The 'human rights' witch-hunt

John Edwards

It is astonishing that a Harvard Professor can write such hysterical over the top drivel.

Compare that to the reasoned tones of Mr Goldstone and the actual report.

If this is the best Dershowitz can come up with you are right to be worried!

JamesC

Thanks melanie, right on the button. Let's take the enemies of Israel and West out for a moment. We (Israel, the West) have on the whole become Godless except for a small minority. Thou shalt not kill for example, every day thousands are killed because abortion is permitted , contrary to the commands of God. And what can we say of the other nine commandments which are not respected. We are creating our own anti-god, one which will destroy all, as it says in the bible 'and God gave them over.

Henry Sidgwick

"...not universal principles but – very different, this – culturally particular principles to be applied universally." This surely requires some elucidation.

Alex Bensky

If I were a cynic, Melanie, instead of the trusting soul that I am, I might add that it's not just that Israel is religion based, but that it's the particular religion which raises hackles. A number of Arab countries...actually all, I think except Lebanon...enshrine Islam as the state religion and it is the established religion in a different way than Anglicanism is the state religion of Great Britain. This does not seem to exercise the progressives of the world.

It's not hard, anyway, to see why some Jews join into this sort of thing. It's how you prove that you are not one of those narrow-minded Jews, focused on your own interests. The willingness to subject Jews and Israel to harsher standards than anyone else in the world shows that you, too, are a citizen of the world, etc.

Noam Chomsky's father, incidentally, was William Chomsky, a noted scholar of the Hebrew language. If I had more of a background in psychology I'd be tempted to draw certain conclusions.

terence patrick hewett

Phillip Blond says the same in his article this week in the New Statesman. He asserts that the Labour Party is being rejected by society because it has "repudiated and vilified the very structure and basis of society itself."

david elder

Melanie, perhaps American Jews like Dershowitz think that they will get a better hearing in the intellectual community if they use the most general arguments possible. This perhaps should be so, but the contemporary campus is too debauched by 60s radicalism nostalgia, a reflex attitude that Israel must be a Bad Thing because she is an ally of America who is also a Bad Thing (except for the self-regarding adversary-culture fringes of both countries), postmodernism the attempted replacement for marxism and solvent of objective truth, and a deep disinterest in investigating the details of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That would be too much like hard work and honest scholarly endeavour. Throw in the temptation for Jews who have lost religious faith to replace it with the inner glow of posturing as a prophet, and you have the makings of a real disaster.

David Waisman

A loyal reader of this blog, I've been waiting for months to see in it some material about Honduras, a small country that is being crushed by UN hypocrisy. Condemning this is a worthy cause.

M. Green

To those who haven't given it a thought ...... The Golstone Mission Four-member team:-
Professor Christine Chinkin, prior to the commencement of the Mission’s assignment had already judged Israel’s actions in Gaza as “a war crime" and Pakistani jurist Hina Jilani and retired Irish army officer Desmond Travers, two other members of the panel, in a letter to Amnesty had already (16th March) called for an investigation into "Israeli war crimes in Gaza”. http://www.derekwyattmp.co.uk/news_item.aspx?i_PageID=117377

At every step of its investigation the Mission was accompanied by Hamas officials, so it is hardly surprising that the report itself refers to the reluctance of witnesses who felt intimidated and declined to bear witness.

So from the outset the Report could hardly have been more biased against Israel. Would you wish to be judged by such a partisan panel? or maybe you think it's of no importance as long as the verdict delivered a scathing judgement against Israel at all events.

David

Benjamin Netanyahu gave a really good speech about this at the UN this week, complete with a denunciation of Iran. It is on YouTube.

Nicole S

The second link to Dershowitz's article is not working for me.

Yehuda

Goldstone served the South African apartheid regime; now he has suddenly become a "defender of human rights and justice."
He is as bad as those communists like Putin, who committed atrocities against their own people in the Soviet Union then overnight turned into democratic capitalists.

Bernarde

Human rights devoid of cultural specifity are meaningless, and point to a grim future of the gulag.

United Nations RIP. You will not be missed.

phil

It is a pointless task to try to persuade people like edwards and sidgewick that Israel has any rights ,their ears are closed -the simple answer to all this is that Israel must remain strong and continue on its pursuit of peace together with its principles of tolerance and humanity .They must continue with the original intention to "be a light unto nations" and never deviate from that path .That is the path that both Israel and Jews around the world continue to hold close to their hearts and sustain our belief that one day we will achieve peace ,justice and dignity both for ourselves and for our present opponents .

-The Jews never could persuade the nazis and we will never persuade those that are so implacably opposed to our very existence -The Goldstones of this world think that they will be more acceptable by being "patsy's"-they should learn history as near as the twentieth century to see how stupid they are. Personally ,I have no wish to try to persuade messrs edwards and sidgewick of anything,and I do wonder why any of you do .,

NKH

"Human rights devoid of cultural specifity are meaningless, and point to a grim future of the gulag."

For me, that statement pretty well epitomises the confusion surrounding the human rights debate nowadays. Human rights used to mean protection for the individual against the overwhelming power of the state; protection from being locked up, disappeared, executed or otherwise denied freedom to conduct a law-abiding life with the same opportunities as everyone else simply because your opinions/skin colour/religion/sexuality didn't fit with the policies the establishment. It doesn't really matter whether those policies are based on religious certainties or political dogma, the one thing human rights should NOT have is 'cultural specificity'. It is an absolute expression of the relationship between an individual and the powers that be.

By mixing 'cultural specificity' into the debate over human rights is exactly how we have ended up discussing so-called rights as the right "to be a parent" (eg gay adoption) and the right "not to have one's religious sensitivities offended" (eg Danish cartoons) and other primarily social issues. This devalues the meaning of "human rights" and as a result people are generally less concerned when we're confronted with real threats to our fundamental freedoms in the name of anti-terrorism and the like.

Now that is a grim future.

Brad Brzezinski

Nicole S: Try this link for the 2nd article.

http://tinyurl.com/m27byk

Augustus

There is absolutely no moral equivalence between a modern democratic state and a terror organization such as Hamas. But the Goldstone Report has created just that. Israel's legal and judicial apparatus is fully equipped, and motivated, to deal with, and address any alleged violations of national and international law. Such allegations are properly reviewed through a process of independent and impartial proceedings, and that includes the Supreme Court. How in the world can Goldstone claim that Hamas, or the PA, can come anywhere close to operating a legal system resembling that of a fully Western type democracy?

This whole UN report is completely tainted by the most obvious bias. A 'fact-finding mission' accusing Israel of crimes against humanity before it was even published; with investigators even publishing their opinions (as facts, no doubt) before their investigation had even begun. Reliant on unreliable and tainted sources, their despicable condemnation of Israel, and the failure to act by the UN Human Rights Council itself to protect the human rights of Israeli citizens, are nothing less than a high reward for the appeasement of terror.

ted paull

Thank you once again, Melanie, for your clarity. I am glad that you and Dershowitz have found some common ground.

To Nicole S..here is the correct link:

http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/09/ad-hominem-attack-on-israel.php

Verity

I've been on the lookout for a rebuttal from Israel. I was pointed to Melanie Phillips' blog - but haven't found what I was looking for. I thought this Dershowitz might be it - but he seems to repeat what Israeli spokesmen have been saying already about the remit being one-sided, tho I thought that had been fixed, and the evidence coming from only one side and from independent observers ("so-called"), tho I thought that was partly coz Israel refused to offer evidence. I think there are very good things in what Dershowitz has cribbed. This UN organization is very selective in who it's indignant with. And the members of this inquiry look to have decided the verdict before they started. But putting all that to one side, Israel still did stuff that left civilians dead and surely should account for what it did and explain why it was necessary. Mr. Netanyahu seems to say it's coz Hamas is like the Nazis and their rockets are like the Blitz, which is a bit OTT. Dershowitz says Israel phoned round the people they were about to bomb to warn them and dropped leaflets, so they were doing their best to avoid killing civilians when they dropped their bombs or launched their shells or whatever. I suppose I am an outside observer and to me that sounds a bit lame. What strikes outsiders is the lopsidedness. And then water works and sewage plants were destroyed. Were Hamas blitzing Israel from the sewage works? Dershowitz, or is it Melanie Phillips, says they didn't take evidence form a British officer who says Israel did everything possible not to kill civilians when they fired shells at them - I'm British but even I find it odd to take the British army (or the US) as the proper people to judge whether as few civilians as possible are being killed. What else does Mr. Dershowitz offer - he insults Goldstone and adds him to his hate list. I recognized Noam Chomsky's name from Vietnam. I'd never heard of Finklestone, so a friend pointed me to the bookshop shelf. Has anyone looked at Beyond Chutzpah - Dershowitz must have a thick skin to keep pontificating after such embarassment - he lifted bits from other books, he cited comics and films as references, he said the thing which is not (as the houynyms call it) - it's quite fun in a shocking sort of way. So not Israeli spokesmen, not Melanie Phillips, not this Dershowitz. Israel is an advanced country, sophisticated, highly competent - someone must have set out their position for outsiders to understand. The lopsidedness of the fighting and the lack of an explanation that matches up to what happened leaves the field free it seems to me for the other side, the Palestinians and their supporters, liberals, or lefties, or bleeding heart consciences or whatever you want to call them. I think Israel should turn down the shriek level and turn up the hard evidence. I for one would like to hear it. This is doing Israel no good.

fintan

Nationalism is acknowledged by
the champions of globalisation
to be the greatest obstacle to
be overcome in the pursuit of
their ambitions.
Hard times ahead for
Israel it looks like.

Augustus

Melanie - www.mfa.gov.il/GazaFacts

Augustus

Verity - www.mfa.gov.il/GazaFacts

Jerry

Verity's rant is answered by the fact that shelling of Israel has decreased since Operation Cast Lead. That fact has reduced war crimes committed by Hamas - noted in addenda in the Goldstone report. In addition, it has reduced the number of actions that the Israeli military needs to engage in to which Verity might object. Is not Peace sufficient reason to praise Israel and its actions? No one is dying, no one is being made homeless, no one is being injured, no one is developing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -unless you want to count those poor three Jihad men who were killed on Friday setting up rockets to fire at Israel.

George Steiner

I know that it must be much fun to discuss interminably how many civilians is it OK or not to kill in war. But I favour the Mongol method of warfare.

When they have finished with a city, you could ride your horse over it without it stumbling. And the Muslims were afraid of the Mongols.

Mr. Ami Israel Goldman

To Mr. M. Green:

There is no word in the open
letter mentioned by you

(avilable at http://www.derekwyattmp.co.uk/news_item.aspx?i_PageID=117377)

that calls for the establishment of a United Nations commission of inquiry into the Gaza conflict that call for an investigation into "Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

In their letter, the petitioners actually ask for:

• a mandate to carry out a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation of all allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties to the conflict;

• act in accordance with the strictest international standards governing such investigations;

• if it finds sufficient evidence, it should provide recommendations as to the appropriate prosecution of those responsible for gross violations of the law by the relevant authorities.

I fully with you that the Goldstone investigation and its subsequent report DID NOT fulfill those expectations.

gareth

Well said Melanie.
I read this years ago after finding it on Gutenberg.org - it's gone now, not sure why but it is available here:
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/680/Zane_0027_EBk_v4.pdf

and you can read about it's importance on the site, but for me, it explained the importance of the Israel and its Law - to us as Englishmen (or Welshmen) Winston Churchill valued Israel singularly highly and this superb forensic history of the common law explains why. It is written so that a child could understand it - no jargon.

Paul

I ask myself if the UNHRC was not itself intimidated by Hamas and the rest of the maniacs floating around the area. After 2000 Arafat knew very well the fate awaiting him if he had accepted the Barak/Clinton deal which conceded virtually everything the Palestinians asked for. If he had accepted the deal Hamas etc would have assasinated him within days for even accepting Israel has a right to exist. I believe this bunch were also intimidated into not producing anything which puts Hamas in a bad light. In the end its the poor old taxpayers who pay for all this rubbish and corruption in the area. Its such a waste of everything.

John

Another piece from MP that fails to engage seriously with the report. Three incidents in the report stood out for me: the shooting and killing (from a distance) of a handcuffed 15-yr old, the shooting and killing of a young man while he was pushing his crippled mother along in a trolley, and the shooting and killng of a three-year old girl while she was in the arms of her mother. War is horrible. And this report could have been written differently and with more context of Israel's right to self defence. But MP's argument that it is somehow a departure from Christian or Jewish ethics to condemn such incidents is as perverse as it is ignorant.

And Richard Kemp is, of course, a complete red herring. He's a mid-level retired British Officer now working as a TV pundit. He has a valid point of view but no more than that: he has no first hand knowledge of Operation Cast Lead or its consequences. He could no more give "evidence" than the Basingstoke co-ordinator of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Verity

Jerry, You reply to my "rant" with what looks to me like a less extreme version of what George Steiner says he admires. All I am after is a proper explanation of what Israel was doing. Augustus told me to look at an mfa website. It has the same stuff as all the government spokesmen, Israeli journalists, supporters of Israel, bloggers - they're all singing from the same songsheet, and if it doesn't answer the question when one of them says it, it doesn't if another says it. One example is that the IDF in self-defence had to respond to 12000 rockets from Gaza - and yet in the same period apparently the IDF fired three times as many shells at Gaza among other things. Israel attacked Gaza in 2006 coz Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier and yet it seems Israel kidnapped or arrested or whatever two Palestinian Arabs days before and has thousands in prison uncharged. And Gaza was under blockade coz Israel didn't like who the people in Gaza voted for. It all doesn't add up and for a long-standing admirer of Israel it gets very troubling, and it shouldn't be enough to dismiss it as "rant" coz if that's how sympathisers are beginning to feel there is a problem.

Carl Gardner

Melanie: I'm an admirer of your writing and of your willingness to say things many others wouldn't dare, and many don't want to hear.

I'm also sympathetic to Israel as a democratic society under constant threat, and think many people are unfairly hostile to it and amazingly sympathetic to its many very unattractive (to say the least) enemies. Finally I agree with your concern about the use of a sort of "human rights ideology" by some people, possibly as a replacement for other, now unfashionable, leftist ideologies that few people take seriously, and as a cover for political activism. I, like you, am against cultural relativism - which is why I'm unsympathetic to the growing trend for women in my part of London at least to wear full-body veils, and most people's ready acceptance of it.

But I'm also an atheist and a secularist (I'm troubled by religious activism such as that of Islamic and Christian school uniform campaigners for instance) and am in favour of fair and equal treatment for women, gay couples and so on, and don't really see why religious organisations should be able to discriminate against them if others are legally prohibited from doing so. Plus, I'm a lawyer as it happens.

So I'm a bit worried that in the view you've outlined, I seem to be part of the anti-civilisation "project". Aren't you pushing people like me away, when we have many things in common, if you put the emphasis so strongly on religious values?

JM Faith

Verity - See here:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/The_Goldstone_Report_Rewarding_Palestinian_Terror.asp

Linda Smith

Verity, seems to me you can't see the wood for the trees. Stop focussing on detail and get back to the big picture. The Jews of Israel have been at war since 1948 with the Muslim world who ultimately seek the destruction of a Jewish State.

You're surprised that Israel didn't welcome the election of Hamas? What's democracy got to do with it? Haven't you read the Hamas genocidal charter online? Would you be happy with the election of a Hitlerite Nazi party dedicated to your extermination on your doorstep! Get real.

Augustus

In the Operation in Gaza it was obvious that it was Israel who was fighting on the side of civilization against a terror state. The legality of the Operation does not, however negate the suffering of the civilians of Gaza. Israel had no wish to worsen their plight. But to really put an end to the risk of persistent barrages of rocket attacks (which become deadlier as Iranian rockets become more powerful, and whose range can now reach 1m Israelis)
Israel would have needed to re-occupy the Gaza Strip. If it had done this, far more innocent Palestinian lives would have been lost in a bloodier and longer campaign. It now still has a sworn enemy on its doorstep dedicated to it's ultimate demise and takeover, the leaders of which were so cowardly that during the first days of the Operation they went into bunkers to hide.
Giving in to Hamas' demands would be fatal for Israel. Sooner or later, this Islamic
'resistance movement' needs to be eradicated.

Verity

JM Faith, Thanks for Honest Reporting - but it appears to be word for word the same as the other sources I've tried. I'll keep looking.

Linda Smith, Thanks for the reminder to look at the big picture coz I think you're right I was getting fixated on detail - tho the detail here is people getting killed for reasons I can't quite understand or find explained - but I'm pretty sure you're right that there is a long history that can't be sorted just by saying whose to blame for what in the latest episode.

(I wonder if the last thing you say is quite right. Should a government not judge two things before acting: what does the enemy want to do and has the enemy the wherewithal to do what it wants to do - Hamas may rant and rave at Israel and threaten all sorts of stuff, but all it can do is lob some missiles and kill a handful of people, which is a criminal atrocity in itself that should be punished but not a threat to the existence of Israel - so should Israel blockade and demolish the lives and livelihoods of a couple of million people,or whatever the population is, just coz their government rants and raves and lobs missiles - especially when there was a chance of a ceasefire?)

Thanks for continuing my education on Israel.

C. Gee

Verity:

What answer from which source would you recognize as an objective or credible explanation for Israel's war actions? The fact that certain sources give the same pro-Israel explanation seems to bother you. If the facts are suspect because of the sources, and the explanation is suspect because it is pro-Israel, you will be left in the "pox on both their houses" position, which, ironically is pro-Arab as it must stand on the moral equivalence of Israel's self-defense and terrorism, the firefighter and the fire.
Your quest for knowledge is disingenuous, I fear.

David

C.Gee says "Your quest for knowledge is disingenuous, I fear"

Couldn't agree more with you!

David

John Edwards said:

"It is astonishing that a Harvard Professor can write such hysterical over the top drivel.

Compare that to the reasoned tones of Mr Goldstone and the actual report."

I almost fell over laughing when I read that! Thank you!

Linda Smith

Verity: you wrote :Hamas may rant and rave at Israel and threaten all sorts of stuff, but all it can do is lob some missiles and kill a handful of people."

At the time of the Cast Lead when people were criticising Israel for a "disproportionate" reaction to Hamas's rockets, I thought (and wrote) what about when Iran manufacturers nuclear material for Hamas and Hezbollah to fire in their rockets?....

polizia molto arabiatta

Interesting to see Dershowitz intoning against "human rights" laywers as he used to be considered one himself...camp david accords written by his harvard students, maybe meir kahane has joined dershowitz in jail in spirit as he promised dershowitz a long time ago!

logdon

Dershowitz sums it up quite neatly.

"In an apparent effort to curry favor with the international anti-Israel establishment, and perhaps with the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, he has abandoned all principles of objectivity and neutral human rights. He no longer deserves the mantle of a human rights advocate. He has done more to destroy the credibility and objectivity of human rights than any credible human rights personage in modern times."

Funny how these Marxists always love the gongs and the honour, the titles and the trappings, the banquets and the shindigs.

And pertinently the income which follows, as surely as night follows day.

Look to our own ex trade union socialists and you get the picture. High on the hog. Expenses covering the minutae of daily life. Ermine and coronets. Liveried chauffers and gas guzzling limousines.

All at public expense, heaven forfend that they'd run a wealth creating company and gasp, pay their own wages.

Meanwhile the proles, in this case, underdog Israel are thrown under the bus as the sacrifice neccessary to accomplish the fraud.

And let's not give Obama a free pass in all of this. He's the one offering the final stamp of approval. He's the one who set the path to this Wansee Conference second coming.

The black Rudolph Heidrich at the beck and call of his Jew hating Arab controllers.

Lucky for Israel that they voted for Bibi who is having none of this bullshit which is the perfect road to nowhere.

One thing in essence is preventing two states. Right now there are three contestants and the one chosen to represent 'Palestine' doesn't.

Actually, I'll make it two and let's get to the nitty gritty here.

Even though Israel occupies a mere .06% of ME territory, that is .06% too much for the bulk of Muslims. Even one square inch would be. They just cannot abide any Jewish presence, hence their term Nakba, or catastrophe when Israel was created.

This isn't about land. It's about an idea, unthinkable in Arab minds that they'd have to accomodate those filthy zionists. Or that same filthy zionists have the chutzpa to create the best defence force in the world, hence the twist from frontal military assault to this scheming and twisting of real justice.

The UN is defunct. Hijacked by the leverage of oil and Third World victim ideology it staggers across a landscape of corrupt incompetence to downright illegality and it’s only true supporters are the mentally collapsed.

The West must recover it’s nerve. Only then will this prime real estate, bent edifice be torn down.

And only then will real sanity return to a world gone crazy.

Frank P

As ever, logdon nails it.

phil

Logdon -I fear in our world today being right is not enough -the bullies have it ,as do those with the biggest mouths -you seem to have nailed it as usual, but I have to say equating Obama with heydrich is a bridge to far -O I feel means well but is naive and H was evil personified .

David Blackburn

I've been asked by Verity of Coffee House to inform you that the poster of the same name that writes on Melanie's blogs are not one and the same.

logdon

phil
September 28th, 2009 12:17pm

If you read The Villa by the Lake which is all about the Wansee Conference you'll see how Heydrich comes across. Other accounts paint a similar picture.

Subtle. Urbane. Sophisticated. The whole thing was couched in soft focus euphemism and allusion.

Yet he was hugely ambitious, curried favour with all the big hitters of the regime and always uttered the right words.

OK, in our enlightened modern society no one could advocate gassing six million and then carry out execution of the plan, they work in different ways.

Stoking up resentment then doing nothing when the shit hits the fan has the desired outcome as in Rwanda where UN forces fled under direct orders not to intervene. Result two million dead.

Obama fit's that smooth talking allusive bill. He calls it 'nuancing'. I call it deception.

I get the impression that he's far from impressed by whitey especially the bulk who live in fly over country.

He also despises capitalism and his virtual nationalisation of the banks and car makers confirms that.

As does his community organising, Acorn hugging, Alynski worshipping, Wright admiring past.

He lies and evades. He hollers race at the slightest prompt. He offers America's head on a plate. He appeases militant Islam. He grovels to Chavez and Ahmedinajad. He bows to Saudi princes.

Given the right totalitarian circumstances and cultural zeitgeist would he baulk at signing off, at arms length of course, on mass execution?

The truth is we don't know.

He's a product of his time, just as Heydrich was, only his ubermensch fits a different profile. Unfortunately his Jewish victims don’t.

Verity

C. Gee, That's unfair. 12000 rockets from Gaza. Three times as many from Israel. So in "self-defence" Israel then launches an assault that kills over a thousand people. Israel suffers thirteen dead (I think) - some of them friendly fire. There is surely a case to answer - prima facie (if I've got the right term). But Israel declines and says it was self-defence and anyone who says otherwise is prejudging it or is unfit to comment. I'm a long-standing admirer of Israel (and who wouldn't admire the achievements of the last century in building a nation) - but I'm beginning to wonder if I've been a bit naive in always accepting one side of the story. And before I'm accused of anti-Semitism or being a crypto-Nazi or whatever, it is some of my Jewish friends who have explained things are a bit more complicated (in fact one of them is an Israeli citizen, or his parents are), although no doubt on this blog that just makes them self-hating or traitors or some such nonsense. Surely it should be discussed in an adult way, not all this shrillness. Anyway, I think I've got my answer - I won't find a rational explanation of Israel's behaviour here (and note I assume there is a rational explanation).

Truthtriumphs

To John Edwards and others who still will not, or cannot grasp what this is really about.

Rather than give the link, I will just quote from the clear-sighted Mark Steyn, who wrote on Sept.25th:-
"It's a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice cream and a quart of dog feces and mix 'em together, the result will taste more like the latter than the former. That's the problem with the UN.
When you make the free nations and the thug states members of the same club, the danger isn't that they'll meet each other half-way, but that the free world winds up going three-quarters, seven-eighths of the way".
That, in a nutshell, describes the values, ethics and morality of the UN as it stands today.
The thug states are calling the tune.

Linda Smith

Verity, if 12,000 rockets fell on and around your house, what action would you like your government to take on your behalf?

Ruby Hill

It's foolhardy to claim that any beliefs of "human rights", or of one's own conscience, are rooted in biblicality, just as it is equally foolhardy to claim that "secularism" is a progenitor of dignity, equality, fairness, truth or justice.

Religionists seem interminably unable to comprehend that their chosen belief systems do not create good people, but, rather, good people exist ab intra, without recourse to millennia-old books.

Religion is not the cure for the crazy "human rights" lawyers who seek to implement their far-left nonsense on the world, nor is religion a cure for the same far-left visceral hatred of Israel (and Jews on occasion).

What is needed to cure this breakdown of morality is hard-nosed thinking: the same scathing, indefatigable and irrefragable use of logic that has rendered a belief in religion absurd to the vast majority of clear-thinking people. Europe and Britain's greatest achievements were made after the Enlightenment, not the medieval rampages of Christendom.

Logic wins the day, not politicos and religionists.

Eoin

logdon's rant managed to reach heights of bad temper and idiocy in comparing Obama to Reinhard Heydrich.
On what evidence, please.
This is unfortunately called lack of proportion. If you want to 'hit home' with criticism, use the facts of Obama's chronic lack of experience, naivety, wishful thinking and, must I add, only eight months in office.
Using labels like, Marxist, Nazi, Jew-hater, 'ready to throw Israel/Jews under the bus', without a shred of evidence to back it up, is not a good idea. As well as making your opponents or critics look reasonable and in a better position. Relying on conspiracy theories, supporting rants and hysteria from similarly ill-informed and bad-tempered sources surely does not help. It leads to you looking like an overgrown brat who has just had their toys taken away; as do the masses of 'demonstrators' with their bizzare placards at the anti-Obama rallies.
Depicting all critics of Israeli policy as Nazis is self-defeating. How do you then regard those Jews who are the harshest and most incisve critics of Israeli policy?
A calm,adult response, using the facts to back your criticism would have more effect. Living on sour grapes since November 2008 is not a good idea.

C. Gee

Verity:

If you find an explanation of Israel's conduct in war that assumes fairness to be a one-to-one kill ratio, and proportionality to consist of home-made rocket against home-made rocket etc. it will not be rational. Nor "grown-up".

Verity

C. Gee, That's odd. I didn't say what you say I did - I suppose it makes it easier for you, but it doesn't get us any further.

Linda Smith, If three times 12000 shells fell around your house, what action...? It still doesn't get us any further forward does it?

I would like to make clear I am not the Verity who frequents the Coffee House and who in elegant prose expresses illiberal opinions.

I am the Verity who visited this site coz I was told I would get the truth about Israel's action. I am a bit worried that might turn out to be so.

logdon

Eoin
September 29th, 2009 7:52am

Talk about rant? This is kneejerk personified. Obama's record speaks for itself.

You obviously leapt to his defence before properly reading my comments.

Obama has demanded a stop on all settlements. He has demanded that Israel hand over East Jerusalem. By doing so he strips Israel of defensive territory and opens it up to a massacre Heydrich could only dream of.

As for my other points on 'The One's' grovelling to the ME it is all well documented.

phil

Truthtriumphs that was the best analogy I have ever seen -personally I prefer Ben and Gerry,s cherry garcia -unfettered

Linda Smith

Verity:"Linda Smith, If three times 12000 shells fell around your house, what action...? It still doesn't get us any further forward does it?"

Yes it does. You are making moral judgements on Operation Cast Lead based on numbers killed. You wrote: "12000 rockets from Gaza. Three times as many from Israel. So in "self-defence" Israel then launches an assault that kills over a thousand people. Israel suffers thirteen dead (I think) - some of them friendly fire. There is surely a case to answer - prima facie."

I ask you again - imagine yourself as a Sderot resident - .what action do you think Israel should have taken in response to Hamas firing 12000 rockets on Sderot?
BTW You overlooked the fact that many of those killed in Gaza were Hamas terrorists.

phil

verity (the new) why not give yourself a number like verity 2 then we will all know which is which instead of just me ;)

Marcus

Hidden in Logdon's rant, alternately unpleasant, racially obsessed and laughable,is an odd claim: he seems to suggest that the UN stoked up the flames of genocide in Rwanda? The cowardice of the UN in not intervening once the killing started is indeed a shameful fact, but I'd be interested to hear back-up for the claim of prior complicity.

logdon

Marcus
September 29th, 2009 11:12am

My general point which you fail to address is that the UN has now become a tool of African and Arab dictators.

You glibly talk of racism, always the no fail backstop when facts will not suffice but no mention of Durban or the never ending antisemitism and downright racism pouring out of Islam.

And on the subject, how about Obama's kneejerk (and racist) 'stupid' comment on the Cambridge police action involving one of his old buddies, Prof. Gates? No examination of fact, it had to be, of course racist whitey's fault.

It works two ways you know.

South African ZA

Richard Goldstone is a fine man, an excellent lawyer and defender of human rights.

He should be commended for his work.

It is a shame for people on this blog to discredit him becuase they dont like him.

He will be hero for most people in most parts of the world.

Rosa

superb, Melanie. Put all this in a book- I'll buy it.

Augustus

The Goldstone Report response from the soldiers themselves. The allegations are based on unverified hearsay and are proven to be false. So why not listen to the voices of the soldiers and reservists of the
IDF themselves? It's all on -
www.soldiersspeakout.com

They say they "want to tell you,
the public, about our personal experiences(in Gaza)"

So, listen to them.

Verity (not the Coffee House one)

Linda Smith, What I said was there's a prima facie case to investigate what Israel did. I do have qualms - Israel launched missiles into Gaza and missiles were launched from Gaza into Israel - how does that give Israel the right to invade Gaza and not Hamas and their allies to invade Israel? Perhaps you'll say Israel is a state and has a right to defend itself even by attacking others, and Gaza is not a state so the people there do not have a right to defend themselves. Or maybe you'll say Israel is strong so can beat up anyone it wants and the people in Gaza are not strong so shouldn't bother.

I ask you in return - imagine yourself as a Gaza resident -what action do you think Hamas or anyone who thinks your safety matters at all should have taken in response to Israel firing 3x12000 rockets on Gaza? Remeber some of the casualties were Israeli combatants (although mercifully few).

As I said this does not get us any further.

phil

Verity (not the Coffee House one)
September 29th, 2009 2:15pm -you are using logic but starting with the wrong premise -Israel sat back for 8 years I believe without attacking the militants by means of an invasion -They even left GAZA and its facilities ,uprooting many Israelis against their will -Those facilities were destroyed immediately by hamas and all that happened is that the rockets were launched from nearer..

The Palestinians could have peace whenever they want simply by agreeing that Israel and its citizens have a right to exist-They will not do this and continue to bombard defenceless villagers with rockets -I naively stick to the belief that ordinary Palestinians would love that peace but are denied it, not by Israel but by hamas and the evil twisted minds that run it -do you think anyone asks the Palestinian if he wants peace ?you can be sure they did not, but the whole of Israel wants that peace and with justice and dignity for both peoples. You are right to ask questions and I get the impression it is with a good heart but please get your facts right first ,that might be helped by a visit to the web site that Augustus suggested a little earlier .

szeni

Former commander of British troops in Afghanistan Col Richard Kemp comments on the Goldstone report (starts about 10 min before the end of the interview):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00n4fz4/HARDtalk_Colonel_Richard_Kemp_former_Commander_of_British_Forces_in_Afghanistan/

C. Gee

Verity:

There is plenty of information on what is in the minds of Hamas and the people who voted for them. May I suggest you go to MEMRI to investigate the culture of the Palestinians and their attitudes? Then you can put yourself in their shoes with credibility - and dance in the streets at the death of Jews and Americans, and hand out sweets to celebrate the death of your martyr suicide-bombing son or daughter. Watch a little Hamas childrens' TV.
That might "get us further" in this discussion, but I think you are quite smugly content with your "strong is wrong" piety.

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's, Hezbollah's, and their mutual paymaster the Islamic theocracy of Iran's 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.

Verity (not the Coffee House one)

Phil, Thank you for what you say. I hope you're right that Palestinian people want peace and Israeli people want peace - that is usually the way of it. I mean no disrespect to anyone but in conflicts like this one there always comes the playground moment when both shout You started it! - which was rather the point I didn't manage to get over to Linda Smith and C. Gee ie shouting "You started it so we're allowed to beat seven shades out of you until you admit we're right" doesn't get us anywhere.

If you mean the mfa website, I looked at it, but it didn't give much detail beyond the headlines. I'm still looking coz I'm sure the stuff is out there somewhere.

Linda Smith and C. Gee, I seem to have caused indignation I didn't mean to, and you seem to answer points I don't think I made (certainly didn't mean to) - all I'm saying is the arguments you put for Israeli people could be put for Palestinian people, as I think Phil recognized while still disagreeing with me (which is fair enough). A settlement - peace - surely needs both sides to see this symmetry. Anyway, as I said before, I haven't found quite what I had hoped for here, so I should probably look elsewhere and stop stirring things up. I still enjoyed your comments, Linda Smith, C. Gee, Augustus, and Phil.

Linda Smith, PS - Hazlitt? My friend just passed me a companion to English literature (not my field at all!) - ? And he can't help me with Sedgewick. Patricia? Islamofascist what the... I am out my depth here! Anyway, cheers.

Irwin Ruff

This is the trouble with all human 'codes of conduct' and 'rules of behavior'. They are all invented by men and therefore have all the weakness that humans have. It is only a code that is given by G-d that can be perfect. That is why that only the Torah (Jewish Bible) can ever serve as a rule for man's behavior, since it was given directly by G-d. That was articulated by Abraham in the first book of the Torah.

Henry Sidgwick

"...not universal principles but – very different, this – culturally particular principles to be applied universally."

I really had been hoping that someone would explain what this means. Perhaps it is not susceptible to explanation.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, "...your extreme relativist claptrap."

Was your advocacy of relativism all this while (a fairly primitive form of relativism) just a ruse to shrug off awkward questions? a form which allows you to be a relativist when it helps you evade questioning and an absolutist when you want to come over all righteous?

As it happens, what you denigrated as "relativist claptrap" would appear to have been an attempt to apply an ethical rule universally (which is meant to be one of the hallmarks, is it not, of a truly ethical concept, rather than a merely tribal one).

Linda Smith

Verity (ntCHo)

All I'm saying is the arguments you put for Israeli people could be put for Palestinian people" A settlement - peace - surely needs both sides to see this symmetry."

There isn't symmetry. Hamas's and PLO/Fatah's Charters both call for the destruction of Israel. Fatah's Charter is genocidal and quotes the Koran. Israelis do not want to be exterminated; neither do they want to live as dhimmis in a Palestinian Islamic state.

"Islamofascist what the...I am out my depth here!"

Obviously you are. Watch out for that extreme relativism of yours, you may end up a dhimmi.

Cember

@Sidgwick: What she is saying is that the moral principles involved are based in Western philosophical views of the world. These moral principles are not universally held, but the post-enlightenment West believes that they should apply universally. An example would be a belief in liberal democracy. The West's error in invading Iraq was to believe that we all were working from the same dictionary. We're not! The Iraqi understanding of democracy was that the Shia majority now had license to kill the Sunni minority. Is it any wonder that the Sunnis didn't welcome democracy?

Cember

@Verity: I'm not sure where your statistics are coming from, but even the the UNHRC says that Israel was only hit by 8000 rockets from 2002 to Cast Lead, and I have yet to see a count of Israeli shells falling on Gaza in the same period. Whatever, in attempting to determine a moral position (which I assume is your quest), try envisioning what the result of Hamas unilaterally downing arms. Now envision the outcome of Israel doing the same. I think the problem is that the legal definition of war crimes traps the uniformed national army, and gives the non-uniformed guerilla force a free pass. The problem is that the side's minimum peace conditions are mutually exclusive, so negotiation can't work, and the only way to defeat a guerilla force is through the use of overwhelming might. As always, the truly innocent suffer. On the other hand, Hamas was elected by a huge majority, and Hamas has never hidden its objective. That may not be satisfying to a Westerner who believes that every disagreement can be negotiated, but I think that's as close to the truth as you're going to get.

Marcus from the USA

Im not a dhimmi Linda, but you are truly a Goy.

Keep spewing the Zionist propaganda; Im sure the your Jewish masters will toss you a doggy treat for your good work.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick/Hazlitt,

There are no universal ethical rules.

Ethical Rules are relative to the Value system in which they are embedded. Islam's supremacist values and ethics are different from Judeo/Christian egalitarian values and ethics.
Judeo/Christian values and ethics are egalitarian; Islam's vlaues and ethics are supremacist - and never the twain shall meet.

As usual you're spouting a load of claptrap.

YY

Very good points. It is interesting to consider that within a few decades, Israel will be majority Ultra-Orthodox. Then, left-wing values are going to have to recede somewhat, though I doubt they would do away with the basics of liberal democracy. I don't think the Dershowitzes will cease supporting Israel at that point; in fact I'm sure his support for Israel is deeper than the fact it is a liberal country -- it's just that that's what he's comfortable expressing to the public.

phil

I thought this column was for the exchange of views and not the filth that has just been put up by
Marcus from the USA
September 30th, 2009 3:08am ,not unusual just disgusting !!

I hope in future this persons posts will be more carefully monitored as is the norm here

Truthtriumphs

Phil.
Re. Marcus from the USA's "filth".
Let it stay up, for he has just exposed himself for the crude, anti-semite that he is, as are a few other regulars on this thread, most of whom hide behind the fig leaf of concern for the Palestinians. That is how they indulge their irrational hatred.
Interestingly, however much they hate Jews, nevertheless, they love all the benefits to mankind that Jewish inventiveness has facilitated, like mobile phones, computers, medical advances etc. etc. etc.
Hypocrisy is their middle name.

Zohar

First I'd like to thank Melanie Plillips for an article that has produced a week's worth of responses from the readers.
To Verity, after just about all your arguments have been countered by the other well-informed responders, the last point which you remain stuck to, rather like a beached limpet on a rock, is that Israel responded with three times the number of rockets during the Cast Lead operation.
I feel that this fact is immaterial to the main argument of Dershowitz that the UN report was biased, and also to one of the main points of M. Phillips article of the double standard applied to Israel in General, and the weakness of the Human Rights supporters in their adherence to a culture-based, Third World Victims biased perspective of justice.
There are horrendous, race and tribal oriented conflicts going on in the Congo, Nigeria, the Sudan and the fact that millions (yes, millions) of human lives have been lost, generations of orphans created and wholesale rape of women and young girls is being largely ignored has to be explained.
The backwardness of the populations and the history of colonial/imperial exploitation can no longer be accepted as a mitigating factor in the commitment of these crimes.
Nor can the repression of women in modern-day English society or Family-honor murders of women merely because it is acceptable practice in arabic/islamic culture. This is a long running complaint by M. Phillips against certain interpretations of multi-culturalism and multi-ethinicity.

Henry Sidgwick

Cember, Thank you very much. When you explain it like that, it becomes clear I was simply being a bit slow-witted. Thank you again.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, "Watch out for that extreme relativism of yours..."

"Ethical Rules are relative to the Value system in which they are embedded."

I ask again, Was your advocacy of a form of relativism all this while just a ruse to allow you to duck and weave? a form which allows you to be a relativist when it helps you evade questioning and an absolutist when you want to come over all righteous and indignant?

C. Gee

Henry Hazwick-Sidglett:

From humble cap-doffing to Cember, to swaggering rapier feinting to Linda Smith.
Can we expect a new "Uriah" pseudonym, or perhaps "Zorro"? Or both?

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick/Hazlitt, I am not an absolutist. You are. You falsely assert that all the people in the world have the same value system - yours. They don't.

Having falsely asserted that all the people in the world share your value system, you then falsely assert that all the people in the world believe in its morals/ethics. They don't.

Having falsely asserted that all the people in the world share your value system and its moral/ethical framework, you then assert that all the people agree to be bound by it. They don't.

What's your motive? Israel bashing as usual I suppose.

Linda Smith

"The UN Human Rights Council and the Goldstone Report are either biased or mistaken in some of their fundamental accusations against Israel, according to B'Tselem human rights group director Jessica Montell.

She said the council was wrong in its gravest accusations against Israel. These include the claim that Israel intentionally targeted the civilian population rather than Hamas, and the "weak, hesitant way that the report mentions Hamas's strategy of using civilians [in combat]."

Reported in Jerusalem Post. My source: Honest Reporting 30 September 09

Grumpy

Blah blah blah - now publish that!

phil

C. Gee he was in fact boasting again when claiming to be slow witted .that is a lot faster than he normally is -anyhow I am sure it was his attempt at sarcasm ,but any attempt at humour is an improvement on his usual offerings .

phil

phil
September 30th, 2009 4:06pm

Truthtriumphs you are probably right but there is certain vicarious pleasure in letting him know what a sick little s---t we see him as-

THIS WAS POSTED ON THE BRITISH POLICE THREAD BY MISTAKE

Henry Sidgwick

Marcus from the USA, My previous attempt this afternoon to complain has not got through, so I will try again. What purpose is served by your vile abuse other than to poison the wells of debate. Linda Smith and I disagree on many things but we debate in good faith. She deserves every respect.

Linda Smith

Ah, Marcus from the USA, you may not be a dhimmi yet, but give it time....useful idiots always end up the same way, being eaten by the crocodile...no dhimmis in Israel though.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick/Hazlitt, thank you for your kind words. While you're on the line, I'm wondering why you haven't responded to my question:

"The holocaust is a fact. I'm certain. Are you?"

in response to your existential dilemma.

Marcus from the USA

Mr. Henry Sidgwick;

If your hatred of free speech and free debate lends to your obsession to whine and try to get my comments removed, that is more of a reflection on your character and not mine.

I was simply responding to Miss Linda Smiths labeling of anyone with a pro-Palestinian view as a "Dhimmi".

Here in America, our elected officials are bought and paid for by Jewish interests, and not Arab/Islamic ones.

Linda Smith

Marcus USA - what is your pro-Palestinian view exactly?

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, "Watch out for that extreme relativism of yours..."

"Ethical Rules are relative to the Value system in which they are embedded."

You do not address the question by calling me an absolutist (intended, I believe, as an insult); whether consciously or not, you avoid the question. You used "relativist" as a term of abuse, and then you used it to describe how the world is. You appear to contradict yourself.

In passing, your question about the Holocaust was silly. You asked it in a discussion in which you consistently missed the point (although it was all good clean fun) - I thought it better not to pursue it further. I faced no existential dilemma. You were suffering an intellectual blind-spot.

Henry Sidgwick

Marcus from the US,

"Here in America, our elected officials are bought and paid for by Jewish interests, and not Arab/Islamic ones."

History repeats itself as farce. Such opinions used to elicit justifiable disgust, now pity for those who can still utter them with a straight face.

Surely you know that American politicians are for sale to anyone with enough money.

Henry Sidgwick

Cember, My immediate raction to your elucidation was Doh! Why couldn't I work that out for myself. On reflection, however, I am not sure that it is what Melanie Phillips intended. Let me quote the whole passage (sorry about its length):

"..."human rights" has become an Orwellian synonym for an attack on human rights. It has become a judicial wrecking ball which is being deployed to shatter the fundamental principles of both western civilisation and national identity.

This is almost wholly obscured by the fact that it was western civilisation which produced the concept of human rights in the first place -- the sacredness of human life, the equality of all people, the seminal importance of freedom, law and justice – and declared these to be universal principles. That’s why ‘human rights’ lawyers protest that their doctrine cannot possibly constitute an attack on western civilisation, because it is rooted in that civilisation’s own foundational principles.

The crucial point, however, is that these were not universal principles but – very different, this – culturally particular principles to be applied universally. They derived from a particular set of religious ethics which gave rise to western civilisation -- principles promoted through Christianity but deriving from the Hebrew Bible. Without that Biblical moral underpinning, there can be no basis for freedom or equality or respect for life.

But modern ‘human rights’ culture effectively set out to sever those principles from their Biblical core. Arising from the contemporary cult of individuality..."

The modern human rights version of universal principles is wrong, she says, and not to be universalised; but "the culturally particular principles to be applied universally" derived from Judaism are right and should be applied universally.

What this means remains unclear to me.

Linda Smith

what this means is that there are no universal values. Hence the UN, its Court, Human Rights Council, etcetera should all be abolished.

phil

Marcus from the USA you no doubt will have noted the universal disgust from all sides regarding your hateful opinions -I have never agreed with HS before but his feelings for you are bound up with mine ,As for your support of the Palestinians that is your right and I for one have never objected to their wish for a better life, but I doubt that any real Palestinian would be proud to have you on their side.It is those like you who continue to contribute to their plight .

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick/Hazlitt (In passing, your question about the Holocaust was silly. You asked it in a discussion in which you consistently missed the point (although it was all good clean fun) - I thought it better not to pursue it further. I faced no existential dilemma. You were suffering an intellectual blind-spot.)"
No I wasn't. How do you know you're not "a brain in a vat" (see Hilary Putnam).

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick/Hazlitt (In passing, your question about the Holocaust was silly. You asked it in a discussion in which you consistently missed the point (although it was all good clean fun) - I thought it better not to pursue it further. I faced no existential dilemma. You were suffering an intellectual blind-spot.)"
No I wasn't. How do you know you're not "a brain in a vat" (see Hilary Putnam).

Marcus from the USA

Mr. Phil, my main concern is not about being liked its about being right.

As for my alleged "Pro-Palestinian" views I absolutely believe the Holy Land is the homeland of the Palestinians and not the Jews/Israeli's.

Thats why I often quote Gandhi (a man of higher moral authority than me and most others):
"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English and France to the French".

phil

Marcus from the USA
October 1st, 2009 10:57pm
"
Mr. Phil, my main concern is not about being liked its about being right."

You do not have to call me mister Unlike you -I do not need a title ! -but as you have quoted my beliefs about being right rather than liked ,perhaps you will enlighten us all as to why you think The holy land belongs to the Palestinians ,a people who did not exist until recently ,maybe you wish to advocate a return to the Turks or even the Romans ,but no doubt you will wish to forget the sacking of the Hebrew temple and the enforced evacuation of the Jews ,maybe you will even enquire why after 60 years the Arab nations have not themselves given comfort to the people who call themselves Palestinians they surely have enough room and treasure to have done this ,perhaps you may also try to find out why they ran away when they were asked to stay and become part of Israel ,please do not tell me they were terrified because their sponsors started all the terror and made them leave to open the way for the Arab armies to re-enact the last of the ten plagues

.So far you have demonstrated a total lack of history but a brilliance in racism , and as I told you in an earlier post you and your type are the biggest brake on progress for both the Arabs and the Jews .Progress is a subject I have far more interest in ,neverthelessyou no doubt will continue to make a fool of yourself but you really do not have to include the rest of the USA in your nonsense --.Try marcus the racist ,we will know who you are without your resorting to insulting a great nation who patently do not agree with you

Linda Smith

Phil, one error in your analysis. To say this is a battle between Arab and Jew is inaccurate. The battle is between Muslim believers and Jews based in Koranic Jew hatred. Muslim believers consider they have a "right" to rule every inch of the Middle East because they conquered it in Holy Jihad in the 7th century. Some less religious Muslims would settle for a 2 state solution.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, "...what this means is that there are no universal values. Hence the UN, its Court, Human Rights Council, etcetera should all be abolished." - No, that is the bit Cember elucidated for me. It is the other half of the dichotomy that still has me puzzled.

"No I wasn't. How do you know you're not "a brain in a vat" (see Hilary Putnam)." - Recall how this started. Someone made the mistake of using irony to imply that you confidently state as fact what can only be your opinion. Your (obtuse) reply was that facts are true or false and opinions are opinions. You implied you had no problem distinguishing between them. By the way, I am not a sceptic and would not consider Putnam's thought experiment a show-stopper. And even if it were a show-stopper in the study (for you as much as for me), I would take Hume's way out (into the sunlight and fresh air of daily life).

I cannot find an explanation from you of your apparently contradictory uses of the term "relativist" - as a term of abuse and as a description of how the world is.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick: "Someone made the mistake of using irony to imply that you confidently state as fact what can only be your opinion. Your (obtuse) reply was that facts are true or false and opinions are opinions. You implied you had no problem distinguishing between them".

To which I respond yet again: The Holocaust is a fact. I'm certain. Are you?

As I am confident that I'm not a brain in a vat, I'm off to have my supper now. Byee!

phil

Linda Smith get an address and send him some chicken soup and matzoh balls from your supper,maybe that will keep him occupied for a while -at least enough to stop this incessant flow of pseudo/psycho babble -I have an aunt who makes those balls heavy enough to land a whopper on his toes ,that would preoccupy him for a while -at least it would make him consider whether his tummy was hurting worse than his toes -is that anything to do with relativism? :)

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, ...you think Hilary Putnam raised the question because he was genuinely worried whether he was a brain in a vat...? The same unerring grasp here as elsewhere.

phil

Linda maybe the matzo balls didn't work,but as I cannot understand a word the man says ,and I have to wonder whether he can either,can I suggest you ask him if he might consider changing his pseudonym to something more appropriate -I think Martini or Dale Harding would be most suitable -I will leave you to google who they are but as a clue think Jack Nicholson :)

Marcus from the USA

Ms. Linda Smith if you want to see where the real hatred comes from I suggest you real the two "holy" Jewish texts the Torah and the Talmud.

Linda Smith

Marcus from the USA, re Koran versus Torah:

"....The fundamental error is that Judeo-Christian history - which is violent - is being conflated with Islamic theology - which commands violence......

......Old Testament violence is an interesting case in point. God clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of God's will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is just that—history. It happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law. In short, biblical accounts of violence are descriptive, not prescriptive.

This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Old Testament—commanded by God and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence and intolerance have become standardized in Islamic law and apply at all times. Thus, while the violence found in the Qur'an has a historical context, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following Qur'anic verses, better known as the "sword-verses":

Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way."

Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day, and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled...."
read the full article at http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam

phil

Marcus from the USA -no answers then ? just more racist stupidity -you cant even read Hebrew can you ? what a nitwit ! but do not stop we need a break from all the serious commentors .

Betty in Canada

I recently received a clipping of a 50 year old, Swiss cartoon. It seems to sum up the situation today - as it was 50 years ago.

hppscan3.pdf

I'm not sure if you can see it, but it shows Egypt's Nasser repeatedly attacking Israel's Ben Gurion. All the while other Arab nation heads cheer him on. Then when Ben Gurion finally hits back all of them have a hissy fit!

Ring a bell?

Nothing's changed.

Verity (not etc.)

I came to this site for information, not because I thought I could contribute anything myself, but I thought it would be rude not to acknowledge comments made to me by others.

Cember, The figure of 12000 rockets came I thought from the MFA and was picked up by supporters of Israel in papers and blogs. The figure of three times more shells launched by Israel came from a lot of reports over the last ten or so years from the likes of the UN, Amnesty, BTselem (if that's how you spell it) based on observers and IDF data. To be clear this is what I have been told, I have only seen the reports on 2006. But I think it is not a matter of controversy that the relative numbers are of that order.

What struck me about the rest of what you said was how much our response depends on how the question is framed. If the Palestinians stopped firing, no doubt Israel would stop too, apart from the ongoing "policing" of Arabs. But this is a question of the haves and have-nots - of course the haves will not fire if they are secure in what they have. If the have-nots have any reason to think the haves have taken what is theirs of course they're not going to be too keen to let them keep it. So the haves can be as virtuous and holier-than-thou as they like coz they're in possession!

Zohar, You say my questions were all answered - I was going to say you must be a better reader than me, but then I looked at what you say my one remaining point is! I said I didn't know why the 12000 rockets fired by the Palestinians could be used as a reason for Israel to go to war given that Israel fired three times as many.

Linda Smith

Verity, this is not about "haves" and "havenot", this is about Muslims versus Jews - as it has been for 1400 years.

Verity (etc.)

Linda Smith, Do right by the Palestinians - stop beating seven shades out of them and give them a viable homeland - and then see if it's about haves and have-nots or religion.

phil

Verity (not etc. You are just not getting the basics right -Israel was formed in 1948 after a free vote of the United Nations -its purpose was to give a land to a people who had been decimated by the holocaust and who were not welcome anywhere else .It was formed out of territory which was previously the Ottoman empire ,an empire which had just fought for the nazis and lost, together with the grand mufti of Jerusalem ,who was the leader of the Arabs and who had spent the war with hitler in Berlin ,whilst the Jewish brigade had fought for the allies .The Arabs attacked Israel immediately after the declaration of independence and bombed Tel Aviv -Apart from Egypt and Jordan none have made peace ,May I also add there has never been a nation of Palestinians,they were invented by Arafat .-do you really think this is a case of have and have not's ?

phil

Verity (etc.) are you a litigation lawyer ,you know the ones that after receiving answers then ask for further and better particulars -with respect your knowledge seems minimal -The Palestinians have had the offer of their own homeland for too many years to count -they reject it on every occasion -try reading Camp David for instance and the Israelis are not there to beat seven shades out of them ,they want peace with security and dignity for both sides as you have been told repeatedly but are choosing to ignore -I think perhaps it is time for you to go and do some in depth study rather than taking in sound bites ,otherwise this question and answer session will outlive both of us .I have tried to be polite when answering you but I am getting the impression that you are taking the Mickey

Linda Smith

Verity (ntCHo), Why do you omit all mention of Islam in your arguments? The PA is a theocracy. Its national religion is Islam; its civil law is Sharia based (that leaves Christian "Palestinians" in the position of dhimmis.

If you want to be taken seriously, it's about time you started taking ALL the facts and ALL the circumstances into consideration, not just the ones that suit your Israel-bashing agenda.

Verity (etc.)

Linda Smith, "it's about time you started taking ALL the facts and ALL the circumstances into consideration..." Is that what you think yourself to be doing?

"Your Israel-bashing agenda" - what Israel bashing? I am an admirer of Israel troubled by what appears to be going on. So far reading this blog has done nothing but support the contention that Goldstone, in paying Israel the compliment of holding it to the standards it claims to maintain, has done it a favour.

Linda Smith

Verity (etc) You are the one who came here discussing the Gaza conflict and asking questions. You have not answered mine - why do you omit all consideration of Islam in the motives of the people you call "Palestinians" when you post up your scenarios. It is that glaring omission which points up your duplicity.