An inconvenient truth

Liz

I guess this speech will be published in the Guardian tomorrow.

Murgatroyd

Integrity and erudition: it is obvious that these qualities are lacking in the FO, and elsewhere among the so-called intelligentsia of the UK.

This fine speech should be widely disseminated. In fact the noses of the Israel-deniers should be rubbed in it regularly until they recognise the foul smell of their own turpitude.

mostly harmless

Seems like a reasonable chap

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-dark-side-of-andrew-roberts-1765229.html

Beer Moth

Well delivered truths, which will of course, be widely ignored.

Douglas Shaw

I was present and, indeed, it was a fine speech, erudite, unflinching in its defence of freedom and full integrity. The section on countries that HM the Queen has been allowed to visit by the FCO was especially powerful. I think the audience was unused to hearing such plain speaking, surprised even. To such an extent, however, that I don't think the audience truly appreciated the clarity of the message they were hearing. Consequently, the reception was polite rather than rousing.

Brian Moshe

To repeat something I say sincerely on a regular basis: Thank you for this, Melanie.

Without you publishing this succinct speech I might probably never have had the opportunity to read it in full.

Yuval

As excellent as it is deeply depressing...

Baron

The last sentence would resonate better and be closer to the truth if it ended with: ‘… only Israel can be relied upon to act decisively in the best interest of the free world’.

Good stuff nevertheless.

Moroccan

Morocco know to welcome its guests according to their value .

Michael

Ah! the venerable Andrew Roberts. Not exactly the cleanest of whistles is he? Makes some good points, absolutely, but there's an empty resonance around it all considering his background and his rhetoric and work elsewhere.

Original Tony

A very good speech.

And remember, an enemy of Israel is an enemy of God.

Look to your leaders' attitude towards Israel to discover the condition of your own nation.

Britain falling to bits? The USA falling to bits? Their current leaders are enemies of Israel aren't they?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

..and just today we see an article in The Times by Bronwyn Maddox - ostensibly nothing more than an "objective" report on the joint statement by the EU calling on "Israel yesterday to make Jerusalem the capital of a future Palestinian state, in reproof of the current Government’s rejection of such an outcome. “If there is to be a genuine peace, a way must be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states,” the 27 foreign ministers said."

Our "objective" Times reporter ends her statement of "facts" with:

"Security, as always, is Israel’s best point. Its worst, in this case, is respect for humanitarian concerns. The EU might well not have summoned up the will to drive through any resolution on Jerusalem were it not for anger about Gaza one year on."

Perhaps Ms Maddox is not in the secret employ of the FO, but one does wonder what her agenda really is, implicit in this feast of anti Israel tendentiousness masquerading as merely "informing" her dear reader.

On the other hand, perhaps we should applaud Ms Maddox for bringing it to our attention that the EU is, despite all its doubters and nay-sayers, an organisation that occupies hallowed moral ground and we should, accordingly, be looking at them, if not the FO, for moral inspiration in our attempt to find Godliness.

Anth

Interesting, but counter-productive. Roberts is preaching to the converted, an audience he should be enlightening about the pain, suffering and justifiable indignation of the Palestinians. As for the wider audience, his one-sidedness is likely to provoke many impartial readers to sympathize with the Arabs.
I pray and thank God for the restoration of Israel, but this over-simplistic Mannichaeism serves only to inflame extremists.
"Hath not (an Arab) eyes?...If you prick us, do we not bleed?"

RR, Uninvited Columnist

Andrew Roberts is one of a tiny group of British scholars who backs Israel let alone listens to the Israeli side in its disputes with the Arabs.

Yehuda

Andrew Roberts is a distinguished historian and a man who appreciates and supports the justice of the Zionist cause.

It is a pity, therefore, that, in referring to the Peel Plan of 1937, he did not do justice to the Zionist reaction to it.
Although the plan was a breach of Britain's commitments that had been internationally endorsed, the Zionist Organisation did not reject it out of hand, but wanted further to explore it.
When, however, the Arabs rejected it peremptorily, the plan became defunct.

David SI

Michael, you’ve decided not to debate the points made by Andrew Roberts but instead to attack his integrity/honesty and even his background. Please don’t hide behind a series of sneering implications; if you’re going to attack the man, at least have the balls to be specific about what you think his shortcomings are and why they impact on his argument.
Anth, you are concerned about inflaming extremists. You may not agree with Andrew Robert’s argument but why do you think that a debate about an important current issue should be stifled to avoid giving offence to extremists? At what point do you think some nuanced objection or debate should be allowed around the subject of extremism? If you are unwilling to even debate, let alone act, on an issue for fear of giving affront to extremism, then I’d argue that you have a depressing future ahead of you.

Joshua

Anth, Most Brits don't need an excuse "to sympathize with the Arabs". Their prejudices are sucked in with their mother's milk. Britain abandoned the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust. It is hardly surprising that she has now abandoned the Jews of Israel.

In the Wilderness in America

There is only one comment that can be made about Andrew Roberts's speech: Brilliant. I might also add Bravo for pointing out the anti-Semitism that permeates the Foreign Office.The neglect of Israel by Britain over the decades since her founding and even before that is palpable. Add to that the downright disdain for Israel by Obama and you have a cruel neglect that a madman in Tehran just might use to ignite a nuclear confrontation.

Both Britain and America should be ashamed of their treatment of Israel. Andrew Roberts pulled no punches and they landed squarely on the nose scoring a knockout. I just wish there were someone in America with the gravitas of Roberts who would take Obama and his ilk similarly to task.

just Louise

Joshua, Britain did not abandon the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust. That is revisionism, and is part of a rather nasty and mischievous anti-British mindset on the part of some mainly leftist historians to denigrate Britain and imply that this country was as culpable for the Holocaust as Nazi Germany itself. While deploring the duplicity of British governments in the years between the Balfour Declaration and the 1939 White Paper, I must point out that the outbreak of the Second World War effectively closed the sea lanes and trapped the Jews of continental Europe, leaving them prey to Hitler and making their rescue impossible. The bombing of the railway lines to Auschwitz was also neither as easy nor as hazard-free as many people would like to believe. The best way - the only way - that Britain and the Allies could aid European Jewry once hostilities were declared was to vanquish Nazism by winning the war. The historian W.D.Rubinstein points this out very cogently in his book "The Myth of Rescue".

just Louise

A fine speech; Andrew Roberts has a fine reputation as an historian, and his words are heartening.
I nominate him for a frequent guest spot as a Guardian guest writer, and also as a BBC talking head.
Some chance, eh?

Charles

Au contraire, Mr Roberts. No other country did MORE to bring about the creation of a Jewish state. From the half million British casualties during the WW1 Palestine campaign, through the tens of thousands of British soldiers stationed there during the interwar years and the 8th Army victories in North Africa that forestalled a Palestinian genocide. A thankless task for much of the time, but Mr Roberts could just have easily produced a glowing testament to the countless forgotten British soldiers who made it all possible. And there was no historical 'narrative', there never is. Only the one that historians compose when they want to sell a book.

john Norman

FCO: the Furtive and Cowardly Office

Jez

I think this little Anglophobic historian really wants to *think* about the families of those SAS lads- that died trying to prevent an all-out 'regional carnage' when they attempted to destroy those Skud missile sites- and then Roberts should just shut up.

Without Britain there would be no Israel- as it is today.

It isn't a perfect story- at all- but whilst we were trying to juggle soot between the Arab world and the Jewish community that wanted their historic homeland e.g. 1917-1939, the NSDAP regime (on the other side) were murdering millions of Jewish men, women and children from 1940-ish to 1945. And dominate Europe. And defeat Great Britain. And unite the Arab world against Great Britain through the Palestine issue. And just to make things worse the Japanese Empire was trying to destroy Britain also.

The free-world only just scraped through- as an historian i thought Roberts would have noticed that- and thus tied some pretty important contributing-factors to Great Britain's actions of the times.

Look *forward* not back all the time. This may be a bit hard, i know, with clowns like Roberts winding everyone up like that!

(there is no reason why that full comment can't get in)

JOHN ROOSEVELT

just Louise:..and no doubt Britain was the knight on the white charger for the Bosnian Moslems, as well :))

Ah, Perfidious Albion! Don't you just love her??!!

"revison and revision and revision..creeps on a pace.."

Joseph.E

History's cadences do occasionally rhyme :

Same as Hitler diplomacy and politics as war completion furthering his nazi regime moves,

So

Road Map and Ayatola nuclear ambitions lead to
a Second Holocaust,

Sarah

Anth: “Roberts is preaching to the converted, an audience he should be enlightening about the pain, suffering and justifiable indignation of the Palestinians”.

Despite the, er, “pain, suffering and justifiable indignation of the Palestinians” Hamas is gleefully planning to take over Rome, Europe and the world with the rest of its Muslim associates to put us all under the rule of Islam, as the “pain, suffering and justifiable indignation” of this speech by Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astral makes clear:

“Allah has chosen you for Himself and for His religion, so that you will serve as the engine pulling this nation to the phase of succession, security, and consolidation of power, and even to conquests thorough da’wa and military conquests of the capitals of the entire world.

“Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesised by our Prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam – this capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe.

“I believe that our children or our grandchildren will inherit our jihad and our sacrifices, and Allah willing, the commanders of the conquest will come from among them. Today, we instil these good tidings in their souls, and by means of the mosques and The Koran books, and the history of our prophets, his companions, and the great leaders, we prepare them for the mission of saving humanity from the hellfire on the brink of which they stand.”

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=x_qbKrOF64w

Anth: “Hath not (an Arab) eyes?...If you prick us, do we not bleed?”

Hath not you wilfully distorted the truth with a sanctimonious paraphrase?

Hath not you deliberately turned a blind eye to the Hamas charter (“O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”)?

Hath not you forgotten that Hamas don’t tend to do Shakespeare but instead go in for a form of play-the-victim pantomime, otherwise known as taqiyya?

dbrak

Temperature averaging of this type can be physically meaningless, as explained at pennance.us/?p=32. When non linear transformation are applied, the same data set can consistent with both warming and cooling as described at (pennance.us/?p=4).

As a simple example: Imagine a planet, call it X, that has only two weather stations. Suppose that for many centuries the two stations both record a constant temperature of 16°X. Suppose that in a certain year one station records an average temperature of 0°X and the other 36°X yielding a mean of 18°X. Suppose the temperature scale °X is related to another thermometric scale °Y by an order preserving transformation. Suppose for simplicity that under this change of scale: 0°X converts to 0°Y; 16°X converts to 4°Y; 36°X converts to 6°Y. When °X are used, the data from the two stations shows a rise of 2°X in the mean. The same data when converted to °Y shows a fall of in the mean of 1°Y.

Thus whether we deduce warming or cooling depends very much on the scale used. Nonlinear averaging behaves exactly like a nonlinear change of scale in this respect.

Danny

Charles, that is a truly heroic interpretation of history. WW1 there was no question of a genocide of Jews - and Jews fought and served with the British army helping them to win the war in that region. Contrary to the myth of Lawrence of Arabia, the Arabs overwhelmingly fought on the side of the Turks.

WW2, Jews fought on the side of the allies again unlike the Arabs who at best did nothing and at worst fought on the side of the Axis.

Finally, come 1948 Britain armed, financed and supplied the armies of three arab armies - their puppets in the region, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan. Jordan was commanded and officer-ed by Brits and the Brits invoked the highly unpopular mutual defence pact to backstop the Egyptians when their army collapsed. They fought against Israel being accepted into the UN and were one of only two countries to ever recognise the annexation of the West Bank of Jordan.

If you think this is a pro-Israeli country, what exactly would an anti-Israeli country have to have done?

phil

As always excellent words from Andrew and rightly applauded by most ,followed of course by the usual nastiness from those like mostly harmless ,charles and michael ,we await with baited breath the thoughts of "the blade" -it is of course again as always akin to a pantomime -it matters not what we do there will always be the sullivans and their ilk ,and you know what ,I do not give a damn .

We all know who walks the moral path and who skulks in dark alleys spitting out hatred and living sad and embittered lives. I am not for turning and I am sure nor are most of you .

Liz

JustLouise - Yad Vashem - revisionist? They put forward a very cogent case in defense of their view that the rail network to Auschwitz could have been bombed but it wasn't considered a priority.
I do agree with Joshua that a great many Anglo Saxon Brits have an almost genetic dislike of Jews. Perhaps its a collective race memory that harks back to Edward I and the Edict of Expulsion. It's not from mothers' milk Joshua, it's the water from all those wells we poisoned.

just Louise

John, I'm under no illusions regarding some of Albion's perfidy, but there's been a great deal of philosemitism in this country that isn't often acknowledged - as well as W.D.Rubinstein's book "The Myth of Rescue" I recommend his other book, "Philosemitism", which traces the symapathy and admiration for Jews by various British elite figures (and others) between 1940-1939.
Constantly slamming Britain as antisemitic is untruthful and distorts the historic record, as well as trivialising Nazi crimes by making it look as if interwar and wartime Britain was just as judeophobic as the Nazi Germany. The entire dynamic of Anglo-Jewish history since the Reformation has been different from the continental experience; the Puritan Revolution and the rise of mercantilism were favourable to Jews, allowing the Resettlement of 1656, and many historians argue (in my view correctly) that anti-Catholicism has been the British equivalent of continental antisemitism.
Having said that, I'm perfectly aware, and totally appalled by, Foreign Office Arabism. I have nothing but contempt for this country's attitude to courageous little Israel as she struggles to survive. I loathe New Labour with a vengeance, and am not at all convinced that the Tories will be any better, though I doubt they could be worse. But at least, unlike Boy Miliband, William Hague does not have a Communist background nor a (Jewish) mother who belongs to Israel-bashing as-a-Jew organisations.

daniel maris

I suppose Israel's right to exist and its right to defend itself especially against genocidal maniacs like Ahmadinejad.

But there is not point in distorting the historical record. No mention of Jewish terrorism against British forces in Palestine as then was. No justification given for reading "Jewish National Home" as "Jewish Independent State". Lots of people in the British Empire had "national homes". Didn't mean they were independent and completely self-governing.

So let's please keep connected to reality.

As for a Royal Visit - yes that would be a very good idea as long as the Israelis did not insist on a stroll around East Jerusalem.

just Louise

Apologies, I meant 1840 (Damascus blood libel)-1939.

Sarah, that's a chilling statement, which should be heeded by John Beynon, the "other" man on the John Sullivan video referred to by Melanie recently - the ex-Principal of KCL who attende the anti-Israel carol service yet confessed to ignorance of Hamas's nature.
It should also be required reading for the Guardianistas.
I wonder what would happen if it was posted on CiF? Deleted before you could say "Holy War!", I'd wager!

phil

just Louise
December 10th, 2009 12:40pm You are absolutely right to point out that the vast majority of Brits are kind and considerate to the Jewish population -It is now the left who are demonising us and I would point out that the left in the Spanish civil war were equally disgusting in their atrocities as were the right ,Both are extremists and equally love to hate .The foreign office has always been Arabist a mixture of "oh I am better than them" and practicality regarding the oil-Bevin?who knows maybe a Jewish kid pinched his sweeties,but if there is an afterlife he will still be protesting his innocence .

just Louise

Liz, my apologies for overlooking your comment earlier. I do believe that Yad Vashem have - perhaps influenced by historians such as Arthur Morse and David Wyman - rushed to an unfair judgement on Britain's behaviour during the war.
Phil, apparently the dreadful Ernest Bevin was illegitimate, and there are some who have postulated that his father was Jewish!

The Righteous Are as Bold as Lions, Liberals are Fuzzy

BIT TRITE. If you cannot understand you may still be occupied by Turks without Allnby you have missed the point! Thousands of Brits shed blood for the Jews, thousands were liberated, God does not look at National results, but individual sacrifice. He also sees all the financial fiddles going on in Parliament and Israeli wickedness in high places concerning filthy lucre. Hand it all back a.s.a.p cos nothing is going to work out until they do. The sooner they are honest and receive forgiveness the sooner so-called political problems will be resolved. Naive to expect justice when you cannot define it

phil

Just Louise "apparently the dreadful Ernest Bevin was illegitimate, and there are some who have postulated that his father was Jewish!"
Must have been one of the Leeds boys !!

Greg D

'In the Second World War, the Luftwaffe killed 50,000 Britons in the Blitz, and the Allied response was to kill 600,000 Germans – twelve times the number and hardly a proportionate response, but one that contributed mightily to victory.'

That is the some of the most plebeian drivel I have ever heard come out of the mouth of a so-called historian. There is wide professional consensus that the mass killing of German civilians during the war was a boon to the Nazi authorities; it gave 'evidence' for Goebbels to claim that the Allies were bent on annihilating the entire German people and rallied the civilian population to continue the fight against the Allied 'barbarians'. Increased per capita productivity and desperate resistance were the result of this strategy. Targeted bombing of manufacturing and transport infrastructure were what seriously affected the Nazi war machine, not the mass slaughter of German civilians. Where does this man's reputation come from?

'The problem crosses political parties today, just as it always has. William Hague called for Israel to adopt a proportionate response in its struggle with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2007, as though proportionate responses ever won any victories against fascists... I put it to you that there is absolutely no lengths to which our Government would not go to protect British subjects under those circumstances, and quite right too. So why should Israel be expected to behave any differently?'

Is this man seriously, and publicly, giving a sly wink to military tactics that deliberately crush, burn, and maim unarmed people? 'Absolutely no lengths to which we would not go' = total war, no holds barred. The stuff of genocide, effectively. Is he openly championing Hiroshima and Dresden and the right of Israel to do the same vis-a-vis the Palestinians? And Melanie supports this view - 'no further comment'? No questions asked? I wish I were speechless (and so do you, phil).

just Louise! You suprise me with your moderation (don't worry, I accidently locked my sarcasm in the car).

Joshua - that's not a very nice thing to say. It almost seems as if you're suggesting that British people are born Amelikites!

Raymond in DC

There's one item Mr. Roberts failed to mention in his fine presentation: that at the same time Britain was restricting Jewish immigration into Mandate Palestine, immigration by Arabs from surrounding countries was unrestricted.

A large portion of those who today claim to be Palestinians "who have live here for hundreds of years" are, in fact, descended from those who migrated from what are today's Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and beyond. That migration had already been going on since the turn of the century, in response to the economic opportunities created by Jewish settlement, but massively accelerated in the 1920s and 1930s.

Apropos, I just read George Gilder's "The Israel Test" - a test which the UK is clearly failing.

Philo

I have searched through the speech. What is the "inconvenient truth"? - that being lionized by the neo-Conservatives addles the brain? Andrew Roberts is a fine historian. I enjoyed the biographies of Salisbury and Halifax. "Masters and Commanders" was a good read (a new history doesn't always have to have something new to say). "The History of the English Speaking Peoples" and his recent history of World War 2 were not good (perhaps written too quickly). But this speeach is lamentable. Staunch supporters of Israel must surely squirm at such thin stuff. Critics of Israel will shake their heads in bemusement. It was perhaps effective in tickling his audience's prejudices after dinner, which I suppose is fair enough. But why promote it here?

Linda Smith

Daniel Maris posted “No justification for reading “Jewish National Home” as “Jewish Independent State”. Lots of people in the British Empire had “national homes” Didn’t mean they were independent and completely self-governing”

Who do you advocate should have governed the “Jewish National Home” after the British terminated the Mandate terminated in 1948? The Moslems under Sharia Law?

Jeremy

A very fine speech, and one that I think will be remembered...

Greg D

Ahhh... mostly harmless... i missed your link...

Everything is now illuminated, to echo Mel.

Jez

"Where does this man's reputation come from?"

From dinner parties like the A.L.A. it seems.

Unbelievable.

May i just apologise to any of the Jewish community out there who'll be interested;

We 'Anglo people' (?) don't all hate our ourselves / our history to such an extent that we feel we must tell rooms full of other people just how terrible we percieve past events- to the obvious detriment to us all now.

Lupus Lungfish

I'm completely unqualified to talk about Jews'n'stuff. Listen, I'm in my forties and fairly well qualified and informed etc, but thats my point. When Israel enters the conversation nobody has a bloody clue what its all about. In fact I can safely say its a subject that nobody gives a damn about. All us common folk hear is 'West Bank' 'Gaza Strip' bla bla death, bombs and the occasional politicians name that we may recognise from the news.
Thats not to say that we don't recognise Israel as the only democratic and successful country in that region, and some of realise a bit more than most what you have done in the past. Hmmm, what I'm trying to say is that Israelis need to improve their game on the image front. And of course if Britain is USAF base One then Israel is USAF base Two!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Greg D: please give us some insight into your book of "proportionate response in war".

Greg D

'And remember, an enemy of Israel is an enemy of God.

Look to your leaders' attitude towards Israel to discover the condition of your own nation.'

Astute political analysis, Original Tony. You should contest Margaret Hodge come the general election. You'd do well.

*I found my keys.

daniel maris

Linda Smith -

Only the UN could terminate the mandate status. It did. It produced a partition plan for a Jewish state, an Arab state and an internationalised Jerusalem. It was a good plan and something like it is the only hope for peace in the area. It is the basis for Israel's right to exist. I know that is probably not a popular view among Jews, particularl Israelis, but it is the reality. Most people in the world don't think the for many centuries rather tenuous connection with the region or ancient religious texts constitute a justification for the state's existence. Most people accept its right to exist as flowing from its UN member status.

Is Andrew Roberts defending mass killing of civilians? I don't think Israel benefits from his support. And the other poster was right to note that the mass bombing of civilians detracted from the war effort. The Nazi war effort was disrupted much more by the targeted bombing of railway and oil depots.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

daniel maris
December 10th, 2009 10:31pm
"Linda Smith -

Only the UN could terminate the mandate status. It did. It produced a partition plan for a Jewish state, an Arab state and an internationalised Jerusalem. It was a good plan and something like it is the only hope for peace in the area. It is the basis for Israel's right to exist. "

..and this was the Plan the Arab states and the leaders of the Palestinian Arabs resoundingly rejected and, for the most part, still do today; and it was that rejection which was expressed in an arrogant attempt literally to wipe the Jews off the Middle Eastern map.

Jerusalem is a faux issue, as all the Arabs well know. The truth is that the very existence of Israel is the issue, as it always has been. That won't be "resolved" by stopping settlements. It wont be resolved by bringing down the Wall. It won't be resolved by moving back to the armistice lines of '49. It won't be resolved by allowing anyone who claims some Palestinian arab identity to return to their ancestral home in Jaffa.

The presence of the Jew in Palestine is anathema to the moslem in general and the Arab moslem in particular.

There is NO model for Peace - as we would conceive of it in the UK - anywhere in the Middle East. Our opposition to the "illegal" war in Iraq would have had us supporting the Peace of Saddam, albeit by default. The notion of Peace that you imply, therefore, is a nonsense in this context - as misplaced as the idea that the tyrannies that are the hallmark of this region will magically morph into the kind of civilisation in which this notion of peace you imply would genuinely have a place.

Perhaps you mean well when heralding the liberal idyll of love amongst men, but it has no place in the Middle East. That region is condemned to conflict. It is God's little case study in man's predilection for vestal virgins and blood.

J. Isaacs

Great speech and superb wider dissemination of it by Melanie Phillips. Loved the bit where the current Foreign Secretary pop-gun parts boycotter to Israel is ignored as a nonentity who will, doubtless, be gone and forgotten after a May election. Meanwhile, the Tories' Hague is shown up for the failed leader and election loser he clearly is. Not much of a choice for British Jews or any other Britons who have to swallow the Al Yamamah corruption investigation curtailment.

But venture capital giant Israel hardly needs Britain's arms industry when it is busy advising major trade partner India to reject Swedish Gripen fighter jets in favour of US F16s. Simultaneously Israel is supplying its magnificent new Tavor TAR21 assault rifle to India (population 1,139,964,932) instead of Britain's woefully under-resourced armed forces in Afghanistan. British boycotters beware.

Anth

Sarah
The fact that many Palestinians indulge a murderous hatred towards Israel is certainly cause for alarm, especially when you live within striking distance of their weapons. Who disputes this ?
But before you deny the possibility that Arabs, too, have suffered through the return of the Jews, just read Sumayat Farhat-Naser’s account : "Thyme and Stones".
This lady is working with Jewish Israelis to promote reconciliation - a task which depends on the willingness to listen to the other's pain.
And hey, can’t we discuss like adults, and avoid the temptation to insult each other when we disagree ?

Adam B.

Greg D - two things:
1. Israel did not target unarmed people in South Lebanon, it targeted Hezbollah terrorists.
2. The mass bombing of Germany DID have an effect which you ignore - it pacified the Germans into being completely anti-war for generations. It resulted in a seismic cultural shift.

Adam B.

Philo, perhaps you could explain why you think the speech is "thin." How detailed do expect an after dinner speech to be?

Adam B.

daniel maris, does Britain have a right to exist because the UN says so? If people base their support for the existence of Israel on what the UN said in 1947, they really don't support the existence of Israel at all. "Tenuous" connection you say? Why?

Skeptic

>>>>>>>>>>>Au contraire, Mr Roberts.... No other country did MORE to bring about the creation of a Jewish state. From the half million British casualties during the WW1 Palestine campaign, through the tens of thousands of British soldiers stationed there during the interwar years and the 8th Army victories in North Africa that forestalled a Palestinian genocide.

All true, Charles, but I think Roberts' point is about the perfidy and duplicity of the FO and the British elites, not of the average British soldier. Indeed he defends the British RAF's campaign in the article, for example.

Skeptic

>>>>>>>>I have searched through the speech. What is the "inconvenient truth"? - that being lionized by the neo-Conservatives addles the brain?

I only wish to note that, as usual, the reaction of the "enlightened left" to criticism -- such a Roberts -- is claiming the critic is stupid and shaking one's head in disbelief that one could POSSIBLY doubt the SOPHISTICATED and MORALLY SUPERIOR position of the far-left folks.

Daniel L Remler

Brilliant!

ABSOLUTELY B R I L L I A N T !!

My G-D does this man know of what he speaketh. What a stirring speech, and every word the truth.

-- An American Jew
with a US State Department so unfortunately modeled after the British Arabist Foreign Office. One of the most pro-Arab organizations of any country.

C. Gee

Anth:

"As for the wider audience, his one-sidedness is likely to provoke many impartial readers to sympathize with the Arabs."

So, in any discussion of conflict, an impartial reader or listener will sympathize with the side opposite to the one the speaker is for?

This is not impartiality, it is perversity. If the story of the war against Israel were told from the Arab point of view, would an impartial listener sympathize with the Jews? Oddly, the BBC and Guardian has been doing this for years, without such sympathy for Jews emerging in its impartial listeners and readers. Nor have Jewish extremists thus been inflamed.

Greg D

JOHN ROOSEVELT

I'd say the British record in the Falklands is pretty commendable.

UN troops in East Timor against pro-Indonesia militia back in 1999.

Lastly, US strategy in Iraq under General Petraeus is a good example of proportionate response.

In all of the examples given, deliberately targeting civilians was not on the cards. And in all the examples a bad situation didn't become worse because of it.

Danny

Greg D, where is this widespread consensus? Amongst your mates?

The fact is that the Germans didn't "rally" against the allies, they rallied against the Russians - who incidentally were NOT bombing Germany - and the increase in productivity was due to Speer's rationalisation of production and even then there was a cost imposed by the US/UK bombing campaign. It is also clear-cut that the start of the downturn of support for the Nazi regime started with the allied bombing of germany at the same time as Stalingrad.

Danny

Greg D, where is this widespread consensus? Amongst your mates?

The fact is that the Germans didn't "rally" against the allies, they rallied against the Russians - who incidentally were NOT bombing Germany - and the increase in productivity was due to Speer's rationalisation of production and even then there was a cost imposed by the US/UK bombing campaign. It is also clear-cut that the start of the downturn of support for the Nazi regime started with the allied bombing of germany at the same time as Stalingrad.

Danny

daniel maris, in WW2 bombers were barely capable of hitting a town let alone "targeted bombings" of railways and oil depots.

Anth

David Sl
You misunderstand me. I am all for debate, which is why I deplore the waste of an opportunity for Roberts to have engaged his audience in one. Instead, he seems to have dished up a version of events designed to aid their digestion rather than stimulate and challenge their minds and hearts.
Obviously, if we ignore the wickedness of Muslim terrorists, Israel will suffer deadfully, but if we fail to consider the anguish of the Palestinian Arabs, we cheapen the Jewish achievement.
My point about extremism is that it thrives on black-and-white, absolute good versus absolute evil, narratives. For this reason, Roberts should refrain from peddling a view of history so one-sided that it distorts the truth and verges on propaganda.
Let Melanie do the tub-thumping – that’s her gift, God bless her– but we need to rely on historians for sobriety and balance.

C Gee
I take your point, even though the conclusion you draw in the second paragraph is pure invention.
I agree with you totally about the BBC bias and its pernicious effect on public opinion. I disagree regarding the reason for its effectiveness. The BBC is dangerous because it is subtle : it includes enough counter-opinion, and broadcasts enough Israel-supportive news to maintain a veneer of credibility.

Charles

All this criticism of the Foreign Office; good grief, they're DIPLOMATS. What do you suppose diplomacy involves? The FO is undoubtedly a shadow of its former self, like all arms of the modern (broken) British State, but in its day...

Nevertheless, anyone watching yesterday's 'grilling' of the ex-diplomat chief of MI6 would have witnessed a good example of the FO breed at work. And talking of the Iraq Inquiry, I'm with the sceptics on that one, those two eminent historians seem to be barely awake most of the time. An occupational hazard for historians, I guess!

just Louise

Incidentally, the Torygraph reported yesterday that Boy Miliband has appointed his right-hand man at the FO as GB's ambassador to Israel. According to the Torygraph the new ambassador is Jewish. If so, would this appointment be, by any chance, a figleaf for this government's appalling record regarding Israel of late? I think we know the answer.

Henry Sidgwick

Greg D.,
The examples you cite are all ambiguous.

The Falklands War was indeed more nearly a recognisable war between opposing armies, but the armies were those of Reagan's favourite junta and an old colonial power trying to save face after diplomatic bungling i.e hardly an advert for an enlightened world order.

The UN were only allowed into East Timor at the very end after decades of US support of the Indonesian slaughter.

Petraeus was "successful" because the Sunni militias realized belatedly that their best hope lay in siding with the invader, or so I understand. I have also read of militias being bought off with money and weapons. And the US response in Falluja was anything but proportionate, even by its own account.

The trouble with talk of a "proportionate response" in the context of Cast Lead is that it was not a response. It was aggression, and aggression cannot be proportionate.

The IDF of course has plans for all contingencies it can imagine. However, it is curious that it was fully mobilized for just the contingency that the ceasefire with Hamas would "break down" - indeed that it had prepared for the break down for six months, since the ceasefire was signed and despite the ceasefire working - just as it was curious that it was fully mobilized in 2006 for the contingency that Hizballah would kidnap a few soldiers for the now traditional prisoner swap.

liz

just Louise, I think I agree with you and I'm loathed to argue for or against the matter, but YV has a entire display outlining the failure of the West to bomb the rail tracks to Auschwitz. The fact that they were quite able to bomb the surrounding factories kinda makes one wonder. I'm not sure I'd call that particularly revisionist.

phil

greg d -

""I wish I were speechless (and so do you, phil).""

Not at all we need people to write their thoughts here however ridiculous and you definitely qualify regularly on that count .I read your efforts avidly after my old copies of the Beano .

phil

greg d -your reply to John R (who by the way nails it as usual )

"Lastly, US strategy in Iraq under General Petraeus is a good example of proportionate response."

Here is your chance to shine ,tell us what a proportionate response by the Israelis should have been ,bearing in mind of course that even the withdrawal from Gaza only brought the attacks closer to home and that the attacks were of course always on civilians -you will get a fair hearing if you in fact are fair yourself .

blue_&_white_avenger

"Raymond in DC" - I agree with you & I very-slightly disagree with Just-Louise.
I've lived in the UK for a long time; whilst most Brits are not anti-semites, there is the FO & its acolytes to contend with. The Britain that provided the Balfour Declaration was not exactly that which ran the Mandate & effectively appeased the Arabs as the easy way out; the Jews just argued whereas the Arabs masses were gullible volatile, violent,etc.
But a major factor giving the nazis the go-ahead with their extermination policy was the response at the Evian Conference, 1938 where the world showed that Jews were dispensable and where Britain, only agreed to attend on condition that Palestine - as a home to the Jewish people & particularly to the ever- increasingly-persecuted- Jews was not on the agenda.
I somehow feel also, that whereas towards the end of the war when the game was up for the nazis, the gestapo still insisted on priority on transport to carry Jews to the deaths when that transport was desperately need for military purposes - so too, earlier in the war, when the RN was desperately stretched to maintain the shipping lanes & support Greece, Crete etc, they were used instead to intercept transports of fleeing Jews & to return them to their deaths.
That didn't help the British war effort - that was just a spiteful action initiated at the highest level by those who feared & hated Jews.

Charles

Danny makes a good point about WW2 bombers. In 1942 an enemy High Seas fleet sailed past Dover (the first since the Armada and the days of Drake). The RAF and Fleet Air Arm chucked everything available at it - several hundred bombers, even more fighters, a handful of torpedo planes (on a suicide mission). Not one bomb struck a target.

Incidentally, on historical matters, some readers may be intrigued to know that Drake's navigator was one 'Moses the Jew'. He lived in Plymouth a long time before the days of Cromwell and the 're-admission'. Which would seem to put him at odds with the historical 'narrative' - didn't stop him sailing around the world though.

just Louise

Liz, there's a documentary about whether or not it was feasible to bomb the railway lines - it comes onto the Sky digital "History Channel" regularly, and especially on or around 27th January. You might find it of interest, if you haven't seen it already. I'm not sure of the title, but I think it's "Auschwitz - the Forgotten Evidence".

solemnman

just Louise,
Some time ago I watched a documentary on the subject of America's and Britain's refusal to bomb the railway lines and camps.Churchill had ordered the bombing but Anthony Eden demmured citing dificulties that would ensure failure .Some of those ,who had participated in the bombing of areas in proximity to the camps ,could not understand why it was regarded as being difficult -when it seemed, to them ,to be quite easy and not even requiring a diversion to do so as they had flown over the camps on their way to nearby targets.
Himmler,in an effort to liberate a large number of German civilians who were trapped in South America ,offered to release an equal number of jews.Cordell Hull agreed but Anthony Eden refused to allow the exchange giving as his excuse"they would all want to go to Palestine".There was ,clearly, no room in Britain's vast empire ("upon which the sun never set") to accommodate the Jews facing certain death.

liz

Thanks JL. I understand the lack of accuracy of bombing from high altitude in those days was a big issue and one used to vindicate the decision not to bomb the rail tracks leading into Auschwitz, but having visited the place myself, I can say that there is (still) an enormous network of track around the camp. Even one hit would have made some difference. Anyway, sadly, that never happened. Just seems odd that the problems with accuracy were secondary when it was decided to bomb the surrounding factories. Anyway, regardless of Auschwitz - the British did expend a disproportionate amount of time defending 'Palestine' from Jews fleeing Europe. That, apparently, was considered 'all part of the war effort'. Go figure.

Adam B.

Henry Sidgwick, Cast Lead was indeed a response - to 6000 rockets targeted at a small working class Israeli civilian town no less, fired by a terror organization bent on the extermination of all Jews. Aggression? You need to learn the meaning of the word.

Jez

All of a sudden you're sucked into the vortex of anti- this or pro-that.

"There was ,clearly, no room in Britain's vast empire ("upon which the sun never set") to accommodate the Jews facing certain death."

The Empire depended on the Suez canal. The initial pro's of Balfour, that we (the UK) would (and still have) a Western leaning state of allies in the Suez region e.g. a Jewish state, was one of his points of pushing through the Balfour declaration.

Unfortunately the whole of the Arab world united in resistence to this- which was either a mandate, colony or protectorate of the British, French, Italian Empires.

There are other instances of small gestures- many double edged swords though;

(I aren't even going to google this) But there were other approaches to high level Jewish leaders to build a Jewish state in several regions within the British Empire before 1917.

The Jewish people's historical homeland is in Israel though- and that is the place they were always going to return to.... this since the Diaspora's.

Ok.

The USSR set up the Jewish Autonomous Oblast on the Amur river... although this was little more than cloak for Stalin to hide his subverting / control of the Jewish Religion and Zionism (thus countering any extreme far-Right ideology linking Jews with Communism- maybe?). This place is almost void of Jews now though.

I'm not even going to go into any thing the Germans said they were going to do- as it was only for one thing- to buy enough time to completely murder anyone they found undesirable.

The British didn't bomb the rail network at Auchswitz- but they stopped Rommel from breaking through at El Alemain thus halting the Einzatze units from making their newly conquered Palestine 'Judenfrei'. The British endured the Blitz, the V1's & V2's, the Japanese concentration camps and if Stalin over run any Stalag's with our lad's in, then many of them just 'dissapeared'.

Your over here in Britain and your in Israel now;

Start looking forward- because this place is changing bigtime- and it will be at an ever increasing rate, for all of us i'm afraid.

phil

Adam B.
December 11th, 2009 3:14pm he well knows that and does not need reminding -leave him be, he has a new soulmate to mither in greg d ,You must have realised by now that as with dr strangelove an immediate reaction will occur, in this case with his keypad .He seems to have an incredible skill at winding you up and I am truly astonished that you allow it .You are far too good a person to have to deal with him .

Barry

Re UK massacre

What about the massacre by the British officered Arab Legion and led by Sir John Glubb of the Gush Etzion villages in 1948. Women and children including Holocaust survivors were murdered in cold blood.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion on Israel and the Middle East in the UK today. 40 years of BBC propaganda and other factors have seen to that.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Henry Sidgwick: but, Henry, you know only too well that Cast Lead was merely preparation for the big one..no? Why pretend otherwise?

Israel needs to hit Iran, as you well know, but cannot afford a war on 3 or more fronts.It had to keep Hamas quiet. It did just that. Clearly Israel has been effective, of late, in their covert operations against Hizbollah; and have also successfully operated against the Republican Guard covertly. Baluchistan might just be a salient case in point...

Why not consult your local Mossad agent, Look around, Sidge, you're bound to spot one down at your local.

just Louise

solemnman, I don't think that was the documentary I've seen. I'll look out for it.
Barry, spot on.

Linda Smith

Daniel Maris: in addition to JOHN ROOSEVELT’s cogent riposte to your comment of 10 Dec 10:31pm I would say this:

A sovereign state‘s “right to exist” is not dependent on the largesse of the UN. A state is sovereign because it sets up a government and declares itself a state - as Israel did in 1948. The Partition Plan, which is available online, signals Britain’s intention to withdraw by August 1948. The Muslim Arab intention to massacre the Jewish population is well documented, particularly in the official British records of the time. The Jews had no alternative but to declare a sovereign state and fight for their lives. Nothing has changed.

I would also draw your attention to the fact that between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan, aided and abetted by the British, annexed the West Bank, occupied the Old City/East Jerusalem after “ethnically cleansing” its majority Jewish inhabitants, and then barred worldwide Jewry from visiting their Holy Sites, the UN was silent; the world was silent. Now the EU wants to give the Old City/East Jerusalem back to the Muslim Arabs as the capital of an Islamic Palestinian state “ethnically cleansed” of Jews again.

I am not surprised that the Israelis do not bother about their “image”, history has shown they are flogging a dead horse. In the popular jargon, as far as the Israeli Jews are concerned “lessons have been learned”.

Charles

solemnman,

Re. the South America swap, this proposal seems to have been made just after the Allies had landed one million men at the Normandy beachhead and were set to attempt breakout. That Himmler should have thought this an opportune time to repatriate a few thousand Germans from the other side of the world is pretty strange. It wasn't the only time in that year when such deals were suggested. No doubt there was some Machiavellian intent. Goodness knows what though.

ps. Googling this subject takes one straight to the David Irving website.

solemnman

According to the pilots .iterviewed in the documentary I referred to,their mission was -to destroy fuel storage depots not cities.They flew in low for their daylight bombing run-passing over the camp close enough to see everything and to bomb ,with accuracy ,anything.

Groovy Times

John Roosevelt, you underestimate the military power of the IDF in a full-scale conflict with a nation state.

A war with Iran would actually provide Israel with an opportunity to take out the Iranian proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah. I think you have misunderstood recent Israeli responses, - in Lebanon and Gaza - which were constrained by diplomatic and humanitarian considerations, as military weakness.

In an all out war with Iran, these constraints would be overshadowed by an existential threat that could see the full force of the IDF unleashed on all targets considered a threat to Israel's security.

Fergus Pickering

I don't care if the Zionist cause is just or not. My enemy's enemy is my friend. The Palestinians are a part of my enemy. The Israelis hate them. Good enough for me.

Bill Bogg

I dont quite see all this . I dont see why it is necessary to blame anyone for the Middle East except the totalitarian anti-semitic regimes . When Balfour made his declaration it was made on the clear understanding that the rights of the native inhabitants were not to be compromised. In the early 20th century this seemed perfectly possible. It was thought that the main influx would come from areas where Jews were persecuted namely the pale of settlement with only a few from Europe. These numbers could be easily accommodated. The rise of anti-semitism in Europe and communist Russia led to an influx on an unimaginable scale. So what was Britain supposed to do ? Let in everyone who wanted to enter leading to inevitable war and bloodshed ? The British were placed in the unenviable position of being the policemen in the area. a job they didnt particularly want(who would)and which they administered according to certain ad-hoc rulings. What were they supposed to do and could anyone else have done better. How can one even discuss this matter properly when so much of what happened in Russia in the last century remains unexplained and unexamined.

Henry Sidgwick

John Roosevelt and Groovy Times,
????

Greg D

Danny - Ever read 'The Fire' by Joerg Friedrich? The critics seemed to like its main points, if not its emotivity. Oh, but wait! He's a left-winger - that means he can't be right. Bank station did suffer a direct hit in the Blitz, so I guess the central line must still be out of service...

If targeted bombing really was as ineffective as Charles and yourself suggest 'twas, could either of you explain to me the relevance of Operation Chastise or the development of H2S radar? Come to think of it... the latter was developed around about the time of Stalingrad. Are the cobwebs cleared from your Gedaechtnis tower?

Adam B.

1 - I was talking specifically about Roberts' normative standpoint on the issue of targeting civilians and Melanie's support of this view.

2. It wasn't the bombing wot dun it; it was the occupation, stupid. The carnage of the First World War didn't put the Germans off a second time, did it?

Greg D

'I do agree with Joshua that a great many Anglo Saxon Brits have an almost genetic dislike of Jews.' - Liz

It's interesting that you make a point to highlight the Germanic roots these isles' inhabitants when suggesting the existence of racial pathologies. Am I correct in assuming that you attend Temple regularly? And are there any theological ramifications stemming from the conclusions to which you come? Please elaborate on your statements.

Joshua - you seem to have gone dumb on this issue.

John Richardson

Thank goodness for the likes of you Fergus Pickering.

"I don't care...cause is just or not....hate...Good enough for me."
11-12-09 6:57

Well said.
It took some guts did that.
Just for those who might think of you as a: pathetic ;a-moral; slimy; hate worshipping coward they would never want as an ally...

Why not point out what you have actually DONE to save us from the Sons Of Allah.
What have you actually DONE to protect Christendom.
Or civilisation.
Or yourself.
Or anything.

Besides the heroic hatred, naturally.

Greg D

Phil - December 11th, 2009 11:20am

How wonderfully generous of you, old friend! I'm sorry for the delay in responding to you.

For details, I refer you to the 2007 US Marine Counter-Insurgency manual co-authored by Petraeus.

In short, Wiki sums it up: 'On January 23 2007, the Senate Armed Services Committee held Petraeus's nomination [for commanding general of MNF-1] hearing, during which he testified on his ideas for Iraq, particularly the strategy underpinning the "surge" of forces. During his opening statement, Petraeus stated that "security of the population, especially in Baghdad, and in partnership with the Iraqi Security Forces, will be the focus of the military effort." He went on to state that security will require establishing a persistent presence, especially in Iraq's most threatened neighborhoods. He also noted the critical importance of helping Iraq increase its governmental capacity, develop employment programs, and improve daily life for its citizens.'

The last sentence is, as noted, critical. Israel has, by and large, taken a polar opposite course of action in regards to its perceived enemies.

Melanie's article on 3rd December contains, perhaps, a few glimmers of hope in this regard; but anything from the Wall Street Journal on this issue has to be taken with Yam Ha Melah.

hadrian

There seems little to add to this highly stimulating thread and informative speech. Amongst other things it demonstrates that the academic discipline of History is far more pliable ( in a good sense) than most of the artificial 'social sciences' and hits the truth more often than all that sociological drivel.
As for the statement that Britain harbours a strong anti-semitism and has done so for generations, there may be a real element of truth in that, Joshua. However, look more closely at the 'Protestant Isle' and you will discover a huge reservoir of support and affection for the Ancient People amongst Reformed evangelical Christians. This arises not from some cold hearted 'prophectic' scheme but from sincere and humble realisation that Jew and Gentile alike are sinners in need of Grace. And there is little doubt that the Jews ARE a special people as their history amply testifies!

Adam B.

Greg D, that's because Germany didn't suffer carnage in WWI, France did. However, the occupation after the war made Germans pro-American (at the time). The bombing cured the bloodlust.

Barry

re Billy Bogg

Balfour was opposed to setting up an Arab state in Jordan. In the 19 century Jordan had about 200,000 to 300,00o nomadic inhabitants and then no towns.
Amman now a llarge city and capital was in ancient times the home of the Ammonites fro the Bible and have disappeared from history. Jordan is 4 times bigger than Israel and the west bank and still very empty. Th royal family ( incidentally I like them and respect them)come from Arabia and wre simply given Transjordan part of League Mandate lock stock and barrel.They were given full independence in 1946 unlike the Jews who despite the facts were forced to plead and beg fro their homeland.
If the UK government found it so tough the honourable thing was to return the Mndate to the League in the 20's and 30's or to the UN in say 1945. Bogg talks about morality but forgets about interests.If you want to talk about morality why did the UK not offer then to take the Holocaust survivors in to other parts of the British Empire or even the UK itself. Why are you so worried only about Arab rights? The Pals re3fused having a state in 1937 ( peel commission 80%) and in 1947 (UN Partition Plan). You are repeating old cliches which do not stand up to examination.
Andrew Roberts has explained things clearly not the BBC usual version.

Charlie Coyle

Brilliant and profound!

C. Gee

Greg D:

You say: "He also noted the critical importance of helping Iraq increase its governmental capacity, develop employment programs, and improve daily life for its citizens.'

The last sentence is, as noted, critical. Israel has, by and large, taken a polar opposite course of action in regards to its perceived enemies."

You are in error. It is not difficult to find the record of the enormous improvements (including hospitals, schools, infrastructure) made in the occupied territories when Israel administered them. Look at the usual health indicator statistics over that period.

You will also find that many Arab municipalities refused Israeli help in improving infrastucture for political purposes, and some Arabs attempted to sabotage improvements.

Israeli governments have propped up Palestinian leaders, not to mention arming police. There miserable failure of Palestinian leaders to set up responsible government is because they are essentially criminal gangs.

Employment programs? Israel employs Palestinians. Would employ more but for terrorist infiltration. There have been many joint enterprise efforts, some profitable, but subject to the same vicissitudes as most politically driven businesses. And please recall the greenhouse gift in Gaza.

Compare and contrast the way the host Arab countries have treated Palestinian refugees (and Palestinian insurgency ).

Nation-building is what Israel does best, to which her many Arab citizens will attest.

gareth wigmore

Well said Andrew Roberts.
I loved your book History of the English Speaking Peoples since 1900.
It was plain truth and stranger than fiction as history really is.
I wish there was a way we could express our values - the same as Churchill - and support our much loved brothers in Israel and the diaspora. I have no dismay over the long term future, despite our dismal intellectual nazi socialists, lying to us (for our own good of course) daily. I hope we will stand the test in the years to come but I fear for the short term - as only disasters seem to wake up the majority to their own folly.

C. Gee

Henry Sidgwick:

You write: "The IDF of course has plans for all contingencies it can imagine. However, it is curious that it was fully mobilized for just the contingency that the ceasefire with Hamas would "break down" - indeed that it had prepared for the break down for six months, since the ceasefire was signed and despite the ceasefire working - just as it was curious that it was fully mobilized in 2006 for the contingency that Hizballah would kidnap a few soldiers for the now traditional prisoner swap."

This is a perfect example of your argument-by-insinuation. Why is it "curious" that the IDF would a anticipate an end to the ceasefire? Every single "ceasefire" ("hudna" - breather for recoupment ) has been broken by Arab insurgents. The IDF is always mobilized because it is always at war - notwithstanding declared hudnas, which are worth less than the paper they are not written on.

Your poisonous locutions insinuate that the IDF makes deals in bad faith. Bad faith and evil intentions on the part of Zionists is what you are perpetually trying to prove in this forum. We know you are convinced of it.

On y soit qui mal y pence.

Derek

Henry Sidgwick

Please re-examine your two statements:

"The trouble with talk of a "proportionate response" in the context of Cast Lead is that it was not a response. It was aggression, and aggression cannot be proportionate."

Neither is logically coherent.

gary ashton

great speech but wasted when it is presented to a small group of the converted, it needs to be in the mainstream exposed and circulated so that people can at least see there is another side to the argument.

daniel maris

John R./Linda Smith/and possibly others -

I am not naive about prospects for peace or the fact that it is the Arab genocide wish, grounded in Islam's view of Jews, that is the main stumbling block to peace.

However, that is not what was being referred to. I was simply pointing out that for most people around the world claiming a "natural right" for Israel to exist is a non-starter. Is Israel to define its own borders? Can it place them where it wishes? That is a dogma of the worst kind.

For most people in the world who accept Israel's right to exist,do so implicitly on the basis of its legal foundation following the UN resolutions and its admission to the UN.

It is highly dangerous for Israel or its supporters to argue Israel's foundation is owed to God or some natural right of the Jewish people to determine where they have a state.

People should remember that only a 100 years ago the British people still thought they had a divine right to Empire and to set the bounds of that Empire. Rather a lot of people around the world disagreed with that notion - especially if they were being ruled by the British against their will. (Indeed many Jews fought against the British in Palestine and killed British soldiers.) The idea of Empire died and we no longer claim that divine right.

I support Israel fully but that support is conditional. I would never support an Israel that based its claim to existence on religious zealotry - any more than I support the Shariah dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.

The case for Israel has to be a rational one or it is no case at all.

If Israelis think my sort of support is not wanted that's for them to say.

Danny -

You display your complete ignorance about the impact of bombing on oil and rail depots. These were big targets - drop enough bombs and you would do damage. From Wikipedia:

"The attack on oil production, oil refineries and tank farms was, however, extremely successful and made a very large contribution to the general collapse of Germany in 1945. In the event, the bombing of oil facilities became Albert Speer's main concern; however, this occurred sufficiently late in the war that Germany would soon be defeated in any case. Nevertheless, it is fair to say the oil bombing campaign materially shortened the war, thereby saving many lives."

I would also refer you to Peenemunde and the Dambuster raids as examples of being able to hit desired target.

phil

JOHN ROOSEVELT
December 11th, 2009 4:16pm -you never mentioned to henry that president assad is a member of the north London synagogue and regularly takes on the role of shamas .

phil

Greg D
December 11th, 2009 10:22pm -Glad to see you understand how generous I am to you -after reading your response to my question on proportionality viz----
"Greg D
December 11th, 2009 10:22pm ",---I consulted my last copy of the Dandy to see if it could throw any light on your remarks -it told me you had not answered and were just raving as usual ,I asked the Beano for a second opinion and it too concurred .Never heard the expression "Yam Ha Melah" before ,although I am aware of geh caken offen yam ,maybe we could swop translations ,whilst giving you a second chance to articulate on what Israel should have done .

phil

hadrian
December 11th, 2009 11.14-On these threads arrive the looneys who wish to spit out their bile ,and also fugitives from the comments section of Independent /Guardian .I do not think many of us believe in this talk of general anti.Semitism ,there are too many real Christians who come here to tell us their feelings ,but it is always good to hear words like you have provided ..Most decent people do not have a need to hate but sadly those that do make the most noise -thank you .

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Greg D
December 11th, 2009 6:53am
JOHN ROOSEVELT
"
I'd say the British record in the Falklands is pretty commendable.

UN troops in East Timor against pro-Indonesia militia back in 1999.

Lastly, US strategy in Iraq under General Petraeus is a good example of proportionate response.

In all of the examples given, deliberately targeting civilians was not on the cards. And in all the examples a bad situation didn't become worse because of it."

Now that IS hilarious! Give me a war where there are no examples of what International Law will not deem "deliberate targeting of civilians" and I will give you a member of Hamas who dies not believe in Islamic overlordship of Palestine and beyond.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

December 12th, 2009 4:07am

My answers to you post in caps, below:

John R./Linda Smith/and possibly others -
I am not naive about prospects for peace or the fact that it is the Arab genocide wish, grounded in Islam's view of Jews, that is the main stumbling block to peace.
GOOD. THIS UNDERSTANDING NEEDS TO BE PROMULGATED FROM EVERY MOSQUE IN THE WORLD , NOT EVERY MINARET IN SWITZERLAND. IT MAY ALSO HELP IF THE BRITISH MEDIA, NOT TO EMTNION THE INTERNATIONAL MEDIA IN GENERAL, WAS A LITTLE BOLDER IN TRANSCENDING ITS ARRANT INDULGENCE IN POLITICAL CORRECNESS AND MAKE THIS FACT AS CLEAR AS THEY WOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, ANY COVERAGE OF THE USE OF CLUSTER BOMBS OR WHITE PHOSPOROUS IN CONFLICT ZONES, THE HEINOUSNESS OF TONY BLAIR IN..WAIT FOR IT..LYING TO THE BRITISH PUBLIC. IT IS A MINOR DETAIL OMITTED BY MOST PEOPLE “OF CONSCIENCE” WHO FEEL THEY CAN SANCTIMONIOUSLY JUDGE ISRAEL OUT OF CONTEXT. IT ALSO CORRUPTS THE MENING OF ANY REASONABLE CRITQUE OF ISRAELI GOVT POLICIES AND – ULTIMATELY - ADVANCES THE DEBATE ON THIS ISSUE NOT A JOT.
However, that is not what was being referred to. I was simply pointing out that for most people around the world claiming a "natural right" for Israel to exist is a non-starter. Is Israel to define its own borders? Can it place them where it wishes? That is a dogma of the worst kind.
NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN HERE. IT AMY THAT SOME “DIVINE RIGHT” ARGUMENT APPEALS LITTLE TO MANY AROUND THE WORLD. NEVR SAID IT DID. I HAVE ALSO NEVER PREDICATED ANY OF MYARGUMENTS IN THIS DEBAT ON THE RIGHT OF ANYONE TO DEFINE ITS OWN BOARDERS OR NATURAL RIGHTS (THOUGH, CLEARLY, THERE ARE MANY COMPELLING ARGUMENT, PERHAPS, FOR BOTH). FORGET THE DOGMA OF THE WORLD! THE POINT I WAS ACTUALLY MAKING WAS THAT RESOLUTION 181 – THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL LEGAL DEFINITION OF ISRAEL’S BOARDERS - WAS RESOUNDINGLY REJECTED – NOT BY THE JEWS BUT BY THE ARABS!!!!!!!!!!!MOST OF THE CURRENT ANI ZIONIST NARRATIVE NOW ACCEPTS THIS TO BE TRUE..BUT NEVERTHELESS JUSTIFIED!!! NOW, THEIR CASE HAS SHIFTED. IT IS NOT, LIKE YOURS, W THAT WE MUST – FOR THE SAKE OF RATIONALITY – REFER TO THE UN FOR DEFINITIONS OF BOARDERS ETC. – TO ONE OF ISRAEL NOT HAVING THE RIGHT TO EXIST WHATEVER THE UN SAYS!!!!!! IT IS THIS UNASSAIBABE AND MANIPULATED FACT WHICH UNDERSCORES MY POINT THAT IT MATTERS NOT A JOT IF THERE ARE THOSE WHO JUSTIFY ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO EXIST ON THE BASIS OF SOME DIVINE RIGHT FOR THE JEWS OR DIVINE ANYTHING..OR SIMPLY FEEL, LIKE YOU, WHAT THE UN SAYS SHOULD HOLD.
THE MOSLEM WORLD DOES NOT WANT ISRAEL TO EXIST – UN OR NO UN…AND MOST ANTI ZIONISTS USE THE UN - AS THEY DO THE PALEASTINIAN ARAB VICTIMS OF THE ONGOING CONFLICT – AS A TOOL IN THEIR BOX OF MORAL OPPROTUNISM, PULLED OUT WHEN IT SUITS THEIR ARGUMENT DU JOUR E.G. ISRAEL’S “ILLEGAL” OCCUPATION OF JERUSALEM. IT’S NOTHING BUT A CYNICAL MORAL TAP DANCE WHICH HAS HOODWINKINKED THE LIBERALS, LEFTISTS AND RATIONALISTS AND HAS CAUSED THEM TO SUPPORT, ALBEIT AT BEST BY DEFAULT, THE DELIGITIMISATION OF THE RIGHT OF ISRAEL TO EXIST AND THE HORRIFIC LOGICAL CORROLARIES OF THAT POSTION. OF COURSE, THIS IS NOT ANTI SEMITIC. NO, NO. BUT WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY HOLOCAUST DENIAL AND THE PUTRID HISTORY OF ANTI SEMITISM IN ARAB LITERATURE AND PROPAGANDA, RELIGIOUS AND NON RELIGIOUS – IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN FOR ALL TO SEE – NOT TO MENTION THAT OF TOO MANY OTHER GROUPS, REGIMES ETC TO COUNT – IRANIAN THREATS TO WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP AND THEIR NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAME ETC ETC ETC ….WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY ALL THIS, THEN WE REALLY HAVE A RECIPE FOR A CONFLICT THAT WILL MAKE GAZA LOOK LIKE A SEC O SAND IN THE GREAT DESERT.
For most people in the world who accept Israel's right to exist,do so implicitly on the basis of its legal foundation following the UN resolutions and its admission to the UN.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THOSE WHO ACCEPT ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO EXIST EXPLICITLY ON THE BASIS OF ITS LEGAL FOUNDATION FOLLOWING ITS ADMISSION TO THE UN. THE POINT IS THAT THE ARABS DON’T ACCEPT THIS AND CERTAINLY NOT IRAN, HZBOLLAH, HAMAS AND FATAH!!!!!!! HOW HAS THIS TRUTH SHIFTED TO AN POSTION THAT SOMEHOW IF IT WASN’T FOR JEWISH ZEALOTRY ALL WOULD BE WELL?? THIS IS A WHOLSALE WRECKING OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD AND DOES NOTHING TO SUPPORT THE DEFENCE OF ANY PATH THAT COULD LEAD TO A PEACE.

It is highly dangerous for Israel or its supporters to argue Israel's foundation is owed to God or some natural right of the Jewish people to determine where they have a state.
PERHAPS, BUT MORE DANGEROUS THAN WHAT??? IT’S ABSOLUTLEY IMMATERIAL, ANYWAY, IF THE ARBS ARE SWORN ENEMIES OF THE EXISTENCE OF JEWS IN PALESTINE.
People should remember that only a 100 years ago the British people still thought they had a divine right to Empire and to set the bounds of that Empire. Rather a lot of people around the world disagreed with that notion - especially if they were being ruled by the British against their will. (Indeed many Jews fought against the British in Palestine and killed British soldiers.) The idea of Empire died and we no longer claim that divine right.
PEOPLE SHOULD ALSO REMEMBER THE IMPLCATION OF WHAT THE CLAIM OF PALESTINIAN ARABS TO PALESTINE IS PREDICATED UPON I.E. THAT THEIR ETHNIC IDENTITY, AND CLAIMED CONTINUITY OF TERRITORIAL “HERITAGE” AND “NATIONAL” IDENTITY – NOT TO MENTION THEIR FAITH - OVERRIDES ANY SIMILAR CLAIM MADE BY JEWS AND ALSO ANY LEGAL DEFINITIONS APPLIED TO THE REGION BY THE UN. WE, THEREFORE, CURRENTLY HAVE A SITUATION IN WHICH AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WESTERN, SECULAR ANTI ZIONISM – OR PRO “PALESTINIANISM” – IS BASED ON PRINCIPLES WHICH THOSE WHOM THEY ARE SUPPORTING COMPLETELY AND UTTER ESCHEW. AND THIS IS EXCACTLY THE PARADOX THAT MANY IN THE WEST DO NOT, IT SEEMS, CARE TO ADDRESS. WE CAN FIGHT ISLAM IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ ETC BUT WE STILL HAVE TO CONDEMN ISRAEL BECAUSE, SOMEHOW, THEIR FIGHT IS OF A DIFFERENT PEDIGREE? WHAT? A DIFFERENT KIND OF ‘SELF-DEFENCE”? NO, ISRAEL IS IMPERIALIST. OH, SO A DIFFERENT KIND OF IMPERIALISM?? IT’S ALL OBFUSCATION AND THE NORMAL HISTORIC STANDARD IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF TOTAL AMORALITY.

I support Israel fully but that support is conditional. I would never support an Israel that based its claim to existence on religious zealotry - any more than I support the Shariah dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.
GOOD FOR YOU, BUT THE DISTINCTION WILL ONLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO YOUR OWN SENSE OF INTELLECTUAL/MORAL INTEGRITY, I FEAR. THE TERRIBLE FACT IS THAT ISRAEL’S EXISTENCE WILL NOT BE SUPPORTED A JOT WITH THESE DISTINCTIONS BECAUSE ITS MAIN ADVERSARIES COULDN’T CARE LESS ABOUT THEM. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THEY WANT NOTHING BUT ISRAEL’S DESTRUCTION. REMEMEBR THAT UNASSAILABLE FACT. READ IT IN FOUNDING CHARTERS. READ IT IN DECLARATIONS BY MYRIAD ARAB LEADERS. LISTEN TO THE MYRIAD DECALRATIONS OF MOSLEM CLERICS. LISTE TO IRAN’S LEADERS…OR DENY IT IF YOU WILL OR DARE.
The case for Israel has to be a rational one or it is no case at all.
ABSOLUTLEY, AND BEN GURION WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST EXPONENTS OF THIS THINKING. DIDN’T ALTER THE FACT, HOWEVER, THAT THE ARABS, SINCE THE PASSING OF RES 181 AND THEIR REJECTION OF IT, HAVE DONE EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO PROMOTE THEIR OWN ZEALOTRY OR IRRATIONALITY AT ISRAEL’S EXPENSE.
If Israelis think my sort of support is not wanted that's for them to say.
DISSAPOINTED IN YOUR LAST REMARK. SINCE WHEN DOES ISRAEL CLAIM TO BE ANYTHING BUT RATIONAL WITH REGARD TO THE UN AND ITS RESOLUTIONS – CERTAINLY IN COMPARISON WITH THE ARABS?? WHAT ARE YOU IMPLYING??? THAT IT IS ISRAEL WHICH REJECTED THE PARTITION PLAN? THEIR ACCEOTANCE OF THE PLAN WIPES AWAY ANYHTING YOU SEEM TO BE IMPLYING HERE. NOTHING ELSE YOU MAY CITE MATTERS.
IN SHORT, ISRAEL WAS THE ONLY PARTY IN THIS CONFLICT TO UPHOLD THE UN RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO A DEFINITION OF ITS BOARDERS. THE ARABS REJECTED IT OVERHWLEMINGLY. THE ARABS HAVE BEEN ATTACKING ISRAEL EVERY SINCE AND, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, WITH THE SOLE INTENTION OF DESTROYING IT AS ASTATE AND RIDDING THE REGION OF JEWS. THEIR BROTHERS THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST DID THEIR BIT IN THIS PROCESS BY EXPELLING NEARLY A MILLION JEWS WHO HAD AS MUCH RIGHT TO THEIR HOMES AS ANY ARAB AND HAD NOTHING, AT THE TIME, TO DO WITH ZIONISM OR ISRAEL. IF YOU FEEL YOU CAN, NEVERTHELESS, ACCUSE ISRAEL OF ZEALOTRY AND IRRATIONALITY AND BEING VOID OF THE RATIONALITY YOU SO CARE FOR, THEN LET THE REPTILES DESCEND UPON US ALL..

Henry Sidgwick

Derek,
You are quite right. I made three statements. I think you are correct that the third of them is wrong. It is perfectly possible to consider whether aggression is proportionate. If the aggressor asserts that he thought he was about to be punched, it might be considered proportionate for him to disable his perceived opponent in some way, but disproportionate to kill him. You can see why courts are very chary of such a defence, although they do, I believe, sometimes accept it. But to allow it without question in international affairs is troublesome, I think - oh, we nuked them because we had credible intelligence that they could develop nuclear weapons and we know they don't like us... But it is quite right that whether Israel's aggression was proportionate or not is a reasonable matter to consider.

If you noticed any other incoherence I would be interested to hear. Thanks.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Sidgewick: "But it is quite right that whether Israel's aggression was proportionate or not is a reasonable matter to consider."

In general, perhaps. But what would your careful consideration deem fit for Israel to have done in the light the years of Arab aggression on it's innocents? I suspect, nothing..because you no doubt feel that Israel has always merited such actions. For you, this is not really about only punching someone back who punches you as opposed to nuking them etc. In your eyes, Israel's retaliation, whatever it might be, would be wrong. Therefore, Sidgewick,your position on"disproportionality" is a red herring.

Your casuistry is, as always, is your best shot at intellectual integrity.

Amanda in America

Thank you, Ms Phillips, for publicizing this speech. What a fine man Andrew Roberts is, and what an unspeakable creep is Miles, whose slurs and innuendo are indeed 'disgraceful and disgusting', as Roberts says.

I've learned a great deal from this piece and will save it.

I'll add that Obama's indifference to Israel is of a piece with his disregard for Britain and his attachment to left-wing ideology. Left-wingers tell us loudly and often that they want to stick up for the underdog. Yet 'underdog' is defined in very limited, blinkered ways. What a shame that their insistence on equality of condition, above all other goods, leads them so often to back the vicious and hurt the deserving. Their priorities, like Obama's, are upside down.

Derek

Daniel Maris You presumably also support to a greater or lesser extent in each case the numerous Arab countries in the Middle East. What do you suppose their claim to have a right to exist rests on? How long does a nation have to live on a piece of territory before the right to exist springs up? How long do they have to be deprived of a state on that territory before they lose the right to re-establish it? If a nation establishes its right to exist on a piece of territory by invading it, how long must it wait before its right to exist is recognized?

In an earlier post in this same thread, you would object to HRH being taken for a stroll around East Jerusalem when on a visit to the Israeli capital. Why? Or is that an expression of a concern for her safety?

daniel maris

John Roosevelt -

The point is that the support of people like me for a rational right of Israel to exist and prosper unmolested, does translate into real security for Israel. What I am saying is that if Israel gave up on international law and democracy and became some sort of religious state with settlers seeking to expand its borders, then I would not feel particularly bound to support its continued existence. I would think - "OK, sort it out between yourself and Hamas or whoever - don't expect us to help."

The statements of some people here - the distortion of history - are concerning. We need know Israel's faces existential threats from outside - but there is an internal existential threat, from the irrational orthodox tradition. Israel was founded as a rational Zionist state, a home for Jews of many kinds, not a religious state founded on religious law.

Henry Sidgwick

C. Gee,
I did not make myself clear. I will try to spell out what I meant. It may answer what I take to be your point.

The military has to have plans prepared for every threat it can think of. It has to have the resources to meet the threats it considers most likely. But the military cannot be in a state of readiness for each and every one of them (although it will have a timetable for mobilising). In Lebanon and in Gaza, the IDF represented itself as responding to a particular attack. Yet it was fully mobilised. Surely the planners did not think, "There is a good chance Hizballah will kidnap a few soldiers for another prisoner exchange; and there is a good chance Hamas will fire some rockets; so we will have our forces in a high state of readiness to invade either Lebanon or Gaza or both with overwhelming force at all times." The cost would be prohibitive. I may be wrong, and those like George who have professional experience will be able to correct me, but, as I understand it, it takes time to prepare the forces for such an invasion. In the case of Cast Lead, Barak had the military start planning and mobilising six months before the incident that Israel said it was responding to. He had the military plan and mobilise just after agreeing a ceasefire, which he himself announced to be a success, a ceasefire the security services confirmed was a success in November when Hamas proposed an extension and when the Israeli cabinet authorised and armed incursion into Gaza.

What I take to be your second point is that I should not say that Israel enters into agreements in bad faith. Let us set aside for now the several undertakings over the decades to stop building settlements, and such like. In the ceasefire with Hamas last year, there were various conditions Israel promised to meet, like allowing greater access to Gaza. It did not meet these.

phil

J R , I asked greg d the same question-
phil
December 11th, 2009 11:20am ------,but of course he cannot answer ,but at least I think I have more fun with his nonsense than what you call our henry,s casuistry .I suppose I am more blunt than you as I would call it total twisting of the facts. .They would make a good pair but I do not know who would do the cooking .

Linda Smith

Daniel maris: You say “I am not naive about prospects for peace or the fact that it is the Arab genocide wish, grounded in Islam's view of Jews, that is the main stumbling block to peace. “

If you are not naïve, then you must understand that “Islam” can never make peace with Jews as equals - only as dhimmis under Muslim rule. As, half Israel’s Jews are of Middle Eastern origin, and the misery of their lives in Muslim dominated lands was only alleviated under European “imperialism”, you must support a Jewish sovereign State in the Middle East as a safe haven for Jews.

Why do you keep burbling on about Israel’s claim to sovereignty being based on “divine right”? Israel is a sovereign state in the same way as all other sovereign states - because it set up a government and defends its borders. “Right” has nothing to do with it. The world is ruled by the winners of wars. To date, Israel has been a winner.

When you say “I support Israel fully but that support is conditional”, I am agog as to why Israel should value your support - do you drive a tank for the IDF by any chance, or are you just planning to boycott Jaffa oranges?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

daniel maris: my response in caps:

December 12th, 2009 4:21pm
John Roosevelt -

The point is that the support of people like me for a rational right of Israel to exist and prosper unmolested, does translate into real security for Israel.

DOES IT INDEED??!!! COULD HAVE FOOLED ME UNLESS YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT YOU AND YOUR ILK HOLD SWAY IN THIS CONFLICT - WHICH OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T. THE MINOR OMISSION IN WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE IS THAT THE ONES WHO COUNT I.E. THE ADVERSARIES OF ISRAEL...THE ONES THAT KILL ISRAELIS AND WANT LIITLE MORE THAN TO DO SO AD INFINITUM - THE ARABS - ARE OF THE SAME OPINION AS YOU. SIMPLY PUT, THEY AREN'T!!! SO WHAT YOU WISH FOR IS NOT CONTINGENT ONLY ON YOUR OPINION ALONE, IF AT ALL. GET THE DRIFT???

What I am saying is that if Israel gave up on international law and democracy and became some sort of religious state with settlers seeking to expand its borders, then I would not feel particularly bound to support its continued existence. I would think - "OK, sort it out between yourself and Hamas or whoever - don't expect us to help."

OK. THANKS. IN ANY EVENT, RIGHT NOW THAT IS FAR FROM BEING THE CASE AND IT CERTAINLY HAS LESS THAN NOTHING TO DO WITH RETURNING TO THE PRE '67 ARMISTICE LINES. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU SEEM - LIKE SO MANY - FELICITOUSLY TO MUDDY THE WATERS OF THESE ISSUES: TO BE SURE THERE ARE RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS IN ISRAEL AND THEY HAVE, AS THEY WOULD IN ANY DEMOCRACY WORTH ITS NAME, A POLITICAL VOICE. HOWEVER THEY DON'T COMPRISE THE DEFINING VOICE IN ISRAELI POLICY-MAKING (UNLIKE HAMAS AND FATAH IN ARAB POLICY-MAKING; OR IRAN ETC), BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION AND CERTAINLY HASN'T BEEN IN THE PAST. IN FACT, IT IS THE NON ZEALOT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WHICH INFORM ISRAEL/JEWISH CULTURE AND THE JEWS' SENSE OF NATIONHOOD AND THE IMPORTANCE OF JERUSALEM AS ISRAEL'S CAPITAL.

CLEARLY, IF THE ARABS HAD BEEN OF THE RATIONAL DISPOSITION WHICH YOU TREASURE SO MUCH AND OF A DEMOCRATIC SECULARIST PERSUASION - WHICH IS THE QUINTESSENCE OF ISRAELI POLITICAL IDEOLOGY - NO DOUBT THE HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE EAST WOULD HAVE BEEN QUITE DIFFERENT.

THE ARABS HAVE NEVER BEEN OF THIS PERSUASION, HOWEVER. ON THE CONTRARY,THEY HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO EXTERMINATE THE JEWS AND DESTROY ISRAEL. THIS HAS BEEN THEIR GUIDING PURPOSE SINCE '47 AND EVEN FOR YEARS BEFORE. YOU WOULD, PERHAPS, LIKE THIS FACT NOT TO HAVE HAD ANY INFLUENCE ON THE EVOLUTION OF ISRAEL'S MINDSET VIS VIS THE ARABS . HOWEVER, SUCH AN EXPECTATION IS SIMPLY ABSURD.

The statements of some people here - the distortion of history - are concerning. We need know Israel's faces existential threats from outside - but there is an internal existential threat, from the irrational orthodox tradition. Israel was founded as a rational Zionist state, a home for Jews of many kinds, not a religious state founded on religious law.

INDEED. I THINK YOU WILL FIND MOST, IN ISRAEL ,WOULD SUPPORT YOU ON THAT...BUT DON'T LET YOUR FEAR IN THIS REGARD BE EXAGGERATED, NOR BLIND YOU TO THE REALITY THAT ISRAEL - NOT TO MENTION THE NON ISLAMIC WORLD - FACES.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF ANTI ZIONISTS CHOOSE POST '67 AFFECTS OF WAR AS THE ESSENCE AND ONLY REFECTION OF ISRAELI INTENTIONS TOWARDS ARABS, AS IF IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. THIS IS A NONSENSE. THERE HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN A WALL; THERE HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN SETTLEMENTS; THERE WAS A TIME WHEN ISRAEL ACCEPTED - HOWEVER RELUCTANTLY - THAT THE JEWS HAD BEEN ETHNICALLY CLEANSED FROM JORDAN AND J WERE BARRED FROM ACCESS FROM ACCESS TO JERUSALEM - UNLIKE THE ARBS AFTER IT WAS TAKEN BY ISRAEL IN THEIR WAR OF SELF DEFENSE IN '67.

THE EFFECTS OF BEING ATTACKED AND THREATENED WITH EXTERMINATION CAN SURE BE A BITCH - ESPECIALLY FOR THE ATTACKER, IF DEFEATED. THE ARABS HAVE THROWN YOUR RATIONALITY ON THE DUNG HEAP OF HISTORY IN REJECTING THE UN'S ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE MIDDLE EASTERN QUESTION BY CREATING TWO STATES. THEY HAVE NOW HAD TO RAP WHAT THEIR ACTIONS HAVE SOWN.

LET THE ATTACKERS LEARN FROM HISTORY, I SAY...

Henry Sidgwick

John Roosevelt,
You start from an assumption about what I think which is false (no surprise - it was based on no evidence). Everything that follows (sort of) in your comment is vitiated by this initial mistake.

In passing, your previous comment to me gave the impression of striving for humour or irony or something other than straightforward assertion. What were you trying to say?

phil

Daniel and JR .I am not really sure why you two are in the middle of a dispute when you both are great supporters of Israel .There are enough appalling views expounded on these threads without us arguing amongst ourselves even though that is quite A Jewish thing to do :).I

have to say I agree with Daniel about the views of the ultra orthodox ,many of whom do not even want a state of Israel until the new Messiah arrives ,if you believe stuff like that .I see those that think biblical statements giving the Jewish people rights over land as ridiculous and this "political correctness " needs to stop -it is just as daft as are the words "the chosen people" We were chosen to keep the law and that is all. .

What we do need is to find a way to put our case for a land for the Jewish people in modern times and to try our best to get others to understand that need . It will never be achieved by telling the world it is our biblical right ,it may be achieved ,although I am not confident, by finding a way to accommodate the rest of the Middle East -I have to say I have no idea how ,faced with the intransigence of hesbollah and hamas apart from the hope that the Arabs themselves will sicken of the way of life that those appalling parties have forced upon them .They must in the depths of their hearts know that their deserts would bloom and prosperity would be theirs if they made peace and worked together with the Israelis -That is my hope ,and a hope that is being deterred by the likes of henry and greg who continue to fuel the fires of hatred.

Carl

Henry, sadly my comment on Israeli Settlers desecrating Mosques and burning the Koran was not published. No doubt this is the peace they claim to want.

just Louise

Greg D
December 11th, 2009 9:54pm
'I do agree with Joshua that a great many Anglo Saxon Brits have an almost genetic dislike of Jews.' - Liz

I do think, Greg D., that Liz might have mentioned the Anglo-Normans. They're the ones to watch. Remember Clifford's Tower. ;~/

Regarding the "failure" of Britain and some Dominions to accept more refugees from Nazi Germany, perhaps there are extenuating circumstances: these countries were struggling with the Great Depression and no doubt perceived themselves unable to cope with "mass" immigration; also, they did not have 20:20 foresight. They simply did not know at that stage that Nazism would culminate in the extermination of European Jewry. It mustn't be overlooked that numerous German Jews thought Hitlerism was an aberration, that it was a "madness" that would eventually be righted; that's why so many German Jews didn't get out, or try to, until the eleventh hour. Most German Jews did manage to leave Germany, especially young people. We can regret today that Britain and the Empire/Commonwealth didn't take in many more refugees than they did, but perhaps we should concede that in the context of their time those nations were not ungenerous.
Labour MP Colonel Josiah Wedgwood, by the way, wrote a book called "The Seventh Dominion", in which he looked forward to Jewish Palestine becoming part of the British Empire. That was published about ten years before the outbreak of war. I wish philosemitism such as his would be kept in mind by people who hasten to paint this country as a hive of antisemitism.

Barry

re the Bible

Whether one is a believer or agnostic
in this Arab Israel conflict the Bible is the Domesday Book of the Jewish people. No other people in that region has such a evidential document. There are the deeds of Israel and were accepted as such in 1920 when 52 countries voted the Balfour Declaration into international law and were accepted by Britain in the Mandate of 1922. The UK could only govern Palestine legally on that basis. By the end of the Mandate Attlee and Bevin were running a police state and the UN rightly ended it.

David Lindsay

Is this the same Andrew Roberts whose books are much admired by the noted polymath George W Bush, contain repeated misspellings of the same place names, repeatedly refer to the Red Army marching eastwards across Europe, and suggest that Amritsar is in the south of India? Finger lickin' good...

daniel maris

Derek - You say:

"You presumably also support to a greater or lesser extent in each case the numerous Arab countries in the Middle East."

Well, for instance, I don't accept Morocco's claim to Western Sahara. I don't accept Iraq's claim to Kuwait. I don't accept Syria's claim to Lebanon. I support the Kurdish people's right to a state. I support the right of non-Muslims in South Sudan to have their own state.

These are all matters for rational analysis, negotiation and UN involvement.

The alternative - just accepting that all ideological, religious and ethnic claims are of equal validity - is a recipe for endless war.

"What do you suppose their claim to have a right to exist rests on? How long does a nation have to live on a piece of territory before the right to exist springs up? How long do they have to be deprived of a state on that territory before they lose the right to re-establish it? If a nation establishes its right to exist on a piece of territory by invading it, how long must it wait before its right to exist is recognized?"

There is no magic formula. Every case has to be examined on its merits and of course realpolitik is going to intervene.

I think the Jews of Palestine had a good case for a state in 1948 and that is the basis for the legitimacy of the Israeli state now. I think incidentally the European Algerians had a good case for statehood or self-determination as well. But there you go...

But one can lay down some broad principles. Essentially I would say that where you have significant concentrations of people who self-identify as wishing to belong to the same state, they should be enabled to do so.

"In an earlier post in this same thread, you would object to HRH being taken for a stroll around East Jerusalem when on a visit to the Israeli capital. Why? Or is that an expression of a concern for her safety?"

Because it was annexed and such a walk would be a recognition of the annexation.

Augustus

It is true that under British rule from the end of WW1 until 1948, Palestine was characterized by increasingly tense relationships among the British, Jews, and Arabs, who all felt they had special rights. Elsewhere it is interesting to note, that while Hitler and his Nazi henchmen were passing the Nuremberg Laws against Jews, and using fervent nationalism to sow hatred and propagate the seeds that would lead to the final solution, in America, there was upward mobility in the Jewish community
and President Franklin Roosevelt
opened government service to Jews, and counted an unprecedented number of Jewish advisors among his inner circle.

C. Gee

Henry Sidgwick:

Your lively speculation about the IDF's military preparedness is most amusing.

Thank you.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Henry Sidgwick
December 12th, 2009 7:13pm
"John Roosevelt,
You start from an assumption about what I think which is false (no surprise - it was based on no evidence). Everything that follows (sort of) in your comment is vitiated by this initial mistake.

In passing, your previous comment to me gave the impression of striving for humour or irony or something other than straightforward assertion. What were you trying to say?"

I posed two comments to you, Sidge. The first: I agree. Not a great piss take, but I hope you got the gist of the intention.

I am trying to say that your concerns re the morality of particular types of military action by Israel, its treatment of Gazans during Cast Lead; proportionality of military response is nothing masque what is in fact the motive for such comments i.e you don't think Israel has a right to exist and, therefore, any kind of retaliation against Arabs is wrong.

If I am mistaken, please enlighten me. I am not convinced that "my assumption" is false, if an assumption at all - having followed your posts over some period.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Phil: I am no fan of the religious zealots of Israel. However, I don’t think the religious zealots represent the main body of opinion in Israel or define Government policy.

The crux of Daniel's argument seem to be this:

- rationality, in relations between states and international actors, has to be the foundation stone upon which those relations are built.

I agree with this.

- we must look to the UN and not zealotry as the guide to what boarders ought to pertain for Israel.

This is a specious, to some significant degree. The reason is this: one should not evaluate Israel's policies vis a vis the Palestinian Arabs - since '48 - without taking into account the overwhelming and persistent desire of those Arabs (and others) to destroy Israel. Daniel seems to be saying that the settlement policy, the policy re Jerusalem (annexation etc) is necessarily wrong, because it has been defined irrationally. I disagree. Daniel’s thinking fails to take into account the strategic motivators for the policies, based on the experience of over 60 years of war. I am not suggesting that religious factors - and often extreme ones - are irrelevant to Israeli policy-making. However, they are not the only factors, nor, in my view, the defining ones.

To look at this from another angle: if Israel withdrew to the Armistice lines, and ejected the so-called zealots to the Moon, would it bring peace? After all, Israel did accept Resolution 181 - on the basis of perfect rationality. As a result of that rational decision, Israel was not getting Jerusalem. There was no effective settlement movement. There was no refugee “problem” then. There was no Wall. There were no nuclear weapons. In fact, the Jews hardly had any weapons at all and certainly had no right - according to Daniel's world of rationalism - to arm themselves at all. Was this enough for the Arabs? Not at all. As a result of this “rationalism”, the Arabs tried to kill every last Jew…and this MO, manifest virulently, till the present day, in Arab and Moslem policies towards Israel, should not inform Israel’s policy towards Gaza??? Are we joking here? In my book, given the history of conflict and the nature of war, the Arabs are very lucky that Israel has been restrained, in its conduct in war, by the UN and the US. If it were Russia or Iraq under Saddam or Iran in Israel’s place, where would the Palestinians be now? You think Assad’s father would have cared less about wiping out scores of thousands of them? He seemed to show no such restraint at Hama. You think King Hussein showed any restraint towards Arafat and his band of merry men? War is shit. Horrible. But dying as a result of a so-called “home made “ rocket is no better than one fired from a drone. The Sidgewicks of this world take this “rationality” argument (using the red-herrings of “disproportionate response” or, in Daniel’s case, religious zealotry) and turn it into a intellectual ruse – in Sidgewick’s case a deliberate attempt to soften up opinion against Israel’s “morals”, before coming in for the kill of delegitimising her. To this extent, they are witting or unwitting casuists..and, from Israel’s perspective, casuists to be very wary of.

In so much of the current debate, certain liberal values having been coopted by anti Zionist propaganda, the truth that Arabs don't want Jews in their midst at all - at any cost - is lost and/or deliberately hidden. Often, when pushed, the likes of Sidgewick do indeed come clean and admit that they feel the Jews actually have NO right to a state. This is when we reach the point that Israel seems most to fear i.e.its "deligitmisation" in the eyes of the world. I object to Daniel’s argument because it merely aids and abets those who, unlike her, genuinely don’t want Israel to exist, even if this is not intentional. I also disagree a 100% that the UN has always to be beyond counter argument. The UN is as good as it constituent parts and has a history of chronic abuse or self abuse. It is far from consistently “rational” itself but, of course being a key source of international Law, the Daniels are forced to let the “rationality” buck stop there. This absurdity is a measure of the imperfection of the institutions we have at our disposal in guiding International Relations. Whilst I don’t take that as sufficiently compelling argument for ignoring those institutions altogether, it is inevitable and right that states will not always follow its dictates to the letter and/or mistrust its directives in the light of experience of its failings. Right now, in Lebanon, for example, the UN is displaying its total incapacity to enforce its resolutions re the proscription of Hizbollah’s rearmament. Is Israel to take Daniel and her “rationality” argument as its overriding guide to policy formulation with regard to that terrorist organization- an organisation that is sworn to fight for Israel’s destruction and the hallmark of which is nothing but religious zealotry??? Should Israel, in defending itself against such an explicit enemy ,care two hoots re Sidgwick’s proportionality arguments?

Clearly, we have an interesting situation, internationally, right now: the West at war with Islam (spin it how one likes) and wanting to secure its interests in the oil rich regions and secure its hold on those who have access to the Bomb (Pakistan etc).; and, at the same time, in order to placate Islam or manipulate it, constrain Israel in its fight against....well, against Islam..and its desire to secure its hold on those who MAY have access to the Bomb. There seems to be an inherent paradox here….and, though I am absolutely sure that what appears to be the case is not necessarily consonant with the reality, I am sure there is a signifacant challenge to Israeli policy-makers, as a result. This, in my view, is a great and potentially grave pity…and potentially grave almost certainly more for the Arabs than for the Jews. Whilst I don’t mean to imply that I want such a scenario, I think the it should be ( though I don’t think it will be) a call for anyone who holds “rationality” dear to their hearts, to take note.

I don’t care if anyone feels Israel has the right to exist or not. It does exist. It aint goin’ nowhere. It is also strong, so no more gas chambers for the Jews. The Jews will not suffer another Final Solution, whomever wants to be its architect. Though this may be a frequently sung tune and the anti zionists may be tired of it, as they are of reference to the death of a mere 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, Anti Semites of the world have just to swallow hard and accept that. If they grew as easily tired of their hate for Jews or Israel as they do references to the wholesale slaughter of Jews throughout history, the situation in Palestine today might stand a chance of being quickly and genuinely improved. Times have changed. This is a reality which the world may find hard to accept but, as I’m sure even they would agree, life’s indeed a bitch.

However, I do feel Israel faces – continuously – a huge challenge: how to reconcile its spirit of democracy and humanist values with being in a constant state of war and the effects of that. I believe they battle with this all the time, contrary to what Israel’s detractors may think, or Daniel’s argument might encourage them to think. The Arabs face no such dilemma because they are, by and large, utterly undemocratic, theocratic states or organisations. It is precisely zealotry which overwhelmingly defines their policy-making!
Times of war require one to get off the fence. Hard decisions are called for in the certainty that the results of those decisions may be far from ideal. I don’t see the Arabs changing in their attitude to Israel – for many reasons. For this reason alone, I think Israel will have to continue to fight – in one way or another – for its survival. It will have to use land and resources, inter alia, to leverage its position. This, I fear, will have to remain the case indefinitely. Whilst it should not encourage religious zealotry, it will have to do what it has to do, and not be hoisted by some petard of adhering - dare I say it – “zealously” – to some liberal argument about “rationality”!!!!

Margaret Muller-Johansson

Happy Chanukah Melanie!

Henry Sidgwick

C. Gee,
It's a dawdle, isn't it: righteous indignation when you think you can get away with it; and when you find you can't, just duck out.

In the Wilderness in America

The bombing of Germany during World War II helped the Russians on the Eastern Front because the Luftwafe were diverted to protect the Fatherland, leaving the skies above Russia in the hands of Stalin's air force.

"Proportionate response" is a ridiculous term when you are being attacked. If someone is shooting rockets at you, you do everything you can to destroy the rocket launchers. There is no "proportion," no "tit for tat" in that.

Adam B.

David Lindsay, so Roberts is just an idiot is he? Yes of course, every idiot gets a first from Cambridge, don't they?

phil

JOHN ROOSEVELT
December 13th, 2009 10:58am thank you for taking the trouble to put your views so clearly .I have stated mine many times ,that Israel must never rely on the rest of the world to look after its existence and that it should stay with its desire to ""be a light unto nations" .I have believed this since the early days of the blue boxes and my beloved trees.

The attitude of the people is bound to have changed since those early days that were born with such hope ,and now after 60 years of war it is hardly surprising that they have become tougher and more cynical .As I said earlier I do not believe peace will happen until the Arabs sicken of the evil that is perpetrated upon them by their own .I have family that live there and yearn for that elusive peace but do not think it will occur,they say that every time Israel lowers its guard worse attacks are inevitable and so far they have been proved right .

My real problem with the likes of our bogus philosopher is that he fuels the fires of hatred by encouraging those that side with the Arab cause to believe the nonsense that he writes and most of which is a twisting of the truth .I can live with the overt haters as they expose themselves for the fools that they are but the sophistry of our man deceives the unwary and condemns both peoples to even more problems .

The borders and the fate of Jerusalem can only be agreed in a final settlement when both sides have confidence ,if ever, in each others good intentions ,and as for the settlers why can they not live where they believe God told them to in a peaceful place which may be eventually part of a state of Palestine, if they cannot bear to live within the future agreed borders of Israel .I see no good reason why the State of Israel should be held to ransom by their belief that God told them the land belonged to them .Mohammed told the Muslims one thing ,God told these zealots another thing and I will tell them both that until they learn to respect each other and agree to accommodate each others beliefs nothing good can happen .

I hope Daniel reads what we both have said and I am sure his intentions for the State of Israel are as pure as ours .

Bill Bogg

Daniel :

"But one can lay down some broad principles. Essentially I would say that where you have significant concentrations of people who self-identify as wishing to belong to the same state, they should be enabled to do so. "

But even here you run into problems .Sir Karl Popper I think disagreed with you. He thought that the absolute right to self determination was disastrous. Tiny states established on an ethnic basis inevitably go in for ethnic cleansing and are deeply anti- semitic(although I dont think he made that point)He was referring to the break-up of Austro-Hungary after the first war.
Bernard Levin thought that the founding of the state of Israel was the most extraordinary and improbable story.You could not have made it up. Ever since reading his article I have seen in it much the same light. I dont see many villains in it just people grappling with events beyond their control.

Grumpy true Patriot

and to think that we have sent our best and brightest to this 'verdompte' country (uk) to escape the 'affirmative action' bs - makes me weep into my plate of koeksisters.

G-d save the patriots

Anth

daniel maris and Bill Bogg

Thanks for expressing my thoughts far better than I could myself.
(Daniel and I would probably disagree on the issue of Biblical legitimization : my view is that God did indeed destine the land to the Jews – a two-edged sword, since this means they only have a moral right to it if they obey His Law.)

Barry

It’s surely too simplistic to argue that Britain should have resettled the endangered Jews in other parts of the Empire, isn’t it ? I mean, Theodor Herzl was given a virtual promise from Britain that the Jews could have a part of British East Africa to colonize, but when he tried to present the idea at the Zionist Congress, he was howled down, and almost lost the leadership.
With 20-20 hindsight, it’s obvious that we should have opened up the gates of Empire to all Jews who needed out in the 30s (the US even more so, since that was a plum destination), but who could foresee Auschwitz at the time of the Berlin Olympics? Eli Wiesel, for instance, recounts how a Jew escaped the genocide in the early 40s and returned to his village in Rumania, desperately intreating his fellow villagers to flee – and nobody believed him.

A propos the carpet bombing of the German cities

While it was probably ineffective as a morale buster, it was, according to Goering, an important factor in shortening the war. In conversation with his interpreter during the Nuremberg trials, he said it became impossible to continue the war because they could no longer transport anything across the country owing to the destruction of the cities. In the sense that this cut short the number of days that the ovens could burn, I personally find it justifiable

Henry Sidgwick

John Roosevelt,
It would appear that "piss-taking" is not your forte: I have no clue what you were trying to say, and Groovy Times took you in all seriousness to be saying something very strange.

You quaintly allege a "masque". There is nothing I have said that hides my true opinion. As I have said explicitly many times, I think Israelis have every right to live in peace and security and prosperity; Palestinians likewise; the way to achieve this is by negotiation in good faith; the gross imbalance in power between the two parties requires an honest broker; the US could play this role, but instead gives Israel unstinting support in all it does (despite some window dressing).

To say that raising questions about the savagery of Israel's military actions is merely a dishonest way of saying that Israelis have no right to live in peace and security, and therefore no right to defend themselves, is a nonsense, which as far as I can see you have made no effort to substantiate.

David Lindsay

Adam B, that was over half his lifetime ago. The streets are lined with people like that. He does not hold a higher degree, and he has never held an academic position. No wonder, when his books assume that historical figures with the same name were the same person. He merely happens to be too rich to need to work, that's all.

George

Henry Sidgwick seems to know that Israel was fully mobilised for at least 6 months both before the Lebanese war of 2006 and again before operation Cast Lead last winter.
Henry, I live in Israel and at the time of both of those operations, I was the father of two officers in the IDF. I also work with many reservists in combat units. The only words I can use to describe this assertion of yours is that it is a total fabrication.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Phil: Israel has shown that all is negotiable - all things being equal. Point is that they aren't and. likely, never will be.

As I have mentioned, I do think it important that Israel, as you have rightly said, strives to maintains and nurture what has always informed the heart of its culture despite the restraints on its collective psyche. I also fervently hope that Israel is allowed to make Peace and that somehow they can find a way to help heal the wounds of all the victims of this terrible conflict - Arab and Jew. I don't see it happening, however...

As for the Sidgewicks of this world: they count for little. Israel has lived with far worse than his sophistry and will continue to do so long after he is off point scoring with the vestels.

Diomalco

I am not Jewish but I still deplore the attack by Mr. O. Miles of the integrity of Messrs. Gilbert and Freedman.

I know little of Mr. A. Roberts beyond the fact he is an historian, but it does seem to me his speech is timely.

In the past year or so I have noticed in mainstream magazines and newspapers, references to the religion of the subjects of various articles. This appears to happen only when they are Jewish and is irrelevant since none of the articles are about matters of faith.

This seems to me to be not only naff but strange because I'm of the wartime generation so have a long memory and cannot recall in the past 5/6 decades another time when a matter of person's religion was pertinent in an unrelated article. The strangeness is that media are always o.t.t on political correctness to the point of absurdity these days, except it seems where currently some kind of inference can be made against certain individuals.

The irritation caused by this obliterates any further interest in the article, since it's clearly written and edited by 'people of bias', therefore not worth bothering with.

However, this does not explain why anti-semitic attacks are increasing.

Barry

Sir Karl Popper's point on self determination is or may be right in principle but he added that minorities should have full civil rights and be protected.
In reality this has sometimes happened but more often not been the case. Very few golf clubs or private clubs in the USA for example allow Jews or Blacks to join.Wimbledon will still I think not allow the UK former tennis champion to join its club -Angela Buxton- she is Jewish - she first applied to join 40 plus years ago.
Maybe nationalism is wrong but let us recognise that the racism and antisemitism though denied still exists strongly under the surface as Andrew Roberts has pointed out.

Barry

re Anth

It was not 20 20 vision on the Holocaust. The Archbishop of York and another wrote a well known book called Extermination in 1936 , two years before Kristallnacht and 3 years before the war. Britain blockaded Palestine in 1939 after The League of Nations refused Britain's right to do this under the Mandate in June 1939. The act was immoral and unlawful under international law.

Henry Sidgwick

George,
I had been hoping you could give us an accurate estimate of how long mobilisation takes. However, that would have required you to read what I said, which was not that the IDF was mobilised six months before Cast Lead. (What I did say was from Israeli sources) If you read this more closely than you did my last effort: could you please tell us how long the planning and how long the mobilisation would take for operations such as those in 2006 and last year. As I think I said, you are the one with the professional knowledge, not me. Thank you.

Greg D

just Louise - 'I do think, Greg D., that Liz might have mentioned the Anglo-Normans'. No my dear, I cut and pasted: 'Anglo-Saxon' 'twas. In any case, the Angles were a Germanic tribe. Liz? Joshua? I'm singing Pink Floyd but you ain't responding.

Phil, you say that you 'agree with Daniel about the views of the ultra orthodox' - that wasn't your position a few days ago. In any case, believe that I was fair (I even bowed to Melanie - howzat not cricket?!) and that you reneged on your promise. I'd like to 'swop' grammatical abilities with you, and point out that this was not untypical of you. It would be great if you'd stop slinging insults, but if you wish to go down the path of the Hebrew Bible, so be it; your intellect is like a gerbil - small and always creeping up somebody's rear end. Clean up your act and grow up. Your 'arguments' stink.

C.Gee - fair enough points, if a little blinkered; but I'll mull on them.

David Lindsay - Adam B. presumably holds a similarly high opinion of Nick Griffin's intellectual abilities.

Adam B.

David Lindsay, that's not the point. You presented Roberts as being an idiot, which he clearly is not. You may disagree, but calling him stupid is just silly.

Personally, I think the substance of his speech is accurate and perceptive, and also brings up several rarely mentioned topics.

phil

David Lindsay
December 12th, 2009 9:47pm At least it does show the great polymath D .lindsay reads Andrew,s books, even if its free from the library ,,he must have written something of interest to have roused you from your mental slumbers .

Edward McLaughlin

Henry Sidgwick.

"the savagery of Israel's military actions"

It's called war. Savagery, by Israel or anyone else who partakes, is its mode d'emploi.

Tanya

Hear, hear, Mr Roberts!

When do we ever get to see non-Jews make lengthy and detailed statements like this on TV or in the mainstream media?

Yet Anth wants Mr Roberts to regurgitate the same propaganda we hear day in, day out on the BBC and Channel 4 News.

No thank you.

It's time those of us who are not Jewish and who support Israel got our views heard.

Thank you Mr Roberts for making the speech. Thank you to the Anglo-Israel Association for providing a platform to it. And thank you to Melanie for giving it a platform it hasn't received in my daily paper and most certainly won't receive on the BBC and Channel 4.

You get your say virtually every day of the week, Anth, via the MSM.

You will at least let us have a space away from the MSM to have our views expressed, especially by someone as well qualified to do so as Mr Roberts.

There won't have been a single person in that room or reading this blog who isn't aware of the sort of propaganda you'd like trotted out yet again.

Richard

The speech appears to support Israel's right to launch a preemptive attack on Iran.

If one accepts the proposition that Israel's best interests lie in deciding for herself her best interests (and this is debatable given the controversy surrounding Mr Blair's decisions on Iraq in relation to UN permissions or lack thereof), the criteria for this decision must include a fair appraisal of the true disposition not only of Ahmedinejad but also of future rulers of Iran towards Israel. Currently Ahmedinejad appears to be over-compensating politically, in an antisemitic polemical environment, for a semitic ancestry. But this state of affairs will not last for ever.

The great question for Israeli's and their neighbours as for every human on the planet is whether trust will yield better dividends than distrust, in due course.

I would argue that the rational course of the civilised mind is to make a world where it does. In this endeavour demagogues who use the passions of tribal hate for their political and financial profit are the enemy of the common man on all sides of every divide.

The uncertainty for Israel is that the people of Iran are in a conflict among themselves, demagogues fighting demagogues and the common man is caught in between, seeking a cause which represents them since democracy has failed once again to deliver a rational leader.

The question is how soon will Iran become a state which can be trusted with the capability for manufacturing nuclear weapons given its leadership's polemical vices. Robert's speech suggests that in appreciation of Israel's dilemma the international community through the UN and associated bodies should demand high standards of cooperation and transparency from Iran over nuclear matters, as high as they would expect from any one of the existing nuclear powers and to prevent a potential nuclear war should undertake to enforce these without hesitation.

If Israel is forced to attack, it would make reconciliation all the harder. In which light they could do worse than to bear in mind that they harm themselves if they harm the cause of the allies of reason in Iran and I feel sure there are as many there per capita as there are in Israel, Washington, London, Paris, Moscow or Peking.

daniel maris

To answer some points in the debate:

1. The idea that Israel is strong is a very dangerous one. Israel is a tiny sliver of a state. It could be obliterated in many and various ways that no doubt Al Queda, Ahmadinejad or others would love to implement. These would not all necessarily be nuclear. It would be difficult for Israel to respond to a non-nuclear attack from a poorly defined enemy with nuclear weapons, even if such an attack brought the country to its knees.

There is this huge disparity between Israel and the enemy in terms of population and geographical area.

2. I have long felt that the opportunity was lost at teh end of World War 2 to create a Jewish state in central Europe - perhaps Bavaria - as some suggested at the time I believe. Of course, that's irrelevant now. But it is important to recognise that indeed there was nothing inevitable about Israel's foundation.

3. It's a mistake to think that by arguing that Israel should rest its case for its continued existence on UN-derived legitimacy I am saying that the UN should hold Israel's destiny in its hand. No - Israelis have a right to exist as a state come what may. But I am pointing out that given Israel's precarious position - a tiny state surrounded by more populous and fanatical enemies - it is a mistake to argue for Israel's existence on the basis of principles which alienate support across the world. Such alienating principles include
claims that Palestine was an empty land, claims that the Bible ordains its existence, might is right arguments, arguments that ignore the rights of Arabs in the area, claims that the Balfour Declaration guaranteed the founding of an independent Jewish state, when it plainly did not and claims that Israel is entitled to set its own borders.

Going down any of those roads cuts away at support for Israel.

Adam B.

David Lindsay, that's not the point. You pretended that Roberts is an idiot, which he clearly is not. You may disagree with him, but calling him stupid is just silly. Greg D, Griffin didn't get a first did he? There is a big difference you know.

PHIL

George
December 13th, 2009 3:19pm please do not dignify his sophistry with any more responses -we all saw what he wrote about mobilisation ,and who cares anyhow .does he think the state should not be ready at all times .'I WILL REMIND HIM OF 1973 -HE IS DESPERATE NOW FOR CUSTOMERS .

Tom M

I say, I say Andrew, would it be awfully imposing old boy to ask you to perhaps write another perspective this time from the Palestinian Arabs point of view. You know the sort of thing I mean, with bulldozers knocking on the front door and all that sort of thing. Oh jolly good old boy I'll look forward to it. I say, I do believe the cucumber sandwiches have arrived. Oh rather.

Truthtriumphs

Adam B.
First rate, as always.
As the only way I can contact you is through here, could I just invite you to e-mail the following :- contactus@cifwatch.com (the off-line address)
in order to carry forward the fight for the truth for Israel.
They are waiting for you there.
This blog is doing a terrific job to negate the lies regularly pumped out by CiF.
Anyone else who thinks they can help is also invited.
Thank you.

Ian Stowe

A breath of fresh air. Pity that he could not under the terms of his address mention the intense damage the BBC has orchestrated in the UK in its ante-Israel bias and dissemblance of the facts.

Henry Sidgwick

Phil,
I should have followed my own advice to John Roosevelt: I will not talk about malapropisms, or call you Sir Maudlin Malaprop, or any such woesome efforts at flippancy. Nevertheless, you have misread what I wrote, again. Your time would be better spent if you could address what is written rather than what is not written. Even with this abiding fault, we did manage a conversation a few days ago that was more constructive than our current and habitual bickering. I do try to make points worth discussing, not that I expect or hope that everyone will agree with them, but that they will be a contribution to a mature debate. I find I learn from opposing views cogently expressed.

David Lindsay

As my learned friend R J Stove comments over on my blog:

"When, in an article for The American Conservative, I showed up Roberts's fraudulent erudition for good and all (in his later books, that is - there were some merits in his very early biographies of Lords Salisbury and Halifax), I was told (sometimes by well wishers) that Roberts would threaten to sue me for thousands of pounds, as he had already threatened to sue the left-wing journalist Johann Hari, who had censured him. It is absolutely impossible that Roberts would not have seen my take-down of him.

But ... nothing occurred. No screams of rage from Roberts threatening to call his lawyer. No public assumption on his part that I had a homosexual crush on him (he accused Hari of having this). Nothing. Zip, zilch, nada, the square root of Sweet Fanny Adams.

In other words, like every bully who ever lived, Roberts is a coward. To the limited extent that my piece inspired any reaction other than praise, it was from Roberts's American and, in particular, Australian fanboys - sometimes purportedly Catholic - for whom Roberts has now replaced the Virgin Mary as the sole repository of Immaculate Conception.

As for the remark that Roberts got a First from Cambridge, I seem to recall that exactly the same could be said of more than one Cambridge-"educated" spy for the USSR."

phil

Henry Sidgwick
December 14th, 2009 1:42pm I will reply to this post if only to tell you that- yes I did try to get you to write in a responsible manner but after many attempts I failed miserably ,and you continue to invent history in order to put down the Israeli state -why? you are the only one who truly knows the answer and what your purpose is here ,so far you only ever get the agreement of those who cannot even write other than in UNWINESE.

My ability to be rude is not one that I like to use ,so I have no wish to debate further with such a stubborn person , and as you are aware I wish others refrained too .

phil

Greg D
December 13th, 2009 5:53pm

I have no idea what are trying to say,other than the filthy bit with which you seem to be most accomplished ,perhaps a course from Stanley Unwin might help you to make your words more understandable---

Hi ho and a jolly welcode to all you surfwide'n interwebber lopers. Here beholdy manifold things Stanley Unwinmost - all deep joy and thorkus for great laugh'n tittery. O yes. .

Greg D

Your talk of 'inventing' and 'distorting' information is too rich, gerphil. The very fact that you claim an ability to debate or argue (in the true senses of these words) gives proof to these charges.

Mod - what gives?

C. Gee

David Lindsay:

If you have something to say about what Andrew Roberts says, say it. Your snide ad hominems and triumphant waving of small errors in his book are petty minded and offer no substance for this forum.

Not content with your own sneers and jeers, you call up heavy insult air-support by way of a Stove, who gloats that his nasty hit piece did not elicit a threat to sue for libel (in America!)from Roberts, as happened with Johann Hari.

You have provided us with a fascinating insight into the workings of smear journalism:

Put the boot in to the edge of the legal, and if the target threatens to hit back, call him a bully. If there is a no threat, claim victory and gloat about the target's cowardice. Get the boot in twice.

Are you - or Stove - in the running for any of the journalism prizes awarded to the champion poop-smearer Hari?

Adam B.

David Lindsay, you you think the Cambridge spies were stupid as well? if they were so stupid, what did that make our intelligence services, who were clueless about them for so long?

David Lindsay

"small errors"

Well, yes, if you only do it as a sort of hobby to fill in the time between parties. Like being admired by George Bush of all people, they would be career-ruining if he were a serious figure. But he isn't.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Come now, Tom M, we really don't need yet another "perspective from the Palestinian Arabs' point of view........with bulldozers knocking at the front door".

Heaven knows we are being saturated with enough of that propaganda already, nationwide, courtesy of that paragon of impartiality, the BBC, with plenty of back-up from Channel 4 and other British MSM. To echo the sentiments of some of the earlier commenters here, pity that Andrew Roberts' speech setting out the historic facts of Albion's perfidy couldn't have been delivered to a wider audience.

Groovy Times

Henry S, why is it reasonable to consider only the disproportionality of Israel's responses? You conveniently ignore the brutal murder of Hamas's internal political opponents and the eliminationist anti-Semitism at the core of Hamas's ideology. I have drawn your attention to these salient points previously, but you deem then unworthy of reply, despite them being integral to understanding the political culture in which Israel responds to its adversaries. Wilfully ignorig this context while finding every opportunity to criticise Israel - as you frequently do - is discriminatory towards the Jewish state, and we all know what discrimination against Jews is called, even when concealed behind your 'honourable' motives. Or is it just pure coincidence that you are obsessed with the only country in the world to claim Jewish sovereignty?

Gábor Fränkl

2nd attempt to be published - the 1st has been censored here.
The "The American Conservative" magazine is a far-right one, which habitually publishes materials from Pat Buchanan. He many times left no one in doubts about his vile theories about American Jews. Citing this magazine by certain David Lindsay does absolutely nothing to enhance anyone's credibility imho. Perhaps this won't be censored now...

Adam B.

Tom M, you are a snob - an inverted snob. Quite amazing that being well educated results in people like you exposing their sour grapes about money and mindless ignorant twaddle about the Middle East.

Let's have Fisk or Pilger write something from the Israeli perspective - or Alan Rusbridger - who, by the way, also went to public school and was born into a monied family. I suppose that's OK though?

Adam B.

Truthtriumphs, thanks - I'll drop you a line.

David Lindsay

Gábor Fränkl, what an extraordinary throwback you are, to the days before the Iraq War made screeching such as yours impossible. We are not frightened any more. We didn't lie this country into war, and we didn't get very rich as a result. Screaming tactics such as yours will no longer work.

Still less were we in Roberts's position, of being very (if rather vulgarly) rich to start with, but making ourselves even more so by churning out any old rubbish to please the then-ascendant neocons, secure in the knowledge that, having no need to work, we were unsackable, unlike academic historians.

piet pompies

As a citizen of South Africa I can relate to Israel's acute image problem. When South Africa was ruled by Nationalist Afrikaaners the country, along with Israel and others, was a pariah state. The siege mentality produced intransigence: when the whole world is set against "you" the temptation to give "them" the finger rapidly overtakes the desire for debate or reason.

At least we didn't have a government that said this land is ours because God says it is. Oops, actually we did didn't we? And look where that got us...

Shoshana

Is this the same David Lindsay who just got booted from his blog job because of baseless accusations?

Mote, meet log.

Greg D

'could I just invite you to e-mail the following :- contactus@cifwatch.com (the off-line address)
in order to carry forward the fight for the truth for Israel.

They are waiting for you there.' - Truthtriumphs

'Truthtriumphs, thanks - I'll drop you a line.' - Adam B

Tally-ho, nature lovers! Fetch your binoculars! What a marvellous sight; the courtship behaviour of two sturdy specimens of Laubia israelis on open display - and in their native habitat no less! (But given the natures of the zookeeper and fodder provided, it is unfortunately not the wild, where these creatures are much more cautious.)

Observations from other blogging posts have revealed that the senior specimen intent on reproducing will award its favoured mate with obvious flattery in the form of remarks such as 'Are you a writer?' and off the cuff, primary-school-level 'Star commentator' prizes. The junior specimen, without fail, responds with glee and reciprocal fawning. This mutual masturbation is thought to be the preliminary foreplay to the final act of intellectual coitus, after which the junior specimen will usually find itself in a lifelong relationship of servitude and unwitting exploitation.

Now, fellow travellers, if we follow the spoor provided by this conversation we might just meet the rest of the troop - 'they are waiting'! Be quiet, don your khaki, and you may just have the experience of a lifetime...

Melanie (Nov 16th, 2009), you may have had a point.

david baer

Its all about chasing shadows.
By that I mean latching on to this or that latest, most innovative idea that some self styled money making guru has put out in the hope it’ll go viral and make them a lot of money off the backs of all the headless chickens who will follow them blindly down a blind alley. Its a shame but a truism nonetheless that people will follow where someone they see as an expert leads. Even if they lead them to certain disaster, which is what most of the gurus tend to do to their flocks.
The trick is to recognize a shadow when you see it!

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Philo

Groovy Times
December 14th, 2009 8:17pm

There is a question that has struck me in reading what you and a number of others have written: You appear to be saying that any criticism of Israel not balanced by equal criticism of Palestinians (or in some versions Sudan, every Arab state, Iran, China and others) is excessive and to be explained by anti-Semitism, whether avowed or not. It appears that you allow yourself to apply this argument at your discretion. Now the charge of anti-Semitism tends to stop any decent person in their tracks. Does its frequent application here not risk abuse? It appears to be wielded to close down argument, even when the points made are perfectly reasonable. Would you genuinely address the criticisms if they were each time prefaced with the words "Hamas is a terrorist organization" or "Palestinians do bad things"? Or would you continue to dismiss the criticisms as a simple failure to understand Israel's peculiar and dangerous plight?

I would also be interested in what you meant by your comments of December 11th, 2009 6:40pm.

Avi Sion

A very excellent speech, full of wisdom and truth.

phil

ha ha greg d-dec 14 at 5.56 very good !
He talks gobbledygook without script or rehearsal,. But it is so cleverly done that it is hard to realise it is gibberish and yet he cries for help from the moderator -oh dear-all deep joy and thorkus for great laugh'n tittery. O yes

phil

David Lindsay
December 14th, 2009 3:41pm -I have no doubt Andrew has taken the same advice that many of us have had -to never dignify the truly pathetic with a response ,but in your case I will make an exception .

Truthtriumphs

Greg D.

Oh, please don't be miffed at being left out of the party, because we welcome you with open arms!
It would be great if you joined us, for we would have even more opportunities to demolish your specious arguments with the greatest of ease.
You see, it may take time, but truth does triumph in the end.

Adam B.

Greg D, you do make me laugh!

Groovy Times

Philo, accusations of bigotry - perhaps motivated by anti-Semitism - against Israel are not intended to close down debate but to point out the innate prejudice or visceral hatred that the protagonist possesses and wishes to disguise with progressive and humanitarian arguments that are exclusively deployed in reference to the 'victims' of Jewish / Zionist 'racism, warmongering and thievery’.

Israel's survival in part relies on its pragmatism and ability, through the liberal democratic process, to be self critical and aware of the problems it faces - some of which may well be of its own making. Those who support Israel on this site are generally aware of this reality.

But as the campaign to delegitimise and vilify Israel enters the mainstream of British discourse - sometimes using traditional anti-Semitic tropes, it becomes necessary to place Israel's predicament in a wider, more balanced context and to question whether some of the criticisms ranged against it are really made in good faith.

As for my earlier comment, it was an opportunity to point out to any wishful thinkers - excluding the good name of John Roosevelt of course - that Israel's demise is unlikely to come about by military conquest, and should the rules of the game shift from low-intensity warfare into a full-scale conventional war Israel will present itself as a formidable enemy.

phil

Adam B.
December 15th, 2009 7:24pm

Greg D, you do make me laugh!

Adam he makes me laugh too but its usually because I do not understand one word he has said ,and I suspect nor does he .One punch too many I think

Greg D

Adam, TT, gerphil:

Happy to be of service, genteelmen. I'm glad you enjoy my work.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Henry Sidgwick: perhaps you're right about the piss-taking and perhaps I have you wrong, generally. Apologies, if so.

You said:
"I think Israelis have every right to live in peace and security and prosperity; Palestinians likewise; the way to achieve this is by negotiation in good faith; the gross imbalance in power between the two parties requires an honest broker; the US could play this role, but instead gives Israel unstinting support in all it does (despite some window dressing).

To say that raising questions about the savagery of Israel's military actions is merely a dishonest way of saying that Israelis have no right to live in peace and security, and therefore no right to defend themselves, is a nonsense, which as far as I can see you have made no effort to substantiate."

I think you have missed my point. I believe that in the current propaganda stakes, Israel is unjustly demonised. That demonisation is based on essentially liberal values that the Palestinians don't even support and celabrate in their own society. In any event, I fail to see what alternative action by Israel would be sufficient to silence it's critics. Certainly, no response to rocket fire on its civilians doesn't silence them, for example...

Tell me, if you can, in what way Israel should have dealt with the current and historic attitude towards them of Hamas, Fatah, Hizbollah in particular, and the Moslem world in general? More specifically, how should they have dealt with the Palestinian rockets and suicide bombs? You believe Israel has a right to exist. Israel's principal antagonists don't.

Also, who would you have fulfill the role of "honest broker"? Iran, perhaps?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Daniel Maris et al: it is extraordinary that the debate re Israel now seems to hinge on the assertion that Israel claims some "divine" right to exist. Is it that there is some other "right" that Israel's detractors find more compelling or a legitimate that they arrogate to themselves? if so, spell it out, please.

The implication, it seems to me, of predicating one's objections to Israel on the "rights" issue, raises the spectre of the deligitimisation of israel as a state.
This, of course, is what the Arabs and Iranians want. It is the danger, however well intentioned, of the overriding implication of Daniel's argument...and this precisely why I object to it so vehemently.

Israel does exist. The Palestinian Arabs and THEIR supporters - at least in the Moslem world - for the most part don't want it to.

In this context, especially with the looming spectre of a nuclear-armed Iran - begs the question: what exactly would the Daniels and the Sidgewicks have Israel do? Nothing is really spelled out in their prescriptions. There are vague allusions to the UN; to "honest brokers"; to an "equitable" solution - that, for better or for worst, the opponents of Israel, anyway, would not, and have not - for the most part - ever supported.

This is the "rub", so to speak, and it is why most of the objections to particular reactions and actions of Israel - however uniquely horrific they may be deemed to be, are of little relevance.

It is the core questions re guarantees for a secure existence that israel needs before it can develop the "good faith" necessary to make significant compromises in dealing with the Arabs.

It takes two to tango..Not sure I know of any instance when the Palestinian Arabs learned the steps to that dance..

The question is: how do we guarantee a peaceful existence for the state of israel? Answer that compellingly and I am sure the Israelis might stand at least some chance of taking note....but would the Arabs??

phil

JOHN ROOSEVELT
December 16th, 2009 10:45am
John this reasonable attitude from henry is just another ploy he uses when the water becomes too hot for him -I have tried over years and then suddenly the words change when the critics quiet down and again he is in full flow -He has proved at least to me and Adam amongst others that he means us no good ,if and when he speaks up on our behalf ,and concedes that a legitimate state and people have a right to exist unfettered by threats from those that deny them the same rights ,I will address him again but hopefully I will not be tempted until that time .

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Philo: "Now the charge of anti-Semitism tends to stop any decent person in their tracks. Does its frequent application here not risk abuse? It appears to be wielded to close down argument, even when the points made are perfectly reasonable. Would you genuinely address the criticisms if they were each time prefaced with the words "Hamas is a terrorist organization" or "Palestinians do bad things"? Or would you continue to dismiss the criticisms as a simple failure to understand Israel's peculiar and dangerous plight?"

I have a feeling that you misconstrue so much of what the objectors to the objectors are on about when they talk of anti semitism. It is this:

Many, if not most, of those who villify Israel because of specifics e.g. "disproportionality" in the art of their warfare; or "deliberate targeting of civilians"; or "ethnic cleansing"; or "Nazi-like" behaviour; or "Crimes Against Humanity" etc. etc - actually very often, at least - implicitly or explicitly - form part of a wider opposition to Israel's right to exist per se. This is crucial to realise because it reveals that there is, most often, a more sinister motive at play in these criticisms of specifics. We know that there was demonisation of Israel by their most significant opponents way before most of these specifics were ever there to cause the Moslem world do regress into a state of St Vitas Liberalis, or some such malady those who are so steeped in the the intellectual history of liberal philosophy fall victim of when they see wrongdoing.

Though we know it t is absurd to accuse Israel of not taking any cognizance of its errors( i.e. who knows of any other state in the world that does more so than Israel? Yes, we know it's not perfect, perhaps, but relatively on the right hand of God, I'd say etc)...despite this, the main point is that irrespective of these claimed sins of Israel, its major opponents would - and have always - demonised it, anyway. Why? Because they don't recognise Israel's right to exist. This may be because they hate Jews per se - as per the libraries of Moslem and Christian anti semitic literature would seem to indicate they do - the Hamas Charter etc - or just certain Jews who happen to live in Palestine; or just some Jews who have done so since Hitler tried to exterminate all Jews; or just those jews whose name ends in "ohen"....mmm.... Who knows? Who the hell cares??? Non existence is non existence, whatever your religion, right? When you ask a whole state to DEform - commit a kind of collective hari kiri - is the religion then important of those who will die?

It becomes immaterial whether the reason for not supporting Israel's right to exist is anti semitism or, rather, a championing of some digest of ethnic or ethno-nationalist principles that should hold sway without further discussion. It is really of no importance if someone objects to you oppositon to Israel's conduct of Cast Lead because of "disproportionality"..when these arguments are used to garner support for the eradication of the Jewish state.

Two overriding facts seem to overshadow all others: Israel DOES exist; and the Plaestinian Arabs and most of their supporters don't want it to.

I sincerely believe that if there were acceptance of Israel's right to exist, and the international community and the Arabs and Moslem world was sincerely at one with this, the actions that Israel takes - however even or unevenhanded they may seem - would be redunadant. There would, in short, be no need for them.

Israel accepted a UN sponsored two state solution in '47. They accepted no sovereignty over Jerusalem. They fought a war for survival - not of their making - as a result of these ""crimes". They won that war. They survived. That fact, and that fact alone, has been the quintessential cause of hatred of, and opposition to, this tiny country. That is the issue that needs solving and that issue, once solved, will make all the other specific issues fall away....If the resolution to this issue, however, means that Israel is to be wiped off the map (no need for a proper, Final solution,of course), then don't be surprised or horrified by Israel's response.

If one is a pacifist, no war is justified. If one is a socialist, the US, for example, by definition will rarely do right - as the capitalist state par excellence. By the same token, if you don't recognise Israel's right to exist, anything it does to do so, will therefore be illegitimate and Israel, therefore, will constitute a demon - Jews or no Jews, of course...

Hamas et al are Israel's open and sworn enemies. No nation on earth would recogise this declared hatred as anyhting but a clear and consistent casus belli. Israel is restrained in this respect, relative to other states.

Unless one construes this Middle East conflict as one between the the Moslems as die hard Western Liberals, on the one hand, with the humanitarian credentials that would make the greens and the hari krishna bow their heads in shame - and Israel as the Imperialist, racist, ogre of The protocols of Zion, hell bent on taking over he Arab world and the lands beyond..then, clearly, we have a complex game on our hands.

Philo

Groovy Times,
I tried earlier this morning to follow up on what you said, but it got lost.

This blog strongly advocates a policy in relation to the Palestinians identified with Avigdor Lieberman (but in essentials the same as the policy of Barak, Sharon, Olmert, and Netanyahu, and indeed of Peres). There is absolutely no objection to be made to such advocacy. But it makes little sense for a critic of the policy to come to this site to criticize China or Sudan, or the behaviour of Arab tyrants to their own people. Likewise, with the Palestinians - it would be merely to parrot what the blogger has already said. Surely, if a critic of the Avigdor Lieberman policy devotes their contribution to this site to criticism of the Avigdor Lieberman policy, there is nothing exceptionable. It is not irrational fixation on the perceived faults of Israel. It is criticism relevant to the subject of the blog. It is certainly not anti-Semitism - at least not the criticisms I have read here (I have not seen any such, you may be able to point some out to me). It is for the supporters of the Avigdor Liebermann policy to counter the criticism with argument, not with imputations about the critics' motives, which are by their nature impossible for the critic to disprove here, and which merely deflect attention from the criticism.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Philo: "Likewise, with the Palestinians - it would be merely to parrot what the blogger has already said. Surely, if a critic of the Avigdor Lieberman policy devotes their contribution to this site to criticism of the Avigdor Lieberman policy, there is nothing exceptionable. It is not irrational fixation on the perceived faults of Israel. It is criticism relevant to the subject of the blog. It is certainly not anti-Semitism - at least not the criticisms I have read here (I have not seen any such, you may be able to point some out to me). It is for the supporters of the Avigdor Liebermann policy to counter the criticism with argument, not with imputations about the critics' motives, which are by their nature impossible for the critic to disprove here, and which merely deflect attention from the criticism."

Ok. So you feel the purpose of this blog is to criticise the specifics of israel's bahaviour..Mmm..I though it was a discussion of the article above - which alludes to the historic policy of the UK FO in the historical context of the Jews in Palestine.

Anyway, many of the posters here - like myself - have asked the likes of Sidgewick, for example, to start giving some clarity to their implied(only) prescriptions for Israel behaviour versus that of its potential partners in peace.Given how conflict has so much to do with cause and effect, it makes little sense to isolat one party's putuative 'crimes" - and avoids the context of cause and effect in which they take place. I have seen no specifics for Sidgewich or you, for example, in this regard. One hears that Cast Lead was a horrific way to conduct a war, but there is little said about any war one that is anything but. By taking the actions out of the context of the cause, and by avoiding any comparison to wars in general, this one seems particular,, and since, it is seen as a crime - a particular kind of crime that requires special censure.

There is talk, I guess, of killing civilians. There is no talk, however, re how to avoid this in the context of the human shield syndrome that chraterises Hamas and Hizbollah tactic of aggression/violence.. There is talk of annexation of Jerusalem, without any reagrd to the history of Jerusalem preceding its annexation by Israel i.e annexation by Jordan - and the implications of this. There is talk of equitable treatment of the "Palestinians", without any regard to how the Jews have been trreated by same, not to mention their "brothers" throughout the region.

You see, Philo, it is indeed hard to stand the vaguest chance of giving the israelis a just hearing without discussing their actions in the context of how this conflict has played out ovr time. It's like judging the actions of the Americans in Afghanistan without any reference whatsoever to 9/11.

Of course, there is strong suspicion, as perhaps you can now understand, that as a result of this kind of criticism of the specifics of Israel's actions, without regard for th historical context in which those actions take place, that there is another agenda at play i.e to hoist Israel by the petard of some spurious digest of liberal principles that are erroneously imputed to those who are supported by that criticism. This is erroneous, fatuous and insidious - not because we all share share (which we dont) the values of a Lieberman.On the contrary, it is so, even if one happens to agree with some of the criticisms, albeit for other reasons.

Henry Sidgwick

JOHN ROOSEVELT
December 16th, 2009 10:45am

"I think Israelis have every right to live in peace and security and prosperity; Palestinians likewise; the way to achieve this is by negotiation in good faith; the gross imbalance in power between the two parties requires an honest broker; the US could play this role, but instead gives Israel unstinting support in all it does (despite some window dressing).

To say that raising questions about the savagery of Israel's military actions is merely a dishonest way of saying that Israelis have no right to live in peace and security, and therefore no right to defend themselves, is a nonsense..."

I think I answer your questions in the passage you quote.

For the record, I have repeatedly made clear that I think Israelis have a right to live in peace, as do Palestinians.

How Israel and before it the Yishuv should have dealt with the Palestinians in the past, I have discussed with others at great length over the last year. It is a subject, I recognize, that now calls for scholarship not polemics.

As to how Israel should have dealt with the threat from Hizballah in 2006 and Hamas in 2008, again, I have discussed it at length.

In each case, there was no imminent threat that warranted the Israeli attack. Hizballah took soldiers to barter for Lebanese, as had happened in the past. Hamas sought an extension of a ceasefire, which the Israeli security services confirmed was holding.

There is no possibility that Hizballah or Hamas could seriously threaten the state of Israel. They are at most capable of what we all agree are terrorist crimes and of small-scale irregular warfare.

It is a cliche that one man's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter". Hamas and Hizballah are in many respects terrorist organizations, abhorrent to us all. Yet they both arose in defence of their people, who had no-one else to turn to: Hizballah during the long occupation of south Lebanon, and Hamas during the long occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Whatever you think of them, their hostility to Israel is not without cause (however much you disagree that it is just cause) and their behaviour is not irrational if you consider them as the weak resisting the strong (however criminal you may think their resistance).

Iran is a regional power surrounded by nuclear powers some of whom are unstable and some avowedly hostile to them, and all of whom are friends of the US, which has sought its overthrow ever since its inception, going so far as to ally itself with Saddam Hussein in his criminal war of aggression. The US has first strike capability and its rhetoric is bellicose. Israel has its nuclear weapons trained on Iran, and its rhetoric is bellicose in the extreme (comparable – depending on which translation is correct - to Iran's about the "Zionist regime in Jerusalem" and similar poison). In its thirty years, the Iranian republic has behaved as you would expect a regional power to behave, no better, but no worse. Regardless of its rhetoric and its internal repression, and regardless of what you think of its ideology, it has behaved as a rational player in its international relations. What sovereign state in its position would not seek to develop nuclear weapons, in its own defence? (Consider the question as if you had nothing personally at stake in the answer).

Does any of this make Iran, or Hamas, or Hizballah good, and Israel bad? No, of course it doesn't. It does reduce the lurid glow of propaganda and point to at least the possibility behind the extreme rhetoric on all sides of negotiation.

None of this has anything to do with hatred of Israel on my part, quite the contrary. It seems to me that negotiation is the only way to ensure in the long term that Israelis can live in peace and prosperity, and likewise the Palestinians. I am not confident however that negotiation will trump power politics, as long as Israel believes it can get all it wants, and the US considers Israel an "asset" in the region (I think imperial condescension underlies the undoubted friendship between the two states, which Israel rightly resents and lobbies hard to mitigate or exploit - but that is beside the point of the current discussion).

To repeat yet again, my criticism is that the behaviour of the Israeli state is not in the interests of the Israeli people and is certainly and wholly unnecessarily detrimental to the interests of the Palestinian people. Such criticism deserves a snort of derision for its presumption, it may be demolished with cogent arguments, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-Semitism.

Philo

John Roosevelt,

"...actually very often, at least - implicitly or explicitly - form part of a wider opposition to Israel's right to exist per se..."

This is the point I was making: I have read some of the contributions you mention. There is no way to infer from what is said that the writer has a sinister motive, anti-Semitism, a wish that Israel not exist, whatever. Your inference is simply not warranted by the evidence.

phil

I think this series of posts are most appropriate for the blog which includes JR,s debate with philo but were included in the" what the Palestinian thread etc ,earlier -they illustrate I believe the problem in discussing matters with this lady

December 16th, 2009 8:57am
Adam B.,
Can I ask whether you would think it legitimate to say that certain Talmudic scholars if given a fundamentalist interpretation can be taken to advocate beliefs and behaviours at variance with those generally considered acceptable in a liberal democracy; and that there are fundamentalists of this sort in Israel who arguably wield disproportionate influence as a result of Israel's particular form of democracy which allows small parties on occasion to hold the balance of power? Or would this too be anti-Semitism? I ask because I am no anti-Semite, but the bounds of what you consider allowable comment seem to be very narrow.

-------------------------------------------------------------
phils answer
Philo

I see you have changed your line of questioning and as Adam is probably at work I will tell you that ,yes of course there are looneys who are religious freaks and who advocate appalling behaviour ,but does Israel have to be condemned because of their nonsense when in fact it shows its disgust .Do we as a BRITISH NATION have to stand accused because of what Enoch Powell said ?,or what jack the ripper did ? I think my questions may answer yours, so I hope you will not continue so regularly to make what appears to be pointless innuendo ,and then say you are not anti -Semitic .You are the only one who knows the truth of that ,not us and frankly I do not care ,it seems to bother you more than me so just leave that subject be please .

phil

December 16th, 2009 12:46pm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philo,s reply
December 16th, 2009 4:09pm
Phil,
"I hope you will not continue so regularly to make what appears to be pointless innuendo ,and then say you are not anti -Semitic..."

Are you talking to me? or talking past me at someone else?

----------------------------------------------

phils reply
Philo
December 16th, 2009 4:09pm ------- was that a question or a supercilious remark -you are well aware of what I said and what I mean ,BUT IF YOU NEED IT CLEARER -STOP ASKING SILLY QUESTIONS AND THEN CRYING THAT YOU ARE NOT ANTI-SEMITIC.The very fact that you keep mentioning it implies that you think you may be perceived as such -I told you I do not give a damn what you are ,but you obviously do .

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Henry Sidgewick: my response in caps:
JOHN ROOSEVELT
December 16th, 2009 10:45am
"I think Israelis have every right to live in peace and security and prosperity; Palestinians likewise; the way to achieve this is by negotiation in good faith; the gross imbalance in power between the two parties requires an honest broker; the US could play this role, but instead gives Israel unstinting support in all it does (despite some window dressing).
To say that raising questions about the savagery of Israel's military actions is merely a dishonest way of saying that Israelis have no right to live in peace and security, and therefore no right to defend themselves, is a nonsense..."
I think I answer your questions in the passage you quote.
I FAIL TO SEE HOW YOU DO SO; AND YOU FAIL TO EXAMINE THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL’S RELATIONSHIP WITH HAMAS AND ITS RELATED AGGRESSION TOWARDS ISRAEL’S CIVILIAN POPULATION. PERHAPS IT SEEMS DISPROPORTIONATE TO YOU, BUT TO A STATE WHICH SEEMS PREPARED TO GIVE UP 1000 PRISONERS FOR ONE SOLDIER OF THEIR OWN, PERHAPS THE PERSISTENCE KILLING OF IT INNOCENTS WARRENTS CONCERTED MILITARY RETALIATION AND TO IGNORE THIS POSSIBILITY, AT LEAST, DOES NOTHING TO GAIN A GENUINE INSIGHT INTO ISRAEL’S MOTIVATION FOR ITS PARTICULAR DEFENCE POLICIES. YOU SEEM TO IMPLY THAT THERE WAS NOTHING HAMAS COULD HAVE DONE TO PREVENT ISRAELI ACTION IN GAZA. THAT IS NONSENSE. HAMAS’S BIGGEST CRIME – TOWARDS IT OWN PEOPLE – WAS KNOWINGLY TO PROVOKE ISRAEL’S ACTION. ALL THEY NEEDED TO DO TO AVOID IT WAS MAINTAIN A HUDNA. IF THAT WAS MAINTIAN ED LONG ENOUGH, THE MOMENTUM FOR RESTARTING OF NEGOTIATIONS MAY HAVE STOOD SOME CHANCE OF GRWOWING. BUT HAMAS DOESN’T WANT NEGOTIATIONS. DOESN’T WANT PEACE. DOESN’T WANT THE STATE OF ISRAEL. THIS PASSES YOU BY. IT SEEMS, OR IS NO JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE FOR ISRAEL. MY POINT IS THAT FOR YOU,, AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, IT SEEMS THAT ISRAEL CANNOT HAVE ANY JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE. IF YOU BELIEVE THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST HOW WOULD YOU MAKE THE MOSLEMS AGREE WITH YOU? OR DO YOU REALLY PUT THAT FORWARD AS SOME WAY OF SANCTIFYING AN ARGUMENT THAT YOU DON’T REALLY BELIEVE IN? CERTAINLY THER MOSLEMS FEEL ISRAEL COULD NEVER DO ANY RIGHT, BY VIRUE OF THE MERE FACT THAT ISRAEL EXISTS.
For the record, I have repeatedly made clear that I think Israelis have a right to live in peace, as do Palestinians.
VERY GOOD. GLAD YOU POINTED THAT OUT. OH THAT YOUR SUPPORT FOR THAT RIGHT WERE SHARED BY HAMAS, FATAH, HIZBOLLAH, IRAN AND THE WIDER MOSLEM WORLD. IT’S A MINOR DETAIL TO YOU, PERHAPS, BUT SURELY OF RELEVENCE IN UNDERSTANDING ISRAEL POLICY – HOWEVER HEINOUS.
How Israel and before it the Yishuv should have dealt with the Palestinians in the past,
THIS IS TRUE, BUT NOT IRRELEVENT TO THE PRESENT, SINCE SO MANY WOULD LIKE THERE TO BE A REWRITING OF HISTORY AND ARE PREPARED TO PERPEUTATE MAYHEM TO ACHIEVE THAT. WAR HAS NOT CEASED SINCE EVEN BEFORE ISRAEL EXISTED. FANCIFUL TO IGNORE THIS WHEN EVALUATING ISRAELI POLICY-MAKING .
I have discussed with others at great length over the last year. It is a subject, I recognize, that now calls for scholarship not polemics.
AND INDEED THERE IS MUCH SCHOLARSHIP ALREADY ON THE SUBJECT AS THERE IS ON ANTI SEMITISM. PLEASE AVAIL YOURSEL OF IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO LIKEWISE. WE HAVE TO GET AWAY FROM THE ANTI SEMITIC BULLSHIT THAT INFORMS MOST OF THE MOSLEM NARRATIVE RE ISRAEL AND, INCREASINGLY, THE NON MOSLEM NARRATIVE – THOUGH, OF COURSE, WE KNOW THE NON MOSLEM WORLD I.E CHRISTIAN, HAS HAD A FAR STRONGER TENDENCY TO RACISM AND ANTI SEMITISM THAN MOSLEMS.. IT DIDN’T ALWAYS EXIST IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD, OF COURSE....THOUGH, OF COURSE, ISLAM NEVER SAW THE JEW (OR THE CHRISTIAN, FOR THAT MATTER) AS ANYTHING BUT INFERIOR.
As to how Israel should have dealt with the threat from Hizballah in 2006 and Hamas in 2008, again, I have discussed it at length.
In each case, there was no imminent threat that warranted the Israeli attack.
IT SEEMS THAT THERE IS NOTHING THESE GROUPS COULD DO, IN YOUR VIEW, TO MERIT AN ISRAELI ATTACK. PERHAPS YOU HAVE REWRITTEN THE RULE BOOK ON WHAT MERITS JUSTIFIABLE DEFENCE? AN EYE FOR EYE..OR MAYBE YOU’RE NOT AN OLD TESTAMENT MAN(?).
Hizballah took soldiers to barter for Lebanese, as had happened in the past. Hamas sought an extension of a ceasefire, which the Israeli security services confirmed was holding.
THAT THIS ACT MAY HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, BY ISRAEL, A “LAST STRAW” SEEMS TO PASS YOU BY. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NO SURPRISE TO ME IF ISRAEL HAD LAUNCHED SUCH AN ATTACK EVEN YEARS BEFORE IT DID. WHY NOT? WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL DEFENCE THAT ISRAEL WOULD HAVE BEEN IN BREACH OF THAT WE SHOULD BE TAKING AS OUR GUIDE?
There is no possibility that Hizballah or Hamas could seriously threaten the state of Israel. They are at most capable of what we all agree are terrorist crimes and of small-scale irregular warfare.
WHO TALKED ABOUT THESE OUTFITS ACTUALLY BEING ABLE, AT PRESENT, TO DESTROY ISRAEL? IF THEY WERE AND ISRAEL KNEW IT, WOULD IT NOT ALREADY BE ANOTHER WAR – I GUESS A PREEMPTIVE ONE? IS THAT THE ONLY REASONABLE CASUS BELLI IN YOUR BIBLE FOR ETHICAL REALTIONS WITH THOSE WHO WOULD ATTACK YOUR CITIZENS AND DEDICATE THEMSELVES TO YOUR DESTRUCTION 9REMIND ME NOT THAVE YOU IN MY ARMY)? CAN YOU IMAGINE ANY OTHER STATE IN THE WORLD FOLLOWING SUCH RULES? YOU SEEM CONVINCED THAT YOU ONLY HAVE TO REITERATE HOW “SMALL-SCALE” IS THE LAUNCHING OF THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF ROCKETS ON CIVILIAN AREAS FOR THE IDF AND ME TO BELIEVE YOU. HAVE YOU EVR READ ANY MILITARY HISTORY?
It is a cliche that one man's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter". Hamas and Hizballah are in many respects terrorist organizations, abhorrent to us all. Yet they both arose in defence of their people, who had no-one else to turn to: Hizballah during the long occupation of south Lebanon, and Hamas during the long occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Whatever you think of them, their hostility to Israel is not without cause (however much you disagree that it is just cause) and their behaviour is not irrational if you consider them as the weak resisting the strong (however criminal you may think their resistance).

NOR IS IT IRRATIONAL IF YOU CONSIDER IT MEMBERS OF THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY FIGHTING THOSE WHO BELIEVE THE EARTH IS ROUND. WHO CARES IF THERE IS A CAUSE? WE ALL KNOW THERE IS A CAUSE, SILLY! THEY WANT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE STAE OF ISRAEL AS THE MOSLEMS AND ARABS HAVE DONE SINCE THEY THOUGHT THE JEWS WERE STEALING THEIR PROPERTY AND THE GRAND MUFTI PETITIONED HITLER TO LET HIM JOIN HANDS WITH HIM IN THE EXECUTION OF THE FINAL SOLUTION.
Iran is a regional power surrounded by nuclear powers some of whom are unstable and some avowedly hostile to them
I GUESS YOU MEAN ISRAEL, RIGHT? OR DO YOU KNOW OF SOME OTHER STATE CLOSE BY TO IRAN WITH NUKES READY TO INCINERATE IRAN (PRAY LET MOSSAD NOW!!).
, and all of whom are friends of the US, which has sought its overthrow ever since its inception,
IRAN’S INCEPTION OR THE ONLY THAT OF THE REGIME OF THE AYOTOLLAH WHO, LAST TIME I LOOKED, NEVER WAS A GREAT FAN OF THE US?
going so far as to ally itself with Saddam Hussein in his criminal war of aggression.
AH, SADDAM WAS A CRIMINAL? DIDN’T KNOW THAT. WHY? BECAUSE OF HIS WAR WITH IRAN? AH, BLIMEY. YOU MUST BE REFERRING TO THE MERE MILLION DEATHS IN THAT SKIRMISH..THIS IS GETTING REAL COMPLEX…
The US has first strike capability and its rhetoric is bellicose. Israel has its nuclear weapons trained on Iran, and its rhetoric is bellicose in the extreme (comparable – depending on which translation is correct - to Iran's about the "Zionist regime in Jerusalem" and similar poison).
OK. HERE WE GO WITH THE EQUIVALENCE ARGUMENT AGAIN. PLEASE….SO IRAN HAS NO MOTIVES OTHER THAN HONOURABLE ONES IN THE REGION AND ARE THE KIND OF REGIME THAT CELBRATES THE KIND OF ETHICS WHICH WOULD PUT THE US TO SHAME OR ISRAEL..ZZZZZZZZ
In its thirty years, the Iranian republic has behaved as you would expect a regional power to behave, no better, but no worse.
WHAT DOES THIS REALLY MEAN???

Regardless of its rhetoric and its internal repression, and regardless of what you think of its ideology, it has behaved as a rational player in its international relations.
MMM..COULD BE..CERTAINLY RATIONAL IN THEIR OWN EYES..BUT WHO HAS CALLED THEM OTHERWISE? THE FACT THAT THEY WANT ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, HOWEVER, IS JUST ANOTHER MINOR DETAIL TO YOU - WHEN IT COMES TO ANY REAL ATTEMPT AT UNDERSTANDING ISRAEL’S POLICY TOWARDS THEM – THE POLICY WHICH YOU SO BLITHELY DISMISS – ALBEIT BY IINUENDOE ONLY – AS SOMEHOW IRRATIONAL OR BAD OR BOTH?
FOR YOU, IT’S RATIONAL FOR IRAN TO WANT TO ELIMINATE ISRAEL BECAUSE IT SUITS ITS REGIONAL AMBITIONS, THIS IS SOMEHOW KOSHER?
What sovereign state in its position would not seek to develop nuclear weapons, in its own defence? (Consider the question as if you had nothing personally at stake in the answer).
ALL STATES MIGHT WANT TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS IF ANY OTHER STATE PSSSESSED THEM. DOESN’T MEAN THE REASON IS NECESSARILY BECAUSE THERE IS A REAL THREAT OF THE NUCLEAR STATE USING ITS WEAPONS AGAINST THE NON NUCLEAR POWER IF THAT POWER DOESN’T DEVELOP THEIR OWN. AGAIN, YOU BLITHELY GLOSS OVER THE MINOR DETAIL OF IRAN’S HEAD OF STATE NOT ONLY HAS REPEATEDLY DENIED THE HOLOCAUSE BUT ALSO HAS LIKEWISE THREATENED ISRAEL WITH EXTERMINATION. WHAT STATE WOULD TOLERATE THIS (CONSIDER THE QUESTION AS IF YOU HAD NOTHING PERSONALLY AT STAKE IN THE ANSWER – AND, BY THE WAY, DON’T ASSUME FOR A MOMENT,I HAVE ANYHTING AT ALL PERSONALLY AT TAKE WITH REAGARD TO ANYTHING TO DO WITH ISRAEL).
Does any of this make Iran, or Hamas, or Hizballah good, and Israel bad? No, of course it doesn't. It does reduce the lurid glow of propaganda and point to at least the possibility behind the extreme rhetoric on all sides of negotiation.
WHAT YOU MEAN IS THAT ISRAEL’S CASE IS LURID PROPAGANDA BUT THAT OF THE ARABS IS NOT..MM..WHY? BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CAUSE THAT IS NECESSARUILY GOOD BUT BECAUSE YOU CAN – SO PERCEPTIVELY – IDENTIFY IT AS A CAUSE – SOMEHOW IT THEREBY NECESSARILY NEGATES THE FORSE OF ISRAEL’S POSITION? THIS IS LA LA SPEAK.
None of this has anything to do with hatred of Israel on my part, quite the contrary.
SHOULD I BE HEARTENED?
It seems to me that negotiation is the only way to ensure in the long term that Israelis can live in peace and prosperity, and likewise the Palestinians.
WELL, THAT I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH, MATE.
I am not confident however that negotiation will trump power politics, as long as Israel believes it can get all it wants,
AH..”ALL IT WANTS”…AND WHAT MIGHT THAT BE? MORE TO THE POINT, WHAT, IN YOUR BOOK SHOULD IT BE? OR EVEN MORE TO THE POINT, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE MOSLEMS WANT IT TO BE??
and the US considers Israel an "asset" in the region (I think imperial condescension underlies the undoubted friendship between the two states, which Israel rightly resents and lobbies hard to mitigate or exploit - but that is beside the point of the current discussion).
NOT ONLY BESIDE THE POINT BUT POINTLESS. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ARE BY DEFINITION RELATIONS BY POWERS WHO SEEK ADVANTAGE – MUTUAL OR OTHERWISE – AS THEY DEFINE. YOUR DISTINCTION IS OTIOSE..IF NOT PERNEICIOUS, SINCE I’M SURE YOU KNOW THAT ALREADY.
To repeat yet again, my criticism is that the behaviour of the Israeli state is not in the interests of the Israeli people

I WILL TELL THEM
and is certainly and wholly unnecessarily detrimental to the interests of the Palestinian people.
DETRIMENTAL, FOR SURE…UNNECESSARILY PERHAPS, BUT NOT BECAUSE ISRAEL HOLDS THE CARDS OF NECESSAITY HERE. AS PER A PREVIOUS POST OF MINE, IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO AND THE MOSLEMS DON’T SEEM FAMILIAR WITH THE STPES OF THAT DANCE, WHATEVER WAY YOU SPIN IT.
Such criticism deserves a snort of derision for its presumption, it may be demolished with cogent arguments, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-Semitism.
AS I SAID BEFORE AND WILL SAY IN OTHER WORDS AGAIN: WHO NEEDS ANTI SEMITISM WHEN WE’RE TALKING THE EXTERMINGTION OF THE JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL AND THE DESIRE TO HAVE THE JEWS OF PALESTINE PUSHED INTO THE MED????

HENRY..GET SERIOUS, DEAR...;

phil

JR you saved the best till last -oh I love it :)

To repeat yet again, my criticism is that the behaviour of the Israeli state is not in the interests of the Israeli people

I WILL TELL THEM

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Henry Sidgewich: you have to forgive all my typos. I have no editor, at the moment, and am writing my posts at speed..I am only saying this because you have a seamless turn of phrase and concomitant command of syntax and grammar and I would be mortified if your were to ill of me for that reason, alone, when you could perhaps be satiated in that regard just by reading my counter arguments to points you have posted.

In all seriousness, I am tiring of this debate. Like the conflict istelf, it just goes round an round in vortex tending t descend in the direction of violence as the only outcome.

Do you believe that there is any chance the Moslems will ever negotiate again and in good faith or has that time long passed or, inedeed, never , in truth, existed?

I think the "big one" is nigh...I dont' think Israel will ever believe the Arabs have anything but a rabid desire to see them erased from our map and certainly noone will ever believe the iranians, despite your assurances that they are well intentioned liberals (like us).

I fear that Israel is fast reaching the point where they will act, with the US, to make a serious dent in the staus quo in the region. It won't be pleaseant, but that point, I fear, is at hand.

Please, please, give us the solution!!!!

Henry Sidgwick

John Roosevelt,
I can see no evidence here that you have ventured beyond the comfort of your prejudices. The same can be said for what I notice another contributor calls the advocates of the Avigdor Lieberman policy. This allows no possibility of compromise.

phil

JOHN ROOSEVELT
December 16th, 2009 9:17pm -he just continues to prove he has no solutions but manages to quote the fragrant philo,s criticism of lieberman ,he may find a few more of his cohorts to say something unpleasant,but he will not answer you ,he never answered either me or Adam B .I understand why of course he does not have any answers ,none that are logical anyway .

Philo

phil
December 16th, 2009 5:09pm

I was surprised you so proudly copied and pasted this. I did a little research. I think I now understand why Henry Sidgwick dubbed you Sir Maudlin Malaprop (although, I find, irascible as much as maudlin). Henry Sidgwick does not do wit, as far as I can see. I think he was trying to make a serious point. I take it to be this, which is kindly meant: you do struggle to understand what your opponents say, and as a consequence your ripostes tend to miss the mark. You just never quite get it. It is frustrating for all concerned, but also touching, genuinely touching, the more so as you often do achieve a certain eloquence in expressing sentiments we should all share.

Henry Sidgwick

John Roosevelt (and Adam B. and Phil and others),

I know our debate has wound to its close. As a postscript: I have just read Jonathan Hoffman's memo of last year on Comment is Free. In the appendix he itemizes comments he thinks anti-Semitic. There are a number which are no such thing. But in rough hand-waving terms a good three-quarters of the comments he has highlighted are unambiguously jaw-droppingly sickeningly anti-Semitic. I am astonished and chastened. I have seen nothing remotely like this here, but I can well understand why you have consistently misread what I (and others) have written. There is a middle ground where bona fide critics (of various shades)and bona fide supporters (of various shades) of Israel's policy towards the Palestinians can argue constructively. I hold to the opinions I have expressed; I think you should attempt to address them rationally; but I apologize for being so slow to understand that the strategy of calling all critics anti-Semites seems to you so persuasive because a startling number of the individuals who criticize Israel on the likes of CiF ARE indeed anti-Semites. Do not avail yourself of the opportunity to exploit such idiots to evade legitimate criticism.

John ROOSEVELT

Henry Sidgwick
December 17th, 2009 11:45am
"John Roosevelt,
I can see no evidence here that you have ventured beyond the comfort of your prejudices. The same can be said for what I notice another contributor calls the advocates of the Avigdor Lieberman policy. This allows no possibility of compromise."

How you infer this from what I have said in any of my posts is beyond me, Sidgwick.

Try and apply your incisive unprejudiced mind to this:

1) the Arabs , particularly since the Mufti befriended Eichman and Mussolini, have tended to a rabid anti semitism. This anti semitism is excused by many because it is deemed to be political and not racial - but the difference, in effect, has made little difference to what is still the Arab end game vis a vis Israel: to wipe it off the map

2) whilst man's brutality to fellow man is nothing anyone of us would desire, I cannot see how one can gain any depth of understanding of the Israeli policies vis Hamas, Fatah, Hizbollah and Iran, without an understanding of the history that has caused their mindset. It is also impossible to understand if there is any possibility of a peace in the region at all without this knowledge.

I have asked you for your prescriptions for Peace - meaningful prescriptions based on the realities of historical experience and actions on both sides. Please don't let my "prejudices" inhibit you from the prospect of uplifting us all...

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Sidgewick: how you infer from what I have said that I think you anti semitic, God knows. I never mentioned anti semitism with regard to you at all. I know, perfectly well, that you are an ardent admirer of the Jews and their extraordinary ingenuity etc...perhaps to your detriment.

No, no, my posts were all about how criticisms of particular policies of Israel - when the context which has influenced that policy-making is ignored - are most often, at best specious, and very often insidious. The reason is that that, as I have often said, the true intention of the crtiicisms is to garner support for the abhorrent much wider agenda - which is that of the Palestinian Arabs in particular and Ilsam in general - of wiping Israel off the map. I do realise this is an inconvenient truth but, you have to admit, a rather relevant one.

The debates in this journal are usually not about if Cast Lead etc was unduly brutal or not but, rather, much more to do with the bigger issues re Israel's right to exist and genuine possibilities of peace.

I have asked you again and again to offer up your prescriptions for peace. Let's assume Israel can be a horribly brutal opponent and, ideally, this brutality should not exist. Fabulous..Let's now move on to YOUR prescriptions for MEANINGFUL PEACE.

Do I have to beg you, Sidgewick???

phil

Philo
December 17th, 2009 7:22pm
--------------------------
Philo dear lady ,whatever Henry wishes to call me for his amusement is ok with me ,but I do wish he could come up with answers to the questions that are sent to him and you too could follow that same path ,but you never do .Both JR and Adam have tried endlessly both with you and Henry fruitlessly.
-------------
Perhaps I should admit to not understanding what you both say if that makes you feel better but it is difficult to understand what is said at great length and says nothing .-I just never passed at that .Before I leave you perhaps you will be good enough to explain why all your questions leave the feeling that they are an accusation and that never once have you asked what are the ambitions of the state of Israel or Jewish people in general ,those would be far easier to answer .
--------------------------
-I believe I made a sound point to you on dec16 and that still stands -IAlso I come here to discuss not deal with what you like to refer to as opponents .

John

Britain never invaded the Republic of Ireland under pretty much the very provocation the author describes.
If the author believes that HMG would go to any length to protect British subjects(and significantly , 'subject' is the right word) then he is sadly mistaken.

Henry Sidgwick

John Roosevelt,
You ask about a peace settlement. Everyone knows what such a settlement looks like. Everyone agrees to it, except Israel and the US. (I refer you to the record of votes in the UN in the last several decades.) Why does Israel temporize? Look at a map of the West Bank every five years or so since 1967. Israel will consider peace when it is so entrenched that it feels it cannot be removed. The peace it will consider will leave it everything it wants, and the Palestinians a handful of ghettoes they can call a state if they so wish. You may come back with the offer Barak made at Camp David. I refer you to the memo written by government officials for the incoming Ehud Olmert to tell him precisely what had in fact been offered. I believe progress was made at Taba, but Barak called a halt. You ask me my prescription for peace. It is the same as everyone else's: Israel must give up the West Bank.

If you choose to reply, please forgo the attempts at irony and sarcasm - they are no more your thing than "piss-taking" - and the windy rhetoric. Thank you.

Greg D

John, December 18th, 2009 5:07pm

A perfectly succint point. Well done.

But then again, there were those Corn Laws... and weren't they even before the days of 'No dogs, No Irish'?

Adam B.

John, there's one crucial difference: the IRA were not in government in Dublin.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

"Henry Sidgwick
December 18th, 2009 5:18pm
"John Roosevelt,
You ask about a peace settlement. Everyone knows what such a settlement looks like. Everyone agrees to it, except Israel and the US. (I refer you to the record of votes in the UN in the last several decades.) Why does Israel temporize? Look at a map of the West Bank every five years or so since 1967. Israel will consider peace when it is so entrenched that it feels it cannot be removed. The peace it will consider will leave it everything it wants, and the Palestinians a handful of ghettoes they can call a state if they so wish. You may come back with the offer Barak made at Camp David. I refer you to the memo written by government officials for the incoming Ehud Olmert to tell him precisely what had in fact been offered. I believe progress was made at Taba, but Barak called a halt. You ask me my prescription for peace. It is the same as everyone else's: Israel must give up the West Bank.

If you choose to reply, please forgo the attempts at irony and sarcasm - they are no more your thing than "piss-taking" - and the windy rhetoric. Thank you."

At last, dear boy!! There is a God, after all! Dearest Sidgewick, come wind, come rain...You did it!!! The West Bank, only, is it??? My goodness...not so much, really...and not so hard to spit that out, was it..???

But ,oh that this was the real consensus you take so for granted. But, oh that that history - of Arab maniacal ambition to exterminate Israel and clear the region of Jews - you choose to ignore with such insouciance did not exist. But, oh that that we had no Iranian President who continues to spew forth - with extraordinary force (for one so small in stature) - such hatred of the Jew in Palestine (if not elsewhere) and promotes, echoes, apes the same of his cronies in Hamas, Hizbollah.Fatah..and, oh yes, tposters here and there :))

I am aghast you place yourself, however unwittingly, amongst their ranks and choose not support your friends in need - the Jews.

You're being naive, Sidgewick, if not downright deceitful..and you think you have a unique handle on all the tactics, strategy and the whole bag of moral tricks.

I cannot speak for Israel, but one would need to have the paradigm of an addled view of reality to think anyone would trust what you claim to be a presription for a genuine Peace. If there was even the vaguest chance that giving up the West Bank, alone, would bring real peace, it would have been done and dusted years ago. You know that. You're just a fibber, I think. The Arabs have been bursting their pustule of dishonesty over the region since they started murdering Jews with their armies in November '47 (of course they murdered Jews long before that, but not with the proud uniforms of the Arab league..and not with British commanders leading the onslaught).

Such an ardent admirer of the Jews as yourself should know very well, Sidge: they ain't stupid. Wake up! You want the jews out of Palestine?? The Jews are going nowhere. You want Peace? Recognise the right of Israel to exist.get your Arab chums to lay down their arms; Let there be a return to "normalcy" and the building of genuine trust in the prospect and will to live in Peace. This is the crux of the matter. Boarders have shifted with every attack the Arabs have deemed it opportune to launch on the Jews. There is no reason - all things being equal - why they cannot shift again. For all things to become equal, however, alot of work has to be done.

It is not realistic for the Arabs to be making demands. They have tried in vain to wipe israel off the map. If they want to return to prosperity and live in Peace, they have to find the will to live with the reality of Israel - and prove that to those from whom they wish concessions to be made..

We live in dangerous times. Ahmadinejad is a danger to Arab and Jew. The clock, as they say, has little tic left in it. Then? I dread to think, but your crapola about giving the West bank back and all will be fine is far too little, far too late. Get creative..and focus. We need better prescriptions than this...and, frankly Sidge, I know you have it in you to come up with something.

..but it is windy out here, no???

Adam B.

Another key difference John: there has never been an Irish suicide bomber. You're dealing with a completely different mentality. Tackling one terror group is not always the same as tackling another, like treating one disease may not work with treating another.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Henry Sidgewick: it would be interesting to get your take on Ismail Haniyeh's recent speech in Gaza - to a flock of 10,000.00 Hamas supporters - in which he reiterated his movement's aim of "liberating" ALL of Palestine. Abbas, of course, talks a good game but never commits, even when offered 100% of what he claims to want. How do you square this with your incisive prescription for a lasting Peace i.e that Israel gives back the West Bank?

It is clear to me, at least (but not doubt to the powers-to-be in Israel), that however harsh and/or misguided Israel's "settlement" policy may be, the fact that there is no compelling partner for peace - under any circumstances - makes your prescription look nothing less than naive in the extreme or a mere tactical ruse.

phil

JOHN ROOSEVELT
December 19th, 2009 9:06am John you have continued to write so much common sense to our man H ,and yet the same nonsense keeps coming back culminating in his "plan for peace" How about letting him write it out word for word ,present it to the various Arab authorities including of course hamas and hesbollah and then he can wait(not long) for their rejection .I will wait not with baited breath for the day when he has to come back and say sorry John you were right .Oh I know John ,I saw pigs flying just the other day .

Adam B.

John Roosevelt, excellent posts. Just one point - Israel cannot "give back" the West Bank to Palestinians (as you rightly note, a prescription which will lead nowhere in current circumstances), as it was never Palestinian in the first place. The territory was part of the British mandate, then Jordan took it in 1948.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

"John Roosevelt, excellent posts. Just one point - Israel cannot "give back" the West Bank to Palestinians (as you rightly note, a prescription which will lead nowhere in current circumstances), as it was never Palestinian in the first place. The territory was part of the British mandate, then Jordan took it in 1948."

Indeed, Adam...but even if Israel decided to return to the Armistice lines - which I guess is what Sidgewich means, we know the Arabs would keep fighting...and he has b...er all solution for that. It just doesn't fit the kind of narrative he feels confident he could get away with, nor anyone else in the Intenational community, for that matter..

All nonsense. Sidgewick, like most of his ilk, as I have said many times, hides his true agaend behind the cloak of so-called liberal respectability. He's a trickster of the minor league variety.....

Adam B.

Agreed JR. Another thing Sidgwick wrote - that "everyone knows what such a (peace) agreement looks like".

No they don't. Hamas doesn't agree to any peace negotiations, nor the existence of Israel at all, let alone its plan for the extermination of all Jews in the world. Hizbollah also rejects any notion of peace, as does one of the region's key players - Iran.

"Everyone"? Really?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Adam B: Sidgewick cannot deal with the notion that the Arabs, no matter what, will continue to fight Israel. As soon he and those who think like him concede this point, it becomes woefully clear that their prescriptions are crassly naive, if not downright treacherous. He has to resort to accusing me of rhetoric but will never take on this point - which I have made over and over to him - head on. Phil is right. This guy is the Baryshnikov of political disputation, mistaking - and wanting us all to mistake - the fancy pirouette for sound argument.

That so many follow this Sidwichian pied piper tune, is precisely why there wont be Peace in Palestine; and, in my view, why people like Sidgewich actually become colluders in the tragedy of the region. They think that merely by repeating endlessly the same faux liberal diatribes against the Jews of Palestine, they will make the Jewish Question go away. It's their penchant for Final Solutions dressed up as serious politics - based on principles that can be packaged and sold in the West - in order, they might believe, to weaken Israel's support base. It's a graphic example of what is known as the P&G School of Ideology - in which bigotry dressed up as genuine principles is packaged and sold to the hungry consumer of catch phrases, catch ideas and catch morality.

The tragedy is that Hamas will continue to condemn the Gazans to endless destitution because they have a vested interest in doing so. As the West Bank continues to prosper and the notion of a new Intafada looses appeal; and Gaza drifts further and further away from a life that its citizens could only dream of, all the people there will have left is to feed on the carrion of misplaced ideology and the cynical political opportunism of their leaders (those democratically elected ones at that).

Henry Sidgwick

John Roosevelt,
"...they will make the Jewish Question go away. It's their penchant for Final Solutions dressed up as serious politics..."

I get the distinct impression you do not bother to read back what you write. If you did, self-respect would surely save you from some of the very worst of it. Could you manage self-awareness just sufficient to parse for me the passage quoted above. Did you truly mean to be as despicable as appears? If this is what the defenders of Israel's behaviour feel they have to fall back on, and the support of your friends here suggests it is, then the argument is already won and lost. Unfortunately those who have lost the argument are those in a position to continue the slaughter.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Henry Sidgwick: Just stay on topic, forget your "parsing" for a moment, and focus on refining your prescription for Peace. So far, as many have clearly pointed out, it has been found lamentably wanting.

Let's try and kick start your thinking on this...Hypothesis: Israel returns to the Armistice Lines of 1949. Hamas continues attacking Jewish civilians. Recommendation?

Stop the pirouettes, Sidgewick!!

phil

JOHN ROOSEVELT
December 19th, 2009 10:00p-The count is nine and his head has not cleared but I think he will be back with a new trainer and a clean pair of shorts ,but with the same old style .

Adam B.

"Defenders of Israel" Henry? Come on! Every now and then you just say something preposterous.

I would be most interested to hear your reply to JR, as I have never heard a credible answer from anybody anywhere on this point. This failure is, as JR points out, the primary reason the tragedy of the Middle East is perpetuated. Furthermore, do you accept that NOT everyone "knows what this peace will look like"?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Henry Sidgewick:"Unfortunately those who have lost the argument are those in a position to continue the slaughter."

I guess you're referring to Israel, if I "parse" your statement correctly..but what is the argument they have lost, precisely??? Spell it out, man! Stop the obfuscation.

Are you suggesting that it is untrue that the Arabs want the jews out of Palestine? Is it?
Are you suggesting that there will not at least be a very substantial body of Palestinian Arabs who will continue fighting the Jews no matter what? Are you suggesting that Iran doesn't really want Israel wiped off the map, no matter what? Are you suggesting that it wasn't the Arabs who have been the aggressors towards the Jews in Palestine even when the UN voted them a state of their own and Israel had nothing to do with what is now known as the West Bank? Are you suggesting for a moment that it was not Transjordan which annexed the West Bank and Egypt became the overlord of Gaza - after the Arabs were halted from their attempted genocide of the Jews after the UN Reslutuion 181 was passed?Are you suggesting that Israel always wanted to erect a Wall to shut the Arabs of the West bank out? Are you suggesting that this history is all but forgotten when people like you pontificate about Peace? Are you not forgetting the reality of the hatred the Arabs have for the Jews? Are you forgetting that - inspite of all this - it is Israel and Israel alone which you depict as "slaughterers"??? And you want me to separate you from a long and distinguished blood libelists and Jew haters that permeate the history of anti Zionism (and YES, not all anti Zionists are anti semites..blah, blah)?Do you deserve any better? The prove it!!!

..and your prescription for peace - which you are so convinced "everybody knows" - in this context - you are confident hits the nail squarely on the head?

Excuse me whilst I take something for my nausea...

Start reflecting on how you can vaguely guarantee a peace when the will to destroy Israel is so endemic in the Arabs. get into some detail, Sidgewick and stop your puffery and put your avoidance issues to one side.

Philo

John roosevelt,
Friends of Israel get exasperated (rightly) when a comparison is made between its behaviour to the Palestinians and the Nazis. Yet here you are using the same comparison for critics of Israel. Obscene in the one instance, obscene in the other. You claim the high moral ground and gravitate to the gutter.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

"Philo
December 20th, 2009 10:40am
John roosevelt,
Friends of Israel get exasperated (rightly) when a comparison is made between its behaviour to the Palestinians and the Nazis. Yet here you are using the same comparison for critics of Israel. Obscene in the one instance, obscene in the other. You claim the high moral ground and gravitate to the gutter."

You seem to have a great interest in obscenity, Philo. Suffice for me to say on that topic, that moral equivalence may have earned religious status with you, but not with me. I have not made any comparison between critics of Israel and Nazism. I could, of course, go on and on about the history of Arab collusion with Nazism and antisemitism, but I know that would only cause you to remain - even more persistently - off topic.

Rather, I have merely said - in many different ways - that the so-called battle for human rights in Gaza actually very often hides what is actually a purely anti zionist political agenda. This by no means should let you infer that I have no sympathy for innocent victims of conflict in general and Palestinian victims of the Gaza operation. It does mean, however, that since the agenda is most often this purely political anti-zionist one, it has less to do with wanting Peace and giving a hoot re Human Rights, but more to do with the denigration of Israel per se and the garnering of support for a wider agenda to deligitimise its right to exist.

When you and Sidgewick and your ilk are called upon to step up to the plate and suggest ways towards peace based on an acknowledgement of the key historical facts as outlined in my previous posts - in the absence of which there will NEVER be any building of the trust quintessential for any agreement to hold - you either divert the debate to some gripe about my choice of language, or come up with a "solution" couched in terms of en passant indifference, only, without any discussion of the implications and ramifications of such a prescription - inspite of the grave importance of the subject.

Get back on topic, mate. Respond to the main points in my long response to Sidgewick's unique prescription for real peace in the Middle East. I think you he need to give each other some serious mutual encouragement in this regard, for fear of those who have a genuine desire for a workable two state solution in Palestine, and genuine peace and prosperity in the region, thinking you are both paid up members of the Duck & Dive Club.

Augustus

The question which is sometimes asked is: How far can one trust Muslims in general? Not the leaders in the public eye, who have been shown to sometimes say moderate things, but later have been proved not to be so moderate after all, but the silent majority, or in any event, those whom nobody really knows. And what does 'trust' in this instance really mean? I often get the impression that many in the West believe that moderate Muslims are like white knights on chargers, ready and waiting to come to our aid whenever their Islamic brothers decide to attack us, as long as we are forgiving enough. But that is the same as if the Jews had said in 1938: Well yes, most Germans weren't involved in
the Krisallnacht, and the pogroms, but were just sitting at home minding their own business. We should be supporting them, those Germans will protect us from those radical National Socialists. And we certainly mustn't say bad things about the Nazis, otherwise those moderate Germans
will be insulted and they will all go and join the Waffen SS out of pure frustration.

Stupid? Yes, and just as stupid in relation to Muslims, to be so naive as to hope that the followers of an ideology who are desperate to form the majority in every corner of the world would be so brave and accomodating towards non-believers. That is showing sheer helplessness and an unwillingness to resist. So why do we all jump for joy when a Muslim comes out and says that he doesn't approve of terror? Do we ever ask him why he doesn't approve of terror? Always the answer appears to be:
'terror brings Islam into disrepute'. But, of course, it's the victims who really suffer. Damage that far exceeds any reputation of a religion. OK, Moderate Muslims exist, but how many there are is anyone's guess. And how can you really seperate their thoughts from fanatical Muslims? And how quick are they to get in a rage and switch from moderate to radical is also anyone's guess.
And what we certainly can't know is how their children and grandchildren will turn out. And the very few Muslims who we know are against fundamentalism are certainly not white knights charging to protect us. It is we who need to protect them, not vice versa.

Philo

John Roosevelt,

"I have not made any comparison between critics of Israel and Nazism..."

"...they will make the Jewish Question go away. It's their penchant for Final Solutions dressed up as serious politics..."

Smear and denial: the tools of the gutter press.

You are fair taken with what might laughingly be called your summary of the history of the conflict. The study of history should not be about the recitation of national myths.

As far as I can tell, your argument, which you inist Mr. Sidgwick must accept if he wishes to avoid being bespattered with innuendo about Final Solutions, is as follows: if the phantasms I, John Roosevelt, conjure up are true representations of reality, then a negotiated settlement is impossible; therefore, a negotiated settlement is impossible.

I suspect Mr. Sidgwick has grown weary of your verbiage and vituperation, as have I.

Adam B.

Philo, with which part of JR's take on events do you disagree, and why? I note Henry Sidgwick also hasn't responded to the substance.

Which part?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Philo: Yet again, you are anchored in the bilge of avoidance,.

Just respond to the substance of my posts.

You disagree with my historical analysis? Tell us in what way I have misinterpreted history. You disagree with my inferences and speculations re the prospects of Peace? Tell me how yours differ and why.

You always seems to skulk in the shadows of deceit, every time one shines the torch of genuine, honest debate on you.

You and Sidgewick, in these circumstances, do indeed grow weary very quickly. No wonder...

phil

Philo
December 20th, 2009 6:04pm
With every post that comes from you ,you expose yourself more and more .you started in the slow lane and now you are speeding ,but never quick enough to answer the questions with which you were posed .Your,s is not debate or discussion just a succession of innuendo and accusation ,a style which we are used to I might add ,not even a disappointment as it comes from a certain type of person with whom we are accustomed .Its value zilch .

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Philo: Yet again, you are anchored in the bilge of avoidance,.

Just respond to the substance of my posts.

You disagree with my historical analysis? Tell us in what way I have misinterpreted history. You disagree with my inferences and speculations re the prospects of Peace? Tell me how yours differ and why.

You always seems to skulk in the shadows of deceit, every time one shines the torch of genuine, honest debate on you.

You and Sidgewick, in these circumstances, do indeed grow weary very quickly. No wonder...

Philo

A certain civility is a prerequisite for conversation, -nothing too onerous, nothing that precludes robust debate and disagreement. You cannot have it both ways, sinking to foul innuendo when you wish to avoid discussion, and then insisting that your opponent discuss only points of substance. As I say, I suspect Mr. Sidgwick simply got weary, as would I, of being accused of anti-Semitism and Nazism whenver you disagreed with what he said

phil

JR if you feel ready to continue with H S please pass this on for him to digestJ personally I am done with him

-----------------------------------

Jimmy Carter asked the Jewish community for forgiveness for any stigma he may have caused Israel.

Carter speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem in June.

In a letter released exclusively to JTA, the former US president sent a seasonal message wishing for peace between Israel and its neighbors, and concluded: "We must recognize Israel's achievements under difficult circumstances, even as we strive in a positive way to help Israel continue to improve its relations with its Arab populations, but we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel. As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so."

"Al Het" refers to the Yom Kippur prayer asking God forgiveness for sins committed against Him. In modern Hebrew it refers to any plea for forgiveness.

Carter has angered some US Jews in recent years with writings and statements that place the burden of peacemaking on Israel, that have likened Israel's settlement policies to apartheid, and that have blamed the pro-Israel lobby for inhibiting an evenhanded US foreign policy.

Abraham Foxman, the Anti-Defamation League's national director, welcomed the statement, calling it the "beginning of reconciliation."

"We welcome any statement from a significant individual such as a former president who asks for Al Het," Foxman said. "To what extent it is an epiphany, time will tell. There certainly is hurt which needs to be repaired."

Philo

As I said (although it did not appear), there is a certain minimum of civility that is necessary for debate, even debate between those who strongly disagree. You cannot have it both ways, when you disagree employing foul innuendo, while insisting raucously that your opponent address only the points of substance you believe yourself to have made. I suspect Mr. Sidgwick simply got weary, as I would, of slurs by association, such as that he would support a "Final Solution". I am bemused that you think debate can continue.

Philo

John Roosevelt,
I have tried to leave a message, but so far without success.

I will just say here that I am surprised that you think you can incontinently poison the wells of debate and yet expect your opponent to respond as if this were the normal behaviour of a civilised or minimally intelligent person.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot smear Mr. Sidgwick by saying he has a "penchant for Final Solutions" and still insist that he simply respond to the "substance" of your posts.

phil

Philo
December 20th, 2009 6:04pm

With every post that comes from you ,you expose yourself more and more .You started in the slow lane and now you are speeding ,but never quick enough to answer the questions with which you were posed .Your,s is not debate or discussion just a succession of innuendo and accusation ,a style which we are used to I might add ,not even a disappointment as it comes from a certain type of person with whom we are accustomed .Its value zilch .

JOHN ROOSEVELT

"Philo
December 23rd, 2009 4:17pm
John Roosevelt,
I have tried to leave a message, but so far without success.

I will just say here that I am surprised that you think you can incontinently poison the wells of debate and yet expect your opponent to respond as if this were the normal behaviour of a civilised or minimally intelligent person.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot smear Mr. Sidgwick by saying he has a "penchant for Final Solutions" and still insist that he simply respond to the "substance" of your posts."

I wasn't trying to reveal the "smear" in Sidgewick - just the schmoe!

..and why you can't pick up his fallen "fasces" and answer the bloody questions, only you can tell us, I guess.

You seem mesmerized by your own prejudice, Philo, like the extremist rabbit, caught in the headlights of the history of bigotry.

We're only here to help you....Coraggio!

David Mohr

History does repeat itself.
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relieve it."Santayana"

John L

What a wonderful speech. What a powerful summing up of this countries scurrilous and racist attitude to Israel. I am grateful for it because it reveals yet again how base and perfidious so many of the political and media elites are in Britain today