A rational article provokes bigoted frenzy at the FT

phil

There are of course those who are anti Israel although not anti-Jewish ,,I have friends who answer that description , but it is an easy cloak to hide behind ,Not only that but the rhetoric we have seen recently displays the sick mentality that has diseased the minds of younger people who revel in the ability to criticise the successful whether business or political ,just watch Question Time every week .Any one on the platform is fair game or read the CH wall here to understand what we are dealing with -there inhabit mainly the ultra right ,and in the universities the ultra left aided and abetted by the Islamists .Israel seems to have chosen to ignore the propaganda war to its detriment and we here in the west are ignoring it to our future peril.--------

Hitler died in his bunker ,dinnerjacket postures in his beard ,and ghaddafi threatens the Swiss with jihad .are we really that stupid that what confronts us we cannot see? Are we allowing the universities to be infected in the same way as the unions were by the few who fight the fight and the masses choose to look the other way ?They are indoctrinating young people with brainwashed evil and we ignore it and it is we who will pay the price, not just Jewish people but the whole of our society .

Although I cannot always agree with Melanie on other matters ,Obama and climate change:) I so admire her indomitable will to tell the world the truth about the middle east

Jon_Boy

There is definetely something that stinks about this entire subject. No other subject emotes such reactions from people or strongly held views from people who have never ever visited the region. Even though the numbers of people abused or killed are extremely low compared to numerous other conflicts around the world.

Not all hysterical critics of Israel are truly anti semitic but but ingnorance and political convenience is no excuse.

If you side with the genocidal Islamic enemies of Israel then you are guilty of an imoral act even if you do claim not be anti semitic.

Anyone who doubts that the Palastinians and rest of the Muslim world has genocidal intentions towards Israel and all its Jewish inhabitants is in denial, stupid or just bigoted or simply been bought off.

Paul Freeman

Phil:

"There are of course those who are anti Israel although not anti-Jewish"

How can one be anti-Israel and not anti-Jewish? Can one be anti-Italy without being anti-Italians? Don't you think it's time we recognized that being anti-Israel or "anti-Zionist" is just another way of being anti-Jewish? People who define themselves in this way are simply hostile to one aspect of Jewish identity -- in this case Jewish nationhood -- whereas others in the past have been hostile to another, as, say, Jews’ religious beliefs. But in the end it’s all hostility which, experience shows, those individuals rarely manifest towards other religious or ethnic groups. That’s why it deserves to be characterized as racist bigotry.

Being against Israel on principle -- because that is what being anti-Israel means -- is of course quite different from being a critic of specific Israeli policies where one is also a critic of comparable policies elsewhere and regardless of which country is pursuing them.

Lisa Abramowicz

I agree with your conclusion, with regret, FT is no longer "the standard-bearer of cool and rational objectivity that it once was". I wonder why it changed so drastically so as to compete with the Guardian and the like for demonizing and deligitimizing Israel.

wolf terner

The Saxon segment of the English psyche is on the rise. Again. What ignorant and mis-educated Brits fail to understand is Britain's direct hand in fomenting all these troubles. had England just followed their avowed promises to fulfill the League of Nations dmandates there would be no problems in the Near and Middle East today. Today's English blowback against the Jewish state started the day the Jews decided to kick England out of the Mandate lands. England could never imagine Jews as a fighting force and so chose to ally itself with Arabs. And they have been on the losing side ever since.

david elder

Mel, I think there are a couple of factors that fan such misconceptions. Firstly, the history of the Israel/Palestine region is so complex that a lot of people simply don't understand it. For example, few realise that Israel lost its nationhood due to the pagan Romans (70 and 135 AD), or that the Palestinians lost their land in 1948 primarily to Jordan, or that Israel in 1967 offered her West Bank conquest back to Jordan in return for peace - Jordan at the time did not respond. Secondly, leftism perpetuates itself by desiring ideal outcomes and by supporting underdogs. But ideal outcomes are hard to come by when one party is led by the likes of Arafat (are they still finding more bank accounts where he had stashed the aid money for his people?) or Hamas (more rocketry than NASA). And with leaders like that, underdogs will tend to stay under. Palestinians, get a decent leader, an Ataturk or a Sadat for example, and you'll be amazed at how things change.

YA

Here is how AFP describes the road incident today. A van with Arab Palestinian family crashed into military jeep. The tire suddenly exploded, and van was thrown to the wrong lane. Driver in the oncoming jeep had no time to react. People in the van were all killed.

"Palestinian children killed in crash with Israel military"

What do you want from media? They are all the same.
They get salaries.
Money belong to oil sheiks.

We are on the siege.

West should do everything, every dirty trick, to regain control over Middle Eastern oil. Or at least bring oil prices down.

Augustus

By accusing Israel of excessive mistreatment of the Arabs, and by saying that such actions are a mark of fundamentally Zionist
ideology, because of a Jewish religious form of superiority complex; certain people try to assert that Israel does not adhere to accepted norms of international and human rights, and thereby its very legitimate right of existence. Jews have never been entirely safe as second-class citizens throughout
history, but they are seemingly not allowed to have their own state in which they are safe, and for which they can be allowed to defend themselves. If that isn't anti-Semitism, then what is?

Arabs and Western anti-Zionists often argue that before Zionism their old dhimmi status in the Arabic world was deminishing. But that is not historically correct. There was never in principle much difference between anti-Semitism in the old Europe and that which was practiced in the Islamic world, only possibly a difference of degrees of hatred. But in the modern world, with its increasing secularization and globalization, a new scape-goat has had to be found amidst all the unrest, fears and doubts that the modern world creates. And Jews have always proved to be that convenient scape-goat.

Val Hughes

I too have been astonished at the strength of people's views on the subject of Israel given they have no real knowledge of the historical facts. References they use to things like 'zionist entity' etc, seem to come straight from Mein Kampf and yet they think they're attacking racism.

Oil money poured into propaganda has indeed caused the truth to be inverted, with Israel accused of being an apartheid state. It's 1984 stuff.

Palestinians complain about having to pass through checkpoints. How humiliating! They should feel humiliated because such checkpoints should not be necessary. Their actions or actions they tolerate make checkpoints necessary. I am sure having to pass through a checkpoint doesn't feel nearly as bad as being suicide bombed.

Mark Harris

How is being a Jew blatantly racist?

Israel is a multicultural, multi racial democracy.

Just typical of the leftards calling Israel racist and an apartheid state.

boxermk

The frenzied hatred of the Left for Israel defines the Left. Out of all the countries in the Middle East, they choose Israel for their moral indignation.

It says everthing about their "compassion" and "anti-racism" and "social justice."

Hollow. Corrupt. Evil.

tiki

The name of the game is
JEALOUSY, always was/always will. The first PM of Israel, David Ben Gurion, was a clever man. He said "It doesn't matter what Gentiles, Muslims or others are saying or writing, it matters what Jews are doing, and Jews 'are doing good, always have/always will. No matter what, they always land back on their feet, become succesful, inventiv, creativ and sometimes rich. That's the simple and best answer to all the venom of those jealous people. The 'hate against Israel (a very succesful, prosperous and inventiv country) is just the same 'hate against jews, but in a 'package deal.

Merlyn

Sorry to be slightly off topic but why is nobody mentioning Geert Wilders growing support and the caving in of the Home office to let him in.
He is protecting his country from an invasion and he supports Israel

Molotov

"But as Shepherd observes, the really disturbing thing is not this tsunami of bigotry – alas, it is now all too common in Britain – but the fact that this filth has been up on the FT website for days without anyone there thinking that the FT should not be playing host to such incitement to hatred."

I agreed with you up till that point. It should be out in the open. We should know what they think and what they're saying. We should face it and challenge it.

Anth

Melanie, I'd walk a mile of ground to hear you, and I thank God for your courage in championing sacred causes. I share your love for Israel, but remember the experience of Amos Oz (I think), who, when fighting in a war to defend the country, sharply rebuked his younger comrade for vilifying the Palestinians. There is more tragedy in this situation than your analysis suggests. There is, for example, some truth in the first reader's letter - albeit couched in vitriol.

Bob, son of Bob

I agree with Tiki just above about the Left hating Israel because it is successful - the Left hate better countries just like they hate anything superior including better schools. To destroy a better country or a better school is a victory to them. They also hate better people within a country which is why their loyalties are to the criminals and not to the law-abiding. This ties in with Melanie Phillip’s other article above about the police.

There is a list of successful countries which need to be destroyed or ruined.
S.Rhodesia – tick – a complete success
S Africa – tick
Israel – next on the list, taking longer than expected
Britain is on the list also.

A friend

Don't worry Melanie, there are friends around. My rule never to pay for a newspaper started about 12 years ago when I lived in Spain because of the openly anti Israeli and Yes, anti semitic one sided reporting. El Pais, unsurprisingly, was top of the list. A recent poll in Spain revealed that 75% of Spaniards harbour anti semitic sentiments. A Spanish friend of mine who came to visit last weekend, nominally a Christian, also despairs at the ignorance of her nation on this subject. They may be few, but friends are beginning to speak up.

phil

Paul I understand your feelings on this so emotive subject ,but the reason I wrote that sentence was because I have many, friends who are not Jewish,and one in particular who disagrees vehemently with the policies of the Israeli government.,and on occasion so do I . It never deters me from the fundamental support for the state though ,because of my deep attachment to the desire of the Jewish people to have a state of their own .For others it is not very important and they respond to sound bites and media frenzy,so it is for this reason I think that I am unable to persuade him of the reasons for their policies (I do not think he puts enough time into investigation)but he is not anti -Jewish ,so where would you place him ? perhaps you are right and I am burying my head in the sand -I just hope not .

Gil

Over at TNR, Martin Peretz has been blogging about the relentless attacks on Israel by the FT.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/another-hit-job-the-financial-times

Merlyn

Thanks for directing us to this page Melanie. I have given my 3p worth as a result to the FT.

Worth remembering that this is a media war - debunking those lies that make anti-Semitism what it is.

roger

The truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser’s intellectual abdication that invites them to take over. When a culture’s dominant trend is geared to irrationality, the thugs win over the appeasers. When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, unformed, vacillating character of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes... Ayn Rand.

Augustus

The readers' comments which Robin Shepherd cites are indeed unbalanced, and the ignorance of the history of Israel and the ME indeed startling from readers of a newspaper like the FT. Take No.1, for instance:
"Israel murdered Palestinians and stole their land..."
The so-called 'Palestinians' only really appeared after Jewish pioneers made something out of the land. They came from various regions and were not the original inhabitants. Jews didn't 'steal' any Arabic land. What they did is return to a deserted and run-down land of their forefathers. They also bought land from the Arabs for extortionate prices, and what is more, land about which they showed no concern whatsoever at the time.

Alex Bensky

For all the wailing and hand-wringing about the nakba and Palestinian tragedy, etc., it is worth remembering that had the Arabs accepted the 1947 partition plan the total number of Arabs displaced by Israel would have been none.

Only when you're fighting Jews do you assume that you can lose wars without suffering any consequences. Despite demands from a few fringe Latino groups, we aren't likely to hand Arizona back to Mexico. I don't see Ukraine as being pressed to hand back the eastern Polish territories the USSR took after World War II. For that matter, following the Russo-Finnish War the Soviet Union grabbed a chunk of Finland and threw out several hundred thousand Karelian Finns. If anyone is agitating for Russia to hand back that territory I have missed it.

Calling Zionism "racism," of course, is another sign that the word is being drained of any meaning except that the speaker doesn't like something. A stroll down any Israeli street would show you that whatever Zionism is, it's not racist in any meaningful sense of the term.

You made some very good points, Phil, and I will readily accept that someone can criticize Israel roundly without being anti-Semitic. If you want to find raucous attacks on Israeli policies you need look no farther than the websites (in English) for several Israeli newspapers.

But as to being anti-Israel in the sense of denying the legitimacy of the state, I will grant that it's possible to do so without being anti-Semitic. I just have a hard time seeing it.

By the way, the death toll in the Congo's civil war is now well into the millions. Nobody cares but Israel bulldozing a house is an international scandal.

I'm sure there's a reason for that not related to Israel's Jewish nature. Any ideas on what it might be?

compayee

I don't think the FT moderators do really care about comments such as the one you pointed to.

So probably they removed it only after intense lobbying from uncontended (Jewish or pro-Israeli)readers and this happened not because FT disagrees with the content of the comment that outraged you but because of wanting to avoid by all means the ensuing hassle.

Those who complained about the comment, sort of blackmailed FT too by proferating warnings as to their withdrawal of subscriptions etc. in case the comment is not deleted.
And deleted it was.

Until you yourself "legitimized"
it by pasting it on Spectator's website.
Funny thing to do really... And a bit irrational too I'd say.

Carl

The point is that Israel doesn't just "occasionally" carry out assassinations, it is a constant process. It demonstrates the attitude of an entity that is happy to ignore international law, yet whines when attempts are made to hold it to account.

Rob-NY

If you trace the origin of those vile comments you "might" discover that they originate from the FT newsroom.

Ed

So, on the one hand, Israel is "a Jewish state which gives full civil rights to its Arab and other non-Jewish inhabitants". But on the other hand, according to Paul Freeman, "being anti-Israel or 'anti-Zionist' is just another way of being anti-Jewish" (presumably because being an Israeli means being a Jew??). How can both these statements be true? If Israel is a multi-racial society, how can criticism of the country as a whole be "anti-Semitic"? Unless, of course, you are including Arabs as Semites (which, of course, they are)?

Adam B.

Carl, Israel may continually carry out assassinations, but that it because it is continually at war against a genocidal and unrelenting enemy. Israel really can't win, can it? It carries out precision targeting in the case of the Hamas commander in Dubai and you're still not happy. It seems you're only content when Israel deoesn't defend itself at all.

Perhaps you can inform me which international law was broken in targeting a Hamas commander, a combatant by any criteria?

Noa Zrk

Carl March 6th, 2010 4:52pm
You entirely ignore the fact that Israel's enemies can loose every battle and still remain a threat, whilst Israel only has to loose once to be annihilated. The nature of the war has changed for the moment, the strategic threat is unchanged

A typical comment from a Socialist Worker MCB Trollbot.
If
The point is that Israel doesn't just "occasionally" carry out assassinations, it is a constant process. It demonstrates the attitude of an entity that is happy to ignore international law, yet whines when attempts are made to hold it to account.

Adam B.

I take it, Carl that you find the (occasionally antisemitic)comments about the FT article repulsive and ignorant?

YA

Carl wrote another entity.
Or, is it the same entity?

Gil

Compayee@3.40: Perhaps you should stick to facts rather than 'probably' etc. How do you know that Jewish or pro-Israeli subscribers 'threatened' to cancel and how do you know what their commercial value to the FT is? And the use of the word 'blackmail'. Well, we know where you are coming from.

Carl@4.52: Bless you, Carl. use of words like 'entity' reminds me of those Arab states calling Israel the 'Zionist entity' because they didn't want to say 'Israel'.

Carl, I suppose your view is to let terrorists (Black September after Munich in '72; Hamas bombmakers) die in peace in their beds, never being held to account for their crimes.

YA

Ed

Israel is multi-racial tolerant country - built by Jews. For Jews and others.

The same way as England is multi-racial tolerant country - built by English. For Enlgish and others.

The point of having nation state is to preserve heritage, homeland, language, culture, and genetic stem of the nation. Positive, noble, peaceful, defensive goals.

Israelis defend their state being encircled from all sides by multitudes of enemies, and fight literally at doorsteps.

Brits defend safety and security of nation by sending troops to Afghanistan. That is how it, historically, goes.

For the last year Brits lose dozens of soldiers, and Israelis only one or two or zero.

Now about criticism - one could definitely criticize Brits for pigheaded, needless endangering lifes of soldiers in Afghanistan. Brits should learn how to deal with terrorists - from Israelis. Who are not patrolling streets of Gaza but do everything by remote control.

Let us hope, future brings peace to all nations. Which means, less hate, less casualties, and certainly, less terrorists.

William Boyd

Andrew Roberts is according to Michael Gove, the curiously boyish Tory Education shadow, one of our great British contemporary minds alongside the likes of the Prince of Wales and Carol Vorderman so I shouldn't presume to argue the toss with him and that especially on a proposition which on the face of it is not at all unreasonable I mean even lesser minds like me and you (not on the list Mel and no offence) can see where he's coming from on that let's be honest.

But I think you're wrong Melanie to get quite so het up about those comments. Just look at the remarks about Gordon Brown in Jamie Forsyth's blog alongside yours today. One of them suggests he should be 'fragged': Full Metal Jacket argot one gathers for 'assassinated'. Just par for the course when invited to pencil up your essentially anonymous thoughts on a nice big blank wall.

As for extrajudicial executions of the sort presumed to have been carried out on Habhouh that's surely just a question of moral standards and far too hard for the likes of you and me I'm sure.

They should do some kind of program or something on the BBC exploring issues like that inviting our greatest minds like Andrew Roberts, Carol Vorderman, the Prince of Wales etc. to give their views perhaps even the odd footballer or golfer why not even journalists ... god that would be so fantastically edgy and valid.

Carl

Adam B - then by your twisted logic, it is quite in order for anybody who has served in the IDF to be assassinated should they venture outside Israel.

I don't think that you have quite thought this issue through.

Trumpeldor

History of Middle East is very complex and tens of hours may be necessary to fully grasp the current situation
It easier and typical for nazi-nihilist-islamist -antsemitic-leftists to spit on the awesome success of Israel since its rebirth in 1948.
To my eyes and ears,they are like billam's curses turned into blessings....
Israelis alive ,kicking and prospering DESPITE nearly everything !!!!!!!

Am Israel Hai,The People Of Israel will live forever.....

Bob, son of Bob

Augustus above says “Jews… are seemingly not allowed to have their own state in which they are safe”
- Yes, and have you noticed how in news reports they never display a map which shows the Israeli land and the Arab land at the same time? And, imagine on top of that if they marked on the map dollars per year of oil money for each territory.
Just imagine if it were the other way round, with the Jews owning the huge area, and the Arabs in a small pocket - the map would be displayed in every single news item about the Middle East.

But as for your comment about Jews being the scapegoats, I have to disagree. I think they are hated (by the Left) for the same reason the Left hated S.Rhodesia or South Africa under the previous regime. They simply hate better countries just like they hate better people within a country (and the same way they even hate better schools). Wherever there is a successful country, system, or school, they want to ruin it. S.Rhodesia & S Africa have been ticked off their list and Israel is next. Britain itself is further down on the same list.

Austin Barry

William Boyd

"One of them suggests he should be 'fragged': Full Metal Jacket argot one gathers for 'assassinated'.

Please lighten-up. You probably take Dean Swift's "Modest Proposal" as a celebrity recipe book.

Avraham Reiss

Surprisingly enough (or maybe not so)the Jewish Chronicle's Blog website is also a place rife with anti-Israeli propaganda.
The JC is making every effort to hide the existence of a new blog, JCWatch, set up to counter said anti-Israel sentiments.
http://jcwatch.wordpress.com/

Adam B.

Carl, two points:

1. It is absurd to make a comparison with the Defence Forces of a sovereign nation, and a terror group which observes no international treaties or norms of behaviour.

2. The Hamas commander in question was on a mission to acquire arms illegally, and as such constituted a present threat to the state of Israel. Israel is at war with Hamas, and in time of war, it is not exactly strange to target your enemies. He was a combatant. The intended victims of Hamas in Israeli border towns are not. Hamas constantly and deliberately target civilians. Yet I don't see you condemning Hamas.

3. How is this different from UK and US forces targeting Al-Qaeda and Taleban terrorists with the use of drones (which often inadvertantly kill civilians?)

I don't think you've thought at all.

Adam B.

Sorry, that should be three points!

Carl

Adam B:
1. The IDF do not operate within the norms of any civilised Army hence your point is null and void.
2. Israel has a solid track record of acquiring arms illegally, hence your point is null and void.
3. We are discussing Israel, not the French, Spanish or Indian armies, hence your point is null and void.

I appreciate that you have no objection to the extra judicial killing of any IDF member or former member should they travel outside Israel. My morals are rather stronger than that.

compayee

@Gil March 6th, 2010 8:10pm

>Well, we know where you are coming from.

Really? I don't think you do.
(I am a north Londoner by residence)

I don't like to boast and exhibit my quasi-full Jewish ancestry (on my both parents side) 'cause this would be irrelevant anyway.

Yes, all this may come as a surprise to you.

As an exotic detail let me mention that I also had Hasidic ancestors yet I now try to be impartial and not take sides.

And no, I'm not "self-hating" as you may be inclined to label me.

I am also quite fond of Israel
whose people fully embraced me yet this does not blind my penchant for liberalism and open-mindness.

I repeat: it strikes me as absurd to give that comment a new lease of life instead of simply leaving it deleted.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Carl: You're right when you say the IDF DOES not operate within the norms of any civilised army. Israeli soldiers try harder to avoid killing civilians than any army in history, civilised or otherwise and they get themselves killed in the process. For an occupying army, the IDF on the West Bank has an astoundingly low rape rate.
When was the last time the Israeli army acquired arms illegally?
Off-topic, filks, but I'll be on vacation and off line for the next week or so.

Gil

Carl, Jewish and Israeli people and institutions have been the target of numerous attacks that were in part carried out and in part foiled. These attacks go back to the 70s.

So why do you make such a faux naif analysis?

The points you make therefore are null and void.

View 2

I long since came to the conclusion that there are only 3 reasonable views on Israel:

1. Total apathy.
2. Pro-Jewish.
3. Pro-Arab.

It would save an awful lot of time if we could just identify which view we hold and then either put up or shut up. I'm a View 2 English non-practising Christian and so am glad that Israel has, allegedly, got nuclear weapons and the barrier to suicide bombers is having the desired effect. I'm also glad that nasty little business class murderers get their comeuppance in hotel rooms from time to time.

Carl is clearly View 3 which means it's unlikely we can be friends unless we decide never to discuss Israel. I could manage that but I suspect that many a pub audience can testify that his bile vents once he gets past the 2 pint mark. Still, most angry young men grow up eventually so maybe there's hope.

Bob from Virginia

I am getting the impression that a lot of Brits so desperate for something to hate they became obsessed with believing lies about Israel, just as Jews have always been convenient targets for those who need something to hate. The behavior of Israel or Jews of course, is immaterial, the hater will always find something to justify his hate. It is tragic that the people of Orwell and Churchill have fallen to this level.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Miranda Rose Smith
March 7th, 2010 4:58pm
"...For an occupying army, the IDF on the West Bank has an astoundingly low rape rate..."

For an occupying army...

This understanding of the IDF's status makes your earlier avowed ignorance of the IDF's crimes untenable.

Gil

Compayee, there was no need to go through the whole 'I am Jewish/my heritage is etc.' because that is not the issue and I never made it an issue.

Your personal background is immaterial. As you say, your 'quasi-full Jewish ancestry' is utterly irrelevant and only serves as a distraction. Some Jews and those that like to pretend they are, for tactical reasons (I'm categorically not saying that you are of the latter), do so because they think it will give them extra points with the undecided. A low tactic.

The fact is that you haven't responded to the substantive points made in my post.

Adam B.

Carl, I reject your immoral claims utterly. However, as you have no problem with IDF members being killed, I assume you have no qualms about the IDF taking out Hamas?

Please anser this: do you think Hamas behave in a civilised way? Do you condemn their antisemitism and calls for genocide against all Jews?

Nick

No Bob. Most Brits simply have no interest in Israel.

Andy Gill

Congratulations to Andrew Roberts for having the courage to stand up and say what everyone knows - that the British media presents a grossly distorted and offensive picture of Israel. Anti-Zionism is the new anti-semitism.

alzaebo

This reflects rising ownership stakes with Muslim money in media.

Similar to Soviet seed money finding and funding useful idiot fronts.

Once a lie is out there, it takes on a life of its own, long after its' original short term goal has expired.

No one seems to account for lying in history or corruption in economics.

They are the most durable aspects. Lying works, and works quickly. Corruption becomes the only thing that stll functions. Both can lead to rapid personal gains- or just survival. Gotta pay the rent, or get applause, or just 'win' this moment's argument- because of the immediate audience, unseen by us.

I believe that these are effects, however, of a deliberate, state funded campaign of influence.

Adam B.

Bickerstaff, you have taken a leaf out of Carl's book of propaganda. Throw words like "crimes" around enough times (but only against Israelis, never the racist thugs of Hamas and Hizbollah, who must be defended at all costs) and people will begin to mindlessly employ such words as a given.

Bickerstaff, come clean: does Israel have a right to exist, terror free, with its citizens living in peace and security?

alzaebo

I also believe that there is no "faith" instinct- it is an instinct to loyalty. Useful in group animals, and it can be manipulated or abused.

The emotion comes from ones' defense of what is believed to be the winning side.

Human groups only come in certain sizes; however, these groups form an identity hierarchy that becomes a collective culture.

Different herds employ different, and competing, strategies.

Defend the herd!

Barry

Israel is the Jewish homeland in the same way as Scotland is the Scottish homeland. Happliy people of Scots origin have not been persecuted throughout the world but if they were many would be fighting to go back to Scotland and hopefully the English would not complain as the Palestinian Arabs did when the Holocaust was on. Th Arab homeland is Arabia , now called Saudi Arabia, not Palestine which is incidentally not mentioned the Koran. The Arabs are lucky to now have 23 Arab countries to live in if they are unhappy in the rest of the world. The Jews have majority in only one state - Israel.

Epaminondas

The comments should remain at FT. Sun should shine on every hideous inner compulsion revealed. For in those comments is the reason there MUST be an Israel.

Never mind historical and education ignorance.

The bigotry exhibited, the streams of hatred are THE ancien sport of western europe, eastern europe, muslim land, and now even in Venezuela.

There can be no question of Israel historic right to exist, and as we see every time the issue arises, it's moral right.

Some say jews around the world are hated because of Israel, but that is backwards. Despite all the denial it could NOT be more clear that if Israel is to exist, it will be EASILY hated because IT IS FILLED WITH JEWS

Dixon

Carl: "...It demonstrates the attitude of an entity that is happy to ignore international law, yet whines when attempts are made to hold it to account."

But if you dont recognise the existence of "internatiobnal law" then its the most logical thing to object to being persecuted ubnder its specious banner.

Carls statement is therefore a classic libtard non-sequitor. an exhibition of non-logic.

Dixon

al-gazebo says "defend the herd". Maybe heshes trying to be ironic ( that wotd again ) or sarcastic. But surely what heshe means is "tribe". If so, then the sarcasm/irony is squandered when I'm around, because as regulars here will know, I am forever arguing that the only rational behaviour is to act in the interest of ones own tribe. I am indeed a tribalist. It worked very well indeed for my tribe until our "leaders" decided to abandon our interests in preference of abstract principles such as "international law".

So, in my way of regarding things, as long as Israel disregards everything in favour of its own interests, they represent a paradigm of how a nation should operate.

Dixon

"Carl
March 7th, 2010 11:08am
Adam B - then by your twisted logic, it is quite in order for anybody who has served in the IDF to be assassinated should they venture outside Israel.

I don't think that you have quite thought this issue through."

No Carl, its you who havent a thought on the matter: it doesnt matter what Israel does or does not do, or whether a Jew is even an Israeli, they are still going to be "assasinated" if they are in the wrong place...ever heard of Daniel Pearl?

It doesnt make any difference what Israel does, short of volunteering for its own annhilation, any Israeli or indeed any Jew is always and forever a target in pretty much about a third of the nations on Earth. A proprtion that expands now at a frightening rate, whilst twirps prattle about "international law", the contemporary equivalent of angels on the head of a pin.

YA

there are reports about "clashes" in Nigeria again.
BBC interviews some person talking about 50 casualties - without saying who is killing whom.

But here is how things most likely are. No surprise. The main way of communication with unbelievers is mass murder, since uncle Mo's times.

Australian site reports about massacre of about 500 villagers
"..The attacks blamed on mainly Muslim nomadic cattle rearers, targeted the local Berom ethnic group, which is predominantly Christian.."

Where is Goldstone?
Where is international fuss?
It's so quiet.

Or, certainly death of 500 blacks hacked by machetes by Muslim savages - is nothing in comparison with death of Dubai terrorist exec, whose portraits are on all newspaper headlines.

YA

oh sorry there is report from BBC

"..Witnesses said the mainly Christian villages had been attacked from the surrounding hills by men with machetes.."

just to confirm - that's in Nigeria; not here.

phil

Many impassioned words to the long time critic of Israel and the Jewish people ,do any of us really care what he thinks ? I do not, so why give him satisfaction by acknowledging his nonsense ? Dixon you write as ever with common sense and logic which is so wasted on this excuse for a man of compassion ,Carl will never change his thoughts so personally I would let him swim along in his confusion all on his own .Although I am still not convinced that Mossad was responsible ,there cannot be a person in the world with a semblance of sanity who will not be pleased at the demise of the terrorist ,that probably is the best way for us to think of carl .

Isaac Bickerstaff

Adam B.
"Bickerstaff, come clean: does Israel have a right to exist, terror free, with its citizens living in peace and security?"

Could you try to do better.

"Come clean" (ah-ha, he's got something to hide!) and "When did you stop beating your wife?" (ah-ha, so he beats his wife!)

You really should consider whether you wish to be judged on such tricks as these.

Adam B.

Bickerstaff, a great way of not answering the question.

Do you think Israel has the right to exist in peace and security without the threat of terrorism?

S Walker

Buying the Daily Mail will be the next thing to bring you to the attention of the police.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Adam B.
A great way of pretending you don't get the point: keep repeating a question you know the answer to, a question that has no bearing on what is at issue between us.

Try to enter into the discussion as if ready to behave like a rational adult, not the star of some high school debating society.

Should Israel's citizens be able to live in peace and security - of course. I have never said otherwise, so the question is redundant.

Should Israel be able to take what it wants, and oppress the Palestinian Arabs, and the Lebanese, and slaughter them as it deems necessary to keep what it has taken - of course not.

(And since we are continuing a conversation begun with Miranda Rose Smith on a previous thread)should Israel be able to take the attitude it has to the undertakings it has given as a signatory to international treaties and as a member of international organizations (as explained by Col. Reisner, former head of the IDF's legal department) - of course not.

Dirty Old Leftie

Bob Son of Bob

Rhodesia was forced to change after 1980 by that 'vile left-winger' Margaret Thatcher and her foreign minister Carrington.
South Africa was forced to change by the communist conspiracy forces implicit in a threatened pull-out of many multi-national companies after the 'uprising of 1984-onwards.
Interesting to find someone still prepared to support apartheid and Ian 'I don't believe in majority rule! Not in a thousand years!' Smith.

charles soper

Well said Melanie, a precious standard bearer in the deepening quagmire of Albion!

Adam B.

Bickerstaff, you were making a point?

I'm glad that you accept that Israel and her people have the right to live in their ancient homeland, in peace and security, without the threat of terrorism (that is what you're saying, isn't it?)

You then unfortunately smear the entire state by claiming it "oppresses" Palestinians, whilst "taking what it wants" (could you be more specific?) and "slaughtering" the Lebanese in order to keep what it has taken (what has Israel taken from Lebanon?)

I take it you are infuriated by the oppression of in Palestinian areas of homosexuals, Christians and women and in the wider Arab and Islamic worlds as well - just so we have a wider context here?

Adam B.

Bickerstaff, do you still hold the ridiculous position that the police are the best way to oppose the Taleban and Al-Qaeda? If so, how could this apply in Afghanistan, (as you oppse any military action against the Taleban and Al-Qaeda) and how could Israel arrest members of Hizbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza?

I'm really interested to see how this fantastic policy could work.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Adam B.,
You still find it difficult to discern what has been said to you, as in previous threads.

Try to enter into the discussion as if ready to behave like a rational adult, not the star of some high school debating society.

JJS

No, Bickerstaff, the school debating society representative (and not the star, mind you, by quite a long shot) is you. When the Arab world comes within a million miles of Israels humann rights records, let's talk. Until then, you keep closing your eyes to Arab world human rights abuses and I'll keep closing my eyes to your immature and hate-filled rantings.

Andrew Nelson

Noam Chomsky once, years ago, called the FT "the only newspaper that tells the truth". I've been deeply suspicious of it ever since.

Isaac Bickerstaff

JJS
March 9th, 2010 11:02am

You must have worked long and hard to burnish your little contribution. Perhaps you should indeed do what you say and keep your eyes closed.

Philo

JJS,
If this was meant as an argument and not simply a righteous harrumph there is something odd about it: until Arab states start treating their people properly, Israel can continue without reproof to drop cluster bombs on civilians, use flechettes and DIME bombs and depleted uranium and phosphorus in cities in aggressive assaults, can destroy the infrastructure of civil society in neighbouring countries, can reduce the supply of necessaries to civilian populations on a whim, can arrest and detain indefinitely without trial inhabitants of occupied territories and neighbouring countries, many of them minors, can use "enhanced" interrogation techniques... Yes, indeed, do continue to keep your eyes shut, if that is your preferred moral stance.

phil

Why is it whenever philo turns up all we read is negative comments about Israel and never a rebuke of any sort to the terrorists ,not even a bad word about blowing up children regardless of their religion or nationality ,Philo was dealt with very well some time ago by John ROOSEVELT and managed to disappear unable to answer his questions .hope he finds her again .Philo those like you preclude any chance of a peace process by the incessant hatred that emanates from your very soul ,whereas I hope every day that two peoples can find a way to come together in peace and harmony .

Philo

Phil,
However lachrymose your protestations, your yearnings for peace and harmony are worth nothing, when by peace and harmony you mean in effect that Israel can do what it wants to get what it wants. If you align yourself with such as "John Roosevelt", whose idea of debate is to accuse his opposite number of favouring a "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", do not expect to be taken seriously.

Carl

More Settlements:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8558347.stm

Israel is just not interested in peace.

Adam B.

Bickerstaff, I asked you a question about your assertion (made on another thread) that Israel has no right to defend itself militarily. You advocated a police approach to terrorism. I am asking you how this could possibly work - I don't think it could (and I think past attempts have resulted in complete failure). Instead of answering the question, you and Philo simply attack with silly epithets (high school debating...or your comments without any relevance to the discussion to JJS) and Philo simply puts words in people's mouths. No-one, Philo, on this site, has claimed Israel can do whatever it wants. However, I and others have contended that whilst you are very free with dispensing FALSE accusations against Israel, you never provide any wider context to the conflict, and consistently whitewash the REAL wrongs perpetrated in the Arab and wider Islamic worlds.

That is not a debate of any sort - it is airing an agenda, and it is transparent.

Adam B.

Bickerstaff, you also contended that Israel has taken something from Lebanon, and apparently "slaughters" Lebanese to keep it.

I would be most interested to learn what this is.

Adam B.

Whereas Carl, Hamas, which advocates the extermination of the Jews, obviously is.

In your universe.

phil

Philo
March 9th, 2010 8:54pm for amusement only --do you ever have anything positive to say? -john R had your number and so do I -you are one of the brigade who do not want to see the peace that so many of us crave ,rather you prefer the space you are afforded in a democracy like ours to continue with false accusations that ensure the enmity that prevails .I realise that you feel no shame ,but at least I feel better for having said it .

Isaac Bickerstaff

Adam B.
March 9th, 2010 10:48pm
I find it hard to credit that even now you insist on misreading what was said to you.

(As a matter of fact I did not suggest that Israel should try police methods. It should try negotiation, an option that it has successfully evaded for decades.)

Adam B.
March 9th, 2010 10:50pm
And again!

(As a matter of fact, I believe Israel still retains a part of Lebanon's territory. However, I did not assert that its slaughter of Lebanese was to retain this sliver of land.)

You persist in misquotation, misrepresentation, and misdirection. We have discussed many times what is the minimum of good faith required for rational discussion. You consistently decline to meet this requirement. The epithets are therefore wholly justified.

When you take the trouble to read with the necessary care and attention, then there may be something to discuss.

Philo

Adam B.
Israel can continue without reproof to drop cluster bombs on civilians, use flechettes and DIME bombs and depleted uranium and phosphorus in aggressive assaults on cities, can destroy the infrastructure of civil society in neighbouring countries, can reduce the supply of necessaries to civilian populations on a whim, can arrest and detain indefinitely without trial inhabitants of occupied territories and neighbouring countries, many of them minors, can use "enhanced" interrogation techniques...

Which of these statements is "FALSE"?

Phil
"-john R had your number and so do I -you are one of the brigade who do not want to see the peace that so many of us crave..."
First, I take it from this that you agree with ranting John Roosevelt that I favour a "Final Solution of the Jewish Question"? Secondly, I have consistently said peace can be negotiated. Insofar as you have ever made anything approaching a comment on how peace is to be achieved it would appear that you think it can be achieved only by allowing Israel what it wants and insisting that the Palestinians accept this. This will cause continued suffering and hardship if the Palestinians capitulate and if they do not. So when you rehearse your lachrymose mantra about your desire for peace and harmony, what precisely do you mean, other than insufferable humbug?

phil

Isaac Bickerstaff -I have read with some interest your "fight" with Adam which seems to have started because Miranda wrote that the IDF was an occupying army which is a very debatable point to say the least, and which she I am sure ,would tell you that she is no international lawyer,therefore in no position to affirm this .-It is an army that has no wish to be in many of the places it has had to be in order to defend its citizens and as you well know, has left as soon as has been possible.Any individual crimes by soldiers are dealt with in a responsible way as you should be aware of ,and I expect in fact you are .BELOW is your quote
--------------
"Should Israel's citizens be able to live in peace and security - of course. I have never said otherwise, so the question is redundant.

Should Israel be able to take what it wants, and oppress the Palestinian Arabs, and the Lebanese, and slaughter them as it deems necessary to keep what it has taken - of course not"
-----------------------
.the second para is a gross insult and once again I am sure you know it is .If you are not aware I suggest you read the history of this area where you will find that all the attacks have come from the Arabs and have only been responded to by a state trying to defend itself-try 1948.1967,1973 and then tell us if you can find any instance of Israel attempting to expand its territories except after these invasions when it held land that was being used by the Arabs for shelling or other strategic purposes .It retook East Jerusalem which had been taken from them in 1948 illegally and opened the city to the world and all religions ,I presume you know it was closed to Jews by the Arabs upon their conquest . You have made no mention of the atrocities that have been carried out by the Arabs ever since the UN enabled Israel to come into existence by (I will remind you ) a free vote -
-----
In recent years as the Muslim nations have begun to dominate the UN and various spurious human rights organisations have continued to accuse Israel of all and sundry, the climate has changed ,and many people including you have been influenced by them and I suspect without ever having researched the history for themselves .Now Isaac ,I do not condone mistakes made by the IDF which are investigated by the courts in Israel and punished where necessary or even the crimes by individuals which are not IDF policy ,but I do defend the right of any legitimate state to defend its citizens both from war and terrorists ,and I hope you do too .
--
Now just to close this post ,may I assume you live in the UK and have seen all the attacks that are carried out here by Islamists ,not Christians ,Jews ,Buddhists or Hindus -if you are this aware you will not walk in fear of any of us, but you may begin to realise who is the likeliest cause of the troubles in the middle east and refrain from laying the blame on Israel .

phil

Philo I will leave Adam to deal with your distortions but as you continue to post demented remarks, I will say apropos your disgusting quote --"First, I take it from this that you agree with ranting John Roosevelt that I favour a "Final Solution of the Jewish Question"?" ---that is another of your stupid and unfounded assumptions that demean you even further and that I will not dignify with a response .To be honest I do not give a damn what you think ,only what you write for others to see .The only rants I noticed between you and John were never from John R , only from you ,and he showed intelligence and education , unlike your efforts ,as I said ,he had your number ,it was not too hard I am sure .
--------
Oh and btw I have stated many times how I would like to see peace and my objectives for both peoples ,never a word from you though ,so delve back into the many threads here and find them ,and please do not bother me again until you have done so. .

Isaac Bickerstaff

Phil,
I am sure your lecture in history is kindly meant, but before you can teach you have to learn.

Philo

Phil,
"I will say apropos your disgusting quote --"First, I take it from this that you agree with ranting John Roosevelt that I favour a "Final Solution of the Jewish Question"?" ---that is another of your stupid and unfounded assumptions that demean you even further and that I will not dignify with a response..."

I am not sure how you can endorse what John Roosevelt says without agreeing with it.

I had always taken you to be essentially decent so I am glad to infer from what you have said that you have managed this contradictory feat.

Your many assertions that you want only peace and harmony have never contained the wherewithal to allow the reader to work out how it could possibly be achieved.

I have said repeatedly that peace should be negotiated on terms that all sides except Israel and the US have agreed to. The longer Israel and the US stonewall (and it has been several decades now) the more difficult a settlement will become. Palestinians will no doubt suffer most, but Israelis' unsurprising sense of insecurity will not be assuaged either.

phil

Isaac Bickerstaff
March 10th, 2010 1:51pm -I have and in great detail -have you ?.oh and you didnt answer my questions -I will try to answer any queries you might have ,but please you first .

phil

Philo
March 10th, 2010 2:10pm -you are speaking in tongues again -I have no recollection of JR having made that quote nor have I any desire to discuss it .
-------
Peace could be relatively easily achieved if hesbollah and hamas agreed to accept the right of Israel and the Jewish people to exist -but they do not -I have said I want to see both sides living side by side in peace and security with justice for both peoples and I know that is the wish of virtually all Jewish people not only in Israel but all over the world .My family who live their do not lie to me when I ask them what they want "-PEACE UNCLE !!! but every time we move back a step the terrorists move nearer and commit such atrocities that peace can never be made"
---------------
That wall is there because without it those kids would be dead ,and did you ever hear of a Jewish suicide bomber going into the west bank to kill Arab kids ? Do you really think CAST LEAD was for fun ,you probably will not believe that the IDF telephoned right round Gaza to warn the inhabitants not to stay where bombing would take place specifically ,leaflets too ! Do you think the Nazis did that in WARSAW ? Did we do it in Baghdad ? Does the two H,s do it in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem -No Philo it is the Jews who try to fight fair even when they do not want a fight and it is the "clever"- Arabists who cry to the world ,one that is regularly fooled by them ,
----------
As they say they snatch defeat from victory every time ,and by victory I mean peace with all that it entails for their kids ,yes kids that would not be educated in battle fatigues to scream death to the Jews .If you saw Ross Kemp,s two programmes from both Gaza and Israel you would have seen the essential difference between two peoples ,one bent on hatred and the other wishing peace and no harm to the other. The real face of Israel,s enemies encapsulated in the figure of an Arab doctor ,face in a mask ,body wrapped in a suicide belt and he had never even met an Israeli ,some doctor !
------------
Philo there are many problems for negotiation water Jerusalem etc but given goodwill peace is achievable ,but I have yet to see that goodwill from the evil faces of those that pretend to represent the ordinary Palestinian family man .Everyone is suffering but the worst case is the poor Palestinian family with their children who live in terror of hamas and the lunatics who claim to represent them ,and why ,because those rotten frauds would have no place to go when peace is finally signed ,just like the Irish terrorists who had importance only so long as they could hold all in terror of them .the extortionists and bully boys are now just nobodies like the hamas idiots will be when it is all over ,and now the Irish people are living in peace and hopefully soon enough, prosperity .

Shane

Everything else aside, the Financial Times lost all credibility years ago. It is nothing but a hollow echo chamber for Socialist International whose championship of National Socialist policies and absolute governmental control over all aspects of life rank it with Pravda and The New York Times.

Adam B.

Isaac, it may be news to you, but Israel negotiated peace with Egypt and Jordan - and with the Palestinian Authority in 1993 resulting in the Oslo accords. There have been many rounds of negotiations since as well. So your assertion that Israel refuses to negotiate is simply untrue, isn't it. Do you concede this?

You said that Israel slaughters Lebanese in order to keep "what it has taken." Go back and have a look. You now realise that you can't back this up, so you accuse me of "misrepresentation." I can hardly help it if your imprecision with language leads you to say something you don't mean.

Which "part of Lebanon" is Israel holding onto? According to the UN, a corrupt and immoral organization I am sure you admire, Israel has completely withdrawn from every inch of Lebanon. Could you elucidate on your accusation?

Why is policing suitable for Al-Qaeda and not for Hamas and Hizbollah? The distinction you make is interesting. Could you explain the difference?

Adam B.

Philo, which part of the weaponry to which you refer is illegal? Furthermore, do you think there is such a thing as a "nice" bomb? And what do you mean precisely by "enhanced" interrogation? (I am sure you deplore the outright torture employed freely by both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority against political prisoners and prisoners of conscience - aren't you? Funny you don't mention those.

The false statement is that Israel "aggressively attacks cities." It does not. It targets terrorists who deliberately hide behind civilian populations, knowing that every civilian death will be devoured as avid propaganda to a willing audience, as exemplified by you. The aggression is Hamas', who indiscriminately launch missiles at civilian towns in the hope of killing civilians. Isn't that aggression Philo, or do you excuse such terror tactics?

Philo

phil
March 10th, 2010 4:30pm
"Philo
March 10th, 2010 2:10pm -you are speaking in tongues again -I have no recollection of JR having made that quote nor have I any desire to discuss it ."

This won't do. John Roosevelt smeared Henry Sidgwick in a thread from December on Andrew Roberts. I remonstrated. He did not retract. I have checked back. You were cheerleader in chief to John Roosevelt throughout the exchanges. And now you don't wish to discuss it. Nice.

Philo

Adam B.,
You don't tell me which are false, but ask me which are illegal - I assume because you know the statements are true, but think the actions legal. Under the international treaties and conventions Israel is signatory to they are all illegal. The use of the weaponry is also such as to render their supply by the US illegal under US law. There is, of course, no such thing as a "nice" bomb, as you wittily insinuate I must assert - which is why such restraint is required in their use. "Enhanced" interrogation techniques: this is the euphemism used by the US and its allies (the UK, Israel...) to refer to torture. I most certainly condemn torture by Palestinians groups. I would like to think you would also condemn the "enhanced" techniques used by Israel.

The one statement you contend is false concerns aggressive attacks on cities. Under the terms of the treaties etc., it is certainly aggression. There was a ceasefire. There was an offer of talks on its continuation. In these circumstances, there is no legal justification for the assault on Gaza, an assault which indisputably included attacks on cities.

You ask yet again whether I condemn the indiscriminate firing of rockets. Yet again I repeat that of course I do. It is criminal and it is counterproductive. Again, I would like to believe that you similarly condemn Israel's obscene and incontinent resort to deadly force.

phil

Philo
March 11th, 2010 1:21pm , you really are a comical lady .I told you I do not want to get into all this anti-Semitic accusation stuff and you certainly never found anything from me like the phrase you used ,but of course I agreed with what JR was saying to you on all other matters and it is being proved once again here -you just duck and dive as they say in a boxing ring -you never answer substantial questions -I just wrote a quite long post with lots of information and what did you do? changed the subject and ignored the substantive matters .Maybe you enjoy being laughed at because I am sure that's all that happens when you write nonsense like you have above .Just give us something to help the peace process and leave the jokes to a comedienne .

Philo

Phil,
It is possible, as you have demonstrated exhaustively, to write "a quite long post" and say very little and nothing to the point. If you produce a question of substance I will certainly consider it.

(In the meantime, and for future reference, could you provide some guidelines so that your readers can tell when you endorse John Roosevelt's tirades and agree with what he says in them, and when you endorse John Roosevelt's tirades but don't agree what he says in them.

Adam B.

Philo, I told you what was indeed false in your claim i.e your accusation that Israel targets cities. It does not - it targets terrorists who hide behind civilian populations. Furthermore, you are completely wrong to say all the weaponry employed is illegal. Which treaty and which law? All those weapons are legal, including phosphorous if used correctly, as opposed to the indiscriminate rockets of Hamas - which ARE illegal, as they are indiscriminate. As for your next accusation (you always have one ready to move onto, don't you?) Israel does NOT use torture, it is a lie to claim it does. The Israel Supreme Court set down very specifically that torture is not allowed - and this is in circumstances where so-called "ticking bombs" may be able to disclose an imminent terror attack against civilians, so beloved of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Fatah Al Aqsa martyr's brigades. Personally, I make the distinction between innocent life and those who want to extinguish it, but the Israel Supreme Court is clear about it. So kindly retract your false accusation against the Jewish state.

The Palestinians of course torture when there is no security threat - just being a political rival is enough to use the most heinous methods. I am glad you recognize this - although I know you would never bring it up yourself.

That's hypocrisy.

Philo

Adam B.
March 11th, 2010 6:34pm
"Philo, I told you what was indeed false in your claim i.e your accusation that Israel targets cities."

- We seem to be back to not reading what was written.

"All those weapons are legal, including phosphorous if used correctly..."

- Precisely.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Adam B.,
I have to admit that my “shorthand” does make what I said easy to misconstrue, which is a fault. On the other hand, these are matters that have been discussed here many times, and in great detail, so, despite my failings, you should have been able to get beyond your standard gambits.

On negotiations with the Palestinians, you should know the response. Israel negotiates with the Palestinians much as China negotiates with the Dalai Lama (see today's papers).

The Palestinians have been unlucky in those who've taken it upon themselves to represent them. They have been venal, myopic and incompetent. Israel can hardly be blamed for taking advantage. I happen to think Israel would have been wiser to try to negotiate an equitable settlement in good faith, but that has not been Israel's way. It may be “shorthand”, but I think it accurate to say that Israel has not negotiated with the Palestinians, but rather manoeuvred them very skillfully into ever smaller ghettoes (with the willing help of the US).

On Israel's resort to slaughter to keep what it has taken, again you have read many explanations of what Israel is about. Israel has had to rely on military force as a deterrent. Israel has interpreted this to mean that it has to be aggressive in its defence (for example, the strategic engineering attempted in the Lebanon in 1982 – I am sure you're aware of the extent of Sharon's plans). It has also felt the need to demonstrate its military power regularly, as a reminder of what awaits those who stand in the way of its strategic interests. (This appears to be a doctrine applied all the way from war to crowd control to punishing individuals.) The various assaults on the Lebanon and Gaza and rampages through the West Bank represent this doctrine in practice. It is no secret. The IDF high command, politicians and scholars discuss it openly. There was much comment after 2006 that the assault on the Lebanon had harmed Israel's deterrent because the devastation wrecked Lebanese civil society but not Hisballah. Gaza was seen as an opportunity to put this right.

On the sliver of Lebanese territory (which, as I said, had nothing to do with the point I was making), I agree that we have to start somewhere in trying to establish norms of international behaviour (international law) – and I suppose this means accepting the rulings of the UN even when we find them questionable. In passing, I suspect that Israel is keen to keep the Shebaa Farms, not because it wants to uphold Syria's territorial claims (more so apparently than Syria), but because of its need for water.

On why Hizballah and Hamas are not comparable to Al Qaeda, I think you can work it out for yourself.

Adam B.

Isaac, your post, despite its length, says very little of substance. Please explain the difference between Al-Qaeda and Hamas and Hizbollah - I can't work it out because there isn't anything to work out. All reject Western secularism, all reject democracy, all reject pluralism of any sort, all reject the rights of women to live as equals, for homosexuals to live, and the right of Jews to exist. Now if you want to find a fine distinction, go ahead. But from my viewpoint, these similarities mean everything - literally, life and death.

A classic case of blame displacement - it's not the Palestinians' fault that their leaders are corrupt and that they all reject Israel existing as a Jewish state - well, whose fault is it then? Let me guess - that's Israel's fault too - the land that can do no right (whilst the Palestinians can do no wrong). Israel has a choice of negotiating with a Holocaust denying crook who has said that he does not recogize Israel as Jewish state, nor would here ever recognize it as a Jewish state - or not negotiating. It has always chosen negotiation. I notice you ignore its peaceful negotiations with Jordan and Egypt. It has, in the course of these negotiations, withdrawn from large parts of Judea and Samaria, and has received absolutely nothing in return save increased indiscriminate violence aimed at her inhabitants. How is this comparable to China? What has China given? And your comparison between democratic Israel and the tyranny in Beijing is both inaccurate and offensive.

When Israel has a viable partner, the negotiations have been proven to work - it has a successful track record. When the Arab and Islamic worlds give up on the idea of annihilating the Jewish state, peace would come very quickly. This is not a war about territory - it is about the Arab and Islamic world's mentality. If negotiations don't fix that, no amount of talking will work.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Adam B.,
I have noticed from your previous conversations with me and with others that you keep going, using the tactics described above, until the person you are talking to allows you the last word. I will acquiesce once more.

First, however, a hint: if you compare Hamas and Hizballah to the Taleban you might have a somewhat closer analogy, but still one that sheds no light on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

We were discussing negotiation about this conflict, not any other. And just to pick up one of your many uses of your favourite tactics, you will note, if you read what I said, that I did not blame Israel for the calibre of the Palestinian negotiators. I merely expressed the opinion that it would have been wiser in the long-run not to exploit their folly, but to try to achieve an equitable settlement.

Just one more thing, and I am done with this:

On Israel's resort to slaughter to keep what it has taken, again you have read many explanations of what Israel is about. Israel has had to rely on military force as a deterrent. Israel has interpreted this to mean that it has to be aggressive in its defence (for example, the strategic engineering attempted in the Lebanon in 1982 – I am sure you're aware of the extent of Sharon's plans). It has also felt the need to demonstrate its military power regularly, as a reminder of what awaits those who stand in the way of its strategic interests. (This appears to be a doctrine applied all the way from war to crowd control to punishing individuals.) The various assaults on the Lebanon and Gaza and rampages through the West Bank represent this doctrine in practice. It is no secret. The IDF high command, politicians and scholars discuss it openly. There was much comment after 2006 that the assault on the Lebanon had harmed Israel's deterrent because the devastation wrecked Lebanese civil society but not Hisballah. Gaza was seen as an opportunity to put this right.

Adam B.

But Isaac, the Palestinians aren't concerend with an rquitable settlement, they are concerned with destroying Israel. This is openly declared by Hamas, whilst the Palestinian Authority says it will NEVER accept Israel as a Jewish state. From what common gound can the partners possibly negotiate, when one doesn't even recognize that the other has a right to exist?

You seem incapable of understanding that Israel was attacked by Hamas before Cast Lead, and attacked by Hizbollah before responding in 2006.

It is interesting you continue to blame Israel for the failures of the negotiations with the Palestinians, I guess the terror intifadas had no negative effect on talks then?

What do you mean by using military force in defence of "strategic interests"? Do you mean using military force in order not to be either annihilated, or to protect her citizens from wanton murder by Palestinian terror groups? Is Israel wrong to defend herself? What is your final point? That Israel needs no deterrent?
You don't seem to answer these questions - and you still haven't told me how the approach to dealing with Hamas and Hizbollah needs to be different from Al-Qaeda. I'm beginning to think you don't have an answer.

phil

Philo
March 11th, 2010 6:03pm in answer to your question --NO ! is that simple enough for you ?
-------------
I do of course understand the difficulty you have with the info I provided you ,even though it was not complicated ,but you do not even make a poor attempt to answer -I feel a little like a naughty boy pulling the wings off a fly when I engage with you-you are such a poor opponent .c,mon wake up girl try and write something sensible and then JR can deal with you again -As I dont know where you got your nasty comment from, regarding JR I must say I have to agree with everything else he says to you and about you and I miss him ,an intelligent and articulate man ,wasted on you .I am a poor substitute but I do my best .

phil

Isaac Bickerstaff
March 12th, 2010 9:10am Isaac you write articulately to Adam ,unlike the silly lady who continues to write jokes , but I am not sure of what you are seeking to achieve ,Earlier you talked about negotiation ,but with whom ?hamas, hesbollah, dinnerjacket ,,fatah ,some grand mufti? and about what in particular-
-------------
You are an intelligent man so you must know these excuses for a government do not want peace .Both Adam and I represent thought that actively seeks peace ,I can only speak for myself here but I wish no harm to the Palestinian people ,I would like to see them and their children live in safety and healthy prosperity ,enjoying the enormous help they would receive from a safe Israel .Do you really think this is possible whilst they live under the shackle of these atrocious religious perverts ?,words that I feel sure would be endorsed by all peace loving Muslims -They are scared stiff Isaac ,say one wrong word and they are thrown from roofs or mutilated ,Israel has a democracy and a judiciary and the people are scared of nothing other than the lunatics who wish to annihilate them they certainly are not frightened to disapprove of any action of their own government -just read the Israeli papers -it is two different worlds Isaac btw hope you have done your history now :)

Philo

Phil
"Philo
March 11th, 2010 6:03pm in answer to your question --NO ! is that simple enough for you ?"

I take it you are referring to the request for guidance. If so, your "No" must mean that you decline to tell us when you endorse John Roosevelt's comments and agree with them and when you endorse them but don't agree with them...and when you endorse them but don't understand quite what you are endorsing.

"-As I dont know where you got your nasty comment from, regarding JR..."

And yet I told you where, and it is not as if he does regularly not spray out such slurs.

I know that you are keen to join in these discussions, it is just that you sadly lack the wherewithal.

Adam B.

Philo, the reason you turn up here is to attack, criticize and bash Israel.

What kind of wherewithal does one need to do that?

phil

philo "I know that you are keen to join in these discussions, it is just that you sadly lack the wherewithal." ---- what discussions? ,you never have any ,and did I not tell you to get a real comedienne to write your lines -it is all fun waiting to see what next will come from you .just wish it had some content .why not just read the intelligent and informed posters who come here philo and after a while you can try some input -like answering questions and suggesting a peace plan ,you know something useful for all of us to ponder .,maybe then JR will deign to address you .

Philo

Adam B.,
I am curious about your last comment to Mr. Bickerstaff.

Why set up straw men to knock down? Why triumphantly refute what hasn't been said? I had assumed you wanted to win the argument.

Every player except Israel has proposed negotiations on the 1967 borders or Green Line.

I am sure you are aware that south Lebanon and Gaza have been attacked and occupied repeatedly by Israel. I am sure you aware there was a ceasefire in Gaza before Cast Lead, which Hamas offered to negotiate an extension of. Israel did not observe the terms of the ceasefire; Hamas did. Israel's response to Hamas' offer of negotiation was military action in Gaza.

You appear to struggle with the chronology of the intifadas, which were a response to the farce of "negotiation".

One amendment I would make to what Mr. Bickerstaff has said. It is true that the Palestinians, like many Arabs, blame everyone but themselves for their plight. It is true that there are many worthy of blame, but it is not a constructive attitude. Nevertheless, Israel, as it happens, is indeed partly to blame for the calibre of the Palestinian leadership. It has spent the last sixty years (and Great Britain spent twenty five years before that) dividing the Palestinians, disrupting their attempts at political organization (and social and economic organization), neutralizing their leaders by harassment, imprisonment, and murder. Indeed, more recently, it is Israel had the bright idea of encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood as a good way to undermine the secular leadership. What far-sighted spoiling tactics!

I don't know why you struggle to understand what was said about Israel's use of aggressive force to further its strategic interests. The example that was cited of Lebanon in 1982 is a perfect illustration. I think you should go and study what Sharon intended. There is a speech he wrote just before the invasion, published in Ma'ariv. The strategy laid out there is consonant with the views of senior generals at the time and up to the present day. Or read "A Strategy for Israel in the Eighties" by oded Yinon. Or read the article by Shlomo Gazit in Yei'ot Aharonot in 1992. Or read the comments of senior generals at the Herzliya conferences in 2001 and later... As Mr. Bickerstaff said, this is no secret. Your professed ignorance is curious. You make great play of self-defence. Self-defence is not a right to aggression. Aggression has been Israel's tactic of choice.

I was also puzzled by your plaint that Mr. Bickerstaff had not told you how Hamas and Hizbullah should be dealt with. He told you the first time you asked, and patiently repeated the answer at each time of asking: negotiate (something he has not advocated with al Qaeda).

It is kind of you to come to Phil's aid. Goodness knows he needs it. But you should perhaps first address your own failure to respond to the points that are put to you rather than the points you think you can win.

phil

Adam B I see philo has actually managed to say something ,wrongly as usual but at least she wrote something other than a pure insult ,but she fails to address the key point in any discussion namely the remarks which I repeat below that you wrote to Isaac on the 12/3
"But Isaac, the Palestinians aren't concerned with an equitable settlement, they are concerned with destroying Israel. This is openly declared by Hamas, whilst the Palestinian Authority says it will NEVER accept Israel as a Jewish state. From what common ground can the partners possibly negotiate, when one doesn't even recognize that the other has a right to exist?

You seem incapable of understanding that Israel was attacked by Hamas before Cast Lead, and attacked by Hizbollah before responding in 2006."
---
I know she has never shown an intent to answer anything difficult ,although Isaac does , so I just treat her as a bit of fun until she joins in a serious debate and answers questions rather than sending her interpretation of humour.She even stated that you had come to my aid ,I didnt see where but I know you would if I needed it ,shalom my indefatigable chaver

phil

Isaac Bickerstaff--- I think in a ring you would be known as a counterpuncher ,you know what to do when you have the punches thrown at you like Adam does .You just duck ,dive and obfuscate ,throw sly shots and feints but when you are confronted by one who understands your tactics and merely puts it too you in a straightforward manner you disappear with a sly remark as though that is the end of it .Isaac it isn't !,-Adam is brave loyal and emotional but that does not win with opponents like you -I will admit I am a more difficult character than him -I will not get led down a blind alley .

I even tempted you by a little flattery ,put you as heavyweight rather than the flyweight in the female apparel , but you have ignored everything I have said to you and managed to answer nothing -you have used words like slaughter as it pertains to Israel along with other ludicrous unsubstantiated accusations ,slipping away along the ropes hoping nobody will catch you ,but you are caught Isaac and the crowd are booing ,now you may think using boxing as an analogy is not to your liking ,but I am a fan and I know the ring is where real men show their mettle ,they do not run a way like a coward .,so prove me wrong Isaac ,address what I have said to you, without the clever remarks about who knows their history .you had better believe I do.and you obviously do not .
----------------
I need to see proper substance to these accusations not innuendo about Lebanon and Gaza ,you could try to explain the attacks in 73 and explain why Israel should vacate the Golan for instance ,that's not even asking for a comment on 67 or maybe even more importantly 48 where it was the failure of the Arab armies not being able to annihilate the tiny state so recently given life by the UN .That failure has caused the boundary problems that will,never go away until, the Arabs decide that Israel has a right to exist in peace and that the Jewish people are just human beings ,children of GOD , just the same as them ,people who wish to live in peace with their neighbours ,bring up and educate their children ,is that too much to ask Isaac and would you not defend your family ? I am betting on another run for the ropes or even a no show but will be pleasantly surprised if we hear from you .

JJS

Philo, your non-sequitor of
March 9th, 2010 2:12pm refers. What you stated there is a perfect example of the rantings I was referring to. Hate-filled they indeed are. Immature, certainly. Inaccurate, absolutely. So I repeat, when the Arab world comes within a million miles of Israel's record on human rights and humanity, we can talk. Until then all you're doing is simply a matter of pot, kettle, and black.

Philo

JJS,
I am always grateful to have my errors in logic pointed out. I am as prone to them as the next person. So could you tell me what non sequitur you refer to.

phil

JJS
March 14th, 2010 12:09am in philo you are just dealing with a novice who throws a few accusations around without anything sound to back them up ,now Bickerstaff has intellect but when challenged has not shown the courage to enter the ring ,he is hiding outside afraid ,in his shorts and protector,probably being pushed by his seconds ,the crowd is booing him and we are left wondering will he or will he not ? .-nice pair of shorts shame about "le courage" :)

Come on Isaac show us you have some bottle .