The war against the Jews (11)

Andy Gill

Palestinian society is corrupt and degraded. Years of incitement, propoganda, and racist education have instilled a deep hatred into the population, and this is no longer a society that can be trusted to govern itself. No country would take these people, so the only option is a de-Islamisation like the German de-Nazification. Statehood should be conditional on this.

Bob Latchford

". We now learn from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research that no fewer than 84 per cent of 1,270 Palestinians questioned in a survey said they supported the killings in the yeshiva." And why is this? Not because, as zionist hyenas like Ms Phillips would like us to beleive, because the average Arab is akin to a Nazi and are looking to exterminate Jews, but because it is a mere couple of weeks since they have scraped the blood and bones of 100 of their friends family and countrymen off the floor, who shed their lifes blood at the hand of american donated, Israeli fired rockets. I would imagine that when you are burying your childrens remains, it is harder to write it off as 'collateral damage' than it is for chickenhawks in their London offices to do so. Just as israelis and zionists worldwide 'support' the 'operations' that end with children playing football being blown to bits, so these same people shriek with outrage when retaliatory 'operations' are applauded by the Palestinians.

Don

This is a very upsetting poll, but I would wonder if it is the case that many moderates, especially Christians, have been leaving and so the people left are in fact the more violent and bigoted. If so, then a peace accord would seem to be very far off indeed since the people inclined to compromise have left. Not good news, but the poll should address such issues.

Gary

Bob Latchford--

Most of those killed in Gaza in the recent Israeli response to rocket attacks were militants and combatants. So saying "100" killed, as if Israel targeted 100 civilians, is disingenuous at best. Civilians who were unfortunately killed were never targeted by the IDF, and, in fact, Hamas admits openly having used civilians as shields--they fired at IDF soldiers from apartments with civilians in them on purpose--when the IDF returned fire and innocents were killed in the crossfire, Hamas was more than happy to use those tragedies as propaganda against the Israelis. They admitted as much. That's the true war crime, my friend.

jose garcia

Bob Latchford wrote ". We now learn from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research that no fewer than 84 per cent of 1,270 Palestinians questioned in a survey said they supported the killings in the yeshiva." And why is this? Not because, as zionist hyenas like Ms Phillips would like us to beleive, because the average Arab is akin to a Nazi and are looking to exterminate Jews, but because it is a mere couple of weeks since they have scraped the blood and bones of 100 of their friends family and countrymen off the floor, who shed their lifes blood at the hand of american donated, Israeli fired rockets. ================================= no wonder when the fascist hamas , fire their rockets for years , daily using women and children as human shields, and then parade them when they die after self defence israel attacks you call that politics?, you call that resistance?, i call it racism, and murder, and i am sorry the israel goverment is so soft, if it was me i would carpet bomb gaza and west bank after each rocket, hamas would do that to israel if they could....

Mladen Andrijasevic

Bob Latchford’s and the Palestinian explanation is that "recent action by Israel especially attacks on Gaza that killed nearly 130 people … have led to despair and rage among the average Palestinians who thirst for revenge". But the vast majority of the 130 people killed in Gaza were of course Hamas and Jihad operatives launching rockets at Sderot and Ashkelon. Despair and rage should be felt by the citizens of Sderot, not the other way round. How many Israelis would support the deliberate killing of Palestinian civilians? Almost none . Without the attacks on Sderot there would have been no action by the IDF and then the target are those who launch rockets at Israeli civilians. The logic is simple, but in the twisted world of the Middel East it takes layers to peel off to get to the elementary truth. Hardly anybody is willing to discuss the essence, which is how can the Palestinian do it? How can 84 percent of a population approve of the deliberate killing of non-combatants? The truth is that what makes this possible is the jihadist ideology which condones and encourages it. To the jihadists all non-believers are by definition guilty and no distinction is made about non-combatants. The normal mechanism of humanity present in all of us as human beings is just swept aside. It is this incredible failure of the media and the politicians in pointing out what is it in the Palestinian mindset that makes them capable of such atrocities that is most troubling.

Billy Bremner

Sorry, but I was so struck by what a nutter 'Bob Latchford' is that I just have to say: Bob Latchford, you're a nutter.

Phillip Reece

What Billy said, with a cherry on top.

phil

You are all correct ,but you waste your time with this man latchford -he seems always to write hate filled diatribe and nothing any of you can do will change him -he doesnt want to know the truth ,that wouldnt suit his cause ,he has referred to me as a nazi fascist in other posts because i reprimanded him (lol)dont get upset guys billy bremner got it right and he knew how to tackle Bob Latchford (the real one from everton)- well said Billy

J. Isaacs

Billy Bremner - quite right. A nutter with an animal fixation at that. Last month it was merely "chickenhawks", a rare cross-breed. Now it is "chickenhawks" cross-bred with "hyenas". Bob's mind has been boggling for some time.

Max Kaye

Bob Latchford: What sort of hyena are you?

Ann

Andy: quite right, but let's just call it de-Nazification. It is a particularly degenerate version of the sick mindset that glorifies murder, one that pervades the Arab world, but it is a version of it nonetheless. And Mladen, these mythical 'Palestinians' are Arabs, and that's where this glorification of murder comes from. You can see it on Arab television in several countries.

Si,N

a melunit refers to 'mythical"Palestinians"' - what kind of perverse racism is that?

Ravi

I'm wondering if Bob Latchford is really Inayat or Asghar.The mythical Palestinmians are indeed from a mythical history. They are Arabs from Jordan And Egypt who have no collective history as a legal entity with state institutions, monetary system, judiciary, army, currency, banks etc. They were named "Palestinians" by Arafat and hence they are a 20th century collective of people who strive for an identity they never had before. You can't argue with teh facts and my statements aren't racist.

J. Isaacs

Si,N - I rather like "Melunit". Didn't the late Frank Zappa (of Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention) call one of his offspring "Moonunit"? Quite an honour. Or was that another celebrity. Perhaps you should call your band Fraud and the Elders of Si,N.

YA

..tactics of "Bob Latchford" and alike is first, to provoke "discussion", then to impose engineered vocabulary, then to try to suppress representation of facts/analysis by frequent denying, and by thrusting different types of guilts, myths, and moral relativity. Not clear why you people buy all this so readily. To the question of "settlements" - they are integral part of the defence. If enemy chooses terrorist tactics, then one of the acceptable counter measures is to physically reduce operational base of terror. One thing is certain, in Israeli controlled territory, gas chambers will never be built, neither for Jews or Arabs nor for anyone else. Which is not so clear when talking about other parts of "Islamic World", where presence of Jews is essentially zero (already cleaned), and non-Muslims/non-Arabs are intimidated and threatened at every possible levels and by every possible means, starting from kidnapping and beheadings, ending by teddy bear and cartoon jihad. The last BTW here, half a Europe is already de-facto such large "settlement", which might be just waiting its time to become another jihadi hell scene. Which "Bob Latchford" & Co are trying to make for us (future dhimmis) psychologically comfortable by saying "let us first resolve Jewish problem together, in Palestine and overall, and then we'll see".

Bob Latchford

Phil, I have just noticed your post from 12:44. First of all, dont tell lies about me. I never once mentioned the word Nazi in response to you. I admit that I called you a fascist, which as you were calling for my opinions to be struck from these pages for no other reason than they were opposed to yours, I stand by. And my posts are not hate filled. They just oppose yours. The hate filled posts are the ones in support of Ms Phillips. Now you are going to have to accept something. This is the message board of a popular national political magazine. Ms Phillips is one of the countries most (in)famous political commentators. There will be views opposed to Ms Phillips on this board, and as long as they dont break any rules, they will continue to be posted. If you cant handle that, I suggest you log off, gather a group of likeminded friends, and rant away without reproach until your hearts content

Ann

"a melunit refers to 'mythical"Palestinians"' - what kind of perverse racism is that?" - it's called 'knowing a bit about history', dear. The 'Palestinians' were invented in 1963. There is no 'Palestinian nation', nor has there ever been. They said so themselved at the time: it was purely a tactic to pull the wool over the eyes of those who needed a fig-leaf for their antisemitism. The absurd 'logic' goes like so: if there is a Palestinian nation, then their homeland is Palestine, therefore it's not that of the Jews, who are European colonisers, and Israel is nothing but land-theft from the Palestinians. Every single step in this 'argument' is an antisemitic lie.

Frank Pulley

I find that the scroll key turns 'Bob Latchford's' copy into just a blur when his name appears. If he ever writes anything worth reading, will someone let me know, please? As that is unlikely, is it necessary to repond to his rants at all? Other than scrolling him out of existence, that is. I suppose the reason that Melanie's moderator let's him pass through the zapper is to illustrate the existence and virulence of anti-semitism. We got it already, Jummy! Zap the repetitive twat! Gresham's law surely applies in his case ... dunnit?

yonason

Bush is arming the Islamists of Kosovo and the so-called "Palestinians." We defended him from the falsehoods spewed by the Left, and now he stabs us and other allies in the back. His name will go down in shame, and we will never forgive him. The best he can hope for is that we may eventually forget. But even that isn't likely, because who can forget the man who did most (to date) to destroy one's dreams? He will fail, as Haman failed, and it is that failure that will be recorded and remembered forever.

Bob Latchford

Frank Pulley, if you can highlight just one example of my 'virulent anti semitism' I will donate £50 to a charity of your choice. Now you either dont understand what anti semitism is, or you are purposely cheapening the charge of anti semitism in an attempt to silence someone. I think I know which it is

J. Isaacs

Yonason - I know it is Purim, but surely comparing Bush to Haman (may his name be expunged) is a bit strong. Surely Ahmedinejad is Haman and perhaps Jemima Khan (nee Goldsmith) is a latter-day Queen Esther. Mordecai - who knows? I go for Shimon Peres, now he is shmoozing Cheney.

phil

bob your popularity here is well proved -you provoke the most responses and i think that is probably your agenda.you like to be known,assuming that is your real name (see below)-your judgement is of course hopeless but no matter you enjoy the attention -if you really think I could be a fascist you just expose yourself to the ridicule you both deserve and i think want.you use the name of a wonderful icon of Everton or is that coincidental ,i think he desrves clarification !nevertheless you do ,i admit, provide us all with a little humour even if it directed at your ridiculous political stance-dont go away . you and Si N keep the excitement going especially as we can no longer see Alf Garnett.

Gary

Getting back to the news item from New York which initiated this string of tirades - Why is it that the part of the Israel-Arab conflict going on in one small corner of the world which gets transfered to other countries is the Arab agression against Jews.

Joe Strummer

The " Palestinians" seem so consumed and trapped by their own hatred against Israel that it will eventually destroy them from within.

Barry Larking

The Palestinians have everything to gain by signing a lasting peace with Israel. Peace would bring stability and then prosperity this whole region. The Eastern Mediterranean would quickly become economically important again as it was in ancient times. Inward and outward trade would soon enable much to be achieved. It would be unlikely such expansion would not drive (in the economic sense) co-operation and development of infrastructure between Israel, Palestine, Egypt and, possibly, a post–Baathist Lebanon . The potential of a 'Peace Dividend' is obvious I think.

Which is precisely why the Iranian mullahs fear it more than violence which they stimulate as frequently as they are able by actions such as the kidnap of Israeli soldiers on the Lebanese border and supply of ever more capable rockets to their surrogates, Hamas and Hizbollah.

Outrages against Jews worldwide are not new; what is are those in the west who would define themselves as 'liberals' acting as apologists for the most hateful of ideologies.

Lynne T

Ravi: The notion of a Palestinian nation inhabiting the land between the Med and the Jordan comes from a sea-faring, Greek-speaking people who inhabited the area now known as the Gaza Strip and coastal areas up toward Haifa. They were known as Phillestines and it is from them that the Romans took the name Syria-Falastina and imposed it on the divided kingdom of Israel after putting down the last revolt of the Hebrews, about 130 AD. The Arabic-speaking people who claim to be Palestinian are comprised of many people, some the remanant of the Jews who remained after the Romans' devastation, but converted to various forms of Christianity, the non-Jews, some of whom practiced a religion very similar to Judaism like the Samaritans. I am not as clear about the process of Islamification that came and resulted in the lauching of various Christian Crusades to restore Jerusalem, but it is known that a whole lot of people calling themselves Palestinian are the descendents of migrants who moved into the area in the early 20th century to take advantage of the developing economy that was a spin-off of Jewish settlement. The Islamic powers such as they were left at the fall of the Ottoman Empire could not brook the dangers to them if significant numbers of Arab-speaking peasants were influenced by the enterprise and communalism of the Jews, and thus the mutual admiration society between the Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler. Joe Strummer: exactly what Vilnai meant when he spoke to a lower-case "shoa" upon the Palestinian people. As for the rantings of Bob Latchford, thankfully such opinions are not shared by people like the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, who put the blame on Hamas's continued rocket attacks and suicide missions on the Israelis' refusal to negotiate. Gary: the poll was conducted amongst Palestinians, and not the broader Arab-Muslim world, but the reason for the transfer of agression isn't that hard to find. Check out memri.org for translations of publications and broadcasts in Turkey, Iran and Arabic-speaking countries. It's spewed out at the population in the mosques, schools and media that Israel's continued existence is an assault against the entire Muslim world. Hence, a Bangladeshi newspaper publisher is on trial, with his life in the balance, for having published opinions supportive of Israel.

Shy Guy

J. Isaacs, Bush is no Haman. However, I'm not complementing Bush when I compare him to King Achashverosh, the smart/dumb king of Megilat Esther.

Ellien

As long as innocent children are fed a diet of hate towards the Jews from infancy, and are taught to glorify acts of violence and brutality against the Jews, and against themselves via martyrdom suicides, you will have a sick society that celebrates the deaths it causes. It can only be the product of a sick mind that teaches such an ideology to its young. It is an ideology drawn on modern distortions of Islamic teaching and on Naziism.

Sergey

The small problem with this de-Nazification routine is that Germany was de-Nazificated after long and carefull carpet-bombing, when all its major cities were piles of rubble. This seems necesary condition for success of the procedure: Japan also was demilitarized after two nukes exploded above its cities. Who will allow Israel now to do this amount of punishment? The whole moral climate of the epoch should be completely redressed before right things can be done.

Frank Pulley

Don't worry folks. Dick Cheney is on the case: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-cheney24mar24,1,7056317.story We can all sleep peacefully now. Peace is imminent or perhaps just immanent. Undoubtedly Melanie will be updating us on this startling development.

wahida shaheen

Well done Bob Latchford for bringing some balance and humanity to Mel and her followers interpetation to the findings of the Palestininan Centre for Policy & Survey. The recent attacks by Israel on Palistinian civilians were condemned by the world for a reason. That's becuase they were wrong. I would ask some of the commentators here who refer to Palestinians in such degrading terms and blaspheme against Islam, what makes you any better than the people you consider to be anti-Jewish? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Wahida

I noticed in some of the responses below that the majority of Mel's supporters seemed to believe, or rather want to propagate the myth, that the only perpetrators of violence are the Palestinians. Wrong, for anyone interested in having a balanced opinion, please follow this link http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=14077 which highlights some of the Israeli human rights violations in March 08. Now I’m not suggesting there aren’t any bad eggs on the other side, but let’s get some balance here.

J. Isaacs

Shy Guy - I quite agree; except that Bush is unlikely to hang Ahmedinejad (and his 10 comparative sons) from the same gallows. The question is, will McCain, Obama, Hillary or whoever it is, do so?

Ellien

Wahida: Is it OK for Hamas militants to deliberately target civilian populations with deadly bombs? Is it not the right of such a population to defend itself by trying to wipe out those launching the bombs? Is it OK for the bombers to use their own civilians as human shields?

Ravi

wahida, this is especially for you. You said (Heh!)Well done Bob Latchford for bringing some balance and humanity to Mel and her followers interpetation to the findings of the Palestininan Centre for Policy & Survey. The recent attacks by Israel on Palistinian civilians were condemned by the world for a reason. That's becuase they were wrong. I would ask some of the commentators here who refer to Palestinians in such degrading terms and blaspheme against Islam, what makes you any better than the people you consider to be anti-Jewish? Two wrongs don’t make a right When were these attacks by Israel on Palestinian civilians? This astounding barbarity seems to have escaped the World's press and World leaders. Hence to state that this mythical event was condemned by the World for a reason then I suggest that your statement is a bare faced lie. No commentator here or even Mel has referred to Palestinians in degrading terms. If I see clips from Palestinin TV urging children towards martyrdom and to kill Jews then I would immediately call Palestinian society a sick one containing those who don't place value on the lives of their children. Does that truth upset you? Well I couldn't care less, frankly. Now to 'blaspheme Islam". A strange term for a Muslim to make - and so I don't think you are a Muslim at all. In fact you are faking your personna as much as you are faking your anger. Blasphemy is mainly used against Christianity. I believe I have debated on teh Internet enough to suggest the phrase used by a follower of Islam would be to suggest we are 'insulting Islam'. Well I would like to elevate Islam to the same status as all other religions. Islam has the same rights as any other religion to be disputed, challenged, examined, commented upon and even criticised. Get used to it! [FIRST POSTING CRASHED!]

Sam Waterson

The 'Palestinian Problem' was in large part caused by the flight of Muslims from what is now Israel in the late 40s and early 50s, encouraged by neighbouring Arab states which falsely led them to believe they would be exterminated by the incoming Jews. It was not the Jews who then created this 'dispossessed nation' which grew up in refugee villages which were little more than prison-camps. If you wish to foster a hate-filled cohort of angry people with nothing to lose, and a common cause, what better way to do it? The leaders of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria did this, with other Arab nations who refused to re-settle the refugees from Palestine, who became a stateless people unable to work and provide for their families. I was in Israel for several months before the first 1964 war: the Arabs who had remained lived well - and although forbidden political identity in view of the hostility from beyond the country's borders, were otherwise free to enjoy all the economic and social advantages which the Jewish state had provided in the region. Israel then - before it was first invaded - was a wonderful place to be.

Wahida

Ellian, No of course not is my answer to your question. But here’s a question for you is it acceptable for the Israeli Occupation forces to carry out systematic attacks against Palestinian Civilians and Property in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? This link http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=14077 explains 10 on or so unprovoked attacks, in March alone, which are very much against Palestinian civilians. And Ravi you need to consult the Oxford English dictionary if you think one can’t explain insults against Islam as blasphemy.

BJ

Under international law the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not "disputed territories" as Melanie Phillips suggests. There is also no requirement to put Settlers in inverted commas. The more accurate term is of course Colonists.

Cybertiger

@Strummer Joe The " Israelites" seem so consumed and trapped by their own hatred against the Palestinians that it will eventually destroy them from within.

YA

..Wahida, "Bob Latchford" - could you please answer one naive question - why on Earth do you appear here in the center of pro-Israeli, anti-Islam, anti-Left camp? Isn't it clear you'll be painfully beaten by facts, logics, and other heavy objects? Why not to go to Al-Jazeera or CIF or BBC, any other place matching your level? You can't learn any demagogical kunststucks here; Melanie meticulously avoids cheap tricks. You can't find any facts (you don't care about truth anyway). You can't hope of converting a legion of mature poignant bloggers to Islamo Lefti ideology. So why are you here? Just curious. Or, maybe you just feel subconsciously that your world view simply deserves what it gets here.. crushing.

Edward the Thirst

BJ brings up another semantic problem.
When Jewish people decide to set up home, in their hundreds, maybe thousands, on a piece of land, they are, according to him, 'Colonists'. This is a label which was given also to migrations of Christians in the past.
How is it then, that when Muslim people migrate in their millions to Europe, with the unshakable insistence that their culture displaces that which pre-exists them, the word 'colonisation' is not used? They are described variously as 'refugees', 'asylum seekers', 'economic migrants' etc.
By this scheme, Palestinians bemoan the loss of their 'homeland' whilst we of the West who regard our countries as our homeland are repeatedly told that this is an outdated concept, and that we need to look to our new status as global citizens. Best of all is the fact that we are not expected merely to tolerate this. We are exhorted to celebrate it.

Ellien

Cybertiger:Israelis, by and large, do not hate Palestinians. There is no hate propaganda on the radio, on the TV, in the newspapers towards Palestinians, Moslems or the Arab world. Schools do not teach hate, and no Israeli child is taught to chant "Death to the Palestinians/Arabs/Moslems". There are well over a hundred grassroots organisations in Israel working with Palestinians to try to build bridges, to promote reconciliation, to find a way out of hate and into mutual tolerance and understanding. Luckily, there are also enough Palestinians who prefer this way forward, but it is harder for them due to threats from within, and the risk of being considered traitors.

ahad ha'amoratzim

Cybertiger, have you actually met or spoken with any Israelis? The ones I have met are not consumed with hate -- they would like nothing better than to live in peace. Israel treats Arabs (or in your words Palestinians) in its hospitals (often free of charge) and gives them the same care that it gives to Israelis. It provides them with free public education. Arab life expectancy, health, education levels and income went UP after the West Bank and Gaza came under Israeli control in 1967, and Palestinians there had a higher quality of life than anywhere else in the middle east, until they began the Intifada and reaped the consequences of their own actions. Israel acts with more concern for the well being of Palestinians than any of the Palestinian leaders or armed forces do.

Cybertiger

"Cybertiger, have you actually met or spoken with any Israelis?" I spent 6 weeks as a medical student in Israel in 1980. I was horrified by the level of hatred for the Arabs vented by some fellow Israeli students.

phil

Wahid Shaheen -perhaps you havnt thought of this ,but you feel confident enough to write here with your full name ,because you are in no danger from Jews or Christians-do you not realise that the opposite is not the case-you like the idea of balance as I do, but what is it that al zawahiri is saying ? not to mention nasrullah and the fragrant leaders of hamas-I have never heard a Jew or a Christian suggesting we should kill Muslims -think about it .

John

The problem with the Palestinians is that no other Arab country wants them. Those that have some are kept in refugee camps. The Palestinians i.e. Arafat were handed almost what they wanted on a platter a few years ago but turned it down. They voted for Hamas etc so let them reap the benefits. Also why are we pumping money into terrorist states like this?

Sergey

BJ: In what clause of so-called international law Judea, Samaria and Gaza strip are defined as "occupied territories"? In resolutions by UN Muslim voting bloc, vetoed by US? This is not international law for me. Before Six Day war, Gaza strip was under Egypt occupation, and West Bank under Jordan occupation. After peace accords of Israel with Jordan and Egypt, these Arab countried refuse to take authority in these lands. So formally they are now no-man land, and its population is not a state and never was. So these lands legally are exactly "disputed", and nothing other.

A Chaffey

Re "disputed territories". What to do about them? Let's try a little thought experiment. Let the Zionists have everything they think they are entitled to, but insist (1) that the existing inhabitants of these areas have the same rights as Israeli Jews in the new Greater Israel, and (2) that the refugees of the Palestian diaspora are able to return home. I don't, to be honest, envisage many Zionist takers for this: in fact I think it may make many quite angry. But, assuming I'm not wildly wrong on that, I think that anger tells us quite a bit about Zionism. At least in my view

phil

Mr Chaffey this word ZIONIST continues to be used in the most derogatory way so if you dont mind I am going once again to say what it means ,see below ------Zionism is the Jewish national movement of rebirth and renewal in the land of Israel - the historical birthplace of the Jewish people. The yearning to return to Zion, the biblical term for both the Land of Israel and Jerusalem, has been the cornerstone of Jewish religious life since the Jewish exile from the land two thousand years ago, and is embedded in Jewish prayer, ritual, literature and culture---it is not expansionism or aggression -there may well be those that do the things people refer to but it is not ZIONISM !!-the things you refer to would be part of a 2 state solution which we have to hope will be acheived ,so now I hope you will have a better idea of what ZIONISM is all about -just life not abuse .you will see I have been a busy lad this evening and perhaps if you read my other remarks on another thread you may better understand my thoughts

ahad ha'amoratzim

John, it would be more accurate to say that the Palestinians i.e. Arafat were handed almost what they CLAIMED THEY wanted on a platter a few years ago but turned it down. Abu Mazen and his thugs, to say nothing of Hamas, are much less interested in having an independent state than they are of making sure there is no Jewish state, and that no Jews are left alive in the region except perhaps as second class citizens with no legally enforceable rights. Read the Hamas Charter and the Palestinian National Covenant if you have any illusions to the contrary.

A Chaffey

Phil. I'm sorry if you feel I was using Zionism in a derogatory way; it is however the word that takes in everything we're discussing - the ideology, the movement and its history, and all those dreams, hopes and aspirations. As it happens I don't particularly disagree with much of your definition of it. Where we would disagree, I think, is in what it implies. It seems to me there lies within your definition all those things that are problematic with Zionism - that it aspires to a Jewish state which is for Jews to the exclusion of others. From this it seems to me the physical exclusion of non-Jews whether it be through the kind of ethnic cleansing that occured around 1948 (which continues to this day because they are unable to return), or by preventing Arab Israelis bringing their spouses non-Israeli spouses into Israel, and other practices like discriminatory land policies, all become practical necessities. The great tragedy of Zionism and the immigrant Israelis is perhaps that they came to colonisation too late - the Americans, the Australians and before them the Spanish outnumbered the indigenous populations and got away with it. But come to it late they did, and it seems to me some accommodation will have to be made. I have my doubts that a two state solution (which you mention) can provide a lasting basis for that. It seems to me something more fundermental is required.

phil

M r Chaffey thank you for your polite response from which I perceive your intentions are good ,but obviously there are points on which we disagree -my main point was the term Zionism on most occasions is used in a derogatory way and by people who have no idea of its meaning and to insult(I exclude you )-the people are not a group and never were ones that wished to exclude anyone -they were just human beings in most cases persecuted who wished to live in a state of Israel in freedom .At that time Jews were living in that part of the world(the ottoman empire-later mandated to the Uk) in harmony with the Arabs in most cases.The problems manifested themselves when Israel declared independence in 1948-Ethical cleansing is a word that seems to have been used in the Balkans and was not a policy that was ever advocated by the state of Israel .In fact the Arabs were asked to stay put. It cannot be denied that the they ran away in large numbers from fear ,but as there is still a substantial number still living in Israel I think it goes a long way to show that the others were wrong .--The history is disputed of course and I have no doubt that wrongs were perpetrated on both sides as there was a war .As for the right of return etc I am not the one to provide solutions except to say they would arrive a lot easier if trust and truth were on the menu,hence my attempts at clarification ,my best regards to you

A Chaffey

Phil, thank you also for your response. These exchanges tend to generate more heat than light, and generosity to opponents is rarely their hallmark. You have shown this doesn't need to be the case. A lesson, I'm tempted to say for our patron in these parts, Ms P, and perhaps on occasions for me, though there's a place for the mildly provocative too. You've also been quite frank and realistic. You mentioned, I thought quite bravely, ethnic cleansing, though I hadn't used the phrase, and also that the history is disputed. These things are important and I suspect we might have different views on them (although I for one claim no great historical knowledge). But I agree trust is important (truth too). I can see that if I were subject to rocket attacks, it might have quite a profound effect on me, particularly in my willingness to trust, and I need to recognise that I am not in that position, while others are. At the same time I can also see that if I were a Palestinian and I saw so many more of my own killed than on the other side, I might not be too impressed with lofty distinctions around intention that supporters of Israel often make. So these things are difficult. Trust and being honest about history are difficult, and I'm aware that as an outsider it is never going to cost me. But there does seem to be a strand of opinion of which Ms P is a leading representative, which is not merely reluctant to go there, but which seems intent on building on existing antagonisms and taking them to a new level. I find that very sad and it makes me fear for the future.

ahad ha'amoratzim

A. Chaffey, despite the accusations that are routinely made, a Palestinian who is not involved in attacking Israelis is far more likely to be killed by another Palestinian, or as a result of being used as a human shield by Arab terrorists, or crossfire begun when terrortists open fire on IDF from civilian neighborhoods, than he is to be killed by the IDF, and certainly by an Israeli civilian. This fact is seldom reported by the press, who are instead content to publish the number of Arab deaths since the start of the intifada without making distinctions about the deceased, the perpetrator, or the cause. Hence the bizzare and perverted practice of counting suicide bombers among the Palestinian "victims."

phil

Hello again mr Chaffey ,politeness has broken out in this column and that alone gives hope for the future if more people could exchange views as we did there would be a better understanding of the road we need to go down .:as for Melanie ,I know she can be sharp but she stands very bravely in front of those that continually bend the truth,and if one is slapped in the face regularly one does tend to react with aggression -both she and the Israelis are always in that position ,if the world treated them both with a little more tolerance I am sure things would change and maybe just maybe peace would break out -if I have changed your mind one iota it will have been worth all our correspondence and I am hopeful of that. regards to you

A Chaffey

Phil, you certainly have changed my mind. You've encoaraged me to think that dialogue really is possible. So thanks and best wishes.