't mind if I try again. I like your way of arguing - it brings up new questions even as you hit the old ones into touch - just what a blog like this needs I think.

What you said made me think - if the papers are right about Israel setting up blogs, do you think they are doing it to multiply the number of pro-Zionists? And should we tell them and the Tweedles that one of each is enough?

Judge Goldstone is Jewish and is said to have been a friend of Israel, so I'm told. Is it not possible for him to do this job without being an anti-Semite or even anti-Israel? I mean it's possible to be against Gordon Brown or even against the Iraq war without being anti-British,isn't it? I'm just asking coz to someone like me from the outside it seems a bit OTT.

Thank you for the quote from the ambassador. He says lots of good things. He misses one tho - the hypocrisy of the UN investigating Israel but not eg Sri Lanka.

I thought Goldstone only took the job once they had changed the remit to include Hamas ie he refused when it was one-sided. And the fact he could take evidence only from one side and from outside observers is because Israel didn't take part. So most of the ambassador's quote is about the remit before Goldstone corrected it and about Israel's own decision not to provide the evidence that would rebut the allegations. I had been hoping for something that set out why the allegations themselves were wrong not why the Israelis didn't want to provide such evidence. I was told this was the place to look. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks.

Stuart Adair

Linda said

Stuart Adair, I have come to the conclusion that you are an alumnus of the Ahmadinejad school of antiZionist rhetoric - or possibly the Gaddafi branch. I heard Gaddafi (however he's spelled) speaking at the UN last night - something about Arabs loving Israel. As I recall Libya expelled all its Jews.

What?!! Based on what exactly?!

Dear, oh dear!! I actually thought you were a serious person. More fool me!

Crazy! Nothing more to say really!

Linda Smith

Wm.Hazlitt/Sidgwick: "I suppose it comes down to what you have said in the past - kill enough of the current population to persuade the rest to submit ( which I believe is how the Israelites, like most other peoples, first acquired their territory)."

Brute force, or the threat of brute force, has always ruled the world. Killing enough of the current population to persuade the rest to submit was how the Muslim Arabs conquered the Middle East in a period of 30 years in the 7th century.. All Arab tribes had to convert to Islam or die. Jews and Christians were allowed to live as persecuted dhimmis for Islamic theological reasons. That this situation persisted for some 1400 years was down to brute force - until the Muslim Turks were defeated in the First World War, also by brute force. The conquering British, French, etc. then had the power to carve up the territory. The map of the Middle East looks as if some British official ruled it up into rectangles. The conquerors apportioned territory to the Jews. The Muslims object to a Jewish State on theological grounds.

You endeavoured on earlier threads to deny the historical factual record of Islamic oppression and dhimmitude to claim there was no need to create a Jewish State in the Middle East. You pursued your antiZionist agenda by presenting a fictive portrayal of the life of Jews in Muslim countries, alleging the Jews had to be lured away or tricked by the Zionists to leave a land of milk and honey. In that you play a similar game to the Muslims who blame the Europeans and the Holocaust for having Israel inflicted on them, while other Muslims deny the Holocaust and claim it is a Zionist hoax to justify the creation of a Jewish State. Now you resort to claiming there are no facts, only opinions.

Running true to form, having no evidence to support your assertions, you again resort to deception and deliberately misquote me in order to play one of your philosophical games. I wrote: ".....the Middle Eastern Jews were not free to OPENLY express their Zionism..." but you omitted the word OPENLY in order to write "Is it that Jews in Muslim countries were unable to express their views and so, just as you cannot say they were Zionist, I cannot say that they were"...anti-Zionist."

I have good reason to say that Jews in Muslim countries were Zionist, even if they were unable to express their Zionism OPENLY for fear of reprisals. Zionism is at the heart of Judaism and figures strongly in its liturgy. the annual fast of T'isha Bav marks the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple; the Passover service ends with the words "Next Year in Jerusalem", the festival of Chanukah commemorates the revolt of the Maccabees.

Although the Jews of Yemen, for example, were not free to OPENLY express their Zionism, the creation of the Jewish State of Israel provided sanctuary from the cruel dhimmitude they endured for centuries under their Islamic masters :
"Until our departure from Yemen in 1949, it was forbidden for a Jew to write in Arabic, to possess arms, or to ride on a horse or camel. The Jews could only ride on donkeys, both legs on one side (sidesaddle) and were obliged to jump to the ground when passing a Muslim, and had to make detours. Pedestrians went on the left of Muslims...The Arabs forbade us to wear shoes...The Arabs frequently searched us, and if they found them, they punished us and forbade us to collect wood. We had to lower our head, accepting insults and humiliations. The Arabs called us 'stinking dogs'."

Only a fool would claim that the Jews of Yemen were antiZionist and would rather have stayed in their Yemenite hell hole.

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, A curious melange.

We are agreed then that I accurately summarized what you have said: " I suppose it comes down to what you have said in the past - kill enough of the current population to persuade the rest to submit (which I believe is how the Israelites, like most other peoples, first acquired their territory)."

As for "the historical factual record of Islamic oppression and dhimmitude" and "Jews in Muslim countries were Zionist". I suspect we are talking about different periods. Are you talking about the 1940s, and possibly the years leading up to the 1940s as the Zionist project prospered? I would be interested in an account of the growth of Zionism in Muslim countries. Was it a feature before the twentieth century and the rise of European Zionism?

In passing, I did not "deny the historical factual record of Islamic oppression and dhimmitude". (I take it you have done more to research the history of the "dhimmi" than read the one book you have cited.) I have not presented "a fictive portrayal of the life of Jews in Muslim countries, alleging the Jews had to be lured away or tricked by the Zionists to leave a land of milk and honey." I did ask about the remarks of the Chief Rabbi of Iraq - but answered my own question by pointing out why he might be an unreliable witness. I did quote sources on the suspicions of Israel's neighbours and of the great powers about the actions of Zionists - but I did not assert there was conclusive proof one way or the other. I did also read and recommend books on the tragic story of the break up of flourishing Jewish communities in several Muslim countries. I don't think anyone pretends the peoples and governments of those states were blameless.

I do say that the Yishuv and Israel have depended heavily first on the British Empire and then on the US, both of whom helped impose the Zionist state on the indigenous population who were denied the promised self-determination.

I trust your reference to Holocaust denial is not intended to hint at guilt by association.

I have nowhere said that there is no difference between fact and opinion.

I understand that Zionists were in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries very much a minority within the Jewish community. Your assertion that Zionism is at the heart of Judaism, and your interpretation of the words "Next Year in Jerusalem" as a wish for the speedy founding of a Jewish nation state, are surely not commonly accepted among historians of Judaism or of Zionism.

Linda Smith

Verity: there is only one of me, so I must prioritise my time I suggest you do a bit of online research yourself to find the answers to your questions. Here are a couple of links to start you off. In the meantime, here is something I found on Goldstone for you.

"* Goldstone was a director of Human Rights Watch (HRW) at the time HRW appointed Marc Garlasco its senior analyst.

Garlasco, who authored the HRW report from which Goldstone “borrowed” so much “information,” was suspended last week after it was disclosed that he is an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia, and had said in an online posting that SS uniforms were “so cool.”

Even before his Nazi-link revelations came out, there were serious concerns about Garlasco. He appears to have played a major role in the later discredited allegations that Israel killed Palestinians on a Gaza beach in 2006 – allegations which The New York Times took seriously at the time and splashed all over its front page, even though it was later established that the Palestinians died after stepping on a Hamas shell. For more, see here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2009/09/22/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-u-n-gaza-report/

Here is another link to a comment by Alan Dershowitz
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/goldstone_investigation_undercuts_human_rights

Good hunting!

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt/ Sidgwick: I will respond fully to your post. In the meantime here is an interesting snippet on the people who you claim are the " Indigenous Palestinian Arab nation" and whose right to "self-determination", ie to rule the Land of Israel, and dhimmify the Jews in perpetuity, you champion.

Muslim Colonization of Palestine (1875-1885):

Meantime it is a singular fact that the strip of coast from Haifa to Caesarea seems to have become a center of influx of colonists and strangers of the most diverse races. The new immigrants to Caesarea are Slavs. Some of them speak a little Turkish. Arabic is an unknown tongue to them, which they are learning. Their own language is a Slave dialect. ...... So the curious spectacle is presented of a Slav population migrating from Austrian rule to Asia, in order to be under a Moslem government.

Close beside the new Bosnian colony there are planted in the plain of Sharon two or three colonies of Circassians. These are the people who committed the Bulgarian atrocities. The irony of fate has now placed them within three or four miles of colonists belonging to the race they massacred. They, too, fleeing from government by Christians (Austria), have sought refuge under the sheltering wing of the sultan, where, I regret to say, as I described in a former letter they still engage in their predatory propensities. In immediate proximity to them are the black tents of a tribe of Turcomans. They belong to the old Seljuk stock, and the cradle of their tribe gave birth to the present rulers of the Turkish Empire. They have been here for about three hundred years, and have forgotten the Turkish language, but a few months ago a new migration arrived from the mountains of Mesopotamia. These nomads spoke nothing but Turkish, and hoped to find a warm welcome from their old tribesmen on the plain of Sharon. In this they were disappointed...."

(L. Oliphant, Haifa.1887)

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt/Sidgwick, for some reason when I try to post my comment is being rejected as containing banned material. So I will try posting it in two sections because I cannot detect what might being giving office. Here Is the first part:

You asserted: "I do say that the Yishuv and Israel depended heavily first on the British Empire and then on the US, both of whom helped impose the Zionist state on the indigenous population who were denied the promised self-determination."

The Jews were promised a Homeland in the territory known as Palestine in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, The British Mandate for Palestine gave Jews the right to settle anywhere in "Palestine". The "indigenous population" of the defeated Turkish Empire was not promised self-determination. As my post above shows, your use of the term "indigenous population" to describe the inhabitants of Palestine is discrepant with the facts.

The evidence of dhimmitude given in my comment clearly stated "Until our departure from Yemen in 1949..." The harsh treatment of Yemenite Jews was based in Islamic theological doctrine, which required the non-Muslim infidel to be subordinated, burdened with heavy taxation and humiliated. Such treatment was a constant feature of the Jews' (and Christians') lives as dhimmis under Muslim rule throughout the centuries, alleviated somewhat only by European pressure on the Sultan in the 19th century. Jews living in Muslim states governed by the Christian Europeans after the Ottoman defeat enjoyed certain protections by being granted, for example, French citizenship in Algeria until the French were defeated in 1963 and Algeria became a Muslim state..

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, here is part 2 of my response.

re your opinion that the final words of the Passover Service "Next Year in Jerusalem" is not "a wish for the speedy founding of a Jewish nation state" because you "understand that Zionists were in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries very much a minority within the Jewish community" is addressed by Bat Ye'or in The Dhimmi:
"The bloody struggles between the Ottomoman government and its European Christian subjects, who were seeking national independence - including the early massacres of the Armenians in the 1890s - convinced the Jews of the dar-al-Islam, virtually without the protection of a European power, that the price of liberty would be high. Oriental Jews therefore did not emerge either officially or publicly as militant Zionists, since their very existence was at stake, even if they felt somewhat safer during the transitory period of European colonization. Later events were to underline their vulnerability when Zionism became a capital crime in most of the independent Arab countries...the liberation of a dhimmi land could only be initiated from outside the dar-al-Islam - as had happened in other cases, particularly for the Armenians.."

"The statement that Muslim-Judeo hatred resulted from European colonization and Zionism is contradicted by history and Muslim codes of law. In fact the hostility against the dar al-harb is central to the jihad and to Muslim expansion over the world."

European Zionism is irrelevant - just a red herring .

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, Thank you for persevering. I can't for the life of me see what would constitute banned material!

I do think the development of Zionism in Muslim countries and how it relates to the invention of Zionism in Europe is a subject of great interest. I am not aware of anyone who has treated it judiciously, which is why I hoped you might have some more references.

Your brief comments on the population of Palestine prior to the influx of Jewish immigrants are neither here nor there. Perhaps more detail would allow me to understand your point.

The Allies did lead the population of the former Ottoman territories to believe they would be allowed self-determination. The Mandate was dressed up as a step towards self-determination (although I am not sure who, if anyone, was taken in by the charade). Of course, I am asserting this as if I know: what I should say is that the history books report this. You may have found history books reporting something else. I would be interested to read them.

I think it can be taken as common ground that the British and the Americans were instrumental in the founding of the state of Israel. It is very difficult to imagine how it would have come into being without them.

I am not clear how the quote from Bat Ye'or addresses what I said, that Zionism was a minority belief within the Jewish community even in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and therefore that the words "Next year in Jerusalem" could not have been a Zionist rallying cry for the majority of Jews.

I also find your last comment odd: "European Zionism is irrelevant - just a red herring." Wothout European Zionism, and without the imperial powers, there would be no state offering an alternative home to Jews across the world.

Marlene N.

If not for the fact that Goldstone is Jewish and a Trustee of Hebrew University, he would be labeled a "self-hating Jew" or an "anti-semite." Therefore, many people and the media have to come up with other condemnations about the man.

The sad part about all this is that there is nothing that Goldstone has said in his report that has already not been reported on by Israel's own human rights organizations such as Btselem, who have been pubshing reports for the past 20 years about Israel's atrocities and crimes against humanity. For sure, those publications and testimony from other Jews are not too welcome in the United States. Does one have to close their eyes, be in denial, and be totally indifferent because one feels they owe some kind of false allegiance. People who have heen the minority in history who have stepped foward to speak out and paid a heavy price for their refusal to remain silent irrespective of the consequences shoud be the role model for others to follow.

Be reminded also that Hamas was borne out of Israel's brutal occuapation decades ago. All people should have the right to stand up to their occupiers, which in this cae, is not just an army such as the British army in Palestine. The Britis were not bringing their families en masse to dispossess the indigengous population based on some racist criteria such as the one the Nazis used under the Nurememberg Law, and yet those Jewish groups who fought against the British and started the ball rolling with bombs in buses and pickle barrels are hailed as heroes, many of whom came from Europe.

As for the United Nations, Israel should never have been admitted in the first place since it has done nothing to adhere to its resolutions, albeit the first one which created its very existence when it was partitioned out of Palestine, and hence,creatng the refugee catastrophe, which as set down in UN resolutions, Israel has also refused to abide by.

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, I think I misconstrued your last comment. I take it you were saying that European Zionism and the founding of a Zionist state in Palestine had nothing to do with the increasing hostility of Muslims to the Jewish communities within their countries and nothing therefore to do with the growing indeed pressing wish of many Jews in Muslims countries for a safe haven elsewhere. I don't know how true that is. As I say, a good history of the relationship between European Zionism and the Jewish communities in Muslim countries would be very interesting.

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt/Sidgwick,
It seems to have escaped your notice that whatever promises the British government made, and to whom, during the First World War, such promises were motivated by the British government's own political concerns. in their war effort against the Germans and the Turks and their rivalry with the French. Are you so naive as to think that the British did not indulge in double dealing? They wanted the aid of both Jew and Arab. Your opposition to the creation of a Jewish State in the middle East appears to arise from your belief that any promises that might have been made to the Muslim Arabs by the British government trump those made to the Jews.

You attempt to justify your biased position by claiming that promises made to the "indigenous" population of the Ottoman Empire trump those made to European colonizers ie.Zionists. When I point out that a large proportion of those Muslims whose "rights" to self determination you champion were not "indigenous" but themselves European colonizers you airily dismiss the fact as "neither here nor there," Apparently in your view Muslim colonizers inherently have more rights than Jewish colonizers. Apparently in your view, European Muslims can colonise the Middle East, but not European Jews Your double standards again!

You peddle some idiotic and bizarre antiZionist argument of your own that if the oppressed barefoot Jews of Yemen did not agitate for the creation of a Jewish nation state in the Middle East, in the manner of emancipated European Jews, that they were perfectly happy with their lot as dhimmis.

In any event, the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate documents (all available online) state that the Mandate's remit was to create a homeland for the Jews in Palestine without prejudicing the civil and religious rights of existing and non-Jewish communities. Clearly this could only be achieved by creating an independent Jewish state, as Islamic "religious rights" assert the supremacy of Islam and Muslims and require the subordination and humiliation of Jews as dhimmis.

I find it strange that although you claim not to endorse Islamic values and moral code, you champion the right of Muslims to colonize and rule every inch of the Middle East in the name of their religion and condemn Jews (and Christians) to eternal dhimmitude.

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, Much of your latest is devoted to summarising assertions I didn't make.

You also don't provide the references on Zionism and the Jews of Muslim countries, which I would be very interested in (however, don't worry if you don't have them).

Two things I would comment on:

"...whatever promises the British government made, and to whom, during the First World War, such promises were motivated by the British government's own political concerns. in their war effort against the Germans and the Turks and their rivalry with the French. Are you so naive as to think that the British did not indulge in double dealing? They wanted the aid of both Jew and Arab. Your opposition to the creation of a Jewish State in the middle East appears to arise from your belief that any promises that might have been made to the Muslim Arabs by the British government trump those made to the Jews."

On the contrary, my point has always been that the imperial powers made promises only to suit their own purposes. This is true of their promises to the Zionists as much as to Arabs and others. What you are saying is that, whatever the interests of the imperial powers, their promises to the Zionists, once made, were sacred and should have precedence over any other promises. Why? In what became Mandatory Palestine, this means giving precedence to less than 10% of the resident population, and to parts of the population of many other states around the world, over the 90%+ of the resident population who were apparently given to understand they would be allowed self-determination - who actually lived in the country and had done so for generations. I recall you disputing that the Zionists depended on the imperial powers, yet here you are maintaining that Britain promised the Zionists a state and so was obliged to deliver one.

The second point is:

"You attempt to justify your biased position by claiming that promises made to the "indigenous" population of the Ottoman Empire trump those made to European colonizers ie.Zionists. When I point out that a large proportion of those Muslims whose "rights" to self determination you champion were not "indigenous" but themselves European colonizers you airily dismiss the fact as "neither here nor there," "

I spent a few minutes on the internet(it didn't need more) briefly reminding myself of the admittedly little I know about demographics in the Ottoman Empire. I think you will find you will not get very far with this line of argument(certainly if you are going to allow yourself to be constrained in what you assert by the historical record.) The idea that colonizing Zionists should have a greater right to Palestine than the resident population because a"large proportion" of the resident population comprised European colonizers smacks of desperation.

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt/Sidgwick,
You return again to your favourite antiZionist argument, a numbers game. I find your line of argument using numbers to justify your objections to the creation of a Jewish State in the Middle East morally repugnant; arguments predicated solely on numbers are devoid of both meaning and morality. Using your statistical methodology, perhaps you would advocate euthanasia at say the age of 70, even 60 perhaps, because so many older people are too expensive for the country to support.

Your ruse to blame Islamic Jew hatred on Zionism and the creation of Israel is a load of hogwash. The persection of Jews and Christians throughout the centuries - dhimmitude - is prescribed by supremacist Islamic religious law. If some of the Jews of the Middle East had an easier life after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, that was afforded by European citizenship. That protection was lost when the Middle Eastern countries reverted to Islamic rule. Dhimmitude is endorsed by the 57 member states of the OIC in the discriminatory 1991 Declaration of Human Rights in Islam - nothing to do with Zionism.
Samuel b. Ishaq Uceda (circa 1600) " ..there is no town in the (Ottoman) empire in which the Jews are subjected to such heavy taxes and dues as in the Land of Israel, and particularly in Jerusalem. Were it not for the funds sent by the communities in Exile, no Jew could survive here on account of the numerous taxes, as the prophet said in connection with the 'princess of the provinces' ..: 'They hunt our steps, that we cannot go into our own streets' (Lam 4:18).
The nations humiliate us to such an extent that we are not allowed to walk in the streets. The Jew is obliged to step aside in order to let the Gentile (Muslim) pass first. And if the Jew does not turn aside of his own will, he is forced to do so. This law is particularly enforced in Jerusalem, more so than in other localities."

F.O. 195/524. Nicolayson (Jerusalem) and nineteenth other Protestant signatoriess...to Clarendoln (London), Sept.1856 (F.O. 78/1217):
"We, Members of the Congregation of Protestant Christians in Jerusalem, beg respectfully to call your Excellency's attention to the present distressed condition of our brethren the native protestants of Nablous who have been obliged to fly their homes and seek refuge in Jerusalem from the outrages of Mohammedan persecution..."

The indigenous Jews lived all over the Middle East not only for generations but for thousands of years. They survived for 1400 years under the oppression of Islamic religious conquerors, Arab and Turk, despite slaughters, expulsions, forced conversions and cruel dhimmitude. Based on numbers, as there were more Muslims than Jews in the Ottoman Empire,you champion the right of only the Muslims to "self-determination", ie to rule every inch of the Middle East in the name of their religion and condemn the indigenous Jews (and Christians) to eternal dhimmitude. It's not surprising there were more Muslims than Jews in the Ottoman Empire. It's a wonder they survived at all.

John Roosevelt

Dear Linda Smith

I commend your stamina in continuing to debate with Hazlitt, alias Sidgwick. It is important that the specious nonsense is rebutted head on. The great tragedy for the West and pundits like H/S is that, they will reap the whirlwind if they get their wish like all quislings and appeasers throughout history. God bless you, Linda!!

Linda Smith

Dear John Roosevelt, I am delighted to learn that you, and I hope others, are still following this thread. Feel free to use my comments and snippets in your own fight against the "quislings and appeasers." and their "specious nonsense. I'm a great fan of recycling!

Thanks for your kind words,

Regards
Linda Smith

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, "You return again to your favourite antiZionist argument, a numbers game. I find your line of argument using numbers to justify your objections to the creation of a Jewish State in the Middle East morally repugnant; arguments predicated solely on numbers are devoid of both meaning and morality..."

"You attempt to justify your biased position by claiming that promises made to the "indigenous" population of the Ottoman Empire trump those made to European colonizers ie.Zionists. When I point out that a large proportion of those Muslims whose "rights" to self determination you champion were not "indigenous" but themselves European colonizers you airily dismiss the fact as "neither here nor there," Apparently in your view Muslim colonizers inherently have more rights than Jewish colonizers. Apparently in your view, European Muslims can colonise the Middle East, but not European Jews Your double standards again!"

As I understand, you were using the number of Muslim immigrants into Palestine as an argument against respecting any promises made to the indigenous population.

As I said I know only a little, a very little about demographics in the Ottoman Empire, but it is a little more than you.

Start with the mid-nineteenth century and take it from there: There was a population of about half a million. They were Arabic speaking. Most were Muslim. About sixty thousand were Christians. There were about twenty thousand Jews. In addition to this population, there were about fifty thousand Ottoman soldiers and officials, and ten thousand Europeans (J. McCarthy: The Population of Palestine: Population Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate. Columbia University Press 1988). Now tell us the story of immigration that allows this population to be disenfranchised - what number of Muslim immigrants from Europe would it take? and how many were there in fact?

Wm. Hazlitt

John Roosevelt, Please do feel free to use Linda Smith's comments and snippets.

Yehuda

The Israeli parliament would do well to pass legislation which would enable the state to arrest and try anyone who contemplates, plans or carries out the abduction of any Israeli on trumped-up charges of "war crimes."
Israel needs to demonstrate that two can play at "lawfare."
The Eichman precedent would be useful in this regard.

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt/Sidwick, Could you please clarify the following point.

On the 27 September you wrote : "Linda Smith, Much of your latest is devoted to summarising assertions I didn't make."

In my "latest" I had written:
"I find it strange that although you claim not to endorse Islamic values and moral code...."

To avoid misunderstanding - to be crystal clear - just answer the following question with a simple "yes" or "no":

Do you endorse Islamic values and moral code?

Linda Smith

Verity (ntCHo),

" - how does that give Israel the right to invade Gaza and not Hamas and their allies to invade Israel?"

Hamas's allies? Hamas, Hezbollah, and their mutual paymaster the Islamic theocracy of Iran, derive their ideas of "right" to invade Israel derive from the Koranic imperative to destroy the "infidel" Jewish state, not from your extreme relativist claptrap.

"As I said this does not get us any further." Oh but it does. I wouldn't be surprised to discover you're really Henry Sidgwick/Wm Hazlitt in drag. Or maybe you also write as "Patricia" who openly admits she's an Islamofascist Hamas supporter.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Wm Hazlitt/ Sidgewick: Thanks for the "green light". That, of course, is/will be be a pleasure. Are you not in awe of Linda? You lucky fellow/s for commanding so much of her attention!

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, Here are some of your summaries.

"Apparently in your view Muslim colonizers inherently have more rights than Jewish colonizers. Apparently in your view, European Muslims can colonise the Middle East, but not European Jews Your double standards again!"

"You peddle some idiotic and bizarre antiZionist argument of your own that if the oppressed barefoot Jews of Yemen did not agitate for the creation of a Jewish nation state in the Middle East, in the manner of emancipated European Jews, that they were perfectly happy with their lot as dhimmis."

"I find it strange that although you claim not to endorse Islamic values and moral code, you champion the right of Muslims to colonize and rule every inch of the Middle East in the name of their religion and condemn Jews (and Christians) to eternal dhimmitude."

You now choose to concentrate just on the last of these, and to mis-state it. The assertion you summarised, which I clearly did not make, was that I "champion the right of Muslims to colonize and rule every inch of the Middle East in the name of their religion..." I suppose you found that on reflection to be too obviously risible, so you thought you would resort to a little sleight of hand, and combine it with the tawdry little rhetorical flourish of every bar-room barrister - "Just answer the question, Yes or No." - no doubt with a knowing leer at the jury or the mob as if to say This man is clearly guilty as sin!

Out of kindness, I will give you the opportunity to cry, "Ah-ha, so he does not answer a plain question! What guilty secret is it that he has to hide?"

I had been waiting patiently for my lesson in demography.

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt: let us examine again the assertion in my comment that you say you didn't make:

"I find it strange that although you claim not to endorse Islamic values and moral code, you champion the right of Muslims to colonize and rule every inch of the Middle East in the name of their religion and condemn Jews (and Christians) to eternal dhimmitude."

You certainly champion the right of Muslims to colonize and rule every inch of the Middle East in the name of their religion and condemn Jews (and Christians) to eternal dhimmitude - you call it the right of self determination for the Muslim majority.

You abhor the creation of the Jewish state of Israel and lament what you call the "disenfranchisement" of the Muslim majority, ie the denial of some "right by numbers" to impose Islamic rule over the non-Muslim population, You lambaste the perfidy of the imperial powers in breaking a sacred promise to the Muslim majority of Palestine that would have authorised them to dhimmify and oppress the Jews (and Christians) in perpetuity.

You are indifferent to the consequences of Islamic rule (what you call self-determination) for the Jews of the Middle East. You are indifferent to the 1400 year plight of the oppressed barefoot dhimmi Jews of Yemen. You criticise the creation of the Jewish state that gave them refuge from their oppression, but you are indifferent to the fact that until the creation of Israel, the Jews of Yemen had no-one to rescue them from their Muslim oppressors.

The callous indifference in your attitude to the victims of Islamic dhimmitude coupled with your insistence that by dint of numbers a Muslim majority has the right to rule "Palestine" and inflict the punishment of dhimmitude on the indigenous Jews and Christians in perpetuity is puzzling in one who writes using the name of an English gentleman.

Which is why I again request that you to simply answer "yes" or "no" to a straightforward question:

Do you endorse Islamic values and moral code?

John ROOSEVELT

I suspect Wm Hazlitt is fast becoming William "Hasbeen" in this debate. Why not come clean, as the Plo and Hamas - however reluctantly - are having to? As Borat would say(sing): "Throw the Jews down the well! Then our country will be free!!". Buy the T shirt, Wm..or, Cd...

victoria williams

Congratulations to Richard Goldstone. He took on a very difficult job and did it with care and diligence. His immediate team included Professor Chinkin, Advocate Jilani, and Col. Travers yet the Israeli Ambassoador in yesterday's Times tries to paint this froup as 'less than fit for purpose'. I suspect any negative report would have been rejected by the Israelis - they hate the truth, especially when it endorses what the rest of the world believes.

Linda Smith

Victoria Williams, the world believed the world was flat, that didn't make it true.

Dan

In response to Maurice, MD who said;
"The terms "International Human Rights Law" and "International Humanitarian Law" are regularly invoked in promoting [false] accusations against Israel.
1. What exactly are these laws? Where are the texts?
2. What bodies passed them? Ratified them?
3. Most importantly -- when ever in the past 2,000 years has any kind of "humanitarian law" or similar concept been invoked on behalf of the Jews?"

1.To name a few; The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the four Geneva Conventions, The UN Charter
2. Israel signed and ratified all of these international instruments
3. To name but one rather well known example, (which is indeed the foundation of modern IHL and HR law) The International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg and its charter was drafted exclusively to punish the heinous violations of humanitarian and human rights law inflicted on inter alia the Jewish population.

In essence – it would be more productive if, instead of making such incendiary and utterly unfounded statements, that you first acquaint yourself with the laws, policies and indeed political pragmatism that inform such issues. If you come to the same conclusion having done so, then a more useful dialogue can be had, but if you continue to espouse opinions in ignorance of any facts, then you are merely embarking on an exercise in futility.

Just as a footnote, I must say that I agree with Martin Le Jeune where he suggests that by presenting a profoundly myopic and one sided view of this report in the article, refusing to countenance the possibility of any form of accuracy whatsoever, it undermines any legitimate grievances that could be raised about the same.

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, May I remind you what it is you require me to respond to: you say that I "claim not to endorse Islamic values and moral code" and you then ask, "Do you endorse Islamic values and moral code?"

I suspect that I could "claim" as often as I liked, and you would still repeat parrot-like,"Do you endorse Islamic values and moral code?"

You can list as many assertions I did not make as you like. It will still not make this an interesting exercise. There is literally an infinity of assertions I have not made and never will.

To give you just a taster of how this eternity would unfold:

"You certainly champion the right of Muslims to colonize and rule every inch of the Middle East in the name of their religion..." - No, I do not.

"You lambaste the perfidy of the imperial powers in breaking a sacred promise to the Muslim majority of Palestine that would have authorised them to dhimmify and oppress the Jews (and Christians) in perpetuity." - No, I do not.

"You are indifferent to the consequences of Islamic rule (what you call self-determination) for the Jews of the Middle East...etc." No, I am not.

"The callous indifference in your attitude to the victims of Islamic dhimmitude coupled with your insistence that by dint of numbers a Muslim majority has the right to rule "Palestine" and inflict the punishment of dhimmitude on the indigenous Jews and Christians in perpetuity..." - No such callousness. No such insistence.

You begin to get the idea. Your polemics are entirely arid. They would have a greater chance of proving fruitful were you to address the points put to you instead of inventing your own.

I would still be interested in any attempt you might like to make to substantiate your argument against self-determination for the indigenous population based on the number of immigrant Muslims.

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt/Sidgwick, the following is a load of gobbledegook:

'Linda Smith, May I remind you what it is you require me to respond to: you say that I "claim not to endorse Islamic values and moral code" and you then ask, "Do you endorse Islamic values and moral code?"
I suspect that I could "claim" as often as I liked, and you would still repeat parrot-like,"Do you endorse Islamic values and moral code?"

You can list as many assertions I did not make as you like. It will still not make this an interesting exercise. There is literally an infinity of assertions I have not made and never will.'

I am thoroughly confused by the
above, which is why I asked you to answer my question with a simple yes or no.

Was the "claim not to endorse Islamic values and moral code" one of the assertions you say you did not make?

My original question to you was "Do you think that the moral code, rights/obligations of Muslims who believe in Islam/Sharia are the same as yours? Assuming you're not a Muslim of course."
To which you responded: "No, I do not think that the value system, moral code, rights/obligations of Muslims who believe in Islam/Sharia are the same as yours?" I found it odd that you responded using the word "yours" instead of "mine". I was asking about you not about me.

It seems to me that there may be a deliberate attempt on your part to obfuscate. Why?
Why do you not openly and honestly answer the question with a simple and straightforward "yes" or "no":

Do you endorse Islamic values and moral code?

jasmin

God decrees love in every human's soul. Those who try to distort the truth should be reminded that God is omniscent - He knows all and witnesses all. Thanks Judge Goldstone and may God bless you.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Oh, Hazlitt/Sidgewick, I feel you're about to get a Linda "bitch slapping" over your last remarks. You actually tell such porkies!

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt/Sidwick, I note that you omitted the following statement from your list of denials of my assertions in my comment of 30 September.

"You abhor the creation of the Jewish state of Israel and lament what you call the "disenfranchisement" of the Muslim majority, ie the denial of some "right by numbers" to impose Islamic rule over the non-Muslim population, "

I wonder why. Hit the nail on the head, did I?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Wm Hazwitch: what did I tell you!!! Wipe off the blood!

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith,

"I am thoroughly confused by the
above..." And yet your response indicates that you understand well enough.

I "claim not to endorse Islamic values and moral code" and yet you ask, "Do you endorse Islamic values and moral code?"

You appear to sense that there are diminishing returns in repeating this little trope. So you reach back to remarks on the 21st and 22nd of last month. And what do we find there? In transcribing your question in the course of answering it unambiguously, I omit to change the seond person to the first person. Shock. Horror. Gasps from the gallery. The accused has made a mistake. A deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Again the bar-room barrister in you has taken over to the detriment of good sense.

You also understand well enough when I say that you can list assertions I did not make for all eternity and it still they will not have any bearing on the questions under discussion. As evidence of your understanding? - you provide another example unprompted:

"You abhor the creation of the Jewish state of Israel and lament what you call the "disenfranchisement" of the Muslim majority, ie the denial of some "right by numbers" to impose Islamic rule over the non-Muslim population".

When I say that you could carry on for all eternity, I am not challenging you to do so. It is not necessary to come back with yet more examples where you summarise assertions I did not make.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Hazlitt/Sidgewick: if majoritarianism is your thing (and, if I have decyphered your polemic correctly, it is), what is your view on the "legitimacy" of the states of Syria and Saudi Arabia, for example?

I would be most interested to hear your view - plainly and simply put (no obfuscation, please) - re how you think the map of the Middle East ought now to be drawn. You seem to hold a very negative view of the roles played by the US and Britain in the "carving up" of the region, in particular (though I guess you would include France here), since the Balfour Declaration. How do you feel the "malaise" they left in their wake should now be rectified?

Now, remember, speak without artifice or dissimulation....

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt/Sidgwick "The Allies did lead the population of the former Ottoman territories to believe they would be allowed self-determination. The Mandate was dressed up as a step towards self-determination (although I am not sure who, if anyone, was taken in by the charade). Of course, I am asserting this as if I know: what I should say is that the history books report this. You may have found history books reporting something else. I would be interested to read them."
The allies did not lead the entire population of the former Ottoman Empire to believe they would be allowed "self determination. That is your gloss on the facts.
Acting on behalf of the British Government, Sir Henry McMahon promised Sherif Husayn (Hussein) of Mecca, Arab control over the whole of areas to be liberated from Turkey, except an area to the West of Syria defined as follows:
"The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded."
and some other minor concessions. The area was only defined approximately.
No authoritative maps based on this promise were ever published. The origins of the boundary suggested are obscure, and may have had their origin in the instructions of Sir Edward Grey that Damascus, Homs, Hama and Allepo should be under Arab control. (see discussion by Elie Kedourie, Islam and the Modern World, Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1980, pp 297 ff).
Either interpretation could be supported by the vague boundary description in the letter, and partisans of the Zionists and Palestinians have produced maps that support their contentions. The Arab claim that Palestine was definitely part of the land assigned to the Arabs is not wholly consistent with the phrase in the letter, which says of the excluded areas "cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded. Palestine "could not be said to be purely Arab" in the same sense as the area of modern Lebanon certainly, because, especially in Jerusalem, the Turkish government had given a great many "concessions" to both foreign governments and to church groups. Moreover, there is a British undertaking to safeguard the holy places, which would hardly have been necessary if Palestine was not part of the area.

Wm. Hazlitt

John Roosevelt, You ask a good question: I do not have a good answer.

I have not come across the word "majoritarian". It's a good word. I take it to mean "democratic". I take it you use it to remind me of the risk of a tyranny of the majority. I agree with those who say liberal democracy is the least worst way to protect the minority.

Since before the Second World War, the US has identified control of the Middle East as a vital interest. It has sought to achieve this control by suppressing Arab nationalism and by sustaining in power authoritarian regimes. As long as the US supports these regimes only revolution will topple them. Revolution does not always produce a benign alternative. If the US withdraws support, the consequences are unlikely to be any less bloody (especially with the "blowback" from the radical Islamism the US encouraged in previous decades).

Clearly, in the circumstances, Israel has to maintain strong defences.

(I do not pretend to know what would have happened in the Middle East if its oil had not been a vital interest to a great power.)

In Israel/Palestine, Israel has had the opportunity for a settlement and has chosen to shun it. Brutal reality has forced the Palestinians to abandon their fantasies of reinstatement. It has also fueled their hatred of Israel. For the last forty years, there has been the possibility of a settlement that would have exploited the new Palestinian (partial) realism, and damped down their hatred. Israel could have offered territory and sovereignty, and economic cooperation. Instead, it chose piecemeal annexation. Israel continues its maximalist policies. It has done so to the point where a settlement is becoming ever less practicable. As I understand it, Israel intends to shut the Palestinians in open prisons like Gaza, in cantons and ghettoes, which they can call a state if they want, and persuade the "international community" to take responsibility for them as a "humanitarian problem" and to guarantee that they will not be a threat to Israel's security. Israel appears to be close to success. I don't think this can be a permanent solution. I do not know what can now provide such a solution: two-state is no longer feasible and one-state is not consistent with a "Jewish state".

As I said, I do not have a good answer to your question.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Wm Hazlitt/Sidgewick: you are correct in so far as you do not have a good answer to my question. Frankly, I did not expect you to have.

I am, also, delighted that I may have added to your already extensive vocabulary. You seemed to have got the meaning of the word ok, and I am delighted that meaning is paramount in your order of priorities, when it comes to language. I had suspected otherwise...

I would be interested to know what you thought of the UN Partition Plan i.e what was on offer "originally" by the International Community, and before Israel started taking the blame for imprisoning the "Palestinians" "openly" in Gaza(I guess you absolve Egypt from that blame game, after the War of Independence). Would the two states, as then defined, have been more equitable, in your view, than the one you foresee or think is Israel's plan now? And what are your thoughts on the Plan ultimately rejected by Arafat? Or perhaps you have another Plan in mind that you feel would and/or should have been accepted by the "Palestinians" and their brothers-in-arms, including the Iranians and the peaceniks of Libya etc?

The truth, I imagine, is that in fact you deeply believe that Israel should never have been formed in the first place and, now, given Israel's bizarre lack of will to disappear quietly, leaves you with a difficult challenge: how to help the Peace process along when peace is not actually realistic, given your fundamentally anti-Israel position..

You see, casuistry and even "majoritarianism" helps little in these situations...

In any event, what are we left with: a hopeless situation in which Islamic Radicalism - again the fault of the US and Israel, if I understand you correctly - continues to grow, with the Islamification of the infidels as it's credo. A horrible scenario, I think you would agree (again, if I now understand you correctly).

In such circumstances, are we merely to stay frozen, like rabbits caught in the headlights?

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, Your comment is an excellent reminder of the complexities and ambiguities of imperial diplomacy during and after the War. An authoritative and judicious survey can be found in Zara Steiner "The Lights that Failed: European International History 1919-1933" OUP 2005 (she has no axe to grind and provides a balanced summary account).

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Wm Hazlitt/Sidgewick: at your behest, here's a snippet from Linda which I think may help inform your thinking re Peace in "Palestine":

" "radical Islamist ideology."

Myth. It's all Islam. A Muslim either believes or doesn't. Islam bans questioning or dissent. "Moderate" Islam is a non sequitur."

Snip, snip...

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt/Sidgwick, evidently you knew you were lying when you repeatedly asserted that the population of "Palestine" was promised self-determination.

More to follow

Abraham Enav

'follow the money' and you will
find more.
find where was Goldstone and or his family were rejected and refused in the past and you will learn more about this character and his family.

abraham enav

'follow the money' and you will
find more.
find where was Goldstone and or his family rejected or refused in the past and you will learn more about this character and his family.

Linda Smith

Wm Hazlitt/Sidgwick,

A few comments back you wrote "Start with mid-nineteenth century and take it from there.." Let's do that. Nothing like a bit of historical fact to illustrate the absurdity of your sidglittian abstract moral theory.

Following the capitulations of the Ottoman Empire to European powers to protect the rights of their citizens within the Empire, the Russians became formal Protectors of Eastern Orthodox groups, the French of Roman Catholics and the British of Jews, etc.

"The particular dispute which occasioned war in 1854 (Crimean War) developed from a revival of ancient French claims to the guardianship of the Christian Holy Places of Palestine. The Sultan agreed to the French guardianship of the Nativity Church and the Holy Manger at Bethlehem, whereupon Russia, who also had treaty rights on behalf of the Orthodox Church, protested strongly, and advanced a new and far-reaching claim to the Protectorship of all Christians in the Ottoman Empire. These Christians certainly needed protection...." (Richards & Hunt, Modern Britain, 1950)

In 1856, the defeated Ottoman government was forced to issue a reform edict:The Hatti-Humayun:

"There can be no doubt of this charter of religious toleration and equality having been eminently distasteful to the old Mohammedan population, and distressing to their ancient feelings. ...At a distance from Jerusalem, the Proclamation of Toleration had less effect, as at Gaza, Nabloos, and in Galilee; but there the Christians were few and dared not look their masters in the face; they had no Consuls to ask after their welfare or to note the tyranny of their Moslem fellow-subjects or rulers, who, however, were not Turks, but Arabs..." (J. Finn 1878)

The process of emancipation caused the extermination of twenty thousand Christians in Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon in 1860.

"In 1875 and 1876 the subject nations of South-Eastern Europe rose against their Turkish masters. The latter reacted with their customary vigour, particularly in the Bulgarian provinces, and indulged in ghastly atrocities and massacres... Once more the Eastern Question demanded an answer...."Let the Turks' thundered Gladstone, 'now carry away their abuses in the only possible manner, namely by carrying off themselves. Their Zaptiehs and their Mudins, their Bimbashis and their Yuzhashis, their Kaimakams and their Pashas, one and all, bag and baggage, shall I hope clear out from the province they have desolated and profaned.' ...The promises of good behaviour from the Turks were of little value, and before many years had elapsed the massacres of Armenian Christians were to exceed anything that the Bulgarians had suffered."

Sharif Hussein of Mecca in his correspondence with McMahon of 14 July 1915 required "England to approve the proclamation of an Arab Khalifate of Islam." Your contention that the Christian Imperial powers would abandon the Christian Holy Sites, and the Christian and Jewish populations of the conquered Turkish Empire after centuries of struggle with Islamic rulers, Arab and Turk, to the abuses of Islam by promising "self-determination" to the Muslim majority is absurd.

Daniel

Some people will sell out their mother to see their name in a newspaper..

So why are we surprised.. we Jews also have
our own UNCLE TOMS...

Linda Smith

"God Almighty, the One, the All-Conquering, has created abasement to be inflicted on the accursed unbelievers, fetters and chains for them to drag from one place the next as a demonstration of his power and of the superiority of Islam, and to honour his chosen Prophet." (Maghrebian mufti-al Wansharishi, died 1508),

Wm Hazlitt/Sidgwick, so fervent an "antiZionist" he, that despite his protestations that he does not endorse Islamic values and moral code, he supports Islamic conquest and Islamization in the name of "self-determination".

"...It would be impossible to list all the places of Jewish, and particularly Christian, worship which were Islamized and banned to their former owners. The cave of Machpela in Hebron is the most famous example: built by Herod the Great to house the tombs attributed to the Hebrew patriarchs and matriarchs, it was turned into a church at the time of the Crusades, was later converted into a mosque in 1266 by the Mamluk Sultan Baybars and, henceforth, banned to Jews and Christians. In 1862 the Prince of Wales was allowed to enter it by a special authorization granted by the Ottoman sultan, a sacrilege which necessitated the military occupation of the town. Ordinary Christians could not enter until the British Mandate in 1922. In Iraq, in former Ninevah opposite Mosul, the tomb attributed to the Prophet Jonah, once a place of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim pilgrimage, together with all the church buildings, was assigned to the Muslim waqf after the conversion of the Mongols to Islam. It was strictly banned to non-Muslims until World War 1 and the establishment of the British Mandate. The latest example was the tomb of the Hebrew Patriarch Joseph - whithin the boundaries of the town of Nablus, then under the protection of the Palestinian Authority - which was destroyed by a Palestinian mob soon after the outbreak of the second intifada in October 2000. It was immediately rebuilt as a mosque, its dome painted green. Since then, Palestinian groups have mounted unsuccessful attacks to take over the Tomb of the Hebrew Matriarch Rachel at the entrance to Bethlehem, which is under Israel's protection." (Bat Ye'or, Islam and Dhimmitude, Where Civilisations Collide (2002).)

Wm Hazlitt/Sidgwick: are you anti-Christian too?

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith
October 3rd, 2009 8:47am
Wm Hazlitt/Sidgwick, evidently you knew you were lying when you repeatedly asserted that the population of "Palestine" was promised self-determination.

I do not know why my response does not appear. I will try once more.

There always comes a point in the discussion when you lapse into foolish insult.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Wm Hazlitt/Sidgewick: now, here's an interesting "snippet" that may just help you cut to the chase, so to speak, and debate with a little less ambiguity and seeming ulterior motive:

" A German's View on Islam

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life."

Amir Mizroch

What South African Jews think of Richard Goldstone following his Gaza report http://tinyurl.com/ydzymoy

Verity (etc.)

Linda Smith, I thought out of curiosity I'd have a quick look at how this thread continued. You give a lot of really interesting stuff from all sorts of sources which lets us benefit from your very wide reading. But reading it through in one go I was struck by something I don't think I'd've seen if I'd read it bit by bit -the way this interesting stuff seems to be a way to avoid "Hazlett's" points rather than to address them. You are such a heavy hitter that I don't think this can be what you mean. Can I show you? coz otherwise you are maybe wasting some good learning and talent.

Hazlett says you think "kill enough of the current population to persuade the rest to submit". You say "Brute force has always ruled the world". He says "We are agreed then." You say...SILENCE

You switch to the question of whether the great powers helped the Zionists against the "indigenous" population. You say there are lots of Muslim immigrants so there is no "indigenous" population. Hazlet says your numbers on immigration look odd - substantiate them. You say...SILENCE.

You switch to another point he/she made - the great powers did lead the "indigenous" population to believe they'd get self-determination. But, he said, who could be taken in by such promises. You came back and said surely you don't believe such promises from the likes of Britain - they are not worth anything, and surely you noted what I said about the number of Muslim immigrants so there was no "indigenous" lot to be promised to. Hazlett replied, my point has always been that the promises made by Britain to both the "indigenous" population and the Zionists were only for their own imperialist purposes. - In other words you seem inadvertently to have accepted that the British promise to the Zionists was of little value. Your response? SILENCE.

You went back to numbers and told Hazlett he was back to his old numbers game which you think "devoid of meaning and morality". Hazlit's answer - you appear to use the number of Muslim immigrants as an argument against respecting any promise to the "indigenous" population. Reply - SILENCE.

You switch to "Please clarify Do you endorse Islamic values? Hazlett says I've already answered that and you keep misquoting me. SILENCE.

You switch back to promises by the great powers and say no such promise was made to the Muslims. (Remember he/she said there were undertakings to both and both equally worthless.) He/she comes back all emollient and says Yes you do catch some of the complexity but read a good history to get the whole picture. You say, So you know you've been lying all along! (?)

Your latest is to go back to his request that you start your story in the nineteenth century. But he/she was asking you to substantiate your claims about immigration. What you do is recount stories about Muslims being bad to Jews and to Christians - which was not the point of the request at all.

Do you see what I mean? All this really good stuff. All this terrific skill at arguing. All spoiled by seeming to avoid questions rather than thumping them into touch. It makes the other side look better than they are.

So a humble request - please be careful to use your skills properly, to answer the questions raised rather than dot about apparently avoiding them when you clearly don't need to.

Best wishes.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Verity: I commend your courage, Verity. May I suggest you don your flack jacket? Ooohh, I don't think I want to witness this!

Linda Smith

Verity, in the statement below Hazlitt/Sidwick gives some of his reasons for his admitted anti-Zionism.

"I do say that the Yishuv and Israel have depended heavily first on the British Empire and then on the US, both of whom helped impose the Zionist state on the indigenous population who were denied the promised self-determination."

The above is not a neutral statement. H/S has admitted he is anti-Zionist and the above is his stated reason., H/S's position is that he believes some "indigenous" population was (wrongly) denied promised self-determination".

No time now to fully respond to your points, but will point out now that the documents show that the population was not promised or led to believe they would be granted "self-determination". From a historical point of view, the idea is daft - Britain and France were empire builders and believed they had a right to their empires. If they granted "self-determination" in the Middle East, all the rest of their Empires would have claimed a "right" to self-determination" too.

H/S peddles his own abstract moral theories of "right" and "wrong" which are divorced from historical facts.

Linda Smith

Verity, perhaps I should have added, H/S believes that having conquered the Middle East in Holy Jihad and decimated and oppressed the "indigenous" Christian, Jewish and other populations for 1400 years in the name of their religion, by weight of numbers, the Muslims get to carry on doing it for eternity. Such is the consequence of slidgittian abstract moral theory.

The world actually runs on brute force and the threat of brute force by competing interests. It always has and it always will, for such is the nature of human psychology - rationalised emotion.

Verity

Linda Smith, Thanks for your responses. I won't get into the nitty-gritty of your argument with "Hazlit", coz as you know I'm well aware of the limits of my knowldge (!). I'll look forward to reading what you have to say. But in your response so far you've done what he/she was moaning about ie telling us he said what in fact he didn't - as far as I can see from reading it thro again. By the way even my history is enough to tell me that the Allies in particular President Wilson but also the old imperialists did make a fuss (an ambiguous fuss no doubt) about self-determinaiton. And also you make the promise to the Zionists sound even more like an imperial whim - of course they would ignore the wishes of whoever happened to be living there, coz that was their imperial right (brute force and all) and would feel able to give grants of land to whoever they wanted - but then only if it helped them protect their empires (and Britain did think that didn't it about Palestine as a gateway to Suez), and not otherwise, and they'd dress it up with legal flummery to keep the Americans happy... All I'm saying is it's frustrating to see all your ammo whizzing past him/her coz you look for easy targets or interpret what he/she says so as to set up easy targets or straw men or whatever instead of dealing head on with what he/she actually says. You'll be so much more devastating with a bit of a better aim.

Linda Smith

Verity (etc), guess I was right about you being Hazlitt/Sidgwick in drag.

Verity (etc.)

Linda Smith, I've pointed out a pattern in what you say which ought to worry you coz it shows what appears to be a less than honest approach where you duck the question substitute distortion and resort to abuse. If Hazlitt's remarks are so obviously wrong show how they are. Your way makes it look as if you're aware your position is weak. You even fall back on this trick with me! Rather than answer you shrill that I'm "Hazlitt" in drag - which isn't an argument - isn't even an insult. I suspect you;re relying on the fact that people have stopped following this thread so you'll be able to strut your stuff in more recent ones with your credibility unruffled by your failures here. Disappointing. I'd thought you were better than this.

Linda Smith

Verity (etc) it is my choice to decide which points I consider relevant, which I wish to pursue, and when.

The main issue in the Israeli/Muslim conflict, which both you and Hazlitt/Sidgewick studiously avoid is Islam.

a sta la vista

Verity

Linda Smith, You know at first I thought this was just an aberration. I thought you would want to put things right rather than leave a less than honest impression. I really thought someone of your skill and learning, someone I had genuinely thought was going to give insight on Israel and the Palestinians that I hadn't found elsewhere, would quickly fill the rather embarassing silences I found in your previous efforts on this thread against "Hazlitt". I thought you might take a certain pride in your work. But what do you come up with? "I don't want to". I am sure you are aware how pathetic this looks and I suspect I was right that you're relying on your usual claque having moved on to more recent blogs so they won't see your humiliation here (even Mr. Roosevelt who gets curiously excited when he thinks you're going to give someone a thumping.) "I don't want to" - the most woesomely inadequate excuse in the playground, a credibility-shredding failure of gumption. I really am disappointed.

rami

we have to trail him in israel
i am sure israel can trail him for be untrue, damage to israel name, and even ex forgain minester and.... can sue him individually for cost and...

John Underhill

wow just wow...Look at you all(most anyway) baying for blood now that someone (heaven forbid) says anything against Israel. Richard Goldstone is 'the' top specialist in this field (as he has already done similar reports into Yugoslavia and Rwanda) and this was an independent fact finding mission. Additionally 25 of the UN Human rights council agreed with him. On top of all this, he's Jewish.
From where I'm sitting I don't like what Hamas did either but at least they're cooperating with the decision.

Ted Bloke

Goldstone was reported by friends and daughter to have lent himself and his reputation to this operation because otherwise the UNHRC report would have been even more biased.

The repoort has now been vot3d on (in the famous cock-up in which Britain neither voted nor abstained).

The resul of Goldstone's efforts?

"Richard Goldstone, the author of the report, said the draft resolution saddened him, “as as it includes only allegations against Israel. There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas, as we have done in the report”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6878669.ece

nitsan

please watch it!!!
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&CT=7536409

Joab

Thank you for this article. It's nice to see there are still some people left who hadn't gladly swallowed the propaganda and can see why this operation was held, who the attacker actually was and how ludicrously one-sided this report is - even when it is so unpopular to do so. But naturally, who would care for the truth when one can easily blame Israel for it all, using this report to support the claim. It's just too alluring...

Colin Gallagher

The question is not whether the Goldstone Report had presented Israel as the victim and Hamas as the aggressor. The question is whether Israel's response to the provocations by Hamas had been proportionate. As a citizen of the country that gives Israel billions of dollars each year in economic and military aid, I cannot agree that the Israeli response, with over 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli casualty, had been jusitifed. Calling for Goldstone to be disowned by the legal profession, sounds like shooting the messenger rather than attempting to understand why even moderate democratic Muslim states like Turkey have become disenchanted with Israel and angered by the various blank checks given to Israel by my country.

iulia

Right on Colin Ghlagher! You said it better than I could.

iulia

Maurice MD, in the second World War, thousands upon thousands of men gave their lives to stop Hitler and end the concentration camps. They were Americans, Jews, British, Russians...
A humanitarian law is for all mankind, including Jews

Leo

I see that Goldstone has moved to Washington.Is he now Obama's
special advisor on Israel?That
would clear up a few recent queries ref US policy on Israel.

Jewish, actually

Um, didn't Israel kill 1400 Palestinians, mostly civilians? So... how are they clean of guilt? Attacks against civilians are never ok, and Israel definitely didn't do much to try to lessen the carnage.

Richard Goldstone

As the world prepares to repeat history and attack the Jewish people this man placed himself on the wrong side of history. Lets hope that for the remainder of his life he attempts to undo the damage he has done.

John Theuns

It is clear from evidence gathered by the Mission that the destruction of food supply
installations, water sanitation systems,schools,hospitals, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces. It was not carried out because those objects presented a military threat or opportunity, but to make the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.
After so many years of fighting it should be clear that; Israeli acts of terror against the Palestinian people will not stop Palestinian acts of terror.