Oh dear...

Cheeta Watch

Checkmate, I think.

Joshua

"is none other than the Guardian editor’s own daughter."

Unsurprising given what she must have heard over the breakfast table at her father's house:

"Israel's actions in Jenin were every bit as repellent as Osama Bin Laden's attack on New York on September 11." - Alan Rusbridger

Liz

Just par for the course, I'd say.

Chloe

Rusbridger's own daughter is spared a disciplining! I am stunned. Absolutely stunned.

How very Orwellian. 'Oink, oink' in the editor's office/farmhouse and let all the other animals on the payroll be disciplined as normal.

I know that paper is obsessed with you (Sarfraz Mansoor once conducted an interview with Mike Leigh in which - out of nowhere and with no prompting by Mike Leigh - decided to introduce your name and Richard Littlejohn's name) but this is just unbelievable.

I am loving Cif Watch!

I just can't get over this. Even on that wretched paper's own set-up there's one rule for some staff and one rule for the editor's daughter!

Just like all the advice its columnists dish out over state education when they either use private schools themselves or comprehensives in million-pound home post codes to make sure they don't get the state system everyone else has to suffer with.

Amazing.

EDDIE

The Guardian seems to be in its death throws and like a failed country, uses Jew hatred as a tool to gain support. Its only chance of survival is being bought up by some Middle Eastern entity or other and used to bolster propaganda initiatives and sewage.

workie ticket

I hope CiF Watch and others keep up the pressure on the sleazy evasive Rusbridger and his repellent family.

Unfortunately, I fear for good commercial reasons - there is a large 'right on' market for their effluent - I expect they will hunker down and hope it goes away.

Joshua

"the sleazy evasive Rusbridger"

To learn just how sleazy Rusbridger is, you should read this excellent piece by Tom Gross about an article Rusbridger wrote for the Spectator:

New Prejudices for Old

http://tinyurl.com/yc23eft

just Louise

Bella M. wrote of Melanie: "I imagine she’s like that character in Little Britain who is violently sick every time she hears the words ‘black or gay.’ Except for Melanie, the word would be ‘Muslim.’"

What nonsense. Melanie has always differentiated between Islamic extremists and Muslims in general.
Clearly, accuracy is not Bella's strong point. But as a journalist it should be.

However, if Alan Rusbridger still thinks there was a massacre in Jenin when there wasn't - "Israel's actions in Jenin were every bit as repellent as Osama Bin Laden's attack on New York on September 11" - she appears to take after her pater.

Merlyn

A certain JaneG on CiF asks 'wonder why our laws regarding racism and antisemitism are not brought into play.
Thanks to CiFWatch the Guardian and Comment is Free are being forced out of the closet and the full extent of their anti Israel bigotry, and now sadly their undeniable antisemitic slant are becoming known to us all.
With the 2008 report on antisemitism on the guardian, there is all the proof we need for a legal case, no?

Shim

It is good that spectator moderators
do not restrict comment on your siteblog as they do I'm other of
the spectator site blogs. Here we can say what think with no fear of moderation

Adam B.

Words to describe BellaM:

Unprofessional, inaccurate, hateful, ignorant, prejudiced.

Just the right person to act as "moderator" in the land of the Grauniad.

Bet she had trouble getting a job too. Straight out of University to a plum job - well, some people don't need to live in the real world - or use their wits to rise - just use Dad's connections. How fitting for a socialist - just like Dad's private education.

What a useless hypocritical bunch!

Augustus

Presumably CiF commenters are entitled to express their views.
But surely the Guardian also has a responsibility to avoid fanning the flames of extremism and hate? Such anti-Semitic statements are sickening, and can only be interpreted as an apology for terrorism and the mass murder of Jews. Whether or not the left in Britain and Europe is the root cause of the rise in anti-Semitism, its enthusiastic accomodation of radical Islam is clearly facilitating it.

KB

Two points. The Guardian is losing £100,000 per day. When this "government" finally leaves Downing Street all the public sector job ads that normally appear in the Graun will move on-line. That'll be another £10,000 per day.

And is it not strange that, after the best education that money can buy, Isabella Rusbridger's allusion was to a third-rate TV show?

Edward the Thirst

Shim

I've had five pints of Landlord. What's your excuse?

Herbert Thornton

We don't often get to experience the joys of schadenfreude but the possibility of the Guardian going down the tube certainly evokes it. And combined with the news that the Tories were only a handful of votes ahead of the BNP in Glasgow, it reminds me of the mood described by Harry Lauder singing "I belong to Glasgow."

KateA

Melanie - in the light of this hateful bigotry and having just read your article on George Eliot in the JC, I am happy to 'declare' myself a Christian Zionist!
http://www.thejc.com/comment/columnists/proper-jewish-pride-george

My love for Israel and the Jewish people has many strands - instinctive, historical, familial (my late father), introspective, intellectually rational (to me) and perhaps most rewarding, those Jewish friends and mentors who, over the years, contributed so potently to my perceptions of decency and human potential.

It is only in recent years, most specifically, during and since the Lebanese war that I find myself pilloried for a position that has always seemed to me, intrinsic and 'natural'.

"Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid". It is difficult in a busy life to be alert and take time to confront all the antisemetic/anti-Israel misinformation and Arab propaganda peddled by media liberal fascists like the Guardian but, know that there are some of us out there doing our best.

Warmest regards
Kate

Gareth

Superb expose!! I am sure nothing will be done at the Guardian by the apparatchiks who work there.
But to you the seething workers at the Guardian I say:
Suckers! Liars! fetch me a shovel, some people you know are damn devils. You're eating dirt from the Dachau graveyard and putting gravy on it. Go to hell.

Henry Sidgwick

The "spittle-flecked" (sic) thread was personal , puerile and pointless. How was it anti-Semitic? And why is Melanie Phillips so concerned with those who comment on blogs on CoF? The comments appear (ona brief sampling) to be devoid of serious content.

Michael Schneemann

The attacks on Melanie were indeed quite vicious on that thread and she has every reason to be outraged by Bella M's childish contribution. I'd seen her comments before on CiF and she's a rather annoying little chump.

At the same time, Melanie's dual obsession with Islamism and Israel are unhealthy.

Ya'akov Teitel's recent rampage and Rabbi Yitzak Shapiro's book prove that Judaism, as much as Islam, has theological strands that justify terrorism and the killing of innocents.

Melanie's recent 'moderate Muslim test' - which claims that support of Israel, and by extension Judaism, is the benchmark of moderation - is a piece of faulty reasoning. One can be a critic of Iran and Islamic theology without being extremist; were it otherwise, Melanie would be condemning herself as a bigot. The same is true of criticism of Israel and Judaism. Since theology has no empirical basis, one cannot criticise a religion on anything else than subjective normative grounds. As such, if Melanie claims the right to criticise Islam and Islamic states without granting the right to others to criticise Judaism and Israel, she effectively is stating that her subjective morality is universal and grounded in objective truth. This, in effect, states that Israel and Judaism are beyond challenge and debate (which is not a position held even in the most extreme Jewish quarters) and would claim extraordinary rights for Judaism and Israel that is granted to no other people or religion (PC notwithstanding).

This reflects the deep religiosity of Melanie's position; it is also ethnocentric and not particularly helpful in fostering constructive debate.

Melanie's upset at her treatment by the Guardian is very understandable. I, for one, would nonetheless like to see more balance and less polemic from an obviously very strong mind.

roger

Joshua: Thanks for the link to the article by Tom Gross. An excellent read.

Denis Cooper

@ Merlyn - "A certain JaneG on CiF asks 'wonder why our laws regarding racism and antisemitism are not brought into play.'"

A prime example of why those laws should never have been passed, and should be repealed.

Under common law it is always a crime to incite a crime, and that is enough; but "hatred" itself is not a crime, and should never be made a crime, and it should not be a crime to incite something which is not itself a crime.

The real purpose of these laws has always been political, the selective suppression of free speech, and they should be removed from the statute book.

allan pond

the Guardian well deserves its reputation as the Sun for the rocket eating classes

New Brunswick Barry

Off topic, but Herbert Thornton you can't be serious. Harry Lauder singing "I Belong To Glasgow"? I don't think so. Of all the hundreds of recordings Lauder made between 1902 and his last in 1933, "I Belong To Glasgow" was not one of them. That's Will Fyffe's song.

Tom Durkin

@ Michael Schneemann,

eloquently argued point - you should contribute more here!

less BNP support and generalization about Islam is needed or there might be a SpectatorWatch before you know it...

daniel maris

Jobs for the boys and girls: disadvantaged need not apply.

phil

KateA,lovely to see your name again,sad it is on this thread. .My cousin who was a journalist on the paper in the days it was the Manchester Guardian would turn in his grave if he knew the descent to which this paper has sunk . The editor should be ashamed of himself but no doubt he will not be .

Herbert Thornton

New Brunswick Barry -

Thank you for the correction.

It seems that the person responsible for the following website also has a faulty memory -

http://www.scotsin.com/index.php?option=com_seyret&task=videodirectlink&id=108

Andy Gill

Oh yes darling, Daddy is so proud of little Bella. She went on the Anti-Israel demonstration all by herself, and screamed so hard she had to spend the following day in bed, poor thing. When she told Daddy she said fuck to a policeman, he swelled with pride and gave her a job on Cif as a present.

Bella made an immediate impression with her clever comments, but now the awful Zionist lobby has spoiled the whole thing.

Daddy has been racking his poor brains for something else. He thinks she might do well as Head of Futures at Lefty, Grabbit & Greed. Anyway, he's going to arrange it in the next week or so. The bonus will come in handy, she wants to go to Gaza for Christmas, and designer hijabs are rather expensive...

Lizzy

I think that's a "Gotcha!" moment Melanie.

We are all enjoying it and I am sure you are too.

John Edwards

But perfectly all right for CIF Watch to label Anthony Lerman the Guardian's "House Jew" apparently

New Brunswick Barry

Herbert Thornton:

I checked the video link (for which I thank you), and you had me going there for a moment. It sure sounds like the immortal Sir Harry, but no, that's Will Fyffe all right. And to be sure, I checked against my copy of the recording Fyffe made in 1929 -- same one, comic commentary, hiccups and all.

Back on topic, I couldn't agree more about the odious Guardian. It's a shame to see a once-respected institution (like the BBC) going down the same path once taken by the likes of Julius Streicher. I shudder to think where it will end.

Roy

What a similarity to the BBC! This renowned institution must have an editor in chief with two dozen daughters in their employ.

Ilan in Oz

to: Michael Schneemann
You assert that Melanie's dual "obsessions" with islamism and Israel are unhealthy.
I just see this as a reasonable and healthy reaction to the left's extreme obsession with Israel.
They see no wrong with Islam, and Israel can do nothing right in their eyes. They follow the Palestinian narrative obsessively.
I don't see how an independent observer of the Arab / Israeli conflict would be so taken by the Palestinian narrative, and why of all the ongoing conflicts in the world, this one has such extreme focus, at the expense of many others which are at least as worthy.
If the Palestinians did not have such strong support of the left leaning public of the West they might actually have to face themselves and deal with the reality they find themselves in. They would actually be focused on building the institutions of the state in the same way that the Yishuv did under difficult circumstances pre-Israel's independence. Instead they are treated as children and are never at fault, by the likes of The Guardian. The Palestinians are guaranteed reflexive support by an array of Arab and 3rd world countries.
I see in Melanie's writings an attempt to correct this wrong and to show that there are other valid alterative narratives, which are at least as worthy of the one held monolithically by the left.
Any Jewish terrorist is dealt by law and not celebrated by Israeli's or Jewish people in general; this is not what happens on the other side. Islamic terrorists are far more numerous and more vocal in their assertions of justification of terrorism by their religion.
I don't see why Israel has to constantly defend her right to exist as a Jewish state, when no other country I know has to justify why it exists or how it defines itself religiously. Israel can be criticized, but it's right to self-determination cannot be. The Palestinians can have their state if they want to, but not at the expense of Israel.

just Louise

Excellent post, Ilan in Oz!

phil

Ilan in Oz
November 15th, 2009 11:32am The real loss for the Israeli point of view is in the media,it has been outflanked ever since the Lebanon incursions when shatila took place -The Arabs have made great capital of misfortunes and made Israel the baddies even when they have been the victims of terrorism and atrocities .Those like the Guardian and not forgetting the incredible fisk of the Independent have continually foisted lies and inventions on their readers ,people who in fact have little real care to enquire into the truth.They remind me of the knitting ladies of the French revolution .

The so called underdog is more popular than the real one .Israel were the worlds heroes in adversity but as soon as they were really able to fight from strength the media turned against them .Just remember Munich Olympics ,the sixty seven war and Entebbe ,oh what a fickle public ! and what a wicked media .
Just as an aside I am presently reading a fascinating book "winter in Madrid" by C J SANSOM it is about the Spanish civil war and a later period when Franco had won ,it shows what utter evil are both the left and the right ,at this moment in time it is the turn of the left ,and how well they prove Sansoms point .

Nordheim

Melanie, I don't think British Jews realize how much better the US is for the Jews compared to the UK. The basic underlying anti-Semitism in the UK hardly exists here, and where it does, it is not celebrated as a courageous stance. I say the British Jews need to quit being polite about the poisonous atmosphere they live in and strap on a pair.

Mr Melrose

Moderator - aparently you can say what you like on here without risk of censorship! so...

Michael Schneemann said -

This, in effect, states that Israel and Judaism are beyond challenge and debate (which is not a position held even in the most extreme Jewish quarters) and would claim extraordinary rights for Judaism and Israel that is granted to no other people or religion (PC notwithstanding).

I think you will find that this is the entire point of this blog.

(apart from the truly world class, ground breaking analysis of scientific matters, obviously)

Mr Melrose

PS Just had a look at Cif and it all seems very reasonable to me.

The Guardian is a very well written paper.

Carl

Re censorship, not quite Mr Melrose. You cannot state that Melanie is quite happy to publish comments from her supporters describing Muslims as "savages" and calling for nuclear attacks on Iran.

alanadale

To Ilan in Oz

I would just like to comment on the points you made:

You say: ‘I see in Melanie's writings an attempt to correct this wrong and to show that there are other valid alterative narratives, which are at least as worthy of the one held monolithically by the left.

But is Melanie’s narrative any more valid than the one held monolithically by the left? No. They are both invalid for the reasons Michael Schneemann enumerated. So you are starting from the wrong place. It’s not the Arabs that are refusing to settle; it’s the Israelis. The Arab League have formally and unanimously recognized Israel within the context of Resolution 242 which requires Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders in return for a comprehensive peace. It is Israel that refuses to settle borders.

You say. ‘Any Jewish terrorist is dealt by law’… a very partial and self serving law that sees settler terrorism rarely punished and then only lightly. The only Israeli terrorist to have been given a life sentence is Yigal Amir, Rabin’s assassin and there are calls to have his sentence commuted.

You say: ’Islamic terrorists are far more numerous and more vocal in their assertions of justification of terrorism by their religion’. Yes, because the disorganised, beaten down Palestinians have nothing else with which to defend their identity against the crushing superiority of arms (supplied and financed by the West) of their adversaries. Threatened people resort to terrorism if they have no other weapons to hand and rationalise their actions accordingly. Samson was the first suicide bomber. And there was a time before the creation of the Jewish state (the foundation of which put it at a huge advantage over the Palestinians in the prosecution of expansionist policies within the framework of ‘laws’ - just never ever define your borders..) when Jews resorted to terrorism with devastating efficiency to realise their objectives. The leaders of that ‘resistance’ became national leaders – as leaders of nationalist terrorist movements tend to do. It thus ill behoves Israel to cry ‘foul’ about terrorism when it was formed out terrorism.

The way the majority of these posts hide behind the cloak of anti Semitism avoid and honest debate is not only depressing it is disturbing.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

@Alanadale:

UN Res 242 has been interpreted in various ways and been shown to be legally contentious, to say the least.

There is an issue re the meaning of "withdrawal": does it mean from some territory or "all" territory conquered by Israel in the War, of of it's making.

There is also an issue re what constitutes the pre '67 "boarder"since, prior to the '67 war there were only 1949 Armistice lines - as such, clearly arbitrary and stated to be such by several high ranking politicians (see the British Ambassador to the UN in 1967's position on this stated by him in 1974).

The Arab League does not hold sway over either Fatah or Hamas - neither of whom currently recognise Israel's right to exist, let alone within pre '67 boarders.

Currently, there is no Palestinian leadership that will countenance anything but a protracted hudna, at best, whatever Israel concedes to. This declaration is in the public domain, but seems hardly noticeable in the public declarations re Peace by the Arabs. Why is this?

The Palestinian Arabs have been attacking Jewish settlements in Palestine since the 19th century. They have always objected - to a greater or lessor degree - to having Jews live in their midst, whether the land was purchased according to prevailing law or not. This may not have been an anti semitic position per se, but Pre 1948, it was an unequivocal anti-Jew position. There was, in palestine, no distinction made between Zionist and Jew.

The Palestinian Arab leadership in the 30's and 40's famously collaborated with the Nazis in the planning and executional stages of the Holocaust. Whilst I am by no means implying that all Arabs were Nazi sympathisers, this is a stain on the Palestinian Arab historical copy book which is crucially revealing, has far-reaching implications, and impossible to erase.

Pre Hitler's germany, it would churlish to ignore the influence of anti semitism on the development of the Zionist movement. Therefore, to have had one's leader side with the Nazi's and even been indicted for War Crimes as a result of his collaboration with the Nazis - in the context of the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews it would be hard to imagine this fact not to have engendered an almost unimaginable distrust of the Arabs by the Jews. To ignore this would make little sense if one wants to understand the makeup of the causes of this conflict.

The Jews made a substantive compromise - relative to what they had wanted - when they accepted Resolution 181 in November 1947.

All the Arab states and the Palestinian Arab leadership rejected the Resoltuion and promptly stepped up their attacks on Jews. The so-called civil war, which ensued after November 1947, became a formal war, when all the key Arab states attacked the newly declared state of Israel.

Israel almost suffered its own civil war when it reigned in the so called jewish "terrorists" - the irgun etc. Those "terroorists" subsequently joined the legal state system and took their place in the established democratic polity.

The post 1949 history of conflict in the region did nothing to make any Israeli/Jew feel confident that a durable peace was possible. The wars of '67 and '73 were not of their making.

The current Arab narrative designates Israel as the sole impediment to peace. However, when that narrative is challenged, it becomes clear that the Arab position is, at best, a basis for any putative peace Israel cannot trust. When you add Iran's position toward Israel and the that of its proxy in Lebanon - Hizbollah - to the pot, it is absurd to expect this state to be anything but hugely mistrustful of any Arab overture.

The delgitimisation of Israel based on the degree to which the US amy support it, is a red herring. It implies that the very fact of that support somehow automatically makes it wrong. This assertion merely causes more obfuscation re the the complexity of the conflict. One could say that the Arab Palestinian position is illegitimate because of it's support from Iran or because they enjoy the fruits of income from oil (indirectly). Are there any actors in the region who do not enjoy support from one source or another?

What really should be depressing and disturbing is the distortion of the intentions that really comprise and underscore the Palestinian Arab position towards Israel and the Jews. It may be that the Hamas membership, for example, actually is not anti semitic and would embrace Jews - if only they were not living in Palestine. Well, that may be (even if I wouldn't put money on it). In this context, however, it is enough to know that the likes of Hamas DOES want ALL Jews out of the region - not just mandated Palestine - or, at best, to live in Dhimmitude under a Moslem regime. This position may be the "right" one, of course. It may even be ordained by God. I cannot say. However, in terms of making peace possible, it sheds another light on the matter; and, clearly, represents a one way road to continued destitution and suffering for the Palestinian Arab.

Philo

I think it reasonable to ask about the tone in which these discussions are conducted. So I will ask again: Who said that debating Avi Shlaim was like being forced to talk to a paedophile (I quote Avi Shlaim)? And is this considered appropriate? More appropriate than the personal remarks passed on CiF?

alanadale

I’m sorry, John Roosevelt, you miss the point. The Arabs HAVE accepted the consensus interpretation of Resolution 242 that requires Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders with minor modifications. It is only Israel and a coterie of overwhelmingly Jewish jurists (some of whom have tarnished their reputations in the process) who hold to Israel’s interpretation of this key resolution. That said many Jewish jurists also hold to the consensus view as illustrated by the unanimous World Court ruling on the Wall that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands is illegal. The legal position is thus as clear as it is possible to be, as inscribed in scores of UN SC resolutions, the World Court ruling and most importantly the Fourth Geneva Convention to which Israel is a signatory. The acquisition of territory by war runs totally counter to the UN Charter.

I find your argument that the Palestinians did not welcome the Jewish takeover of their lands disingenuous. What people have ever welcomed colonisers with open arms? It is therefore natural that there should have been enmity (not the existential anti Semitism you conflate this enmity into) against the presence of the interloper.

Nevertheless Israel is a reality recognized now by ALL the Arab world and a 50 years hudna within the context of formal relations is certainly something constructive to work on. Opinion polls show a strong majority of Palestinians accept the Arab peace plan. Iran has agreed to comply with any decision the Palestinians might come to in a free and fair plebiscite and Hamas and Hizbollah (which is fighting for the eviction of Israel from ALL territories occupied in 1967) would comply too. If you are asking for warm as opposed to cold relations, that depends to a large extent but by no means exclusively on Israel’s actions. It is after all the country with the ability to dispose as opposed to propose change in the region. If it were to withdraw behind its 1967 borders that would indicate it has no designs on the lands it captured and would be transformative. But everything points to the contrary: locating the Wall on occupied land and the continued expropriations and settlement building in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

You write: ‘The delgitimisation of Israel based on the degree to which the US amy support it, is a red herring. It implies that the very fact of that support somehow automatically makes it wrong.’

That was not my point; my point was that Israel has imposed its position by force of arms. The force of arms do not ‘legitimise’ or ‘delegitimise’ its status. Its legitimacy or otherwise is a question for the UN and has been settled. What has been unacceptable is the way with the collusion of the US Israel has sought to deny the Palestinians their correlative legitimacy.

I don’t know what you mean by living in ‘Dhimmitude under a Moslem regime’ – is it any different from the dhimmitude Arabs now live under in Israel?

A propos the legitimacy or otherwise of Zionism it is a pity that the moderators in their wisdom have seen fit to shelve my post on Shlomo Sand’s new book ‘When and How the Jewish people were invented?’. It offers rich food for thought.

phil

alanadale
November 16th, 2009 9:50am -I see you are back to peddle your nonsense and always at the expense of Israel ,we never hear from you on other matters of great concern -you state ----"The way the majority of these posts hide behind the cloak of anti Semitism avoid and honest debate is not only depressing it is disturbing"----- well I for one will just stick to the facts and maybe you will digest them but I will not be holding my breath -again you state "The Arab League have formally and unanimously recognized Israel within the context of Resolution 242 which requires Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders in return for a comprehensive peace. It is Israel that refuses to settle borders"--- ,have you actually heard of hamas and hesbollah or even Iran ?,,of course you have and you know they do not recognise Israel nor refrain from attacking them ,so I will not call you anti-Semitic just a muck raker (I prefer another term but I am polite ).---Try your tales in Sherwood forest ,nobody here believes them .

phil

JOHN ROOSEVELT
November 16th, 2009 11:30am apologies -I replied to alandale before I read your excellent remarks which were far more comprehensive than mine -you were more tolerant too, but my excuse is that I have dealt with him before and wasted my time .The man has bought a one way ticket and has no intention of seeing the other side of the problem -sad for all .

JOHN ROOSEVELT

alanadale:

I think a reasonable first step would be to have negotiations and they wont happen till the Palestinian Arabs recognise Israel's right to exist as the Jewish national home. Whatever opinion you may have of Jewish jurists, this is something that is worth a bit of attention.

Nothing is possible without negotiations and , certainly, the outcome will require compromise on both sides.

Hard to conceive of international relations in which force of arms does not play a significant role. I do understand the horror of being on a so-called loosing side in a conflict, but the use of force and the relative balance of that cannot be wished away or made to seem only a tool of those who prevail in a conflict. It is certainly not the case in the Arab Israel conflict, as the Jews experienced when attacked by the Arab Legion soon after the passing if Resolution 181.

If Hamas and Fatah wont recognise the state of Israel we will all reap the whirlwind, I fear..and I am talking of Jews and Gentiles, Moslems and whoever else one may speak of...The stakes are now higher than ever. The Palestinian Arabs have miscalculated badly for decades. It is time for vision and courage..and the time for both sides in this horrific conflict to sit down and talk and start the process of healing wounds and building trust.

Enshalah!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Alendale: I would recommend you read "Semites and Anti Semites" by the great Arabist scholar, Bernard Lewis. His "Crisis of Islam" is also wonderfully informative.

There is no debate about the Arabs in general rejecting what the UN recognised as the legitimate state of Palestine. This was a monumental blunder by the Arabs and I think it clear they now would like to turn the clock back.

Unfortunately, the reality on the ground has changed since 1947. The bitterness and msitrust on both sides is also more profound than ever before. The perceived danger of Iran is perhaps greater than anytime in history because of its nuclear program. its sponsorhip of Hizbollah, Hamas and Syria; and its continued threats to wipe Israel and Zionists off the map. Again, I am not one to say if Israeli perceptions of their international political world is wrong or right, but certainly it would be foolish to ignore the likelhood that it is true - especially if one wants Israel to relax enough to give up land conquered in wars that may have meant its annihilation. If nothing else, this is just a question of common sense.

The hudna alluded to by Hamas spokespeople has actually been as little as a period of 10 years, depending who that spokesperson has been representing their position and, certainly, this position would have to change. israel surely will not enter into negotiations with any seriousness if those negotiations are predicated on the idea that no formal Peace Treaty is their ultimate aim. Why would Israel do that? Would you, in its place?

It seems that a major obstacle to any progress is that the Palestinian Arab leadership has handcuffed itself, so to speak: it has so radicalised its main constituency - for one reason or another - it has given itself no freedom of movement with regard to dealing with Israel. Whatever one may think of the Zionists, in terms of the prospects of getting any negotiations going with them, this is not a good position for the Palestinian Arab leadership to be in. The malaise is compounded by its realtionship with Iran and Syria and radical Moslem groups internationally. When one then adds its ongoing demonisation of the US to the hot pot, even an Obama is left little wriggle room - especially with such a politicians as Netanyahu. I think this game is high risk for the Arabs and should, in their own interest, change. I see no good coming from it, any way you care to view it.

The Wall, of course, is only of recent vintage.It would be absurd that israel chose to spend billions on it if it was merely to reinforce a future negotiating position and "grab" more land. If so, they surely would have built it sooner. This may not be sufficient justification for it in some eyes, but understanding the true motive for it may help in future negotiations and also help find the path to its future dismantling. The Israelis, I suspect, could live without the land it 'trespasses" on, and I am sure - one way or the other - if their was a genuine peace, over time that wall would come down. Unchecked suicde bombing would have to cease, of course, for this to happen.

I also think that the Hamas Charter and the prevailing radical Moslem position re reestablishing power over the original Moslem Empire fails imbues the jews with a sense of hope and confidence in future negotiations. Perhaps this is the biggest issue. The hams et al culture is fundamentally different from that of Israel and the West. This is, therefore, a story that concerns us on a global scale because the challenge of bridging the cultural divide now seems enormous. Peace with Israel has to be seen in this wider context. In any event, israel surely see it as such, as do all the major, secular Western powers.

Let's be clear: there will not be Peace... there cannot be peace...if your view of Jews in Zion persists and is shared by the non Israeli actors in this conflict. The reason is that if it does, it will continue to infect relations with the jews profoundly and cause them to maintain their "force of arms" and their "obstinacy" and continued strategic maneuverings. This would be less significant if this state was not so adept, at self preservation. I guess the history of the Jews could be a clue to the reason why: loosing 6 million of their number no more than a few score years ago, and having suffered centuries of persecution before that has caused in them a cultural sea change and their political organisational wherewithal has, finally, begun to reflect this sea change. Who knows for sure, but this seems to be the case.

Again, the world needs vision and courage to stop this crisis from becoming a threat to all of us on a scale the world has never seen before. I don't see that courage and vision anywhere on the horizon, yet, alas..Do you?

alanadale

Thank you John Roosevelt for your considered and courteous reply – in contrast to Phil’s predictable rant. It speaks volumes for the bias of this blog that Zionists are allowed to indulge their penchant for ad hominem personal attacks unchecked while the opposition is censored. It rather undercuts the impression of injured innocence the blog is supposed to convey in the face of the Guardian’s ‘foam flecked’, vicious and personalised anti Semitism.

Picking up on different points:

You say we will all reap the whirlwind if Hamas and Fatah refuse to recognise Israel. But the US went for decades without recognising Communist China and the heavens didn’t fall in. Recognition of Israel as the Jewish national home or otherwise is only worth the paper it is written on; what matters are the relations between states. Recognition is a desirable but not a necessary condition to coexistence.

Going back to 1948 it simply isn’t an argument to say that Israel was offering the hand of peace and it was the Arabs who rejected it. Both sides knew that their positions were mutually exclusive. It is therefore disingenuous to paint the Jews as the victims of an unprovoked Arab Legion attack after the passing of Resolution 181. The Zionists only accepted it because they calculated correctly the Arabs would reject it, which was to be expected given how scandalously loaded against them it was. The Haganah had been casing the Arab villages they intended to take over for months beforehand so that when they did move they knew exactly who to take out and where they lived etc.

It is generally overlooked in the decade after independence that Israel - because it held the upper hand - could have started the process of reconciliation if it had been so minded and not bent on expansion. Instead thousands of Palestinians were murdered in what can only be called border clearances. You should refresh your memory about Qibya and Kafr Qasim. Kafr Qasim was as bad as anything the Nazis did and the most scandalous thing about it was the Israeli judiciary’s complicity in allowing it to go unpunished. These were by no means the only atrocities perpetrated at the time.

The Israelis have behaved no differently with the Palestinians than the American settlers did with the American Indians a century earlier – which is why certain Americans have such a visceral identity with Israel. But unlike the taking of the West the Israelis can not physically eliminate the Palestinians.

You write ‘The Palestinian Arabs have miscalculated badly for decades.’ How so - unless you mean in pursuing the Oslo Peace Process. Surely it was Clinton who badly miscalculated and indeed admitted so when he said he had no idea the Palestinians were so attached to the land. He thought and the Israelis assumed that the Palestinians would be prepared to barter bits of the occupied territories for a peace deal. It’s a miscalculation Israel and the West haven’t yet fully grasped. Resolution 242 is the extent of the Arab compromise and in their eyes it is a whopping one. Resolution 242 is the deal.

Now you can say Israel holds the real estate by force of arms and therefore it is for the Arabs to sue for peace. But that is untenable in the longer term because the Arabs are so numerically greater and the occupation of a whole people brutalises and corrupts the occupier - which is what is happening to Israel right now. Israel should accept the Arab Peace deal; it won’t be on the table indefinitely and time is not on Israel’s side.

alanadale

With respect John Roosevelt your assertion that ‘The perceived danger of Iran is perhaps greater than anytime in history because of its nuclear program. its sponsorhip of Hizbollah, Hamas and Syria; and its continued threats to wipe Israel and Zionists off the map.’ Iran is not going to use the bomb any more than Israel is going to use the bomb. The only difference Iran having the bomb will make is that Israel will no longer have complete hegemony over the region; it will have to take other interests into consideration.

The only sense that Israel will be ’annihilated’ is that Israelis will started emigrating in greater numbers than they are beginning to do thus making the state unviable. All the more reason I would have though for reaching a deal because basing your security on having complete hegemony over your neighbours is not a long term solution.

Of course the hudna will have to be for a realistic period and Israel should have all safeguards to retaliate should agreements be abrogated. As to the extreme elements in Islam, they are dangerous and I don’t belittle the menace but there are equally religious fanatics of the Christian and Jewish persuasion who are arguably as dangerous because they have their hands on the levers of power, certainly in Israel.

The Arab leadership is ‘handcuffed’ to its radicalised constituency because the Israelis keep on stealing Palestinian lands and imposing an oppressive occupation.

I’m puzzled by your remark: ‘Let's be clear: there will not be Peace... there cannot be peace...if your view of Jews in Zion persists and is shared by the non Israeli actors in this conflict.’

What is my view of Jews in Zion? Perhaps you could let me know what you think it is so that I can respond because I genuinely don’t know what you are trying to say. I personally don’t think my views are particularly relevant. I might think the formation of Israel unjust but it is there, an established fact of life and you have to move on.

Finally if you base your view of the Arab world on that of the ‘great Arabist’ Bernard Lewis you will be led up the garden path. He is anti Semitic in the Arab sense of the word.

phil

alandale ---"Thank you John Roosevelt for your considered and courteous reply – in contrast to Phil’s predictable rant. It speaks volumes for the bias of this blog that Zionists are allowed to indulge their penchant for ad hominem personal attacks unchecked while the opposition is censored"----------------

-This childish version of good cop bad cop will get you nowhere -my "rant" was stating facts and asking questions ,and you cannot answer them and never have ..For my part please feel free to insult me ,I am not the censor here ,but please be good enough to provide answers rather than tears .John R is more than a match for you and far better read than me .I think I just get to the bottom of your pit a little quicker and I have known you longer have I not ?--When if ever you say one decent word about Israel or the Jewish people I will give your words some weight/meanwhile I will await JOHN R becoming as bored with you as I am -now alandale that is a rant !!

Paul G

On the Guardian thread I noted the curious fact that although the Quilliam foundation, the bogus institute that Husain runs, receives vast sums of public money, supposedly to combat Islamic extremism, he actually seems to spend most of his time attacking opponents of Islamic extremism, like Melanie Phillips, Douglas Murray and the BNP.

Of course this comment was deleted, although it was moderate in tone and both reasonable and inoffensive in content.

I formerly regarded The Guardian as my "intellectual home" newspaper, so to speak. However, the experience of the censorship practised on its website, particularly with regard to Islam, has led me first to become disenchanted with it and now to actively despise it.

I still regard myself as being of the left. I simply reject the intellectual error that the European left has made, which is to convince itself that it is somehow an act of tolerance to welcome agents of the fiercest intolerance in the world today into our midst. The authentic response of the European left should be to unequivocally reject these theocratic pretensions and to recognise that Islamic immigration and demographic expansion poses a mortal threat to our entire way of life, probably the gravest threat we have ever faced.

alanadale

Phil. There we go again. Perhaps if you provided me with some questions to answer - per John R - we might be able to have a civil conversation.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

@Alanadale:

Alendale:

There is no dispute re the fundamental hatred the Palestinian Arabs have for the Jews in Palestine. However, over 100 years of conflict has yielded injustices on both the Arab and Israeli sides. Most families have been touched by tragedy and, often, generations of it.. It has caused a depth of mutual mistrust and sense of outrage which only underscores the challenge of reconciliation.

Nevertheless, there has been a time - not too long ago - when there was no wall - and negotiations were very close to coming to fruition. It would be obtuse to discount the degree of progress previously made in negotiations. Indeed, compared to the current situation, that progress now seems what only dreams are made of…

…and it comes as no surprise, therefore, that you insist that Resolution 242 should be the basis of the current negotiations. That may indeed be feasible, but it would require some clarification before there can be forward movement. Look at the current Arab preconditions for kick starting talks again, and you will see what I mean (and have alluded to this in my previous post/s).

It is clear the Arabs want more of their “end game” as a necessary basis for resuming talks. Starting talks in order to try and then move towards that end game does not seem to be what they will concede. It is a pity, and hard not to read into this position the kind of agenda which would belie your calls for a genuine Resolution 242-type settlement…..at least, this would likely be, as you can imagine, how the Israeli side might read it. The notion that this would only bring a hudna and no final settlement supports this point further.

The past relative success of negotiations and lack of Wall came about as result of several reasons: partly because of the particular constellation of international forces at play at the time; partly because of the vision and courage of certain individuals; partly because the Palestinian Arab leadership was not in the shape it is today; partly because many Arabs lived side-by-side with Israelis, with full political and religious rights, with little rancour. The point is, that we know it happened, despite the accusations often made re Israel's hegemonic aspirations in the entire region. This is heartening and should help dispel the absolute conviction that all Israel wants to do is rule the Arab (not to mention Persian) world in general, and the Palestinian Arabs, in particular.

Any society, especially a democratic one like Israel, will often manifest countervailing domestic opinion. That should not mean the prevailing thrust of policy cannot be construed as being in a particular direction. Seen this light, in the past, it is clear how Israeli policy has been far closer to the peace end of the spectrum than it is today. Peace does seem possible, therefore, whatever you think of the Israelis…and it is not merely because one might feel that the balance of might is not in their favour. Culture, ethics, aspirations and dreams – all to do with a kinder future to all concerned does - have a lot to do with it.

There have always been radical Zionists, but here have also been many significant forces amongst the Jews of great toleration. This is, in fact, a hallmark of Judaism and perhaps the single most important influence on Zionism has been socialism and humanitarianism. These unassailable facts are absent from the Arab narrative of the Jews in Palestine and elsewhere. On the contrary, Jews and Israel have often been assimilated with the Nazis and the Afrikaaner regime, for example. Theories of Jewish world domination; Jews as the cause of the scouges of capiltalism and communism and so on, are familiar in the Arab anti Israel litany. Today, it is almost unimaginable to accept a picture of Jews and Israelis that is anything but en par with the very worst murderers and evil Empire builders that ever existed. All massacres are of the same ilk – whether 100 are killed or 6 million. Moreover, the Jews are caricatured as being the sole perpetrators of any ill one may identify in the region. Nothing seems comparable to their venality and hunger for killing innocents. This obscurantism and rewriting of history, however, has only fomented Arab hatred of Jew and made the path to Peace that much more difficult. It is an appalling perpetration of falsehood and the more it continues, the harder the achievement of any peace will be.

In additon, Anti Zionism and anti semitism, however one would like to distinguish between them, have always been close bedfellows in the Arab world. There is alot of Arabic literature, historically, which testifies to this. There is very little, if any, evidence of a similar body of literature vis a vis Arabs - on the Israeli side. Anti semitism - Jew hatred,as opposed to hatred of those, only, who support the existence of the State of Israel – again, makes the task of peace more difficult. It does the peace process no favours if those classed as Zionist, but are nevertheless critics of Israeli policies, are conflated with the so-called Israeli Right Wing. To date, there's been too much tarring of all Israelis with the same brush by the Arabs. This aspect of the Arab propaganda has caused perceptions amongst Israelis which are hard to dispel and surely only increase the insecurities and mistrust of potential Israeli negotiators and voters.

The political ethos of 1947 in the Middle East was different in significant ways to that of today. Nationalism, and the particular form it took then, was quite young/ "new" in the region, especially amongst the Arabs. How the Palestinian Arabs viewed the recently created Transjordan, for example, highlighted the degree to which the notion of "Palestinian" was not free of conflict, Jew or no Jew, and the expectations of the Mandatory Power by the Arabs was certainly informed by this significant fact, amongst others. The Jewish perception of what constituted justice in terms of putative state boarders, was also coloured by this fact.

There is absolutely no comparison by the influence of religious fundamentalism in Israel and Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran etc. None whatsoever. These Arab and persian players want or already have an Islamic State. Israel is a secular state. For Hamas et al, this fact makes political compromise very difficult. Perhaps there can be deradicalisation of the thinking but it looks very unlikely. What is happening in Iran, now, with the opposition movement growing apace, reinforces this view.
The current Iranian nuclear program and the stand off, in the past, between nuclear powers is not directly comparable. What the West fears, above all, is what may happen to nuclear weaponisation technology in an age of war informed by radical Islam. There are too many radical groups, these days, to count. Asymmetric conflict has become the order of the day. It is not simply a case of a standoff between states. International Relations has become very much more complex and unpredictable, since the Cuban missile crisis, for example. To dismiss Western fears of an Iran - with a leader who can publically call for the elimination of an internationally/UN recognized state on the one hand, and cite UN resolutions on the other to underpin those calls for destruction of that same recognized – would require a blindness to international political reality second to none. It’s a different game, now, with different rules. Proliferation of nuclear weapons is not one of those rules Israel or the West are likely to accept – under any circumstances. To think otherwise is a dangerous poker game indeed.
Didn’t get your remark about Bernard Lewis at all, but I still recommend his very serious and authoritative work.

phil

alandale nov 16 at 2.42-its not complicated and is easy to answer but you never do ,why JR is so civil to you is amazing to me ,he is obviously intelligent and surely can see what you are doing -he will tire of it eventually but I will never let you have a free hand to insult us .

alanadale

John Roosevelt. May I respond to your long post.

You write: ‘There is no dispute re the fundamental hatred the Palestinian Arabs have for the Jews in Palestine.’

Yes. But not because they are Jews but because they were and are occupiers who stole their land and because of the vile campaign of character assassination that has attended their trying to regain them.

You write: ‘Nevertheless, there has been a time when there was no wall - and negotiations were very close to coming to fruition. It would be obtuse to discount the degree of progress previously made in negotiations.’

You have a point; the negotiations did come close to closing the gap but they missed the fundamental issue from the Palestinian perspective that the ’67 borders are the bottom line while from the Israeli perspective they were the starting point. The whole Oslo process was a cynical charade that mightily benefited the Israelis without having to give anything in return. Barak might have offered 95% of the occupied territories but he was in no position to deliver on them; Israel was and is still not psychologically adjusted to accept giving back so much land. From Arafat’s perspective the absolute minimum he could sell his constituency was the implementation of the consensus view of 242. The whole thing fell apart then you had Sharon’s criminal march on the Holy Mount. The rest is history.

By way of illustrating how this endless negotiating pantomime – as is incidentally the Quartet’s peace efforts (Oslo Mark 2) - benefits Israel but not the Palestinians I’d just quote a recent FT leader:

‘In 1992-96, at the height of the peace process, Israel reaped a peace dividend without concluding a peace. Diplomatic recognition of Israel doubled, from 85 to 161 countries, exports doubled and foreign investment increased sixfold. Per capita income in the occupied territories fell in the same period by more than a third, while the number of settlers expanded by half.’

There you have it in a nutshell why the Arabs have ‘dun open ended negotiating.’

You write: ‘The point is, that we know it happened, despite the accusations often made re Israel's hegemonic aspirations in the entire region. This is heartening and should help dispel the absolute conviction that all Israel wants to do is rule the Arab (not to mention Persian) world in general, and the Palestinian Arabs, in particular. ‘

The point is taken. But why shouldn’t it equally apply the other way round. The enmity has to be exorcised which could be initiated with small confidence building steps. But what has been lacking thus far is the right framework and that has to be Resolution 242 and all its implications.

You write: ‘but here have also been many significant forces amongst the Jews of great toleration’.

True. They just haven’t manifested themselves in Zionism.
You write: ‘Theories of Jewish world domination; Jews as the cause of the scouges of capiltalism and communism and so on, are familiar in the Arab anti Israel litany.’

Not just Arab anti Israel litany. I don’t know whether you saw last night’s Despatches programme on the Israeli lobby. Peter Oborne said of the Tory Jewish nexus. ‘You couldn’t say it is a conspiracy’, but tea parties would be arranged with Jewish businessmen and if the conversation went well a £15,000 cheque would be in the next day’s post and if not nothing. Only such a Pavlovian response could explain the Tories’ craven call for major amendments to the ‘balance’ of the Goldstone report on Gaza and the fact that 80% of the Tory candidates for the next election are signed into the JIC. Money talks, especially money spent judiciously. Now I don’t blame the Zionists for milking the system; the financing of our politics should be removed from utterly corrupting lobby system. Period.

To equate anti Zionism with anti Semitism is patent nonsense because there are many, many Jews who are appalled by what is being done in their name by Israel.

You write. ‘There is alot of Arabic literature, historically, which testifies to [anti Semitism]’. Perhaps you are mindful of Bernard Lewis’s ‘serious and authoritative work’ on the matter. Quoting Bernard Lewis on Arab anti Semitism is a bit like quoting David Irving on the Holocaust. But even had to admit in analysing an ancient anti-Semitic poem of Abu Ishaq, written in Granada in 1066 that: “Diatribes such as Abu Ishaq's and massacres such as that in Granada in 1066 are of rare occurrence in Islamic history."

The fact is that allowing for the times the Jews fared infinitely better under the Arabs than they did under the Christians.

You write: ‘The Jewish perception of what constituted justice in terms of putative state boarders, was also coloured by this fact.’

Fair enough, events have to be evaluated in their contemporary context and Israel is by no means the only colonial enterprise in history even if it did have a religious/cultural dimension that clearly the settlers of Rhodesia and Kenya didn’t have. But what about the Boers of South Africa???

That is why Resolution 242 is seen as an historic compromise – 78% of the land to the Jews though they made up less than half the population at independence was a pretty good deal – even if they had to accommodate 2m ‘sitting tenants’. But of course it was never the intention of the Zionist pioneers to stop at 78%. And read your Dayan to discover how the Israeli leadership up to 1967 did everything they could to stir up border incidents to encourage ‘border creep’.

I’ve no time to go into the merits or otherwise of Islamic fundamentalism/extremism versus the Jewish equivalent but would be happy to do so at a later date. Suffice it to say there is a problem. The best way to deal with Iran’s nuclear aspirations is for Israel to agree to partake in a complete denuclearisation of the Middle East. Such an offer would take the wind from their sails – and I am sure they would accept it.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

alandale: a quick repsonse to your post (my replies to each of your points in caps):

John Roosevelt. May I respond to your long post.
You write: ‘There is no dispute re the fundamental hatred the Palestinian Arabs have for the Jews in Palestine.’
Yes. But not because they are Jews but because they were and are occupiers who stole their land and because of the vile campaign of character assassination that has attended their trying to regain them.
I PRESUME, WHEN YOU REFER TO “STEALING” OF LAND AND “ILLEGAL” OCCUPATION, YOU ARE APPLYING NO DATE/TIME FRAME TO YOUR PROPOSTION. ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS WOULD REQUIRE NOT ONLY AND EXAMINATION OF ALL DEEDS AND ACTIONS PERTAINING TO LAND PURCHASE – OVER AT LEAST 100 YEARS - BUT ALSO WOULD REQUIRE CLARIFICATION RE THE CRITERIA UPON WHICH ANY NOTION YOU IMPLY OF "JUST PURCHASE" . CLEARLY THIS WOULD BE A VERY LONG AND TORTUOUS PROCESS WHICH WE CANNOT EXPECT TO BROACH WITH MUCH SUCCESS HERE.

SUFFICE TO SAY THAT EVEN THE ISRAELI CONSENSUS SEEMS TO BE THAT THE PALEASTINIAN ARABS SHOULD HAVE THEIR OWN STATE AND, ALMOST CERTAINLY, SIGNIFICANT REPARATIONS BE PAID TO REFUGEES ETC.
You write: ‘Nevertheless, there has been a time when there was no wall - and negotiations were very close to coming to fruition. It would be obtuse to discount the degree of progress previously made in negotiations.’
You have a point; the negotiations did come close to closing the gap but they missed the fundamental issue from the Palestinian perspective that the ’67 borders are the bottom line while from the Israeli perspective they were the starting point. The whole Oslo process was a cynical charade that mightily benefited the Israelis without having to give anything in return. Barak might have offered 95% of the occupied territories but he was in no position to deliver on them; Israel was and is still not psychologically adjusted to accept giving back so much land. From Arafat’s perspective the absolute minimum he could sell his constituency was the implementation of the consensus view of 242. The whole thing fell apart then you had Sharon’s criminal march on the Holy Mount. The rest is history.

I AM NOT SURE THAT YOUR TAKE ON OSLO IS CORRECT BUT I WONT ARGUE IT HERE. I BELIEVE THAT SOME DEGREE OF COMPROMISE OVER THE GEOGRAPHICAL STAUS QUO ANTE '67 IS THE CURRENT MINDSET OF ISRAELI NEGOTIATORS AND THIS COULD BE SOLD TO THE VOTERS. THE MAIN STICKING POINTS, AS ALWAYS, WILL BE JERUSALEM AND THE RETURN OF REFUGEES. THIS HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE ARAFAT PULLED THE PLUG ON OSLO. IT MAY CAUSE FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS TO BE STILL BORN. MY GUESS IS THAT THE SETTLEMENT ISSUE, APART FROM JERUSALEM ,IS A BIT OF A RED HERRING.
By way of illustrating how this endless negotiating pantomime – as is incidentally the Quartet’s peace efforts (Oslo Mark 2) - benefits Israel but not the Palestinians I’d just quote a recent FT leader:
‘In 1992-96, at the height of the peace process, Israel reaped a peace dividend without concluding a peace. Diplomatic recognition of Israel doubled, from 85 to 161 countries, exports doubled and foreign investment increased sixfold. Per capita income in the occupied territories fell in the same period by more than a third, while the number of settlers expanded by half.’
There you have it in a nutshell why the Arabs have ‘dun open ended negotiating.’
ISRAEL IS A STURDY OPPONENT, FOR SURE, BUT I NEVERTHELESS FEEL NON NEGOTIATION IS THE WORSE OPTION FOR ALL PARTIES. RIGHT NOW ISRAEL LOOKS LIKE IT IS BEING PUSHED BACK TO THE MILITARY OPTION. I’M NOT CONVINCED THEY WILL BLINK FIRST.

You write: ‘The point is, that we know it happened, despite the accusations often made re Israel's hegemonic aspirations in the entire region. This is heartening and should help dispel the absolute conviction that all Israel wants to do is rule the Arab (not to mention Persian) world in general, and the Palestinian Arabs, in particular. ‘
The point is taken. But why shouldn’t it equally apply the other way round. The enmity has to be exorcised which could be initiated with small confidence building steps. But what has been lacking thus far is the right framework and that has to be Resolution 242 and all its implications.
IT WONT BE, IN MY VIEW.
You write: ‘but here have also been many significant forces amongst the Jews of great toleration’.
True. They just haven’t manifested themselves in Zionism.
You write: ‘Theories of Jewish world domination; Jews as the cause of the scouges of capiltalism and communism and so on, are familiar in the Arab anti Israel litany.’
Not just Arab anti Israel litany. I don’t know whether you saw last night’s Despatches programme on the Israeli lobby. Peter Oborne said of the Tory Jewish nexus. ‘You couldn’t say it is a conspiracy’, but tea parties would be arranged with Jewish businessmen and if the conversation went well a £15,000 cheque would be in the next day’s post and if not nothing. Only such a Pavlovian response could explain the Tories’ craven call for major amendments to the ‘balance’ of the Goldstone report on Gaza and the fact that 80% of the Tory candidates for the next election are signed into the JIC. Money talks, especially money spent judiciously. Now I don’t blame the Zionists for milking the system; the financing of our politics should be removed from utterly corrupting lobby system. Period.
DON’T GET YOUR POINT HERE. I THOUGHT THE PROGRAM SAID LITLE WE DIDN’T KNOW ALREADY AND LITTLE WHICH DISTINGUISHES PRO ISRAEL LOBBIES FROM ANY OTHERS.THE TONE WAS VERY GRAVE – LIKE MOSES AND THE BURNING BUSH – BUT THE CONTENT THIN. WOULD HAVE BEEN INTERESTING AND LESS INSIDIOUS IF IT COMAPRED PRO ISRAEL WITH OTHER LOBBIES AND WHAT MAKES THE JEWISH ONES MORE SINISTER.
To equate anti Zionism with anti Semitism is patent nonsense because there are many, many Jews who are appalled by what is being done in their name by Israel.
I AM MERELY SAYING THAT THESE TWO “ANTIS” HAVE BEEN VERY CLOSE BEDFELLOWS IN ARAB HISTORY OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS OR SO. MANY ARABS HAVE RAILED AGAINST JEWS PER SE BECAUSE THEY EQUATE JUDAISM WITH ZIONISM AND IT HAS SERVED THEIR PROPAGANDA AGINST ISRAEL. ALSO, MANY ARABS HAVE OFTEN DEEMED ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS THE LEGITIMACY OF ISRAEL AS A STATE, BUT CRITICISES ISRAEL, THE SAME AS ANYONE WHO BLINDLY SUPPORTS ISRAEL. THERE MAY BE JEWS WHO DONT WANT TO ISRAEL TO EXIST. THEY MAY WANT TO BE SAVED BECAUSE OF THE FACT - IF THERE IS ANOTHER PROGROM OR HOLOCAUST. IF I WERE A BETTING MAN I WOULD ADVISE THEM TO THINK HARD RE THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH SALVATION.

You write. ‘There is alot of Arabic literature, historically, which testifies to [anti Semitism]’. Perhaps you are mindful of Bernard Lewis’s ‘serious and authoritative work’ on the matter. Quoting Bernard Lewis on Arab anti Semitism is a bit like quoting David Irving on the Holocaust. But even had to admit in analysing an ancient anti-Semitic poem of Abu Ishaq, written in Granada in 1066 that: “Diatribes such as Abu Ishaq's and massacres such as that in Granada in 1066 are of rare occurrence in Islamic history."
I DID NOT QUOTE BERNARD LEWIS. I WAS MERELY STATING A FACT. I MENTION LEWIS BECAUSE I THOUGHT HIS BALANCED AND SCHOLARLY APPROACH TO THE SUBJECT MIGHT APPEAL TO YOU. YOUR QUOTE FROM LEWIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINT I HAVE MADE RE ARAB ANTI SEMITISM, NOR THE MYRIAD POINTS HE MAKES IN HIS WRITINGS ABOUT SAME. READ MORE…
The fact is that allowing for the times the Jews fared infinitely better under the Arabs than they did under the Christians.
You write: ‘The Jewish perception of what constituted justice in terms of putative state boarders, was also coloured by this fact.’
Fair enough, events have to be evaluated in their contemporary context and Israel is by no means the only colonial enterprise in history even if it did have a religious/cultural dimension that clearly the settlers of Rhodesia and Kenya didn’t have. But what about the Boers of South Africa???

WHAT ABOUT THE ARABS? ISLAM AND CONQUEST ARE NOT STRANGERS, I SUSPECT.
That is why Resolution 242 is seen as an historic compromise – 78% of the land to the Jews though they made up less than half the population at independence was a pretty good deal – even if they had to accommodate 2m ‘sitting tenants’. But of course it was never the intention of the Zionist pioneers to stop at 78%. And read your Dayan to discover how the Israeli leadership up to 1967 did everything they could to stir up border incidents to encourage ‘border creep’.
I DON’T THINK THIS IS TRUE WHEN YOU FACTOR IN THE LAND THE HASEMITES WERE GIVEN. IF THIS WAS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT, THE PERCENTAGES MAY HAVE A LOOKED DIFFERENT..AND THERE ARE VERY STRONG ARGUMENTS TO SAY THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE. ARAFAT SEEMS TO HAVE THOUGHT SO. DOES HAMAS? I AM PRETTY SURE ABDULLAH IS NOT FREE FROM ANXIETY WHEN IT COMES TO HIS COUNTRY'S HISTORY AND THE POSITION OF THE PALESTINIAN ARABS.
I’ve no time to go into the merits or otherwise of Islamic fundamentalism/extremism versus the Jewish equivalent but would be happy to do so at a later date. Suffice it to say there is a problem. The best way to deal with Iran’s nuclear aspirations is for Israel to agree to partake in a complete denuclearisation of the Middle East. Such an offer would take the wind from their sails – and I am sure they would accept it.
PERHAPS, BUT WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN THE REAL WORLD. SIMPLE.

:

alanadale

In reply to John Roosevelt who says:

I PRESUME, WHEN YOU REFER TO “STEALING” OF LAND AND “ILLEGAL” OCCUPATION, YOU ARE APPLYING NO DATE/TIME FRAME TO YOUR PROPOSTION. ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS WOULD REQUIRE NOT ONLY AND EXAMINATION OF ALL DEEDS AND ACTIONS PERTAINING TO LAND PURCHASE….CLEARLY THIS WOULD BE A VERY LONG AND TORTUOUS PROCESS..

Precisely the point - which is why Resolution 242 has been deemed the best solution to settling two competing claims and why it has become the timeline for questions of legality and illegality of land claims.

SUFFICE TO SAY THAT EVEN THE ISRAELI CONSENSUS SEEMS TO BE THAT THE PALEASTINIAN ARABS SHOULD HAVE THEIR OWN STATE AND, ALMOST CERTAINLY, SIGNIFICANT REPARATIONS BE PAID TO REFUGEES ETC

If this be the case and the Israeli government is not expansionist and really wants peace why has it just sanctioned the building of thousands more dwellings in East Jerusalem? Why does not Israel at least sign up to the PRINCIPLE of withdrawal to its 1967 borders to be implemented if necessary over many years?

I AM NOT SURE THAT YOUR TAKE ON OSLO IS CORRECT BUT I WONT ARGUE IT HERE. I BELIEVE THAT SOME DEGREE OF COMPROMISE OVER THE GEOGRAPHICAL STAUS QUO ANTE '67 IS THE CURRENT MINDSET OF ISRAELI NEGOTIATORS AND THIS COULD BE SOLD TO THE VOTERS. THE MAIN STICKING POINTS, AS ALWAYS, WILL BE JERUSALEM AND THE RETURN OF REFUGEES.

The Arab Peace plan has conceded the point that the Right of Return should be a symbolic gesture; it is a very bitter pill for the Palestinians to swallow but it has been conceded.

I NEVERTHELESS FEEL NON NEGOTIATION IS THE WORSE OPTION FOR ALL PARTIES. RIGHT NOW

But negotiations as I have pointed out obfuscate the issue and create the false impression that Israel has something to negotiate about when it does not. Oslo could have only worked and any future process can only work if negotiations are confined to the implementation of 242 and not to its substance.
Israel should be faced down and made to accept the principle of the consensus version of Resolution 242.

I THOUGHT THE [DESPATCHES] PROGRAM SAID LITLE WE DIDN’T KNOW ALREADY AND LITTLE WHICH DISTINGUISHES PRO ISRAEL LOBBIES FROM ANY OTHERS.

I must say I don’t share your sanguinity regarding the revelation that a foreign power can so blatantly influence our lawmakers in the formulation of foreign policy in such a crucial area of the world as the Middle East. Can you imagine the furore if the leader of an opposition party repaired to the Dorchester for tea with a couple of Middle Eastern sheikhs and it transpired £15,0000 checks changed hands depending on whether the politicians came up with the goodies? The most shocking aspect of it was its brazenness and the fact that because these were informal approaches, they did not have to be declared. One participant in the programme said no other lobby group in Westminster came close to operating like the Israel lobby and one Tory MP who had dared Oborne to make the programme didn’t have the bottle to appear on it for fear it might damage his prospects. Would you describe a backlash to such a blatant interference in the country’s foreign policy making as anti Semitism?

I AM MERELY SAYING THAT THESE TWO “ANTIS” HAVE BEEN VERY CLOSE BEDFELLOWS IN ARAB HISTORY OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS OR SO

This is a fair point. But isn’t it just the way humans rationalise viz the propaganda against the Huns in England during World II.

My central point about Arab anti Semitism if that is what it should be rightly called is that it is qualitatively different from Christian anti Semitism. For instance there have not been the pogroms (or very few) that define Western anti Semitism. There was no theological prejudice to the Jews as there was to the kafirs for instance despite a few disparaging references to them in the Koran. But there again there are some pretty disparaging references to the Canaanites in the Old Testament. You have to judge these issues within the context of the time and whatever the theology may or may not have said there was a positive interaction between Judaism and Islam which was not replicated in Judaism and Christianity.

Rather the prejudice (racism?) against Jews is that of the top group against the underlings: the British against their subject peoples, for instance, or the Jews against their minority Palestinian population. I have some choice quotes from Israeli politicians often made under parliamentary privilege which would not look out of place in a National Front lexicon. Isn’t it about time the Jews in the words of the Chief Rabbi stepped out from behind the manufactured cloak of victimhood which has been used so effectively to bash the Palestinians? It makes the Israelis look like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

I DON’T THINK THIS IS TRUE WHEN YOU FACTOR IN THE LAND THE HASEMITES WERE GIVEN. IF THIS WAS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT, THE PERCENTAGES MAY HAVE A LOOKED DIFFERENT

This is a complete red herring. The Jews had no interest in the Hashemite kingdom, nor did the Palestinians who were an agrarian society working the land the Jews coveted. It is not an argument for instance in a competition for real estate to tell the inhabitants of Mayfair and Park Lane that in a grand reallocation of London property they’ve got Whitechapel and Old Kent Road and it’s just as good.

WHAT ABOUT THE ARABS? ISLAM AND CONQUEST ARE NOT STRANGERS, I SUSPECT.

Of course you are correct, territorial expansion is part of the human condition or rather its primitive form. But post World War II we have hopefully as human beings moved on. The creation of Israel out of the tragedy of the Holocaust was an aberration to the principle of the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war, a throwback to the old order. But equally tragically the Zionists simply haven’t accepted that with Resolution 242 the music stopped; they have unfinished business and they still want more.

Thank you for a thoughtful discussion

phil

John Roosevelt I have to admire your diligence and scholarship when posting to alandale ,but I feel you will continue being diverted by the old lawyers trick of requesting further and better particulars -he is well know here and his methods do not change .I wrote to one of our critics yesterday , a vision for the future not the past (on the lesser thread),that is what I care about not alandale*s continual list of the wrongs done by Israel whether true or false .I hope you will read it because I believe that to continue dwelling on the past will condemn us to live there -I am far from confident that we will achieve anything but I for one will not stop trying .

Henry Sidgwick
November 17th, 2009 12:10p
HENRY ,I write too much I know ,but I care a lot too,and I am biased no doubt because I am Jewish ,but please believe I try not to be .I do care what happens to innocent Arabs ,my problem is that I am sure they do not give a damn about me or mine .

Israel was born with borders agreed by the UN ,and you know they were invaded on the day they declared independence ,those lines changed with the war that followed ,half of Jerusalem was lost and other territory too ,what you call the occupied territories were merely retaken ones in 1967.The soul of the Jewish people is entrenched in Jerusalem ,a city now open to all whereas it was banned to all Jews by the Arabs and Mecca is closed to all apart from Muslims .

You must be aware that Israel has no designs on Gaza other than as a peaceful neighbour I realise I am repeating some of the words I used before but truly I do not know what it is that you are confused about .it is in fact me who is confused by what you have written namely "it is unfortunate that you elide (again) discussion of the state of Israel with comments about Jews" please tell me in plain English what you mean .

As to your point .what,s in it for the Palestinians ,I have said so many times that they would have a state both safe and prosperous with a neighbour whose interest it would be to guarantee that to the them -A land fit for children to grow and be educated and access to the best medical services in the world ,an infrastructure paid for by the west ,in fact a place to live and grow in a way they have never had before ,is that not enough for starters ?

The books that you read and from which you quote ,along with the so called international courts are all biased against both Israel and the Jewish people ,so how do you ever think you will reach the truth which is what I hope you seek ,try reading Abba Eban and some of the pioneers ,first of all you will find out what Zionism really is ,just the desire of the JEWISH DISPERSED PEOPLES TO LIVE IN A JEWISH HOMELAND ,free from persecution but not to harm others, not to steal land , not to conspire -just to live in peace .I am not a Zionist either as I am more than happy to be a proud and patriotic Brit ,but I do support the dreams of those who wish to achieve Aliyah .

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Alandale: my replies to your comments start and end with double obligues/slashes:

Precisely the point - which is why Resolution 242 has been deemed the best solution to settling two competing claims and why it has become the timeline for questions of legality and illegality of land claims.

//My point was about the your claim re Israel’s “theft” and “illegal occupation” of Arab land - not the pros and cons of Res 242. You were categorical in your assumption of Jewish/Israeli guilt re their land acquisitions in the region. I think the only thing that should match your overweening confidence that you are right about this is the degree of complexity of the endeavour of trying to evaluate the issue. Nothing more. I guess you would maintain that Transjordan, Egypt and Syria have been as guilty as the Jews in their theft and occupation of land in Palestine? In any event, I don’t think your position will affect the process of how any final agreement will be determined. Reality has an aweful tendency to bite…//

I do think Res 242 seems a relatively popular basis, at least, for some kind of future agreement. Nevertheless, I also think that the Palestinian Arab leadership have another agenda in pushing their interpretation of that resolution and do not genuinely want a durable peace deal based on it.
If this be the case and the Israeli government is not expansionist and really wants peace why has it just sanctioned the building of thousands more dwellings in East Jerusalem? Why does not Israel at least sign up to the PRINCIPLE of withdrawal to its 1967 borders to be implemented if necessary over many years?

//There are no legally recognised “boarders of 1967”. This is a fallacy. There are armistice lines, only, agreed upon after Israel fought for its very survival in 1947-9. I think Jerusalem is off the table. Israel won’t give it up, in my view. Not because it has imperialist ambitions but because it sees Jerusalem as it spiritual heart. Israel feels that it had an unequivocal casus belli in ’67 and regained access to Jerusalem fair and square. If the Arabs had won that war and if any Jews had survived as a result, they would have barred israelis and Jews in general, I dare say, from access - as Transjordan did in ’49.

Also, to date Israel has had absolutely no reason to trust any Arab regime but particularly the current Palestinian leadership and its supporters e.g. Iran, Hizbollah etc. It doesn’t believe for a moment any act of good faith will be appreciated in the way you seem to think it will. Israel, therefore, would tend, I think, always to try and negotiate from a position of military strength.

It is very unlikely that any agreement will embrace all parties who are violently opposed to Israel. This causes tremendous mistrust and cynicism on Israel’s side. It is also a situation Israel justifiably sees as potentially very inimicable. It is also one important reason it will not tolerate an Iran having a nuclear weapons capability. Your frustration with Israel’s seeming reticence will therefore continue to be exacerbated, I suspect.//

The Arab Peace plan has conceded the point that the Right of Return should be a symbolic gesture; it is a very bitter pill for the Palestinians to swallow but it has been conceded.

//Oh that you were right on this point…//

But negotiations as I have pointed out obfuscate the issue and create the false impression that Israel has something to negotiate about when it does not. Oslo could have only worked and any future process can only work if negotiations are confined to the implementation of 242 and not to its substance. 
Israel should be faced down and made to accept the principle of the consensus version of Resolution 242.

//Israel does have something to negotiate about: peace. I can’t second guess – unlike you – what would “work out”. You can speculate and hope..and strategise…is all.//

I must say I don’t share your sanguinity regarding the revelation that a foreign power can so blatantly influence our lawmakers in the formulation of foreign policy in such a crucial area of the world as the Middle East. Can you imagine the furore if the leader of an opposition party repaired to the Dorchester for tea with a couple of Middle Eastern sheikhs and it transpired £15,0000 checks changed hands depending on whether the politicians came up with the goodies? The most shocking aspect of it was its brazenness and the fact that because these were informal approaches, they did not have to be declared. One participant in the programme said no other lobby group in Westminster came close to operating like the Israel lobby and one Tory MP who had dared Oborne to make the programme didn’t have the bottle to appear on it for fear it might damage his prospects. Would you describe a backlash to such a blatant interference in the country’s foreign policy making as anti Semitism?

//I think the shock and awe approach of this program flies in the face of a reality about how politics works and has done since time immemorial. It is faux surprise of a supreme order to pretend that politicians, domestic and foreign policy etc are not influenced – very significantly - in a number of ways – legal and illegal – by outside interests/parties. This program gave the impression that it had uncovered a plot of the most nefarious kind. The loftiness of the general tone and implied assumptions helped to give the impression that the very foundations of our democratic state were about to crumble into dust. And why? Not because of the actions of ANY lobbyists per se.or even lobbyists per se who may favour Israel and those who support her. But lobbyists who are JEWS.
On many it has lost its effect as an assertion perhaps, but the fact remains that the Jews are the most persecuted group in human history. The scale of the persecution has been unimaginable. More Jews were killed in a number of weeks - during the Holocaust - than all Arab casualties in the entire Arab - Israeli/Jew conflict since 1947. To be sure, they may not be the only group or religion that has suffered persecution, but this is no competition. One key reason why Jews are sensitive to critics of Israel and Zionism, and tend to suspect anti-Jewishness, is because they are very attuned to experiencing anti-Jewishness and, often, they are 100% right. It cannot and should not be ignored if one is to understand what informs Israeli culture and policy-making in a crucial – and very understandable in my view – way.
Again, the Arabs have a history of Jew hating and assimilating Zionism with Judaism. They are not the only ones, but this doesn’t belie the fact, nor its significance. If anything, it should serve to underscore why this mysterious bedfellow of the “isms” mentioned in my last post exists and has done for a very long time.…. The literature of Jew hating in the Arab world is bountiful. The cartoons denigrating Jews have been too many to count (without them passing death sentences on the cartoonists as a result). This is the context in which the Despatches program must inevitably be judged. The faux innocence and shock/horror of Osborne and the Guardian editor were gobsmacking. The irresponsibility of the thrust of the program unworthy.

We should remind ourselves, perhaps, that we do have secret services, after all, and there are volumes of writings, movies, docis on how policies are influenced by them. To feel aghast that there is a lobby that influences policy - and legally - is facile, therefore…and almost as facile as suggesting it’s an amazing thing that an MP claims more than may be deemed essential in expenses. It’s how the media often works: perpetuate the myth about how things are by pretending to reveal extraordinary exceptions to it. Not helpful if you want to understand how the real world works.

Imagine if Peter Osborne did a program on the BA arms kickback scandal and headlined it: “Uk Govt in the pay of Moslems: Britain’s illegal arms trade”. Not all jews are lobbyists; nor all lobbyist Jews; nor all anti Zionist anti Jew etc, but neither are all Moslems Saudi, nor all anti Saudis anti Moslem……you get my drift? …But this angle would be construed by Moslems as inflammatory, especially at a time when Moslems feel that the West is literally and metaphorically gunning for them. Any journalist taking such a line would betray abject irresponsibility and insensitivity…

If you want understand the sensibilities I am referring to, just look at the Moslem community and the abject fear that prevails about its sensibilities. To criticize Islam in any respect, is the touchiest of subjects today. Anyone with a sense of history and half a brain cell can appreciate why. The Moslems are right to feel sensitive. There are many unjust accusations made about the community and a lot of chronic misunderstanding of the religion and culture.
Groups who feel persecuted tend to respond defensively. We have to understand that and act accordingly.

The Despatches program - however self-important it may have seemed in its claims – was, in essence, therefore, a complete and nasty little sham. If it was unintentionally so…mmm..I think I rest my case.//

This is a fair point. But isn’t it just the way humans rationalise viz the propaganda against the Huns in England during World II.
No. Not in the same dimension or solar system, I’m afraid. If you genuinely think this, then I do understand where a lot of what you have said in your posts comes from….but it is plain wrong.
My central point about Arab anti Semitism if that is what it should be rightly called is that it is qualitatively different from Christian anti Semitism. For instance there have not been the pogroms (or very few) that define Western anti Semitism. There was no theological prejudice to the Jews as there was to the kafirs for instance despite a few disparaging references to them in the Koran. But there again there are some pretty disparaging references to the Canaanites in the Old Testament. You have to judge these issues within the context of the time and whatever the theology may or may not have said there was a positive interaction between Judaism and Islam which was not replicated in Judaism and Christianity.
Rather the prejudice (racism?) against Jews is that of the top group against the underlings: the British against their subject peoples, for instance, or the Jews against their minority Palestinian population. I have some choice quotes from Israeli politicians often made under parliamentary privilege which would not look out of place in a National Front lexicon. Isn’t it about time the Jews in the words of the Chief Rabbi stepped out from behind the manufactured cloak of victimhood which has been used so effectively to bash the Palestinians? It makes the Israelis look like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

//None of what you say diminishes the truth of the Jewish experience of persecution in all its forms. The rabbi is wrong. Victimhood has not been manufactured by the Jews. It is intrinsic to their history and an indelible part of their collective psyche. Perhaps Osborn edited around the rabbi’s comments. Hard to believe he doesn’t share my view. If he doesn’t, well..I think he is delusional. Moreovever, the notion of Arab victimhood has changed..as a national identity of Palestinian Arabs grew, separating them more and more from other Arabs (however accurate the notional separation). They did not feel like victims when they attacked Jews in 1947 and calls from their leaders to leave en mass, and return soon - after victory was declared. Israel shed its age-old image of victimhood after its crushing defeat of the Arab armies – against all odds – in ’67. Gradually, the Palestinian Arabs have taken on the Jewish victimhood mantle. Hopefully this will change if peace comes about. They should not suffer this indignity. Their dignity needs to be restored. It is a terrible tragedy.//

This is a complete red herring. The Jews had no interest in the Hashemite kingdom, nor did the Palestinians who were an agrarian society working the land the Jews coveted. It is not an argument for instance in a competition for real estate to tell the inhabitants of Mayfair and Park Lane that in a grand reallocation of London property they’ve got Whitechapel and Old Kent Road and it’s just as good.

//It is not the Jews - apart from some extremists - who had designs on the Hashemite kingdom. However, many Palestinian Arabs could not fathom how one from the Arabian peninsula supercede their claims to that land. Black September was not a figment of Arafat’s imagination and neither is paranoia about the Palestinian Arabs a figment of the current Hashemite King’s imagination, I dare say.//

Of course you are correct, territorial expansion is part of the human condition or rather its primitive form. But post World War II we have hopefully as human beings moved on. The creation of Israel out of the tragedy of the Holocaust was an aberration to the principle of the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war, a throwback to the old order. But equally tragically the Zionists simply haven’t accepted that with Resolution 242 the music stopped; they have unfinished business and they still want more.

//Perhaps have a chat with Ahmadinejad and Osama BL on this topic. They may beg to differ..as may Hamas..to name but a few.//
Thank you for a thoughtful discussion

//Thank you.//

Vstrad

A reprimand is a disciplinary act, so Bella has been disciplined - just not as severely as many would like.

phil

Vstrad
November 19th, 2009 5:39pm what was that about?:)

PHIL

Vstrad
November 19th, 2009 5:39pm sorry had a senior moment I UNDERSTAND

alanadale

In response Mr Roosevelt to your post on November 18 with your quotes in caps.

MY POINT WAS ABOUT THE CLAIM RE ISRAEL’S “THEFT” AND “ILLEGAL OCCUPATION” OF ARAB LAND - NOT THE PROS AND CONS OF RES 242. YOU WERE CATEGORICAL IN YOUR ASSUMPTION OF JEWISH/ISRAELI GUILT RE THEIR LAND ACQUISITIONS IN THE REGION

Yes I am. Who owns what has been an evolving concept especially in the wake of the break up of Empire and the slow messy process of shifting from a state of affairs where might is right to a system of laws and property rights. Out of the ashes of the Second World War emerged the UN and a new world order with the purpose of ensuring another Hitler could never rise to power. Central to this was a whole new body of human rights legislation and the Fourth Geneva Convention to which Israel has signed up which legalises the concept of ‘squatters’ rights to people like the Palestinians who were caught in limbo between imperial deals and national self determination.

Contrary to what you say Resolution 242 does recognise the complexity of the issues and the ambiguous state of law during the Mandate period and seeks to draw a line under the competing claims. In outlining a settlement that recognised Israel within its 1967 as opposed to 1948 borders the Security Council broke a cardinal principle of the UN Charter regarding the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war – which is why a rider was tagged on to the resolution in recognition that this was an exceptional dispensation and not a precedent for further Israeli territorial expansion. It can therefore be said (and the unanimous opinion of the World Court backs it) that Israel’s occupation of land outside its 1967 borders is illegal and therefore constitutes theft.

There are no legally defined borders simply because Israel refuses to take Resolution 242 as the basis of a settlement. Negotiations for negotiations’ sake suit the Israelis as it allows ‘facts on the ground’ to be established without giving anything in exchange which is why the Arabs insist on a framework. Legal rights to land once established aren’t part of this bargaining process anyway unless the owner of those rights wants them to be.

You have ignored my point that Israel would not be required to make a full withdrawal until a full peace had been established.

You say Israel will never give up Jerusalem which ‘it won …fair and square’ whatever that means. The question is whether Israel wants to have a future in the Middle East. For in the long term it can not win unless it comes to an accommodation on Jerusalem. But accommodation does not seem to be a word in your lexicon.

I GUESS YOU WOULD MAINTAIN THAT TRANSJORDAN, EGYPT AND SYRIA HAVE BEEN AS GUILTY AS THE JEWS IN THEIR THEFT AND OCCUPATION OF LAND IN PALESTINE?

At the end of Empire there are always land grabs; Arab countries were equally guilty of seeking to enlarge their territories. If Israel had never existed and Palestine been absorbed into a greater Syria, who knows they may have settled more or less happily into it or seceded like Lebanon. At least it would have been into a similar culture.

If the Zionist project had been undertaken a century or half century earlier the Jews could well have got what they wanted. But that imperial horse-trading was overtaken by the rise of nationalism and the emergence of human rights legislation that overrides this imperial dispensation.

THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE JEWS ARE THE MOST PERSECUTED GROUP IN HUMAN HISTORY. THE SCALE OF THE PERSECUTION HAS BEEN UNIMAGINABLE. MORE JEWS WERE KILLED IN A NUMBER OF WEEKS - DURING THE HOLOCAUST - THAN ALL ARAB CASUALTIES IN THE ENTIRE ARAB - ISRAELI/JEW CONFLICT SINCE 1947.

Your argument seems to boil down to the assertion that in consequence of the Jews being ‘the most persecuted group in human history’ they DESERVE the home in Palestine their mythology claims is theirs.

‘History’ is the operative word. The Holocaust was by no means the only or the most devastating holocaust we know about, whole civilisations have been wiped out by the predating White Man and peoples exterminated in turkey shoots. Nor were the Jews the only victims of the Holocaust: the mentally retarded and genetically malformed preceded them, the Roma were fellow victims as were Poles, Catholics, Communists, gays and of course the Slavs the extermination of whom had Hitler had his demented way would have made the 6 million Jews (and remember that is all Jews who died not just in the extermination camps) look like an hors d’oeuvre. (Stalin of course did quite a lot to reduce the numbers of Slavs and others). That is not to belittle the obscenity of the Holocaust and the trauma and helplessness of individuals caught up in it, losing in many cases their family identity but it is not an experience unique to Jews. Slavery arguably was a worse form of persecution. But at a certain point such comparisons become pointless. What distinguishes the Holocaust is it was the first one to be recorded by its victims which would give it a claim to be the first properly documented holocaust in history. Some would say the way this horrendous folk history has been exploited to justify the expropriation of Palestinian lands is shameful.

As regards the Aliyah I would refer you to Shlomo Sands new book ‘When and how was the Jewish people invented?’ in which he asserts there was no expulsion of the Jews from Palestine – the Romans lacked the means to expel whole populations - and that most Jews in the Diaspora are descendants of converts to Judaism.

THEY DID NOT FEEL LIKE VICTIMS WHEN THEY ATTACKED JEWS IN 1947 AND CALLS FROM THEIR LEADERS TO LEAVE EN MASS, AND RETURN SOON - AFTER VICTORY WAS DECLARED. ISRAEL SHED ITS AGE-OLD IMAGE OF VICTIMHOOD AFTER ITS CRUSHING DEFEAT OF THE ARAB ARMIES – AGAINST ALL ODDS – IN ’67.

This simply will not do, parroting the Zionist narrative of Israel’s birth. There is copious evidence unearthed by the ‘New historians’ that ethnic cleansing did take place in 1948 but quite honestly that was to be expected; if the Jews had lost the Zionist project would have been stillborn. However, the Jewish military leadership were in fact confident they wouldn’t lose – unlike in 1967 when there was no doubt in their minds as to the outcome as the Israeli High Command and the US intelligence services had done an extensive review a week or so before the war and concluded Israel would prevail within ten days of an Arab attack. Instead Israel mounted a pre-emptive strike with the assurance of the Americans that they wouldn’t pull the rug from under the Israelis as they had in 1956. There’s a whole new narrative to be written about what happened in 1967.

IMAGINE IF PETER OBORNE DID A PROGRAM ON THE BA ARMS KICKBACK SCANDAL AND HEADLINED IT: “UK GOVT IN THE PAY OF MOSLEMS: BRITAIN’S ILLEGAL ARMS TRADE”.

The difference is of course that the recipients of the bribes were the Saudis and not UK lawmakers and the injured party was the British taxpayer who subsidised the bribes. In contrast to Zionist backhanders these bribes didn't influence UK policy. Note it was the bribes that were illegal not the arms sales per se. Bribe giving and taking of any description shouldn’t be tolerated; eliminating the practice will save taxpayers’ money and ensure a more balanced Middle East policy.

IF YOU WANT UNDERSTAND THE SENSIBILITIES I AM REFERRING TO, JUST LOOK AT THE MOSLEM COMMUNITY AND THE ABJECT FEAR THAT PREVAILS ABOUT ITS SENSIBILITIES.

When in Rome do as the Romans do. If Muslims want to live here they have to live by our rules and customs. No question. But Israel Palestine is hugely complicating relations with the Muslim world which perceives a double standard in the way we apply international law and allow Israel to flout it. Israel’s behaviour is quite frankly undercutting our case with them and encourages extremism. Concentrate less on the bogeys and focus more on the conditions that create them.