A voice of decency protests

Jason from AZ

Why is it that British Jews are accused of divided loyalties, while British Muslims, who openly declare they are Muslims first and even favor Muslim enemy combatants over their own British troops in Afganistan, are never confronted about dual loyalties???

Could it be that weasely Brits tend to scapegoat those they know are too small in numbers to effectively fight back or adequately defend themselves?

gary ashton

what's wrong with being pro israel?
no country is perfect, some just cover it up better than others. i don't see the pro saudi community under the same scrutiny. oh yeah they have oil.
ha. hypocrites.

Nordheim

Melanie, I know nobody wants to hear it, but I can't help but compare the UK to pre-war Germany. You've got a bunch of Jews who think they are too immunized and a government too sympathetic for anything bad to happen to them. I fear the sympathy may come too late, if ever.

John

Mel. For once I agree with you. The non-governmental pro-Israel lobby in the UK is not hugely well organised and no more influential than the non-governmental pro-Palestinian lobby. The difference in perceptions between the two lobbies is mostly down to the much better organisation and effectiveness of the Israeli governmental machine vs. the Palestinian and Arab machines. Since that is the job of embassies overseas, I can't really see the evidence to justify turning this into some grand conspiracy. And I agree that attempting to do so smacks of anti-semitism.

What I think would give you rather more credibility on this and other issues would be if you were able to occasionally see the faults of Israel and to more cogently explain what you agree with in their policies and what you disagree with. At the moment your whitewash approach places you firmly on the lunatic fringe. Go to the Israeli news today and you'll see yet another story suggesting that Israel has its problems too and is hardly the beacon of moderation and toleration that you claim it to be (and this is just a tiny, immediate example that doesn't even scratch the poison in the veins of Israeli society that is the occupation).

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3808080,00.html

Brian O'Connor

I grew up in the aftermath of WW-II and the holocaust. During my formative years, I well remember thinking that whatever sickness had led to the holocaust had been revealed for the horror it was, and, thankfully, had therefore been expunged from the European psyche for evermore . . . that the mind-set that had led to the holocaust had been a one-off historical anomaly, an aberration.

My sense is that after WW-II, there followed a period of a few decades in which anti-semitism was taboo, and that anything like the hate that had culminated in the holocaust simply couldn't happen again.

How naive I was! The real aberration was not the holocaust or the thinking that led to it. It was the brief interval immediately following the holocaust, the period of time when anti-semitism wasn't overtly displayed except by loons . . .

It's clear that European opinion-shapers have reverted to the prejudices and hates that shaped Europe for centuries and that ultimately led to the cascade of events that culminated in Hitler's holocaust.

How very chilling that those who currently shape European opinion — academics, politicians and the media — know full well what they're doing . . . and don't care.

Larry in Tel Aviv

the belief in divided loyalties only applies to Jews, no other minority group, since it is rooted in classic Medieval the Jew as the Judas betrayer motif. This is where it is coming from. Of course it doesn't occur to such anti-Semites that being loyal or supportive of Israel does not mean one is plotting Britain's destruction precisely because they are anti-Semitic. Of course the Nazis accused the Jews of dual loyalties too..

Gerald

"Don't care" as O'Connor puts it because they can shelter behind the anonymity of collective responsibility (irresponsibility in this case)?

Miranda Rose Smith

Don't those idiots who want to see the JEWISH state destroyed realize that if the JEWISH state goes, the BRITISH state will follow? The Jews are humanity's miner's canaries.

Andre

Intriguing this business of divided loyalties. How loyal are any of us to Great Britain? The rise of Scots and Welsh nationalism, even the Cornish are at it, underlines the transience of the British state - created by the union of Scotland and England in was it 1707? I remember an SAS trooper saying he did not fight for Queen and country but for 'me and my mates.' I look at Prince Charles and realize I can feel little loyalty to him, nice chap though he is. He hardly embodies my views of the dangers of Islam or the sanctity of marriage. The British state as we know it will pass away in another generation. Yet the twin poles of civilization, Judaism and Christianity, endure. As a catholic I can connect with a phenomena that is enduring and eternal, not like Britain. However, that said, I like being British and mourn for my country. I want a country that stands for what i believe in. In this the British state fails us. Has its end come? I can't help wandering if a powerful Europe run by christian democrats like Gert Wilders is the better bet. However last nights news of Hercule Poirot and a batty baroness taking its leadership is hardly reassuring. More seriously the best guarantor for Jewish freedom and survival in the world is the state of Israel. What I wander would be the Israel government's response to a new Nazi regime openly advocating the extermination of the Jews? The question of Iranian terrorism will be solved by Israel - not the US, Europe or indeed Britain.

EDDIE

The accusation of dual loyalties is in my opinion another anti Semitic variation. Jews have every right to support Israel and that in no way detracts from their loyalties to the country in which they live. Some people even have dual citizenships.
Israel and especially Jerusalem are an integral part of our faith and culture. We all know that Israel as a country has all the faults of any country, although a lot less than some members of the Human Rights Council. In view of the barrage of unreasonable Media attacks, I feel we do not need to add to that burden by expecting Israel to be some sort of saintly community of utter perfection. We need to counterbalance the horrors of unreason and hate.

Sarah

I agree with John's comments. I haven't seen the programme - I hope to catch up with it via the internet - but I'm sure I'd find it objectionable. And I'm sure it fuels, or at least affirms, the far more blatant anti-semitism of the people making those awful comments. However, although I don't want to trivialise the problem of anti-semitism, I do think that one's sense of the scale of the problem may be a little exaggerated by the internet. For example if you look at the comments to a Guardian piece about Israel you'll find plenty of anti-semitism. But on a piece without the magnet of the word 'Israel', you'll find a quite different spectrum of views, including plenty of people speaking out robustly against Islamism etc. But I do accept that much coverage of Israel in the media is biased.

Gil

After seeing some of the reader comments on one of Melanie's last threads, comments that could have come out of Der Sturmer: I believe that the Internet, the Web in particular, is being used to abuse free speech. If not for the internet how would such hate speech be propogated with such ease?

Nicole S

John says: 'What I think would give you rather more credibility on this and other issues would be if you were able to occasionally see the faults of Israel and to more cogently explain what you agree with in their policies and what you disagree with.' Good lord, there are enough people eager to pounce on Israel and pick it apart apart without Melanie pitching in. Someone has to defend this much-maligned, beleaguered little country from the constant media bashing it receives, and Melanie is a tiger in that respect. Far from being on the lunatic fringe, as far as Israel is concerned she is always well informed and worth listening to.

GaryO

Sarah,
Do you know that some Jewish schools in Britain now need barbed wire fence and private security guards to protect its children? How about elderly Jewish men and women abused and spat on at bus stops in London not to mention bricks thrown at synagogues windows and swastikas daubed on head stones in Jewish cemeteries? Exaggerations by the Interent?

These are all well documented and recent events and they are on an increase throughout Europe. It is the Internet that brings together all these separate events and makes a picture. An ugly picture at that.

On the other hand, it is the Internet that has spawn a whole new generation of anti-Semites and hatemonger who now openly and fearlessly trade their wares. It is those we have to worry about, not a few "exaggerated by internet" attacks on our fellow Jewish countrymen.

dewey democratic eyes

Israel the only democracy in that area of darkness.
miranda is right, israel is all of us in, our "free" west.

we need to cut the BS, be proud of what we have, state it loud and proud,
cut the cultural relativity crap, thank goodness, we instilled the notion of univ. human rights, unlike the abusing
deceivers of the OIC,(as islam-human rights shouldn t go on the same page), yes.... an impossibility in islam.

In any rise in anti semitism, here the focus, has moved, FROM
the small nutjob groups, with the nazi lover tendancies who could to a certain extent be managed,(& I do not excuse their abhorrence).
Hey! ,from quaradawi, back to mufti of jerusalem, muslim ss squads, etc, maybe not to forget them eh!

TO the appeasement-cancer, of an ideology that houses anti semitism/discrimination as part of the fabric, that through its open hate agenda, allows other,(er..lesser?)degrees of slander,slights on integrity etc etc, to become more... mundane?, by apologist appeasers.

In its insidious duplicity, it at the same time, works fervently
to prevent criticism of itself through abusing every avenue, made possible, by yes...our free democracy.
Israel is on the "front line"
for all of us.
How can P.Correctness, and a misguided version of multiculturalism, ever have be allowed bring us to this place.

it must be time for a line to be drawn in islams bitter desert sand.

Andy Gill

Robin Sheperd is a hero. Few in the establishment have the vision to see what is happening, and few of those have the guts to speak out about it.

Stephen Rothbart

Gary O, it's not just the UK. In Prague, you go down a small street in a residential area and there is a concrete barrier in front of a building. It's the only building with such a construction in the entire street. Why? It's a Jewish school.

Go into central Berlin, just off the main shopping area around the Kudam and there is a small street with a concrete barrier in front of it, just like the one in Prague. Why? It's a shop selling Jewish books and memorabilia.

This is the norm for Jewish life in 21st Century Europe and it will get worse as more and more Islamic immigrants settle here, and as our own Judeo-Christian populations diminish.

What never seems to suprise me is that the kind of principles the Islamic people surrounding Israel are governed by are anti-feminist, racially intolerent, homophobic and anti-Christian, all the things the government of Israel is not. Yet so great is the hatred of Jews by the Left and some of the Right in Europe, that they prefer to side with these religious bigots, than with those who clearly share the same values they purport to have.

In order to reject all your values on life, to support the Islamic code, you must really have to hate someone badly.

People who hate people just for who they are are sick. However, as you can see from the usual suspects that turn up on this blog, no facts or logic will ever convince them. Their minds are fixed in their own prejudices.

There is no point arguing with them. They have closed their minds, their eyes and ears to truth or even logic, and just like Peter Osborne, will fit their facts to suit their point of view, and not the other way round.

By engaging with them you make their ignorance and hatred meaningful. Yet we see the same people trying to argue their case time and time again here.

The bigots love this. It makes them feel someone cares about what they think, but how can anyone care about what people like them think?

My advice is to avoid engaging personally with any of these rascists.

Let them rant in the dark where they belong

Baron Pipin II

Gil @ 9.09:

why stop there, feel free to enlighten us in your definition of free speech, please. I for one cannot wait.

roger

''and this is just a tiny, immediate example that doesn't even scratch the poison in the veins of Israeli society that is the occupation).''

The real venom is in these words of untruth. What occupation? Back up this slander with historical fact and you might be worth listening to.

Elaine

Just a note to all the overseas readers: things really are terrible here.

I'm not Jewish but when you go past the synagoues, they have to have security guards all over the place thanks to the recent rise physical assaults and verbal abuse at Jews.

Peter Oborne's programme tried to suggest that an 'Israel Lobby' has control over the media yet it spent almost two thirds of the show on The Guardian and the BBC - both of which single Israel out for unfair treatment time and again(we might have more detail on this if the BBC cared to publish The Balen Report, which it spent a quarter of a million pounds in legal fees to suppress).

So the content put out by these two institutions isn't pro-Israel, so how has this 'Lobby' worked there?

It hasn't. All this 'Lobby' tries to do is correct innacuracies and unfair bias - and heaven knows there's enough of it. How does that amount to having a grip on the media?

If we could see the Balen Report we may see that the BBC privately shares the view that is has been unfair to Israel - but we don't know if that's the BBC's view because it's so keen (it's £250,000 of public money keen) to hide the thing. But Mr Oborne didn't mention that skeleton in the cupboard. Not once.

Melanie is swimming against the tide in terms of what we see on TV and in our papers. She writes for the paper where Oborne, Peter McKay, Andrew Alexander and others with similar views write.

I can think of only three columnists off the top of my head that support Israel on that paper (Melanie, Richard Littlejohn and Peter Hitchens).

And the good news? Can you guess which three columists are the most popular with the public on that paper?

There is barely concealed fury in media land we're not all running along with the cant of the day.

To the news editors of our TV news bulletins and the editors of our national newspapers, I say this: "Very well, alone!"

Philo

I made a point this morning, a small point no doubt, but I thought a reasonable one. It seems to have got lost.

My point was this: Mr. Shepherd says, "Since there is supposedly no reasonable case to be made in favor of the Jewish state, we must have sold out to the ‘Lobby."
- "Supposedly"? - by whom?

There is widespread general agreement on a two-state solution. A two-state solution requires two states. One of them has to be Israel. So those who agree on a two-state solution (which is a very large proportion of those who think about this conflict) clearly suppose, or rather, believe there is a reasonable case to be made for Israel.

Mr. Shepherd is prone to such regrettable sleight of hand.

Alex Bensky

The problem with the two-state solution is, of course, that the Arabs don't want it. They whisper soft words to western diplomats and media but everything, and I mean everything, they say amongst themselves is contrary. www.memri.org is a good place to find translations of Arabic media.

The Palestinian national covenant, for example, still calls for a one-state solution. Some years back Arafat announced that while the Palestinians weren't going to remove the clauses regarding this they would take steps to make them "non-operative." Those steps were never taken, the clauses are still in there, and the Bethlehem conference a few months ago reaffirmed them.

Furthermore, Friday sermons, school textbooks, children's tv show, and pretty much everything that comes out of the controlled media says, at best, that a two-state solution is a way station on the way to a one-state solution.

It is patronizing and not at all multicultural to insist that the Palestinians don't mean what they say repeatedly.

By the way, if we control the British media we're doing a damn poor job of it.

Keith

Given our Governments PC and MC addictions it is just not mainstream to be pro Israel.That doesnt stop anti Israeli sentiment being wrong. A great and increasing number of us concerned Brits are aware that Israel has shouldered the biggest burden in the undeclared war by the barbarians against the West.Its time Israel was embraced as a natural ally.

Adam B.

I look forward to reading Robin Shepherd's book. His blog is always interesting and perceptive, and I read it, along with Melanie's, daily.

Adam B.

Philo, the "supposedly" is from the Dispatches programme itself, as Melanie has pointed out.

Sarah

@Gary O. I fully accept your comments of course. Perhaps I put my point too strongly - I think what I meant was that you might think half of the UK was violently anti-semitic going by a few CIF threads. I do indeed know about these awful events and have heard about the Jewish school and the security issues. Even if it is a pretty small minority that creates such a situation - that doesn't make things better if you are a victim.

Philo

Adam B.
I am no doubt missing something. Could you point out where the "supposedly" is explained. Thanks.

phil

John
November 20th, 2009 6:26am You have put your finger on it ,apart from saying Mel is a lunatic :) wrong on occasion ,but daft, no .

Our problem is not the fight for decency it is the fight to ensure people understand what is really happening .The Arab propaganda machine is firing on all cylinders and Israel does not seem to care and we Jews are but a small voice in all of this .Of course we do not agree ,,right or wrong ,with what Israel does ,in fact the biggest critics are Jews themselves ,we expect perfection from them and in the circumstances that they are in it is impossible .

The left wing media pound away day after day and never seem to look at the atrocities that abound in the M uslim world day after day ,but find any tiny thing that they can criticise Israel for .I still find it hard to believe that those like Oborne are trying to recreate the atmosphere that prevailed in Nazi Germany ,but whether they are or not they are achieving just that,Can it really be just to sell their wares ?turn a shekel ?Perhaps I am naive because I think they are just a product of a failing society that has lost its own barometer of decency ,the part of us that has lost its conscience .

I have some friends who are not Jewish and I know are decent and kind people ,but even they are deluded by the papers they read ,both the guardian and the independent ,they do not have the patience to dig deeper ,but just take in what their media tell them .They would be horrified to be seen as anti Semitic .!.

ahem

Forces of evil: infinite
Forces of reason and decency: 0

C. Gee

Andre:

Well said.

The British have no clue what it is to be British. The British "brand" as pundits call it has been lost, replaced by post-nationalism, internationalism and one-worldism. Loyalty to a nation is decidedly passe, except in soccer.
The simple-minded, almost stupid, lesson learned by the left from Nazism is that nationalism is racism. To be loyal to a nation is racist.

Leftist Jews are embarrassed by the realization of Jewish nationalism in Israel. Israel is an enormity, an abhorrent obstacle to the merging of their identities in the great pool of humanity - by which they mean fellow leftist academics, journalists and ethnic fusion restaurant cognoscenti.

Much better to have Jews exist here and there as a more or less, preferably less, obviously religious, not national, group. Black hats, burkas, turbans - look at our diversity. Hence academic efforts to deny Jewish national history and its power to form a a national identity.

Britons have chucked away their history, and are dismantling their nationality.

Accusations that Jews' loyalty is divided are meaningful only in the sense that there is a conviction that British Jews should feel as indifferent to Israel as everyone does to Britain.

Get with the program, Zionists.

Elise

Personally, I think it is a tradegy, the disintegration of the once great nation of Britain. One of my great loves had always been that US Constitutional law was truely derived from the British view of mankind and the rights assoicated with freedom. It is important to remember that the American Revolution was fought merely because the colonists were denied their rights as free Englishmen. It is a travesty that a nation so steeped in such tradition could turn its back on its legacy in exchange for placating a rabid bunch of racists and Jew-haters. I do hope that Britain wakes up once again.It was the only bulwark against Nazisism in Europe and without Britain I fear Europe and it's great traditions of humanity, liberty, equality and respect for the ability of humankind will be lost forever.

Jez

phil;

" I have some friends who are not Jewish and I know are decent and kind people ,but even they are deluded by the papers they read ,both the guardian and the independent ,*they do not have the patience to dig deeper,but just take in what their media tell them* "

Sit down with them and explain to them the realities of a state sitting in the middle of a hornets nest of 'double speaking' Islamic states that are hell bent on destroying the Jewish Nation there.

If they still prefer to go with 'The Guardian' etc, then lose them as friends.

I'm white working class, live next to a expanding Muslim area- that (if current trends continue) will envelop my borough in the next decade. You and I (you probably, me certainly) would be shunned at any trendy little dinner party if we were to both utter some concern for our 'teams', this by the same completely oblivious, yet aggressively judgemental fools.

Liberalism is vulger extravagance of the carefree.

Adalbert of Bremen

Our main problem is Nordheim and his saxon allies. Siding with the Papacy is his usual game.
We're heading for another Canossa.

Carl

Adam B also admits to reading Stormfront on a regular basis. Make of that what you will.

John Edwards

Some sensible comments by Philo. In fact the Arabs accepted the two state settlement (aka the Saudi plan) several years ago, but of course it requires withdrawal by Israel from the Occupied Palestinian Territories and a just solution to the 1948 refugee question.

Adam B.

Carl, what are you talking about? I have never read Stormfront. On what do you base your accusation? I expect an apology for your lie.

Adam B.

Philo,

Oborne observed that various politicians have said supportive and flattering things about the Jewish state. He then made the ridiculous assumption that the only conceivable explanation could be that they had been "got at" by this all powerful lobby - the notion that anyone could think that way by themselves simply wasn't considered.

Adam B.

Carl, I demand an apology.

phil

Jez
November 20th, 2009 8:33pm --Believe me I DO TRY and I do not back down but many are indoctrinated by the trash from those like oborne and fisk ,but for those that still have faith your consolation is that one day those men will have some explaining to do when their time comes -the thirty pieces will not get them very far .

phil

Adam B.what would an apology from carl be worth ?how do you spell zilch ? buffoons like him are an irrelevancy it is the ones like oborne with their insidious pretence at truth that cause the real trouble.

Non-Profit : -)

Fact...rise in muslim population in our society,(cannot say just society, as the overiding intention is non integration)
fact..rise in anti-semitism.
fact..atrocities abound where Muslims hold significant populations, day after day, and it now happens here with regularity. It is a spreading cancer
A cancer, that has and is perverting the minds of young innocents, so they become anything but, that writes in all its political literature,(inc koran) obliterate Israel, hate jews, hate the non er!believer
:-D,(sorry i always shake my head at this word), deceive,lie in wait, subjegate, hate, discriminate.

deceive...gaza holocaust???(stop bombing israel :-)..
end the occupation???, another line in excuses
...what occupation!
check the historical facts
hmm! Oil, can buy a lot of deceit

Adam B.

John Edwards, the Jews accepted the two state plan back in 1947, when the Arabs rejected it. Furthermore, Fatah has not accepted the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Hamas does not recognize the right of Jews to be alive, anywhere in the world, let alone Israel. Some recipe for peace.

Philo

Adam B.
So the "supposedly" is an inference you, Mr. Shepherd, and Melanie Phillips make from the programme. I saw the programme. It was not very good, and some of Mr. Shepherd's criticisms are justified. But the inference is not warranted by the content of the programme. Those in the mainstream support a two-state solution, which acknowledges the reasonable case for Israel. Finding a minority position and directing all your effort at polemics against it while ignoring the majority who propose a reasonable compromise is surely not a good strategy for a genuine negotiation or settlement of the conflict.

Gerald

From Counter Seacole's Jihad on Liddle/Blackburn threads:

Counter Jihad

1 To resist further Islamization of Western countries by eliminating Muslim immigration, refusing any special accommodations for Islam in our public spaces and institutions, and forbidding intrusive public displays of Islamic practices.

2. To contain Islam within the borders of existing Muslim-majority nations, deporting all Muslim criminals and those who are unable or unwilling to assimilate completely into the cultures of their adopted countries.

3. To end all foreign aid and other forms of subsidy to the economies of Muslim nations.

4. To develop a grassroots network that will replace the existing political class in our countries and eliminate the reigning multicultural ideology, which enables Islamization and will cause the destruction of Western Civilization if left in place.

Adam B.

Philo, the word "supposedly" is of course an inference - otherwise, the statement would be definitive, and not an "inference". I fail to see your point.

daniel maris

The question of lobby influence and divided loyalties should certainly be perfectly acceptable subjects for inquiry in a free speech society.

The problem is that there are many people who pursue these issues only when they involve Jews and Israel.

Just as they only concern themselves with human rights, war crimes and the rest in relation to Israel.

Similarly these obsessives have no conception of scale. So a couple of dubious deaths of protestors among Palestinians are given more weight than 200,000 dead in Darfur or half a million in the Congo. And they consider the Jewish-Arab dispute over the land of Israel-Palestine is, for mysterious reasons, of more interest than similar land disputes between Iraq and Kuwait, Turkey and Greece, Armenia and Azerbijan, Japan and Russia, China and the Philippines, India and Pakistan, Bolivia and Chile, Nigeria and the Cameroons, Argentina and Chile...I could write a very long list.

One has to ask what motor is turning this obsession over and over. In most cases it is pretty clearly some form of anti-semitism.

John Edwards

I had a good laugh when I saw Robin Shepherd's Wikipedia entry. "a prominent British born political commentator" when in fact most people have never heard on him and and "Shepherd's blog is read by thousands" when most comments seem to be written by Jonathan Hoffman of the Zionist Federation.

Obviously in a make believe world of his own. Did he pen it himself?

Greg D

I'll try this again. I don't understand why the moderator won't let it go through.

So:

Melanie, you must be joking. 'The absurdity and sloppiness' of Shepherd's case is astonishing.

For one, his new book is being printed by Weidenfeld and Nicholson.

Here are some extracts from the Jewish Chronicle's interviews with Lord Weidenfeld:

"[Weisenfeld] started his own publishing house before he was 30 and almost simultaneously became political adviser and chief of cabinet to Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizmann."

"It is not just prominent Israelis who Weidenfeld is close to. He has, after all, sat in the House of Lords since 1976 and he has plenty of powerful friends in this country, too. So does he see himself as an establishment figure?

“I do not consider myself part of the British establishment. I am very grateful to this country for what I have been able to achieve, and I have contacts here. But I do not wear plus-fours or go shooting. It was possibly an advantage not to be part of the British class system.”

He is keen to add that his contact book is not confined to Westminster but also stretches to the US and the Continent. “I know Hillary Clinton, I know Barbara Walters and I am very friendly with the Germans. I had a personal friendship with [ex-Chancellor] Helmut Kohl and also with Angela Merkel.”"

Back to Shepherd:

"we must have sold out to the ‘Lobby.’"

Indeed.

phil

Somebody say something to john edwards .he must be feeling bad as nobody takes any notice of his balanced words -he always appears so thoughtful and kind with many wonderful ideas to solve all our problems ,I am sure they all would work provided Israel moved to the jungle or the inhabitants walked into the sea .Adam you surely could help him and he likes you !

Philo

Adam B.
"Supposedly" is more often than not used as a synonym for "allegedly". Dispatches made no supposition or allegation such as Mr. Shepherd insinuates. As I said, this looks like the sort of sleight of hand Mr. Shepherd resorts to all too readily. It is typical misdirection.

Adam B.

I see Carl has scampered back into the shadows when challenged, as he always does. Can't back up his statement with evidence, so disappears. How cowardly.

Adam B.

John Edwards, I see comments from many different people on Robin Shepherd's blog.

Do you have any evidence to back your claim, or is it just your prejudice (surely people can't think differently from me!) speaking?

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.
"I see Carl has scampered back into the shadows when challenged, as he always does. Can't back up his statement with evidence, so disappears. How cowardly."

There have been so many instances over the months when you have done precisely what you chide Carl for doing I am surprised you raise the matter. Is the idea that if you jeer loudly enough about others your own behaviour will go unnoticed? You are well able to contribute to a proper discussion. Why not confine yourself to that?

Carl

I'm still here, as are Adam B's comments telling us about how he reads Stormfront. It is an easy search. I wouldn't log onto such filth, but I can't account for Adam B.

Wilhelm

Phil

Have you got any boxing anecdotes ?

Adam B.

Carl, I have never read Stormfront. Where did you get the idea that I did? Present some evidence for it, or shut up and apologize. Still waiting...

Adam B.

Henry, perhaps you can let me know when I have ducked a debate with you?

Adam B.

Furthermore Henry, Carl has simply lied about me. If I made up lies about you, what would be your response? Are you defending Carl, who has, in effect, called me a Nazi? How disgusting - and if you knew my family circumstances, you would know just how disgusting.

Come on Carl, let's hear your apology.

Herbert Thornton

Miranda Rose Smith (November 20th) writes -

"Don't those idiots who want to see the JEWISH state destroyed realize that if the JEWISH state goes, the BRITISH state will follow? The Jews are humanity's miner's canaries."

I understand her concern, but I see it in a different light. As I see things, the Jewish State has a better chance of surviving than does the British State. Israel has at least made it clear that it will resist. The British state on the other hand is actively cooperating in bringing about the destruction of its own people. To use a modified version of Rose's simile, the British are humanity's major canaries.

Herbert Thornton

My apologies for using the expression "major canaries". I had misread Rose's "miner's" as "minor" - which of course the people of Israel are not. It would have been more fitting to refer to the British people as "unfortunate victims of mad scientists' experiments".

Augie

The accusation of divided loyalties used to come from the right today it comes from the left. This is a self serving accuastion since the left doesn't believe in nationalism.

Everything about the left today is false, hypochritical and hateful.

phil

Henry Sidgwick
November 21st, 2009 9:33pm is this an imposter or was it really you criticising Adam B.I would not have expected a serious poster to ally himself with a person who writes like carl.Adam writes here with common sense and a decency that is never mirrored by that man,he is due respect even if you do not agree with him or these threads will go on an ever decreasing downward spiral -I hope it was not you .

Philo

Adam B.
...Perhaps you would like to confirm that your attempt to refute what I said was in error?

jose garcia

the problem here is propaganda.

virtually all media is anti israel

where is the mainstream pro israel media?

if it doesnt exist, why no new newspapers , freeview channels (bbc world style) are set up?, they dont have to be totally jewish based, they could be mainstream with normal entertaiment and soaps , israel movies etc.

these days it costs peanuts.

websites like this are not enough
they dont reach enough people unlike the bbc who wastes billions in rubbish programming.

maybe they could also show what happens to palestinian children once they can speak, the venom and brainwashing they suffer, and why by the age of seven they all want to die for allah....

to all those liberals, no child abuse there isnt it?

phil

wilhelm nov 21-10.40--ok just for you ,your every wish is my command --back in the thirties a little fat guy called "two ton" Tony Galento fought Joe Louis for the heavy weight championship of the world ,he had as much credibility as our friend oborne ,but claimed he would "moida da bum" and that he had never "hoid of da bum "--the fight did not take long and as the newsreel pictures showed he emerged with busted eyes, nose and jaw -I think he proved the point that you can say it but that the truth is quite another matter .How do you like that wilhelm ,I know you do not support oborne and his pernicious views so hope this helps you to have a nice day :)

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.
I am surprised you don't remember. I recall several discussions which ended with you saying to one contributor or another that you were too busy to continue or that you had replied but it had disappeared - or ended simply with silence on your side of the debate.

However, all that is fine. You are free to stop taking part whenever you wish. My question is rather why you throw this accusation at someone else, given your history. It is not altogether frank and open (and, in that respect, is uncharacteristic).

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.
November 21st, 2009 11:24pm
phil
November 22nd, 2009 9:27am

You are both of course quite right. This is an error of judgement on my part. The question here is of much graver significance than the minor cavil I was raising, especially as I suspect myself of the same double standard on occasion. I apologise, Adam B.

Wilhelm

"moida da bum"

Was he Bugs Bunny ? He's got that Bronx, Brooklyn accent.

Wilhelm

Jason from AZ

''Could it be that weasely Brits tend to scapegoat those they know are too small in numbers to effectively fight back or adequately
defend themselves?''

Yup, you got it in one.

Skeptic

The "logic" behind the documentary seems to be:

(a) some politicians praise or support Israel;

(b) the ONLY POSSIBLE REASON this could be is due to being bribed or forced into praising Israel;

(c) therefore, the "Israeli Lobby" must be enormously powerful, having in its pocket any politician that ever said anything positive about Israel.

Ah well.

Adam B.

Henry,

Thank you, that's nice of you. There has been occasion when I have withdrawn from a conversation due to work - and I'm sorry for that. I will endeavour not to start a conversation I can't finish! However, my point here was that Carl has repeatedly made false accusations, either against the entire Jewish state, or against me (as above) but then, when challenged with facts, disappears (as above). He isn't a serious contributor, because all he is does is accuse, without ever feeling the need to defend his views.

Adam B.

Philo, I simply don't see what point you're trying to make.

phil

Henry Sidgwick
November 22nd, 2009 2:16pm

well done !

Philo

Adam B. Fair enough. The point was quite simple, or so I thought - but the reader ultimately has to be the judge.

Mr. Shepherd uses a number of polemical tricks that are unworthy of his subject.

The one I picked on here is the "supposedly" where no such supposition was made, which he uses to convey the impression that those who criticise Israel think it has no reasonable case in its defence. This is not true of Dispatches and it is not true of most critics of Israel, who support a two-state solution (implicit in which is the acknowledgement that there is a very good case for Israel).

It is a rhetorical trick much abused by Israel's friends to identify some small group (whether fictional or real) with absurd or offensive opinions and shout loudly in protest while ignoring the majority of reasonable people, thus attmepting to create the illusion that Israel is beset on all sides and must resort to whatever methods it deems necessary to fend off attack.

Genuine debate about genuine compromise requires is made more difficult by such a barrage.

Adam B.

Philo, thanks for explaining further. I believe the supposition is made by Oborne in the programme, and is indeed the whole basis of his investigation/complaint. I also don't agree that all those who say they support a two state solution genuinely do - for many, it is the first stepping stone to destroying Israel in stages. Thirdly, you speak about "genuine compromise." I'm all for that. However, only one side has shown the willingness for such compromise, and it isn't Hamas/Iran or Fatah. What are they giving for peace?

Philo

Adam B.,
We simply disagree over the first point. A programme about the Israel lobby need not be predicated on the assumption that there is no good case for Israel, and dispatches was not so predicated.

Your second point is likely to be correct - but given the overwhelming preponderance of power wielded by Israel and its allies and those who are genuine in seeking a two-state solution, what is its significance?

Your third point is unlikely to be wholly correct. It is a counsel of despair to insist that all Palestinians are and always will be unwilling to compromise because Hamas now proclaims it is. I suspect this is also a point we will simply disagree on.

phil

Philo
November 23rd, 2009 11:28am
The problem is not what you call the "silent,my word" majority who accept that Israel has a problem and sympathise ,but it is those like oborne who make the most noise with inuendo rather than facts ,for what purpose I cannot be sure ,perhaps just to earn a crust with no regard for the pain they cause .

Israel when it ran out of patience carried out "caste lead "to defend its beleaguered citizens and then was castigated for so doing .,they really cannot win in many eyes, so if it was your own family what would you do?

Philo

Phil,
If it were my family, I would ask my government why it refused to negotiate an extension of the ceasefire which it said was working - which had self-evidently cut out the firing of rockets; why it deliberately put my family at risk by escalating; what it intended for the people cooped up across the way, whether it intended to carry on tormenting them until Egypt or the "international community" could be persuaded to take responsibility for them. I would ask if it genuinely thinks it can give us security by confining millions of poor and angry people in a cluster of ghettoes. Of course, these are questions that require reflection. I would be in a complete panic, so I would want them to do Something! - but I hope I would not agree that the something should be indiscriminate slaughter...No, on reflection, my response would be, Why the *!"* did you break the ceasefire? Negotiate a new one - NOW!

Israelis should be able to live in peace and security. That does not give them the right to force others to live a hellish life and die a terrible death.

phil

Philo
November 24th, 2009 9:29am I am grateful that you replied and politely, but your answers are so far off the wall I cannot begin to address them ,maybe Adam will. You are rewriting history in the first part of your reply and I do not want to become in a "they did ,they didn't argument "-There are many obvious points that I could make like Israel has been attacked for more than 60 years and are they not allowed to defend themselves other than throwing snowballs ? Why are they not recognised by hamas /hezbollah as a first step.why do the Arab countries not ensure the Palestinians have good facilities and a decent life ,but enough, I could go on for hours and there will always be somebody to find a clever answer and always find in favour of those that started it ,so have a nice day ,I have said enough.

Adam B.

Philo, I will reply when I have a moment.

Philo

Adam B.
I have read yur earlier exchange and understand that you may well not have time. So don't feel under any obligation. I suspect that we could go at it hammer and tongs for the rest of time. I do not assert that you or Phil are entirely wrong. I suspect you and Phil WILL assert that I am, but I am confident that I am not and that a resolution of the conflict requires Israel, as overwhelmingly the more powerful party, to adopt a different policy.

I do appreciate the time you have taken already.

phil

Philo
November 25th, 2009 9:11am Although we do not agree I have to say you approach us politely and that is appreciated ,but I will pose you one question ,why do you think Israel should negotiate cease fires when it is only a pause for the enemy to recoup their strength and start again ,why in fact a cease fire at all as it is peace and recognition that is necessary .

Anyone who claims Israel does not want peace is talking through their hat,there is nothing to be gained for them by war ,no not even land ,The wall could come down, trade could commence ,the army could be reduced ,the difference in the budget would be enormous and the world would see that militant Islam continued to attack its own regardless of Israel/Palestine.Do you want more reasons? Perhaps you will now focus on what the Arabs could do because so far they have only accused and done zilch for their own .

Both ADAM and I are men of peace but no constructive suggestions ever arrive for us ,the futility of writing here at times is overwhelming ,The nonsense that is posted here ranges from pure ant-Semitism to those who claim to be only anti Israel but the worst is from the revisionist Jews like norman finklestein who sell their books or even believe they will be loved for forsaking their own people .they need reminding of what happened seventy years ago .

There are many like me who will criticise when we perceive Israel has acted incorrectly just as we would have our say on the politics in our own country ,that does not mean we would ever be disloyal ,it is our democracy and our duty to be ever watchful .Many like me for instance complained bitterly about the affair in Shatila and the Israeli courts dealt with it ,soldiers are held to account when they do not act in accordance with the rules of engagement ,can you tell us of even one instance when this has occurred with the Arab side ? You are welcome to pose questions but you must also provide pragmatic answers not just assertions that you are right -I have no doubt you will hear from Adam too regarding your earlier response to me .

Adam B.

Philo, even though we don't agree, I appreciate your reasonable tone, and openness. Makes a refreshing change for the hysterical and hateful accusations one often encounters from Israel's critics.

About Oborne's programme - the whole premise of the programme was that, as various politicians have made supportive statements about Israel, something sinister must be afoot. The default position is that Israel is in the wrong (and Oborne's prejudiced views are well publicised)and consequently, any support for Israel must be the workings of a sinister lobby. The possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, these political leaders may in fact view the conflict differently wasn't even countenanced.

You ask about the significance of the second point. I think you overestimate Israel's power. Israel is vulnerable - it would completely disappear with one Iranian missile with a nuclear warhead. The goal of both Hamas and Fatah is to destroy Israel as a Jewish state (and in the case of Hamas, the goal is to exterminate all Jews, as expressed in its charter). The two differ in how to achieve it, but both recognise that this can be done in stages (Arafat was quite open about this, the quotes can be looked up). You say the onus is on Israel, as the more powerful party. But don't you see that it is impossible for Israel to make concessions, when they are being routinely attacked? And when concessions have been made, what is the result? An intensification of violence against Israelis - look what happened after the Gaza withdrawal, (a sharp increase in rocket attacks on Israeli towns), or the withdrawals in the 1990's from the west Bank (followed by the second intifada with literally thousands of terror attacks). History has shown that whenever Israel makes concessions, the violence doesn't ease, it gets worse. Why do you think this prescription works?

Peace will only come when a fundamental change occurs in the Arab and wider Islamic worlds - and that is, when they accept that a non-Islamic country can exist in peace in the Middle East. We are a very long way from that at the moment, but without it, peace is utterly impossible to achieve. That's what this conflict is about, it's not about precise borders, or settlements, important as all those things are. It's about mentality. Israel has shown it will make concessions - it withdrew from Sinai, Gaza, much of the West Bank. What has it received in return? A softening of hearts? No, the exact opposite.

You say that life is hellish for Gazans - well, what is it for the people fo Sderot and other Israeli communities? The fact is that life for Gazans could be wonderful if its governing body, Hamas, spent more time helping their citizens and less trying to kill Israelis. What happened to the glasshouses left by the settlers? All utterly destroyed by Hamas. The Palestinians receive more aid money than any sub-Saharan African country - has it gone to improving housing and roads, education, building a local economy, new hospitals? No - more weapons and rockets. Why would you expect israel to have an open border with Gaza when they are being attacked from that territory? And why do you think Egypt has closed its border with Gaza? Does Hamas, the governing body, bear no responsibility over the citizens of Gaza? Whay is it always someone else's fault?

As you say, we could go on and on endlessly, so I'll stop there!

Philo

Adam B. and Phil,
As I thought, there is as much to dispute as to agree with in what you say. We could indeed go at it hammer and tongs. I am not sure to what purpose. I drop in on this blog because a few of the contributors lace their indignation with reason, and I learn thereby. I am pretty sure I am unlikely to convince anyone else that there are lessons they too can learn. It is all very well for an outsider, but it is in my experience well nigh impossible for either side in a conflict to admit the possibility that there might be anything to be said for the other. You are both knowledgeable, but I think you disregard a great deal of evidence on history and current affairs that would temper your convictions (but, equally, you will no doubt disagree...).
Thank you for taking the time.

phil

Philo
November 25th, 2009 1:27pm .Once again you have sent a polite post ,but you have not addresses any point either Adam or I have put forward,there are no hammer and tongs in what we have said ,and we are willing to "listen" , but we have nothing to do that with ,that is the futility for me ,no reasonable person such as yourself is ever able to contravene our facts .

The truth is the Arabs ,or their leaders at least, have no interest in a solution ,they would become nobodies as soon as peace was signed and a true government took over ,no backhanders ,no power .just honest labour like everyone else and the prospect of assassination like poor SADAT a real hero .what a future !!!

Linda Smith

Phil and Adam B, do not be beguiled by Philo’s politeness. Observe that Philo’s opinions are bereft of historical fact regarding the history of Islam and the Jews. Therefore they are based on false assumptions and fundamentally flawed. Philo is another wolf in sheep’s clothing.

phil

Linda Smith
November 25th, 2009 5:09pm I think I made that clear to her ,but I will accept her at face value ,she seems genuinely confused and it costs me nothing to be pleasant

Adam B.

Philo, I have friends who, when I debate with them about Israel, give me a look which says "I know you must be wrong, but I don't know why." I feel that's what you've just given me. If I have written something with which you disagree, why not tell me? We can discuss it - I am always open to other viewpoints. Are you?

Philo

Adam B.,
Well put.
I have scrolled through some earlier discussions and found that you have discussed these matters more than once and at length with others. I noted what you said about how busy you can be on occasion. So I thought the last thing you would want would be to go round the block yet again - especially as I find I am unlikely to have anything to say that has not been said before.